&
leKatt, you did quote scripture in man is created in the image of God, which is text, and for that matter eternal text. But from your above post it did seem like you are referring to new age religion which is a collection of ancient spiritual traditions.
I agree completely with your statement that “academic discussion of love will never end in love.” It’s the same problem addressed in the Mary’s Room thought experiment. Mary is a brilliant scientist that knows everything about color but has never seen color. The knowledge she acquired is a range of brain states. Once she experiences color, she develops additional new brain states she could not have developed before. (Unless she was so brilliant and talented that she could self-surgically duplicate the same brain states produced by experiencing color.) The point is knowing about color and experiencing color are different things but both are brain states. The same goes for love.
You then ask “Do you think skeptics would ever be willing to use spiritual principles to enhance the quality of their lives?” Horsepucky! Skeptics aren’t quarantined from experiencing love as Mary was from color. Love is a brain state and understanding that is yet another brain state.
So my counter question was intended to highlight for you what you think love is. Is it a brain state or something supernatural? Concluding that love is supernatural because studying it can’t (yet) produce it is unconvincing.
That’s you. As it is now I am skeptical, because I cannot comprehend how part of God’s creation can dismiss his existance. 
What factory do you work at that knows how to build elements? Being that I was talking about the manufacture of elements not computers and all. ;p Krsna and Jesus are essentially the same character. Though Jesus is another thing I wasn’t talking about in the post you replied to.
I am not the one who originally quoted Psalm 14:1 which is an open incitement to hatred and denigration of atheists contained in the book inspired by your loving God. You know, the one drowned every little kid on Earth once because he was pissed off at what their parents had done. The one who told the Israelites to slaughter the people in Jehrico? Yeah, that loving guy! :dubious:
Valteron God in the old testament loved the Jews, not everyone. The point of Christianity is that through Jesus sacrifice the umbrella was spread to anyone who accepted the covenant.
Next time you see a Jew telling someone, “God Loves you.”, please start a thread about it.
This is an amazing revelation for me! What you are saying is that before about 33 C.-E., you had to be Jewish for God to love you. Amazing!
But you DO admit that the God of the OT and the NT are the same being, right? Did Jesus exist as a person in God at the time of the OT events, in your opinion? So why do I have to wait for a Jew to say God loves me (and everyone else, I guess) before I can debate why your God did not love everyone until 2000 years ago?
What you are saying (if the OT and NT god are the same being) is that your God decided about 2000 years ago to extend his love to the other 98% or so of the human race.
So if you were a sweet little non-Jewish little girl of 4 playing with her dolls in Jehrico when the Israelites rushed in and one of them grabbed you and slit your throat, then God would look down and say, “Oh well, she wasn’t Jewish, so who cares?”
Did Jesus (aka God the Son) as one of the three persons in God, also see the massacre at Jehrico? Did he wince when he saw it, or was his love concentrated uniquely on Jews as well?
Then, after thousands of year of loving only Jews and considering non-Jews as bugs to be squashed by his chosen people, your God decides he now loves the whole human race. Now, you may say that what did it was the Sacrifice on the Cross. OK, that was the means or mechanism.
But it is still a pretty weird God who changes his love like that. It seems to make no sense at all.
Now here is a theory that makes sense. A little bunch of desert dwellers called the Jews wrote some stories about how there was a supreme being who worked miracles for them and loved them specially as his people. For example, their tribe may have escaped from a group of Egyptian slavers by running across marshy tidal flats in the REED (not Red) sea where the vehicles of the slavers could not follow, especially when the wind and tides made the area impassible and maybe drowned a couple of the slavers. This became a story about the parting of a veritable ocean *à la * Charleton Heston.
Now there probably were a lot of tribes around who consoled themslves with the belief that God really loved them most. The Jewish writings might have been lost along with those of other tribes, but as luck would have it, a splinter group of Judaism founded by a rabbi crucified by the Romans becameone of many competing mystery religions in the later Roman Empire. The cults of Mithra and Isis also gave Chrsitianity a rin for its money. With a few different twists in history, mswas, people like you, might today be defending Mithra as the true God, to atheists like me.
And as Christianity became an international religion, it could no longer continue to say that God loved only the Jews. So the Old Testament was kept, a New Testament compiled from various writings and letters, and the concept of God’s love was extended to include everyone.
Either that or the switch from indifference to love for 98% of the human race makes your God out to be some sort of neurotic at best. 
I prefer purity of essence. My bodily fluids are precious to me.
Most religion at that time was based off of tribal superiority. It was ‘My God can beat up your God.’, most tribes accepted that the gods of other tribes were as real as theirs, only less powerful and capable of being killed. This is why the Jews would lop off the heads of the statues of a tribes God when they conquered them. One thing that having a single God provided for the Jews was an extreme level of social cohesion, a cohesion that throughout the limited time span we call ‘history’ has not been matched by any other tribe or cultural entity.
Christians believe that the God of the OT and NT are the same being. Jews do not necessarily, because they don’t necessarily believe that Christianity has any merits, some Jews don’t even believe there was ever a real person named Jesus Christ, much less that his Mother was impregnated by God. You don’t have to wait until a Jew says “God Loves You”, but I gave you the answer so you can understand Christianity a bit better. The argument you were making expected Christians to justify the feelings of the OT God, something that is not really applicable to their faith, because prior to the revelation of Jesus Christ, there was a different paradigm in effect. According to some sects Christ redeemed all people who came before. Also, the notion of eternal life for a Christian and a Jew is a bit difference. The Eternal Life Heaven reward of Christianity doesn’t exist in the same way in Judaism. Their eternal life has more to do with being the ‘Eternal Tribe’.
YHVH, yup.
The individualist mindset you are applying to your judgments is a relatively new development. Punishments of that time were meted out much more on a tribal level. The covenant of Abraham was not between God and individual Jews, but between God and the tribe.
Christ, as opposed to Jesus who was the earthly vessel for Christ was the son of God, ie the first created, so yes he would have seen the massacre at Jericho. I don’t know how Christ reacted to the whole thing.
You say ‘My God’ as though the term has any relevance, it does not. You are taking this more personally than I am. I dunno, I’ve always found the notion of Jewish supremacy to be rather facile and stupid. I don’t believe that God now or ever Loved the Jews apart from the rest of creation.
God works in mysterious ways.
I have long thought that what the Jews had that was special was their level of social cohesion. The laws that were passed down through the ages for the Jews have maintained that social cohesion. It is pretty amazing, if not miraculous that the Jews after their worst tribulation ever (the Holocaust) were capable of retaking Israel from diaspora scattered across the globe.
Their Gods probably did love them most. There was a good discussion of Jewish Henotheism not too long ago on this board about whether or not the Ten Commandments accept the existance of other Gods. Essentially it goes like this: The Jewish God is really real, and the other ‘pagan’ Gods are fabrications of the tribes that worshipped them. I am not defending any name for God. My God has no one name. I can alternate between Christ, Shiva, YHVH, Allah at the drop of a hat. It makes me unpopular amongst fundamentalist radicals of all stripes, those who believe in God and those who don’t. Jesus Christ has a lot in common with Mithras, and there is actually a lot of evidence of such a redeemer archetype found throughout many world religions. If you delve a little bit deeper into the cults of Mithras and Christianity you will see a lot in how the Roman Empire and the Christian church of Peter synthesized. There is also a heavy Manichean strain to modern Christianity with their obsession with Good and Evil.
Except the Jews, who he now hated for denying his only begotten son. Thus the torture of the Jews in diaspora at the hands of the Christian masses.
Or perhaps there was some grand strategy of YHVH’s to become the supreme deity. Who knows?
I can understand your ability to alternate between “Allah” and “God” because “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for God. It is not exclusively the Muslim word. Just like the word “dios” in Spanish is not the Roman Catholic term for God. To be sure, most of the people who say it are Roman Catholic. But the growing number of Spanish-speaking Protestants also use “dios”. Similarly, Christian Arabs say “Allah” when speaking Arabic. Similarly, “dieu” is used by both French Protestants and French Catholics.
But do you agree that Allah and God are the same Abrahamic God (as opposed to Shiva, who to my knowledge is never alleged to have dealt with Abraham)? So I do not know how you can use “Shiva” and “YHVH or Allah” interchangeably when the sacred writings about both make them out as quite different.
Also, I trust your belief system is not soooo very broad and open as to allow you to entertain two contradictory and mutually exclusive opinions at the same time? Because if you can believe in “Allah”, do you believe that “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger”?
If you believe that, then you cannot ignore the fact that the Koran says explicitly that Jesus was NOT the son of the God of Abraham.
But the Bible says he WAS the son of the God of Abraham.
So you cannot subscribe to both views at once, can you? Unless you practise George Orwell’s doublethink.
By the way, saying God works in mysterious ways when you can’t answer something is a cop-out and a concession in a rational discussion.
Correct
According to some. My point is that there is one God with many faces depending on which culture is doing the viewing.
Yes, I believe that, but not exclusively. Mohammed can be his messenger and there be only one God.
The bible was written by priests with political agendas.
Mohammed was also a man, and so were all the followers that wrote down what he said.
I am required to have an answer to every question? I don’t know everything, I’m sorry if that disappoints you.
Going a bit further on the comments to mswas, there are some aspects of one religion that is addressed as evil in another, one such example is denial that Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of the Antichrist in the Bible.
You were referring to the NT which was written by outcasts and outlaws.
Outlaw priests with a political agenda. What’s your point?
But when this many-faced God (or in the case of Hindus “Gods”) tells you contradictory versions of an alleged truth, which do you believe?
Do you agree that Jesus cannot both be and not be the Son of God? So who is wrong, the Koran or the NT? We are not talking about the NT and the Koran disagreeing on some minor point, here. We are talking about a doctrine that is pretty much central to Christianity. And why would this many-faced God of yours confuse us by producing two conflicting stories about Jesus being or not being His son, within 600 years of each other, within a short distance of each other in the Middle East, and then let both religions with their contradictory messages about the divinity of Jesus spread all over the world?
Wait, I have a theory! God is actually like the Romans who set gladiators fighting for their amusement. He founded Christianity and Islam with his revelations so they would provide him entertainment with killing and slaughter.
As I often have to point out, retreating to the “ineffable” nature of God doesn’t much help. If we can’t understand how God loves the world, why, or what that REALLY involves, then the claim is not only unjustified, but almost nonsensical. It could mean virtually anything at all.
Valteron It’s quite simple. There is only one God, not multiple Gods. I do not believe in the inerrancy of religious doctrine. The Koran and Bible are both dead works, in that they have been written and cannot, or should not be altered, based upon the proscriptions of their authors. In otherwords, they are the ‘shit’ of the intellectual life of the world. Just like shit, it has a high nutritive content and life can grow from the fertile soil that it provides. However, it should not be confused with the light from above that is providing sustenance here and now, and is the only thing that is actually true.
I’m sorry I missed this before. This is a good point.
I have a direct response to it, but I want to hear your answer to a related point first.
Intelligence is uncreated, simply exists and has always existed.
There’s no evidence a god type being even exists, or that one is even possible. Now you’re setting limits on numbers. Why should anyone believe you over some random polytheist ? How do you know there aren’t a dozen or a billion or a googleplex of Gods ?
Wrong. We evolved.
OK, I’ll bite the bullet and attempt to give a description of my interpretation of what Catholics mean by the phrase “God loves you.”
The Way for Christians to live is according to God’s will. Now, lest you think I’m nuts, figuring out what the Hell (hehe) God’s will is is not easy by a long shot. It takes time, effort, prayer, and a great deal many other things. Ignatius of Loyola is particularly eloquent on this topic. And of course it goes without saying that voices, especially voices telling people to burn things are not from God.
The point of all this is that although specifics of His will are unclear, generally speaking it can be said that God wants every one of His children to succeed in the purpose they were created for. God wants everyone to have Joy (not happiness, get back to this later), and to practice Agape continuously throughout life.
The simplest definition of Agape is “the gift of oneself for another’s sake.” Human agape is limited, but God’s is infinite and eternal. God gives Himself infinitely to everyone who will receive it. This love is unconditional and catch free. The more one practices Agape in his or her life, the more readily they will receive God’s love. “God loves you” is a way of expressing God’s modus operandi. Yes, it is very often spoken in error, or with a venomous tongue, but that does not invalidate what truly Christian Christians mean.
I can address some objections that I’ve read in this thread so far. First and foremost, is that unconditional love is insane/irrational. If love meant “the warm fuzzies” or “a wish for the other to be happy,” then yes, that would be insane. To use the examples of the child rapist or the wife abuser, yes it is irrational to wish the abuser or the rapist to be happy and to not be held accountable for their actions. But that’s not what Agape is. In Catholic theology, God’s Love is equivalent to God’s Justice. (OT, brimstone, yes yes that’s grounds for another thread). The point is that it’s possible to love somebody, even a very evil person, without being insane.
For example, the Pope was shot and almost killed by a Turkish extremist. The expected reaction for most people in such an instance would be to hate the assailant, or at the very least wash their hands of him. The Pope however, forgave him and expressed a desire for him to become a healthy person. In short, hate binds the person and love sets it free.
Umm… that’s all for now. I hope I expressed myself without using too many theological buzzwords and also without sounding too preachy.
Oh, I forgot to explain the difference between joy and happiness. Joy is the contentment and peace from living a holy life. Happiness comes from having a nice meal or perhaps winning the lottery. Joy comes from loving God, self, and others.
What does it mean, then, to say, “God loves you?”
In your theology of God, is there no eternal damnation?
If not, you are certainly at odds with Christian tradition…
In standard Christian theology a fair percentage of souls will be bound by God into hell eternally. Even on earth here, a fair percentage are “bound” in many ways–physically bound to pain and suffering; mental anguish; retardation; …all sorts of ways that keep them from establishing a relationship with God because the world does not make sense to them or they are incapable of understanding it.