Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Love is Greater than God
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 16 of 38 (600188)
01-13-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
01-13-2011 4:24 AM


If what you say is true, then you are right. Just like the car salesman.
I have no problems entertaining the existence of God (as I implied in the OP).
My issue is attributing to God all the things you want me to accept He does just on your say so (or Christian theology's say so, if you prefer).
You say many things are associated with God:
iano writes:
Life with God is always good - it would be better to share the excitment one feels about a new relationship with him than keep it to yourself.
...
Once you (accept that God exists) your faced with the affirmative answers provided by the two principles already mentioned.
...
1. Sin tends towards selfishness and love towards selflessness.
2. God-in-your-life = an agency who works at reducing your sin > 0
...
It's just that with God in your life there's your motivation to change and his motivation to change you. His is an additional to the godless life.
But how can we know that you're not mistaken?
How can we know that Christian theology is not mistaken?
How can we know that these claims about God are a true part of reality beyond your say-so? Beyond Christianity's say-so?
...what category of reliability are you endeavouring to obtain?
I'm looking for the basic kind of reliability... the kind that would show that what you say is actually the truth for how things work in reality. What other kind of reliability is there?
You can be mistaken.
Christian theology can be mistaken.
The Bible can be mistaken.
So how do we know if any of these things you say are true are actually reliable?
It is self-evident that operating according to a designers design would optimize your function
Even if true (which is shaky at best), how do you know the designer's intended function?
You say the Designer wants us to have God-ful relationships.
I say the Designer wants us to have God-less relationship.
Who is right? How do we tell the difference?
Again, all your claims and words are exactly the same as those made by people with no idea of what they're talking about.
Absolutely no connection to to how things actually work in reality.
Therefore, there is no way to differentiate any of the things you claim from pure imagination.
There is no way to differentiate any of the things you claim from any of the things I claim.
When it comes down to it:
You claim a God-ful marriage is better.
I claim a God-less marriage is better.
Who is right? How do we tell the difference?
What can we look at that can be shown to be real that will help us determine the answers to these questions?
You claim I must accept that God exists, and then I must accept all the things you say about God, and then your answer is clear.
I agree.
However, I see absolutely no reason beyond Christianity's say-so, and your say-so, that these things are actually real.
I can claim that you must accept that God exists, and then you must accept all the things I say about God, and then my answer is clear.
Which is equally logically valid.
However, I have not provided any reason beyond my say-so that my claims are actually real.
So which one of us is right?
You claim God has to have attributes and affect us in reality, but you cannot show any of these effects or how they are actually attributed to God.
I claim that God doesn't require any attributes, and doesn't need to affect us in reality at all... so it doesn't matter if I can show my claims to be true or not. My claims rely on people being people.
Who is right? How do we tell the difference?
If you are attempting to argue that you're right... as long as we agree with everything you say about God... then I absolutely agree with you. I just also point out that this is exactly what people say when they have no idea what they're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 01-13-2011 4:24 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 01-14-2011 4:24 AM Stile has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 17 of 38 (600358)
01-14-2011 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Stile
01-13-2011 10:42 AM


Re: If what you say is true, then you are right. Just like the car salesman.
Stile writes:
I have no problems entertaining the existence of God (as I implied in the OP). My issue is attributing to God all the things you want me to accept He does just on your say so (or Christian theology's say so, if you prefer).
Your issue (in the OP at least) revolved around "if's"
quote:
If Love can exist without God, yet God cannot exist without Love. Doesn't that make Love greater than God?
If we can have Love... understand Love and base our lives around Love... without God. Why do we need God?
So I respond with "if's". If the Christian God exists and if he is as the broad Christian consensus says he is, then your marriage would be improved in areas where you don't understand love and don't base your life around love.
I not expecting you to accept these things about God - on my say so. For to do so would be to ask that you believe he actually exists - on my say so. You'd only accept it if he turned up and did what it says on the tin - which isn't required in order to counter your position.
I'll skip past that of your post which seeks proof of God existing.
-
But how can we know that you're not mistaken?
How can we know that Christian theology is not mistaken?
How can we know that these claims about God are a true part of reality beyond your say-so? Beyond Christianity's say-so?
By proving God exists as we say he does. Not the topic.
-
I'm looking for the basic kind of reliability... the kind that would show that what you say is actually the truth for how things work in reality. What other kind of reliability is there?
You can be mistaken.
Christian theology can be mistaken.
The Bible can be mistaken.
So how do we know if any of these things you say are true are actually reliable?
You don't want a bible study, you don't want self-evident principles that work in the case of God existing). You don't want me to prove God exists.
I don't see any categories of reliability left and, for all your words, you haven't actually mentioned one (but do seem to be demanding a proof).
-
Even if true (which is shaky at best),
What's shaky about the principle that complex mechanisms function best when applied to the job they've been designed for?
-
how do you know the designer's intended function?
Your looking for a proof.
-
You claim I must accept that God exists, and then I must accept all the things you say about God, and then your answer is clear.
I agree. However, I see absolutely no reason beyond Christianity's say-so, and your say-so, that these things are actually real.
That's okay. I was dealing with the issue of how God could improve marriage. Where the room for that would be - given that everyone is selfish. I'm not sure where the lines crossed but I was dealing with an OP which was framed in a way to see no place for the God which was assumed to exist for the sake of argument.
I don't need to prove the God you yourself have both assumed and queried whether there could be any need for.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Stile, posted 01-13-2011 10:42 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Stile, posted 01-14-2011 12:09 PM iano has not replied
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 01-14-2011 1:07 PM iano has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 18 of 38 (600371)
01-14-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
01-12-2011 8:20 AM


Selfishness Within Marriage
quote:
I've given you a general principle involving two elements:
- sin tends towards selfishness and love towards selflessness.
- God-in-your-life = an agency who works at reducing your sin > 0
Without having to know a single thing about your marriage I can say that your marriage would be better with God in it. He would be dealing with yours and hers sin. I take it you would agree that a marriage with less selfishness would be an improved marriage?
The only counter to this would be your claim that you/she aren't in any way selfish within your marriage. That you/she have selfishness compressed down to being resolved in "micro-seconds". I don't believe that for one micro-second myself, but if that's your position...
I disagree with your equation and people can reduce the "sin" in their life without turning to God.
Why don't you believe that a couple doesn't fight or that disagreements can be resolved in microseconds?
My husband and I have been married for 25 years and we don't fight. If we have disagreements, they are quickly resolved. I can count on one hand the number of serious disagreements we've had in 25 years and I don't have to use all the fingers.
Justified anger is not a sin and romantic love is different than agape love.
Please give examples of selfishness within a marriage that would be considered a sin.
quote:
Thank you. When faced with someone who says there is but trace elements of selfishness within the relationship, no struggles to speak of, no areas of core disagreement .. one is inclined to suspect that relationship to be in the very early "fallen in love" stage. The stage where her poo doesn't smell.
I think 25 years puts me past that point.
quote:
That's why I said your marriage appeared to be one in a million. Not that I'd be as negative as you. It's just that the experienced couples I talk to, who have good marriages and who love each other deeply, say that struggle is part and parcel with it.
There are many struggles to deal with in life and marriage, but they aren't necessarily against each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 01-12-2011 8:20 AM iano has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 19 of 38 (600372)
01-14-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
01-06-2011 12:00 PM


Eros vs Agape
Which kind of love are you talking about?
3 Kinds of Love
Agape; is the third and most important kind of love their is. It's the love that God commands us to have for one another. Its God's own personal way of loving us. It's not determined by feelings, its more like a set of actions or behaviors. You don't have to feel it to give it. When I say this I mean, its possible to not feel anything and be able to "love" in this sense. Sometimes the feelings follow. Its the kind of love that the bible is talking about in 1 Corinthians...
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 says; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails....
The NT doesn't get into romantic love, but deals mostly with ethics and friendship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 01-06-2011 12:00 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 01-14-2011 11:41 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 20 of 38 (600408)
01-14-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by purpledawn
01-14-2011 9:07 AM


Re: Eros vs Agape
I suppose, technically, I am talking about Agape love.
In my mind I was thinking of the two togther... Agape coupled with romantic. However, as far as this thread is concerned, simply Agape love without the romantic part should work as well... I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by purpledawn, posted 01-14-2011 9:07 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 21 of 38 (600418)
01-14-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
01-14-2011 4:24 AM


Re: If what you say is true, then you are right. Just like the car salesman.
iano writes:
Your issue (in the OP at least) revolved around "if's":
quote:
If Love can exist without God, yet God cannot exist without Love. Doesn't that make Love greater than God?
If we can have Love... understand Love and base our lives around Love... without God. Why do we need God?
Yes. "If's" that I showed to have a link with reality.
I have Love (my relationship with my wife) that exists without God, He does not exist within the relationship. The relationship is a sole creation of mine and hers.
I know you want to say that God as creator is in everything. But this doesn't help. Going in that direction, God would also be in the most evil and heinous actions of human beings. The kind of Love I have with my wife is never associated with any of those kinds of actions. Therefore, again, the Love I have with my wife would be greater than the Love that is "always with God".
Since I have Love in my relationship with my wife without God, I obviously can have Love... understand Love and base my life around Love... without God. So, why do we need God?
So I respond with "if's". If the Christian God exists and if he is as the broad Christian consensus says he is, then your marriage would be improved in areas where you don't understand love and don't base your life around love.
I understand your response.
Your "if's" are not connected to reality in any way shape or form.
You cannot show in any reliable way that God is indeed "as the broad Christian consensus says he is", nor can you mention any way which my marriage might be improved, nor can you identify any aspect of love that I don't understand or base my life around.
Seems like my "if's" and your "if's" are very different.
I not expecting you to accept these things about God - on my say so. For to do so would be to ask that you believe he actually exists - on my say so. You'd only accept it if he turned up and did what it says on the tin - which isn't required in order to counter your position.
So, why do you espouse such ideals if you do not expect anyone to take you seriously? Are you just hoping some people might not care that you have no connection with reality and they may just take you at your word anyway?
Again, this sounds a lot like the methods of people who have no idea what they're talking about.
You don't want a bible study, you don't want self-evident principles that work in the case of God existing). You don't want me to prove God exists.
I don't see any categories of reliability left and, for all your words, you haven't actually mentioned one (but do seem to be demanding a proof).
The only category of reliability left is the only one that actually matters... being able to show how any of what you claim is a part of reality.
I agree that if reality is not a concern, then your claims are extremely convincing.
What's shaky about the principle that complex mechanisms function best when applied to the job they've been designed for?
The subjective terms involved are shaky. What's "best"?
A hammer is designed to drive nails.
A hammer can save my life if I use it to help me up a hill of ice.
Wouldn't you say that saving my life is the "best" use of the hammer?
Perhaps, perhaps not. But there certainly is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt would imply "shaky at best".
I'm not sure where the lines crossed but I was dealing with an OP which was framed in a way to see no place for the God which was assumed to exist for the sake of argument.
You're arguement boils down to:
"If you believe everything I say, while I give no connection between it and reality, then I am right!"
And, yes, my OP is framed in such a way as to have no place for such an arguement. I don't consider this a negative.
I don't need to prove the God you yourself have both assumed and queried whether there could be any need for.
All I'm asking is whether or not the things you say have any connection to reality.
If your answer is "I'm not sure". That's fine. However, you can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously if you aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for how it could be connected to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 01-14-2011 4:24 AM iano has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 22 of 38 (600435)
01-14-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
01-14-2011 4:24 AM


A Rephrasing of the Question
I've been thinking about why you might think my question is so unfair. I have been unable to think of an answer. So, I started to think that it may help to rephrase my question in another form. Perhaps this will claify what it is I'm attempting to get at?
I think this form will get around the "you're assuming this, if you accept this, then that must follow" arguements. Hopefully.
I can rephrase it another way if you'd prefer. I will try, in any case.


New OP:
How do we tell the difference between these marriages:
Marriage 1 - God exists and exists as the Christian doctrine dictates. The marriage is God-ful and those involved believe it to be as such. Those involved in the marriage are happy and content.
Marriage 2 - God exists and exists as the Christian doctrine dictates. The marriage is therefore God-fully created (in some form). However, those involved actually believe the marriage is God-less (even though this is impossible). Those involved in the marriage are happy and content.
Marriage 3 - God does not exist. The marriage is therefore God-lessly created (in some form). However, those involved actually believe the marriage is God-ful (even though this is impossible). Those involved in the marriage are happy and content.
Marriage 4 - God does not exist. The marriage is God-less and those involved believe it to be as such. Those involved in the marriage are happy and content.
How do we tell the difference?
Is there an observable difference?
Some facts about our reality:
Some people believe their marriage is God-ful, and they flourish.
Some people believe their marriage is God-ful, and they fail.
Some people believe their marriage is God-less, and they flourish.
Some people believe their marriage is God-less, and they fail.
I understand that if we know we live in a God-existing-as-the-Christian-doctrine-dictates world, then Marriage 1 will have the possibility of being better than Marriage 2.
However, my question is a practical one that is meant to be useful within our reality where it is unknown whether or not God actually exists as the Christian doctrine dictates.
My question is... what if those involved in a God-less believeing marriage (2 or 4, but unknown), are extremely content and happy and feel like they are living to their full potential... but then hear about Christianity...
How can they justify risking all that is good in their life for an increase in a marrital relationship that is so slight that it is unidentifiable and unpredictable?
Can this be justified in the face of the facts that a very significant number of professing God-ful believers have failing or failed marriages?
I don't think that such a Love should be risked.
Such a Love is the one I'm attempting to describe in this thread.
I am claiming that this Love should not be risked because the possible negatives (losing happiness and contentment and the-best-feelings-you've-ever-had-in-your-life) greatly outweigh the possible positives (an unidentifiable and unobservable increase in the relationship).
Because I'm claiming that this Love should not be risked for God's sake, I chose the title "Love is Greater than God".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 01-14-2011 4:24 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 01-17-2011 8:42 AM Stile has replied
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 01-17-2011 9:34 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 38 (600775)
01-17-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
01-14-2011 1:07 PM


my 2 cents
1) We cannot know. We can only choose to believe based on the facts at hand...with perhaps a calculated risk based on our intuition.
Stile, you seem to be suggesting that to risk ones internal belief on an unknown and unprovable relationship with an unknown God (or even a known one, through secondhand reassurances) is too big of a risk to take.
My only comment in that regard is that IF such a Being did exist and was as loving as we all hope, such a Being would understand your reluctance and would not hold such a decision against you. If such a Being did not exist, said argument would be moot anyway.
Stile writes:
Because I'm claiming that this Love should not be risked for God's sake, I chose the title "Love is Greater than God".
What this basically boils down to, in my mind,. is the assertion that our decisions and choices are final. They are greater in that they are allowed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 01-14-2011 1:07 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 01-17-2011 9:25 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 24 of 38 (600783)
01-17-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Phat
01-17-2011 8:42 AM


Re: my 2 cents
Phat writes:
My only comment in that regard is that IF such a Being did exist and was as loving as we all hope, such a Being would understand your reluctance and would not hold such a decision against you. If such a Being did not exist, said argument would be moot anyway.
I completely agree. Seems reasonable, anyway.
Perhaps the best solution is to allow folks to go the way they best see fit. Those that believe God is giving them the chace for the best relationship should continue to follow those standards. And those believing they have a better relationship without God involved, should also continue.
The facts available to us (that relationships flourish and fail regardless of belief in God) would seem to support this, anyway.
What this basically boils down to, in my mind,. is the assertion that our decisions and choices are final. They are greater in that they are allowed.
My decisions are always final. Until I learn something new, anyway
"Final" generally lasts about a day or two...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 01-17-2011 8:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 25 of 38 (600784)
01-17-2011 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
01-14-2011 1:07 PM


Re: A Rephrasing of the Question
Stile writes:
My question is... what if those involved in a God-less believeing marriage (2 or 4, but unknown), are extremely content and happy and feel like they are living to their full potential... but then hear about Christianity...
How can they justify risking all that is good in their life for an increase in a marrital relationship that is so slight that it is unidentifiable and unpredictable?
Can this be justified in the face of the facts that a very significant number of professing God-ful believers have failing or failed marriages?
I don't think that such a Love should be risked.
Such a Love is the one I'm attempting to describe in this thread.
It is interesting to point out that even if we grant the assumption that we're living in a Christian-God-governed world, the dilemma still exsts just as strong.
Even if we could prove that God exists as Christian-doctrine dictates, it is still a fact of this world that many professing-Christian relationships fail. It is also still a fact that many professing-Godless relationships flourish.
These facts keep the dilemma in place, even when assuming that God exists:
quote:
How can anyone justify risking all that is good in their life for an increase in a marrital relationship that is so slight that it is unidentifiable and unpredictable?
Can this be justified in the face of the facts that a very significant number of professing God-ful believers have failing or failed marriages?
I don't think that such a Love should be risked.
The only way to break this dilemma would be to show:
-that the increase in the relationship is not slight, it is observable, identifiable, and predictable.
OR -that those professing to be in God-ful relationships actually do flourish significantly better than those in God-less relationships (in some observable, identifiable, predictable way).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 01-14-2011 1:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 26 of 38 (634073)
09-18-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
01-06-2011 12:00 PM


What is Great?
quote:
I can understand how Love can exist without God.
My wife and I decided to cultivate a relationship together, and we love each other very much. There is no God within our relationship.
A half-arguement (one with no evidential basis) coud be put forth that God created us and therefore is present in our lives. But God did not create our relationship. My wife and I created our relationship, and it is the relationship where Love exists and God does not.
Is there an area where God can exist without Love?
If God ever exists without Love... is He even still God? Is it worth calling an all-powerful being that has no Love "God", as far as any Abrahamic-related religion is concerned? (I am trying to have the word "God" refer to the being generally identified in a Western religious environment, not any general supernatural-being).
If Love can exist without God, yet God cannot exist without Love. Doesn't that make Love greater than God?
If we can have Love... understand Love and base our lives around Love... without God. Why do we need God?
Isn't it better to focus our lives and efforts on Love rather than on God? That is, wouldn't any attention upon God be taking away attention from Love? If we are focusing on Love, isn't that what God's message is about anyway? Therefore, isn't God an additional factor that can be ignored in order to promote Love as a good guide for life?
Why must this be a black and white question? What defines greatness? If focus on God detracts from focus on ourselves, is not the issue one of communal selfishness versus communal selflessness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 01-06-2011 12:00 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 09-18-2011 8:46 PM Phat has replied
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 03-09-2014 3:01 PM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 27 of 38 (634074)
09-18-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
09-18-2011 8:29 PM


Re: What is Great?
Phat writes:
Why must this be a black and white question? What defines greatness?
What makes you think I'm talking in black and white terms?
It seems like you're the one thinking in black and white. Take this:
If focus on God detracts from focus on ourselves, is not the issue one of communal selfishness versus communal selflessness?
Why do you think if one isnot focusing on God, then one is therefore focusing on themselves?
Why can't we not focus on God, but focus on Love instead?
That's my point... you can replace "the God concept" with "the Love concept" and end up at exactly the same place. To me, this sort of makes God kind of redundant.
That's not to say He doesn't exist.
It's just to say that since He's so redundant and unneccessary, I don't see why so many folks think He's so important. I don't begrudge them for that... they can think whatever they'ed like. I just don't understand them, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 09-18-2011 8:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 03-09-2014 3:46 PM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 38 (721536)
03-09-2014 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
01-10-2011 11:05 AM


Re: What's "better"?
If God allows my relationship to continue without any negatives at all and also allows me to receive all the positives while I keep Him out of the relationship... does this mean believing in God is non-consequential?
Just out of curiosity...why would you keep God out of the relationship?
Isn't the basic dogma to love Him first? Critics would say that you idolized your wife over God....not I, but some critics, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 01-10-2011 11:05 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 03-10-2014 10:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 38 (721564)
03-09-2014 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
09-18-2011 8:29 PM


Re: What is Great?
Phat writes:
If focus on God detracts from focus on ourselves, is not the issue one of communal selfishness versus communal selflessness?
Communal selfishness? Does that mean the community focusing on itself instead of on something external, like a spook? Isn't that loving thy neighbour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 09-18-2011 8:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 03-09-2014 3:50 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 38 (721568)
03-09-2014 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stile
09-18-2011 8:46 PM


Love and God
It is my belief that love..in its purest sense...is impossible without God. Neither of us can prove it either way... You may suggest that people can love without being religious but my contention is that God....by loving the world(all of us) allowed His Spirit to be present and available. Agape Love is Jesus. Jesus=truth, Jesus=Love. There is no redundancy.
As long as I am being opinionated, I might add that humans may deny God and take credit for the love that they have...but that ...again...it is human nature to seek to elevate self over God.
My contention? It is impossible to love without the reality of Gods Spirit---though people can and do deny the existence.
Does this mean that animals also have the Spirit? Yes...In Him is light and that light is the life of men.
Critics may argue that there is more than one belief...so I wont defend my belief over any others. I'm just stating how I feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 09-18-2011 8:46 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 03-10-2014 10:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024