About divine love
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2014, 03:43 AM
RE: About divine love
(26-05-2014 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Divine love" is anthropomorphic projection of a human emotion onto the gods. The fact that it's a process, and changes, which means it's inapplicable to a timeless deity.
And the gods themselves seem to be a reflection of our own creative powers; we can invent gods to whom we can give the imaginary ability to create every existing thing.

Although I'm not sure I would say that love is a strictly human emotion. It may be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't.

What about real people who declare they love you like their god does? If it is the god of Abraham, who cannot put his/her/its self-interest after those of others because he/she/it demands that others put he/she/it as their first interest, what do those people mean when they say they love you? That they view you as an inferior creature, like their god does?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 03:44 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 03:52 AM by living thing.)
RE: About divine love
(26-05-2014 09:31 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I don't care how many times I see it, that vid fucking kills me!
It seems to be killing him! (The guy in the video)

(Edit: added clarification)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 03:51 AM
RE: About divine love
(26-05-2014 11:02 PM)CindysRain Wrote:  Divine means relating to or coming from God or a god. And knowing all that I do about the biblical God, saying divine love is a fucking oxymoron.
There is no such thing.
Hmmm... coming from God... aren't hailstorms disgusting?

Well, technically, divine love might come from a different god than the biblical one; maybe Aphrodite, or whatever. But all of them are most likely imaginary, so I don't think any of them has the ability to love, they're just ideas; abstract implications conveyed by the motion of things in our brains.

But I think I agree with yout; it is mainly the biblical god the one whose love makes me wonder about those who believe it.

Have fun, everyone!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
27-05-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 03:43 AM)living thing Wrote:  What about real people who declare they love you like their god does?

They are simply mistaken. More projection. Their gods exist nowhere except in their brain cells/patterns. They may indeed love me. Their reference to a deity. while perhaps well intentioned, is unexamined.

(27-05-2014 03:43 AM)living thing Wrote:  If it is the god of Abraham, who cannot put his/her/its self-interest after those of others because he/she/it demands that others put he/she/it as their first interest, what do those people mean when they say they love you? That they view you as an inferior creature, like their god does?

The god of Abraham (Yahweh Sabaoth) was the 70th son of the chief of the Babylonian council of deities, El Elyon. Yahweh Sabaoth was the god of the armies, (the Lord of the Hosts ... ie an assembled battle array/army). Of course we know, (proven by Archaeology) that Abraham was mythical. That god was chosen by the Hebrews because they felt if they worshiped him alone, he would help them in their expansionary land endeavors, and keep them safe from their enemies, (their "covenant"). It was an entirely selfish enterprise. Your question concerning putting self interest above others is meaningless, as your reference to the deity is incorrect. What people mean when they say that, is "the best that is in me" (or the "ground of my being) ... both things that exist ONLY in their brains, as patterns of electrical activity ... are referenced in their memories, when they say that. The word "god" has no coherent meaning any longer in 2014. There is no "divine" love. You have not defined the word "divine". As requested about, that would be job 1.

Evenheathen ... I can get my older brothers to actually laugh so hard they weep, by playing the farting preacher videos. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 04:12 AM
RE: About divine love
I keep saying love is a social construct, and no one is listening Yes

A psychologist, he had no children, asked me if I thought my children loved me when they were growing up. I had already considered this and told him instantly, "oh no." I then then preceded to tell him I was not delusional about human ideas on love.

My children needed me for their survival; they were attached. I continue to care for them: they are now grown; we are bonded as a family; some bonds are not as strong as others.

Psychology stats: Most men marry for sex and freely admit it on surveys.

Anthropology reports: most women marry for support (hook the guy or gal) in order to raise the kids.

Anthropology, psychology and Human sexuality: men are not monogamous and women try to be because some two must raise the kids, and two people are most successful. So people bond, and through the bond they care about one another--survival of the species purpose.

Divine love suggests a creator. I don't believe in a creator.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 08:54 AM
About divine love
(22-05-2014 03:48 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 02:13 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  What if Yahweh already is shagging us... And we just don't realize it's happening?
Maybe, but I don't see how that would be possible.

http://youtu.be/1F6Ctq6ckpk

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: About divine love
Hello Bucky Ball, how are you? Thanks for expanding your opinion.

(27-05-2014 04:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:43 AM)living thing Wrote:  What about real people who declare they love you like their god does?
They are simply mistaken. More projection. Their gods exist nowhere except in their brain cells/patterns. They may indeed love me. Their reference to a deity. while perhaps well intentioned, is unexamined.
It may indeed be that they love you, although I don't know if they do because I don't know what you or they mean by "love".

But I wouldn't say that gods exist in their brains; the notion of a god occurs in their minds with the motion of things that do exist in their brains. Brain cells exist, but brain patterns and the notions they convey don't; at least not in the way I use the word.

(27-05-2014 04:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:43 AM)living thing Wrote:  If it is the god of Abraham, who cannot put his/her/its self-interest after those of others because he/she/it demands that others put he/she/it as their first interest, what do those people mean when they say they love you? That they view you as an inferior creature, like their god does?
The god of Abraham (Yahweh Sabaoth) was the 70th son of the chief of the Babylonian council of deities, El Elyon. Yahweh Sabaoth was the god of the armies, (the Lord of the Hosts ... ie an assembled battle array/army). Of course we know, (proven by Archaeology) that Abraham was mythical. That god was chosen by the Hebrews because they felt if they worshiped him alone, he would help them in their expansionary land endeavors, and keep them safe from their enemies, (their "covenant"). It was an entirely selfish enterprise. Your question concerning putting self interest above others is meaningless, as your reference to the deity is incorrect. What people mean when they say that, is "the best that is in me" (or the "ground of my being) ... both things that exist ONLY in their brains, as patterns of electrical activity ... are referenced in their memories, when they say that.
I see my mistake, thank you very much. I used the expression "god of Abraham" in my sentence in present tense because I thought it was obvious I was referring to the higher being worshipped today by Jews, Christians and Muslims. But I was wrong, it wasn't obvious; you seem to have thought I was talking about some deity as it was viewed by people in the Levant several millennia ago! No wonder you think my reference to the deity is incorrect; you have misunderstood my reference to the deity, surely because of my ambiguous choice of words for which I apologise.

I thank you for the interesting piece of history, but if I had wanted to speak about the past conceptions of the Abrahamic god, I would have spoken of it in the past tense. What I am interested in learning is what do "modern" religious people mean when they declare love towards others (although I'll start thinking of times as truly modern when I stop seeing religious temples around me, provided I keep my ability to see other things).

(27-05-2014 04:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The word "god" has no coherent meaning any longer in 2014.
Smurfs are imaginary little bipedal blue animals, presumably mammals because they are depicted with hair, invented by someone who called himself Peyo as a vehicle for the expression of fictional stories for children. Is that not coherent? Now, a god is an imaginary superhero capable of speaking universes into existence, often used by some people to influence the behaviour of many others in the benefit of the former at the expense of the latter. Is that not applicable in 2014? Are tele-evangelists, faith-healers and other examples of parasitism a thing of the past?

(27-05-2014 04:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "divine" love.
Of course there is no divine love; there are no gods. Deities are ideas, how would they love?

But there are real people who declare they love like their deity does, and I'd like to know what they mean. Your claim that they are mistaken is helpful for me to understand that you don't believe their declarations of godlike love, but it does not help me understand the meaning they attach to their words.

(27-05-2014 04:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have not defined the word "divine". As requested about, that would be job 1.
I'm sorry, I must have skipped your request, although CindysRain has already put it much better than I ever could: divine means relating to or coming from God or a god. When I say "divine love" I mean love as expressed by a deity.

Although I don't see why defining "divine" would be job 1; the word isn't particularly tricky to understand. It is the word "love" where I expect that people are more likely to have different views, and that is why I took the time to explain what I meant by it in my opening post.

Funnily enough, you have neither defined "love" nor "divine", despite having used both terms. Is it only job 1 for me? Are you issuing me work (the choice of term "job" is yours) while you operate as you please? Well, I invite you to provide your definitions for the benefit of every reader including myself, but I will not tell you it is your job because it is none of my business how you use your time.

Although I do hope that you will enjoy it. Cheers!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 04:13 PM by kim.)
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 03:32 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 07:54 PM)UndercoverAtheist Wrote:  I do not want to be divinely loved for an eternity by an old white man with a beard.
No, I don't want to feel the Lord inside me either!

Yea well... that's the total of what she said. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: About divine love
Hello Dee, welcome back!

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  I keep saying love is a social construct, and no one is listening Yes
Please don't despair, there may be people with visual difficulties who access these pages through a screen reader; they're listening. The rest of us are reading :-)

I think I agree, love seems a tool for cooperation and successful societies are based on cooperation; from the cooperation of two sexual partners in the task of producing new individuals to the cooperation of a group of friends in the task of producing something valuable for all of them. I'd say love is a tool for the achievement of successful societies.

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  A psychologist, he had no children, asked me if I thought my children loved me when they were growing up. I had already considered this and told him instantly, "oh no." I then then preceded to tell him I was not delusional about human ideas on love.

My children needed me for their survival; they were attached. I continue to care for them: they are now grown; we are bonded as a family; some bonds are not as strong as others.
I think that may have been what I've suggested in earlier posts, that when applied to children, we may be confusing love and dependency. Would it be fair to say that you've loved your children (when you've put their interests before your own) but that they depended on you when they were little?

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  Psychology stats: Most men marry for sex and freely admit it on surveys.
Yeah, "I love you" often means "you make me feel some physiological urges that I'd like to satisfy", but it sounds much better because it conveys (possibly misleadingly) the notion "I care for you as much as I care for myself".

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  Anthropology reports: most women marry for support (hook the guy or gal) in order to raise the kids.
And it is most likely related to our two survival strategies when it comes to reproduction.

In many ecosystems around you, you will find living things that produce an abundant progeny of which only a few achieve biological success (the continuity of their genes). Other living things have far fewer offspring, but they nurture them and care for them to ensure their survival until they are self-sufficient. Mice would be an example of the first case, and elephants an example of the second.

As family units, human beings may be an example of either case depending on the likelihood of survival of their progeny; families in "rich" countries tend to have fewer children than families in "poor" countries. But when it comes to our individual reproduction, we follow one or the other strategy. Male individuals make billions of tiny cheap cells, of which only a few if any will achieve biological success. Female individuals produce far fewer reproductive cells, but they carry the developing embryo inside them, feeding it and taking care of it for as long as it remains small enough to fit through the birth channel.

These different and complementary sexual strategies have undoubtedly had an impact on the selective pressure upon genes encoding for brains during millions of years; probably since before our living ancestors were mammals. Males will try to copulate with pretty much anything that moves because male reproductive cells have a tiny chance of success. Females will generally be picky when it comes to copulation, because the likelihood of success of their reproducive cells is higher, and not every candidate turns out to be a helpful partner.

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  Anthropology, psychology and Human sexuality: men are not monogamous and women try to be because some two must raise the kids, and two people are most successful. So people bond, and through the bond they care about one another--survival of the species purpose.
I think you are right, the survival of our species depends entirely on how much we care about one another.

(27-05-2014 04:12 AM)Dee Wrote:  Divine love suggests a creator. I don't believe in a creator.
Neither do I.

Thanks once more for your view, Dee. Have a good day!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: About divine love
Hello kim, how are you?

(27-05-2014 03:23 PM)kim Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:32 AM)living thing Wrote:  No, I don't want to feel the Lord inside me either!
Yea well... that's the total of what she said. Drinking Beverage
I'm sorry, who's she? UndercoverAtheist?

No, if anything, I was continuing on a joke I started in the last sentence of my original post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: