# God is Love



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us).. then why are we trying to understand or define God in a rational or logical way?

Can we define love? Can we understand love? Can we rationalize love? No.

Love is a feeling... we can't explain it, but we feel it, we like it, we want more of it. 

So if God is Love, then God is a feeling. Can't explain feelings, they just exist. We don't choose them, we can't escape them. Feelings come uninvited and sometimes they're wonderful and sometimes they're kinda sucky. However... we can't explain them.


Some people that don't believe in God like to judge, make fun of, or question the people that do believe. Would you also question someone who was in love? Would you make fun of and judge someone that was in love? Probably... if you've never experienced love.

But what if one day you do fall in love? Won't you feel silly then, my friend? 

Imagine how a person in love views a person who has never been in love... (with pity? perhaps)

Don't judge, just because you don't understand. Don't try to understand everything, sometimes it's ok to just feel. Go outside, feel the wind, the rain, the sun, the snow... feel the music, the quietness, the birds singing...

Sometimes... we just need to stop and FEEL. It seems that many of us forgot, we are too busy trying to sound smart. So what if I appear stupid? I rather be considered stupid but happy then smart and unhappy. I've been on both sides of the fence so now I can make my choice.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Can't explain feelings, they just exist.


Ever tried science?


----------



## Salamandre (Aug 8, 2012)

Madam said:


> Ever tried science?


Science can be classified as irrational as there would never be an conclusive truth unless you like to aggrandize the most practical approaches based on current circumstances. But just about anything which is not a universal medium can be considered irrational. So the better question is why judgers(usually) believe the world can be "one". Or an microcosm that super cedes the macrocosm


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

o.o uhm op...we can and do define love based on science...and here it is:


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Besides your first sentence, what has the rest of it got to do with God being love?
Besides, we can explain love, we can explain why it happens and how it happens. There is nothing mysterious about it, this isn't the middle ages.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Everyone experiences love differently based on their own internal definition of the world love. So love can be defined since we all define it in different ways, we could group all those definitions into one category that defines love on a more global encompassing way. By defining and categorizing it we can study it looking for the underlying implications of the word and why it differentiates in feelings per individual. That would help us in rationalizing love through the bigger perspective of how the word affects others and the environment. By knowing that and going off of what you declare God to be, we can deduce that God in fact can be defined, studied, understood, and rationalized.

Also by you telling us that we need to feel more and do less rationalizing you're implying that people who react off of their emotions in a much more stronger way naturally than ones who don't like to go off of their feelings naturally, are more inclined to relating with your set God. In other words your suggesting that people who rely on Logic are wrong, flawed creatures because it is their natural thought process since birth. Your post Op screams subjectivity that hasn't been thought through.


----------



## ibage (May 5, 2012)

I might be wrong here, but I get the feeling this is one of those "If you explain it, it won't be as mystical" kinda thing. I can understand that mentality but you also need to keep an open mind. Not long ago in human history, we worshiped the sun. In this day and age, we know it's a burning ball of gas. Does knowing what the sun is devalue it? Without it, we couldn't exist. But what's more is that question we answered opened up the floodgates to even more questions. 

If it were possible to "sum up" love in mathematics or science, does it change the fact you're still feeling it? I like the feelings I have and if you showed me a diagram on how it all works, I still wouldn't care. Why does it really matter if you can explain something or not? If you take joy in those feelings, it shouldn't matter if you know how it comes to be or not. 

The only way I think I can summarize this is to remind everyone to keep an open mind. Consider the possibility that science and spirituality might be able to explain things in different ways.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Madam said:


> Ever tried science?


no


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Rim said:


> o.o uhm op...we can and do define love based on science...and here it is:


Explaining love and feeling in love are two very different things...just like explaining God and believing in God are very different.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> Besides your first sentence, what has the rest of it got to do with God being love?
> Besides, we can explain love, we can explain why it happens and how it happens. There is nothing mysterious about it, this isn't the middle ages.


I was comparing the two.


----------



## CupNoodle (Sep 15, 2012)

This post is funny.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Explaining love and feeling in love are two very different things...just like explaining God and believing in God are very different.


What is this feeling in love you speak of?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Radiant Truth said:


> Everyone experiences love differently based on their own internal definition of the world love. So love can be defined since we all define it in different ways, we could group all those definitions into one category that defines love on a more global encompassing way. By defining and categorizing it we can study it looking for the underlying implications of the word and why it differentiates in feelings per individual. That would help us in rationalizing love through the bigger perspective of how the word affects others and the environment. By knowing that and going off of what you declare God to be, we can deduce that God in fact can be defined, studied, understood, and rationalized.
> 
> Also by you telling us that we need to feel more and do less rationalizing you're implying that people who react off of their emotions in a much more stronger way naturally than ones who don't like to go off of their feelings naturally, are more inclined to relating with your set God. In other words your suggesting that people who rely on Logic are wrong, flawed creatures because it is their natural thought process since birth. Your post Op screams subjectivity that hasn't been thought through.


You're jumping to conclusions based on what you know, or what you think. I don't think Thinkers feel less, I think everyone feels, and I think letting yourself feel is a choice (I've seen feelers in real life capable of not feeling but getting bored with their life being just "blah"... so feelers as well as thinkers have a choice.)


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

ibage said:


> I might be wrong here, but I get the feeling this is one of those "If you explain it, it won't be as mystical" kinda thing. I can understand that mentality but you also need to keep an open mind. Not long ago in human history, we worshiped the sun. In this day and age, we know it's a burning ball of gas. Does knowing what the sun is devalue it? Without it, we couldn't exist. But what's more is that question we answered opened up the floodgates to even more questions.
> 
> If it were possible to "sum up" love in mathematics or science, does it change the fact you're still feeling it? I like the feelings I have and if you showed me a diagram on how it all works, I still wouldn't care. Why does it really matter if you can explain something or not? If you take joy in those feelings, it shouldn't matter if you know how it comes to be or not.
> 
> The only way I think I can summarize this is to remind everyone to keep an open mind. Consider the possibility that science and spirituality might be able to explain things in different ways.


Does it matter that they worshiped the sun? To me, it doesn't. They still believed in something greater then them. We don't know what God is supposed to look like, and some people need a visual (we are humans after all), the idea is still that those people "knew" that there is something greater then them just like we "know" when we feel love. 

I"m not sure if you're trying to agree or disagree with your post, I do have an open mind so I'm not sure who you were referring to.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> What is this feeling in love you speak of?


You'll know it when you feel it and then you won't ask because you'll know it cannot be explained.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> You'll know it when you feel it and then you won't ask because you'll know it cannot be explained.


All of these can be explained, there is nothing mysterious about human feelings. They're just the product of chemical reactions. Unless your talking about some spiritual feeling because of love, sort of like Native Americans and Peyote. But the explanation is the same, there isn't anything mystical or special about either of them.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Explaining love and feeling in love are two very different things...just like explaining God and believing in God are very different.


o.o hmm I see your point. So this is similar to how I just know by instinct at the snap of my finger what the best ethical course of action is and have always known even when I was a kid, because "I feel it in my bones". There is a certainty involved that is difficult to explain...just like when you know you are in love. I can dissect my "feelings" and they seem to be logically the correct response to the information my mind is receiving at the time. ._. all of this is just how I'm wired/programmed to function, same as others who are not. It can be explained.

I'm not sure God exists and I don't feel it. You see my nature is that of a skeptic, doubter and seeker of the truth. So I like to question, doubt and figure things out. Its fun and intriguing. I prefer that over the certainty of either side of this debate. 

This however doesn't excuse the shit ppl do in the name of God, science, other gods and what name you that compels them to idiocy and malice.


----------



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

ibage said:


> The only way I think I can summarize this is to remind everyone to keep an open mind. Consider the possibility that science and spirituality might be able to explain things in different ways.


THIS

Everything can be explained in a left or right brain way. You can view love as a mystical, spiritual, force or as a set of chemical reactions that have no true meaning. Both are valid definitions it just boils down to how you want to view it.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

The OP is talking about the _quale_ "love" not the neurological and physiological phenomena that accompany/cause it.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> All of these can be explained, there is nothing mysterious about human feelings. They're just the product of chemical reactions. Unless your talking about some spiritual feeling because of love, sort of like Native Americans and Peyote. But the explanation is the same, there isn't anything mystical or special about either of them.


Scientists explain the how, but the how is limited...

I saw a quote by Einstein that says : "There are two ways to live: You can live as if nothing is a miracle or you can live as if everything is a miracle" (not sure if exact words but something like that).

So I know it's a choice of how we want to see it, and that's what I'm trying to say. We have the choice to rely on our feelings more (which in my opinion means to be happier), or we have the choice to rationalize everything and go with science which is very limited in its' explanations in my opinion.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Rim said:


> o.o hmm I see your point. So this is similar to how I just know by instinct at the snap of my finger what the best ethical course of action is and have always known even when I was a kid, because "I feel it in my bones". There is a certainty involved that is difficult to explain...just like when you know you are in love. I can dissect my "feelings" and they seem to be logically the correct response to the information my mind is receiving at the time. ._. all of this is just how I'm wired/programmed to function, same as others who are not. It can be explained.
> 
> I'm not sure God exists and I don't feel it. You see my nature is that of a skeptic, doubter and seeker of the truth. So I like to question, doubt and figure things out. Its fun and intriguing. I prefer that over the certainty of either side of this debate.
> 
> This however doesn't excuse the shit ppl do in the name of God, science, other gods and what name you that compels them to idiocy and malice.


Right, plus when you love someone (another human), no matter how much you want to rationalize it, you can't. For example my boyfriend and I... at first I thought we were very different, not compatible and also the long distance was not ok. I broke up with him numerous times but still ended up going back because of that feeling pulling me towards him. Science might be able to explain it as a "chemical imbalance in the brain"... but that is so limited isn't it? If chemical imbalance is me feeling like this then ok, I'll take it! I prefer being imbalanced then balanced in this case because once I accepted the feeling of "love not being able to be rationlized"... I quite enjoy it. I used to be afraid of feelings but now, even if it's a sad feeling, I accept it more and I enjoy it more, it's better (for me anyway) then seeing life as "blah, meh, boring". And I have that choice to feel or not to feel, and everyone has that choice once they stop letting fear get in the way.

I used to be skeptical too and I didn't believe in God for a very long time because of what religions are doing "in the name of God". I don't believe in the same way religions believe, my beliefs are pure love, there is NO hate, no revenge, no fear, no negative feelings whatsoever. I just feel.... love. But a pure, selfless, magical feeling of love, not the love we think is love (that obsession or attachment to another person)... I don't think people really know love until they stop living in fear.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Words fail to fully capture the love as they by definition abstract over primitives. That is, since love is a feeling, it must be experienced in order for any conceptualization to obtain a point of reference. Just imagine an alien asking this question and try providing a descriptive answer without leaving behind any hidden assumptions. One can cover the entire evolutionary/sociological/cultural history of the human race but fail to convey the experience itself. Thus, the premise relies on the fact that the reader of the language is capable or has already felt the aspects of the noumena through say genetic priors. The same argument extends to supernatural experiences deemed "religious". Words provide a means for broaching the noumena via say a triggering of associations/experiences. However, such associations/experiences are bound to vary by subject.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Scientists explain the how, but the how is limited...
> 
> I saw a quote by Einstein that says : "There are two ways to live: You can live as if nothing is a miracle or you can live as if everything is a miracle" (not sure if exact words but something like that).
> 
> So I know it's a choice of how we want to see it, and that's what I'm trying to say. We have the choice to rely on our feelings more (which in my opinion means to be happier), or we have the choice to rationalize everything and go with science which is very limited in its' explanations in my opinion.


What do you mean? Scientists canexplain the how and why of love?
How: Chemical reaction
Why: Perpetuate the species


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> What do you mean? Scientists canexplain the how and why of love?
> How: Chemical reaction
> Why: Perpetuate the species


Right. That is very limited. We understand it partially, until we actually feel it. Once we feel it we can understand it completely. Same with anything. I can describe to you what I look like, but until you see me, you can't get the WHOLE "feel". Just because things can be "explained on paper" doesn't mean we completely understand them, until we experience those things. Am I making sense?


----------



## DarwinsBastard (Apr 27, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Some people that don't believe in God like to judge, make fun of, or question the people that do believe. Would you also question someone who was in love? *Would you make fun of and judge someone that was in love?* Probably... if you've never experienced love.


If the person they were in love with couldn't be seen, measured, or in any way be verified to exist? 

probably.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Words fail to fully capture the love as they by definition abstract over primitives. That is, since love is a feeling, it must be experienced in order for any conceptualization to obtain a point of reference. Just imagine an alien asking this question and try providing a descriptive answer without leaving behind any hidden assumptions. One can cover the entire evolutionary/sociological/cultural history of the human race but fail to convey the experience itself. Thus, the premise relies on the fact that the reader of the language is capable or has already felt the aspects of the noumena through say genetic priors. The same argument extends to supernatural experiences deemed "religious". Words provide a means for broaching the noumena via say a triggering of associations/experiences. However, such associations/experiences are bound to vary by subject.


Right, that's what I was trying to say. The point I was trying to make is that there's no way to logically explain God, since God is a feeling. God is love. You can read about God, in the bible but you can't understand until you feel IT. Well.. pretty much what you said.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

DarwinsBastard said:


> If the person they were in love with couldn't be seen, measured, or in any way be verified to exist?
> 
> probably.


No, I'm talking about people who are in love with other people and they love them so much that they would do anything for them. If you were my friend and I were to tell you that "I love my boyfriend so much I would die for him", but you had never experienced this kind of love before, you would think I'm crazy, right? I'm guessing that rationally, dying for someone else sounds pretty dumb. But according to my feelings, I know I wouldn't have the choice of thinking rationally if I were put in the situation of dying for someone I love.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Right. That is very limited. We understand it partially, until we actually feel it. Once we feel it we can understand it completely. Same with anything. I can describe to you what I look like, but until you see me, you can't get the WHOLE "feel". Just because things can be "explained on paper" doesn't mean we completely understand them, until we experience those things. Am I making sense?


I suppose, but isn't that the same with everything? To know what something is to you, you have to personally experience it. But that's subjective, to objectively understand love, you don't need to experience it.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> I suppose, but isn't that the same with everything? To know what something is to you, you have to personally experience it. But that's subjective, to objectively understand love, you don't need to experience it.


Yes it is the same with everything. 

To objectively understand something is only half-understanding it, until you really experience it. (That's how I see it).

Everything IS subjective. I should say UNDERSTANDING and PERSPECTIVE of everything is subjective. 

I can take anything science says and see it "the other way around". If love is a chemical imbalance in the brain, how do we know that love is not us being chemically balanced and we are born chemically imbalanced? How do scientists know what a chemically balanced brain is supposed to look like? Because it's "normal"? According to who/what? The majority? Who says the majority are the "normal" ones? So basically everything that science comes up with is also subjective.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Yes it is the same with everything.
> 
> To objectively understand something is only half-understanding it, until you really experience it. (That's how I see it).


Well that isn't really true either, I understand that evolution is happening, although I've never personally witnessed it. Also the conclusions you come to from science can be subjective, but not the evidence gathered. I understand your point in regards to who is the normal one, but as we've observed for thousands of years the 'normal' thing is the one that is observed most frequently, there is rarely anything to indicate the opposite of that. Plus there are usually evolutionary reason for why a particular trait is normal.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> Well that isn't really true either, I understand that evolution is happening, although I've never personally witnessed it. Also the conclusions you come to from science can be subjective, but not the evidence gathered. I understand your point in regards to who is the normal one, but as we've observed for thousands of years the 'normal' thing is the one that is observed most frequently, there is rarely anything to indicate the opposite of that. Plus there are usually evolutionary reason for why a particular trait is normal.


Au contraire. 

I think there are many debates focused on what is really "normal" and I'm surprised we even use the word "normal" considering how subjective everything really is. Science is way too limited for me so I guess we can just agree to disagree.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> We have the choice to rely on our feelings more (which in my opinion means to be happier), or we have the choice to rationalize everything and go with science which is very limited in its' explanations.


That would be if the only endeavor in one's life was to find personal happiness via the willful negligence of logic and reasoning, all the while engorging yourself on personal whims (which would eventually lead to a sense of infallibility, arrogance, and ultimately, self-destruction) and irrational thought.

Seems like a meagerly selfish endeavor to me.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> That would be if the only endeavor in one's life was to find personal happiness via the willful negligence of logic and reasoning, all the while engorging yourself on personal whims (which would eventually lead to a sense of infallibility, arrogance, and ultimately, self-destruction) and irrational thought.
> 
> Seems like a meagerly selfish endeavor to me.


Your perspective is quite sad to me if you think that finding personal happiness is selfish.

When a person is truly happy, they contribute much more to the world then when they are miserable, don't you think?


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Your perspective is quite sad to me if you think that finding personal happiness is selfish.
> 
> When a person is truly happy, they contribute much more to the world then when they are miserable, don't you think?


If gone about the manner you're suggesting, it is indeed very selfish.





Life.Is.A.Game said:


> When a person is truly happy, they contribute much more to the world then when they are miserable, don't you think?


Yup. But you also have to consider if their method for happiness is a sustainable one, and that comes down to how they go about finding it and whether or not it's severely flawed. And for that I suggest you re-read my post above.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> If gone about the manner you're suggesting, it is indeed very selfish.


Which manner would that be? Letting feelings guide us? You think that's selfish? When they are pure, and they come from love, there is nothing selfish about it. It's hard to explain really, you'd have to experience to know. 







> Yup. But you also have to consider if their method for happiness is a sustainable one


why?


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Which manner would that be? Letting feelings guide us? You think that's selfish? When they are pure, and they come from love, there is nothing selfish about it. It's hard to explain really, you'd have to experience to know.


Why are you so sure that the one's you have felt are 100% serene? Such absolution, and your implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you hasn't felt 'pure feelings born from love' is awfully _arrogant_ and in itself is just plain silly for how baseless it is.





Life.Is.A.Game said:


> why?





Zippy BawBaw said:


> *all the while engorging yourself on personal whims (which would eventually lead to a sense of infallibility, arrogance, and ultimately, self-destruction) and irrational thought.*


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> Why are you so sure that the one's you have felt are 100% serene? Such absolution, and your implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you hasn't felt 'pure feelings born from love' is awfully _arrogant_ and in itself is just plain silly for how baseless it is.


I didn't say that anyone who doesn't AGREE with me, I said anyone that anyone who didn't EXPERIENCE it, doesn't know. Just like someone who hasn't experienced being "in love" with another person can't understand what it would feel like. I don't think it's arrogant at all, it's the truth.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I didn't say that anyone who doesn't AGREE with me, I said anyone that anyone who didn't EXPERIENCE it, doesn't know. Just like someone who hasn't experienced being "in love" with another person can't understand what it would feel like. I don't think it's arrogant at all, it's the truth.


I'm aware that's not what you said verbatim, ergo the word "implication".


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> I'm aware that's not what you said verbatim, ergo the word "implication".


Well I didn't imply either so I think you just misunderstood. I don't feel like I'm arrogant, I don't think of anyone less then me for not having experienced something. I'm here to shed some light not to judge.


----------



## Brooklaughs (Aug 29, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us)..


I believe you are referring to the New Testament. Comparatively, the Old Testament God is a violent, vindictive God of war and destruction, more of an-eye-for-an-eye God. Whereas the New Testament with its Messiah promotes the love-thy-neighbor, sacrifice for others theme. For these reasons I've always found the "God is Love" message somewhat non-representative. In my opinion the yin/yang concept, even though it does not have Christian roots, is more representative of the Bible's God as a whole. Along these lines I guess the yin/yang concept could also represent Love: the jealous, selfish, destructive side of it as well as the caring, giving, affectionate, selfless side too.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I'm here to shed some light not to judge.


Nothing has been misunderstood on my part, and there is nothing enlightening about your posts. All you're doing is poking at an already mangled equine carcass.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Brooklaughs said:


> I believe you are referring to the New Testament. Comparatively, the Old Testament God is a violent, vindictive God of war and destruction, more of an-eye-for-an-eye God. Whereas the New Testament with its Messiah promotes the love-thy-neighbor, sacrifice for others theme. For these reasons I've always found the "God is Love" message somewhat non-representative. In my opinion the yin/yang concept, even though it does not have Christian roots, is more representative of the Bible's God as a whole. Along these lines I guess the yin/yang concept could also represent Love: the jealous, selfish, destructive side of it as well as the caring, giving, affectionate, selfless side too.


In the old testament, I don't think people really understood God, so they just wrote down how they saw him (or i should say it). 
I believe that is why Jesus came, to teach the people that God is a loving God, and all the other teachings...
But the people are still the ones who WROTE the bible, so indeed it is very confusing, but the message in it I see it as a good message not an evil/scary/bad message how others see it. It's all about perspective. 

I just read a bit about yin and yang, I wasn't very familiar with its meaning. It's a nice theory but I'm not sure i believe it, I have to think about it and analyze it before I make a conclusion.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Zippy BawBaw said:


> Nothing has been misunderstood on my part, and there is nothing enlightening about your posts. All you're doing is poking at an already mangled equine carcass.


Just because you don't find them enlightening doesn't mean no one else does.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I just read a bit about yin and yang, It's a nice theory but I'm not sure i believe it, I have to think about it and analyze it before I make a conclusion.


That doesn't sound like you; what with the thinking and analyzing - surely too scientific an approach for your taste? :tongue:



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> In the old testament, I don't think people really understood God, .... so indeed it is very confusing, but the message in it I see it as a good message not an evil/scary/bad message how others see it. It's all about perspective.


Some say perspective, others would say cherry picking. :wink:

Enough teasing for now, could you tell me more about the love you're feeling? How did you manage to feel this way? If anyone would want to join you, what would it take to - what do we have to do, to experience what you're experiencing?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Bear987 said:


> Enough teasing for now, could you tell me more about the love you're feeling? How did you manage to feel this way? If anyone would want to join you, what would it take to - what do we have to do, to experience what you're experiencing?


I thought you'd never ask, Bear! 

Umm oh geez now I have the explain. You know how much I suck at explaining. 

Well basically what I've experienced, it happened to me multiple times but I keep letting myself "fall" because of my environment and... you know, the fact that we live in a world where most people have a closed minded view on things.

I think it was a "letting go"... letting go of any type of fears (and i don't mean physical fears like heights or spiders, i'm talking about "fear of being unloved, fear of not being good enough.... the fears that we carry with us daily, insecurities i guess i'm trying to say).


I'm at a point in my life right now, where from the outside it looks bad, really bad. I don't have a place to stay (of my own, so i keep living with my older sister, then the younger one... whoever needs me at the time), I have a long distance relationship(which is pretty complicated, besides the distance), that I have no idea when/if we will end up living together, i haven't had a "real job" in a long time now... and yet I'm happier then everyone around me. I have experienced this feeling about a year ago, but living with my older sister drained me, she would go all Fe on me all the time about what I SHOULD do...etc. Anyway, since I'm living with my other sister (she's an introvert so it's all good), i have more time to think... and actually i gathered the ideas from this forum, including with things i have read in the past.

Anyway, so the way I can feel like this is knowing that there is a God, and I am like a vessel. He works through me. He shows his love through the things I do or say, and that's if I "listen" to him. I know I'm talking about "him" in a literal sense but I can't be sure of what he looks like, if it's a he or a she or an it... and so on... but why would I care? It was those questions that made me get away from God in the first place, I used to question everything!! And I was unhappy. 

Back to the idea (sorry so scattered)... I don't see my life as MINE, I see it as being "used" by God, but in a good sense. Well I'm either used by God or by Satan, almost like in a video game, where God has his players and Satan has his players and the point of the game is to obtain more players (players can switch from one side to the other). So, if I think like this, then I feel like I have a purpose, and my purpose is to offer my love, and also through my actions others would learn that loving and living selflessly makes me happy and makes everyone happy. This is a win-win situation. Of course if fear enters my mind, I start getting worried so I try my hardest to maintain this "peaceful" feeling I have.

Did I make any sense and do u have questions? Of course you do... go ahead


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

@Life.Is.A.Game

From what you wrote, I gather that you had to give up a lot recently. Like having no place of your own and a romantic relationship that is not easy to oversee, because of both the long distance and the relationship itself.

From what I have experienced in my life, having things being taken out of your hands can be quite liberating - in a sense. I reckon it opens up the possibility to discover the things that can never be taken from us. Our purpose for instance, or how we will always have a choice in how we treat other people. If I read your post correctly, you talked about both these two things too.

I can see how placing your life into a bigger perspective - a bigger picture, helps to not completely lose hope; to find meaning instead. In any case, your post did make sense to me.

What does your significant other say about these things? Can you talk to him/her about it? How do you see your nearby future? Will you try and find a place of your own? In what way does the love you're feeling affect your plans?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

@Bear987

Ya you pretty much got it, and it is liberating to let go of the control. We want to control everything but when we realize that we can't and how liberating it is to not want to... you just "live and let live" type of thing, it's great.



> What does your significant other say about these things? Can you talk to him/her about it?


I talk to him about it to a certain extent, but every time I we talk I come up with some "crazy theory" lol so I think he just looks at me as being a little "nutty" in the theory department, however I don't think he understands the whole concept but he lives it. He's the one that inspired me in the first place (he's a very optimistic ENFP)... and even though he doesn't analyze his actions very much, he still lives according to the selfless love idea, just not in the complete sense, he still has the need to control some things. But ya, at any rate he's fine with whatever I want to do. I almost moved in with a guy i found on the internet because of not having a place to stay and I was going to exchange services (clean the house and stuff)...and he was ok with it. 




> How do you see your nearby future?


I have no idea. I see life as very unpredictable and I like it that way. I don't know what will happen in the next 5 minutes, you know? Life can change in the "blink of an eye" so plans never made sense to me, plus life is funner when you don't plan stuff.



> Will you try and find a place of your own?


I won't really try anything, I just go with the flow. I live with my little sister now and her husband and child and one child on the way, so I'm actually more of a help then a burden. Once I feel that I'm seen as a burden I will try to move on. I do have other options right now, I could move with my mom or my aunt... I'm sure I could find a place to stay but I"m not worried about that because God will put me where I"m most needed. I stayed with my older sister for one year and we fought like crazy for a while but at the end of it we realized how fast we both "grew" within this year because of our differences, so whatever happened, had to happen that way.



> In what way does the love you're feeling affect your plans?


I don't have any plans so it doesn't. I just AM. I exist, I feel. I love my boyfriend but if we don't end up living together then it wasn't meant to happen. I like to go with the flow of life. I have love for everyone, so I don't consider love for a boyfriend to be limited, nor is distance or space an issue, I will always love him no matter what.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

@Life.Is.A.Game - 

This dialogue reminds me of what you are describing:



> *Sean*: Thought about what you said to me the other day, about my painting. Stayed up half the night thinking about it. Something occurred to me... fell into a deep peaceful sleep, and haven't thought about you since. Do you know what occurred to me?
> *Will*: No.
> *Sean*: You're just a kid, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talkin' about.
> *Will*: Why thank you.
> ...


Source

However, I think that you are making a mistake in equating God with the feeling of love. The Bible says that "God is love," not that God is a feeling or an emotion - one which we experience in our existence. God is not a feeling, even one so powerful and life changing as the feeling we call love. Nor is this love we experience, divine. God is love. Love that exists beyond the boundaries of time and space. Love that always has been and always will be. An over arching entity unto itself - that is God and God is love. The love we experience, which differs between individuals and between relationships, is a result of our interaction with God. The more pure and real our love experienced, the closer our relationship to God. We cannot experience love without experiencing God, since love is the very essence of God.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Bear987 said:


> @Life.Is.A.Game
> 
> From what you wrote, I gather that you had to give up a lot recently.


It wasn't that recent but I've always been very low maintenance. I can live in a box and be happier then many people living in mansions. I've always been like this. I never understood why people get so attached to material things and they always want more and bigger and better... I mean I did understand WHY... insecurities. I just wish that people were more like me but it's very hard to find anyone like me, especially to this extent. 

There was a quote that said "love people and use things not the other way around"... most people live the other way around unfortunately, and they're not happy but they don't want to change it... sad.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

@niss, yes I agree with what you said, I was just trying to make a point that you can't logically explain God. maybe I shouldn't have said he's a feeling, but we don't really know who/what he/she/it is, what I mean to say is that we can FEEL him rather then explain him. WE can't describe him because we've never seen him but we can feel him, like you said, through love...because he IS love. I thought that's what I said but I really do suck at explaining stuff.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> There was a quote that said "love people and use things not the other way around"... most people live the other way around unfortunately, and they're not happy but they don't want to change it... sad.


My favorite version of this quote:


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> It wasn't that recent but I've always been very low maintenance. I can live in a box and be happier then many people living in mansions. I've always been like this. I never understood why people get so attached to material things and they always want more and bigger and better... I mean I did understand WHY... insecurities. I just wish that people were more like me but it's very hard to find anyone like me, especially to this extent.
> 
> There was a quote that said "love people and use things not the other way around"... most people live the other way around unfortunately, and they're not happy but they don't want to change it... sad.


I love that quote; but then, I am a sucker for quotes! I don't have that many material possessions either at the moment. Well, I guess it depends on who you compare me to. I find that owning too much stuff, or expensive stuff just weighs me down. I keep thinking and worrying about the stuff I own: will people steal it, will people damage it and so on. Also, many things need maintenance. I am not into that at all: the stuff I own needs to take care of me, not the other way around!

That last bit might have sounded a little silly, but ultimately, I have found that I am happier having as little as possible. And I am addicted to feeling happy!


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Bear987 said:


> I love that quote; but then, I am a sucker for quotes! I don't have that many material possessions either at the moment. Well, I guess it depends on who you compare me to. I find that owning too much stuff, or expensive stuff just weighs me down. I keep thinking and worrying about the stuff I own: will people steal it, will people damage it and so on. Also, many things need maintenance. I am not into that at all: the stuff I own needs to take care of me, not the other way around!
> 
> That last bit might have sounded a little silly, but ultimately, I have found that I am happier having as little as possible. And I am addicted to feeling happy!


Not silly at all i know exactly how you feel. It's like a spiral, isn't it? You buy something expensive,then you start worrying about it, people start admiring it so now you feel like you gotta buy more expensive things.... and so son, it just goes from bad to worse, where if you live the other way around where you don't really care about material things, but you enjoy being nice and helpful to people, then that spirals as well, from good to better and better  I guess we kinda have to choose one way or another, because if we don't choose and we don't think about it, it's hard to fall really fast, only because this world is very corrupt and the majority of people think they are ok and they are not. You can't solve a problem if you don't think there is a problem.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us).. then why are we trying to understand or define God in a rational or logical way?
> 
> Can we define love? Can we understand love? Can we rationalize love? No.
> 
> ...


Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in your brain... So... God is a chemical reaction in my brain?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Why should anyone take someone who has "Fuck Logic" as their signature? It's both dismissive and contemptuous to everyone else in the human population that doesn't share your primary cognitive function.




Life.Is.A.Game said:


> We have the choice to rely on our feelings more (which in my opinion means to be happier), or we have the choice to rationalize everything and go with science which is very limited in its' explanations in my opinion.



I tried to rely on my feelings to make major life decisions, once upon a time. It did not make me happy. In fact, it made me frustrated, sad, depressed, rejected, and put my mind in a chaotic spiral that went further and further down. 

Every single major mistake I've made in my life was because I "listened to my feelings." 

You have no idea how insulting it is to make the overbearing statement that everyone else must be like you or else we are just worthless, unhappy imbeciles.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Fate said:


> Why anyone take someone who has "Fuck Logic" as their signature? It's both dismissive and contemptuous to everyone else in the human population that doesn't share your primary cognitive function.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My signature is meant as a joke, if you don't find it funny then just dismiss it. 

I started this thread with an opinion, open for debate, if you disagree that's fine, but I didn't say that everyone must be like me... did I?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

It wasn't explicitly stated, but the general attitude is there, that reliance on feelings is inherently superior. Or is it just reliance on whatever it is that you do is inherently superior.

The tone of your posts is so fucking condescending, that I don't know how you actually hope to have a discussion. Do you?

Perhaps there are many more people who are just like you.

Perhaps the world shares your sentiments.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I _don't _understand why people believe that logic and emotion cannot coexist, build upon each other, or intertwine. They're not really "binaries" outside of bullcrap MBTI descriptions, which really aren't describing the two to being with. 

I agree that God is love. It makes logical _sense_ to me within the structures of faith that I've come to _feel _comfortable living with on a day-in day-out basis. If one takes the statement objectively, there's a lot of openness as to how people of pretty much any service-oriented faith of the world are really not that spiritually different from each other. The connection is willing each others' good, and I don't believe that's really tied by cultural or ritual "partition." 

Nobody needs scientific proof for this kind of "God."


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Fate said:


> It wasn't explicitly stated, but the general attitude is there, that reliance on feelings is inherently superior. Or is it just reliance on whatever it is that you do is inherently superior.


I would like a little nuance too. I reckon relying on feelings works best for those who have feelings as their strong suit. All others would indeed do well to also play the hand they're dealt - which might consist of different cards. Come to think of it, if our cards all come from the same deck, we're bound to have different hole cards.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Nobody needs scientific proof for this kind of "God."


Awesome stuff for your 999th post... Have you reached the 1,000 barrier yet?


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> All of these can be explained, there is nothing mysterious about human feelings. They're just the product of chemical reactions. Unless your talking about some spiritual feeling because of love, sort of like Native Americans and Peyote. But the explanation is the same, there isn't anything mystical or special about either of them.


I don't think reductionism could possibly "understand" love, radical behaviourism on the other hand... I think my quote can sum up what love is, pretty nicely.


----------



## AdrianBai (Sep 9, 2012)

Agreed to most of your statements here bro. Thx 4 sharing


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us).. then why are we trying to understand or define God in a rational or logical way?


Anything that's not defined in a rational way is completely meaningless. Of course it might still be true, but we can chuck it aside with the infinite other irrational things that we think of.

If you reject reason, to be fair you must now equally accept every single concept (regardless of validity) as potentially true. In that position you now have no rights to hold an opinion or a judgement.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Can we define love? Can we understand love? Can we rationalize love? No.


Ever tried science? It's pretty rationalized.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Love is a feeling... we can't explain it, but we feel it, we like it, we want more of it.


Neurotransmitters might have something to do with that.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> So if God is Love, then God is a feeling. Can't explain feelings, they just exist. We don't choose them, we can't escape them. Feelings come uninvited and sometimes they're wonderful and sometimes they're kinda sucky. However... we can't explain them.


Too many "if", too little justifications.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Some people that don't believe in God like to judge, make fun of, or question the people that do believe. Would you also question someone who was in love? Would you make fun of and judge someone that was in love? Probably... if you've never experienced love.


o.o
Are you sure you are qualified to say this? Or is this just your introspection illusion.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> But what if one day you do fall in love? Won't you feel silly then, my friend?
> 
> Imagine how a person in love views a person who has never been in love... (with pity? perhaps)


How does this have anything to do with God?



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Don't judge, just because you don't understand. Don't try to understand everything, sometimes it's ok to just feel. Go outside, feel the wind, the rain, the sun, the snow... feel the music, the quietness, the birds singing...
> 
> Sometimes... we just need to stop and FEEL. It seems that many of us forgot, we are too busy trying to sound smart. So what if I appear stupid? I rather be considered stupid but happy then smart and unhappy. *I've been on both sides of the fence* so now I can make my choice.


Is that not just denial then?


Overall I don't understand your point at all. You say God = love, sure then, but can you justify it?
Love has been rationalized, but so far I have yet to see a successful rationalization of God. Does that not kind of break your analogy already?

Half your post has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make...


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us).. then why are we trying to understand or define God in a rational or logical way?
> 
> Can we define love? Can we understand love? Can we rationalize love? No.
> 
> ...


I have a better answer: God(s) is a anthropomorphic metaphor that represents the best and worst in ourselves.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I have a better answer: God(s) is a anthropomorphic metaphor that represents the best and worst in ourselves.


I agree; way to summarize by the way. I bet your post will help @_Life.Is.A.Game_ see that they're walking down 'the wrong road', since I am sure that he or she doesn't hold that God is fictitious at all.

@_Life.Is.A.Game_
If God is a mere human emotion, doesn't that mean that God doesn't exist outside of our own human skin? I ask you this, since I take it you believe God exists on his own.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Bear987 said:


> @_Life.Is.A.Game_
> If God is a mere human emotion, doesn't that mean that God doesn't exist outside of our own human skin? I ask you this, since I take it you believe God exists on his own.


You make me feel so noob for not instantly realising the connection there. :laughing:


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Bear987 said:


> I agree; way to summarize by the way. I bet your post will help @_Life.Is.A.Game_ see that they're walking down 'the wrong road', since I am sure that he or she doesn't hold that God is fictitious at all.
> 
> @_Life.Is.A.Game_
> If God is a mere human emotion, doesn't that mean that God doesn't exist outside of our own human skin? I ask you this, since I take it you believe God exists on his own.


I don't think that God is JUST an emotion, I think he/she/it is much more then that. I most likely didn't explain myself correctly at all.. eh.. I'm used to it. I don't even know if there's any point to continue trying to explain myself since it's difficult with english being my second language and all. 

Basically I think God is everywhere, inside us (as emotions) and outside us (as a creator). I don't think the "negative" emotions are part of God though, I think that God is everything that is good. The negative emotions would be coming from the opposite of God which is the Devil. 

Don't know if I'm making any sense. Sorry, I really have a hard time explaining and it's especially frustrating to explain something that I don't have the details or proof of, but as a big picture it makes sense to me.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

You misinterpreted the bible. God isn't love, he was always order. You're called to find love in placing yourself beneath another.

Doesn't sound very loving to me.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

android654 said:


> You misinterpreted the bible. God isn't love, he was always order. You're called to find love in placing yourself beneath another.
> 
> Doesn't sound very loving to me.


Then what is the correct interpretation of 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16? Specifically where it states that "God is love."


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

niss said:


> Then what is the correct interpretation of 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16? Specifically where it states that "God is love."


1) Those lines refers to Jesus and the crucifixion. If love manifests itself in a display of death, torture and abandonment of his followers, then your concept of love would make a more interesting conversation than the state of a god(s) being.

2)Rather than taking 8 lines from one chapter of a book to explain a character, why not read the book in it's entirety and form an opinion by that character's actual words, his actions and motivations? When you do that it becomes abundantly clear the god is a god of jealousy (Exodus 20:4-5). He tells his people this, while the gospel interprets this megalomania as love. The religion is in effect making it's people experience something akin to battered wife's syndrome. It's not love, it's control and people interpret it as love because they can not break free.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

android654 said:


> 1) Those lines refers to Jesus and the crucifixion. If love manifests itself in a display of death, torture and abandonment of his followers, then your concept of love would make a more interesting conversation than the state of a god(s) being.
> 
> 2)Rather than taking 8 lines from one chapter of a book to explain a character, why not read the book in it's entirety and form an opinion by that character's actual words, his actions and motivations? When you do that it becomes abundantly clear the god is a god of jealousy (Exodus 20:4-5). He tells his people this, while the gospel interprets this megalomania as love. The religion is in effect making it's people experience something akin to battered wife's syndrome. It's not love, it's control and people interpret it as love because they can not break free.


I was really interested in knowing your interpretation of those scriptures in relation to the idea that God is not love, but order, as you posted earlier. My interest was piqued by your claim of misinterpretation by the OP.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Not God is man?


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> God is Love


I've read the Old Testament, and God as depicted in those books sure as hell isn't "love".


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

android654 said:


> 1) It's not love, it's control and people interpret it as love because they can not break free.


That is false. Love IS freedom. (to some more then others I suppose, depending on how each views "love").


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Nowhere Man said:


> I've read the Old Testament, and God as depicted in those books sure as hell isn't "love".


I agree. The old testament is mostly history. The true teachings about real love are those of Jesus, that was the purpose of his coming, to teach people that they have been wrong in their beliefs and to follow him so they can see what real love is.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> That is false. Love IS freedom. (to some more then others I suppose, depending on how each views "love").



I agree that love is free, but the bible teaches that those who follow god are not free.


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I agree. The old testament is mostly history. The true teachings about real love are those of Jesus, that was the purpose of his coming, to teach people that they have been wrong in their beliefs and to follow him so they can see what real love is.


Especially the part about burning in hell.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I agree. The old testament is mostly history. The true teachings about real love are those of Jesus, that was the purpose of his coming, to teach people that they have been wrong in their beliefs and to follow him so they can see what real love is.


You do know that Jesus tells his disciples that they're still supposed to follow *all* of the abrahamic laws and prejudices, right?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

android654 said:


> You do know that Jesus tells his disciples that they're still supposed to follow *all* of the abrahamic laws and prejudices, right?


Where does it say that?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Nowhere Man said:


> Especially the part about burning in hell.


Well I believe most of the bible is made up of metaphors, especially Jesus' teachings. I don't believe in hell being a literal place.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> If God is Love (as the Bible repeatedly tells us).. then why are we trying to understand or define God in a rational or logical way?
> 
> Can we define love? Can we understand love? Can we rationalize love? No.


Interesting that you reference the Bible for the "God is Love" part, but ignore the Bible when you try to define "love." 
If you read it, you find that love is evidenced by concrete actions. So if a man says he loves God or his neighbor there will be corresponding behavior to back up that claim. As with God, He cannot just say that He loves or that He is Love unless He backs up that claim with corresponding concrete and observable actions. 
Go back and read the Bible with that thought in mind and you will see that Love is much more than a feeling. 
Peace.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Where does it say that?





> [SUP]17 [/SUP]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Matthew 5:17

Jesus makes it clear that the laws of the tribes of Israel (permitted rape, racism, slavery, misogyny, rejection of alien cultures, dietary laws, death for heresy, etc) are still expected of those who wish to be permitted into heaven.


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Well I believe most of the bible is made up of metaphors, especially Jesus' teachings. I don't believe in hell being a literal place.


A lot of religious people I know refuse to give a second thought as to whether or not their holy book is to be interpreted literally. It's interesting to note that allegorical writing was the norm in the first century after Christ's supposed existence, so on that point I agree - all the people who wrote about Jesus could have indeed been speaking metaphorically. However, throughout the entire Bible, there are passages which, even if interpreted symbolically, seem undeniably reprehensible. I point specifically, of course, to Jesus's lines concerning hell and the lake of fire. Though due to secular influence, most people no longer quote such barbaric verses. Instead, they emphasize the more positive values found in the Bible, such as unconditional love and treating people as equals. But this picking and choosing of which pieces of scripture to follow violates the Bible's closing statement, which warns future generations not to add or take away from the text, yet that's exactly what Christians must do in order to get along in civilized society.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

android654 said:


> Matthew 5:17
> 
> Jesus makes it clear that the laws of the tribes of Israel (permitted rape, racism, slavery, misogyny, rejection of alien cultures, dietary laws, death for heresy, etc) are still expected of those who wish to be permitted into heaven.


Very interesting that you tell someone else to go back and read the whole of the Bible in context, but then you prooftext and come to fallacious conclusions. I could refute every single thing you've posted up there. 
In fact, when Jesus says that He fulfills the Law, it means that He is the only one who could follow and fulfill the Law to the letter in His actions and behaviors. Not one other person in the history of the world was able to live a sinless and perfect life _according the the Law_...and really, that was the point. No one could fulfill the Law. He did. Game over. 
I think you wish to read the Bible through a warped lens and you're doing a good job of it.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Pucca said:


> Very interesting that you tell someone else to go back and read the whole of the Bible in context, but then you prooftext and come to fallacious conclusions. I could refute every single thing you've posted up there.
> In fact, when Jesus says that He fulfills the Law, it means that He is the only one who could follow and fulfill the Law to the letter in His actions and behaviors. Not one other person in the history of the world was able to live a sinless and perfect life _according the the Law_...and really, that was the point. No one could fulfill the Law. He did. Game over.
> I think you wish to read the Bible through a warped lens and you're doing a good job of it.


Incorrect. The discussion in this chapter of Mathew is about Jesus' role to his people, the conversation of his sacrifice would come later. Despite the fact that Jesus' gift of salvation comes through his death, he still tells his followers that this does not absolve them of sins completely. To be followers of Christ they were intended to do their best with sincerity, but it never removed their obligations to the old laws. Nowhere in the bible are followers of Christ told not to follow the laws of Israel. Perhaps you should go back to read the bible .


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

android654 said:


> Nowhere in the bible are followers of Christ told not to follow the laws of Israel.


You really believe that? The laws of Israel as a nation or as a theocracy are not the laws that Christians are commanded to obey. The Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 freed Gentile converts from adhering to the majority of the *Mosaic law*. Those who are Jews in the flesh, should retain their heritage, but should also realize that following the Law means to follow the Spirit of the Law not the letter. 
To follow the letter mercilessly, without taking into account the treatment of other people, would make one no better than the legalistic scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day whom he rebuked.



android654 said:


> Despite the fact that Jesus' gift of salvation comes through his death, he still tells his followers that this *does not absolve them of sins completely.*


Jesus' sacrifice *completely absolves one from sin*, if one believes in Who He says He is and chooses to follow Him. There is no ordinance or observance that one must do in addition. If one truly believes, then one's life and behavior will reflect it. It is an outflow or proof or fruit of belief, it is not a requirement for salvation. Salvation is a gift, meaning you cannot earn it or attain it by your own works.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

@*Life.Is.A.Game*

By the conventions of reasoning, in order to define something with absolute certainty one must exist outside the system of whatever he is giving definition to as well as prove that the definition of the quality being assigned is objective and correct. To at least be credible in your definition, you must at least be in the same system. Let's just assume your definition of love is objective and correct.

You are giving an absolute definition to God, claiming that he is love. *This means you unconsciously consider yourself to be outside the (or to a lesser extent in the same) system of God.* God is already generally considered outside the system of our universe, so I don't know why you put yourself in such an important position. 

You are claiming control/absolute understanding over God. Reasoning will conclude that in order to make the claim "God = Love" you must consider yourself to be greater than (or at least equal to) God. This seems rather narcissistic and unjustified to me.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Pucca said:


> Jesus' sacrifice *completely absolves one from sin*, if one believes in Who He says He is and chooses to follow Him. There is no ordinance or observance that one must do in addition. If one truly believes, then one's life and behavior will reflect it. It is an outflow or proof or fruit of belief, it is not a requirement for salvation. Salvation is a gift, meaning you cannot earn it or attain it by your own works.


What part of the Bible do I have to follow to be absolved from sins?
I've asked 10 devout Christians already, they all gave me different answers.... I'm sure that means at least 9 of them are going to hell anyway. It's kind of sad... They are so faithful, yet at least 9 of them are denied entry to heaven.

Why can't God be a little nicer. At least make the conditions clear. Or is creating atheists and making the Bible ambiguous his sadistic definition of fun?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

xEmptiness said:


> What part of the Bible do I have to follow to be absolved from sins?
> I've asked 10 devout Christians already, they all gave me different answers.... I'm sure that means at least 9 of them are going to hell anyway. It's kind of sad... They are so faithful, yet at least 9 of them are denied entry to heaven.
> 
> Why can't God be a little nicer. At least make the conditions clear. Or is creating atheists and making the Bible ambiguous his sadistic definition of fun?


This is where she says they're not all going to hell because they follow God and you should follow the whole bible (even though the book contradicts itself). To further state that God doesn't decide if you go to hell but has you choose your path in life, its up to you to figure out Gods meaning in the book. May even use out of bible context to separate her religion from the other abrahamic religions which all come from the old testament and Jesus explicitly states he is not changing the laws. This part of the discussion is always so repetitive. Unless she says something completely different and directly answers the question, that would blow my mind.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> This is where she says they're not all going to hell because they follow God and you should follow the whole bible (even though the book contradicts itself). To further state that God doesn't decide if you go to hell but has you choose your path in life, its up to you to figure out Gods meaning in the book. May even use out of bible context to separate her religion from the other abrahamic religions which all come from the old testament and Jesus explicitly states he is not changing the laws. This part of the discussion is always so repetitive. Unless she says something completely different and directly answers the question, that would blow my mind.


I don't even understand you at all.

1. Do I follow the whole book or not?
2. How do I know which interpretation is correct?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

xEmptiness said:


> I don't even understand you at all.
> 
> 1. Do I follow the whole book or not?
> 2. How do I know which interpretation is correct?


You don't understand me because you assumed I was going against you. I'm just stating how repetitive this part of the religious debate is. For your understanding, I'm not religious and was for 21 years taking my time to ready many religions. I'm not disagreeing with you, I also would like to see her answer. You took my post as an attack, it wasn't intended as so.

1. The old testament to the new testament have many different contradictions so following the whole book means to completely contradict your whole existence.

2. You don't neither does anyone else, the interpretations are subjective to the authors which could imply multiple different underlying meanings. You make up your own interpretation like everyone else does if your religious. Thats why those 10 people all had different answers because different parts of the bible coincided with their personal beliefs, those are the ones they will follow. They won't follow the dark aspects of the bible which are also there in plan writing but instead will suggest that those are metaphors, and the lighter parts of the bible are literal. Good and bad being subjective to the reader.

To state again, I was agreeing with your train of thought not disagreeing, I was agreeing that people indeed do pick and choose specific parts of the bible to follow and that it differs per individual, and I agreed with you questioning @Pucca which part of the bible should you follow. You shouldn't take everything as a personal attack and read the context for itself.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> You don't understand me because you assumed I was going against you. I'm just stating how repetitive this part of the religious debate is. For your understanding, I'm not religious and was for 21 years taking my time to ready many religions. I'm not disagreeing with you, I also would like to see her answer. You took my post as an attack, it wasn't intended as so.1. The old testament to the new testament have many different contradictions so following the whole book means to completely contradict your whole existence.2. You don't neither does anyone else, the interpretations are subjective to the authors which could imply multiple different underlying meanings. You make up your own interpretation like everyone else does if your religious. Thats why those 10 people all had different answers because different parts of the bible coincided with their personal beliefs, those are the ones they will follow. They won't follow the dark aspects of the bible which are also there in plan writing but instead will suggest that those are metaphors, and the lighter parts of the bible are literal. Good and bad being subjective to the reader.To state again, I was agreeing with your train of thought not disagreeing, I was agreeing that people indeed do pick and choose specific parts of the bible to follow and that it differs per individual, and I agreed with you questioning @_Pucca_ which part of the bible should you follow. You shouldn't take everything as a personal attack and read the context for itself.


I didn't take it as an attack, I just could not understand you at all.
Since you quoted me, I assumed you were answering my question.
Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

xEmptiness said:


> I didn't take it as an attack, I just could not understand you at all.
> 
> Since you quoted me, I assumed you were answering my question.


My fault thinking you thought of it as an attack. As you already know, I wasn't answering your question but was predicting her answer, which I may be wrong about. Its just this part of the religious is extremely repetitive, it always leads to this.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> My fault thinking you thought of it as an attack. As you already know, I wasn't answering your question but was predicting her answer, which I may be wrong about. Its just this part of the religious is extremely repetitive, it always leads to this.


I'm at fault as well. I'm just too used to people only using quotes as a reply. Should have just asked for clarification first.

I've asked this question about 20~ times to different Christians already. Every time I get a slightly different answer, but mostly in the lines of "as long as you believe Jesus, it doesn't matter" or in some cases "my interpretation is the correct one". 

The truly fun thing about talking with theists is that they all give different answers to the same question, yet every single one of them is so sure that they are correct. Of course none of them have any evidence or reasoning to back it up.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

xEmptiness said:


> I'm at fault as well. I'm just too used to people only using quotes as a reply. Should have just asked for clarification first.
> 
> I've asked this question about 20~ times to different Christians already. Every time I get a slightly different answer, but mostly in the lines of "as long as you believe Jesus, it doesn't matter" or in some cases "my interpretation is the correct one".
> 
> The truly fun thing about talking with theists is that they all give different answers to the same question, yet every single one of them is so sure that they are correct. Of course none of them have any evidence or reasoning to back it up.


People don't want to change their beliefs no matter what, it's one of the hardest processes. They'll go against all logic, they'll go against every contradiction in their religion just to stay a part of it. The answers are always different, the concepts of the answers always stay the same. It'll always be connected to the individual persons ideology. The question I want religious people to answer is how come they won't leave their religion. I know it's because they believe in it, but I want to know would they ever try to leave their religion just for devil advocates sake, why follow something that has contradicted itself over and over again?

I also love how so many of these people say they're religious but haven't read the whole entire bible, that amazes me. If they want to see the true nature of God, look in between the lines. The flood was a genocide, because God deemed people as unworthy to live? Then tells us to follow him/her in their image? Hitler was doing one hell of a job following the bible. God promotes that he has a chosen race? Hitler was on the role, found a chosen race, committed genocide, following Gods image. Does god really escape persecution for the crimes it has committed? It gets better, "hey bro kill your son", *talking to angels* "he's really going to kill his son, this crazy mo fo. Ay broangel go stop that fool before he really kills his son haha". Or how about "you guys are my chosen people, so I'm going to kill your enemies babies, why? Because I'm a baby killing God, why the fuck else"

Lets go to the book of Job. First we have two eternal enemies, two entities who fucking hate each other having a discussion (must not really be enemies?). Then God asks Satan for his opinion on Job (God is asking the opinion of his rival enemy, interesting), satan proceeds to tell God that Job is only so faithful to him because God blessed Job and made sure his life was good, if God was to take that away then Job would curse God. So what would any God do in this situation when the person who he is at eternal war with says such words, what any logical (sarcasm) God would do, he not only listens but fucking instructs Satan to test Jobs righteousness. If satan is the embodiment of evil, and God instructs Evil to do what evil does then who really is the evil one? Satan is only doing Gods bidding, and it's their in words in the book of Job. So who is more evil the entity doing the bidding or the entity instructing him to do the bidding. Hitler wasn't evil, no his generals were. Plus if God is all knowing then why test someone's life, why do it at all if you're a God, just for fun? You're going to stress a person out to test his faith, you're going to deliverately fuck a persons life up for your own amusement just to see if your rival enemy is right? Yea that's love all right.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Pucca said:


> You really believe that? The laws of Israel as a nation or as a theocracy are not the laws that Christians are commanded to obey. The Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 freed Gentile converts from adhering to the majority of the *Mosaic law*. Those who are Jews in the flesh, should retain their heritage, but should also realize that following the Law means to follow the Spirit of the Law not the letter.


Firstly you didn't comprehend Acts 15



> [SUP]5 [/SUP]Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
> [SUP]6 [/SUP]The apostles and elders met to consider this question. [SUP]7 [/SUP]After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. [SUP]8 [/SUP]God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. [SUP]9 [/SUP]He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? [SUP]11 [/SUP]No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”


Acts 15: 5-11

What is being said here is that their salvation, as we will learn in the gospels will come from accepting the messiah. What is not said is that they should not follow mosaic law. Reread this and you'll see they say that the life of the believers is difficult, but they can take solace in the fact that they'll have a messiah that will save their souls. This is not absolution from following the laws of Israel




> Jesus' sacrifice *completely absolves one from sin*, if one believes in Who He says He is and chooses to follow Him. There is no ordinance or observance that one must do in addition. If one truly believes, then one's life and behavior will reflect it. It is an outflow or proof or fruit of belief, it is not a requirement for salvation. Salvation is a gift, meaning you cannot earn it or attain it by your own works.


You did not read any of the gospels. In all six gospels, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, and Mary) all followers of Christ are given things to do, a code of conduct and a message about spreading the word. In all of these gospels he makes it emphatically clear that those who wish to be called his followers must adhere to the commands of him and his father. The crucifixion was done with the intent of allowing all men the opportunity to follow God, but it wasn't a guarantee that all one needed was to believe in order to be considered a disciple of Christ.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

@*android654*

I always find it infinitely amusing how people who argue against Christianity in just about every single debate knows by far more information than those who argue for. They also tend to be more fair when interpreting the book as a whole.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

xEmptiness said:


> @*android654*
> 
> I always find it infinitely amusing how people who argue against Christianity in just about every single debate knows by far more information than those who argue for. They also tend to be more fair when interpreting the book as a whole.


Well, I was raised in a very christian centric setting. I spent many hours a week studying the bible and discussing it in bible studies, sunday schools, religious retreats since I was old enough to read. So I have intimate knowledge of what is in the bible, the usage of metaphor and when the prophets and god are being literal. I mean I've read the fucking thing cover to cover a few times to know that Christianity is not all inclusive like Buddhism or Jainism. There's work involved in being a christian, and Jesus makes that abundantly clear. What people don't want to hear is that a lot of that work is laced with things we now consider archaic, because it is.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

@_android654_
*"Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24 (KJV) *
I have read through the gospels and the Bible several times. Our viewpoints on the Law differ. The Law teaches mankind that he cannot live a sinless, perfect life on his own. Following the Law does not justify a person; following Christ (who fulfilled the Law) by faith does. Christians believe that He stands in their stead. You read the book through a "works based" lens and you also see an angry, vengeful, and corrupt god. I get the impression that you are entrenched in your viewpoint and you are entitled to it. I will not argue with you, though I disagree. You do not believe the Gospel is "good news." If that makes you feel better...


Anyway, 
The Holy Bible is not a children's story. In it you will find a great deal of disturbing and horrific things. It shows how truly awful human beings can behave. It shows all the ways "religion" does not work. And then it shows the only Way (Jesus Christ, the Messiah) that does work. The Old Testament points to the New. It goes from a "here's the bad news, folks" to "but this is the good news." 
God came in flesh to show His true character, so that one might know what God is truly like. We have an example to follow. What did Jesus do? How did He live? What did He teach? How did He demonstrate His Love for mankind?
He died and resurrected so that mankind could have a relationship with Him, the Living God, not so that people were bound by yet another religion. He calls those who follow Him "friends" not "servants." He elevates our position so that we are on the same level and co-heirs with Christ. If this is not mind-blowing, I don't know what is. 
If we believe, then we will become more like Him, we will be inspired to love as He loved, to extend the kind of mercy we have been shown, to bear with people who annoy us, to forgive as we have been forgiven, to help others as we have been helped. It will change our lives in the same way that the company we keep influences us. Think of your worst moments, when you have been truly horrible to others, when even you would condemn yourself for your actions, God still loved you and found you worth his greatest sacrifice. This is the Good News.

*"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:6-8*

@_xEmptiness_ 
I can't say it any better than the Word itself, 

*"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, 'Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" Romans 10: 9-13*


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Pucca said:


> @_xEmptiness_
> I can't say it any better than the Word itself,
> 
> *"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, 'Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" Romans 10: 9-13*


All I have to do is declare him as my lord and believe him with my heart? Easy.

That means doing anything else the Bible tells me I can't do wont disqualify me right? roud:


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Pucca said:


> @_android654_
> *"Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24 (KJV) *
> I have read through the gospels and the Bible several times. Our viewpoints on the Law differ. The Law teaches mankind that he cannot live a sinless, perfect life on his own. Following the Law does not justify a person; following Christ (who fulfilled the Law) by faith does. Christians believe that He stands in their stead. You read the book through a "works based" lens and you also see an angry, vengeful, and corrupt god. I get the impression that you are entrenched in your viewpoint and you are entitled to it. I will not argue with you, though I disagree. You do not believe the Gospel is "good news." If that makes you feel better...
> 
> ...





> [SUP]29 [/SUP]If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Galatians 3: 29

And what does Jesus say you need in order to be considered his disciple?



> [SUP]17 [/SUP]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 5: 17-20

From Jesus' mouth he emphatically states that his disciples have laws to uphold and works to fulfill. Unless you want to argue that a prophet's words supersede a deity, it's abundantly clear that Christians were intended to lead a life devoted to their religion, which meant a life following Jesus' teachings and guidelines under the laws of Israel to his disciples. If they did not he states that they would be seen as less in the eyes of his father. There are no metaphors to decipher here, the man is clear on what he expects of his people. Why are you having trouble understanding the deity of a religion and what it expects of it's followers?


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

xEmptiness said:


> That means doing anything else the Bible tells me I can't do wont disqualify me right? roud:


Haha...well, there are those who try to turn Grace into a License to do evil...which is counter to belief. (Jude 1:4) 
But no, if you follow Him with *sincerity* then there is nothing that should "disqualify" you. Romans 8 is a good read. 
Actually the Bible itself is a good read, especially if you wish to study for yourself what you _may_ profess to believe. :wink:


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Pucca said:


> Haha...well, there are those who try to turn Grace into a License to do evil...which is counter to belief. (Jude 1:4)
> But no, if you follow Him with *sincerity* then there is nothing that should "disqualify" you. Romans 8 is a good read.
> Actually the Bible itself is a good read, especially if you wish to study for yourself what you _may_ profess to believe. :wink:


I've read it. It's a bunch of incoherent ideas flowing around randomly.

Every single believer I've seen chooses what they want to believe and discards the rest.
That's why the discussion between you and @*android654* seems like a checkmate every single time he responds.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

android654 said:


> Why are you having trouble understanding the deity of a religion and what it expects of it's followers?


You and I have a difference in understanding. 

Jesus indeed states, 
"_For I tell you that *unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law*, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
_
The Bible goes on to say that there in none righteous, no, not one! All our righteousness is as filthy rags. Our righteousness _cannot _surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. Even their "righteousness" was not sufficient. 
As I stated before, the only way a Christian's righteousness _exceeds_ theirs is through the Lord Christ Jesus. He is the substitute. He fulfilled the Law, every jot and tittle. He stands in our stead and as our intercessory. To cast aside the Law, would be to cast aside the importance of what He has done. 

As Paul says in Galatians 2:14-21 (parts *bolded* for emphasis), 

"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. *How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?* We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that *a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ*. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because *by the works of the law no one will be justified*. But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.* I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!'*”


----------



## Oatsie (Mar 27, 2012)

Also to add to Pucca's response about the sincerity of confessing that God is Lord in your heart, I would say that to confess that with your heart would also make you *want *to follow what God wants you to do, & that you would change as a person because of that. 
For the OP I would be careful in saying that "God is love" without clarifying at first that he is not an emotion in himself. He is the truest expression of love & he is where love is from (as well as creating the entire universe). I have very much enjoyed reading this debate, both sides have good points. Although some seem a bit off track or misunderstood (or miscommunicated).
I myself am a Christian & am actually studying at a bible college (well, discipleship community would define it better). 
This has been interesting & I am sure it will continue to be so.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Oatsie said:


> Also to add to Pucca's response about the sincerity of confessing that God is Lord in your heart, I would say that to confess that with your heart would also make you *want *to follow what God wants you to do, & that you would change as a person because of that.
> For the OP I would be careful in saying that "God is love" without clarifying at first that he is not an emotion in himself. He is the truest expression of love & he is where love is from (as well as creating the entire universe). I have very much enjoyed reading this debate, both sides have good points. Although some seem a bit off track or misunderstood (or miscommunicated).
> I myself am a Christian & am actually studying at a bible college (well, discipleship community would define it better).
> This has been interesting & I am sure it will continue to be so.


Yes, I agree, it's very easy to miscommunicate these things, however I didn't mean to say that God is just a feeling, well I'm sure you know what I meant to say, one that studies the bible understands where I'm coming from (I think), but others might take it very differently. I like this passage from the bible, where it does say that God is love, and it explains it better then what I tried to do. Maybe I should add this in my original post. I bolded the part where it says "God is love". 

1 John:

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because * God is love.* 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

*God is love.* Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Oatsie said:


> about the sincerity of confessing that God is Lord in your heart, I would say that to confess that with your heart would also make you *want *to follow what God wants you to do, & that you would change as a person because of that.


This is one of the things that made me stop going to Church. I didn't experience the change you describe. I mostly remained me; myself. This made me doubt. I also didn't notice that much change in other believers, by the way - not even in those who claimed as much.

As of now, I simply cannot believe in a _personal_ god, one who interacts with you on a personal level.


----------



## Bear987 (May 13, 2012)

Oh, I forgot to mention that in a sense, maybe 'God = love' is a truism? I mean, who'd have it any other way? What else would God be? The books of the bible mention that God is light and love. Who'd believe in a god who advertises itself as dark and hateful?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Bear987 said:


> Oh, I forgot to mention that in a sense, maybe 'God = love' is a truism? I mean, who'd have it any other way? What else would God be? The books of the bible mention that God is light and love. Who'd believe in a god who advertises itself as dark and hateful?


Why would He advertise himself? What has he got to win? When I feel closer to God and his love, I feel happier and also nicer to everyone else, so I don't see a need for God to advertise himself. I believe in a God that is LOVE, not the God some people describe as jealous, envious, etc...


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Why would He advertise himself? What has he got to win? When I feel closer to God and his love, I feel happier and also nicer to everyone else, so I don't see a need for God to advertise himself. I believe in a God that is LOVE, not the God some people describe as jealous, envious, etc...


So you believe in your own interpretation of God? That is a sincere question, so try not to take offense to it.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Radiant Truth said:


> So you believe in your own interpretation of God? That is a sincere question, so try not to take offense to it.


Ya I guess you could say that. I think everyone has their own interpretation and understanding.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Ya I guess you could say that. I think everyone has their own interpretation and understanding.


But how is any justification/interpretation valid considering God is supposedly beyond our comprehension?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

xEmptiness said:


> But how is any justification/interpretation valid considering God is supposedly beyond our comprehension?


Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


Are you implying that God is not beyond our comprehension?


----------



## Foibleful (Oct 2, 2012)

I agree that it can be hard to explain faith in God to others who do not have or wish to have it. But faith in God is not merely a feeling; at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion. It should be based on knowing Him in whom we have faith. You mention the God of the Bible in your original post; I believe He is far more than a feeling:



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> The point I was trying to make is that there's no way to logically explain God, since God is a feeling. God is love. You can read about God, in the bible but you can't understand until you feel IT.


My perspective is a bit different from yours. When the Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:8--"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love"), I don't think it means that God is a feeling. The Greek word that is translated as love in the original text is "agape."

1 Corinthians 13:4-6 describes this agape love. Each time it says the word love in these verses, the original greek word is agape. Here's what it says: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

These words are _attributes_ and they describe God's _character_. They are not a feeling. Feelings can be wonderful, but they can also be incredibly fickle and misleading. They add great richness to life, but they should not ever be our sole compass.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Foibleful said:


> I agree that it can be hard to explain faith in God to others who do not have or wish to have it. But faith in God is not merely a feeling; at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion. It should be based on knowing Him in whom we have faith. You mention the God of the Bible in your original post; I believe He is far more than a feeling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All right, and if you describe these attributes to someone, and they agree, does that mean they know or believe in God? Don't you agree that you have to FEEL these attributes (being kind, etc), in order to understand what God means? 

I was trying to compare "knowing God" to "being in love". Even when we are in love, we can describe those feelings to someone but they wouldn't QUITE get it until THEY were in love. I feel like it's the same with God, when you really feel like you "know" him, it's hard to explain to someone what that really feels like.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

xEmptiness said:


> Are you implying that God is not beyond our comprehension?


No I was not implying that at all. It's impossible to fully KNOW God, because as humans we need to see, feel, hear, etc ... in order to believe. We need proof, and lost of it. That's where faith comes in. Faith is believing in something/someone even though you might not completely know or understand everything. 

Sort of like having faith in someone you don't completely understand. Someone with a different personality type then you, perhaps, who functions different then you and you never quite get but you know that their motives and intentions are good. And how do you know their motives are good? Because you feel it. That's how I arrived to the conclusion that it all comes down to feelings.


----------



## Oatsie (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes it can be difficult in translation since there are four Greek words for love & just one in English. & yes we are all called to show each other agape just as God shows it to us. & agape is to do what is in the other persons best interest, that is showing hem love, or agape. 
Towards the start there seemed to be some sort of thing going between emotions & logic. personally I go more with logic & don't find it depressing as the OP made it sound, but I can agree that when you let go of logic for a bit, & just let your mind fill with the wonder of God & creation, it does add joy to my life =)


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I don't think that God is JUST an emotion, I think he/she/it is much more then that. I most likely didn't explain myself correctly at all.. eh.. I'm used to it. I don't even know if there's any point to continue trying to explain myself since it's difficult with english being my second language and all.
> 
> Basically I think God is everywhere, inside us (as emotions) and outside us (as a creator). I don't think the "negative" emotions are part of God though, I think that God is everything that is good. The negative emotions would be coming from the opposite of God which is the Devil.
> 
> Don't know if I'm making any sense. Sorry, I really have a hard time explaining and it's especially frustrating to explain something that I don't have the details or proof of, but as a big picture it makes sense to me.


Who made the Devil? God did. The devil is Lucifer, the morning star. He was created the same as the rest of the angels. So... God is in destruction and creation. Hate and love and everything in between.


----------

