"Love, Love, Love...

[metis]

I can't disagree with this enough.

You willingness to love and take care of others should end with you.

You should not try to force other people to pick up the bill that you feel compelled to pay.

I am in no position to "force" anyone to pay, nor did I say or imply that anyone should be "forced" to pay. What I am saying is that both Torah and the N.T. require us to help the poor and downtrodden because we all are considered children of God.

And since you are of the LDS, you should know and agree with exactly what I'm talking about because your denomination has extensive charitable programs that go beyond just what's in your neighborhood and country. Here from LDS: Refugee Relief: “I Was a Stranger” - Ensign May 2016 - ensign

 

[1robin]

Are you guys being mean to me?

I am never gratuitously mean or sarcastic. However I can be blunt, emphatic, and demanding if it seems the other poster in a debate has bad arguments they are unwilling to admit to. So far I have been none of those things with you though.

 

[1robin]

Are you being paranoid?

You keep posting things I can figure out. Someone used an allegory, I asked what a specific part of the allegory referred to what part of the actual. How is that being paranoid?

 

[1robin]

I think we agree that the forum is probably not important like we might think it should be.

So, were you nice to the bacteria today?

I have a question. If you ever hang a hammock, would you hang it from a tree? Why or why not?

Have you ever heard about the million monkeys using typewriters? Are they typing your posts, or are you banging your head on the keyboard? I did not say anything about the importance of the forum. Which bacterium? I do not know anything about hammocks, especially why they are relevant.

 

[1robin]

I disagree. Here is what I know: Without God, there is no objective moral truth that anyone might agree on for sure.

You say you disagree and then pretty much post exactly what I did. We agree, objective moral values and duties cannot possibly exist unless God exists. Lets not complicate this point of agreement further.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

...all we need is Love".
But how do we do it?

This is my perspective...
...What is yours?

In a word...
Empathy.
Joy and suffering arises from empathy as well as from physical sensation.
Empathy, unlike the fleeting pleasure of physical sensation, creates change in the individual that is not temporal but substantial in nature.
This is the way we store up treasure that does not rust, as the Bible says.

Empathy Definition

Spoiler: Tips on how to use Empathy

And here are some of the keys to nurturing empathy in ourselves and others that researchers have identified.

• Focus your attention outwards: Being mindfully aware of your surroundings, especially the behaviors and expressions of other people, is crucial for empathy. Indeed, research suggests practicing mindfulness helps us take the perspectives of other people yet not feel overwhelmed when we encounter their negative emotions.
• Get out of your own head: Research shows we can increase our own level of empathy by actively imagining what someone else might be experiencing.
• Don’t jump to conclusions about others: We feel less empathy when we assume that people suffering are somehow getting what they deserve.
• Meditate: Neuroscience research by Richard Davidson and his colleagues suggests that meditation—specifically loving-kindness meditation, which focuses attention on concern for others—might increase the capacity for empathy among short-term and long-term meditators alike (though especially among long-time meditators).
• Explore imaginary worlds: Research by Keith Oatley and colleagues has found that people who read fiction are more attuned to others’ emotions and intentions.
• Join the band: Recent studies have shown that playing music together boosts empathy in kids.
• Play games: Neuroscience research suggests that when we compete against others, our brains are making a “mental model” of the other person’s thoughts and intentions.
• Consider researcher John Medina‘s two steps for developing an “Empathy Reflex” toward your romantic partner: Describe the emotions you think you’re seeing in your partner and try to imagine what might be motivating those emotions (taking care to reply to your partner with “I” statements).
• Similarly, some research, including a study among male parolees enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program, has suggested that the practice of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) can boost empathy.
• Take lessons from babies: Mary Gordon’s Roots of Empathy program is designed to boost empathy by bringing babies into classrooms, stimulating children’s basic instincts to resonate with others’ emotions.
• Combat inequality: Research has shown that attaining higher socioeconomic status diminishes empathy, perhaps because people of high SES have less of a need to connect with, rely on, or cooperate with others. As the gap widens between the haves and have-nots, we risk facing an empathy gap as well. This doesn’t mean money is evil, but if you have a lot of it, you might need to be more intentional about maintaining your own empathy toward others.
• Pioneering research by Paul Ekman has found we can improve our ability to identify other people’s emotions by systematically studying facial expressions. Take our Emotional Intelligence Quiz for a primer, or check out Ekman’s F.A.C.E. program for more rigorous training.
• Empathy Definition

Love, like God, is one of those ideals that almost everyone thinks and believes they understand but probably don't. While there are many characteristics that can be identified as a part of Love, how we inculcate those from the outside to the inside remains mostly unknown. Now doubt if our understanding of God ever becomes complete, so with our understanding of God. An blog essay I came across has some interesting thoughts. Importantly, knowing what love is must also include knowing what it isn't! onthenatureofmarriage




onthenatureofmarriage

 

[metis]

While there are many characteristics that can be identified as a part of Love, how we inculcate those from the outside to the inside remains mostly unknown. Now doubt if our understanding of God ever becomes complete, so with our understanding of God.

Exactly.

In Koine Greek, "love" ("agape") has an intensity to it that goes beyond even "brotherly love". IOW, a person not only should have agape, one needs to live agape. It's supposed to permeate us to the point whereas it automatically manifests itself in what we think and do.

 

[1robin]

One the other hand, I know for certain, that even with God there is no objective moral truth that anyone might agree on for sure.

Even if that were true you would have no idea what so ever about it because you have no access to it. Objective means true and binding even if no one agrees with it. It seems some definitions are in order.

In this context.

1. Objective morality - Are values and duties that are binding and true even if no one believes them or even knows about them. They knew the difference between morality and ethics 3000 years ago, why haven't you kept up?

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
Malum in se - Wikipedia

This is morality and only exists if God does.

2. Subjective morality - Are values and duties that humans make up based on might, opinion, and preference (being subject to them) which do not correspond to any objective moral truths because without God they cannot exist.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

This is ethics and it can exist without God. Actually it can't but in order to have a discussion I will pretend it can.

3. Epistemology - Concerns how we come to know about a thing.

4. Ontology - Concerns the nature of a thing.

Please keep these in mind when you post.

 

[1robin]

I believe it is inherent in human beings to know right and wrong. It doesn't work as a fine-tooled instrument, but I think that it is innate. So, I choose moral ontology as the real one.

If you do not quote me it is only by luck if I see your posts. You by definition can't choose ontology. Ontology is what a thing is, and it will not yield no matter what you think about it. If I said a horse has 6 legs and you said it has 3 wheels, the ontological fact that it has 4 legs will not change because we have those opinions concerning horse anatomy.

If humans are the source of morality then which ones? Yours, mine, Muhammad's, Gandhi's, Hitler's, Stalin's, or a guy born 100 years from now? When we disagree how do we determine who is right?

 

[1robin]

All I see with the above is a complete lack of compassion for those who are downtrodden, including children. It is just so telling that you seemngly divide the world up into we and they, with a "don't care" attitude about the latter. According to Pope Francis [and even a majority of evangelicals according to a recent poll], he says that not helping these refugees is "un-Christian"-- and I agree.

That is emphatically not what you read. I asked you what the objective foundations were for your forcing others to accept something at the point of a gun. You didn't because you couldn't and instead played the virtue signaling card.

So, go sing your hymns to the Jesus you appear not to believe in, thus forsaking even innocent children:
Matt.1[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." Children are children, and it's so pathetic that you're more than willing to ignore the plight of so many of them.

Your way out of your depth here, and it shows. The words refugee nor the United states are in that verse. It is not talking about refugees, nations, or anything even close. It is talking about the apostles stopping people from approaching Christ on a surface level reading, the deeper meaning is that like children Christians though guilty of breaking the law are no longer accountable to it.

I have a list of refugee names, the day you let one of them live with you after I decide which is the day you can lecture others about compassion. BTW Conservative Christians are the most generous demographic on earth, and Christian organizations do more to help children and everyone else societies give up on, than any similar group in human history.

 

[savagewind]

You say you disagree and then pretty much post exactly what I did. We agree, objective moral values and duties cannot possibly exist unless God exists. Lets not complicate this point of agreement further.

You missed the part that two people have to agree. The only way that can happen is if God tells both of them the same answer exactly.

 

[1robin]

You missed the part that two people have to agree. The only way that can happen is if God tells both of them the same answer exactly.

If God exists his moral commands and our duties are true and binding even if no one agreed upon any of them. Ontology does not depend on epistemology. God's moral system would be just what it is despite anyone's opinion, as the moon would still be what it is despite our opinions about it.

 

[savagewind]

If God exists his moral commands and our duties are true and binding even if no one agreed upon any of them.

I agree with that except for the "if".

Ontology does not depend on epistemology. God's moral system would be just what it is despite anyone's opinion, as the moon would still be what it is despite our opinions about it.

I agree.

 

[1robin]

I agree with that except for the "if". I agree.

Unless you can prove a universal negative or have been born again you have no way to know what the "if" should be replaced with.

 

[savagewind]

Unless you can prove a universal negative or have been born again you have no way to know what the "if" should be replaced with.

Yes, I was born again.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I was born again.

Ok, from now on I will not use the word "if" when I respond to you in that context.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There is love of darkness and love of light, according to John 3

Take a leap of faith toward the light, not a shot in the dark and place you affections on light instead 'the dark side'.

 

[metis]

I have a list of refugee names, the day you let one of them live with you after I decide which is the day you can lecture others about compassion.

My synagogue and my wife's Catholic church have both agreed to help with refugee resettlement, and my wife and I were very active in helping Muslim refugees coming out of Kosovo as my synagogue supported eight families for one full year.

If you and your church are so unwilling to help those who are in desperate need, roughly 90% of those who are women and children, maybe you should seek out a church that actually is willing to do what Jesus told his followers to do. Maybe read Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats over again and contemplate helping people in need.

So, we've done our part in the past, plan on doing what we can do to help now, and it's "unChristian", to use Pope Francis' word for it, that you are not willing to lift a finger to help out these women and children in need, thus defying what the gospels actually teach.

Maybe think and pray about this, 1robin.

fini

 

[1robin]

My synagogue and my wife's Catholic church have both agreed to help with refugee resettlement, and my wife and I were very active in helping Muslim refugees coming out of Kosovo as my synagogue supported eight families for one full year.

Well keep up the good work. I never said anything about preventing refugees from coming to the US. However you pretty much accused me of hating refugees. You did not even bother to ask what it is I do believe about refugees. All I did was ask you what foundations you have for what your saying should occur.

If you and your church are so unwilling to help those who are in desperate need, roughly 90% of those who are women and children, maybe you should seek out a church that actually is willing to do what Jesus told his followers to do. Maybe read Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats over again and contemplate helping people in need.

Now your condemning my church. I have not said anything about what type of refugee policy I, my church, or my government should have. Good Lord your judgmental.

So, we've done our part in the past, plan on doing what we can do to help now, and it's "unChristian", to use Pope Francis' word for it, that you are not willing to lift a finger to help out these women and children in need, thus defying what the gospels actually teach.

Maybe think and pray about this, 1robin.

fini

I have prayed about it, but you should comprehend what it is I am saying.


You stated something about we should let refugees into this nation. I asked you how you justified demanding that we should do more than we already are, I asked you how many should be let in per unit of time, and several more questions.

You answered none of them, instead you accused me of something, then my church of something which you have no idea about.

I am going to give you one last chance.

Here are my original questions.

What part do we have? Who gave it to us? How did the person who gave us this requirement get it, to give it to us in the first place? What is it based on? Who is the judge? What if I believe that we have a duty to our own citizens to halt all refugees coming into this country, how do you know if I or you are right?

If you respond with accusations and sarcasm again instead of actually answering those questions I am going to have to give up on you.

 

[metis]

However you pretty much accused me of hating refugees.

That is a disingenuous response as I never said any such thing. There's a difference between "hating refugees" versus not being willing to help them as you had posted.

Now your condemning my church.

Another disingenuous response as the word "If" was what I led into with (2nd paragraph, first sentence).

I asked you how you justified demanding that we should do more than we already are

Because there's more refugees that need our help.

I asked you how many should be let in per unit of time

Not for me to decide because there are variables involved.

All your questions did was to try and obscure the simple fact of what you previously stated in regards to not letting them in. And now in your process all you've tried to do was to demonize me for somehow saying something immoral while it is you who have virtually ignored the teachings of Jesus and you who has lied in the process by putting words in my mouth.

So, I'll let this be my last post with you on this since you seem to have some problems that I recommend you work out for yourself.