Can A Man Love God With The Mind?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

In Luke 10:27 it says...


"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

So I asked this: Can a man love God with his mind? Or is the mind limited to the cold process of reasoning only?

[RLStevenson]

I'm shocked that you actually used cold as an adverb for reasoning. Poor Descartes is probably rolling in his grave.

Can man love God with his mind... I don't see why not.

But there's a catch. The Bible was written by man. So who's to say that there really is a God...? Get my point?

[PrinceMyshkin]

In Luke 10:27 it says...



So I asked this: Can a man love God with his mind? Or is the mind limited to the cold process of reasoning only?


Oh, that's a great question, though I can think of two diammetrically opposed answers:

1) Of course! Because without God nothing in the world makes any sense at all; and

2) No, because looking at the world rationally, God must be utterly indifferent to the inequality, injustice and suffering of the world. One might understand such a God (or rationalize him) but one could hardly LOVE him!


I'm shocked that you actually used cold as an adverb for reasoning. Poor Descartes is probably rolling in his grave.

Can man love God with his mind... I don't see why not.

But there's a catch. The Bible was written by man. So who's to say that there really is a God...? Get my point?

X billion worshippers in X million different religions each with its own 'indisputable' vision of "God," that's who!

[Neo_Sephiroth]

I'm shocked that you actually used cold as an adverb for reasoning. Poor Descartes is probably rolling in his grave.

Can man love God with his mind... I don't see why not.

But there's a catch. The Bible was written by man. So who's to say that there really is a God...? Get my point?

That's a possibility.


Oh, that's a great question, though I can think of two diammetrically opposed answers:

1) Of course! Because without God nothing in the world makes any sense at all; and

2) No, because looking at the world rationally, God must be utterly indifferent to the inequality, injustice and suffering of the world. One might understand such a God (or rationalize him) but one could hardly LOVE him!

With the existence of God, things makes sense.

But, the world is full of suffering, so some people get the idea that God is indifferent, so one could hardly love him.

That's certainly true.

[PrinceMyshkin]

With the existence of God, things makes sense.

With virtually any elaborately developped belief system, things make some sort of sense!

One person's "sense," however, is another person's tohu-vavohu!

[RLStevenson]

Here is my answer to Prince's first remark.
No kidding. But are they correct in their assumptions of a God?
Now, getting back to the question at hand.

The entire quote seems to need critisizing. First off "all thy heart," and "all thy soul," should be under just as much question as "all thy mind." Think about it. How do we know where love really "comes from" in the human body?

It could be our kidney for all we know.

But who ever it was that wrote the Bible obviously realized that "Love God with all thy Kidney," didn't sound anywhere near as poetic or inspiring.
Personally, I think that loving with the mind sounds more credible/likely than loving with the heart.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

With virtually any elaborately developped belief system, things make some sort of sense!

I'm going to argue with that statement saying, if that's true we wouldn't be dicussing this right now.


Here is my answer to Prince's first remark.
No kidding. But are they correct in their assumptions of a God?
Now, getting back to the question at hand.

The entire quote seems to need critisizing. First off "all thy heart," and "all thy soul," should be under just as much question as "all thy mind." Think about it. How do we know where love really "comes from" in the human body?

It could be our kidney for all we know.

But who ever it was that wrote the Bible obviously realized that "Love God with all thy Kidney," didn't sound anywhere near as poetic or inspiring.
Personally, I think that loving with the mind sounds more credible/likely than loving with the heart.

It seems that, from my research, the bible is comprise of more than one book. So, the author of the bible is not just one person but many. Probably the apostles and prophets wrote the books which is contain in the bible.

[dzebra]

To love God is to obey his will, so loving God with your mind means using your mind to do God's will. Therefore, yes, I think it is possible to love God with all your mind.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

To love God is to obey his will, so loving God with your mind means using your mind to do God's will. Therefore, yes, I think it is possible to love God with all your mind.

But it is inenvitable, don't you think, that eventually man will turn to logic and evidence and reasoning?

And obeying God's will require, to some extent, not understanding some things.

[dzebra]

But it is inenvitable, don't you think, that eventually man will turn to logic and evidence and reasoning?

And obeying God's will require, to some extent, not understanding some things.

Yeah, some things will not be understood, but enough can be understood to have a reasonable, logical love for God based on good evidence.

I have heard several logical arguments that, though they do not prove God's existence, show that it is reasonable to believe in God. Evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible is in greater abundance than evidence supporting the reliability of any other ancient book. I don't think that acceptance of Christianity by any means requires denial of logic or reasoning or evidence.

[Visionary3]

And obeying God's will require, to some extent, not understanding some things.

Hey, there are a lot of things on this planet I don't understand but have to do, like years of obeying a school princial who had some really strange rules. The dress code didn't bother me, but having K-teachers call the office when they had to use the restroom and wait for someone to take her class when there was a teacher right next door, with an open door between them was not appreciated.

I can think of one religious example to share. When I was a child and was taught the 10 commandments as mandatory, it scared me and I didn't understand all the details about them. When I got to be a teen it occurred to me that if people kept the 10 commandments the world would be much better place.

[motherhubbard]

I want to look at this question a little differently. I love my husband and at first that was just a sweeping emotion that I seemed to have no control over. It was a driving force. Now, after 15 years and four children it is an emotion as well as a decision. There are times where I have to decide to just keep on loving him with my mind. He still has my heart and I am in love, but I know all the secrets and shortcomings and things you might hide from someone. I decide to love him with my mind.

I think the same is true with God. Many people say this or that as proof that God doesn’t exist. I totally understand where they are coming from. Also, some people have purely emotional experiences that they rely upon as evidence that God does exist. I totally understand that as well, but it is just not good enough to be swept up in an emotion and call it truth or true love.

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."


Heart = be in love with God or have the emotion
Soul = inner core- the part that is purely you
Strength= ability to endure or commitment
Mind= decide to love even though you can not reach out and touch or even though there is suffering

I am past the highs and lows that come with new love. True love is a decision that is not tossed about lightly. It is steady. It keeps on loving. That is all that this is saying.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

I'm shocked that you actually used cold as an adverb for reasoning. Poor Descartes is probably rolling in his grave.

I used "cold" to describe reasoning because it can, sometimes, be cold. Just pointing out my reason for doing so.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

I want to look at this question a little differently. I love my husband and at first that was just a sweeping emotion that I seemed to have no control over. It was a driving force. Now, after 15 years and four children it is an emotion as well as a decision. There are times where I have to decide to just keep on loving him with my mind. He still has my heart and I am in love, but I know all the secrets and shortcomings and things you might hide from someone. I decide to love him with my mind.

I think the same is true with God. Many people say this or that as proof that God doesn’t exist. I totally understand where they are coming from. Also, some people have purely emotional experiences that they rely upon as evidence that God does exist. I totally understand that as well, but it is just not good enough to be swept up in an emotion and call it truth or true love.

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."


Heart = be in love with God or have the emotion
Soul = inner core- the part that is purely you
Strength= ability to endure or commitment
Mind= decide to love even though you can not reach out and touch or even though there is suffering

I am past the highs and lows that come with new love. True love is a decision that is not tossed about lightly. It is steady. It keeps on loving. That is all that this is saying.

It is not evidence if it is base on emotions. No matter how powerful it might be.

But, honestly, all this seems to be base on human loving human...Not human loving God.

[motherhubbard]

I’m using human loving human as an example to answer the question of whether or not one can love God with their mind. I know it’s the long way around to making a point. But all I’m saying is the scripture you quoted is saying that your love of God must be more than an emotion. Emotions are tricky things. You must decide and make a commitment to love God. This is the kind of love that is greater than an emotion. Also, it’s good to keep in mind that the English language really falls short here in the use of the word love. Can we say we love bubble gum and then say we love God. It’s two different things and I think that is the point being made in this scripture. God want an enduring, contemplated love.

[Warm-Blooded]

some thoughts that one of my creed is to praise GOD whatever he makes against you Because when he made you pain or suffer from something he saved the the result in the Last Day or the Judgment Day where you will be accounted into even smaller bad thing you have done during your life moments but the tribulation you underwent will expiate a lot of your sins as a result you maybe go in the heaven which equals all your life and all of the happiest actions you enjoyed in your life ...
Then you must love GOD and praise him because he has a favor upon you

[RichardHresko]

In Luke 10:27 it says...



So I asked this: Can a man love God with his mind? Or is the mind limited to the cold process of reasoning only?

There are a couple of different ways of approaching this. One is to note that the mind is a tool we as humans can use. So we could look at this verse and see it as a call to use the totality of our being to love God. Kind of in the spirit of the motto: Laborare est orare -- to labor is to pray.

Another way to look at this is the idea that the mind here may be a synonym for soul. This would perhaps be a view similar to Aquinas on the question of what the mind and the soul are (for him the mind is a part of the soul). This would also involve oddly enough in the Thomistic view the body as well, since Thomas did not subscribe to mind-body dualism (which is a Western tradition from Plato to Plotinus to Augustine to Descartes).

I'm a little partial to Aquinas, but that's me.

Thanks for the interesting thought!
Richard

[MaryLupin]

to liberation, according to Hinduism. The "official" names for the three are jnana, karma and bhakti. The first path is the path of the head...of knowledge. The second is the path of the hands...working throughout life with no attachment, following one's duty (duty in this system means something other than the standard anglo definition of it). The third path to liberation is of the heart...through devotion to the various avatars of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Thinking about this, if one turns to observe the practice of any religion in the world, these three trends can be seen in how people practice whatever faith they call their own. In Christianity jnana is practiced by the theologians, karma by those who do good works and bhakti by those who (for example, speak in tongues.)

I should say that some Hindu thinkers add a fourth path...raja yoga...sort a path of mental discipline (not knowledge per se but control)

[libernaut]

Consider meditation or prayer. To love "God" with your mind is to be aware and have a sense of love for all aspects of your life. Apreciation. You can't go around hating the negative parts of your life and grow away from it. You have to look at it from a perpective of understanding. If a man only behaves "right" and thinks "wrong" is he complete in his development in loving "God"? Thinking your love for "God" is the beginning of it all in my opinion.

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

[apples of gold]

In Luke 10:27 it says...

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

So I asked this: Can a man love God with his mind? Or is the mind limited to the cold process of reasoning only?


There are a couple of different ways of approaching this. One is to note that the mind is a tool we as humans can use. So we could look at this verse and see it as a call to use the totality of our being to love God. Kind of in the spirit of the motto: Laborare est orare -- to labor is to pray.

Another way to look at this is the idea that the mind here may be a synonym for soul. This would perhaps be a view similar to Aquinas on the question of what the mind and the soul are (for him the mind is a part of the soul). This would also involve oddly enough in the Thomistic view the body as well, since Thomas did not subscribe to mind-body dualism (which is a Western tradition from Plato to Plotinus to Augustine to Descartes).

I'm a little partial to Aquinas, but that's me.

Thanks for the interesting thought!
Richard

It seems to me this scripture is telling us to use all of our minds (those mental faculties as they are scientifically understood today) to seek God; and that means rational thought and critical thinking - to look for God in the world around us, as well as within. Amos 5:8 “Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea …”.

Of course, the soul has no scientific definition and the heart can sometimes be better understood through poetry when in the midst of the folly of our passions, a guilty conscience, or when our love for God is tested through trials and there is little to glean from the harsh brutality of some scripture. And yes, reason is cold in comparison to the heat of emotion that fuels our beliefs.

These aspects of God are not mere metaphysical concepts. Through cosmology, physics, and others, we can use our minds to analyze. A discerning believer can find Him there. We can attempt to understand the nature of what we love. But where that understanding ends, we have our faith to enrich us.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It seems to me this scripture is telling us to use all of our minds (those mental faculties as they are scientifically understood today) to seek God; and that means rational thought and critical thinking - to look for God in the world around us, as well as within. Amos 5:8 “Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea …”.

Of course, the soul has no scientific definition and the heart can sometimes be better understood through poetry when in the midst of the folly of our passions, a guilty conscience, or when our love for God is tested through trials and there is little to glean from the harsh brutality of some scripture. And yes, reason is cold in comparison to the heat of emotion that fuels our beliefs.

These aspects of God are not mere metaphysical concepts. Through cosmology, physics, and others, we can use our minds to analyze. A discerning believer can find him there. We can attempt to understand the nature of what we love. But where that understanding ends, we have our faith to enrich us.

If reasons is our highest faculty and the only one that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, then surely 'God' would want us to love him above all with that. To say that where reason reaches a dead end, one can fall back on faith, seems to me to discredit reason from the start, as if you were to say I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, I will cheat or steal or lie. Flannery O'Connor was a lifelong, devout Catholic, who said that "Faith must consider all the other possibilities," which - I assume - includes the possibility that it is ill-founded.

[apples of gold]

If reasons is our highest faculty and the only one that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, then surely 'God' would want us to love him above all with that. To say that where reason reaches a dead end, one can fall back on faith, seems to me to discredit reason from the start, as if you were to say I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, I will cheat or steal or lie. Flannery O'Connor was a lifelong, devout Catholic, who said that "Faith must consider all the other possibilities," which - I assume - includes the possibility that it is ill-founded.


"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

I don't see the relevance in establishing reason to be the highest faculty of the mind. Since the whole of a person, in the context of the quoted scripture is made up of 1. heart, 2. soul, 3. strength (character), 4. mind, and 5. socially, the scripture is saying to love God with the whole of yourself. Whether one disagrees that we should love God or even that there is a God, is not in question.

You said: "To say that where reason reaches a dead end, one can fall back on faith, seems to me to discredit reason from the start, as if you were to say I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, I will cheat or steal or lie."

Reason is most certainly being credited in that comment, as well as in the scripture. And I certainly didn’t say “I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, will cheat or steal or lie.”

I wouldn’t want to exclude anyone from this discussion, however, I think there is somewhat of an assumption being made here. The text says … love thy God and proceeds to say how, not if you don’t love thy God then … . It is how we are to love God that is being discussed. I find it amazing that when these kinds of discussions in which the rules of strict debate are attempted to be adhered to with the proffering of evidence that is centered around religious texts, that the logical fallacies are tossed out in abundance from those who apparently have no interest in addressing the text as presented. Please don't attempt to set up a straw man. We would like this thread to continue in a spirit of open-minded discussion.

[PrinceMyshkin]

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

I don't see the relevance in establishing reason to be the highest faculty of the mind. Since the whole of a person, in the context of the quoted scripture is made up of 1. heart, 2. soul, 3. strength (character), 4. mind, and 5. socially, the scripture is saying to love God with the whole of yourself. Whether one disagrees that we should love God or even that there is a God, is not in question.

You said: "To say that where reason reaches a dead end, one can fall back on faith, seems to me to discredit reason from the start, as if you were to say I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, I will cheat or steal or lie."

Reason is most certainly being credited in that comment, as well as in the scripture. And I certainly didn’t say “I will be honest as long as I can, but when I can no longer be honest, will cheat or steal or lie.”

I wouldn’t want to exclude anyone from this discussion, however, I think there is somewhat of an assumption being made here. The text says … love thy God and proceeds to say how, not if you don’t love thy God then … . It is how we are to love God that is being discussed. I find it amazing that when these kinds of discussions in which the rules of strict debate are attempted to be adhered to with the proffering of evidence that is centered around religious texts, that the logical fallacies are tossed out in abundance from those who apparently have no interest in addressing the text as presented. Please don't attempt to set up a straw man. We would like this thread to continue in a spirit of open-minded discussion.

The question posed by the thread is "Can one love God with one's mind (emphasis added) and I was attempting to address your point, as I recall it, that when understanding was no longer sufficient in approaching or attempting to approach 'God,' "faith would continue to enrich us" (as I think you put it). I thought that postulated faith as being superior to, further reaching than reason - in which case why not dispense with reason altogether?

However I will respect your suggestion on behalf of the collective "we" to refrain from further participation in this discussion.

[apples of gold]

The question posed by the thread is "Can one love God with one's mind (emphasis added) and I was attempting to address your point, as I recall it, that when understanding was no longer sufficient in approaching or attempting to approach 'God,' "faith would continue to enrich us" (as I think you put it). I thought that postulated faith as being superior to, further reaching than reason - in which case why not dispense with reason altogether? ...

Again, I have trouble in grasping the extreme of dispensing with reason altogether. That would render one something other than human or perhaps human with an extremely low IQ, or infirm, or mentally incapacitated in some way.

And comments are there to refer to directly. There seems to be no need to recall them. That only increases the chances of misunderstanding what's been said.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding my friend and I wish you the peace that surpasses understanding. Shantih.

[ampoule]

I want to look at this question a little differently. I love my husband and at first that was just a sweeping emotion that I seemed to have no control over. It was a driving force. Now, after 15 years and four children it is an emotion as well as a decision. There are times where I have to decide to just keep on loving him with my mind. He still has my heart and I am in love, but I know all the secrets and shortcomings and things you might hide from someone. I decide to love him with my mind.

I think the same is true with God. Many people say this or that as proof that God doesn’t exist. I totally understand where they are coming from. Also, some people have purely emotional experiences that they rely upon as evidence that God does exist. I totally understand that as well, but it is just not good enough to be swept up in an emotion and call it truth or true love.

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."


Heart = be in love with God or have the emotion
Soul = inner core- the part that is purely you
Strength= ability to endure or commitment
Mind= decide to love even though you can not reach out and touch or even though there is suffering

I am past the highs and lows that come with new love. True love is a decision that is not tossed about lightly. It is steady. It keeps on loving. That is all that this is saying.

I think this is an excellent explanation motherhubbard.
I can only speak from a Christian standpoint because I am a follower of Jesus Christ and that is all I REALLY know. I honor and respect many viewpoints but I don't know enough about them to debate one way or the other, but, from my own experience....
I have been in charge of large spiritual retreats where I have seen people 'changed'. I have sat in worship services where I have witnessed people being 'saved'. I have sat beside people who have had earth shattering experiences where the outcome is total love and devotion to God. Though these are deep, wonderful experiences, I also feel they, the experiences, are like a rosey-glow honeymoon. It is what comes after the honeymoon, the conscious decisions, the reasoning, the questions, the work, that help us achieve that deep and abiding love.

As for the biblical writers to choose heart, soul, strength, mind, and that sounding too poetic, well, the bible is many things, including a book of stories and poetry. What's wrong with that? It says in other places that we are to love God with everything. It may not say kidney or pancreas or pituitary gland but it does say with our hands and feet, our mouths and even our sexual organs. In other words, if we honor everything about ourselves, we honor God who gave us our very lives. No, let me reword that. If I honor everything about MYSELF, I honor God. I didn't mean to speak for anyone else.

So, can a man love God with the mind? All I know is this WOMAN can.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I think this is an excellent explanation motherhubbard.
I can only speak from a Christian standpoint because I am a follower of Jesus Christ and that is all I REALLY know. I honor and respect many viewpoints but I don't know enough about them to debate one way or the other, but, from my own experience....
I have been in charge of large spiritual retreats where I have seen people 'changed'. I have sat in worship services where I have witnessed people being 'saved'. I have sat beside people who have had earth shattering experiences where the outcome is total love and devotion to God. Though these are deep, wonderful experiences, I also feel they, the experiences, are like a rosey-glow honeymoon. It is what comes after the honeymoon, the conscious decisions, the reasoning, the questions, the work, that help us achieve that deep and abiding love.

As for the biblical writers to choose heart, soul, strength, mind, and that sounding too poetic, well, the bible is many things, including a book of stories and poetry. What's wrong with that? It says in other places that we are to love God with everything. It may not say kidney or pancreas or pituitary gland but it does say with our hands and feet, our mouths and even our sexual organs. In other words, if we honor everything about ourselves, we honor God who gave us our very lives. No, let me reword that. If I honor everything about MYSELF, I honor God. I didn't mean to speak for anyone else.

So, can a man love God with the mind? All I know is this WOMAN can.

Dear MotherH & Ampoule, at last I can say that while I doubt the existence of God, I do not doubt His existence for you. Cosmologists conjecture now that there may be multiple universes; the Navajos believe that each of us is the centre of his/her universe. When Jesus said: “Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay,” he most probably was encouraging us to be firm in our convictions, but might he not also have been addressing the inevitable two halves of humanity, turning to the one side and saying: “Let your yea be yea” and then to the other: “and your nay be nay,” referring to the eternal dialectic by which humankind see-saws its way forward?

At times it must seem to you believers that we non-believers (whether we style ourselves Atheist, A-theists, Agnostics or as I prefer Lapsed Atheists) at times it must seem to you as if we are wilfully blind, obstinate, petulant children, arms crossed over our chests, lower-lip stuck out in a sulk, rebelling against self-evident, beautiful truth - rebelling just for the sake of doing so.

At times we may feel ourselves, perhaps vain-gloriously, like the kid who proclaimed that the Emperor was naked!* And to the crowd of onlookers who have oohed-and awed over the Emperor’s new clothes, that kid is assuredly a spoilsport and makes, or seeks to make opportunistic fools of them.

I do indeed reflexly reject all salespeople who come to my door whether they be selling Encyclopaedia, vacuum cleaners or religion. In the case of the first two I understand that their need to believe that their particular product is the best of its kind and necessary to my well-being is underpinned by a more demonstrable need: their need to pay their bills, feed their kids, upgrade the car they’re driving. In the case of those who offer to sell me their religion, I suspect an underlying need but don’t know what species of coin they hope to bank by selling it to me.

But my doubts are not only grumbling and negativity. They are the source of great joy to me. I see myself standing as the edge of a vast field, the furthest reaches of which will be forever beyond my sight. In or on that field is growth of every kind, the names and nature of many of them as yet and possibly forever unknown to me, but some I may yet come to know. Along with what I perceive as breathtakingly beautiful plants and flowers, there are weeds. They have an equal need of sunshine and rain, but left to themselves they would eventually take over the field and choke out every other growth.

But there is joy in the openness of the field, the vastness of it. I don’t understand those who choose only to follow the already well-trodden paths, always to the same destinations.

*Come to think of it that fairy-tale can be read as a parable of religion.

[Redzeppelin]

God can be loved with the mind because God created us to be different from animals: we have a spiritual nature, and that spiritual nature is composed of our reason, our conscience and our desire to worship (all people worship something - some of us choose the correct object of that worship [God] and others of us choose something else: human reason, money, sex, power, drugs, food, etc). Reason and conscience are used to effect judgment.

Reason and faith are not opposites; for the Christian, the only reasonable view of life is the one that includes and is based upon God. Reason occurs within a framework - because insane people think that their ideas/conclusions are perfectly reasonable (no comments, please). Suicide bombers and people who want to sue McDonalds for "making" them fat equally believe their position to be "reasonable." We may disagree, but what was that disagreement based on, except a different conceptual framework from within which we exercise that reason? The suicide bomber saw his act as divine justice - but we who view God differently react with horror because that is not the God that the Bible presents; ditto for the McDonalds example: for those of us who view life as a product of our choices (an internal locus of control - to use psychology jargon - as opposed to an external locus of control ), bringing a lawsuit against McDonalds is [I]unreasonable.

God gave us reason so that we could examine and evaluate life; He gave it to us in order that we could understand Him (to the degree that He can be understood). Once we decide that our reason can function independently of the framework of God, then it begins IMO to lie to us because its foundation is no longer stable.

[ampoule]

I don't mean for my comments to sound so rude but :( , they do. Sorry.


At times it must seem to you believers that we non-believers (whether we style ourselves Atheist, A-theists, Agnostics or as I prefer Lapsed Atheists) at times it must seem to you as if we are wilfully blind, obstinate, petulant children, arms crossed over our chests, lower-lip stuck out in a sulk, rebelling against self-evident, beautiful truth - rebelling just for the sake of doing so.

To be very honest, I don't spend much time thinking about non-believers. I think about people.


At times we may feel ourselves, perhaps vain-gloriously, like the kid who proclaimed that the Emperor was naked!* And to the crowd of onlookers who have oohed-and awed over the Emperor’s new clothes, that kid is assuredly a spoilsport and makes, or seeks to make opportunistic fools of them.

Be my guest. I am a fool for Christ.


I do indeed reflexly reject all salespeople who come to my door whether they be selling Encyclopaedia, vacuum cleaners or religion. In the case of the first two I understand that their need to believe that their particular product is the best of its kind and necessary to my well-being is underpinned by a more demonstrable need: their need to pay their bills, feed their kids, upgrade the car they’re driving. In the case of those who offer to sell me their religion, I suspect an underlying need but don’t know what species of coin they hope to bank by selling it to me.

Not only do I reject them, I don't even open my door. I have no need of a vacuum cleaner or to debate religions. But, as far as those who DO go door to door, it is their way of carrying out the great commission of Jesus Christ, to go and make disciples of all nations. The Mormons are exceptionally good at this, literally sending their young people all over the world.
Personally, I'm more of a 'if you like it, come and get it' kind of Christian.


But my doubts are not only grumbling and negativity. They are the source of great joy to me. I see myself standing as the edge of a vast field, the furthest reaches of which will be forever beyond my sight. In or on that field is growth of every kind, the names and nature of many of them as yet and possibly forever unknown to me, but some I may yet come to know. Along with what I perceive as breathtakingly beautiful plants and flowers, there are weeds. They have an equal need of sunshine and rain, but left to themselves they would eventually take over the field and choke out every other growth.

And, I am glad for your joy. And, I think 'both sides' like to use that weed analogy.


But there is joy in the openness of the field, the vastness of it. I don’t understand those who choose only to follow the already well-trodden paths, always to the same destinations.

Do they really? My path is nothing like my Aunt Rosemary's and ....
John 14:2, "In my father's house, there are many mansions." I have put a bid on a lighthouse.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I don't mean for my comments to sound so rude but :( , they do. Sorry.

No, they didn't sound rude, a bit feisty maybe or like someone who hasn't had any*in as long as I haven't.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Baskin-Robbins Jamocha-Almond fudge, that is.

[AngelEyes714]

If you were a robot, and programmed to love someone, would you truly be loving that someone?

Or would you just be doing what you are told?

The crucial element of our being made in the image of God is our free will. And we were given that so we could CHOOSE to love God or not. Its not love without that choice.

Emotional love is a driving love - it has no rational, it doesn't care for logic - it just loves. Loving with all your heart is loving passionately and emotionally.

Soul love is ingrained in your very being - you can't remove it from yourself - your existence depends on it. Don't try to understand that unless you've actually felt that kind of love.

Mind love is the choice you make even when the other two are absent. Its easy to love God when you feel good, and you can "feel his presence", but when you can't feel his presence, and you don't feel good, try loving then. Try making a mental choice to love God when all you want to do is throw things at him.

I know that my perspective is more skewed towards an actual belief in this than a purely intellectual interest, but I like to see my views as balanced here. You can't begin to understand it until your ready to actually believe it.

However, seeing as its possible to love humans that way, I don't see why we can't love God that way. Its the same concept only without a concrete being to foist that love upon.