1 of 3
1
The End Of Faith, Or The End Of Hate, And Fear?
Posted: 14 February 2005 04:43 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hello EveryONE,

wink


First off, would we need a definition, of what "Love is, and isn't" ( ex. conditional, unconditional, corrective, violent, forgiving, etc. ) and would we need a 100% united agreement, as to it's definition?


Some issue's to consider, in the meantime.


  1. Are hate, murder, destruction and disrespect,  practiced exclusively, by those "of faith?"

  2. If one is disturbed by the incident concerning 9/11, what IS it, that was so disturbing, and horrifing?

Was it loss of life?
Suffering
Pain
All the above, and more?

If we, corporately, say yes, can we see also, that loss of life, suffering, disrespect, and pain, happen on a daily basis, right here, in the USA, and that these acts are committed, by the hands of "our own people," those being some of faith, and some NOT of faith?

Can we then…blame faith, and the tolerance of faith, as the *SOURCE* of ALL crimes upon humanity?

Are we disturbed, only by MASS suffering, and death?

Are we not as EQUALLY repelled, by even a SINGLE account of rape? Rape of a child, of an elderly women, of a disabled person?

Are we not as equally repelled, horrified, by even a single reported account of child abuse? A child, bound, and gagged with electric tape, as the parents took turns biting the child all over his body, because he broke a rule? (true story)

Was not a murder, over a pair of Nike sneakers, blasted all over the media? What does that have to do with faith?

Why are we hearing continuing, and with more frequency,  reports about women, and men, killing pregnant women, in order to steal her child? What does that have to do with faith?

Is hate, in fact, the "core" reason for these atrocities?

Or is fear, a springboard, for hate?

If fear, then of what?

A fear of not belonging, a fear of not being loved, a fear of loss, a fear of being inferior. (the list could probably continue further)

Could FEAR, be a reason that many, many, many religions were "invented" in the first place?

If fear, is indeed, "the" factor, WHAT, would be the solution, for the ELIMINATION of fear, forever?


Advocatus Diaboli

wink

Some people never say the words "I Love You" for like a child, they're longing to be told" ~Paul Simon~

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2005 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Advocatus Diaboli, are all faiths the same? Some faiths lead their followers toward their own destruction and that of others. Other faiths (supposedly) lead their followers into levels of higher consciousness.

I say, not all faiths are the same. Each individual faith should be analyzed on its own merits. Therefore, your questions can be answered differently according to a particular faith.

For those faiths that require good works of their followers, would it not be correct to hope that those faiths will continue to endure? Or would it be expedient for all faiths to simply end?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 01:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Champion,

You asked me to answer a lot of your questions.

I narrowed my questions, down to 1 simple question, to which you have yet, to reply.

If you want conversation, then please, stick to task.

Repeat>>>What is the worst case scenerio, that Sam H, and others who have “no faith” can expect, at the hands, of the “God of your understanding?”

I will, in “good faith” respond to one of your questions.

You speak of works. You’d need to define that-them first.

But since you speak of loving one’s neighbor, and you ALREADY said Sam isn’t opposed to that, than it would seem you are including Buddhism, as an acceptable “way” to do good works, nor, would you be excluding atheists in general, since they also, may do the very works, you are about to define.

Advocatus Diaboli

wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Here’s a partial answer to your first question:
1. Are hate, murder, destruction and disrespect, practiced exclusively, by those “of faith?”

Of course not. Saying, “All bloodhounds are dogs” is not the same as saying, “All dogs are bloodhounds.”  And saying, “An enormous number of cruel, hateful, evil actions are practiced under the name of ‘faith’ ” is not the same as saying, “Only those with ‘faith’ practice such actions.”

We need look no futher than the recent Soviet Union to see how much cruelty can be practiced in the absence of any religious faith. But Harris’ indictment of faith as the all-too-frequent driving force behind such actions is a beacon of the cold, clear light of reason. Just read today’s (or any day’s) headlines.

Your question about fear is an interesting one, and should probably be discussed in a separate answer.

BTW, I tried logging in under my registered ID, “Islander,” and it told me I can’t because my ID is inactive, and I should contact the system administrator. Can anyone tell me how to do that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hi Islander, Enjoyed your post, and just for the record, I give Mr. Harris, a standing ovation on most points of topic. I’ve had similar thoughts, and idea’s as have many others. (Though many disagree with him, on at least 20, 30 %)

Still, it seems he IS saying, an end of faith, to the fullest spectrum of meaning, that one could stretch it to mean.

If somone show’s me a quote, from SH, where he said otherwise, I’d be interested to see it.

Hope you have lovely tree’s, and plenty of sunshine, on that Island!

wink)

Advocatus Diaboli


wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-02-12

Don’t you just love the people that tell you all you need is love?  I would just love to know what they mean by love.  When I ask, I love the fact that lthey love to not give a clear definition of love.  These lovers seem to love to say only that love is love.  I have decided to give up on love and just try to say what I mean and ask others to do the same.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hi Ray,

Very suprised that you don’t get answers to your questions, about love.
(wonder how Hallmark Greeting Cards, has survived for so long then smile

Surprised too, that the biblical definition of love is not mentioned by the majority of those polled.

Some of have said, that love is a “force.” Think anyone can prove that statement?

Some, even use the term, “The Alchemy Of Love.” (interesting)

Bible text, even speaks of different types of love.

Then we have, Mother Love, Smother Love, Addicted to Love, the list goes on.

Also, as you probably are aware, some scientific studies have supposedly been able to pin-point certain chemical’s that are stimulated, or released, when people are in “love mode.”  Supposedly, it’s beneficial as well, for one’s body. (sheesh, the Muslims must have some health problems due to all that hate? Wonder if a study has ever been done, concering this, interesting again)

Short copy and paste,

When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells.
Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race!
These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation or “chemistry.” It is why new lovers feel euphoric and energized, and float on air. It is also why new lovers can make love for hours and talk all night for weeks on end.
This is the chemistry or the love sparks we all seek.

Actually when we have chemistry with someone, it’s not exactly flattering. In fact, some might call it insulting.

Why? According to Harville Hendrix our brain dumps PEA when we identify someone who can: 1. Finish our childhood business. 2. Give us back what we lost to the socialization process of growing up. End

That really doesn’t make love sound very good though, does it?

Makes those that “claim” to love, seem like junkies of sorts.

Forgiveness, is always a “big” topic. What chemicals here? Might be the Love ones? Can one forgive, without love being the “driving force?”

Well, don’t want to get to far off topic here, but you have to admit, we do seem to “love” to talk about it. (couldn’t resist lol)

Wow! Just thought of a phrase, that seems contradictory.

How many times, have we heard the phrase,  “I’d just love, to kill him?”

??? huh?

Misuse of word choice, perhaps? wink

So you give up on love Ray? At first glance, that sounds horrible.

But if giving up, is a “surrender”, and when one surrenders, they are not “trying” to do anything. Would this mean, that love, flows from surrender? I can’t say yes, too many variables. Have any insight on this Ray?

 

Advocatus Diaboli

wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2005 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Advocatus Diaboli: You asked me: What is the worst case scenario, that Sam H, and others who have “no faith” can expect, at the hands, of the “God of your understanding?”

Answer: The God that I know is a loving God, rich in forgiveness, able to meet all of our needs according to his riches and glory. Now, I would say that Sam does has faith. He must have faith that there is no God as much as I have faith that there is. But to answer your question, you’ve got two concepts here. One, those who have no faith, and two, what shall be the worst case scenario for these people.

(now keep in mind, I’m not Billy Graham, I’m sure he can do a better job than myself)

One, you touched on an interesting and deep concept. It is one thing to boldly proclaim faith in something. But it is another thing to actually believe it, and in this case, believe in God’s many promises to the believer. But what about those who have no faith? In the Greek translation, the word apistos (ap’-is-tos) means disbelieving, or without Christian faith, also having the sense of being unfaithful. Let’s talk unfaithful. You know, the bible says that God is evident just by looking at the wonders of nature. Humans instinctively are aware that a “being” not subject to the laws of physics must surely have created this world (actually, he created the laws of physics). So not having any belief in this him would be tantamount to denying what your own spirit is telling you. Some would call this a sin.

Two, what about those who are in this state? Well, this is a state of rejecting the living God. Now, those humans in this condition are no different on the outside that the rest of us. But inside their spirit is not regenerated (they have not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the comforter). These humans can expect numerous attempts by the living God to accept him with their own free will (this is the miracle of the living God, he gave us humans a free will). The worst case scenario is that they will go through their whole life and squander every opportunity to cross that bridge between their current state and the regeneration of their spirit. Simple but true, and sad as well. Death of the spirit is permanent and the only sin that condemns forever is the rejection of the Cross.

What a rant, eh! But you asked for it.

Hey, I complete it with an appeal to you and Sam:

Jer 3:22 Return, O faithless sons, [says the Lord, and] I will heal your faithlessness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2005 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hello Champion,

Having a little understanding, regarding the teachings of most Christians, your mention of a spirit, without the mention of a soul, seems a lack of a follow thru on your part.

I noticed you did not banish non-believers to “a hell”. Is that because you don’t embrace that notion, or do you need more time to clarify your postion?

And if you don’t embrace that, why not?

BTW, You need still, to “define” these works you keep mentioning. I cannot respond to all of your questions, until I get further info,  a clear-cut, definition of “works.”

This really caught my eye though,

You said>>>The God that I know is a loving God, rich in forgiveness, able to meet all of our needs End quote

Yet you say “this God” allows death of the spirit.

So let’s see if I got this straight.

Love, and forgiveness “really” aren’t for real then, according to “your” doctrine, or dogma.

For if the unbelievers, are “enemies” of the Cross, where is “love, and forgive your enemies?” God doesn’t obey his/her own commandment?

But believers, MUST love and forgive?

So the believers, are MORE loving AND MORE forgiving, than God?

How rich, is “rich?” Sounds like your God, needs to file a Chapter 11, kinda ,sorta, and would qualify, for subsidized housing. : o /

???

Will post a partial reply to your other questions, at the FAITH FORUM.

See you there. :o)

Advocatus Diaboli

 

wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2005 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hi Islander,

You mentioned fear, and a separate discussion.

Perhaps you could suggest a writing. ( at The Other Reading Forum)

Would be interested, to hear your thoughts, as well. We could touch on this briefly perhaps, at that forum.

A. D.

wink

He had very little patience with orthodox philosophers. He felt they became too prematurely trapped in matters of terminology. (said of Francis Crick)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 01:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-02-12

Hello Champ

You said “Now, I would say that Sam does has faith. He must have faith that there is no God as much as I have faith that there is.”  On what evidence or facts do you base such a conclusion?  Only a person that thinks believing in things is necessary could come to such a faith based conclusion.  How about maybe Sam has analyzed as rationally and logically as he could all the facts available to him from the universe and concluded that god does not exist?  Where is the faith or belief in that?  It seems obvious to me that Sam does not have faith (not even close to as much as yours) that there is no god while you are almost required to have such faith because of the lack of evidence on which to base the logical rational conclusion that there is ANY god much less the one you seem to believe in.  I think it is the typical believer’s self delusional trick to mischaracterize Sam’s rational conclusions based on evidence from the universe as beliefs so that evidence based conclusions can be portrayed as mere faith based opinion.  By this trick logical rational evidence based conclusions can be lowered to the same fictional status and non-evidentiary basis as a believer’s irrational illogical beliefs.

Ray

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-02-12

Dear Advocatus Diaboli

Thank you very much for your excellent biochemical description of what goes on in the human brain and body to produce the feelings typically described subjectively as love.  I already had some minimal understanding of the chemicals and their function but nothing that described it so thoroughly, clearly, or coherently.

I didn’t mean to imply that I was giving up on the “physical feelings” of love or even my personal subjective understanding of love.  I only meant that I was giving up on considering it as a solution to or understanding of the human condition because of the subjective flexibility and lack of uniformity I have found when I ask people to define what they mean when they use the word love.  It is my conclusion that is impossible to use the word love in general meaningful discourse.  If you try to follow arguments that base their premises on love I have found that will you spend most of your time going round and round chasing your tail.

Ray

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

>>Dear Advocatus Diaboli:

Dearest Ray,
wink

>>Thank you very much for your excellent biochemical description of what goes on in the human brain and body to produce the feelings typically described subjectively as love. I already had some minimal understanding of the chemicals and their function but nothing that described it so thoroughly, clearly, or coherently. End

Your welcome, but I’m still thinking on some of this. I wonder, how the researchers drew a distinct line, between what seemed as love, or lust?

It seemes this “love effect” could diminish, change.

I’m chasing the rabbit, concerning, enduring, unconditional love, un-changing, regardless of circumstance. (hence, no chemical change, no diminish)

(not to say however, that love, and trust, are the same thing, that wouldn’t work very well)

>>I didn’t mean to imply that I was giving up on the “physical feelings” of love or even my personal subjective understanding of love. End

Then guess I’ll have to cancel the Scrooge suit, that I was going to mail to you. (lol) glad to hear it.

>> I only meant that I was giving up on considering it as a solution to or understanding of the human condition because of the subjective flexibility and lack of uniformity I have found when I ask people to define what they mean when they use the word love. End

I see your point. Maybe, instead of us defining it in words, we could practice, show it, instead? (just a thought) What good is a pic. of a fresh Maine lobster if someone is starving to death? They can’t eat an “image” or defintion of such. But they COULD partake, of the real stuff? Where’s the beef? wink


>>It is my conclusion that is impossible to use the word love in general meaningful discourse. If you try to follow arguments that base their premises on love I have found that will you spend most of your time going round and round chasing your tail. End

If (since) we’ve all done that chasing, up till now, than perhaps some day, we’ll all stop going round, and round, the mountain, day, after day.

 

Ok, love ya Ray,..errr, can I have your Budwiser?

lol

A.D.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Actually I think most emotions humans equate with love are instinct.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2005 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Answer: The God that I know is a loving God, rich in forgiveness, able to meet all of our needs according to his riches and glory. Now, I would say that Sam does has faith. He must have faith that there is no God as much as I have faith that there is. But to answer your question, you’ve got two concepts here. One, those who have no faith, and two, what shall be the worst case scenario for these people.

You would have a hard time selling this bunk to the folks in the old testament who were clipped by your holy genocidal maniac!  It is amusing to me when your myths get in the way of your bullshit!

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 04:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-02-12

Dearest(?) Advocatus Diaboli

Getting kind of chummy aren’t we?  I don’t think you will ever catch the rabbit of un-changing, enduring unconditional love.  I have read and studied much in the area of psychology.  While in college (1965-1969) I took many hours (18) because I mistakenly thought psychology might be an avenue to what was true about the universe (especially that portion between the ears of humans).  What I found was a sort of science in a very primitive state.  It was mostly descriptive and full of subject reported data.  In psychology experiments with humans the independent variables are very hard to control.  Control groups often can only be generated statistically from similar aged populations because it is near impossible to determine similarities in the brain structures and experiences (environmental influences) of individuals.  This was a major problem with all the studies before technologies like the PET scam came into use.  In addition to these problems there were the pseudoscientific subjectively determined (nonsense) theories of researchers like Freud and Maslow.  Things were pretty confused.  Today thanks to technologies like MRI and PET scans there is a better understanding of brain chemistry and the situation has changed greatly.  It is now obvious that the brain is a biochemical machine that works with and at the same time responds to the endocrine system to produce human consciousness, emotions and understandings.

The brain is a part of the body and is as much influenced by other body systems as it influences them.  There is nothing enduring and unchanging in the brain’s chemistry, this would include the “love effect”.  The brain is an easily habituated machine (example; drug addiction) because of the many feed back mechanisms necessary to process data into responses to environmental conditions that allow the organism to survive and reproduce.  Over time the chemistry of the brain and endocrine system become conditioned to and change with the environment an organism is experiencing.  Watch humans as they age and this is easy to see.  Humans having evolved both self awareness and highly developed communication skills have developed expressions that can convey in only a subjective way the physical sensations that come about as a result of the interaction of their brain and endocrine system in response to environmental conditions.

I think that you can see from what I said above that I don’t think much of the idea of showing or practicing love.  As I see it love is the physical response of our brain and endocrine system to our environment. It is a subjective “feeling” that can not (yet) be physically shared with others (maybe some day a technology will be invented to make this possible). There is really nothing to practice in the sense of doing something in the world.  I think many humans strive to achieve the feeling of love because it just plain “feels” good and the reason it feels good is because the conditions that bring it on generally have survival value.  I think that there is scientific evidence to suggest that many mammals experience “feelings” and that these “feelings” have evolved because they have survival value.  In any of the systems that operate in the human body things can go wrong and this can lead to problems.  Cell growth and replacement is necessary and fundamental to survival but it can cause scaring and loss of function and if it gets out of control (cancer) it can kill the organism.  In the brain things can happen to cause brain cells to produce a brain chemistry which can generate aberrant behaviors and feelings in humans.  Today we call these behaviors and feelings symptoms of mental illness.  Because science has produced new information and understandings of the brain a condition like sever depression is no longer seen as laziness or poor attitude and schizophrenia is not considered to be demonic possession except by the most uninformed or superstitious among us.  Because of their ignorance of what the brain is and how it works humans of the past had mistakenly assumed that almost all individuals (it was obvious in extreme cases that this was not true) had total control over all their behaviors and if an individual behaved inappropriately they did so willfully or because some sort of evil spirit had taken them over.  Today because of advances in psychology we know that the causes of behaviors and feelings in humans are the result of an organism’s genetic make up interacting in a complicated way with the environment.  Today it is no longer appropriate treatment to analyze how much a patient hates their mother or father.  Treatment is now chemical in nature and drugs or behavioral therapy are used in an attempt to alter a patient’s brain chemistry and thereby alleviate the symptoms of illness.

My conclusion is that there really is no such thing as “love”.  Love is just a chemical state in the brain and it changes as conditions change.  Look at all the people that were once in love but are now divorced.  Anyone who has maintained a long term relationship knows how much work and effort it takes to do so.  Relationships based solely on the feelings of love will not last because the brain will become habituated to those chemicals and the feelings will fade and/or change.  The condition of loving someone is just a temporary internal state produced by brain chemistry.  You can not “love thy neighbor as thy self” any more than you can orgasm your neighbor as yourself.  Love is not a solution to any of the social, political or economic problems humans have.  It might help an individual cope with some of life’s problems at a personal level but beyond the individual it has no power or effect.

I recommend a book titled The Blank Slate written by Steven Pinker as an excellent source of well reasoned conclusions about human psychology based on the latest research in the field.

Ray

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed