God Is Love?

[*Paul*]

Are you saying that we should do nothing for them, just look after ourselves, just let them die? If that is so, I find that attitude very disturbing.

No i am not. I am saying that if survival of the fittest is true if natural selection is true then let them die and let us who are doing well and prospering on the earth let nature takes it's course.

I do not believe in survival of the fittest I believe in a God of Love who has made us in His image, though that image is marred by sin there are remains of it enough that we instinctivley know that suffering is not meant to be and we try to alleviate it.

 

[*Paul*]

I don't wish to drag this thread off topic, but your characterization of natural selection is a strawman.

No it's not, helping these people to live would be weakening the gene pool and interfering with nature. I know that it is generally applied to the idea that as a species evolves that certain characterists are got rid of to suit the enviroment they are evolving in.
But clearly these people are not suited to their enviroment that they live in so for evolution to work they must be eradicated and evolve into more suitable types of species for the enviroment. Perhaps in a few trillion years they will have become part man part armadillo.

 

[Sunstone]

No it's not, helping these people to live would be weakening the gene pool and interfering with nature. I know that it is generally applied to the idea that as a species evolves that certain characterists are got rid of to suit the enviroment they are evolving in.
But clearly these people are not suited to their enviroment that they live in so for evolution to work they must be eradicated and evolve into more suitable types of species for the enviroment. Perhaps in a few trillion years they will have become part man part armadillo.

On the contrary, Paul, your view of what's implied by natural selection makes no sense. But this isn't the place to discuss that. I've made a thread on the topic if you care to debate it:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47258

 

[*Paul*]

On the contrary, Paul, your view of what's implied by natural selection makes no sense. But this isn't the place to discuss that. I've made a thread on the topic if you care to debate it:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47258

Surely this topic is relevant to the OP Sunstone.

 

[Hema]

God is love, and if we were listening, there wouldn't be pictures like that.

Exactly! Yes God is love but it doesn't mean that everyone can feel this love and apply it in their lives and thus extend it to others. Even in the hardest times, God is always with us. In this world, there is the duality of pleasure and pain. In God's realm, there is unending bliss.

 

[SoyLeche]

Your idea of a very important concept sure as hell isn't mine. When you attach my identity to your delusional statements, I'm going to take issue with it every time. I understand your desire to distort and manipulate the intended meaning of the written word, but please, in the future, keep your distortions restricted to the written "word of god".

Thanks.

LogDog.

Like I said - do what you must.

 

[autonomous1one1]

God is love, and if we were listening, there wouldn't be pictures like that.

Thank you, Booko! It is funny that your statement passed over my head on first reading this thread but when re-reading and finding the appreciation of John, Becky, Sojourner, and Hema, I, too, find the wisdom and join them. Your statement has helped me come to my own view of the picture which to me was a call to action - keeping in mind who we are, we have a lot of work to do and many tragic circumstances to address.

 

[robtex]

Images such as this lead me to question the assertion that "God is Love." How do you justify such a descriptor?

Logdog, help me out on this. The picture is of a starving child in a field and a vulture who we can reasonable presume, will eat the child when it dies. The question seems to be "How can God be love if children are eaten by vultures".--did i interpret that correctly? If so:

1) Are you suggesting that the vulture should die by not having food to feast on and if so would that mean God would not love the vulure?

2) Are you stating that the idea of "survival of the fittest" is incompatable with an Abrahamic God?

3) How do you equate dying and eating (two ideas in the picture) as the opposite of love? Or only in this particular context and if so why this context?

 

[LogDog]

Logdog, help me out on this. The picture is of a starving child in a field and a vulture who we can reasonable presume, will eat the child when it dies. The question seems to be "How can God be love if children are eaten by vultures".--did i interpret that correctly? If so:

1) Are you suggesting that the vulture should die by not having food to feast on and if so would that mean God would not love the vulure?

2) Are you stating that the idea of "survival of the fittest" is incompatable with an Abrahamic God?

3) How do you equate dying and eating (two ideas in the picture) as the opposite of love? Or only in this particular context and if so why this context?

What I'm saying is that if people have to completely redefine a word in order to use it in a description, they ought to just find the correct words instead.

It seems that people really want to hang on to the "god is love" descriptor. I guess because it sounds so nice and pretty. It's just hilarious how far and wide the definitions of "love" start going in order to accomodate using it to describe a god who appears entirely cruel, uncaring, even outright vindictive. The harder they work at reconciling the word "god" and "love", the more desperate they appear. If by some completely unimaginable scenario it turns out that there is a god, yes, it is apparent that it enjoys massive suffering. Doing what one is able to do in order to minimize suffering is generally expected when you are dealing with an entity that suposedly claims to love you and wants you to love it back.

 

[SoyLeche]

Doing what one is able to do in order to minimize suffering is generally expected when you are dealing with an entity that suposedly claims to love you and wants you to love it back.

From our perspective. Again, someone with a limited view of what is going in is passing judgment on someone with an unlimited view of what is going on.

 

[LogDog]

From our perspective. Again, someone with a limited view of what is going in is passing judgment on someone with an unlimited view of what is going on.

I'm not passing judgment on any one individual. I'm simply questioning the validity of their reasoning. For someone with such an "unlimited view of what is going on" how do you come to the fantastic conclusion that an invisible god is responsible for everything? I'd like to hear your "reasoning" for god being any more real than Santa Claus? With your "unlimited view of what is going on", I'm certain you'll have no problem tackling this one.

 

[YmirGF]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all a bit more compassionate and caring about the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves... a little less complacent in our creature comforts... we would not see images such as this. Franky, I don't see the picture as having any bearing on "god" or anyone's "invisible friend". That picture is more about us and that we simply don't care enough.

Otoh, I do not begrudge a buzzard a tastey meal. However if we cared more about our fellow human animals that buzzard might be humming, "I feel like chicken tonight" rather than coo-ing, "Oh. Baby!"

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm not passing judgment on any one individual. I'm simply questioning the validity of their reasoning. For someone with such an "unlimited view of what is going on" how do you come to the fantastic conclusion that an invisible god is responsible for everything? I'd like to hear your "reasoning" for god being any more real than Santa Claus? With your "unlimited view of what is going on", I'm certain you'll have no problem tackling this one.

I'm not saying I have an unlimited view - I'm saying God does.

If I were to answer your other questions here we would go off topic.

 

[Gentoo]

What I'm saying is that if people have to completely redefine a word in order to use it in a description, they ought to just find the correct words instead.

It seems that people really want to hang on to the "god is love" descriptor. I guess because it sounds so nice and pretty. It's just hilarious how far and wide the definitions of "love" start going in order to accomodate using it to describe a god who appears entirely cruel, uncaring, even outright vindictive. The harder they work at reconciling the word "god" and "love", the more desperate they appear. If by some completely unimaginable scenario it turns out that there is a god, yes, it is apparent that it enjoys massive suffering. Doing what one is able to do in order to minimize suffering is generally expected when you are dealing with an entity that suposedly claims to love you and wants you to love it back.

I like how you paint the Gods with such a broad brush. Like with people, the Gods cannot and should not be all lumped into the same descriptors like that. Some are more harsh than others, there are definately those that you don't want to cross, and there are those that do show love at (most) every turn. Not all are the same.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If we were created in God's image, than It was also created in our image. As humans, we cannot fit so easily into one label (or box). Can we say humanity is love? Can we say humanity is hate? We can say neither.

If God exists, I doubt such labeling will be sufficient.

But God as an idea (or even ideal) fits into the label of the individual that believes in it. (Is that contradictory?) So to an individual, perhaps God is love. Surely, love is an important and much needed thing in our lives. For a belief in God, it is understandable to equate that idea with love.

 

[logician]

If we were created in God's image, than It was also created in our image.

This sentence does not logically make sense. First, a god by definition could not be "created" except by another god. Secondly, it is very arrogant and colloquial to assume that a supposed god must look like homo sapiens.

 

[Bishka]

Secondly, it is very arrogant and colloquial to assume that a supposed god must look like homo sapiens.

Why is that?

 

[autonomous1one1]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were all a bit more compassionate and caring about the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves... a little less complacent in our creature comforts... we would not see images such as this. Franky, I don't see the picture as having any bearing on "god" or anyone's "invisible friend". That picture is more about us and that we simply don't care enough.

Thanks YmirGF. Insightful, as usual.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This sentence does not logically make sense. First, a god by definition could not be "created" except by another god. Secondly, it is very arrogant and colloquial to assume that a supposed god must look like homo sapiens.

Does "image" always have to equate to looks?

Of course we can create a god. We do it all the time! At least, the idea of a god. Which was exactly what the post was about.

When we create a god, we must do it in our image. God(s) reflect our worldview. Hence, the many varieties and flavors of god(s) in the many cultures of humanity.

 

[logician]

1. Does "image" always have to equate to looks?

2.Of course we can create a god. We do it all the time! At least, the idea of a god. Which was exactly what the post was about.

3.When we create a god, we must do it in our image. God(s) reflect our worldview. Hence, the many varieties and flavors of god(s) in the many cultures of humanity.

1. The same point holds if we assume a god must have the traits and faults of humans.

2. Agreed.

3. I don't necessarily agree with this, a god could be just a universal consiousness with no form or "human" traits.