A
_A
Guest
I don’t know. I had someone else here ask me about it, and they couldn’t offer any bit of a description which we could agree on. I think whatever it is, it is different from person to person.
- Status
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
then you cannot believe in it since it cannot be explained scientifically.
that was a seriously bad dance around the question by the way.
you make something you have no clue how to explain your quote at the bottom of your post?
Love has never had any other explanation than being from God, that is it’s source. The term Love, was it ever heard of before the scriptures revealed it?
God is Love itself.
that was a seriously bad dance around the question by the way.
you make something you have no clue how to explain your quote at the bottom of your post?
Love has never had any other explanation than being from God, that is it’s source. The term Love, was it ever heard of before the scriptures revealed it?
God is Love itself.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
as we can see, A has been stumped, he believes in love, yet cannot define it nor tell us where it comes from, just some really general vague comments and excuses like “it is different form person to person”
he sounds like clintons, if you don’t know it bs your way through it and make it sound deep and confusing, as if you are above the other person.
A is afraid of defining or researching love, because love is God.
he sounds like clintons, if you don’t know it bs your way through it and make it sound deep and confusing, as if you are above the other person.
A is afraid of defining or researching love, because love is God.
A
_A
Guest
I never said that I ‘believe’ in love. I have asked you to find a definition that we can agree on before we can reasonably discuss it. You have failed to find such a definition, and this is the way you cover the fact up. Nice work.
You are poetry writing again. I think it is because you know there is no definition which we can agree on. God is vengeful, in my opinion, love is not. God is Jealous. In my opinion, love is not. God is love? Baloney. That statement doesn’t mean any more than ‘Islam is peace’, or ‘how high is up?’
N
notself
Guest
To move things along, I looked up definitions of love from various cultures. Some of these definitions came from Wiki; some from other sources. I did not include any definitions for romantic or sexual love. Perhaps you can agree on one of these.
Lian, in Confucianism, is a virtuous benevolent love. Lian should be pursued by all human beings, and reflects a moral life.
Amae, a Japanese word meaning “indulgent dependence”, is part of the child-rearing culture of Japan. Japanese mothers are expected to hug and indulge their children, and children are expected to reward their mothers by clinging and serving.
Philia, means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. Philia is motivated by practical reasons; one or both of the parties benefit from the relationship. At the same time the ancient Greek text of the Bible has examples of the verb agapo being used with the same meaning as phileo.
Caritas is used in Latin translations of the Christian Bible to mean ‘charitable love’. This meaning, however, is not found in Classical pagan Roman literature. As it arises from a conflation with a Greek word, there is no corresponding verb.
Mettā (Pāli) or Maitrī (Sanskrit) means unconditional and unattached loving kindness. It is one of the ten perfections of the Theravāda school of Buddhism, and the first of the four Sublime Attitudes.
Lian, in Confucianism, is a virtuous benevolent love. Lian should be pursued by all human beings, and reflects a moral life.
Amae, a Japanese word meaning “indulgent dependence”, is part of the child-rearing culture of Japan. Japanese mothers are expected to hug and indulge their children, and children are expected to reward their mothers by clinging and serving.
Philia, means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. Philia is motivated by practical reasons; one or both of the parties benefit from the relationship. At the same time the ancient Greek text of the Bible has examples of the verb agapo being used with the same meaning as phileo.
Caritas is used in Latin translations of the Christian Bible to mean ‘charitable love’. This meaning, however, is not found in Classical pagan Roman literature. As it arises from a conflation with a Greek word, there is no corresponding verb.
Mettā (Pāli) or Maitrī (Sanskrit) means unconditional and unattached loving kindness. It is one of the ten perfections of the Theravāda school of Buddhism, and the first of the four Sublime Attitudes.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
A said-
“You are poetry writing again. I think it is because you know there is no definition which we can agree on. God is vengeful, in my opinion, love is not. God is Jealous. In my opinion, love is not. God is love? Baloney. That statement doesn’t mean any more than ‘Islam is peace’, or ‘how high is up?’”
Justin responds-
God is vengeful, in my opinion, love is not?
how can you say that love is not vengeful if you do not believe in it. If you do not believe in it, it does not exist. You do not believe in god, and you believe he does not exist.
please stop contradicting yourself.
do not even begin to try to define something or use it as a quote at the end of your posts if you are not willing to tell us what you think it is.
The fact that God is Love is just that, a fact. The fact that you cannot begin to understand this is not my problem.
There are many things in this world that you cannot understand, how can you expect to understand anything that is not of this world, such as God?
you can’t.
God is jealous, yes, but not in the way you would outline. I am jealous of my children’s love, just as God is jealous of our love and wants us to love Him more than we love anything else. makes perfect sense.
God is vengeful? In what sense of the word? Obviously not in the sense that you attribute because you cannot even begin to understand the love of God or His wisdom. The folly of God is greater than the wisdom of man, and God has no folly.
“You are poetry writing again. I think it is because you know there is no definition which we can agree on. God is vengeful, in my opinion, love is not. God is Jealous. In my opinion, love is not. God is love? Baloney. That statement doesn’t mean any more than ‘Islam is peace’, or ‘how high is up?’”
Justin responds-
God is vengeful, in my opinion, love is not?
how can you say that love is not vengeful if you do not believe in it. If you do not believe in it, it does not exist. You do not believe in god, and you believe he does not exist.
please stop contradicting yourself.
do not even begin to try to define something or use it as a quote at the end of your posts if you are not willing to tell us what you think it is.
The fact that God is Love is just that, a fact. The fact that you cannot begin to understand this is not my problem.
There are many things in this world that you cannot understand, how can you expect to understand anything that is not of this world, such as God?
you can’t.
God is jealous, yes, but not in the way you would outline. I am jealous of my children’s love, just as God is jealous of our love and wants us to love Him more than we love anything else. makes perfect sense.
God is vengeful? In what sense of the word? Obviously not in the sense that you attribute because you cannot even begin to understand the love of God or His wisdom. The folly of God is greater than the wisdom of man, and God has no folly.
N
notself
Guest
Justin,
What is your definition of love? Is it any of the definitions or combination of definitions that are posted above?
What is your definition of love? Is it any of the definitions or combination of definitions that are posted above?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
which type of love would you like the definition of??
N
notself
Guest
How about defining what is meant when people say, “God is love”?
P
phooney
Guest
@Socrates4Jesus
Hi again!
“Precisely my point. The ruins of the ancient city on the coast were recycled into a causeway that is now a peninsula.”
Not quite what I meant by ‘recycled’ though. I was thinking of the remains being ground to dust or melted down and used in the production of new buildings, or whatever else. Obviously in this case, the causeway is still identifiable to independent observers as being basically rubble from the mainland city. I still say that Tyre is ‘found’ to the maximum extent possible considering it’s condition and history.
I note none of your paragraphs labelled as (A), (B) and (C) mention the part about Tyre never being found, which is what I thought we were discussing at this point in time. I’m also not quite sure if your comment about me putting “too much emphasis on the words” is a compliment or a criticism!
Surely the word of God would stand up no matter how much emphasis is put on them, so this is hopefully not important.
You’ve also still got quite a task ahead of you if you want to demonstrate how Alexander the Great could NOT have heard about this particular prophecy. I mean, not only do you have to account for everybody that he would have spoken to, but also all the people that the people he spoke to had spoken to, etc. (ugly sentence alert!)
The examples of context you have given also seem extremely repetitious and unorganised for a God to have inspired.
“this in fact is a remarkable prediction that is highly relevant to us today…”
No contention here in regards to the longevity and power of the Tyrian City, I don’t even feel inclined to research much into its history, as I thought we had agreed that the mere prediction of its destruction was hardly noteworthy, the vast majority of cities have been involved in wars and largely destroyed, or had a ‘change of ownership’ etc. It’s probably not that relevant to compare and contrast against modern USA either. Sure, USA hasn’t been around that long in comparison, but geographic isolation these days is not what it was. It’s easier to compare countries/cities now and measure the military/economic power, and show just where USA sits on that scale. Another thing that is around now that wasn’t around then is weapons that can wipe out a ridiculously large amount of that economic and military power all in the space of a few seconds. Unless you believe in God, of course, I suppose such a God could be just as potent as a nuclear weapon I think I’ve even seen a video of Osama Bin Laden predicting that the USA will be destroyed. I don’t think that a date has been given, and if at some distant point in the future the USA does somehow get destroyed, I bet you that somebody somewhere, maybe many people, will claim prophecy.
This prophecy only seems to be appreciated as such if you presuppose that a God exists and that’s not a great feature for something you are trying to use AS evidence for God. I apologise for any bias I myself might have, but I hope you can recognise your own as well. I find this prophecy entirely underwhelming considering what an ALL-knowing God should have been able to tell about it if it was supposed to be anything besides intimidation and speculation.
It certainly may have been a lucky guess as well, as we all know that the books of the bible weren’t the only writings that could have been in there. Perhaps it was chosen out of many potential prophecies simply because it had come true.
“How can you say the fall of Tyre was in unimportant event in the history of the ancient world?”
Did I say that? If so, that is certainly not the impression I intended to give you, I apologise.
“Please let me know if you want to move on to other predictions of the future in the Bible.”
Well, if you think we’ve gone over everything we can in respect to this one and you’re willing to allow us to agree to disagree on its extraordinary status, we might as well. I can see our tracks starting to wear a circular pattern on the floor
How about for the next prophecy you come up with something that wasn’t fulfilled by the actions of people, then we can jump right past the “could they have heard of the prophecy beforehand?” arguement. Also, hopefully something with a specific date, preferrably right down to the minute and second (this level of detail should be well within the capabilities of an all knowing God, I hope), but I understand if it is as vague as just the date.
Thanks for the time you have put into your thoughtful posts, Socrates4Jesus, I appreciate the fact that you generally seem to at least read everything that is written to you. Not like some people (not naming any names, justinthemartyr).
Hi again!
“Precisely my point. The ruins of the ancient city on the coast were recycled into a causeway that is now a peninsula.”
Not quite what I meant by ‘recycled’ though. I was thinking of the remains being ground to dust or melted down and used in the production of new buildings, or whatever else. Obviously in this case, the causeway is still identifiable to independent observers as being basically rubble from the mainland city. I still say that Tyre is ‘found’ to the maximum extent possible considering it’s condition and history.
I note none of your paragraphs labelled as (A), (B) and (C) mention the part about Tyre never being found, which is what I thought we were discussing at this point in time. I’m also not quite sure if your comment about me putting “too much emphasis on the words” is a compliment or a criticism!
Surely the word of God would stand up no matter how much emphasis is put on them, so this is hopefully not important.You’ve also still got quite a task ahead of you if you want to demonstrate how Alexander the Great could NOT have heard about this particular prophecy. I mean, not only do you have to account for everybody that he would have spoken to, but also all the people that the people he spoke to had spoken to, etc. (ugly sentence alert!)
The examples of context you have given also seem extremely repetitious and unorganised for a God to have inspired.
“this in fact is a remarkable prediction that is highly relevant to us today…”
No contention here in regards to the longevity and power of the Tyrian City, I don’t even feel inclined to research much into its history, as I thought we had agreed that the mere prediction of its destruction was hardly noteworthy, the vast majority of cities have been involved in wars and largely destroyed, or had a ‘change of ownership’ etc. It’s probably not that relevant to compare and contrast against modern USA either. Sure, USA hasn’t been around that long in comparison, but geographic isolation these days is not what it was. It’s easier to compare countries/cities now and measure the military/economic power, and show just where USA sits on that scale. Another thing that is around now that wasn’t around then is weapons that can wipe out a ridiculously large amount of that economic and military power all in the space of a few seconds. Unless you believe in God, of course, I suppose such a God could be just as potent as a nuclear weapon
I think I’ve even seen a video of Osama Bin Laden predicting that the USA will be destroyed. I don’t think that a date has been given, and if at some distant point in the future the USA does somehow get destroyed, I bet you that somebody somewhere, maybe many people, will claim prophecy.This prophecy only seems to be appreciated as such if you presuppose that a God exists and that’s not a great feature for something you are trying to use AS evidence for God. I apologise for any bias I myself might have, but I hope you can recognise your own as well. I find this prophecy entirely underwhelming considering what an ALL-knowing God should have been able to tell about it if it was supposed to be anything besides intimidation and speculation.
It certainly may have been a lucky guess as well, as we all know that the books of the bible weren’t the only writings that could have been in there. Perhaps it was chosen out of many potential prophecies simply because it had come true.
“How can you say the fall of Tyre was in unimportant event in the history of the ancient world?”
Did I say that? If so, that is certainly not the impression I intended to give you, I apologise.
“Please let me know if you want to move on to other predictions of the future in the Bible.”
Well, if you think we’ve gone over everything we can in respect to this one and you’re willing to allow us to agree to disagree on its extraordinary status, we might as well. I can see our tracks starting to wear a circular pattern on the floor
How about for the next prophecy you come up with something that wasn’t fulfilled by the actions of people, then we can jump right past the “could they have heard of the prophecy beforehand?” arguement. Also, hopefully something with a specific date, preferrably right down to the minute and second (this level of detail should be well within the capabilities of an all knowing God, I hope), but I understand if it is as vague as just the date.
Thanks for the time you have put into your thoughtful posts, Socrates4Jesus, I appreciate the fact that you generally seem to at least read everything that is written to you. Not like some people (not naming any names, justinthemartyr).
A
_A
Guest
Thank you for your efforts, but none of those offer a clear enough definition to ‘count’.
It would seem that I do not believe in love. It fits, though. I do not ‘believe in’ things.
A
_A
Guest
I have expressed my opinion. I still do not ‘believe in’ love. Just so you know, I also do not ‘believe’ that your god doesn’t exist. I will check, when necessary, but I do not believe.
I look at it as an action. If I ‘love’ you, it means some action to me. It might be something physical, like sex or a supportive pat on the back. It might mean helping you with your work, so that your day is easier. It might mean dressing and treating your wounds, to ease your pain. It is an imperfect definition, but I would say it means taking action in the interest of another. Your misunderstanding is what makes you think I am contradicting myself. You still have not tried to find a definition we can both use, instead trying to make some other point.
Funny how you can’t support this claim with anything but poetry.
Tell me what the visible difference is, from my perspective, between your claims, and the claims of someone hallucinating?
Being jealous of your childrens love makes no sense at all to me. Jealousy is something that damages a relationship. It is manipulative.
You would have to ask the authors of the bible, they were the ones to say so. I think killing all the sinners because they sin, when your god is supposed to have invented sin is vengeful. Also quite mad.
I understand quite well. I can read. You pretend to have some special knowledge, but all you really have is bluff and bluster.Obviously not in the sense that you attribute because you cannot even begin to understand the love of God or His wisdom. The folly of God is greater than the wisdom of man, and God has no folly.
Where are the facts? And to how many decimal places?
A
_A
Guest
Excellent question.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
so you are an agnostic. that makes sense.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
you seem to think killing is wrong.
at least that is what your writings imply. If there is no apparent God, or if God supposedly killed someone, as you stated concerning noah, then why was it wrong?
why is killing wrong A?
animals kill animals, we kill animals, how are we different from animals in your sight? What gives us a conscience? why is it inherently wrong to kill? When animals kill us we kill them because they killed us, like it was murder. why?
isn’t it just instinct to kill other things, or do we have something very different and special, like an eternal soul which makes murder inherently wrong to us humans and nothing else on earth that we know of?
at least that is what your writings imply. If there is no apparent God, or if God supposedly killed someone, as you stated concerning noah, then why was it wrong?
why is killing wrong A?
animals kill animals, we kill animals, how are we different from animals in your sight? What gives us a conscience? why is it inherently wrong to kill? When animals kill us we kill them because they killed us, like it was murder. why?
isn’t it just instinct to kill other things, or do we have something very different and special, like an eternal soul which makes murder inherently wrong to us humans and nothing else on earth that we know of?
A
_A
Guest
No, I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods.
A
_A
Guest
Instead of putting words in my mouth, why not ask me questions. I am right here, you know.
I would not have said that I think killing is wrong. Are you having a lot of different conversations and getting confused or something?
There is no reason to think that there is an eternal soul.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
is killing okay? if someone believed killing you was okay, would that be okay with you A? If they gave you notice previous to doing it, would they have your permission?
P
Pax
Guest
First of all there is absolutely no justification for abortion in anything that I have said. You are very confused. The narrative of Noah and the deluge ends with the following from Gen 9:1-6:
"AND GOD blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
God is sovereign over man and God will judge man. God’s justice will also prevail. Man is not to kill man. This includes abortion. You are confusing God’s justice with whatever you can conjure up in man’s thinking and actions against other men. Men have a certain amount of sovereignty and dominion over animals, but they do not have the sovereignty and dominion over one another that God has over man.
I did not make the argument that “that the moral condition of an unborn child can be influenced by the state of the parents souls.” I made an argument concerning the negative impacts of nurture and environment by savage and evil people upon children and infants. There is a huge difference.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
so is killing okay then A?
- Status