PaulS

I can't say what Paul really meant, or any of the other anonymous/pseudographical authors of the New Testament, and frankly I'm don't even trust a lot of it to have actually been written by the people and/or at the time when they pretend it was written. Biblical scholarship has for me blown too many holes in the 'reliability' of the NT that I have to take much of it with a pinch of salt as to it's actual accuracy as alleged to be represented by the actual authors. And this doesn't even begin to touch on what other letters and scriptures there may also have been but which didn't win the war of ultimately being set in concrete as the defined Canon of Holy Scripture. So for me too, this message of relentless human brokenness and unworthiness is simply not valid and should be disregarded. We are not broken and to the contrary, every individual is certainly worthy. We don't need to be 'saved' from anything. Indeed, words from various biblical authors (or their pseudographical authors) may offer inspiration and in some cases a guide to elements of a well-lived life, but this message of all or nothing that Christianity grew into, simply should be done away with. I think mostly it is a result of what was initially some thoughts and good intentions developing into what we typically call a 'Religion' and all the dogma and nonsense that goes with that. I think the 'guilt' part of Christianity developed as a way to construct the religion of Christianity. I'm starting to learn finally that it's not rocket science - how we live our lives has consequences. How we behave towards others has consequences. How we interpret the world has consequences. Whether these consequences are considered 'good' or 'bad' or one of the zillion shades in between, is all in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not sure if you are implying that people here are 'pretending' to be Christian, but I was asking you why you thought " ....most people here would probably be much happier in a Unitarian Universalist church". If it is because they could enjoy more individualism there, rather than here, I am not sure I agree. I'd like to think that Progressive Christianity is inclusive enough to allow people as much individualism as they desire. Indeed, the PC 8-Points welcome's people of all walks ranging from 'Conventional Christians through to questioning skeptics and agnostics, and all sorts in between. I don't think one has to 'pretend' to be a 'Christian' to walk in line with Progressive Christianity.

Where do you think Burl was saying people would be much happier to be away from, if you think he meant they would be 'much happier' in a UU Church? I could be mistaken, but I got the sense he wasn't saying they should be 'there' instead of 'here', but rather was saying they would be comfortable in a UU Church because it has some similar values to Progressive Christianity and 'here'.

Thanks for sharing, Rom. I had a read and enjoyed the way you laid the points out. I think the world would be a better place if we had more agnostics!

Okay, well I guess this discussion has run its race for me then. Thanks for participating and sharing your beliefs.

Yes, different emotions are generated by different chemical responses in the brain. From my limited understanding of neuroscience, the evidence is largely about the brain (which includes mind - i.e. the flows of information within the brain) as that is what the empirical evidence supports. There doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence for 'mind' being separate from brain function and subsequently mind seems to sit in the 'belief' category, at least in my understanding (other than as a product of brain function). That doesn't stop neuroscience from investigating such I guess, and it doesn't stop others from claiming mind is separate to brain, it's just that any empirical evidence to support 'mind' other than it being a result of brain function, is underwhelming.

I agree you make a point, but don't see how you've established that there is a God actively present. My point was that you say 'God is love' but that such love is not emotion, then completely use emotion to explain that God. That doesn't make sense to me.

I am reading 'Sapiens - A brief history of humankind' by Yuval Noah Harari. As its cover suggests, it is a "fun, engaging look at early human history". The book discusses the rise to dominance by homo sapiens over the other animals belonging to the genus Homo, and the development of homo sapiens' culture through to the present day. I am finding it hard to put down but should be finished this weekend.

That analogy seems packed with emotion to me.

Our decisions are made because of emotion - that is how our brain works. So a decision to act and be in a certain way is employed because you have an emotional response to some sort of stimuli. Without trying to muddy the waters for you, emotions and decision making are integrated, they are not separate. Sometimes it may seem grandiose such as when somebody who is 'madly in love' does something silly, but the rest of the time it is subtle. This is not a 'belief' of mine, this is called neuroscience.

Just to be clear here, I am more than happy for others to believe that somehow, somewhere, God is Love, whatever that is supposed to actually mean in all practicality. Seriously, all power to you. I would not vote to take that belief away from you nor would I try to take it off you in any other way. To me, this belief that God is Love seems a little nonsensical in that it makes no sense to me, particularly against the science we know that demonstrates that the human brain reacts to stimuli, produces chemicals and as a result, experiences emotions, including what we consider 'love' (including but not necessarily limited to one of the seven Greek varieties of love). I don't think that is disputable, but hey, each to their own. Maybe science is just my belief statement (but again, I'm not sure how that would make sense when weighed up against what we commonly call facts). But what I do on these threads is debate, question and challenge because I find that the most effective way for me to better understand your (whoever you are) view and beliefs. Perhaps I should just leave it all alone and let some have their 'love-fest'. I guess there is a place for that sometimes, particularly on this site. I have tried to respect that when people want to post in the PC section of this site for instance (not always as well as I'd like), and I try to be conscious of it even when in this Debate & Dialogue thread, but please know I mean none of you any harm in my challenges to what you say are your beliefs and why. If they don't make sense to me, I want to know why you seem to understand something, but I don't, even on the face of what I consider better explanations and evidence. I want to know if it's you who misunderstands or am I misunderstanding. I enjoy the back and forth of point and counter-point to assist us, and myself in particularly, with trying to better understand the subject matter. But if anybody ever feels I am being overbearing and does not want to engage any further in discussion, please just say so and I'll leave you with your opinions, no offence taken.

No, your position seems to be based solely on belief. What I am trying to point out is that the position I understand seems to have much more scientific evidence to refer to than what you are proposing. The demonstrating I refereed to includes clinical studies that demonstrate brain activity when subjects are provided certain stimuli (e.g. a photo of their spouse) which elicits a chemical response in the brain (i.e. the release of 'feel good' chemicals) which is then received by the body as an emotion, in this case 'love'. It seems to me that you would acknowledge that hate, anger, grief, etc are all emotions and that the brain does elicit chemical response to certain stimuli which in turn we interpret as emotion. You would agree with that I think? If we can agree on that, then my question is why do you jump to only a single emotion (i.e love) and suddenly give that some sort of 'other' property which you clearly don't assign to these other emotions that science can demonstrate as occurring following chemical excretions, along with love also. Why not say God is Hate, or God is Anger, or God is one of the dozens of other emotions we can scientifically study and observe brain stimulation and chemical reaction as a result, just like we can do for love?

And if that's what you want to believe, all power to you. It just doesn't help me understand your belief any better because it doesn't make much sense to me

Yes but again, it seems a little too convenient for me that this belief only developed when humans got to a certain level of thinking. Do you think 'Being' has been waiting around for billions of years for us to finally evolve to this point so that we may understand that Being is why we exist?

I think all emotions are different, that's why we have different names for so many emotions, including the various emotions associated with love. My point was that we use limiting words to try and best communicate how we see things. So whilst hate is different to love in some ways (e.g. it is associated with anger and harm etc), it is also associated with love (e.g. we hate X because we love Y who is threatened by X). Whether you want to argue for eros love or agape love or some other term for love is not that important to me in this point.

That's precisely where I am sitting - I am finding it near impossible to grasp how to understand what you are saying as a concept. Not that there is a problem with that, but hence why I ask questions and counter with other ways of looking at it - I'm trying to better understand how you see it that way. I'm not sure how experiencing love cannot be emotional. Surely you know that I use the term 'argument' not in any way aggressively but rather that it should be interpreted as "A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory."

And if there is no 'God is Love' then love simply is an emotion, as I have demonstrated concerning other emotions. We don't say God is hate, God is anger, you can be your truest self in jealousy, etc and for good reason I think - it sounds miserable. Believing that God is love is a much more attractive option. To me it seems you are thinking that there is a 'connectiveness' which results in the emotion of love for you. That just seems much clearer to me than what you are saying to this point. It just seems like a circular argument to me which goes something like "God is love. Why - because it helps me be the truest version of myself. Why does it make you a truer person - because God is love."

No, it is a common clause in Australian life insurance policies (I have the same payout clause) but there is usually an exclusion period from the policy start date of about a year I think. I'm certain his family would have preferred him alive and broke than dead and wealthy.

I don't think hate is always for self. One can hate another because they threaten the ones they love.

To me the idea that 'God is love' just seems so man-made, now that we have evolved from apes and are capable of a superior level of thinking and philosophying.

Each to their own I guess - I don't see our 'truest self' being anything more than what we are. But if that's how you want to think about yourself, I have no issue. Same with what you think we are 'meant to be'. The decision to be together is most likely our societal norm driving that. There are also evolutionary benefits to such pairing. I think the chemical reaction is all there is - that's what makes you think, feel and act.

I find it hard not to consider love scientifically (not that I'm any sort of scientist!) in the face of what is known/demonstrated with brain research and evidence of physiological changes when studying 'love'. MRI scans demonstrate areas of the brain becoming active when a person is shown a picture of a loved one, as well as chemicals released associated with those experiences. Chemicals such as cortisol and dopamine are released by the brain resulting in the person feeling 'good' which obviously is a pleasant experience and it is what the brain then recognises as love. Also, I don't think it is surprising that expressions of love are unpredictable to the thinking mind, because much of what drives love comes from our subconscious. That's where we have filed away all the bits of data and experience that trigger our emotional reactions to anything. We don't choose to make our hearts race, palms sweat, cheeks flush, or feelings of passion and anxiety etc, just as we don't concentrate on making sure we breathe, or blink or swallow. The subconscious makes us do those things. A simple example would be how we may find one particular person attractive as a life partner but don't give another a second glance. Some may think that's choice but I would suggest it is triggered by our subconscious and what it has learnt/ interpreted from our experience thus far (and perhaps a little bit of genetic imprint thrown in for good measure). But as you use the word love in the sense that it is simply awareness of the connectiveness & interrelationship of all things, I'm not sure what that actually looks like. Sure, one may be aware of such, but how does that look like love? Thinking or actual non-judgmental acceptance of another may be a demonstration of practicing that idea of love, but I don't see how that makes it any different from any other emotion that makes you feel or act a certain way. You feel connected, so for you that is the emotion of love.

Which is a perfectly good stab at it Burl, but I don't think it captures love in all its dimensions and ways we understand the word love. That's because, in my opinion, love is not one particular thing but rather is an emotion on a wide-ranging scale of emotions. That scale varies depending on cultural, societal, biological and chemical inputs. As I said, I don't think we are doing the word justice if we try to narrow down every type of experience and emotion associated with the word love only with the willingness to incur loss to another party's benefit. I won't argue that typically we would regard self-sacrifice to another's benefit as love. But I don't think love is characterised only by such self-sacrifice. Indeed, the ancient Greeks would seem to agree with me as they came up with many more words for emotions on the love scale that exclude your requirement. People love cars, people love to do things and experience joy, people love to put down others. I love my dog and I love my wife. Do I love them equally? Is it really the same love? Is all love equal? It used to be that society regarded striking a child to correct their errors as demonstrating love. That is probably less prominent these days. Where did that love go? Some think hurting their enemies to protect their loved ones is demonstrating love. Pure pro-creation is love with minimal emotion. Love can be both a noun and a verb. We use the word love to try and capture what we experience and what we feel, but I don't see 'Love' itself as something separate or outside of us. It is not a force or a entity that one can point to and call Love. It is an emotion that we label, and a wide-ranging one at that. So when you say Love is....I can only read that you are saying love is a certain way of behaving, but to me, those ways of behaving can change over time and hence we change the definition of the word love. Because that's all love is - a word we are using to describe a wide-range of emotions. Now we can either agree or come close to agreeing on what we, as a society, want that word to represent, but at the end of the day it is just a word, not a 'thing'.

Precisely to my point Burl - to try and say that love is defined as to willingly sacrifice for the benefit of the object, seems to miss so many other elements and factors in the emotions we are trying to lump together into one single word called love. 'Love' per se does not exist - emotions on a wide ranging scale, do.

But that's the thing with languages, isn't it. They are just words to try and describe what we experience. Often, as can be seen here with the word love, they have immense shortcomings. So trying to define love as a single experience or defined by a single theory is like trying to herd cats. I suspect that's why Greek thinkers developed so many different words for our emotions associated with love - because one single word just doesn't cut it (you do the same above with several different types of English words to capture the different types of love emotions we experience). We can play that game of course, and we do in all manner of ways in defining and labeling things in life, but at the end of the day, you are only going to end up with a word or meaning that covers some or much of what some or most people feel is okay to define love. I can't see how it will be a conclusive definition that will reverberate throughout time eternal.