About divine love
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: About divine love
Hello rampant.a.i., I'm sorry I skipped your post.

(27-05-2014 08:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 03:48 AM)living thing Wrote:  Maybe, but I don't see how that [being shagged by Yahweh without realising it is happening] would be possible.

http://youtu.be/1F6Ctq6ckpk
Thanks for your reference; mind-fucking sounds more fun than brain-wanking. At least you get to meet more people! Big Grin

Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 06:50 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.

Then you're never seen a research subject having an MRI or PET scan.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  the expression "god of Abraham" in my sentence in present tense because I thought it was obvious I was referring to the higher being worshiped today by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Sorry. One of my main interests is in the History of Ancient Religions. The"god of Abraham" IS an ancient Near Eastern deity. If some today are ignorant of what they call their deity , (or think they reference when they name their deity that), it's not my problem.
Most people today would assume they ARE the same deity, when they use the word "god". I would think what any one person meant when they talk about "love" is an individual thing, and not something that would have a general meaning, UNLESS someone were to set up a study, and actually figure it out.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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?

Perhaps. But it is obvious to everyone that smurfs are imaginary, and no one is worshiping them, as far as I know. To say one's deity is "eternal" (ie timeless) yet in the very next sentence use a temporal reference to speak about the same whatever, ("loving" "creating" "sending his son", "getting angry" etc etc), is completely incoherent.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.

Why not ask THEM. I have no clue. I suspect if you pin them down, they will have no idea, and simply be repeating a phrase they have heard that may reference something which may also be incoherent, on examination. NOt trying to be a prick here. Just commented as no one has defined anything here, and without some definitions it's difficult to get at what you're asking. I see I have no clue as to how to answer the question you posed.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.

Exactly. That's why I asked. That's not what "divine" meant to the culture from which the "Abrahamic" deity sprang.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.

It is because scholars know it can mean more than one thing. (It's also incoherent.) I suspect people who use that phrase have never r though about what it actually means.

(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.

Not my job. YOU asked the question, and started the thread. YOU get to do the definitions, at least at first.

Oh and BTW, Islam claims to be "Abrahamic". In fact it is not. Allah developed directly from the Arabic deity, whose name was "Sin", and whose crescent-moon phase was Al-Illah. The claim of that religion being "Abrahamic" is easily refuted by scholarship. The general pattern of the Arabic Empire was when they defeated a region they accepted the defeated people's deity, (as long as "one" god was the chief one), and they said "well it's really Allah you worship, you just call it by another name. The reason why a fatwah was issued against the author of "The Satanic Verses", was that it referenced (albight obliquely) this fact, and anything coming even remotely closely to questioning the origins of Allah is met with absolute and extreme vehement denial. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25

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, 10:07 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 10:12 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: About divine love
(22-05-2014 10:18 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 08:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Anthropocentrism, projection, and ignorance run amok.

Anthropocentrism /ˌænθrɵpɵˈsɛntrɪzəm/ (from Greek: ἄνθρωπος, ánthrōpos, "human being"; and κέντρον, kéntron, "center") is the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals), or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.
-Wikipedia
I appreciate that information, although I am not sure I understand what you mean by it. Are you suggesting that godly love is a synonym for anthropocentrism? But the divine love mentioned so far is rather theocentric, don't you think? Or are you maybe suggesting that anthropocentrism is the reason why we create gods with human features, and that we are simply projecting our own greed and selfishness onto the gods we create?

Thanks for an interesting view, EvolutionKills. Have a good day!


The second one. 'Divine Love' is narcissistic and born from both our ignorance and either our inability or unwillingness to see reality as not caring about us. There is no goal, we were not created in any god's image or for any god's plan. We are the end result of billions of years of deterministic, unthinking, and unguided fundamental forces of nature. Reality was not created for our benefit, nor will it mourn our inevitable passing. The only meaning our brief existence has is that which we give ourselves.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 10:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 10:18 AM)living thing Wrote:  I appreciate that information, although I am not sure I understand what you mean by it. Are you suggesting that godly love is a synonym for anthropocentrism? But the divine love mentioned so far is rather theocentric, don't you think? Or are you maybe suggesting that anthropocentrism is the reason why we create gods with human features, and that we are simply projecting our own greed and selfishness onto the gods we create?

Thanks for an interesting view, EvolutionKills. Have a good day!


The second one. 'Divine Love' is narcissistic and born from both our ignorance and either our inability or unwillingness to see reality as not caring about us. There is no goal, we were not created in any god's image or for any god's plan. We are the end result of billions of years of deterministic, unthinking, and unguided fundamental forces of nature. Reality was not created for our benefit, nor will it mourn our inevitable passing. The only meaning our brief existence has is that which we give ourselves.
.... However, I am open to the idea that a being or supreme being did create this universe, but It is entirely impossible that it is any human deity or any part of a human religion or that it should be worshiped or praised.
Well, that's my thoughts.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 10:46 PM
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 05:07 PM)living thing Wrote:  Hello kim, how are you?

(27-05-2014 03:23 PM)kim Wrote:  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.

Sorry man ... "that's what she said" ...used to be a running joke around here. No big whoop. 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, 11:02 PM
RE: About divine love
(27-05-2014 10:27 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 10:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The second one. 'Divine Love' is narcissistic and born from both our ignorance and either our inability or unwillingness to see reality as not caring about us. There is no goal, we were not created in any god's image or for any god's plan. We are the end result of billions of years of deterministic, unthinking, and unguided fundamental forces of nature. Reality was not created for our benefit, nor will it mourn our inevitable passing. The only meaning our brief existence has is that which we give ourselves.
.... However, I am open to the idea that a being or supreme being did create this universe, but It is entirely impossible that it is any human deity or any part of a human religion or that it should be worshiped or praised.
Well, that's my thoughts.

Possibility =/= Probability

It's also possible the universe was created 10 minutes ago by aliens or we're experiencing a a collective simulated/virtual reality. However living your life by these principles would get you nowhere. Acknowledging their possibility doesn't mean we should endorse them or live our lives under the impression that they are at all probable; let alone certain.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-05-2014, 02:20 AM
RE: About divine love
Hello once again Bucky Ball, thanks for an even deeper explanation of your view.

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  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.
Then you're never seen a research subject having an MRI or PET scan.
Either that, or you don't understand what I mean when I say that things exist, which is also a possibility.

I have described many times already how I use the verb "exist" in reference to things that occupy the volume in which they appear. Cell membranes, the proteins attached to them and the electrically charged ions that can enter and exit the cells, those material structures occupy the volume in which they appear; they exist in the sense I use the word. Ion flows and the implications they convey do not occupy any volume, they are entities that occur over time with the motion of material structures; patterns of change can overlap the volumes in which they seem to appear. Mental activity happens, of course, but it does not exist in the same sense as material structures exist.

Do you understand what I mean?

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry. One of my main interests is in the History of Ancient Religions. The"god of Abraham" IS an ancient Near Eastern deity. If some today are ignorant of what they call their deity , (or think they reference when they name their deity that), it's not my problem.
Most people today would assume they ARE the same deity, when they use the word "god". I would think what any one person meant when they talk about "love" is an individual thing, and not something that would have a general meaning, UNLESS someone were to set up a study, and actually figure it out.
Well I made it quite clear in my opening post that I'd like to know what other people understand by "love", especially those who declare some sort of jesuslike love, and then I brought up the first few commandments of the god traditionally attributed to Moses.

If, despite my references to Christianity and Judaism, you thought my reference to the "god of Abraham" was related to some ancient near eastern deity, then you may be obsessed with the history of ancient religions; if your interests cause you to misinterpret other people's words, that may become your problem because it will prevent you from reaching mutual understanding with other people.

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Perhaps [it is applicable in 2014 that 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, just like smurfs can be said to be 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]. But it is obvious to everyone that smurfs are imaginary, and no one is worshiping them, as far as I know. To say one's deity is "eternal" (ie timeless) yet in the very next sentence use a temporal reference to speak about the same whatever, ("loving" "creating" "sending his son", "getting angry" etc etc), is completely incoherent.
It is obvious to me that gods are imaginary and I don't worship anything. But your claim was that the word "god" has no coherent meaning in 2014. Does it not?

Nevertheless, my questions are regarding the people who believe in a deity; I am interested in knowing what they understand by "love", not their deity, and I've tried to leave that quite clear. Of course asking how gods love is silly; gods don't exist. But many believers indeed exist and they may be capable of loving.

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why not ask THEM.
For example, by posing the question in an online forum?

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have no clue. I suspect if you pin them down, they will have no idea, and simply be repeating a phrase they have heard that may reference something which may also be incoherent, on examination. NOt trying to be a prick here. Just commented as no one has defined anything here, and without some definitions it's difficult to get at what you're asking. I see I have no clue as to how to answer the question you posed.
Which is not surprising because you are not a believer in a deity.

No one has defined anything here? I spent several paragraphs in my opening post explaining what I meant by "love", and I made several references to modern day religion (I mentioned jesuslike love as expressed today by christian people; I brought up a modern translation of the first few commandments claimed to be written by Moses). And, despite that, you had trouble getting at what I was asking? Well, I'm not writing in my native language, I can see how my questions may be too cryptic for others to understand and I apologise.

Then again, your initial contribution to this thread was "'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"... which in no way suggested that you needed further definitions. You seemed to grasp both the notion of the human emotion and its projection onto some of the imaginary deities we may create; I don't think you had trouble understanding what I meant by either "love" or "divine". If anything, you seemed to have trouble understanding that I was asking what real people who believe in imaginary deities mean by "love".

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  When I say "divine love" I mean love as expressed by a deity.
Exactly. That's why I asked. That's not what "divine" meant to the culture from which the "Abrahamic" deity sprang.
But you seen obsessed with the culture from which the "Abrahamic" deity sprang; I've never in this thread asked, nor it has been my intention asking, what "divine" meant to some ancient near eastern culture. I have asked what do present-day believers mean by "love".

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 03:18 PM)living thing Wrote:  Although I don't see why defining "divine" would be job 1
It is because scholars know it can mean more than one thing.
Well I wasn't directing my questions to scholars; I simply posted them in a public online forum. But if any scholar has doubts about what I meant by "divine" in this thread's title, after reading the opening post, then I'm not impressed by his or her scholarship.

Quote:(It's also incoherent.) I suspect people who use that phrase have never r though about what it actually means.
Seeing those two sentences together makes me smile.

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not my job [defining terms such as "love" or "divine"]. YOU asked the question, and started the thread. YOU get to do the definitions, at least at first.
Of course it's not your job, I already said that.

I asked the question "what does he [the guy that declared some sort of jesuslike love] mean by 'love'?" and then I proceeded to define "love" as I understand it. If you feel I needed to define "divine" in order to understand the question, then I am surprised because I didn't even use the term "divine" in the question. And I am sure we can both agree that this thread's title is not a question asked. Questions are followed by question marks.

I got to do the definitions at first because I indeed started this thread, but that does not exclude you from providing your definitions at any time if you wish to make yourself understood. If you do not wish to make yourself understood, then don't provide those definitions; you don't have any obligation to do so and I see no reason to extend this pointless and completely off-topic argument.

(27-05-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh and BTW, Islam claims to be "Abrahamic". In fact it is not. Allah developed directly from the Arabic deity, whose name was "Sin", and whose crescent-moon phase was Al-Illah. The claim of that religion being "Abrahamic" is easily refuted by scholarship. The general pattern of the Arabic Empire was when they defeated a region they accepted the defeated people's deity, (as long as "one" god was the chief one), and they said "well it's really Allah you worship, you just call it by another name. The reason why a fatwah was issued against the author of "The Satanic Verses", was that it referenced (albight obliquely) this fact, and anything coming even remotely closely to questioning the origins of Allah is met with absolute and extreme vehement denial. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25
Very interesting, thank you, although this is kind of what I mean by "off-topic".

Is there anything else you'd like to add in relation to what believers in deities mean when they say they love others?

Thank you, have a good day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 02:25 AM
RE: About divine love
Hello again, EvolutionKills. How's it going?

(27-05-2014 10:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The second one. 'Divine Love' is narcissistic and born from both our ignorance and either our inability or unwillingness to see reality as not caring about us. There is no goal, we were not created in any god's image or for any god's plan. We are the end result of billions of years of deterministic, unthinking, and unguided fundamental forces of nature. Reality was not created for our benefit, nor will it mourn our inevitable passing. The only meaning our brief existence has is that which we give ourselves.
I mostly agree with you, especially if we think of "meaning" as a synonym for "purpose". But I'd like to point out that I don't think of meaning as purpose; I view it as a set of implications conveyed by some form of information. And as such, our brief existence has plenty of meaning.

But I very much agree with your view, thanks for sharing it.

Have fun!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 02:32 AM
RE: About divine love
Every time I see the title of this thread I get a vision of a flying, wings on his feet and back, naked cartoon baby cupid holding a little harp and a bow and arrow. Every time!

If I get nightmares, I'll let you know.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Dee's post
28-05-2014, 02:43 AM
RE: About divine love
(28-05-2014 02:20 AM)living thing Wrote:  Mental activity happens, of course, but it does not exist in the same sense as material structures exist.

Do you understand what I mean?

No. It's a distinction without a difference. It does "exist". They're all energy and patterns of energy.

(28-05-2014 02:20 AM)living thing Wrote:  Well I made it quite clear in my opening post that I'd like to know what other people understand by "love", especially those who declare some sort of jesuslike love, and then I brought up the first few commandments of the god traditionally attributed to Moses.
If, despite my references to Christianity and Judaism, you thought my reference to the "god of Abraham" was related to some ancient near eastern deity, then you may be obsessed with the history of ancient religions; if your interests cause you to misinterpret other people's words, that may become your problem because it will prevent you from reaching mutual understanding with other people.

Then why bring up the gods of the ancient religions at all. And most of all why ask this question in an atheist forum where the vast overwhelming majority of the members have no clue what you're talking about or share any such notions. You should be on a religious forum of some sort, apparently.

(28-05-2014 02:20 AM)living thing Wrote:  Nevertheless, my questions are regarding the people who believe in a deity; I am interested in knowing what they understand by "love", not their deity, and I've tried to leave that quite clear. Of course asking how gods love is silly; gods don't exist. But many believers indeed exist and they may be capable of loving.

TTA is not a forum for believers. It's the LAST place a reasonable person would be expecting to get an answer to these questions. In light of THAT, I (and others) assumed you might have been leading up to trying to preach at us. Maybe you're not.

(28-05-2014 02:20 AM)living thing Wrote:  For example, by posing the question in an online forum?

Composed of non-believers ?

(28-05-2014 02:20 AM)living thing Wrote:  Is there anything else you'd like to add in relation to what believers in deities mean when they say they love others?
Thank you, have a good day.

Nope. Perhaps you might consider reading the title of the forum on which you post your questions. Woulds you go to Catholic Answers to ask questions about what atheists/agnostics/igtheists think ?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: