Dawkins describes the god of the bible
Is God LOVE ?
I could say that they have a small measure of human in them, as we have a measure of animal in us.
YES, dear Satanus (again, peace to you!)... because we all have the same SPIRIT. Thus, there really is no superiority of man over beast. Animals are in subjection to us the same way as woman is to man: that the one so directed must CARE for the other, as he would care for himself. Man to woman, man to beast. Having another living creature in subjection is NOT a license to dominate the other to its injury. It is a commission to care for the other, to the best of one's ability.
Some do have love... for their own kind and for man... in as real a sense as some humans do. Not eros love... but agape love, definitely!
Thank you for your kind words and "seeing" what I meant!
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
Despite her not being traditional in her Christianity, AGuest's first comment on page one of this thread describes the traditional view of Christianity: Accept it and embrace it first, then you will understand it. It's classic for being misled. Once you accept it, you will look for ways to prove it to yourself. That includes the statement that "God is love."
I am pretty confident that the writer of the words meant just what traditional Christianity (and JW's) teach about "God is love." The writer seemed to indicate that God is the prime example and source of all love.
I have to agree with Dawkins in TheTrueOne's post above. God is a lousy example according to the scriptures. Even without the scriptures, an observant human can decide for himself if God is involved in human affairs in some loving way.
In my experience christians play silly games with definitions of words like love. They assert that "god is love" and then abandon all reasonable understanding of what love means.
Since god ordered the genocide of at least 14 million Canaanites, including the cold blooded murder of thousands of babies then in some way we can't understand that must be "loving".
Since god will send millions to eternal torture in hell that too must be an act of "love".
Words can mean anything we want them to mean - If god is "love" then I have not got the faintest idea what the word means; except I do know - and the god of the bible does not fit any sensible definition.
Conversely christians who buy into the horrors of the bible do not "love" god - they have a bad case of the Stockholm Syndrome
Despite her not being traditional in her Christianity, AGuest's first comment on page one of this thread describes the traditional view of Christianity: Accept it and embrace it first, then you will understand it.
Good try, Jer (peace to you!), but I described nothing of the sort. I realize you learned... and thus, have taken away... a lot from the WTBTS. For example, making statements like the one above in the hopes (well, for some, knowledge) that others will take it at face value and believe it true... and not bother to go back and read what AGuest actually posted (or, say, look up the verses they SAY say such and so).
Since I am still here, however, I must state that what you've stated here is inaccurate, indeed incorrect.
But, again, good try... and, again, peace to you.
A slave of Christ,
However, the jump from some animals have some love to god is love is impossible to make, even if biblegod did exist. Inferring from the nature of the universe the nature of god would paint him as a predator, as that is much more prevalent than is love. The hindu trinity which represents the 3 principles, creation, maintanence and destruction is more closer to reality in this universe than the christian 'god is love' pretense.
Yes, all the same spirit. However, when you get out of your mind, out of ego, out of words and sounds. When you get into that/your spirit, is it love? Or, is it just peace, tranquility, union?
If God is love why did he let one of his bad angles tempt his own creation Adam and Eve and ruin what he created in the first place.
A god of love wouldn't have just stared, watched and done nothing, as Satan proceeded to tempt the unknowing mortal two.
Should Adam and Eve be held accountable for their actions when they didn't have the capacity of what was good and what was evil
before eating the fruit ?
why did he let one of his bad angles tempt his own creation
Was it an obtuse angle?
Aguest Yes, all the same spirit. However, when you get out of your mind, out of ego, out of words and sounds. When you get into that/your spirit, is it love?
Not necessarily, dear Satanus (again, peace to you!). Regardless of whether or not you are "out" of such things, it really hinges on (1) what comes out of you, and (2) what you allow in. If, regardless of transcendation of the flesh (which is what you're suggesting), what you project lacks love... it does so because there is no love IN you. Regardless of what you "got into"... or your spirit. To the same degree, if you are unwilling... or unable... to allow love IN. Because what comes OUT... is what's IN. Transcend the flesh all you wish to/can do... until you come to your purest form. But even then, it could be that there is no love IN you.
Or, is it just peace, tranquility, union?
It is not. That I am peaceful/at peace/tranquility/in union with myself does not mean I LOVE. That I LOVE, however, is MANIFEST... in my peace with, tranquilty toward, or union with others. Starting with God and Christ, then my brother, neighbor, strangers, enemies.
And it the same with myself: while I can be in a state of peace, tranquility, even union in a given moment... does not necessarily mean I love myself. However, if I love myself I will, naturally, be at peace, tranquil, and in union with myself. In every moment.
I hope this helps and, again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,