Pretend you are God

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This is the issue at hand. The whole purpose of free will is love. This is the highest purpose for man, and touches the very nature of God.

Brilliant, quote me back a whole lot of text that confirm what I have been saying and then tell me I'm wrong. Groan

Anyway, like I said this isn't the issue at hand, I never even brought up free will :rolleyes:

In this scenario we are asked to imagine what we would do if we were omnipotent.

You have given no reason why we require the ability to be hurt in order to experience love, what ever way you choose to define that.

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

This is the issue at hand. The whole purpose of free will is love. This is the highest purpose for man, and touches the very nature of God.

How does your love manifest itself? I may be jumping to conclusions about your point of view but I find a lot of the Christian use of the word renders it meaningless. Such as "I don't hate this group of people that I'm campaigning against, I love them. Hate the sin, love the sinner etc...." Its very easy to go around saying you love everybody but it seems the people who make a song and dance about it are often using it to mask an awful lot of hate. Again I'm not referring specifically to yourself.

StealthRolex

strobe wrote: »

That's a pretty unusual statement to make. Do you view loving someone as a decision people make? You meet someone and you choose to be in love with them or not like you choose wether or not to shake their hand?

It's not that unusual. Falling in love is one thing but after a few years with the same person the feelings and emotions associated with "falling in love" diminish. One can try to "fall in love" with he same person again and while not impossible it is a little difficult as "falling in love" is as much about discovery as it is about hormones. What is left to discover? Where is the excitement of the new?

In most long standing relationships once the falling in love part is past one chooses to remain with this person and love them as the person they "fell in love with".

If I could just unmuddy something. There is a world of difference between deciding to love someone and choosing to love someone.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyway, like I said this isn't the issue at hand, I never even brought up free will :rolleyes:

In this scenario we are asked to imagine what we would do if we were omnipotent.

As God created the planet and the beings so free will is a given.
The beings can make choices based on free will and not instinct - they are not animals.
Your omnipotence only relates to the planet and reversing anything God has already deemed to be done is a no-no.

With power comes responsibility. You are responsible for these beings now.
You cannot choose to exercise your power without love for if that is your nature how did you get into Heaven?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not that unusual. Falling in love is one thing but after a few years with the same person the feelings and emotions associated with "falling in love" diminish. One can try to "fall in love" with he same person again and while not impossible it is a little difficult as "falling in love" is as much about discovery as it is about hormones. What is left to discover? Where is the excitement of the new?

In most long standing relationships once the falling in love part is past one chooses to remain with this person and love them as the person they "fell in love with".

If I could just unmuddy something. There is a world of difference between deciding to love someone and choosing to love someone.

You are correct that there is a difference between early romanticised love that normally fades after 3 or 4 years and longer lasting love.

But there is a world of difference between acting in a loving way to some one and loving someone.

The impression I get is that people who subscribe to PDN's notions of choosing to love have actually fallen out of both types of love, but thinking this is just what happens and is perfectly normal, and out of a sense of loyalty and affection to the other person, choose to continue to act in a loving way to that person, despite the lack of the actual emotion behind that.

So from their point of view they are choosing to "love" this person, which actually means they are choosing to continue to act in a loving way to this person. If you think that is all there is then you will natural consider that to be what loving someone means.

But, while admirable, it would be a mistake confuse this with actual long lasting love, which is not an action.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

As God created the planet and the beings so free will is a given.
The beings can make choices based on free will and not instinct - they are not animals.
Your omnipotence only relates to the planet and reversing anything God has already deemed to be done is a no-no.

With power comes responsibility. You are responsible for these beings now.
You cannot choose to exercise your power without love for if that is your nature how did you get into Heaven?

I'm not removing anyone's free will, that is PDN's little straw man.

PDN

uncleoswald wrote: »

How does your love manifest itself? I may be jumping to conclusions about your point of view but I find a lot of the Christian use of the word renders it meaningless. Such as "I don't hate this group of people that I'm campaigning against, I love them. Hate the sin, love the sinner etc...." Its very easy to go around saying you love everybody but it seems the people who make a song and dance about it are often using it to mask an awful lot of hate. Again I'm not referring specifically to yourself.

Loving someone most definitely impacts on how we behave towards them.

I don't think you can 'love' a group of people so much as you can love the individual.

For example, I remember having to visit a paedophile in prison some years ago (his children were coming to a Sunday School class in our church). I must confess I found it very hard to feel anything towards this guy except disgust and revulsion.

So, I did what I often do when I'm struggling to love someone. I asked him questions about his past. And what I heard was a story of an absolutelly horrendous childhood.

Now, I still find that guy's actions to be absolutely abhorrent. I think that prison is the best place for him, and I don't think his childhood experiences in any way absolve him from the responsibility for his own sin and crimes. But I can honestly say that I felt compassion for him - yes, even love.

Now, I would definitely campaign against any toleration of paedophile activities - but I don't think that necessarily involves hating the people themselves. I wouldn't say that I love paedophiles as a group, but I have discovered that with an individual paedophile it is indeed possible to love the sinner and to hate the sin.

In this context I don't believe our use of the word 'love' is meaningless - nor is it masking hate.

StealthRolex

old hippy wrote: »

Am I to assume you're a religious sort? Where did you pull that 95% figure from? Can I have a link to it, please?

If truth be told it's probably closer to 99.999% as there are still a few atheists yet to come out of the closet

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The impression I get is that people who subscribe to PDN's notions of choosing to love have actually fallen out of both types of love, but thinking this is just what happens and is perfectly normal, and out of a sense of loyalty and affection to the other person, choose to continue to act in a loving way to that person, despite the lack of the actual emotion behind that.

The problem is, once you allow your impressions to overrule logic, that you end up spouting garbage.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've been head over heels in love with the same woman for over 25 years, and I cannot imagine how it would be possible for two human beings to love each other more intensely.

I also love my daughter, I love many wonderful friends (and a few rather crap friends) and I love the people that has God entrusted to my care as a pastor. I've had the joy of visiting mothers with new born babies in hospital, having the privilege of guiding those babies through many childhood crises and the usual stuff that teenagers go through, then eventually conducting their marriage ceremonies (and feeling just as proud, and teary eyed, as the actual parents). I love the people with whom I have sat and held their hands while they were dying, and their own offspring had 'better things to do'. I love the people whom I've counselled when they were bereaved, or raped, or have been diagnosed with a terminal disease.

Don't you dare sit at your computer screen and try to infer that I have fallen out of love or am just going through the motions. Go out and live (and love) for a few years - then you might have some credibility for pontificating on this forum about your ideas of what love should be.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you not see the contradiction in that?

Why would someone choose to hate someone for a stupid reason since it is a stupid reason?

Perhaps you should have considered that I was talking from my own subjective perspective when I was talking about the stupidity of a person's reason for hate. They obviously don't consider it stupid.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Loving someone most definitely impacts on how we behave towards them.

I don't think you can 'love' a group of people so much as you can love the individual.

For example, I remember having to visit a paedophile in prison some years ago (his children were coming to a Sunday School class in our church). I must confess I found it very hard to feel anything towards this guy except disgust and revulsion.

So, I did what I often do when I'm struggling to love someone. I asked him questions about his past. And what I heard was a story of an absolutelly horrendous childhood.

Now, I still find that guy's actions to be absolutely abhorrent. I think that prison is the best place for him, and I don't think his childhood experiences in any way absolve him from the responsibility for his own sin and crimes. But I can honestly say that I felt compassion for him - yes, even love.

Now, I would definitely campaign against any toleration of paedophile activities - but I don't think that necessarily involves hating the people themselves. I wouldn't say that I love paedophiles as a group, but I have discovered that with an individual paedophile it is indeed possible to love the sinner and to hate the sin.

In this context I don't believe our use of the word 'love' is meaningless - nor is it masking hate.

Very interesting!

old hippy

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't. Psychosis is an abnormal mental condition. 95% of humans believe in supernatural beings, that is hardly abnormal is it. The human brain naturally (and perfectly normally) constructs agents in nature.

Anyway, I suspect you are about to get kicked, but perhaps you should do some research into how the human brain works to stop you coming across as so blisteringly ignorant.

Wiki says this about psychosis "People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder"

Sounds fair enough to me. But I shall keep it zipped from here on in - as I've just been warned by the all seeing Mod.

Have a peaceful day

Fanny Cradock

old hippy wrote: »

Wiki says this about psychosis "People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder"

Sounds fair enough to me. But I shall keep it zipped from here on in - as I've just been warned by the all seeing Mod.

Have a peaceful day

Those are symptoms associated with psychosis, not a description of psychosis. You quote Wiki but you fail to give the Wiki definition: Psychosis means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". If you believe that belief in a deity is akin to psychosis then you have just described your family members, friends neighbours and the majority of our species past, present and future. I've been lenient in only giving you a yellow. Don't push it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Don't you dare sit at your computer screen and try to infer that I have fallen out of love or am just going through the motions.

I've no idea what your person situation is PDN, not do I think you are being in anyway consistent in your position, so I've no issue with accepting that you are truly "head over heels" in love with your wife.

The point is that as soon as I point out that choosing to "love" someone is actually just choosing to act in a loving way to them, you yourself seem to realize that this isn't love, which is why you get angry at the suggestion that this is what you and your wife have.

Which simply brings you up to speed with the rest of us. It is the same conclusion that I and others have been at since you started bringing up this nonsense idea that you choose to love someone.

You don't choose to love someone because, you choose to act in a loving away to someone. But as you yourself point out this is just going through the motions, albeit often for noble reasons.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you should have considered that I was talking from my own subjective perspective when I was talking about the stupidity of a person's reason for hate. They obviously don't consider it stupid.

Ah I miss understood, I thought you meant stupid in a general sense, something everyone would agree on.

I know lots of people who hate others for reasons even they would admit are petty and stupid. The issue is they don't control this, so that realization doesn't ease the emotional state they are in, most likely because the reason isn't actually the root cause of the anger.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is that as soon as I point out that choosing to "love" someone is actually just choosing to act in a loving way to them, you yourself seem to realize that this isn't love, which is why you get angry at the suggestion that this is what you and your wife have..

I didn't realise any such thing. It's a shame you can't discuss concepts without jumping to unwarranted personal assumptions about what other people think or feel.

It is perfectly possible to choose to love someone and then to deliberately frame your actions so as to promote certain feelings.

Think back to that paedophile in the prison cell. I did not feel anything, initially, but revulsion. But I deliberately acted in a way that would give me a different perspective. One that enabled me to feel compassion and love.

However, I could equally have acted in a way calculated to produce hate. For example, I could have pretended to be a similar kind of pervert and so induce him into boasting about his crimes.

It is the same when you enter into a romantic relationship. You may sense an attraction for someone else - and that attraction can be a combination of many factors including physical appearance, personality and intellect. But whether that initial attraction develops into love or not is largely down to your choices.

You may employ a private detective and brief them to give you a comprehensive report about everything sneaky,lowdown or cruel that the young lady has ever done. That is probably not going to lead to love.

Or, you may arrange for the two of you to meet up in a romantic atmosphere with soft lighting and good food.

Love is not just something that you fall into because you catch someone's eyes across a crowded room, but that you can fall out of just as easily while having no say over the matter whatsoever. That might be how it works in the imaginations of 13 year old girls - but in real life we have much more control over who we do, or don't, love. And, in my opinion, real love is much more meaningful, and much more intense, than the Mills & Boon variety.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

...choosing to "love" someone is actually just choosing to act in a loving way to them...

<schnip>

You don't choose to love someone because, you choose to act in a loving away to someone.

Which of these statements is your true position?

I'm with PDN though. Love is a choice. We choose to love.

Are you mixing up infatuation and lust with love or do you think love, infatuation and lust are related? I only ask because it's the only way I can make sense of your responses.

Put it another way - if you do not think love is a choice what do you think it is?

Fanny Cradock

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm with PDN though. Love is a choice. We choose to love.

While I would probably put some spiel in there about concious and unconscious choices working together with other factors (biological urges etc.), I'm largely in agreement. I don't see this as a religious/ irreligious divide.

strobe

StealthRolex wrote: »

A little more about the plan...

Adam and Eve were in the Garden with both the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life.

Was it part of the plan that at some point they could be eaten, and if so in what order?
Or was it part of the plan that they could never be eaten thereby remaining as a perpetual test of obedience to God?

Is it possible that a knowledge of right and wrong alone is sufficient to eventually develop (or evolve into) a knowledge of good and evil?

I would hazard a guess that the planet you are in charge of does not have a Garden of Eden with the two trees.
I would also hazard a guess that as this Earth has reached its time the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled so will get no interference from Satan.

Cheers for clearing it up a bit, but I think the question takes too many presumptions on my part for me to be able to give an indebt answer. I don't believe evil exists, for example, and to pretend it did on my planet, or indeed on Earth would require for me a much more abstract imagining of what kind of beings I was overseeing and how I would need to guide them, as I would have nothing to base their nature on.

Really the only way I could give a proper answer would be to imagine I was God himself in charge of Earth at the dawn of man, in which case I decide on what my plan for humans was, or that I was an omnipotent god like being, in charge of the other planet and god either didn't exist or existed in a universe that didn't interact with mine.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Think back to that paedophile in the prison cell. I did not feel anything, initially, but revulsion. But I deliberately acted in a way that would give me a different perspective. One that enabled me to feel compassion and love.

By Dawkins beard.

That isn't choosing to feel compassion and love.

That is choosing to act in a way that you think may eventually lead you to feel compassion and love (I'm still doubtful that you love the pedophile but that seems to come down more to the funny definition of love you are using)

If you could choose your emotions then the very first time you ever met the guy you would simply choose to love him.

Yet you didn't, because you couldn't. That is not how emotions work. You felt revulsion that you had no control over emotional response.

The very fact that you did have to direct yourself one way hoping that this would eventually lead to a different feeling demonstrates that your feelings are not under your direct control.

It is like forcing yourself to eat something you hate until eventually you don't mind it any more. The very fact that you have to do this demonstrates you don't control what you hate or like.

PDN wrote: »

It is the same when you enter into a romantic relationship. You may sense an attraction for someone else - and that attraction can be a combination of many factors including physical appearance, personality and intellect. But whether that initial attraction develops into love or not is largely down to your choices.

Of course it is.

But there is no control over your emotions. You set yourself up in certain situations and hope that your emotional responses end up being what you want them to be. They might or they might not. You don't choose it. I can be as simply as going to a night club and hoping you meet someone you like, or going on a second date with someone you think you might like. But this isn't choosing to be in love, that is just silly.

For example, a person in an arranged marriage may decide to go ahead with the marriage to please her family and hope that eventually she will fall in love with the man she married.

The very fact that she does this demonstrates she can't control her emotions or who she loves. If she could she would simply choose at the start of the marriage to love her husband, just as you would have at the moment you met the criminal choose to love him. There would be no "I hope I eventually fall for him", she just would.

Likewise I could take a new job in Australia knowing that while I'm over there for 6 months I could lose my love for my girlfriend, yet still make that choice. But I'm not deciding this is what will happen, I'm just aware that it might if I do this.

Love is not something you choose. You can put yourself in certain situations and hope that it develops, but that is not the same thing at all. It is still beyond your control whether it does or not.

strobe

On the love thing: I guess it comes down to individual interpretation. What love means to you. I agree with Fanny that there is probably some cognitive element involved, but I believe there is some cognitive element involved in anything we feel or do. But going on what I take the word love to mean I don't think it is possible to chose or ehhh un-chose to love someone. To be honest I kind of feel very sorry for someone that views the world through those glasses, how dull and cold it must be at times.

But I have no desire to join the semantics war (so much seems to boil down to nothing at all but semantics in these discussions for some reason) that the argument has become so I'll leave it there.

StealthRolex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I would probably put some spiel in there about concious and unconscious choices working together with other factors (biological urges etc.), I'm largely in agreement. I don't see this as a religious/ irreligious divide.

Well, there is a scientific explanation for everything isn't there

Ok, point taken, although I was not trying to make it a religious issue. However, the realization that taking charge of a planet as omnipotent overseer is going to involve a deeper understanding of love as part of the thought experiment.

The religious perspective would be that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is love and that the human capacity to love is a reflection of this.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

I don't believe evil exists

I'm going out on a limb here and I suggest that your perspective on evil is perhaps a function of your particular upbringing. I think perhaps you would change your mind if you saw evil first hand.

I personally see no other way to satisfactorily analyse our worst deeds unless we compare rape, murder, Holocaust and every other sick crime against the yardstick of moral absolutes.

I don't know what form his argument will take beyond what it says in the blurb, but I think you might enjoy this lecture in TCD scheduled for 12 tomorrow.

Fanny Cradock

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well, there is a scientific explanation for everything isn't there

Ok, point taken, although I was not trying to make it a religious issue. However, the realization that taking charge of a planet as omnipotent overseer is going to involve a deeper understanding of love as part of the thought experiment.

The religious perspective would be that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is love and that the human capacity to love is a reflection of this.

I just sort of lumped that last sentence in to the mix. Stream of conciousness and all that. Still, I think my point stands - interpretation based on personal opinion rather than religious opinions.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Love is not something you choose. You can put yourself in certain situations and hope that it develops, but that is not the same thing at all. It is still beyond your control whether it does or not.

That may be true for certain kinds of love but it is not true for all kinds of love.

When marriages were arranged people grew to love each other if they left themselves open to the possibility of love between them. Of course it was not going to happen if one of them choose to remain closed to the possbility or to actively discourage it.

If choosing to love is beyond our control why did Jesus command us to love God and love each other as we love ourselves?

Do we have to sit with our neighbours until we love them to fulfill this and if it fails abandon ourselves to hell?
No. We learn what love is beyond what we initially think it is and set about doing what we were created to do.

Jesus would not ask us to do the impossible which is what you are suggesting.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

If you could choose your emotions then the very first time you ever met the guy you would simply choose to love him.

It is like forcing yourself to eat something you hate until eventually you don't mind it any more. The very fact that you have to do this demonstrates you don't control what you hate or like.

I think these two sentences odd. You seem to be saying that for somebody to have control they must have immediate control. In other words, that time is somehow a factor.

I think that PDN has argued that he eventually felt love for love for this dreadfully unlovable character. Similarly, it seems blinding obvious to me that one does exercise a substantial cognitive control in what food you like and don't like. Your example - where one moves form a state of hatred of a certain food towards indifference or even love of that food - actually undermines the point your are attempting to make. In your example we have time plus physical and mental conditioning resulting in a change of emotional response.

StealthRolex

strobe wrote: »

On the love thing: I guess it comes down to individual interpretation. What love means to you. I agree with Fanny that there is probably some cognitive element involved, but I believe there is some cognitive element involved in anything we feel or do. But going on what I take the word love to mean I don't think it is possible to chose or ehhh un-chose to love someone. To be honest I kind of feel very sorry for someone that views the world through those glasses, how dull and cold it must be at times.

But I have no desire to join the semantics war (so much seems to boil down to nothing at all but semantics in these discussions for some reason) that the argument has become so I'll leave it there.

It goes beyond semantics and is worth discussion. For example, while I proposed and science fiction type fantasy world using a Christian premise we could all find ourselves in this capacity in a limited sense in this world albeit for a limited time.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

That may be true for certain kinds of love but it is not true for all kinds of love.

Well you guys seem to have a very wide and vast net when saying what is a kind of love, so for the purposes of trying to dig our way out of this some what pointless rabbit hole I agree to disagree

StealthRolex wrote: »

If choosing to love is beyond our control why did Jesus command us to love God and love each other as we love ourselves?

Because Jesus didn't command us to love God and each other as we love ourselves.

Jesus commanded us to "agape" God and each other. Or at least that is what people claim, in Greek, he told us to do. Since Jesus most likely didn't speak Greek who knows what he actually told us to do.

The definitions of what that word means carry connotations far beyond the English word "love". Agrape can mean to unconditionally respect and treat well, which is certainly something you can choose to do to other people. From Wikipedia, as Thomas Jay Oord puts it,

an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being.

That of course is not love in the English sense of the word, but since there is no direct translation for Agrape in English translators went to love because that was sort of close.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Jesus would not ask us to do the impossible which is what you are suggesting.

Jesus didn't ask you to love your neighbour. For a start Jesus didn't speak English.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm going out on a limb here and I suggest that your perspective on evil is perhaps a function of your particular upbringing. I think perhaps you would change your mind if you saw evil first hand.

I personally see no other way to satisfactorily analyse our worst deeds unless we compare rape, murder, Holocaust and every other sick crime against the yardstick of moral absolutes.

I don't know what form his argument will take beyond what it says in the blurb, but I think you might enjoy this lecture in TCD scheduled for 12 tomorrow.

That's quite a limb you have gone out on alright. If it's your presumption that I haven't seen or experienced horrible things first hand as a child or since, you're very wrong.

In the broadest definiton of evil, "that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" of course I believe things exist that cause harm, I'd have to be insane not to. It's the "that" part of the definition I have a problem with. "That" being "Evil". Some indescribable force that makes people do cruel things. For many Christians I have spoken to (I don't know if you are one of them?) they describe evil as the hand of Satan in man's affairs. It's the belief that a lot of people seem to hold that evil itself is a cause of people doing cruel things or the explanation for those actions that I object to.

"Did you hear about that woman that murdered her kids?"

"Yeah, why do you think she did that?"

"Some people are just evil."

EDIT: In regards to the lecture I don't suppose it will be taped and put online? It does sound interesting.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus didn't ask you to love your neighbour. For a start Jesus didn't speak English.

According to Matt 22:39 he did - "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself", which mirrors Lev 19.18.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think these two sentences odd. You seem to be saying that for somebody to have control they must have immediate control. In other words, that time is somehow a factor.

There is a difference between manipulation and control.

If I know you like cup cakes and leave a cup cake out on the table in the morning and you go over, take it and eat it, I've manipulated you into do that. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that I was controlling you.

On the other hand I sting you with an electrical jolt to the leg causing you to spasm and kick your leg I'm controlling you.

In the later case I choose whether it happens or not, rather than simply setting up circumstance and hoping that it does as in the former case. Hence I'm in control

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In your example we have time plus physical and mental conditioning resulting in a change of emotional response.

Mental condition isn't control, it is manipulation. In fact the very requirement of mental conditioning signifies the lack of control. If you were in control you wouldn't need to condition.

Which is why someone chooses to train to be a ballet dancer, rather than simply choosing to be a ballet dancer. No one simply walks onto a stage and simply does it because they don't have the control over their body to do this and thus don't have the choice.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

According to Matt 22:39 he did - "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself", which mirrors Lev 19.18.

Did Jesus speak English?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Did Jesus speak English?

And your point? Perhaps that we all learn Aramaic? I'm not sure you line of hair splitting is getting us anywhere.

PDN

Which is more annoying?

a) Someone who has never experienced marriage trying to lecture married people about love and marriage.

b)Someone who is ignorant of Greek trying to lecture those who have studied Greek what a Greek word means.

Should we open a poll?

dvpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Premise is quite simple. Having lived your life on Planet Earth you die and go to Heaven.
You discover that God has been playing with various planets across the universe creating life here and there. Some are still primordial, some have basic life forms, some have hominids.

You are provided with a planet where the equivalent of what was homo sapiens on earth is emerging.

Don't be mad. You wouldn't be given a planet like that as a new hire. I'd ask to be trained up on an easier planet first.

Sure I couldn't trust myself not to make loads of mistakes; my poor communication skills might lead to the inhabitants getting mixed ideas about what I expected from them and my lack of management experience would surely only lead to the entire place tearing itself apart by conflict and environmental neglect.

strobe

StealthRolex wrote: »

It goes beyond semantics and is worth discussion. For example, while I proposed and science fiction type fantasy world using a Christian premise we could all find ourselves in this capacity in a limited sense in this world albeit for a limited time.

By all means continue with the discussion. But in my opinion I don't want to be invovled because for me it comes down to semantics on my part. It would be like debating which is the best car ever built, when my definition of a car was "a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine" and the other people were going by the definition of "any motorised form of transport".

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Which is more annoying?

a) Someone who has never experienced marriage trying to lecture married people about love and marriage.

b)Someone who is ignorant of Greek trying to lecture those who have studied Greek what a Greek word means.

Should we open a poll?

JPII wrote "Love and Responsibility" without ever having been married. I found it enlightening rather than annoying.
Additionally as option (a) could also include Jesus and St. Paul it might be somewhat contentious and open a can of worms regarding various Biblical interpretations.

If by option (a) you mean pimply young turks whose only experiences of love are by way of Hustler and the occasional slapper or lady of easy virtue by all means.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And your point?

My point is that "Love your neighbor" is how someone else translated what Jesus said, in a language that isn't English.

Saying why would Jesus tell us to "love" someone if that wasn't what love meant is irrelevant because Jesus didn't tell anyone to "love" anyone.

Appealing to the authority of Jesus when discussing what the English word "love" means, as StealthRolex was doing, is thus pointless since he didn't say anything in English.

Jesus, I'm pretty confident, never uttered the word "love" in his life.

StealthRolex

dvpower wrote: »

Don't be mad. You wouldn't be given a planet like that as a new hire. I'd ask to be trained up on an easier planet first.

Sure I couldn't trust myself not to make loads of mistakes; my poor communication skills might lead to the inhabitants getting mixed ideas about what I expected from them and my lack of management experience would surely only lead to the entire place tearing itself apart by conflict and environmental neglect.

No problem, you would have plenty of time to learn the ropes - anything from 6000 to 200,000 years before they get technological enough to start doing serious damage to the environment.

You would probably not be expected to jump in and start meddling straight away and could take the time to observe them for a while first.

If mistakes occur with the odd isolated civilization the effects on later generations will in time become negligible.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Should we open a poll?

Marriage? Free will? What is it with you and rabbit holes today? :rolleyes:

How about we just discuss the topic at hand, which, in case you have forgotten on your little quest to introduce ever rabbit hole imaginable, is the question can a being experience love without the ability to be hurt.

Crazy as that idea may sound to you

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

If by option (a) you mean pimply young turks whose only experiences of love are by way of Hustler and the occasional slapper or lady of easy virtue by all means.

He means me, because instead of having an actual intelligent come back to my points he apparently prefers to simply resorting to childish mocking, the sort of thing he would reprimand if anyone else was doing it.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

My point is that "Love your neighbor" is how someone else translated what Jesus said, in a language that isn't English.

Not just 'someone else' - but numerous translators with extensive knowledge of the Greek language, who see 'love' as being an accurate translation.

But now you want to tell us that those translators are wrong and that you know better.

In the past you have done this in the area of biblical studies and interpretation by claiming that theology is a nonsense subject, that biblical scholars are hopelessly biased, and that your interpretation is just as good as anyone elses.

Are you know suggesting that the study of languages is also a nonsense subject, that the experts in that field are all subjective, and that your translation of Greek, despite your evident ignorance of the language, is as good as anybody elses?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not just 'someone else' - but numerous translators with extensive knowledge of the Greek language, who see 'love' as being an accurate translation.

As opposed to what exactly? There is no direct translation. Close enough is not the same as accurate.

I doubt any of the translators would have expected people to be silly enough to take it as a perfect translation and not to look into the translation process themselves and the meaning of the original words. Which is why so many Biblical scholars, including yourself, return to the original Greek text in the first place. If the translations conveyed the meaning perfectly there would be no need to do this.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

He means me, because instead of having an actual intelligent come back to my points he apparently prefers to simply resorting to childish mocking, the sort of thing he would reprimand if anyone else was doing it.

Hmm... and your assertion that Jesus did not say what He said because He did not speak English is not childish? or Facile?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Hmm... and your assertion that Jesus did not say what He said because He did not speak English is not childish? or Facile?

Nope, it is simply accurate.

You were appealing to what Jesus said for a clarification of the English word "love" and what it means in relation to choice.

"If choosing to love is beyond our control why did Jesus command us to love God and love each other as we love ourselves?"

I was merely pointing out that Jesus never used the English word "love", and thus what he said can give us no greater insight into what the word itself means or should mean.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

My point is that "Love your neighbor" is how someone else translated what Jesus said, in a language that isn't English.

Saying why would Jesus tell us to "love" someone if that wasn't what love meant is irrelevant because Jesus didn't tell anyone to "love" anyone.

Appealing to the authority of Jesus when discussing what the English word "love" means, as StealthRolex was doing, is thus pointless since he didn't say anything in English.

Jesus, I'm pretty confident, never uttered the word "love" in his life.

An inane tangent that adds nothing to the debate. Yes, Jesus didn't speak English, so what? It not like we can't translate.

I do believe this is quite the most childish nonsense I've seen form you to date. Nothing more than a spanner in the works of an otherwise interesting discussion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An inane tangent that adds nothing to the debate.

Fanny it was a response to direct question asked to me by StealthRolex. If you want to give out about off topic give out to him.

This the last few pages of this thread is on an inane tangent, as I've pointed out a few times and which others, including yourself, have ignored.

Is anyone actually interested in discussing my original points about love and hurt, you know the ones that relate to the actual thread title? Or should we continue on this trip down the rabbit hole?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, Jesus didn't speak English, so what?

Did you read my response that last time you asked that question?

Seriously don't complain about inane tangents when you seem insistant that we stay on one by simply asking questions that have already been answered again...

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a difference between manipulation and control.

You muddy the water by injecting the word "manipulation" into the discussion. I can't imagine why it is relevant.

Wicknight wrote: »

If I know you like cup cakes and leave a cup cake out on the table in the morning and you go over, take it and eat it, I've manipulated you into do that. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that I was controlling you.

Again, I'm not sure why this example is in any way relevant. We are discussing actions and decisions internal to the individual. Your cunning plan to get me to eat cup cakes is external to me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why someone chooses to train to be a ballet dancer, rather than simply choosing to be a ballet dancer. No one simply walks onto a stage and simply does it because they don't have the control over their body to do this and thus don't have the choice.

You are firing out all these fanciful examples that deal with ballet dancers and cup cakes and all the time you miss the mark. We're not talking about external factors to the individual. We are talking about the possibility that the individual exercises control over himself.

Furthermore, has anyone claimed here that all things are possible? No. Has anyone claimed that attempts to exercise control on your own person will always be successful? No. You seem to be getting awfully muddled over the attempt exercise control a control over emotions and the somebodies suitability for ballet dancing.

I can see this debate is going nowhere.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Fanny it was a response to direct question asked to me by StealthRolex. If you want to give out about off topic give out to him.

This the last few pages of this thread is on an inane tangent, as I've pointed out a few times and which others, including yourself, have ignored.

Is anyone actually interested in discussing my original points about love and hurt, you know the ones that relate to the actual thread title? Or should we continue on this trip down the rabbit hole?


Did you read my response that last time you asked that question?

Seriously don't complain about inane tangents when you seem insistant that we stay on one by simply asking questions that have already been answered again...

Incredible.

StealthRolex wrote:

Jesus would not ask us to do the impossible which is what you are suggesting.

to which you replied

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus didn't ask you to love your neighbour. For a start Jesus didn't speak English.

I provided a link form Matt 22 where Jesus is quoted as saying "love your neighbour." You again pointed out that Jesus didn't speak English but have failed to explain why this is relevant to StealthRolex's post or this thread. Have you demonstrated that the translation to English from the Greek texts is incorrect? No. So again, what is the problem?

What we have is you sticking by a silly throw away comment that you are to proud to admit was inappropriate for this discussion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You muddy the water by injecting the word "manipulation" into the discussion. I can't imagine why it is relevant.

I muddied the waters by not accepting as true something you told me? Really?

You said it was a choice. I said it wasn't, it was manipulation which is different to choice.

End of discussion as far as I'm concerned, unless you have a proper response. But if you have a response you want to put to me please don't go on about me muddying the waters.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure why this example is in any way relevant.

It is relevant because it is demonstrating the difference between choosing to put your body in a particular state and manipulating your body into a particular state.

None of that is particularly relevant to the original discussion of course except that you and PDN keep going on about choice and keep asking me questions about it. Choice has nothing to do with my original point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We are discussing actions and decisions internal to the individual. Your cunning plan to get me to eat cup cakes is external to me.

Unless you want to argue that you cannot manipulate your own body into doing things (which I sincerely hope you aren't going to) it is irrelevant whether it is external or internal. That is just a pointless straw man to continue arguing over something that isn't relevant to the point at hand.

I could have just as easily picked an example where you manipulate your own body rather than someone else, which I would have done if I had known you are were going to be so ridiculous pedantic about it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can see this debate is going nowhere.

Then why do you insist on continuing it?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I provided a link form Matt 22 where Jesus is quoted as saying "love your neighbour." You again pointed out that Jesus didn't speak English but have failed to explain why this is relevant to StealthRolex's post or this thread.

Are you not reading my posts or simply choosing to ignore them. I answered the question here and here

One more time to be crystal clear, because Jesus did not speak English and never used the word "love" you cannot appeal to the authority of Jesus over what the word means based on the context it was used.

This is a ridiculously obvious point, made in response to a question put to me, and I swear if I have to explain it again under the faux charge that I've failed to explain myself I'm going to report someone to a moderator.

You guys are going around and around in what appears to be some kind of childish attempt to trap me in some contradiction or hypocrisy, all the while complaining publicly that I'm derailing this thread.

Fanny do you have anything to add to the actual points I made about the actual topic of this thread?

Or would you rather keep this nonsense up a bit more and try and score some points?