Originally posted by mdhallI only have my own experience to go on, I study philosophy, I know many teachers and students at all sorts of levels and I have read on a fair number of philosophers. Do a poll here if you like. You made the inital claim, upon what evidence do you base it?
Alright boss, lets see your sources.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLoving God or following his will is never harmful in the long term. All that is harmed is our pride.
You are clearly trying to get out of the question. The question clearly points out that you already have a place in heaven and God is suggesting you give it up. I have noticed that almost all Christians do the same as you - avoid the question - I suppose it is too touchy a subject.
[b]Also, we are commanded to love others AS ourselves not at the expens ...[text shortened]... o loving God? If it is painful to do what God says (harm to self) then do you not need to do it?
I don't know how one can give up one's "place in heaven". Heaven is a state of mind not a seat on a bus . A selfless state of mind that lead to an act of love like that would probably place you closer to God anyway. It's a basic paradox.
Originally posted by StarrmanI have a minor in Philosophy and also read it for enjoyment.
I only have my own experience to go on, I study philosophy, I know many teachers and students at all sorts of levels and I have read on a fair number of philosophers. Do a poll here if you like. You made the inital claim, upon what evidence do you base it?
Even the obvious ones I can think of, Nietzsche, Sartre, Marx, they're mostly recent. You've got a few thousand years worth of agnostic and theist ones to choose from.
Not sure how you can study philosophy and think otherwise unless you're only studying modern/post-modern fields.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not so sure I agree.
Here is a statement made by a man named Maimonides.
"Man's love of God is identical with his knowledge of him"
Who here disagrees? Whether we believe God to be a myth or a reality we all have an mental image of what God is and we embrace this image or reject this image.
On the one hand I see the merit of the idea. But on the other hand I think ones' expression of love is measured by ones' sense of devotion.
An individual with less knowledge of God than myself might be able to show or demonstrate their love better than I.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI like this question. In fact, I think one can easily interpret the Jesus narrative as the story of Christ's affirmative answer to this very question.
My favorite question for Christians is:
If God came to you and offered to let someone else into heaven in your place, would you be loving enough to agree.
I don't know what my answer would be. But being able to agree seems a worthy goal to strive for indeed.
Originally posted by josephwI see what you are saying. However, there must be knowledge on some level that leads one to a sense of devotion. The question then becomes what kind of knowledge triggors the "love response"?
I'm not so sure I agree.
On the one hand I see the merit of the idea. But on the other hand I think ones' expression of love is measured by ones' sense of devotion.
An individual with less knowledge of God than myself might be able to show or demonstrate their love better than I.
Could one come to God devoid of any knowledge about him? How could this be done?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess I would ask how does one love anything? There must be knowledge of the object of love on some level.
I don't really see how one can love an image of God. I guess it would be like loving your favorite painting? I would say I like some of the images but then some of the images of the devil are rather pleasing too (happy guy with forked tail and horns).
A very significant proportion of theists do not serve God because they love him (or his image). In fac ...[text shortened]... and offered to let someone else into heaven in your place, would you be loving enough to agree.
As for my motive for serving God, it comes from my love for Christ and what he taught and how he layed down his life for me. Without this, I would probably be just like you.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is true that love is not equivalent to knowledge, however, can it be said that love is devoid of knowledge? Can one love what they have no knowledge of?
I disagree. One could just as well say that man's love of Mars is identical with knowledge about him, or talk about leprechauns, or benevolent aliens...
Love is not equivalent to knowledge.
Originally posted by whodeyAny knowledge of God would cause one to love him. Everything about God is worthy of loving because everything about God is good and righteous.
I see what you are saying. However, there must be knowledge on some level that leads one to a sense of devotion. The question then becomes what kind of knowledge triggors the "love response"?
Could one come to God devoid of any knowledge about him? How could this be done?
Of course the atheist will now chime in about how God is a murderer, or whatever, and say, "how can you love a murderer?" The answer to that is, to characterise God as a murderer only demonstrates that the atheist doesn't "know" God, and only knows lies about him.
As to your second question, in my opinion only someone who can't think doesn't know there's a God. This is where the atheist is going to say I'm saying he can't think.
But I'm not even sure someone who can't think doesn't know there's a God.
God created everything. Everything knows there's a God.
I'm just being spontaneous here. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by mdhallI was under the impression you meant living philosophers. Obviously if we're talking about all philosophers collectively then sure, but that's the weight of history. I'm under the impression that current philosophy (i.e. last 30 years or so) tends towards atheism, or at least skeptical agnosticism.
I have a minor in Philosophy and also read it for enjoyment.
Even the obvious ones I can think of, Nietzsche, Sartre, Marx, they're mostly recent. You've got a few thousand years worth of agnostic and theist ones to choose from.
Not sure how you can study philosophy and think otherwise unless you're only studying modern/post-modern fields.
Originally posted by StarrmanI had a philosophy professor once who got so angry about the subject of God that he gritted his teeth and said angrily "if there were a God I'd hate his guts".
I was under the impression you meant living philosophers. Obviously if we're talking about all philosophers collectively then sure, but that's the weight of history. I'm under the impression that current philosophy (i.e. last 30 years or so) tends towards atheism, or at least skeptical agnosticism.
Why do atheists/philosophers have to lose their composure when having a debate about the existence of God?
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI think the crux of the problem in terms of people getting angry about talk of the existence of God is that they are angry at heart. We live in a world of pain and suffering, thus the thought of an all powerful God at the helm of creation leads them to believe that God wants them to suffer or is responsible for their suffering.
I had a philosophy professor once who got so angry about the subject of God that he gritted his teeth and said angrily "if there were a God I'd hate his guts".
Why do atheists/philosophers have to lose their composure when having a debate about the existence of God?
Putting aside the problem of proving that God exists in general lies the other problem of apparent contradictions within creation that exist if there be a God. These contradictions include a world with both love and hate. A world with both pleasure and suffering etc. It is important to note that just because there appears to be contradictions in no way means that there are contradictions, rather, it simply means we are perplexed. This is why I opened with the quote that I did. I am reading "The Guide for the perplexed" written by Maimonides about a century after Christ in which he introduces apparent contradictions and then tries to work through them. He was a Jewish rabbi and somewhat of a free thinker. Some contradictions he is able to work out as where others he appears to be at a loss. However, he warns that our reasoning abilities are finite as well as every other ability that we possess. Therefore, when we rely on these finite abilities in full we must conceed that at some level it is built on a house of cards, so to speak. What is ironic, however, is that he wrote the book for a pupil of his who later decided to forsake the belief in God. What I walk away with is that if we rely on our reasoning abilities in full then where is there room in relying on God who lies beyond our reasoning abilities? Apparently his pupil chose to rely soley on his reasoning abilities in full rather than the Almighty thus there was no longer any room for God in his life. Having said that, I in no way condone divorcing reason, rather, I simply conceed its limitations. It is then important to sense when these limitations in our reasoning are present and abandon relying on it when applicable.
Originally posted by josephwWhy do theists? It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
I had a philosophy professor once who got so angry about the subject of God that he gritted his teeth and said angrily "if there were a God I'd hate his guts".
Why do atheists/philosophers have to lose their composure when having a debate about the existence of God?