| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"AlexN alex@home" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2004 10:10:08 PM |
| Object: |
God= L_uv |
God is Love, so we can write:-
God = L_uv
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_uv |
06 Sep 2004 11:52:37 AM |
|
|
"AlexN" <alex@home> wrote in message
news:413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
God is Love, so we can write:-
God = L_uv
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
Do we really want to though?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlexN alex@home" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_uv |
07 Sep 2004 05:21:40 AM |
|
|
Its best George does that sort of thing.
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:chi4kl$pbv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
"AlexN" <alex@home> wrote in message
news:413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
God is Love, so we can write:-
God = L_uv
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
Do we really want to though?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy S Schestowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_uv |
06 Sep 2004 12:13:49 AM |
|
|
AlexN wrote:
God is Love, so we can write:-
God = L_uv
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
Oh, no. Are we still on that topic? I thought we had let that troll stroll
back into the dark.
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 09:30:45 AM |
|
|
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:36:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
You have no such evidence. None exists.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
What is not new are your flagrant mistakes re the existence of God.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:55:51 AM |
|
|
In article <ds0pj0p2ovu5oos2ubq7bqtpc28e1er3qr@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
I said alleged, since, as in your case, there is little actual evidence
of real thought on the part of your imaginary god your own brain.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
You have no such evidence. None exists.
There is ample evidence that "God" is a poorly-defined, self-
contradictory, internally inconsistent set of beliefs obviously produced
by human hoaxers. All the time, scientific evidence provides
demonstration that god is not necessary or even possible within the
natural world. There is ample historical and documentary evidence that
deified figures like Jesus or Krishna are not genuine historical
figures, but are fictional composite which had no basis in reality.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
What is not new are your flagrant mistakes re the existence of God.
It's not new that I've made no such mistakes. That's why you didn't
name any examples in your accusation. You, OTOH, are are roundly
discredited, uninformed, unthinking cathaholic crank and bona fide
twit/troll. On hundreds of specific occasions you have been roundly
debunked, humiliated and defeated my many people including myself. You
know this and if you continue blabbering I'm going to invite other folks
from alt.atheism to post select episodes of your ignoble record as troll
and internet village idiot. Now bugger off you pathetic moron.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NeoSadist" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:55:28 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
No, God is a Sentient (and by the way, omnipresent and all-powerful) Being.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
You have no such evidence. None exists.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
What is not new are your flagrant mistakes re the existence of God.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
--
Age before beauty; and pearls before swine.
-- Dorothy Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:10:54 AM |
|
|
In article <10jp27glfquap72@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
No, God is a Sentient (and by the way, omnipresent and all-powerful) Being.
How do you mean omnipresent? Is god present for the cockroach and in the
cockroach?
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
You have no such evidence. None exists.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
What is not new are your flagrant mistakes re the existence of God.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 12:06:42 PM |
|
|
In article <10jp27glfquap72@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
No, God is a Sentient (and by the way, omnipresent and all-powerful) Being.
Yes, those properties are sometimes included in the neo-platonistic view
of mono-theism. I wasn't confining myself to those properties, though I
think those properties introduce very strong logical liabilities to the
god definition. BTW, I expect that duke will now moronically suggest
that I should say "neo-platonic" versus "neo-platonistic".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:17:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:55:28 -0600, NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:30:45 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc.
A sentient being!!!!!!! What a goof, quib.
No, God is a Sentient (and by the way, omnipresent and all-powerful) Being.
Only in the deluded fantasies of its believers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NeoSadist" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:38:10 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real. However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution, atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith. It takes just as much
faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general, which is why they do not want to believe in a
Higher Power. To do so means that we have to answer to this God for the
way we live and what we do. See Romans 1. Everyone knows right from
wrong, and everyone knows there is a God, just some people refuse to admit
it and try to not believe in God, which is contrary to the way we were
made.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
--
It is now 10 p.m. Do you know where Henry Kissinger is?
-- Elizabeth Carpenter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 02:47:11 PM |
|
|
In article <10jp172c5kvh38e@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real. However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution, atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith. It takes just as much
faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
***
You do not know the definition for 'faith'.
Here's a simple one: Faith = belief without evidence.
***
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general, which is why they do not want to believe in a
Higher Power. To do so means that we have to answer to this God for the
way we live and what we do. See Romans 1. Everyone knows right from
wrong, and everyone knows there is a God, just some people refuse to admit
it and try to not believe in God, which is contrary to the way we were
made.
***
Speak for yourself -- that is not the way I was made.
earle
***
"My dog thinks he's god.
But I think he's just dyslexic."
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:57:35 AM |
|
|
In article <10jp172c5kvh38e@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real. However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution, atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith. It takes just as much
faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
Is it typical of you to believe something without evidence? It doesn't
seem very rational to take a position where I will believe in X even
when I cannot demonstrate that X exists.
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general, which is why they do not want to believe in a
Higher Power. To do so means that we have to answer to this God for the
way we live and what we do. See Romans 1. Everyone knows right from
wrong, and everyone knows there is a God, just some people refuse to admit
it and try to not believe in God, which is contrary to the way we were
made.
And those who do believe in god usually exhibits slave-like traits and
bow to authority without any sign of autonomy. We are socially
conditioned to respond to authority. From parents, teachers, police,
government and gods far too many people respond out of fear rather than
intellect.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 12:46:11 PM |
|
|
In article <10jp172c5kvh38e@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real. However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
Fortunately a hypothesis doesn't have to be proven.
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution,
Oh don't tell me that you're one of those anti-evolution kooks. It's as
much a matter of faith as the theory of gravity or the laws of
thermodynamics that creationists love trying to use stupidly to attack
the "darwin".
atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith.
Theism doesn't require faith. It only requires a lack of faith in
theism.
It takes just as much
faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
Yawn. Even if that moronic point hadn't been refuted to death, which it
has, it would make precisely zero difference. Even if atheism were a
matter of faith it would be a superior form, since holding this view is
more consistent with reality and, in any event, allow one to discard
plenty of superstitious nonsense.
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general
Your generalization, which is also is mindlessly echoed by pauline
writings, is fallacious and cannot possibly explain atheist views in
general. Plenty of people with no problem with authority are also
atheists. Confucianism is a good example of a system with strong
respect for authority and even strong family loyalty traditions. But
Confucius claimed to not know whether there were gods or an afterlife,
given that he hadn't died yet. Hundreds of millions of chinese seem to
clearly refute the idea that atheism is necessarily just a rebellion
against authority.
, which is why they do not want to believe in a
Higher Power. To do so means that we have to answer to this God for the
way we live and what we do. See Romans 1.
I've seen it and his idiotic assertions are far from convincing.
Everyone knows right from
wrong,
Horseshit. First off, religion has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics
is a matter of forming rational judgments, whereas religion produces
ersatz reflex emotions that seldom involve thinking at all. Secular
ethical philosophy is quite well developed and far superior to religious
nonsense and neo-lithic rules of thumb that are supposedly handed down
on a mountaintop.
and everyone knows there is a God
Pure garbage. In the first place most people don't even have a coherent
idea of what they are talking about with respect to "God". You already
said you couldn't prove there was a god and without proof you can't
legitimately claim certain knowledge. Therefore, you really just
contradicting your earlier position. You've let your mask slip a bit
too much and your religious biases have been hideously exposed.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael price" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
07 Sep 2004 09:19:23 AM |
|
|
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote in message news:<10jp172c5kvh38e@corp.supernews.com>...
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real. However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution, atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith.
It takes no faith to believe in evolution because the evidence, fossil,
genetic, behavioural, etc. supports it.
It takes just as much faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general,
Cite?
which is why they do not want to believe in a Higher Power. To do so
< means that we have to answer to this God for the way we live and what
we do. See Romans 1. Everyone knows right from wrong, and everyone
knows there is a God,
How? You admit that yourself there is no evidence for it? What about
the millions of polytheists in the world? Are they all lying? Why
would they? To believe in God takes "faith" do you think we all have
faith? I don't.
You seem to be trying to link knowing right from wrong with believing
in God, but they are not connectted. There is no way to know what God
thinks is right or wrong (as opposed to what priests want you to think
he thinks) and there is no way to know if he is right about what is
right or wrong. Plenty of people know right from wrong without reference
to God.
just some people refuse to admit it and try to not believe in God,
which is contrary to the way we were made.
No it isn't, even if th Bible is completely true. God allegedly gave
us the gift of free will which means we are not "made" to believe
anything.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:57:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:38:10 -0600, NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net>
wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion. God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Nope, God is real.
At the moment it's a figment of your deluded imagination until you
demonstrate its existence.
However, it is received by faith. You cannot prove
Faith - the cop out excuse that you pretend supoercedes evidence. But
you're talking to people less gullibble than yuou are.
the non-existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God
Not our problem, moron - thheir remains no reason whatsoever to take
your ridiculous and baseless assertions seriosuly.
(that is, from a truly scientific standpoint, since the natural man cannot
see God nor reproduce Him in a laboratory). Evolution, atheism, deism,
Christianity -- these are all received by faith. It takes just as much
faith to not believe in God as to believe in God.
Feel free to demonstrate that it is real, or shut the ***** up about
it.
And by the way, stop lying about evolution. And also about atheists
and atheism.
However, those who do not want to believe in God usually have a problem
with authority in general, which is why they do not want to believe in a
Higher Power.
Why do you lie? You know as well as we do that there is nothing about
"wanting" = there is simply no reason to believe in the deity of
somebody else's religion.
To do so means that we have to answer to this God for the
way we live and what we do. See Romans 1. Everyone knows right from
Why the ***** is anybody gong to answer to what is merely a figment of
your deluded imagination until you demonstrate its existence?
And why do so many of you morons use the empty threat of part of your
mythos for not believing the rest of it?
wrong, and everyone knows there is a God, just some people refuse to admit
Liar.
it and try to not believe in God, which is contrary to the way we were
made.
Liar.
[Hammond] is clearly wrong.
What else is new.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 09:17:56 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion. Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another; An act of will.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
<snip>
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoSadist" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:49:39 AM |
|
|
Albert wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion. Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another; An act of will.
You missed the point. Love, an act of the will, is still not = God, Who is
a sentient and supreme being. I agree with him: God is not = Love, but God
is the perfect example of it. That's like saying NeoSadist = hate, as I
bet there are better examples of hatred out there, and I'm not an emotion
or act, I'm a sentient being.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
No, he is right and you are wrong. His atheism is just as bad as your (I
don't know what else to call it) suggestibility. Both of you are off the
mark: he's not calling God = Love (which is not a valid equation), but He
doesn't believe in God.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Well, on the scientific level, neither the existence or non-existence of God
is scientifically proveable. Read up about the scientific method.
However, both atheism and deism require faith.
<snip>
--
A gleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort
of).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:03:34 AM |
|
|
In article <10jp1sjg9tns552@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
Albert wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion. Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another; An act of will.
You missed the point. Love, an act of the will, is still not = God, Who is
a sentient and supreme being. I agree with him: God is not = Love, but God
is the perfect example of it. That's like saying NeoSadist = hate, as I
bet there are better examples of hatred out there, and I'm not an emotion
or act, I'm a sentient being.
It seems foolish to ascribe human traits to a non-human and vice versa.
Interestingly and where psychology does seem to be accurate is that
perceptions of god are perceptions or projections of the sels is that in
your description of your god you also repeat your description of
yourself.
I'm curious though, what is different between you and your god?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 08:02:16 PM |
|
|
NeoSadist wrote:
Albert wrote:
quibbler wrote:
alex@home says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion. Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another; An act of will.
You missed the point.
No, I didn't.
Love, an act of the will, is still not = God, Who is
a sentient and supreme being. I agree with him: God is not = Love, but God
is the perfect example of it. That's like saying NeoSadist = hate, as I
bet there are better examples of hatred out there, and I'm not an emotion
or act, I'm a sentient being.
You flunked literature in high school, right?
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
No, he is right and you are wrong. His atheism is just as bad as your (I
don't know what else to call it) suggestibility. Both of you are off the
mark: he's not calling God = Love (which is not a valid equation), but He
doesn't believe in God.
It's a shame that so many children today have read so little real
literature, especially poetry. If you had, then you would be
able to properly parse an English sentence and to distinguish
between a metaphor and a mathematical equation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Well, on the scientific level, neither the existence or non-existence of God
is scientifically proveable.
I agree.
Read up about the scientific method.
I am well read.
However, both atheism and deism require faith.
Indeed.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:16:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:49:39 -0600, NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net>
wrote:
Albert wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion. Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another; An act of will.
You missed the point. Love, an act of the will, is still not = God, Who is
a sentient and supreme being. I agree with him: God is not = Love, but God
is the perfect example of it. That's like saying NeoSadist = hate, as I
bet there are better examples of hatred out there, and I'm not an emotion
or act, I'm a sentient being.
It's only a "sentient and supreme being" in the fantasies of people
without the intelligence to keep their delusions to themselves.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
No, he is right and you are wrong. His atheism is just as bad as your (I
don't know what else to call it) suggestibility. Both of you are off the
mark: he's not calling God = Love (which is not a valid equation), but He
doesn't believe in God.
Why can't you morons be bothered to get atheists and atheism right
before attacking it and us?
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Well, on the scientific level, neither the existence or non-existence of God
is scientifically proveable.
Not our problem, moron. Nobody would give a flying ***** about your
deluded fantasies if you kept them to yourself, and didn't keep
copping out.
Read up about the scientific method.
However, both atheism and deism require faith.
Only if you're a stupid theist who has no idea what he's attacking.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:29:55 AM |
|
|
In article <10jov9hb2fp6l4c@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <413bd510$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, alex@home
says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion.
Irrelevant. I didn't talk about "Lust". Claiming that lust is an
emotion says nothing about "Love".
Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another;
I'm sure that there are many possible definitions of love, most of them
very vague and imprecise. That's because love is a subjectively
evaluated emotion state. Love is not itself an conscious being, despite
attempts to personify it poetically. Love is experienced by sentient
beings, but that doesn't make love itself sentient. Certainly it
doesn't make love the equivalent of god. As to your claim, one could
consciously commit to the well-being of another without being in love
with that person.
An act of will.
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence and is poorly
reasoned, I really don't care about your ignorant opinion. You clearly
haven't thought about the subject in any detail, so stop distracting the
adults, like myself, who are engaging in serious conversation.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Again, that's not relevant. A hypothesis doesn't have to be provable.
Thus, in sum, you have contributed precisely nothing but idiotic sound
and fury to this discussion.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:40:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:29:55 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
And that makes it superior to "rational".
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence
Yet where is your evidence, quib? You quickly accuse others of having no evidence, yet
you make stupid statements with even less evidence.
Again, that's not relevant. A hypothesis doesn't have to be provable.
Thus, in sum, you have contributed precisely nothing but idiotic sound
and fury to this discussion.
Which is what you have done.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoSadist" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 10:54:25 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:29:55 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
And that makes it superior to "rational".
Keep saying that when you join a cult thinking that love > rational thought,
then you end up being commanded to drink coolaide. Rational thought > all
emotions, although that's in the life-skill category. Emotions are
wonderful, but rational thought will keep you out of more trouble in life
than emotions. However, as per the discussion that started this, to know
God is to understand what love is based on what He sent His Son to do, not
that God = Love. Read the context of the original post. Notice he didn't
quote the Bible verse, because he was afraid of being exposed as leading
people astray on something that is out of context. The context is to love
others because God is (the best example of) love, and those who hate others
but claim to know God are deceiving themselves.
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence
Yet where is your evidence, quib? You quickly accuse others of having no
evidence, yet you make stupid statements with even less evidence.
No, he was pointing out that the other person had no evidence. He wasn't
(at the time) trying to make his case.
Again, that's not relevant. A hypothesis doesn't have to be provable.
Thus, in sum, you have contributed precisely nothing but idiotic sound
and fury to this discussion.
Which is what you have done.
Oh, so pointing the finger disproves someone else pointing the finger? Your
statement is childish.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Prove that YOU were chosen :D
--
Paranoid schizophrenics outnumber their enemies at least two to one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:08:47 AM |
|
|
In article <10jp25gp76udp31@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:29:55 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
And that makes it superior to "rational".
Keep saying that when you join a cult thinking that love > rational thought,
then you end up being commanded to drink coolaide. Rational thought > all
emotions, although that's in the life-skill category. Emotions are
wonderful, but rational thought will keep you out of more trouble in life
than emotions.
Is this a fath-based opinion, or an evidence supported conclusion?
For example, if a person makes a donation to their church because they
feel good in doing so then, they are acting on a emotional impulse which
you have defined as problematic in general.
Further, if someone strikes back at an assailant because they are afraid
that they could be killed then, they are acting in response to an
emotional stimulus. A response that you have deemed to troublesome
because emotions are more troublesome than rational thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael price" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
07 Sep 2004 09:27:30 AM |
|
|
Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message news:<together-33C35E.12090206092004@nntp.bloor-old.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
In article <10jp25gp76udp31@corp.supernews.com>,
NeoSadist <neosad1st@charter.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:29:55 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
And that makes it superior to "rational".
Keep saying that when you join a cult thinking that love > rational thought,
then you end up being commanded to drink coolaide. Rational thought > all
emotions, although that's in the life-skill category. Emotions are
wonderful, but rational thought will keep you out of more trouble in life
than emotions.
Is this a fath-based opinion, or an evidence supported conclusion?
For example, if a person makes a donation to their church because they
feel good in doing so then, they are acting on a emotional impulse which
you have defined as problematic in general.
Or you have acted on the rational thought that making the donation
will make you feel better. If you had the emotional feeling that
making the donation was going to make feel better and you ignored
the evidence that the FBI was arresting all church donors and beating
them up then you would be going against rational thought rather than
with it.
Further, if someone strikes back at an assailant because they are afraid
that they could be killed then, they are acting in response to an
emotional stimulus. A response that you have deemed to troublesome
because emotions are more troublesome than rational thought.
But such a defence would what rational thought would dictate, unless
it's a bad idea (such as when you are surronded by armed known sociopaths
with a history of cutting up those who strike back). So I don't see what
your point is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 07:53:51 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <10jov9hb2fp6l4c@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
alex@home says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion.
Irrelevant.
On the contrary.
I didn't talk about "Lust". Claiming that lust is an
emotion says nothing about "Love".
It says quite a bit actually. It sharply differentiates love
from an emotion. You are under the erroneous impression that
love is an emotion.
Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another;
I'm sure that there are many possible definitions of love, most of them
very vague and imprecise.
That didn't seem to bother you when you made the categorical
statement that "Love is an emotion."
That's because love is a subjectively
evaluated emotion state.
No. I have already explained what love means in the context of
the Bible, and especially the quote: "God is Love."
Love is not itself an conscious being, despite
attempts to personify it poetically.
Make up your mind what you object to. In the phrase "God is
Love" what is being said: (1) poetic license used to describe an
attribute of God or (2) a silly statement that 'God' is simply an
anthropomorphism of a human emotion?
Love is experienced by sentient
beings, but that doesn't make love itself sentient. Certainly it
doesn't make love the equivalent of god. As to your claim, one could
consciously commit to the well-being of another without being in love
with that person.
What the hell is 'in love' but a rush of hormones? Of course one
can, and many do, consciously commit to the well-being of
another without being flooded with hormones and feeling 'in love.'
An act of will.
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
Really poor logic. Why would you prefer to believe "some people"
who describe love as something beyond their control? Because it
fits your purpose to discredit love and therefore the statement
"God is Love?"
The love spoken of between God and Man is *not* based on
hormones. If the idea that you are attacking is that "God is
Love" is referring to hormones, then I agree with you.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence and is poorly
reasoned,
The evidence offered is available above. Your definition of love
is in error.
I really don't care about your ignorant opinion.
I know.
You clearly
haven't thought about the subject in any detail,
On the contrary, it has been central to my thinking for my whole
life.
so stop distracting the
adults, like myself, who are engaging in serious conversation.
LOL. I am 62 and not at all distracted. I find illiterate
children like you humorous.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Again, that's not relevant. A hypothesis doesn't have to be provable.
True. Yet, you offered it as a truth. I pointed out that it wasn't.
Thus, in sum, you have contributed precisely nothing but idiotic sound
and fury to this discussion.
Not so. I have explained the difference between Lust and Love to
a little boy who had previously relied on romance novels for his
definition of Love.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
06 Sep 2004 11:28:21 PM |
|
|
In article <10jq4htbp8icg88@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <10jov9hb2fp6l4c@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
alex@home says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion.
Irrelevant.
On the contrary.
You can try to be contrary all you want, but it's still irrelevant.
I didn't talk about "Lust". Claiming that lust is an
emotion says nothing about "Love".
It says quite a bit actually.
No, actually it doesn't. Your unconvincing assertion about Lust still
says nothing directly about Love.
It sharply differentiates love
from an emotion.
It certainly wasn't sharp. It was hopelessly vague.
You are under the erroneous impression that
love is an emotion.
Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another;
I'm sure that there are many possible definitions of love, most of them
very vague and imprecise.
That didn't seem to bother you when you made the categorical
statement that "Love is an emotion."
That's still a vague description that doesn't try to offer a complete
definition.
That's because love is a subjectively
evaluated emotion state.
No. I have already explained what love means in the context of
the Bible, and especially the quote: "God is Love."
LOL! You think that love means something different in the context of a
set of arbitrarily collected rambling scrolls, letters, histories and
erotic poems known as "The Bible"? You need to get out more.
Love is not itself an conscious being, despite
attempts to personify it poetically.
Make up your mind what you object to.
I'm sorry if my mind isn't as simple as yours, but why exactly am I
obligated to only object to one thing, particularly given that there are
multiple flaws with your claim?
In the phrase "God is
Love" what is being said: (1) poetic license
Yawn. I knew you'd start to backpedal furiously on this.
used to describe an
attribute of God or (2) a silly statement that 'God' is simply an
anthropomorphism of a human emotion?
I don't really care you you interpret certain bible writers to have
meant to say, even when they failed to actually state it.
Love is experienced by sentient
beings, but that doesn't make love itself sentient. Certainly it
doesn't make love the equivalent of god. As to your claim, one could
consciously commit to the well-being of another without being in love
with that person.
What the hell is 'in love' but a rush of hormones? Of course one
can, and many do, consciously commit to the well-being of
another without being flooded with hormones and feeling 'in love.'
Nice. That's the classic "love" versus "in love" equivocation. I'm
afraid it's not quite that easy. Your definition failed to account for
situations where one could commit to the well-being of another but not
experience love for that person.
An act of will.
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
Really poor logic.
You've pointed out no logical flaw, nor can you. You apparently don't
know much about logic in the first place .
Why would you prefer to believe "some people"
who describe love as something beyond their control? Because it
fits your purpose to discredit love and therefore the statement
"God is Love?"
Nice how you answered your own question with precisely the pat answer
that you wished you could conclude. Too bad that's not sufficient to
actually establish the truth of your claim.
The love spoken of between God and Man is *not* based on
hormones. If the idea that you are attacking is that "God is
Love" is referring to hormones, then I agree with you.
There are undoubtedly hormonal components. But I wouldn't say that
they're absolutely necessary.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence and is poorly
reasoned,
The evidence offered is available above. Your definition of love
is in error.
You've yet to show that there's any problem with holding love to be an
emotion.
I really don't care about your ignorant opinion.
I know.
Good.
You clearly
haven't thought about the subject in any detail,
On the contrary, it has been central to my thinking for my whole
life.
All 13 years of it, huh?
so stop distracting the
adults, like myself, who are engaging in serious conversation.
LOL. I am 62
That's chronological age, but mentally you're still about 13.
and not at all distracted. I find illiterate
children like you humorous.
You must be thinking of some of your multiple personalities. I'm
neither a child nor illiterate.
However,
God = L_ie would be far more appropriate, because god is just a false
claim, offered without good supporting evidence but contradicted by
much stronger evidence. Therefore my hypothesis is that god is a lie.
Your hypothesis is unprovable.
Again, that's not relevant. A hypothesis doesn't have to be provable.
True. Yet, you offered it as a truth. I pointed out that it wasn't.
Provability and truth are technically separate matters.
Thus, in sum, you have contributed precisely nothing but idiotic sound
and fury to this discussion.
Not so. I have explained the difference between Lust and Love to
a little boy who had previously relied on romance novels for his
definition of Love.
You tried to flog an irrelevant point and were called on it. Go back to
your superstitions and stop trying to legally change your fictional
god's name to "love".
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
08 Sep 2004 10:11:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:28:21 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <10jq4htbp8icg88@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <10jov9hb2fp6l4c@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
alex@home says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion.
Irrelevant.
On the contrary.
You can try to be contrary all you want, but it's still irrelevant.
I didn't talk about "Lust". Claiming that lust is an
emotion says nothing about "Love".
It says quite a bit actually.
No, actually it doesn't. Your unconvincing assertion about Lust still
says nothing directly about Love.
It sharply differentiates love
from an emotion.
It certainly wasn't sharp. It was hopelessly vague.
That is probably because the difference *is* hopelessly vague.
You are under the erroneous impression that
love is an emotion.
Not erroneous.
What the dictionary says--
love P Pronunciation Key (luv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a
person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive
qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom
one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
^^^^^^^
Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
^^^^^^^^^
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction;
beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis.
v. loved, lov·ing, loves
v. tr.
To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude
toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
(Compare this with "lust", farther down the page.)
To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
^^^^^^^^^
To embrace or caress.
To have sexual intercourse with.
To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
Theology. To have charity for.
To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.
v. intr.
To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.
(Compare this also, with "lust".)
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
love
n 1: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection;
^^^^^^^
"his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love" [ant: hate] 2:
any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first
love" or "he has a passion for ***** fighting"; [syn: passion] 3: a
beloved person; used as terms of endearment [syn: beloved, dear,
dearest, loved one, honey] 4: a deep feeling of sexual desire and
attraction; "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings";
"she was his first love" 5: a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it
was 40 love" 6: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse)
between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any
love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life" [syn: sexual
love, lovemaking, making love, love life] v 1: have a great affection
or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works
hard for him" [ant: hate] 2: get pleasure from; "I love cooking" [syn:
enjoy] 3: be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply"
4: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with everyone in
her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve"; "Were you ever intimate with this man?"
[syn: roll in the hay, make out, make love, sleep with, get laid, have
sex, know, do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away, have it
off, screw, *****, jazz, eff, hump, lie with, bed, have a go at it,
bang, get it on, bonk]
00000000000000000000000000000
LUST
LUST, n.
1. Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy; as the lust of gain.
00000000000000000000000000000
Lust
Word:
Noun 1.
lust - a strong sexual desire
lecherousness, lustfulness
concupiscence, physical attraction, sexual desire - a desire for
sexual intimacy
2. lust - self-indulgent sexual desire (personified as one of the
deadly sins)
luxuria
deadly sin, mortal sin - an unpardonable sin entailing a total loss of
grace; theologians list 7 mortal sins
Verb 1. lust - have a craving, appetite, or great desire for
crave, hunger, thirst, starve
desire, want - feel or have a desire for; want strongly; "I want to go
home now"; "I want my own room"
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another;
I'm sure that there are many possible definitions of love, most of them
very vague and imprecise.
That didn't seem to bother you when you made the categorical
statement that "Love is an emotion."
e·mo·tion P Pronunciation Key (-mshn)
n.
A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious
effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling:
the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
^^^^
A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a
voice that betrayed his emotion. See Synonyms at feeling.
The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The
very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect”
(Isaac Bashevis Singer).
000000000000000000000000000
Maybe a list of emotions would help--
The Complete Published Emotions List
by
Ambrogino
One of the trickiest things to determine when generating a Wraith
character is exactly which emotion any particular passion is most
closely tied to. Emotions are tricky things in the real world - one
person's joy is another one's happiness, as it were. Sometimes a few
examples can help, which is the purpose of this article.
Presented here is a complete list of the emotions featured with
passions by wraith and spectre NPC's and sample PC's in the Wraith
line. Some of these emotions are very similar to each other or
sub-clauses of greater examples (Lust for Power is just a type of Lust
at the end of the day). Some are merely different tenses of the same
word (Hate and Hatred, for example). This is deliberate - If it's
featured in a Wraith supplement, it should be on this list, whether it
particularly makes sense or not.
Abject Terror
Acceptance
Addiction
Affection
Aggression
Altruism
Ambition
Anger
Apathy
Arrogance
Betrayal
Bitterness
Bloodlust
Bravery
Calm
Caring
Chaos
Chastity
Co-dependency
Compassion
Confusion
Contempt
Courage
Covetousness
Cowardice
Craftsmanship
Cruelty
Curiosity
Cynicism
Dark Glee
Deceit
Deception
Dementia
Depression
Desire
Desire for Acceptance
Desire for Control
Desire for Peace
Desire for Posterity
Desire for Respect
Despair
Desperation
Destiny
Destruction
Determination
Devotion
Disgust
Disillusion
Duty
Eagerness
Ego
Egoism
Egotism
Empathy
Envy
Excitement
Faith
Fanatic Loyalty
Fanaticism
Fear
Fervor
Forgiveness
Fraternal Devotion
Freudian Drive
Friendship
Frustration
Fun
Generosity
Glee
Gratitude
Greed
Guile
Guilt
Hate
Happiness
Hatred
Hedonism
Help
Honor
Hope
Humility
Idealism
Idealism
Impish Glee
Individuality
Indulgence
Insecurity
Jealousy
Joy
Justice
Kindness
Laziness
Lethargy
Lifelong Dream
Loathing
Loneliness
Longing
Love
Love of Innocence
Loyalty
Lust
Lust for Power
Malice
Martyr
Maternal Love
Megalomania
Mercy
Mischievousness
Mockery
Morbid Curiosity
Narcissism
Need for feeling of Self-Worth
Nihilism
Nostalgia
Obsession
Outrage
Pacifism
Pain
Panic
Paternal Devotion
Patriotism
Perseverance
Personal Loathing
Perversity
Pity
Pleasure
Power
Pride
Professional Contempt
Professional Pride
Puppy Love
Rage
Reassurance
Rebelliousness
Recklessness
Regret
Religious Fervor
Religious Love
Resentment
Resignation
Restitution
Revenge
Ridicule
Righteous Curiosity
Righteousness
Sadism
Sadistic Glee
Saintliness
Satisfaction
Scorn
Self-Contempt
Self-destruction
Self-Hate
Selfishness
Selflessness
Self-pity
Self-preservation
Self-Worth
Shame
Sibling Rivalry
Sloth
Sorroral Devotion
Sorrow
Spite
Stubbornness
Sybarism
Temperance
Terror
Treachery
Trust
Twisted Ambition
Twisted Faith
Twisted Love
Vanity
Vengeance
Vindictiveness
Wrath
http://www.cattail.nu/wraithproject/0302comppubemo.html
000000000000000000
That's still a vague description that doesn't try to offer a complete
definition.
The description of any emotion, is at best, vague, no more than a
generalisation really.
That's because love is a subjectively
evaluated emotion state.
No. I have already explained what love means in the context of
the Bible, and especially the quote: "God is Love."
LOL! You think that love means something different in the context of a
set of arbitrarily collected rambling scrolls, letters, histories and
erotic poems known as "The Bible"? You need to get out more.
Love is not itself an conscious being, despite
attempts to personify it poetically.
Make up your mind what you object to.
I'm sorry if my mind isn't as simple as yours, but why exactly am I
obligated to only object to one thing, particularly given that there are
multiple flaws with your claim?
In the phrase "God is
Love" what is being said: (1) poetic license
Yawn. I knew you'd start to backpedal furiously on this.
used to describe an
attribute of God or (2) a silly statement that 'God' is simply an
anthropomorphism of a human emotion?
I don't really care you you interpret certain bible writers to have
meant to say, even when they failed to actually state it.
Love is experienced by sentient
beings, but that doesn't make love itself sentient. Certainly it
doesn't make love the equivalent of god. As to your claim, one could
consciously commit to the well-being of another without being in love
with that person.
What the hell is 'in love' but a rush of hormones?
Or in this case, a straw man. The discussion is "love", not "in
love".
Of course one
can, and many do, consciously commit to the well-being of
another without being flooded with hormones and feeling 'in love.'
Nice. That's the classic "love" versus "in love" equivocation. I'm
afraid it's not quite that easy. Your definition failed to account for
situations where one could commit to the well-being of another but not
experience love for that person.
He fails to address anything that might open his mind to a wider
definition.
An act of will.
Maybe. Some people describe love as something beyond their control,
which would again suggest that it has an emotional character rather than
a purely rational one.
Really poor logic.
You've pointed out no logical flaw, nor can you. You apparently don't
know much about logic in the first place .
Why would you prefer to believe "some people"
who describe love as something beyond their control? Because it
fits your purpose to discredit love and therefore the statement
"God is Love?"
Do you believe in arranged/forced marriage?
Nice how you answered your own question with precisely the pat answer
that you wished you could conclude. Too bad that's not sufficient to
actually establish the truth of your claim.
The love spoken of between God and Man is *not* based on
hormones.
References would help, like where in the bible it states that.
If the idea that you are attacking is that "God is
Love" is referring to hormones, then I agree with you.
There are undoubtedly hormonal components. But I wouldn't say that
they're absolutely necessary.
God is an allegedly sentience, all-powerful
being responsible for the existence of the universe, etc. The two
concepts cannot be merged except by blatant equivocation.
Wrong. Your faulty definition of Love is the reason for your error.
Considering that your analysis provides no evidence and is poorly
reasoned,
The evidence offered is available above. Your definition of love
is in error.
Not according to the dictionary.
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael price" |
|
| Title: Re: God= L_ie |
07 Sep 2004 09:41:04 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ba6e6d4ed70687e98992d@news.individual.net>...
In article <10jq4htbp8icg88@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <10jov9hb2fp6l4c@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
alex@home says...
God is Love,
Wrong. Love is an emotion.
Wrong. Lust is an emotion.
Irrelevant.
On the contrary.
You can try to be contrary all you want, but it's still irrelevant.
I didn't talk about "Lust". Claiming that lust is an
emotion says nothing about "Love".
It says quite a bit actually.
No, actually it doesn't. Your unconvincing assertion about Lust still
says nothing directly about Love.
It sharply differentiates love
from an emotion.
It certainly wasn't sharp. It was hopelessly vague.
You are under the erroneous impression that
love is an emotion.
Love is a conscious commitment to
the well-being of another;
I'm sure that there are many possible definitions of love, most of them
very vague and imprecise.
That didn't seem to bother you when you made the categorical
statement that "Love is an emotion."
That's still a vague description that doesn't try to offer a complete
definition.
That's because love is a subjectively
evaluated emotion state.
No. I have already explained what love means in the context of
the Bible, and especially the quote: "God is Love."
LOL! You think that love means something different in the context of a
set of arbitrarily collected rambling scrolls, letters, histories and
erotic poems known as "The Bible"? You need to get out more.
If it did mean something other than the standard meaning in the Bible
then how would it be possible to know what it meant in that context?
If a word means something in a context that it doesn't mean anywhere
else then there is only two ways to find out what that meaning is.
Firstly a direct definition of the word in that context (which the Bible
certianly doesn't do). Secondly it could be worked out from how the
word is used. The problem with the second approach is that the word
doesn't actually add any meaning in that context because you have to
figure out what the word means, and having done that you have extracted
all the meaning from other words, not from the word itself.
Love is not itself an conscious being, despite
attempts to personify it poetically.
Make up your mind what you object to.
I'm sorry if my mind isn't as simple as yours, but why exactly am I
obligated to only object to one thing, particularly given that there are
multiple flaws with your claim?
In the phrase "God is
Love" what is being said: (1) poetic license
Yawn. I knew you'd start to backpedal furiously on this.
used to describe an
attribute of God or (2) a silly statement that 'God' is simply an
anthropomorphism of a human emotion?
I don't really care you you interpret certain bible writers to have
meant to say, even when they failed to actually state it.
Love is experienced by sentient
beings, but that doesn't make love itself sentient. Certainly it
doesn't make love the equivalent of god. As to your claim, one could
consciously commit to the well-being of another without being in love
with that person.
What the hell is 'in love' but a rush of hormones? Of course one
can, and many do, consciously commit to the well-being of
another without being | | | | | | |
