religion and love

[cacian]

should they be kept
separate
or
together?

Jesus loves you is a religious point of view and not a statement.

[YesNo]

Both religion and love are subjective experiences. A computer has no need for either. I don't think they can be separated.

One thing that I find suspicious when I hear love and religion mentioned together is some religions might think that their religion is better than others because it is based on love rather than something else such as ethics or faith. I don't think such distinctions are useful. Any panentheistic religion that I would find worth paying attention to has God(s) that can be loved and love the devotees back. That love justifies our love for each other.

[PeterL]

I think it is a matter of the God or Goddess involved. Some Gods are very lovable and loving, while others inspire hatefulness. If Frigga is your preferred Goddess, then love is indicated, but if you have Loki as the central God, then trickiness and nastienss would be more relevant. It's up to you.

[caddy_caddy]

should they be kept
separate
or
together?

Jesus loves you is a religious point of view and not a statement.

Hello Cacian,
I think there is no point of any religion if love is not the supreme value or meaning of that religion / doctrine despite all the atrocities we see and live in .
" Jesus loves you" is not a religious point of view . This is the basic of life itself.
From my reading of the dialogue between God and Satan I discovered that God cursed Satan not because Satan disobeyed Him. It was not a question of " authority" as we mostly think. Satan didn't love God truly and because he didn't love Him enough , he accused Allah of being unjust .
When you love someone , you believe in him and you trust him. True love is a matter of trust and belief.
God was upset at Satan and banished him because Allah needs love. He needs to be loved.
Love is the answer to " why God created us and the universe?
To me, this beautiful universe is a " bribe" from God to make us love Him because there is no meaning of being a God if you're not being loved.
The being of Allah itself is meaningless if He doesn't love and be loved , that's why be created us , just to love Him and to give meaning to His existence.
There is no point of creating us and the universe otherwise. Heaven itself is a place for love only and nothing but love.
Who were enemies on earth reunited in love in Heaven.
A religion is a system of life and you can find many religious systems but the ultimate meaning should be directed towards love and nothing but love.

[YesNo]

You've made a good point, caddy caddy, about the difference between obedience and love.

[Lokasenna]

I'm deeply suspicious of any being (divine or otherwise) that requires the adoration of its subjects. Love is earned, not commanded. It all has a touch of North Korean leader worship about it...

The Bible is also quite clear that God is capable of hate as well as love (Deuteronomy 12:31 and 16:22, Psalm 5:4-6 and 11:5, Proverbs 6:16-19).

I think I follow Paul Tillich's line on the matter: where God, or human relationships with God, are concerned, love as a concept is inseperable from those of power and justice. To separate them is to alienate ourselves from the idea of God.

[caddy_caddy]

Yeh for sure love is "earned"not commanded.I didn't say it is commanded! If it were so ,all mankind would be believers.It is up to you to love or hate.

[cacian]

I'm deeply suspicious of any being (divine or otherwise) that requires the adoration of its subjects. Love is earned, not commanded. It all has a touch of North Korean leader worship about it...

The Bible is also quite clear that God is capable of hate as well as love (Deuteronomy 12:31 and 16:22, Psalm 5:4-6 and 11:5, Proverbs 6:16-19).

I think I follow Paul Tillich's line on the matter: where God, or human relationships with God, are concerned, love as a concept is inseperable from those of power and justice. To separate them is to alienate ourselves from the idea of God.

that is a rather a stronger statement. to talk about relationship between god and humans is a
a far fetched concept because of the meaning of the word relationship
because
is one saying without god one is not able to have feeling?
my fear is poeple love god more then their own people close to them or far.
god is more important that anything bestowed upon them including their 'loved ones'
in the name of a god anything goes and that contradicts the very foundation of what love actually means.

[Lokasenna]

that is a rather a stronger statement. to talk about relationship between god and humans is a
a far fetched concept because of the meaning of the word relationship
because
is one saying without god one is not able to have feeling?
my fear is poeple love god more then their own people close to them or far.
god is more important that anything bestowed upon them including their 'loved ones'
in the name of a god anything goes and that contradicts the very foundation of what love actually means.

I hesistate to answer, insofar as I am not a religious person - merely an observer for whom mythology and theology (of any kind) are interesting things of study.

I don't think that many theists would argue, however, that interpersonal relationships between humans are dependant on, or a consequence of, an individual's relationship with God (or whatever form He or They might take). Love must exist independently of the divine, otherwise atheists would not be capable of it - which is clearly not the case. Nor could humans truly love God: an emotional response cannot be commanded from outside, it must come from within the individual. To love God if all love comes from God and works through God would be slavery. However, people of deep faith may very well argue that their relationships are ultimately founded on the Godhead - two devout Christians in love, for example, might situate their romantic love in the greater context of God's divine love for them.

That being said, my personal opinion leans to the thought that an over-emphasis on the divine tends to sour human relations. I have some good friends of an evangelical disposition who, despite (or perhaps because of) our friendship, have informed me of their belief that when I die I will go to Hell because of my lack of faith in Jesus Christ, while they will ascend to Heaven as part of the Elect. I've always thought there was more than a hint of sadism to such a worldview, and I always think that I lack the courage or the emotional fortitude of such true believers: were I in their position, I would find it impossible to make friends with anyone I thought was Hell-bound. How could I possibly enjoy Heaven, knowing someone I had loved during my human life was in Hell?

As a theological worldview, it goes against my belief in love (inspired by Tillich): there is no expression of love that is not also an expression of power and justice. And, at times, there is little just or powerful about the gods some of our species worship.

[YesNo]

Love must exist independently of the divine, otherwise atheists would not be capable of it - which is clearly not the case.

This part doesn't make sense to me. If there is a divine, then atheists would not be independent of that divine just because they deny its existence. So atheists experiencing love is not evidence that love is independent of the divine.

I look at power and justice as objectifications of love which is primarily subjective. When things become objectified one runs into paradoxes because no objectification is complete.

[Lokasenna]

This part doesn't make sense to me. If there is a divine, then atheists would not be independent of that divine just because they deny its existence. So atheists experiencing love is not evidence that love is independent of the divine.

Good point. I suppose this to some extent depends on the entirely subjective consideration of what atheism actually means: does the withdrawal of a human from God also necessarily entail the withdrawal of God from the human? Some (usually hard-line) theists would say that it does. To deny God is cut oneself off from everything that comes from Him, which must include love if we accept that the theological position that He is the source of all love. That said, I'm sure there are plenty of theists who would argue that God delivers love to all people, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

I look at power and justice as objectifications of love which is primarily subjective. When things become objectified one runs into paradoxes because no objectification is complete.

That's an interesting take on the subject. From a theological point of view, it would suggest that perfect love (i.e. that of God) is an impossibility. Do you think that thinking about power and justice detracts from a more universal (if still inevitably subjective) definition of love?

[mortalterror]

I'm deeply suspicious of any being (divine or otherwise) that requires the adoration of its subjects. Love is earned, not commanded. It all has a touch of North Korean leader worship about it...

The Bible is also quite clear that God is capable of hate as well as love (Deuteronomy 12:31 and 16:22, Psalm 5:4-6 and 11:5, Proverbs 6:16-19).

I think I follow Paul Tillich's line on the matter: where God, or human relationships with God, are concerned, love as a concept is inseperable from those of power and justice. To separate them is to alienate ourselves from the idea of God.

I don't see it so much as a command coming from an authority figure as much as I see it as a moral imperative, or the right way to be, like how a child should naturally love their parents, his creators. A child which doesn't love it's parents or a parent which doesn't love it's creation is an unnatural state of affairs which indicates a state of deep dysfunction. In the bible it's said that people have a covenant with God, like a man has a covenant with his wife. It's only right that a man should love his wife or else he's doing her an injustice, and it's only right that a man should love his God. This puts everything into their right relationship for healthy interaction and well being. When you think about it, this love and respect is precisely what is owed to God. This is the beginning of justice, because anything less than a feeling of gratitude and admiration for the one who has given us everything from life to the universe would be ingratitude. And if you can't be fair to the one who's literally given you everything, how could you be just with anyone else?

Good point. I suppose this to some extent depends on the entirely subjective consideration of what atheism actually means: does the withdrawal of a human from God also necessarily entail the withdrawal of God from the human? Some (usually hard-line) theists would say that it does. To deny God is cut oneself off from everything that comes from Him, which must include love if we accept that the theological position that He is the source of all love. That said, I'm sure there are plenty of theists who would argue that God delivers love to all people, whether they acknowledge Him or not.

I have to agree with YesNo on this one. Gravity doesn't stop working just because you decide not to believe in it. Or evolution, if you are a creationist. Reality exists independent of our perception of it.

[Jackson Richardson]

I'm deeply suspicious of any being (divine or otherwise) that requires the adoration of its subjects. Love is earned, not commanded. It all has a touch of North Korean leader worship about it....

What has a baby done to earn the love of parents, not just emotional feelings but the practical love of giving up the chance of any uninterrupted night's sleep for two years?

[cacian]

In the bible it's said that people have a covenant with God, like a man has a covenant with his wife.

love is unconditional
god isn't
one cannot compare the two as being one and the sane covenant or not.

[Lokasenna]

What has a baby done to earn the love of parents, not just emotional feelings but the practical love of giving up the chance of any uninterrupted night's sleep for two years?

The nasty little cynic who lives in a dark corner of my soul, and who makes himself known more often than is probably healthy for me, has come to the conclusion that love of one's own offspring is merely personal vanity in a more socially acceptable form. It is self-love transferred to a little meat homunculus made in one's own image (and produced by one's own... er... exertions). This is the only reason my inner cynic has for explaining why other people find their interchangeable mini-Winston Churchills either a) adorable or b) interesting.

The same might be said of one's God. Self-love transferred to the divine, helpfully (in the case of many religions) retranslated into the form of an identifiable human being (e.g. Christ, Vishnu, etc). God made in man's image indeed. Easier to love, and to imagine being loved, by something limited and human than by something vast and incomprehensible.

Sorry, the cynic is strong tonight. I'll put him back in his box now.