What does the word 'love' mean?

[Darkforbid]

Let's break it down, shall we?


Is this ad hominem? Am I attacking the character or person of @usfan? Or am I attacking the position he is maintaining? Stating someone's conclusions are not rational is not "ad hominem."


Note that I didn't actually call @usfan a fool in this, I stated that he isn't able to insert God into anything that does not readily present God without looking like a fool. Again, I am calling his position that "God is in everything" foolish. If he takes that position, then he is a fool. I admit it is exceedingly close. So close that I am willing to admit that yes, I was attacking @usfan's position so strongly here that I was basically attacking him in the process. But the "fool" part is the only thing in the above paragraph that even comes close to being "ad hominem." And let's not forget, you said:



Next part:

I said my words were dumb, and then said that words of the same kind coming out of his mouth about God are just as dumb. Note what is dumb... the words. Did I actually state that @usfan was "dumb?" No. I said he sounded dumb, and what is directly attributed the adjective "dumb" was what was being said about God. in other words, "the position." Again, I admit this is a pretty fine line. But ultimately I am going after what he is saying, not "the man" himself. If I were to state that no one should listen to him because he is dumb, that would be attacking him directly, and not even involving the position he is taking. But I specifically reference his words on God... that is ALL position.

And lastly:

Because of the ambiguity surrounding the "fool" comment, which I can't deny contains some direct applicability to @usfan by myself, I amended the post to include "(specifically before this post)", because that is explicitly what I meant. That he need find my "Ad hominem" words in the specific post he was replying to or before. And note here again, I didn't actually call the man irrational or say that he was in denial, but I will as soon as he comes back and tells me that any part of my earlier posts were "ad hominem," because he doesn't have any proof on his side for that case. And at that point, my statement that he is irrational or "in denial" will indeed be factual. He will be denying that my words were not ad hominem, which they most certainly were not, and he will be irrationally clinging to the idea that they were, when there is no case to be made for it. At which point I WILL THEN HAVE PROOF to back up my accusations, and they can no longer be considered baseless attacks of his person that are not relevant to the argument.

It's all is ad hominem: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I can't be arsed going through it all: the first part of your post 'You're not following anything close to a "rational" conclusion. That's what I'm doing' .is attributing the inability to reach a rational conclusion to the target

 

[ChristineM]

 

[usfan]

View attachment 30582

..meaningless platitudes, in a godless universe.

Reproduction is the only instinct, and delusions of some ethereal 'Love!' are just manipulations and seduction.

Really? 'Soul Love!' , 'Together forever!' 'The One!', 'Meant for each other!' ?

Not possible, in a godless universe. There is a reproductive drive, and tactics for seduction. Blathering on about hearts, flowers, and 'Soulmate!', is just a peacock display, to impress a potential mate..

That's all it can be, in a godless universe.

 

[usfan]

It's all is ad hominem: attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I can't be arsed going through it all: the first part of your post 'You're not following anything close to a "rational" conclusion. That's what I'm doing' .is attributing the inability to reach a rational conclusion to the target

Progressive indoctrinees have different definitions. Classically, ad hominem is simply, 'to the man', instead of 'to the subject'. Any addressing of the poster's motives, intelligence, education, psychosis, hat size, or anything related to the person, is ad hominem. Progressives like to redefine it as only a profanity laden, vein bursting, emotional outburst..

A topical rebuttal has no comments about the poster, just addresses the topic.

 

[ChristineM]

..meaningless platitudes, in a godless universe.

Reproduction is the only instinct, and delusions of some ethereal 'Love!' are just manipulations and seduction.

Really? 'Soul Love!' , 'Together forever!' 'The One!', 'Meant for each other!' ?

Not possible, in a godless universe. There is a reproductive drive, and tactics for seduction. Blathering on about hearts, flowers, and 'Soulmate!', is just a peacock display, to impress a potential mate..

That's all it can be, in a godless universe.

Bullpoop, a god believer and an pure atheist are just as capable of love as anyone else, just because you choose to waste your love on a bronze age fantasy is actually very sad but a condition that effects a good many god believers.

As my image, that you chose to poopoo, stated, love is not about sex, it is a feeling of closeness in the real world.

Many others in this thread have stated similar thoughts, you repeatedly deny them with the godless universe mantra

FYI. Even non believers in you narrow perspective are human beings.

 

[Spartan]

LGBT defender: "everybody widely accepts that this is about love"

Response: So, if it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay with God too. Nope, not a chance.

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

So, nice try but no cigar.

 

[Spartan]

God DOES NOT PRESENT HIMSELF within our universe.

 

[ChristineM]

New LGBT defender: "everybody widely accepts that this is about love"

Response: So, if it's all about love then two adulterers in love must be okay with God too. Nope, not a chance.

Ok, where is god mentioned in your first paragraph. Nope, cant see a god anywhere, but like magic...

And if 2 anyone are in love what has that to do with a bronze age myth? Truth is people object to what is not typically normal but insist on blaming god.

 

[Neutral Name]

I define the word 'love' as liking someone very much, like my children. I could never love anyone I disliked.

The god character in the Bible is described as a god of love, but the deeds it is supposed to have committed are those of hate rather than love.

What does that word mean to other posters?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

[Spartan]

Ok, where is god mentioned in your first paragraph. Nope, cant see a god anywhere...

It's God who inspires all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including the ones I cited.

And if 2 anyone are in love what has that to do with a bronze age myth?

The bronze age myth from Sodom and Gomorrah is that homosexual relations are not abominations.

 

[JJ50]

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

That rules out the Biblical god then.

 

[Obsydian]

Damn, I think this topic has gotten too serious to respond with the correct answer...

Sex.

 

[ChristineM]

It's God who inspires all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including the ones I cited.



The bronze age myth from Sodom and Gomorrah is that homosexual relations are not abominations.

That is your opinion.

More mythology of the bronze age. Things have moved on a tad since then.

 

[Glaurung]

I define the word 'love' as liking someone very much, like my children. I could never love anyone I disliked.

That's one of the big demands of Christianity. To love in this sense is to will the good of the loved. This is not an emotional proposition but an act of the will to which all Christians are obligated. I can deeply dislike someone but simultaneously will their good.

The god character in the Bible is described as a god of love, but the deeds it is supposed to have committed are those of hate rather than love.

God is also just and holy, and as a consequence of those attributes He punishes sin.

As sovereign lord of existence and all things within it, He has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. God is love as He desires the eternal happiness of all His rational creatures, but His love isn't the start and end of the picture.

 

[JJ50]

That's one of the big demands of Christianity. To love in this sense is to will the good of the loved. This is not an emotional proposition but an act of the will to which all Christians are obligated. I can deeply dislike someone but simultaneously will their good.


God is also just and holy, and as a consequence of those attributes He punishes sin.

As sovereign lord of existence and all things within it, He has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. God is love as He desires the eternal happiness of all His rational creatures, but His love isn't the start and end of the picture.

Have you ever read the Bible? The god featured there is beyond evil, it is so wicked.

 

[Glaurung]

Have you ever read the Bible? The god featured there is beyond evil, it is so wicked.

Yes, I read it often. And therein, I see described a just and holy God. I see a God who so loved the world that He became man and conquered death on our behalf.

 

[JJ50]

Yes, I read it often. And therein, I see described a just and holy God. I see a God who so loved the world that He became man and conquered death on our behalf.

You can't be reading the same Bible, as me, or your idea of good and evil are very different to mine.

 

[Glaurung]

You can't be reading the same Bible, as me, or your idea of good and evil are very different to mine.

I read the Bible in the light of faith, you read in the forgone conclusion of rejection. Which is a shame because you blind yourself from being able to appreciate (even without belief) some of the most profound and beautiful texts ever written. As for my sense of good and evil, it is informed by my faith and not the prevailing ideologies of secular society.

 

[sooda]

I define the word 'love' as liking someone very much, like my children. I could never love anyone I disliked.

The god character in the Bible is described as a god of love, but the deeds it is supposed to have committed are those of hate rather than love.

What does that word mean to other posters?

To cherish, to trust, to respect...……. and of course there is blinding lust when we're young.

 

[sooda]

Love describes a possessive quality in a person weither it would be self, another person, place, or thing.

That "possessive quality" destroys love and the daily reinvention of relationship.