Love is God.

[greyl]

Does that blatant statement have logical weakness?
If so, ...

[babylonsister]

1. Not if you think so. How about God is love? Or,

perhaps God has nothing to do with it, love is love?
Or how about, I stay out of any religious discussion? :spank: :hi:

[greyl]

2. Love is God equals God is Love.

I don't understand your reply.

Have you ever been so lonely
That you felt like you were the only
one in this world?

Have you ever wanted to play
With someone so much you'd take
Anyone, boy or girl?

Anna Stesia come to me
Talk to me, ravish me
Liberate my mind
Tell me what you think of me
Praise me, craze me
Out this space and time

Between white and black, night and day
Black night seemed like the only way...
So I danced

Love is God, God is love
Girls and boys love God above

-PRN

[Fridays Child]

3. Or, "What's love got to do with it?"

[greyl]

71. "Not if you think so. "

Nice.

[babylonsister]

77. That was not meant as a personal slam, sorry.

I meant to say, 'not if you think about it'. :blush: My apologies, greyl.

[greyl]

79. Let's be honest.

Thanks for all the generous love,
and thanks for all the fun.
Clear-headed and open eyed with nothing left untried.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. It lacks intellectual integrity more than it lacks logic

Some truly love money. Is money God? I mean if love is God and one loves money doesn't money then equate to God as well?

Near as I can tell, love is love, God is God and neither is well defined, nor absolute and neither's existence can be definitively proved nor disproved.

[greyl]

6. Some people "truly love money?" Really?

You bring up a valuable tangential point but, let's not confuse addiction with selfless passion.
I wouldn't say addiction is God.

edit: and what's the difference between love and god?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Selfless passion? Hey prof, gimme the definitions and boundaries

prior to the initiation of the inquiry :) One person's selfless passion is another's deep emotional attachment and one can have a deep emotional attachment to money or other objects without it being defined as an addiction. For that matter some people's love is nothing more than an expression of an addiction, no?

[greyl]

9. Ahem. I think you're correct.

So, what is your definition of "Love"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. I avoid defining it

To me it is simply a declaration....of something undefinable...the same with God...they exist as an ill defined space of something (or another) when I declare them to be and when I don't, they don't.

But I am glad that you asked me "what is your definition of love?"

Not because I will oblige you and answer it, but simply because this is a conversation that has as many resolutions as it has participants and all/none of them are wrong. :D

[greyl]

16. :) Back to the OP then: Love is God.

Is that a logically weak statement?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Only if I don't accept your core assumptions

because you infer a core assumption of what love is and a core assumption of what God is and then declare that they are each other.

[greyl]

21. But, do you or not? nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Ok actually it's worse than that and here is where it is logically weak

Love and God are not defined and as such, anything that is equated to love can then be God and anything that is equated to God can then be love. Therefore (algorithmically), one could end up with a false conclusion such as God is Money even after reasoning deductively. If one's basic premises are true, then with proper deduction, one can never reach a false conclusion.

[greyl]

25. Very nice, but - Let's go ahead and define Love, now.

Love and God are not defined and as such, anything that is equated to love can then be God and anything that is equated to God can then be love.

Go on. Define Love. Then, we'll continue.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. OK...love is strawberry pie :)

or do I have to be serious from here on in?

[greyl]

28. Maybe laughter is God. ;) nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. But laughter can be cruel, so only if love is cruel and god is cruel

can laughter be God...so much for your selfless passion :evilgrin:

[greyl]

31. Ahah! Because laughter can be cruel,

we know we can't, in a billion years, fathom god.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. We'd probably have an easier time with the inquiry if we all looked

at who we were for God rather than who God is for us :shrug: That or we'd probably reach more sound conclusions.

[greyl]

34. Wouldn't being loving make it better? nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. It might...don't know

If the people of the world were loving in the face of our bombs would they be any less dead

[greyl]

36. What has guided your posts in this thread? nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Skepticism with a dollop of cynicism

kinda like strawberry pie with whipped cream...only different

[greyl]

39. Sweet. :) Now, define Love. ;) nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. I can't...I have to go to sleep

I can describe certain qualities of love, such as affinity. I can describe love but describing it doesn't define it. It is more spacial than defined. It is defined more by what it isn't than by what it is.

[SPKrazy]

88. Hence The Saying:

one cannot love God and Mammon


the idea there is that anything one puts before God will be lost.

As to the statement Love is God

And the question "what is love"

Most would say they have felt love in it's different manifestations.

Many would say they have felt God in it's different manifestations.

Some will say God is not real

Some will say Love is not real, just a biochemical reaction necessarily evolved to further the species and to produce safety and security.

I say Love is and God is.

I say Love can be God, and God is indeed Love.

[Evoman]

5. Cool...I'm going to go God my girlfriend.

She loves it when we make God. I also God my mom, but in a different way. The God I have for my mom is of a familial type, while the way I God my girlfriend is altogether different. Ours is a sweet god, interdispersed with dirty, ass-spanking type of God, if ye get my drift, matey.

Hehehehe

[greyl]

7. I do get your drift, make no mistake.

Love is funny.

[hunter]

11. I do not want my ass spanked by God.

In my experience the hospital ER is God's loving way of saying, "You eat wrong" or "You didn't take your meds."

Personally, I'd rather be able to eat all the potato chips I want, and not take meds.

But no, instead I have to get spanked. What's with that?

[greyl]

73. To be clear, though, your reply is totally fucking lame, evoman.

If I missed how your response dealt with the OP, please correct and forgive me.

[Evoman]

90. Easy...if its the same, then the words should be interchangeable

Why even bother having different names if two things are the same? If you can't exchange the names, and mean the same thing, then they aren't. By exchanging the word god for love, I've just shown that God is not love, or vice-versa. They are two different things.

Its a pet peeve of mine when people call the universe god, or love god, or any other thing God. Because, obviously, its not...do the word exchange, and you will see how fucking ridiculous the concept is.

And I'm sorry you find me "fucking lame"...i'll promise to never joke again. You obviously don't have enough God in your heart for me.

[greyl]

95. Hey, I didn't say you were fucking lame.

It should be clear that I said your reply was fucking lame. A bit harsh, yes, but I know you could take it.
I don't think your word exchange shows how ridiculous the concept is at all.

You may be aware that I don't believe in God - at least in any that has ever been 'pointed out'. One reason why is that definitions of God totally break down under analysis. Another is that knowledge of whether Gods exist or not, or how many there are, is simply not available.

However, I think playing with the notion that love is God can be interesting.
Especially when I'm totally fucking drunk! (edit: which I'm not now)

[Skip Intro]

10. Define Love and God.

imho...

Words are incapable of describing the force some call God. The pureness, the oneness of which we are all a part. We are reflections here, an extension of that force, or God, in which we dwell even now as our higher selves. Love is a word that carries beutiful connotations, but I don't think love, even in its extreme, even in its 100% nature, is equal to that God. If it is, it is a state of love unimaginable.

[greyl]

12. But, you are assuming they're different things.

The Op says, they are one in the same.

Love is God
God is Love.

[Skip Intro]

13. hmmm

well, I guess I'm saying I don't think they are, but I'm not sure the Love and God of which I speak are the same Love and God of which the OP speaks. I doubt I could define either, btw, but I have to ask, what is Love? What is God?

I have a growing sense, that dawns upon me more forcefully each time, that God is really another way to describe the, THE, one singularity of which we all are a part. God is Home? Maybe. God is Love? I don't know, but I don't thnk so. What is Love?

[greyl]

15. Yes, hhmmmm. Love is fearless altruism.

"God is Home? Maybe. God is Love? I don't know, but I don't think so. What is Love?

Did you ask what "love" is?

[Skip Intro]

17. Yeah, a couple of times.

:D

"fearless altruism" - is that God?

I dunno.

I like the concept of fearless altruism, yes indeed, but by saying that is God, do we limit what God can then be, what "God" is?

[greyl]

19. Is there anything "more good" than fearless altruism? nt edit:

Is there a difference between Love and fearless altruism?

/edit

[Skip Intro]

24. well

altruism is defined as "unselfish concern for the welfare of others," and I can certainly appreciate that. Big fan of altruism. I practice it from time to time, should practice it more.

But (you knew there'd be a "but" didn't you?), is that all that God can be? What about fearless altruism with an eye toward pleasure, rather than just welfare? What about bliss. An unimaginable state of bliss? Is bliss Love? Is it greater than Love?

Point being, as I said to begin with, I don't think words are capable of describing "God." Be those words love, altruism, or pleasure, or bliss.

Being selflessly concernend for the wellbeing of others is a fantastic concept. We should all do it for each other. But is it God? I think God must be something more. I think Love may be a consequence of God, but not necessarily a definition of God.

[greyl]

26. So, you feel the God concept, by definition, transcends our ability to

describe it using language?

[Skip Intro]

30. yes,

I guess I'm just going off of what I feel. Or what I seem to know. Or what I feel I know.

Visualize love as a great, big, beautiful sphere, which exists within a larger, all encompassing sphere, which is God.

Back to your question, do I think the concept of God transcends our ability to define it, him, (us)? Of course I do. I think it might make sense to strive to listen to that force and to what is trying to be communicated, to will it (prayer) to fulfill our desires, to come to some limited understanding of what "it" is, but is it possible to know, and then define, the entirety of "God" from this perspective? I don't think it is fully possible. Not that we shouldn't try.

[greyl]

33. Mmm, what if we behaved like Love were god? nt

[Skip Intro]

37. To base actions on "Love" (fearless altruism) is a fine goal for which

we'd all do well to strive. But I do not feel the need to equate that to "God."

[greyl]

40. There's no need to equate it, there's only a wondering of

what, if any , is the difference?

Love is God.

True, or not?

[Skip Intro]

41. not nt

[greyl]

42. You know that love is not God?

How?

[Skip Intro]

44. God told me.

kidding

It is hard to argue that two words equal each other when both go undefined, so no, I don't know that "love" does not equal "God," in the context of this discussion.

I do know, or feel strongly, that God is not the same as Love. God is more.

[greyl]

45. More than love?

So, the 130 thousand people that died horrible deaths today, 8-19-2006 - Something more than love was involved?

C'mon, dude.

[Skip Intro]

46. ok, you lost me

what do so many people dying horrible deaths have to do with Love?

[greyl]

48. You said "god is more"

and I ask, what is god more than?

[Skip Intro]

93. We are more than Love. We are a part of God. God is more than Love.

How many times would you like me to say it?

[pnwmom]

20. But logically speaking, it isn't the same to say

A dog is an animal

and

an animal is a dog.

[greyl]

22. Logically? Somewhat similar, yes. nt

[Random_Australian]

47. Yep, by other definitions, God is not a biochemical reaction within the

brain,however internally there is no problem with defining it like that - after all, you can define 'algsdgb as alskgjhkdgb' if you want.... however, it does not fit externally.

"If so, ..." what?

[greyl]

49. Love. The OP says Love is...

God.
How do you define Love?

[Random_Australian]

50. Both God and love relied on definitions external to the OP, but the one

I used for love was a biochemical reaction within the brain (sort of, but in mere english that is the best I can put it, it is more like information reactions and changes with accuracy co-efficients along a semi-preprogrammed overstructure, but who cares), and then I contrasted that with the external definition of God, as something infinite, and said that they were therefore different.

However, internally, you are allowed to define one word as congruent to another - like I said you can say that "asdkgbh means fgbjdkbg" if you want, and it will be internally consistent.

Where is this heading, by the way? Would you like to spar definitions of love? And why do you keep capitalising the 'l'?

[greyl]

52. "external to the OP" ?

False assumption, bud.

[Random_Australian]

53. Nothing of the sort - I said the ones I used relied on definitions

external to the OP, not that there was a categorical imperative that they be used in that manner, nor did I imply you were - I even accounted for the possibility that you were using definitions purely internal to the OP... thus the bit about "you can say 'sjdg' means 'bgfjd' if you want".

Mixtures of the two were not worth my time or effort.

So, explain how it was an 'assumption' if I only meant that

IF

A is true

THEN

B is true


rather than

A is true

Therefore

B is true.



Go on... this should be interesting, and no semantic tricks either. (I promise not to use them either)

[greyl]

57. "Rely on defintions" oh, what a sad place humans find themselves.

From what I remember, you are a "weak atheist".
You don't say you know that there are zero gods.

True?

[Random_Australian]

59. Yep, true.

Everything must be defined at least in our minds to be communicated - though remember the defintion is merely a boundary of what we will call something, and can never change reality.

The reason I was using external definitions was to allow ease of communication - we already have similar notions of some concepts.

[greyl]

51. God is Love.

Chiquitita tell me the truth.

[Random_Australian]

54. Fair enough.... that sounds like a pretty good God to me.

:9

[greyl]

55. Seriously, is it fallacious to assert that Love is God? nt

[Random_Australian]

56. See my latest in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=85584&mesg_id=85641

[greyl]

58. Ok, I saw your latest. Now, define Love. nt

[Random_Australian]

60. Ok, the defintion I will use refers to a biochemical reaction.

Information is processed in the brain through its chemistry - love is a set of information and processing and heuristics and similar.

This assumes Love = love.

Fallacious if assumption incorrect.

[greyl]

61. That's an embarassingly limited definition of Love.

Don't you think?

[Random_Australian]

62. Nope - specific info can take practically infinite permutations.

You have more than enough sloshing around in there to cover anything you want.

But I'll here you out - what is something that cannot be represented by that definition that is considered love? (As in, provide counter example to my argument)

[greyl]

63. What kind of watch? nt

[Random_Australian]

64. That post did not make sense -please explain it.

It appears to be a question about watches, when I had mentioned none.

[greyl]

65. It was a Hume vs Paley thing. nt

[Random_Australian]

66. Ok, I must confess that I know neither of them.

Now, why was my defintion limited?

[greyl]

67. Because it had no choice. ;) nt

[Random_Australian]

68. Choice? It has free will. Choice is not defined here.

Define choice, and I will tell you whether or not it has it.

Give a poor definition, and I will give you one of my own, but be warned, it comes from the same place as my love definition!

[greyl]

69. Correct, Love is defined here.

Ill defined though it may be, we all know what Love is.

Love is God.

Does that blatant statement have logical weakness?


(chiquitita you and I cry..)

[Random_Australian]

70. What is so ill about my definition?

It comprises set information states, however there are too many to go over here. What is ill with its definition?

That blatant statement's weakness or strength relies upon precisely what you are sets of information you refer to with the two concepts. If you are referring to the common concepts, you will see that I have argued that is was flawed, as love is finite and God is not.

However, definitions that rely solely upon the internal logic will cause congruency in terms.

Edit: I am going to bed! Goodnight!

[greyl]

72. Please,show me your definition.

I can't find it.

[Random_Australian]

74. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=85584&mesg_id=85648

I may check in, but I am getting ready to go to bed.

[greyl]

75. We're still striving for the sky

No taste for humble pie.

Neither you nor I'm to blame when all is said and done.

[Random_Australian]

81. I prefer:

I know,
I know I've let you down
I've been a fool to myself, I thought that I could live for no-one else.
But now,
Through all the hurt and pain
It's time for me to respect the ones you love me more than anything.
So with sadness in my heart, feel the best thing I could do... is end it all and live forever.
What's done is done, it feels so bad, what once was happy now is sad,
I'll never love again, my world is ending.........

I wish that I could turn back time. Because now the gift is all mine, can't live without the trust from those you love.
I know, we can't forget the past. You can't forget love and pride,
because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing, it all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

In my heart of hearts, I know that I could never love again, I've lost everything, everything, everything that matters to me matters in this world.


I wish that I could turn back time. 'Cause now the gift is all mine, can't live without the trust from those you love.
I know, we can't forget the past. You can't forget love and pride,
because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing, it just keeps tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

It all returns to nothing, it just keeps tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.

Letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.

[greyl]

76. Birds of passage you and me,

we fly instinctively.

[Random_Australian]

80. Komm, susser Tod. (Come, sweet Death) (Evangelion version)

I know,
I know I've let you down
I've been a fool to myself, I thought that I could live for no-one else.
But now,
Through all the hurt and pain
It's time for me to respect the ones you love me more than anything.
So with sadness in my heart, feel the best thing I could do... is end it all and live forever.
What's done is done, it feels so bad, what once was happy now is sad,
I'll never love again, my world is ending.........

I wish that I could turn back time. Because now the gift is all mine, can't live without the trust from those you love.
I know, we can't forget the past. You can't forget love and pride,
because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing, it all comes tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

In my heart of hearts, I know that I could never love again, I've lost everything, everything, everything that matters to me matters in this world.


I wish that I could turn back time. 'Cause now the gift is all mine, can't live without the trust from those you love.
I know, we can't forget the past. You can't forget love and pride,
because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing, it just keeps tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

It all returns to nothing, it just keeps tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.
It all returns to nothing, I just keep letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.

Letting me down, letting me down, letting me down.

Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling down.









Goodnight greyl!

[greyl]

82. and someone tries the doorknob...

We talked and talked in quiet voices, smiling.

[Random_Australian]

83. Never heard that, where is it from?

[greyl]

107. The Visitors - ABBA ;) nt

[soothsayer]

78. I actually think it's clearer than saying "God is love"

That's the way alot of Catholics define the Holy Spirit--God is the Father, Christ is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Love between them.

[intaglio]

84. Big problem here ...

English does not have a commonly understood vocabulary to talk of this because there are several types of love. The reversed statement "God is Love" comes from the Greek, a language where there are several words for love. Please remember that the New Testament was written in Greek whereas the Septaguint was written in Hebrew and the rest of the OT primarily in Aramaeic.

So the New Testament Greek:
Philo - the love that exists between friends or the love for a thing also can include altruism;
Storgo - affection of the sort you have for your children or a loved pet;
Eros - Erotic, sensual love;
Agape or Agapeo - this is the term for the adoring love from God to you or from you to God - in the first form it is a verb in the second an active noun - and is the one used in the early testaments to and now described as "God is Love"

Agape is a love of choice, you (or God) chooses the thing to be loved and you focus upon that. You idealise it, find ways to adore it both emotionally and methodologically.

What does this mean for the subject of this thread? It means the phrase "Love is God" is as meaningless as "adore is God" or "adoration is God"

Edited for an omission

[cosmik debris]

85. The statement is meaningless

By Cartesian logic it is a meaningless statement. You have taken two undefined terms and declared them equal. When the lack of definition is brought up, you invite subjective self-serving definitions. Of course, the vagueness of the argument is necessary because the definitions used will determine the equality of the terms. If you had defined the terms, the question would not be necessary. In short, there are as many answers as there are definitions. You are just playing a semantic game. What’s the score, who’s winning?

[greyl]

86. Fuck Descartes.

The statement made was Love is God.

[cosmik debris]

87. And the question was does it have a logical weakness.

If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. Greyl wasn't looking for the answer so much as looking for the inquiry

Speaking from personal experience with this poster

[greyl]

98. You're correct.

Your logic was harshing my buzz. ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. Utterly meaningless flimflam.

The word "love" means "a strong feeling of affection".

The word "God" means "a powerful, sentient supernatural being".

The emotion of love is clearly not a powerful supernatural being.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

[greyl]

94. ""God" means "a powerful, sentient supernatural being"" ?

Says who? There are many concepts of "God".
Anyone who says "God is a powerful, sentient supernatural being" is claiming to know something that they have no way of knowing.

[lvx35]

96. Ah, but never forget some people do "know" what God is.

They are called fundamentalists and strong atheists. In the case of the former, their certainty allows them to demand all others conform to their view. In the case of the latter, their certainty allows them to definitively deny the existence of it!

[bloom]

101. God/dess

I think that God/dess is whatever people want to say that it is - as has been the case throughout history.

I think it makes more sense to say that God/dess is that which exists - than to say "God is Love" or "Love is God". And that is even Biblical - God supposedly saying that "he" is what is known as the great "I am". (Maybe there was something about "God is Love" as well - but I don't think that that makes as much sense as a definition).

And then people can always argue about what exists and what doesn't.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

102. No, it's an actual meaningful word.

If it were "whatever people want to say that it is" then the word would be entirely meaningless. However, that's not the case. The word "God" means, roughly "a supremely powerful supernatural entity"; the word "Goddess" is specifically a female or feminine God.

Nothing that doesn't satisfy that description is (a) God.

Words have meanings; trying to use them for things other than what they actually mean doesn't get anybody anywhere.

[greyl]

111. As defined by which few of the thousands of cultures?

That was a rhetorical question. ;) You must be aware of many myths, even in the history of our culture, that "show" how God/s have faults - that they have weaknesses surprisingly similar to ours.

"Words have meanings; trying to use them for things other than what they actually mean doesn't get anybody anywhere.

The meaning of the word "God" is quite a bit more nebulous than the specific certainty of, say, "gopher". The concept "gopher" doesn't include the notion that gophers transcend human conscious understanding. On the other foot, many concepts of God do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. No, that's the definition of the word!

If I were to claim that a being satisfying that definition *existed* (or that it didn't) then I'd be claiming to know something I had no way of knowing.

However, claiming that anything satisfying that definition is a G/god, and nothing else is, is simply claiming to have access to a dictionary, nothing more.

[immoderate]

92. No logic, therefore no logical weakness. Who created love?

God's main business as far as I can tell, is being the creator. Did love create the universe? And why do you have me asking these silly questions?

BTW, Evoman got it right. If god is love, or vice versa, then the words will be interchangeable. Don't forget Clapton!

--IMM

[lvx35]

97. Damn fine statement, but I see it a touch differently.

To me, Love is our most direct experience of God...But God remains transcendant of what can be humanly experienced until a certain final state, so until then Love remains our most direct experience of something larger than us.

[hunter]

99. "Thank God" just doesn't have the same feel as "Thank Love."

Not even "Thank my lucky stars."

Now, "Thanks, Love" that makes sense. A quick form of grace before meals, perhaps? If you are eating alone in a diner, you make your server happy, especially if you leave a big tip. Same thing in church.

[Ron Green]

103. I go with "God is love."

I see only two emotions: love and fear.

Love is God, and fear is the absence of God.

We can choose love (God), or not.

As long as we're in the world, we're subject to fear and challenged to choose love (mostly, I think through loving other people, who are really not "other" at all.)

I think that's how it is, y'all.

[greyl]

104. Have you ever seen Donnie Darko? ;)

There's a seen where Donnie attacks the notion(put forth by the self-help guru child molester) that people's responses are on a continuum between love and fear. It's a good scene.

With that, I'd love to bury this thread. When you see me randomly quoting ABBA and Prince lyrics, you can safely bet I'm quite sloshed. At least I wasn't driving.

edit: but, thanks very much for all the responses and keeping me company. I wish I could seperate out my own goofy responses from the others' thoughtful ones. :)

[Random_Australian]

105. Wow! That is the reason - you had several of us well wigged out.

(By not acting in the manner to which we are accustomed)

Sloshed, eh? :) Hope you had a good time. :)

[greyl]

106. Heheh, thanks.

I'm glad you could tell the difference. :)

I had just come inside after many hours of campfire, beer, and cosmic conversations.
It was nice to find some others who were still awake.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Hey I was glad to see you too

It was like the old meeting room days :D

[TallahasseeGrannie]

109. I think the statement is correct

but no one..believe me on this...has ever accused me of being logical.

[greyl]

110. Yes, and it isn't a logical statement. ( as noted above by others )

I was wrong to ask for logical arguments concerning a mostly emotional statement.

I think one reason it appeals to me, "logicboy", is that the logical consequence of the idea is that immediate personal responsibility supersedes the escapism of believing in any manner of saviors or divine authorities that simultaneously admonish and absolve "sin".
Personally, I have zero love for the aspect of the 5 major religions that promises "a better life next time". ;) I think that's a horrendously irresponsible cop-out.

www.slack-time.com/music-videos/Reggae-Music/Ziggy-Marley/Love-Is-My-Religion.shtml

[TallahasseeGrannie]

113. And if I could attempt just a wee bit of logic

it would mean that atheists don't feel love, which is not true. Love is a universal.

[greyl]

117. I don't think so. How could it possibly mean that?

No turn of phrase, no matter how adroit, could nullify the gamut of emotions that humans have in common.

[Random_Australian]

112. You are logical!

So there! :P

(just kidding around, and kicking the thread to embarass greyl.... :evilgrin:)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

114. I can be logical when the need arises

or perhaps the word would be common sense. I do with with analogy on tests but it pretty much stops there.

[Random_Australian]

115. Aye - though fuzzy logic can be fun. The other day I proved both that

A) Atheists believe in God

and

B) God does not believe in Himself, therefore we shouldn't either.

Don't mind how, just playing around with fuzzy logic, the better to smash it when I see it. :)

(The former was from the meaning of 'equals' and the latter from the whole 'The belief I have that the light bulb will turn on is from just evidence' thing.)

[greyl]

116. So, what's your preference?

Hard Cider? ;)

[Random_Australian]

119. I was completely unsloshed.

No really - though that is no less fearsome thing.

Watch what happens when I am not sloshed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5553072&mesg_id=5553134

Fear me! :)

[dattaswamI]

118. The Lord is always kindest

The Lord is always kindest and is interested in the happiness of all the human beings that are His children only. Gita says that the Lord is the father of all the living beings (Aham Bija Pradah Pita). The father always tries to favour His children and likes to see His children to be always happy. Originally only good path was created and all the human beings were permanently happy forever.

There was no trace of sorrow in their minds. That was called ‘Kruta Yuga’ or ‘Satya Yuga’ in which the deity of justice was standing on four legs. But in due course of time the continuous happiness started boring the human beings. One cannot eat sweets continuously. This reminds the “Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility” in Economics. They were bored and started feeling unhappy. Their minds were disturbed due to continuous happiness.

Therefore there was a need of break in the continuous happiness. That break can be only sorrow, which can be the fruit of sin only. Therefore the chilies were needed as breaks in the continuous eating of sweets.

Only for the happiness of His children, the Lord created the sin. He gave freedom to the souls so that they commit the sins and earn the chilies. Then the Lord arranged the life cycles by keeping sweets and chilies alternatively. Such arrangement alone can bring the real permanent happiness without boring. If it is continuous winter, you will get bored.

Summer is necessary. If it is continuous daytime it will be boring. Night is necessary. Even in the food the Lord created both sweets and chilies so that His children will enjoy the meals without boring. While eating the food, people will eat sweet dishes and hot dishes alternatively. Similarly the life cycle was arranged. Therefore creation of sin originally by the Lord shows only the infinite kindness of the Lord for His children.

Even if you have done two sins continuously, He is not giving the results of those two sins subsequently. In between these two sins a sweet result of good deed is penetrated so that the whole life cycle is an alternative arrangement of sweet and hot dishes i.e., results of good deeds and bad deeds. Such arrangement also shows the infinite kindness of the Lord for His children.

But what are you doing? You are pestering the God by showing false love through words (prayers) and mind (devotion) for removing the chilies and for getting sweets continuously. Since your love is not true, the Lord will not interfere with the theory of Karma, which says that one must enjoy the results of good and bad deeds. Therefore when you are pestering the Lord He is bringing the sweets from your future cycles as pre-matured fixed deposits with reduced values.

He is postponing your present chilies to the future cycles with added interests. Therefore as you are passing through the life cycles you are slowly entering such life cycles in which you are finding many number of chilies and less number of sweets. Remember that your future cycles are going to be full of chilies only without a single sweet.

In such life cycles the Lord cannot help you even if you cry to any extent. Then you are loosing your faith in the Lord and you will do sins only in such life cycles. Such sins will create further life cycles full of chilies only. Like this a chain reaction is set up and there is no end for such cycles of chilies and finally you will be born as a worm in drainage, which continuously undergoes misery only.

By doing rituals and doing certain worships and donations as suggested by astrologers, your sin is not cancelled and you will not get the fruit of a good deed, which was not done by you. These rituals suggested by priests and astrologers are of two types. 1) Trying to please the Lord by prayers (words) and devotion or meditation (mind). This type resembles the path of a prostitute who tries to please a person by words and feelings only to get some fruit from that person practically.

2) Trying to please the Lord by sacrificing work (Karma Sanyasa) and by sacrificing fruit of work (Karma Phala Tyaga) for getting some fruit from the Lord in return. This is the type of business of a merchant in which you give something and take something in return. In both these ways your future sweets are only brought to this life cycle and your present chilies are pushed to your future life cycles, because your love in these two ways is completely false.

In true love you will do Karma Sanyasa and Karma Phala Tyaga without aspiring any fruit in return. Of course sacrifice of words and mind to the Lord without aspiring any fruit in return is good, but cannot bring any fruit from the Lord. When you sacrifice words and mind, you are getting peace and pleasure in your heart and that it self is the fruit for that. When you are working in a field you are singing a song.

The owner of the field will pay for your work only but not for your singing. The work alone can bring the fruit, which is called Karma Yoga that consists of Karma Sanyasa and Karma Phala Tyaga. While doing Karma Yoga you may chant or sing or express devotion for your peace and your happiness only. That cannot bring any fruit from the Lord. EX: Suppose you work in the field for one hour and sing the songs for another hour without doing the work, the owner will pay you for one hour only and not for two hours.

There is only one path to get rid of the fruits of your sins and to get the fruit of good deeds, which you have not done. When you serve the Lord in human form here in this world, the Lord in human form will transfer your sins upon Him and will suffer for your sake. As a servant of the Lord, you are entering the second cycle called ‘Deva Yaana’ or ‘Jyothir Marga’ as explained in Gita. You will go to Brahmaloka along with the Lord and derive continuous happiness here and there in the presence of the Lord.

But in this path you should serve the Lord without aspiring any fruit and even this path. Such selfless service consists of Karma Sanyasa as done by Hanuman to Rama and Karma Phala Tyaga as done by Gopikas by offering butter to Krishna. In this path recognition of human incarnation of the Lord is very very important. The Lord comes in every human generation. Otherwise the Lord becomes partial to a particular human generation.

Hanuman and Gopikas never worshipped statues or photos of previous incarnations or the Gods present in the upper worlds like Brahma, Vishnu, Siva etc. In human body only, the Lord can enjoy your sins really as any other human being. Then only He can do the justice to the Law of Justice. Otherwise in the form of a statue or a photo He cannot enjoy your sins and therefore the Lord is never entering the statue or photo as said in Veda ‘Natasya Pratima Asti’.

Therefore the original creation of sin by God cannot be blamed. In fact it shows His infinite kindness to see His children to be really happy with alternative enjoyment of sweet and hot dishes.


At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[e-mail]