Does love exist

Originally posted by whodey
I never ment to imply that your life was devoid of love. I was only trying to make you aware of its importance. Without it you are nothing.

Again drawing a whole new meaning into a word without any explanation. What does nothing mean to you. I dont see how I would be nothing without love.
I believe that many animals experience love, but surely plants and inanimate objects do not. Are they nothing?

Originally posted by stocken
Are you saying that he thought God had totally forsaken him? In this world and the next? That he believed he wouldn't be reuniteded with his God?

'Cause if you're not, it didn't take a whole lot of love to suffer for humanity the way he did. He knew he'd be alright in the end, anyway.

it amuses me how some people are experts on what they hate.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
it amuses me how some people are experts on what they hate.

Happy to amuse you. 🙂 I know a little about christianity, but I hardly think I pass off as an expert.

I seriously wonder, though. Did Jesus really feel abandoned by God, or was he always certain he'd get to heaven?

[Edit: And I hate is really too strong a word for my feelings towards christianity.]

Originally posted by stocken
Psycho-emotional expressions don't mutate. I'm no scientist, but I think it's safe to say as much. So, no, love is not an evolutionary mutation any more than science itself.

If love hasn't always been part of humans, I suppose you could call it an evolutionary process. I know too little to actually claim that, though. But I'm pretty sure that the phrase: ow why, but I keep saying "right?" all the time. Extremely annoying. Right?..]

As you prefer we will call love something that has come about from an evolutionary process. In and of itself it does not exist.

This is where atheisms fails. Atheism does not properly answer the, "What is love?" question. For them, love is merely yet another evolutionary process. As you said yourself, you would be miserable if you were devoid of love. We crave love. In fact, it has been observed in some orphanages that infants who receive adequate care, except for proper amounts of affection, actually die in some instances from lack of affection.

From a Christian perspective love is not only important to us, it is vital to every aspect of our beleif system. Atheists seem to think that religion can be explained and reasoned away. Then all of us ignorant folk will fall in line someday. Religion will never die becaues only religion talks to us about what is most relavent in our lives. Love is relavent and is craved by us. Talking about evolutionary processses and philosophical arguements can be intellectually stimulating and fun at times, but we all know what makes us tick. We all know that love is what we require or will shrival up and die.

For example, our morality revolves soley around the concept of love. God's word says that sin is merely not acting in love towards another person or towards God. In fact, if you walk in love you will keep all of God's commandments without even thinking about it. That is our moral fiber and is woefully absent in the atheistic arena. This is why sin is so repugnant to God. It is devoid of love. Granted, everyone has a moral code. This moral code is innate and often referred to as a conscience. The problem arises that we have a sin nature as well and at one time or another break this moral code of love. We begin to rationalize our behavior and make excuses for ourselves when we go against this moral code for our own perceived benifit. We tell ourselves that our indiscretion is OK because deep down inside we are a "good" person and perhaps the person we wronged really had it coming anyway. This is because our sin nature is selfish and at times places selfish desires above the moral code of love for others. The atheistic moral code has no such checks and balances. Hitler even tried to rationalize his actions as he referred to Jews as vermon and the enemy of all humanity. He had no moral checks and balances to correct his personal hate he felt for Jews that he felt had wronged him in the past.

Originally posted by stocken
Happy to amuse you. 🙂 I know a little about christianity, but I hardly think I pass off as an expert.

I seriously wonder, though. Did Jesus really feel abandoned by God, or was he always certain he'd get to heaven?

[Edit: And I hate is really too strong a word for my feelings towards christianity.]

yes. i ain't an expert either, but i got the impression those last few days for Jesus got pretty bad to the last point where He may have lost hope in 'the plan'. an indication of how bad it was for Him was sweating blood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again drawing a whole new meaning into a word without any explanation. What does nothing mean to you. I dont see how I would be nothing without love.
I believe that many animals experience love, but surely plants and inanimate objects do not. Are they nothing?

Would you feel as if your life had no meaning without love? This is what I was attempting to convey.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
yes. i ain't an expert either, but i got the impression those last few days for Jesus got pretty bad to the last point where He may have lost hope in 'the plan'. an indication of how bad it was for Him was sweating blood.

My interpretation of why Christ felt abandon on the cross is that he became sin for us when on the cross. At that moment Christ expereinced the horrible abandonment of love from the Father for the first and last time.

Originally posted by whodey
My interpretation of why Christ felt abandon on the cross is that he became sin for us when on the cross. At that moment Christ expereinced the horrible abandonment of love from the Father for the first and last time.

in an instant or like the tide comes in?

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
in an instant or like the tide comes in?

It appeared to be instantaneous. All at once he asked the Father why we had been forsaken.

Originally posted by whodey
It appeared to be instantaneous. All at once he asked the Father why we had been forsaken.

This makes absolutely no sense. I don't get it at all. ???

Originally posted by stocken
This makes absolutely no sense. I don't get it at all. ???

I am refering to how Christ is said to have taken on our sins upon the cross. He took on our sins when he died so that through him our sins may be forgiven. His question was whether it was a gradual process or all at once. I don't think it much matters in reference to time, however. The important thing is that it happened.🙂

Originally posted by whodey
I am refering to how Christ is said to have taken on our sins upon the cross. He took on our sins when he died so that through him our sins may be forgiven. His question was whether it was a gradual process or all at once. I don't think it much matters in reference to time, however. The important thing is that it happened.🙂

it's just when i think about Jesus dying for me on the cross it's about the pain He suffered and the events He endured over a few days. the supper, his disciples falling asleep when he needed them, his prayers, the trial, getting chosen to die over a guilty person, not being able to carry the cross, whipped and beaten, mocked, gambling away His last earthly possesions, refusing pain relief, nailed hung out and left to die, and after all that He still took time to save a guilty man.

Originally posted by whodey
Hitler even tried to rationalize his actions as he referred to Jews as vermon and the enemy of all humanity. He had no moral checks and balances to correct his personal hate he felt for Jews that he felt had wronged him in the past.

I strongly disagree with you that morals must be defined outside your self. It must, on the contrary, come from within your self. (I did that on purpose by the way, all you grammar guards.) I can take guidance from people with more experience, but I have to think for myself and decide what I believe to be right and wrong (or I will most likely find myself a pawn in a game, and I wouldn't want that).

As for Hitler, and why he became a raving loony, I'm not sure it's fair to claim it was solely based on his religion (or lack thereof). There are many references in his speaches and writings to the christian God. I personally think he fully believed in the christian God. Many sociopaths throughout history has had a religious belief as the base for their actions (whether you agree he was right or not). I'm not saying that an atheist cannot become an "evil" person. It's quite possible. But to blame a certain behaviour on something as simple as believing or not believing in God is to make it easy for yourself. If believing in God (and the bible) actually prohibits violent and unjustified behaviour, then you have some explaining to do (the crusades and the witchhunt comes to mind - not to mention Bush, he he).

Here's a few pages with different opinions on Hitler's beliefs, by the way:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
http://christiancadre.org/topics/hitler.html
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/submissions/hitler_resp.htm
http://www.shoaheducation.com/nazibeliefs.html
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_the_Church

Originally posted by stocken
I strongly disagree with you that morals must be defined outside your self. It must, on the contrary, come from within your self. (I did that on purpose by the way, all you grammar guards.) I can take guidance from people with more experience, but I have to think for myself and decide what I believe to be right and wrong (or I will most likely find my ://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_the_Church

You are right in that merely believing in a God does nothing for you ultimatly. In fact, the Bible says that even the demons believe in God but it does nothing for them. Their is a difference between believing in a God and placing your faith in him. When you place your faith in him you are saying that you trust him and you are his servant. You are correct in that Hitler apparently "believed" in a God. However, he did not place his faith in God. Hitler was only interested in using God to fulfill his agenda. Love is God's agenda but Hitlers agenda was conquest and personal glorification. If you remember I gave the example of God's law of love providing checks and balances to our sinful nature. This only works if you submit to his law of love. It does not work if you merely acknowledge its existence. I will not even argue that the crusades were of a different nature. I do not think the crusades were God's will at all. In fact, look at all the damage it has done to tant christianity. How many centuries has it been since the crusades took place? Yet till this day the western powers are refered to as crusaders. It truely is a sad indictment against those individuals who acted in such a way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again a Christian steps in, tells us that the word in question actually means something different from what is in the dictionary and that God is the answer to everything!
Read your post and you will find that you have redefined the word love to mean God when the dictionary and us athiests (and a lot of other people) have a totaly different meaning for the word.

So you do have a totally different meaning for the word ! This is my point. It's not the same position on love.