Paraprakrti
Custom User
Wrong? Not necessarily; Just inferior to the desires of an eternally blissful, eternally self-satisfied, infallible being.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If God created everything why didn't he create it perfect?
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
Wrong? Not necessarily; Just inferior to the desires of an eternally blissful, eternally self-satisfied, infallible being.
Wombat
Active Member
Depends....Most of the world operates on the "bold assumption" that 'love' exists.
Care to provide a strong objective arguement for 'love'?
[youtube]2QDidEchiNI[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Love Love Love - Avalanche City‬‏
That is all.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Depends....Most of the world operates on the "bold assumption" that 'love' exists.
Care to provide a strong objective arguement for 'love'?
[youtube]2QDidEchiNI[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Love Love Love - Avalanche City‬‏
That is all.
Love is not a bold assumption.
It can be experienced by each person and its existence is inherently known.
Edit: Or do you mean 'love' as in love being felt by another person?
In this case it would be an assumption. But not a bold one.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Let me rephrase his question: Why does God allow deficiences to exist?
Paraprakrti
Custom User
Creation is an inherent deficiency. So, what you mean to ask is, why does God create?
What could a self-satisfied being desire?
Wombat
Active Member
Love is not a bold assumption.
It can be experienced by each person and its existence is inherently known..
Ahhhhh!....There ya go with those assumptions- just bold assumptions.
If love comes down to mere subjective "experience"- I feel it to be true or I feel it therefore it is true...then you just left the door wide open to every other subjective experience (from God to Imortality) that people commonly "assume" to be true.
Loves "existence is inherently known"?....please...find me a country/culture in which 'the afterlife' was not "inherently known".
If we are going by what can be deemed to be "inherently known" to humanity globaly and across the millenia then the 'knowledge' of/belief in the afterlife beats the 'knowledge' of love hands down and by a country mile.
Many Anthropologists/Historians have pointed out that 'love' (especially 'romantic love') as we understand it today is a comparitively recent social construct...belief in ancestor spirits is an "inherently known" back to the dawn of history.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
God is usually not defined solely by a subjective experience, while love is.
I didn't understand the part about immortality.
You are using the 'inherently known' differently from me.
What i consider inherently known is what is not learned from others, but rather known and understood from inner experiences without any outside aid.
This way, culture and religion is not inherently known.
Beliefs usually come from concepts taught. These beliefs are not inherently known.
Last edited:
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
I don't know why God (if he exist) alllows deficiencies to exist.
Paraprakrti
Custom User
Well, such a being's desires are eternally being fulfilled/enacted. So, only eternal things fit the bill.
Wombat
Active Member
I have grave doubts about how God is "usually not defined" and of a certainty 'love' cannot be pigeon holed as a purely "subjective experience".
Koldo...In Orphanages prior to the 1900s babies (under 12months) invariably died despite the provision of food, shelter ,warmth etc. It was not until one Nurse introduced regular (10-20minute per day) hugging and holding sessions for each baby that they survived...and today such basic essential physical contact/loving is standard medical practice.
Now, unless you wish to argue that the babies 'inherently knew' their need for this love fundamental- touch then we are faced with physiological programmed need and fact that if others do not 'inherently know' to meet that need you dont survive the first year.
And so it goes through every subsequent developmental step and stage from baby, to infant, to child, to pre teen, teen to adolescent.......if love is not learned from others and not demonstrated and inculcated by significant and ongoing outside aid.....then it is not known.
I say this to you with the degree of confident certainty of someone who works with kids who have not received any aid in learning love from others...it does not arise spontaneously, it is not an 'inherently known' experience.
If a child does not get sufficient aid and learning love from others then what we get is the sociopath or psychopath.
You are right there "culture and religion is not inherently known"....like love they are 'learned'.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I could create a thread to check if God is usually defined by a solely subjective experience or not. But i guess we both know the result, so it would be a waste of time.
On regards to love, it suffices to say that we associate certain actions to 'love'.
Love is subjective, but it may trigger objective actions.
Before we go further into this point i want your source on this.
You are right there "culture and religion is not inherently known"....like love they are 'learned'.
Love is not learned. It is a feeling.
You don't learn how to feel.
Unless you are refering to the label itself.
Wombat
Active Member
"A hundred years ago, about 99% of babies in orphanages
in the United States died before they were
seven months old. Orphanages were an everyday part
of the social landscape. Unwanted babies were deposited
in these institutions, where modern antiseptic procedures
and adequate food seemed to guarantee them at least a
fighting chance for a healthy life. But the babies died,
not from infectious diseases or malnutrition; they simply
wasted away in a conditioncalled marasmus.
Sterile surroundingsdidnt cure it; having enough food made no difference.
These babies died from a completely different kind of
deprivation: lack of touch. When babies were removed
from these large, clean but impersonal institutions to
environments where they received physical nurturing
along with formula, the marasmus reversed. They gained
weight and finally began to thrive."seven months old. Orphanages were an everyday part
of the social landscape. Unwanted babies were deposited
in these institutions, where modern antiseptic procedures
and adequate food seemed to guarantee them at least a
fighting chance for a healthy life. But the babies died,
not from infectious diseases or malnutrition; they simply
wasted away in a conditioncalled marasmus.
Sterile surroundingsdidnt cure it; having enough food made no difference.
These babies died from a completely different kind of
deprivation: lack of touch. When babies were removed
from these large, clean but impersonal institutions to
environments where they received physical nurturing
along with formula, the marasmus reversed. They gained
http://www.benbenjamin.net/pdfs/Issue2.pdf
Sorry Koldo...But it is pretty basic to the study of Human Development,Psychology and Anthropology that love is learned. And that in the absence of skilled 'teachers' (we usually call them 'parents/family') many simply do not lean to feel or display love. I have already cited sociopaths and psychopaths as examples of those who often do not "feel love"... if you wanted further examples you could look at those who fall on the Autism spectrum who, although intelligent and functioning in all other respects, do not experience 'love' or 'humour' but learn to mimic the 'social display' so as to function in the world.
I wont argue it further with you but I recomend you have a look at Human Development literature on learning love.
Attachment theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article: The Origins of Human Love and Violence
Child Development is Almost Entirely About Love, Research Clearly Shows
Or cross cultural/historical rejection of 'Romantic love'-
Love is out
Koldo
Outstanding Member
A rather dubious source. :sarcastic
There is a major difference between the feeling of love and the behaviour that arises from such feeling.
Also as far as i know, genetics play a major role in the cases of the sociopath, psychopath, and autism. Therefore, IF people under these conditions are unable to feel love it is not due to the lack of teachers.
Now, let's talk about your links:
You seem to be losing the focus on the subject.
I have been talking about the feeling of love.
I have yet to mention relationships and the effects of love ( or lack of ) in a newborn.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I can't imagine what 'perfect' might mean -- mostly especially when applied to a human being.
Christians sometimes insist that "Jesus was perfect." But when I ask them to define 'perfect' for me -- so that I might compare their concept to Jesus himself -- they won't answer me.
So far as I can see, "perfect" simply means "my opinion of that matter or man is as high as my opinion could possibly get."
Or, "I assert that you can't convince me of any flaw in that matter or man. He's perfect."
Something like that.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Omnibenevolence.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
Why does God need to be charitable in an imperfect world? There are no pre-requisites to be charitable.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
God being charitable in an imperfect world is a contradiction in terms, but it's generally believed anyway.