Other gods or Other God?

[Willamena]

...But I can't accept that there is no such thing as love. ...Love is still Love.

Love, relatively speaking, is still love. (A rose, by any other name...)

I am saying that I think Love is Something More than a relative term.

It is, indeed. But it's objective usefulness is still dependent upon each of us. "Objective" is one of the perspectives by which we view the world.

I don't see you as combative --I see you as forgiving, in fact.

 

[logician]

What has a supposed god to do with love?

 

[Mike182]

are there other Gods than the ones i believe in?

"God" is a title, a title that has been given to many ideas and suggestions by many people throughout history.

are these concepts, thoughts, ideas, statues, miracles, disasters, people, things etc, that have been entitled God or Gods by others, the same as the thing you have entitled God? are they comparable?

so, to answer the question, yes. i do think that what i have entitled God is comparable to what others have entitled God, i accept that other people have entitled something God that i would not entitle God, and there are cases where i disagree with what has been entitled God. does our labelling have any bearing on what may be best conceived of as absolute truth about life, the universe and everything? "I don't know man, I didn't do it." is the only answer i have to hand.




i've not read this whole thread, i don't know what started this discussion about what love is, but in my opinion, if one is going to concider love, peace, and all the positive virtues of life to be Godly, then one must accept the flip side of these to also be Godly, to be of God.

for those who hold to the expression that "God is Love", if you hold God to be synonymous with love, then it is my opinion that you should also accept that "God is Hate", that love and hate go hand in hand, they can't be separated in that they either exist together, or neither exist at all.

but that's just my view of the world, that it must be balanced, or it must not be at all.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm not sure. Reason leads me to believe in an objective reality but I've never experienced it.
Experience of anything without a 'someone' to experience it is a concept that I could not get my head around. Without the observer it seems meaningless.

Calculus existed before I understood it. Mathmatical equations can be true before anyone figures out the proof.

I agree that experience requires a someone, which is why God, and more specifically the Trinity, makes sense to me.

 

[lunamoth]

But justification isn't "justification" to the one doing it. Self-reflection is the end of that vicious circle.

I think it is often the case that justification is justification to the one doing it, and I agree it takes self-reflection to bring that to the surface. But, we observe that we justify our actions which means we have an internal standard of right and wrong. The details of right and wrong may change but the concept that there is right and wrong does not.

Does he? So you know for a fact that "God" hasn't told Pat Robertson what to believe? Are his beliefs "false"? And if they come from "God" according to him, is his "God" false? And if so, how do you know?

As I said in my post to Willa, I believe the same light shines on us all. What we absorb and use and reflects depends on us. I think that the light is meant for love, healing, nurturing, like sunlight is used for photosynthesis. It can also end up causing destruction if it is misdirected, such as how UV damages DNA if the proper protective mechanisms are not working properly.

Idols and false gods, IMO, are malfunctioning protective mechanisms, and veils that keep out the light.

But, you bring up an interesting point. There is an element of faith that is radical, beyond ethics. If Pat is compelled to do or say something there is nothing that can convince him that he is wrong. Whether he has been compelled by God, an abusive upbringing, or insanity, we can't know. Abraham fully intended to kill Isaac, and he is held up as the model of perfect faith, but by any conventional ethics he was an intentional murderer. Nevertheless, if someone told me that God told them to kill their child, I'd say that's not God.

I'm not trying to convince you to agree with him. I'm simply pointing out that you don't get to decide for him what "love" is supposed to be any more than I can decide for you whether "Something More" is a "true" or "false" god.

I can't make any decisions for Pat. But I can say that hatred is not love and I will judge that hatred is wrong, no matter what (mixed up ) ideas Pat has about love.

 

[lunamoth]

That depends on what you are calling "love," and what you seek to achieve by it.

Well, to me love is selfless loving-kindness, healing, feeding, listening, nurturing. Seeking the face of God in everyone around me, and realizing that I am one with others. To want the greatest well-being and happiness for others, to ease suffering where I can.

I have my own definition, and I can tell what it does for me. But I suspect you'll not care to accept that definition for your own use. In fact, I'm almost certain you won't.

I'd be interested to hear it and I'd be surprised if I disagree. It's been in your ideas and writings about Love that I've most strongly agreed with you and where you have most influenced me, although we tend to use different words to describe it.

 

[lunamoth]

Love, relatively speaking, is still love. (A rose, by any other name...)

This makes sense to me because love, like the rose, has a constant quality. Kudzu is not a rose, even if I call it one.

It is, indeed. But it's objective usefulness is still dependent upon each of us. "Objective" is one of the perspectives by which we view the world.

Objective is completely dependable.

I don't see you as combative --I see you as forgiving, in fact.

Thank you.

 

[lunamoth]

so, to answer the question, yes. i do think that what i have entitled God is comparable to what others have entitled God, i accept that other people have entitled something God that i would not entitle God, and there are cases where i disagree with what has been entitled God. does our labelling have any bearing on what may be best conceived of as absolute truth about life, the universe and everything? "I don't know man, I didn't do it." is the only answer i have to hand.

I think that's a good answer to that particular question. We may not be certain what that absolute is, but we trust that we can have reasonably good approximations of it. That we have different approximations does not mean we are wrong, but we are different.

i've not read this whole thread, i don't know what started this discussion about what love is, but in my opinion, if one is going to concider love, peace, and all the positive virtues of life to be Godly, then one must accept the flip side of these to also be Godly, to be of God.

for those who hold to the expression that "God is Love", if you hold God to be synonymous with love, then it is my opinion that you should also accept that "God is Hate", that love and hate go hand in hand, they can't be separated in that they either exist together, or neither exist at all.

I don't think you have to believe that God is hate in order to believe that God is love. That does not really make sense to me.

but that's just my view of the world, that it must be balanced, or it must not be at all.

To think about the world we need balance, yin and yang, but we don't need hate. I really think we could live without it.

 

[lunamoth]

"I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is."

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[cardero]

What do you see as the distinction between there being 'other gods' as compared to there beng different understandings of one God?

AM I the ONE TRUE GOD? No. YOU are ALL Gods. AM I the "oldest" GOD? YES!

HELLO IT'S ME: An Interview With GOD
Chapter: GOD's Beginning's and Our Relationship To Reality
Pg: 335

 

[Mike182]

I think that's a good answer to that particular question. We may not be certain what that absolute is, but we trust that we can have reasonably good approximations of it. That we have different approximations does not mean we are wrong, but we are different.

I don't think you have to believe that God is hate in order to believe that God is love. That does not really make sense to me.

well, honestly i'm making a few assumptions.

1) i assume that God is the creator.
2) i assume love was created by God.

to then equate God, creator, with love, created, it makes no sense to deny the same relationship between God and hate.

To think about the world we need balance, yin and yang, but we don't need hate. I really think we could live without it.

i don't.

 

[UnityNow101]

We all have been following opinions and ideas about God and who/what it may be...
The truth is that an idea or mere words can never be the object being talked about. We are simply hanging on the opinions and ideas of another...
Some believe the opinion of what is written in the Bible, even though they have not seen it.
Others believe what is written in the Koran, even though it cannot be verified.
People believe many things concerning God, all of them being unverifiable.
We have put our faith in mere opinions and ideas which has in turn caused all of the strife and seperation that you see in the world today. We should probably all just take a step back and say that we could be all be wrong. We live in an age of reason and understanding, not in an age of blind belief.

 

[Willamena]

What has a supposed god to do with love?

What is love? (to you, of course)

 

[Willamena]

The details of right and wrong may change but the concept that there is right and wrong does not.

What is a concept? Isn't it a type of idea?

 

[Willamena]

This makes sense to me because love, like the rose, has a constant quality. Kudzu is not a rose, even if I call it one.

Kudzu is still kudzu. (A rose by any other name...)

Objective is completely dependable.

... to me.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't love extreme appreciation?

 

[lunamoth]

Oh my, we need to end with a better definition of love than that.



1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[Valjean]

Think about it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Regarding love, I think Yeats captured it in Brown Penny, I've posted a piece from it below

O love is the crooked thing,
There is nobody wise enough
To find out all that is in it,
For he would be thinking of love
Till the stars had run away
And the shadows eaten the moon.

 

[Willamena]

I find love in relativity, that is in "things in relation to things," including and especially this thing called "me".