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.

[tailor STATELY]

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

Very profound cacian. May I say the ideal for us is unconditional love - this is what faith teaches us and so many struggle with. God's love is not unconditional, as you noted, as some might erroneously espouse. I think you meant 'same' instead of "sane" in S3... but I get your drift.

An LDS view of divine love: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[YesNo]

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.


It occurred to me that I might be more of a cynic than you are. I don't think the human species would survive if it had to rely on personal vanity. We need pleasure-pain chemicals in our brains to encourage us to reproduce, stay together and then take care of the children.

But even with all this chemical reinforcement to do what we are supposed to do we can still choose to mess things up. If we do, the punishment is swift, if not for us, for someone else. I suppose this could be viewed as karma or conditional love.

It all seems mechanical and impersonal when chemicals are involved, but I think it has been deliberately set up this way. The idea that someone would go through all that trouble for us helps to melt the cynic in me. It's all a hint of what it's all about.

[Jackson Richardson]

I've no starry eyed view of parental love. I can recite Larkins' These be the verse by heart and with feeling.


But hang on. You said love has to be earned. I gave an example where it is not earned (and getting up in the night to care for a baby is an act of love, whatever the motivation). Then you seemed to say that isn't really love.

[Danik 2016]

It occurred to me that I might be more of a cynic than you are. I don't think the human species would survive if it had to rely on personal vanity. We need pleasure-pain chemicals in our brains to encourage us to reproduce, stay together and then take care of the children.

But even with all this chemical reinforcement to do what we are supposed to do we can still choose to mess things up. If we do, the punishment is swift, if not for us, for someone else. I suppose this could be viewed as karma or conditional love.

It all seems mechanical and impersonal when chemicals are involved, but I think it has been deliberately set up this way. The idea that someone would go through all that trouble for us helps to melt the cynic in me. It's all a hint of what it's all about.
Interesting theory, Yes/No, but if everything related to love went down to chemicals, destructive people(including parents, and relatives) and destructive groups might be cured with the adequate chemical treament.

[YesNo]

Interesting theory, Yes/No, but if everything related to love went down to chemicals, destructive people(including parents, and relatives) and destructive groups might be cured with the adequate chemical treament.

Love isn't reduced to chemistry. There is only a biological support for it. As a pleasure and pain support it implies we have to make choices which often aren't easy taking us beyond what can be explained biologically.

[Danik 2016]

Yes, I guess it is by what is called the human free will, that the complications start. Sometimes I wish humans were as single minded as animals. They at least are generally bend in protecting their own species and their own group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O-BFMcwiY8

[YesNo]

Yes, I guess it is by what is called the human free will, that the complications start. Sometimes I wish humans were as single minded as animals. They at least are generally bend in protecting their own species and their own group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O-BFMcwiY8

Nice rescue of the baby elephant. The older elephants also had the sense to lead the baby to an area where the slope was not as steep.

[desiresjab]

should they be kept
separate
or
together?

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

Like the two could be kept apart. It entails rewriting most Christmas carrols. I don't like that, as I am very fond of Christmas the way it used to be. God's angels would turn into mere soldiers, right, or bodyguards?

In every religion it is love that is struggling to emerge from the cultural maze of dictates it is ensnared in. Social order works better, too, when passionate humanity has constant reminders of good behavior versus the non empathic kind. This kind of reminder is better than a billy club or a posted ordinance that you shall love your neighbor as yourself, or else. I will choose threats deferred to a later Hell over those autocratic reminders.

I have frequently advocated that the Bible be reduced to the size of a first volume of poetry containing only advice that is valuable to people in their daily lives. One benefit is that Bibles on motel nightstands might actually be read with enjoyment and a greater chance of personal transformation because of the new density of meaningful words. You could do this with all the holy books of the world. Then you could even combine them into one text!

What would this new volume contain, ideally? Well, (it seems like a month since I kissed my baby goodbye) firstly, why would anyone need in their daily lives the creation myths of any religion? They are all bogus guesswork, and they have to go. After you get rid of the geneologies and outdated advice, you would not have a condensed Bible but a stripped Bible. A stripped Bible the world could use, and probably would more frequently.

This volume would be almost exclusively about love, wouldn't it? True, it would be a somewhat secularized text. The kind of love from One that enacted deadly pogroms against

Amorites
Canaanites
Ba-shan-ites
Midianites
Perizzites
Hivites
Jebusites
Makkedahites
Libnah
Lachish
Eglon
Hebronites
Debir
Gibeonites

would be absent from the text. The bulk of the advice of daily value to us would come from those passages involving right behavior and love. I would also include any instance of outstanding poetry.

The full Bible would still be around for scholars and diehards, it would not be outlawed or anything like that? I think the stripped Bible would be useful for its density of good advice.

My larger deli-loaf holy book would contain the truly wise words of all the world's major religions stripped from nonsensical surroundings, placed in new company, and might be no thicker than the collected poetry of Phillip Larkin.

[YesNo]

Instead of stripping the Bible or other sacred texts, one could write and even longer commentary. Or shorter commentary. In particular I am thinking of the three volume commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Eknath Easwaran as a good example of how to make sense out of an ancient sacred text.

[mortalterror]

Do we really need a whole Iliad or Hamlet or any of the world's other great books? Why don't we just strip them all down, so they can be read with pleasure, on the back of a post it note or a cracker jack box? Scholars would still have the whole War and Peace. What do modern people get out of all that stuff about Napoleon really?

[desiresjab]

Do we really need a whole Iliad or Hamlet or any of the world's other great books? Why don't we just strip them all down, so they can be read with pleasure, on the back of a post it note or a cracker jack box? Scholars would still have the whole War and Peace. What do modern people get out of all that stuff about Napoleon really?

I like your argument. However, what we do is strip them down anyway. Do you think more people on earth have read the Illiad than have seen the movie Troy starring Bad Pitt? Stripped it down. Guess what? Meanwhile, the full the text of the Illiad is still around for fans like me and you of the wine-blue sea and the rosey-fingered dawn. I have known more than a few people with Biblical verses on placards stuck all over their walls. Stripped it down. There is nothing wrong with it. It is already done in a variety of ways. My suggestion is more inclusive, but can act as an immediate spiritual guide and comfort. Do you think more people read the Bible as literati or historians than read it for spiritual comfort and guidance? There is no comfort or guidance in a genealogical list. I propose, however, there is high entertainment value in reading a recitation by Achilles of an ancestor's deeds or grievances before he and his opponent engage swords. Achilles then listens to his opponent's recitation, as well. Biblical geneaologies will not entertain, comfort or guide anyone of sound mind.

Are you offended if you listen to the radio and only the best song with the most popular appeal from a hit play is aired? The distillation process will go on all around us increasingly so. Shorter packets is the key to the mind of the wider public--ma and pa Kettle, let's say--but not the key to good literature, which cares nothing about the size of the packet it is delivered in.

Now, of course I never proposed doing this to literature in general. That was your gut reaction coming to the fore. There was a reason for doing it only to the holy books that billions of people profess to believe were divnely received from the old boy himself. Billions of people react differently to these books than any other books. They take the evil garbage in them literally right along with the beautiful precepts. Try chewing your favorite food on one side of your mouth and a live frog on the other. This is all right for those of us who must. But the the broken-hearted, the grieving, the suicidal, need immediate references to guide and comfort them. Isn't that largely what the content of these books is supposed to do on a humanitarian level, or are more people interested in reading them as literature again? Even in those literature classes, they do not assign the entire Bible to read, do they? Select books and passages might be assigned. That is like you doing it. Are you mad at yourself, lad? We all participate in the distillation somewhere, barely even thinking of it.

[mortalterror]

I'll admit that something like what you describe already exists and has for nearly two thousand years. My mother has been reading out of a prayer book filled with all kinds of upbeat inspirational parts of the Bible as long as I've been alive. The Roman Breviary, Book of Common Prayer, or Book of Hours also fulfills this function among various denominations. Before those came about, people would often use Psalters which were mostly just the Book of Psalms.

[desiresjab]

I'll admit that something like what you describe already exists and has for nearly two thousand years. My mother has been reading out of a prayer book filled with all kinds of upbeat inspirational parts of the Bible as long as I've been alive. The Roman Breviary, Book of Common Prayer, or Book of Hours also fulfills this function among various denominations. Before those came about, people would often use Psalters which were mostly just the Book of Psalms.

I have heard the names of those distillations but could not have told you that is what they are. I suspected such things might already exist in some form. So I learned something. Whether many would be inspired to learn that my deli-loaf holy book had replaced (or joined) the Bible on the their motel nighstand, is dubious. It would be basically a multi-cultural version of your mother's prayer book. That probably already exists, too.

[cacian]

Like the two could be kept apart. It entails rewriting most Christmas carrols. I don't like that, as I am very fond of Christmas the way it used to be. God's angels would turn into mere soldiers, right, or bodyguards?

In every religion it is love that is struggling to emerge from the cultural maze of dictates it is ensnared in. Social order works better, too, when passionate humanity has constant reminders of good behavior versus the non empathic kind. This kind of reminder is better than a billy club or a posted ordinance that you shall love your neighbor as yourself, or else. I will choose threats deferred to a later Hell over those autocratic reminders.

I have frequently advocated that the Bible be reduced to the size of a first volume of poetry containing only advice that is valuable to people in their daily lives. One benefit is that Bibles on motel nightstands might actually be read with enjoyment and a greater chance of personal transformation because of the new density of meaningful words. You could do this with all the holy books of the world. Then you could even combine them into one text!

What would this new volume contain, ideally? Well, (it seems like a month since I kissed my baby goodbye) firstly, why would anyone need in their daily lives the creation myths of any religion? They are all bogus guesswork, and they have to go. After you get rid of the geneologies and outdated advice, you would not have a condensed Bible but a stripped Bible. A stripped Bible the world could use, and probably would more frequently.

This volume would be almost exclusively about love, wouldn't it? True, it would be a somewhat secularized text. The kind of love from One that enacted deadly pogroms against

Amorites
Canaanites
Ba-shan-ites
Midianites
Perizzites
Hivites
Jebusites
Makkedahites
Libnah
Lachish
Eglon
Hebronites
Debir
Gibeonites

would be absent from the text. The bulk of the advice of daily value to us would come from those passages involving right behavior and love. I would also include any instance of outstanding poetry.

The full Bible would still be around for scholars and diehards, it would not be outlawed or anything like that? I think the stripped Bible would be useful for its density of good advice.

My larger deli-loaf holy book would contain the truly wise words of all the world's major religions stripped from nonsensical surroundings, placed in new company, and might be no thicker than the collected poetry of Phillip Larkin.
I am no mantra but
IF god is immortal and love isn't
how does one bridge the gap?

[Pompey Bum]

With the f-word (which is faith, by the way).

[stacy55]

Both are connected to each other, No religion can penetrate without love.