moimeme Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Don't smite me for asking, please, but word is that 'God is Love'. So are you? Is that correct? Do you concur? Link to post Share on other sites
God Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 For some people, God is love. For others, God is sex. Still others hold money as their God. I have to be Love in order to tolerate the folly of others. So, yes, God is love if you want to take the high road. But if you take another, that's OK too. These days I refer to the high road as the one less traveled. No more questions. It's St. Patrick's Day and much of my flock is getting drunk. I have to watch out for them. Also want you to know beer was not meant to be green. Link to post Share on other sites
BrainRightHeartWrong Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 if god was love then no badness would ever occur, heartbreak wouldn't exist and so neither would Loveshack! Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by BrainRightHeartWrong if god was love then no badness would ever occur, heartbreak wouldn't exist and so neither would Loveshack! erm, no that would be if all people listened to him. Anyways God, I have a doctrinal question, so take off your Deist hat, and become a Catholic real quick. If we're not supposed to eat meat on Fridays during Lent, what happens when March 17th is on a Friday? Surely we gotta honor St. Patrick by eating Corned beef and cabbage! Link to post Share on other sites
Author moimeme Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Shh, Dyer! God said 'no more questions'. You wanna be smitten? Link to post Share on other sites
sonofhud2 Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 "Smite me all mighty smiter" go watch bruce almighty lol.... Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Bah! God can watch over drunkards and take our questions. Who's religion is right? Who's gonna end up going to heaven for believing in the right thing, and who's going to Hell? Or is there no Hell? What gives? Link to post Share on other sites
BrainRightHeartWrong Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 exactly kevin! i was brought up as an irish catholic, went to a christian brothers school etc. but never bought any of it except for the practical part that makes sense to living and being humane which brings up an interesting memory from last year.... before my fathers funeral we were telling the priest of his past and life for the mass, he then mentioned how could anybody know ( of heaven, hell, god etc. i assume ) as he mentioned how nobody has ever came back from death to tell us and this from an old catholic priest! my respect for the man as a person grew after he said that Link to post Share on other sites
faux Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 The subject of God interests me. However, I would much prefer to believe in something tangible. I have little use for fancies and foolishness. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by faux The subject of God interests me. However, I would much prefer to believe in something tangible. I have little use for fancies and foolishness. Do you believe in love? Link to post Share on other sites
God Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by faux The subject of God interests me. However, I would much prefer to believe in something tangible. I have little use for fancies and foolishness. I feel the same way. That's why I made the world, so you could see Me in everything beautiful thing. Go to a hospital and watch a child being born, then come back and tell me you still don't believe. Keep your eyes open as your day unfolds. There is always tangible evidence of the Divine. I, too, have little use for fancies and foolishness but, then again, look at the empire Walt Disney built on just those things. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 You skipped my question, Big Cheese. Dyer, it's not really the same thing. Believing in a being, an entity, a person, that you cannot see, is much different than believing in an emotion, a feeling. For some of us, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by UCFKevin Dyer, it's not really the same thing. I challenge you to find a difference. In your life, you choose whether you want to have love or not, it's your own pursuit that you're free to abandon. It's effects on you are undefinable but vaguely describable. It's not entirely tangible, and requires trust in something else. Anything that I personally get from love, I get from God as well. The fact that you, or anyone else, has abandoned that pursuit doesn't make it 'foolish' for those who do. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 A difference? Believing in an emotion. Believing in a higher entity/being. The difference is right there. Nothing else need be said. I can see what you're getting at, that they're one in the same, and that may work for you, believing in one leads to believing in the other, but that doesn't work for me. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Originally posted by UCFKevin I can see what you're getting at, that they're one in the same, and that may work for you, believing in one leads to believing in the other, but that doesn't work for me. I'm not saying their one in the same at all, I'm saying millions of people believe in something intangible, and any effect love has on lovers is the same effect God has on the faithful. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Okay then. I don't disagree with that at all, but I DO think that believing in love and believing in God, as two separate things, are very very different. But that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites
Author moimeme Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 That would be because you are picturing God as a big guy with a white beard and some sort of gown instead of as a presence. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Well a presence is due to a PERSON, or a spirit or something, which is, still, to me, very different than an emotion. Link to post Share on other sites
sonofhud2 Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 God IS love! God is not a person, but to believers, Jesus was God in human form. People always argue that they don't want to believe in God because there is no tangible evidence, but if you believe in love then that argument is not valid. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 But that is such a WEAK defense. Believing in Love and God is NOT THE SAME THING. God is not a person, correct, but he is a BEING of some sort, he's not just a haze of smoke or fog or something. If he can talk to people, he communicates, which makes him SOMETHING, he can have a son, he's not just a feeling or an emotion. Am I the only one who thinks this? I mean, you can disagree all you want, that's fine, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to think otherwise, I'm just not really understanding how someone can think believing in a higher power and believing in an emotion are the same thing. It's like saying, "Oh, you don't believe in Santa Claus? Then you must not believe in happiness." Not exactly like that but they're similar. Link to post Share on other sites
meanon Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 God - Hurry up and cure my cold - PLEASE! Link to post Share on other sites
Author moimeme Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 I use the love argument against people who claim that only idiots believe in things unprovable by science since science cannot prove that love exists or, essentially, that any concept exists. Yours is a different argument; that there may be unprovable concepts, but that these do not include the existence of unseeable entities. If you believe in any other supernatural event, from telepathy to ghosts, then you could be accused of logical inconsistency. If you don't, then your reasoning trumps that of all those who mistakenly try to debate this point from the point of empirical data and tangible evidence. The only possible (IMHO) analogy is then, again, of love. If you have experienced it, there is no way you can explain it to someone who has not. Similarly, many people have experienced God but cannot explain the experience to those who have not. Properly, someone who has not experienced love should not believe in it, but many do. Also similarly, many people who have not fallen in love believe that it exists and is possible despite their lack of experiential evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Just for the record, I believe in both. The only possible (IMHO) analogy is then, again, of love. If you have experienced it, there is no way you can explain it to someone who has not. What about fear? Happiness? Contempt? Anger? Shame? Humility? Plenty of people out there probably haven't experienced those either. Link to post Share on other sites
Author moimeme Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 What about fear? Happiness? Contempt? Anger? Shame? Humility? Plenty of people out there probably haven't experienced those either. Well, yeah. Same applies. Love is nicer so I picked love. How many people go around saying they don't believe in fear because it can't be proved? The 'empirical evidence' argument is bogus, IMHO. So you say you believe in both telepathy and spirits - not very much of a leap to believe in a spirit that's telepathic and has other powers, I figure. I'd be interested to know how the two former can be plausible and the latter not, in your explanation. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Nonono, I'm saying I believe in both God AND love, but I don't consider the foundation of those beliefs to be the same whatsoever. Two different things in my book. And, to take it further, I don't really consider love something to be believed, it's something that's felt, that can't really be proven or UNproven, it just happens, and there's no need to believe in it. If that makes any sense. Which I don't think it does. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts