This post will get The Conversation rolling. In case you haven’t read what The Conversation is, click here.
Let me begin by stating the obvious. I am one who believes that Jesus came to live, suffer, die and be resurrected to set things right between God and His creation. So my end of conversation will always be grounded in this belief. However, I would love to have an open dialogue with those who believe differently than I believe.
Let’s begin the conversation with Creation. Genesis 1:26, in the Eugene Peterson’s The Message translation:
God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.”
Scripture says that we (humans) are made in the image and likeness of God. This means a couple things. First of all, when mankind was created, God was creating beings that would reflect Himself. When we look at the words image and likeness, two different concepts are at work. Image is something we would equate to a stamp – a direct replica. Likeness is more like an aura or personality, or as it Peterson renders it “reflecting our nature.” However, in the Hebrew language, even though the two words “image” and “likeness” have different basic meanings, they are used synonymously. Some scholars believe that the words compliment each other, rather than compete in meaning.
Either way, it is clear that God has created mankind to reflect his divinity. There are many creation stories in different religions, many with gods who are either bored or mad or vengeful, who create humans as their play things. In the creation story found in Genesis, however, God is creating humans to reflect His very nature.
Let’s remember that in the Genesis account of creation, the audience of this text would have been the Israelite nation. This nation was ruled under the heavy fist of the Pharaoh in Egypt. Pharaoh would have been said to be the incarnate of Ra, the sun god. It would have been said of Pharaoh that he was the direct image of God.
The text is saying to a nation that was under the boot of the Egyptian empire that they are created in the image of God, the creator of heaven and earth. This understanding would completely hijack the value system of an empire, and turn it on its head.
-Sam
RESPONSE
Let me begin by stating the obvious. I am an athiest, and I will always respond from that perspective. I, too, enjoy engaging in a meaningful dialogue with those who believe differently than myself.
I’m glad that you picked this topic, because I have had questions concerning this particular issue in the past that have gone unanswered. If humans are supposed to reflect God’s divinity, then I wonder to what end? Humans are not meant to have the same knowledge or power as God, are they? What is meant by divinity? The discussion of “likeness” and “image” is interesting, but in the translation that you included (which may very well be the same as others with regards to my point), I am more interested in the use of the words “our” and “us.” “Let us make human beings in our image.” Is there more than one god? If not, does this deity frequently refer to himself in the plural? Why? Is this deity addressing an audience of other divine beings?
I understand what you’re saying about the impact this kind of text would have on a nation like the Israelites, but I wonder if you may have considered how this text may have been used to control and manipulate the same people that you are asserting would have gained power or inspiration. As Seneca said, “To the common man, religion is true. To the philosopher, religion is false. To the politician, religion is useful.”You say, “There are many creation stories in different religions, many with gods who are either bored or mad or vengeful, who create humans as their play things.” I can think of several examples where the god you are speaking of is awfully mad or vengeful, and to me a fair amount of the old testament stories seem as if God is having a bit of fun. “You really like me? Then sacrifice your son!….No, really, you don’t have to do that. I was just joshing.” I know that often times people dismiss examples of a mad or vengeful God with a flick the wrist and a little “That was the old testament!” But since we are talking specifically about the old testament, and I don’t quite understand how believers just dismiss half of their sacred text, I don’t feel as if this is an appropriate response (Not to say that would be your personal response).
I’ve always found it odd that a deity would create beings in his own image or likeness to take care of his other creations, and that on top of caring for other creations these beings should also worship the deity that created them in his image. Not to be overly offensive, but this has always seemed tremendously self-serving if not masturbatory.
-Nikèl Bussolati
To the readers of Creating Culture: please continue the conversation. Get your comment on.
Where I’m coming from–I’m an atheist who loves reading/studying Christian theology. I’m particularly interested in the early Christian fathers and how their thoughts influenced current theology.
As to Nikel’s mention of the use of “our” and “us”: there’s more than one explanation we can use here. I think the most common one is to read God as using the majestic plural. And if we allow monarchs to refer to themselves as both individual and nation (through representation), then surely the God who created all matter may include it in the definition of Himself. There is also the reading where he is including the Son as Himself, since both are equally God and uncreate (which is how I, and Athanasius, read divinity–that which was not created by God). Or even the heavenly host, since He has not yet created anything beyond nature and animals (i.e. creation with a soul or meaning in worshipping God).
And to backtrack a little bit to the question of why humans were created to reflect God’s divinity, there’s a good book by Jack Miles titled _God: A Biography_, which treats the Old Testament as a novel and God as the protagonist, and then uses formal and (occasional) historical criticism to understand God as character. He reasons that, since the heavenly host was created with no choice BUT to worship God (Lucifer being the problem with this interpretation, but then Job has him hanging out with God anyway so who knows), God created something with free will (i.e. God’s image). This creation (man) will answer the question of whether something would choose the hard path of worshipping a God and remaining pure/holy (i.e. not eating the forbidden fruit, or after that never committing a sin), or succumb to the easy, more appealing life of sin and knowledge. And through that answering, God can come to learn more about Himself.
As for the text as a whole on the Israelites, if anything it is acts as a uniter, bringing together twelve tribes who, after centuries of generations, don’t really have that much in common with each other anymore aside from a supposed shared lineage (and an ancestral slavery). Remember that they won’t have a king until around 400 years after the exodus from Egypt. But they conquered a new land and survived as a society up to that point by giving the Pentateuch the benefit of the doubt and letting the Levites do their thing until it quit benefiting the people at large. And even if there were a select few deciding how things should be run according to one document, how different is that from our Supreme Court’s deciding how the Constitution, our one infallible document, should be interpreted and applied?
I want to talk about the “God having a bit of fun” part, but this is already longer than I meant it to be. Thoughts?
John mentioned God including the Son when using “us” and “our” but the concept of the trinity would not have been a part of Judaism or the understanding of God when the text was written. However, we can extract from those words that God exists in community. I think in our individualistic society, we lose sight of that – community is foundational to the Christian faith. Also, the trinity is a picture of this, God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in a relationship where one gives to the other, and each is intertwined in creation and with each other. I will stop there, I want others to be able to jump in on this.
Hey guys! This seems like fun times. I think I’ll join in.
Even back in my Bible-believing days, I found the author’s use of “Us” and “Our” in this passage to be mysterious. John covered everything pretty well up there with both the majestic plural and the trinity reference explanations. My slight contradiction would be that amongst the Midwestern fundamentalist circles in which I grew up, the more common interpretation was that the verses alluded to the trinity.
Regardless, both still leave much to be explained. Why is this one of the only times the plural is used? Is not Yahweh majestic/triune throughout the entirety of the bible? A third explanation I’ve come across (with fairly substantial evidence to support it) is that the tribes of Israel originally held to a sort of polytheism. Not only does this clarify the depiction of divine cooperation at creation, but also why God is so furiously jealous of other gods in later passages.
At any rate, I mostly came to talk about Sam’s description of “The Conversation”, maybe give somewhat of an idea of where I’m coming from apart from an “I’M AN ATHEIST, YO!” introduction, the label telling you nigh on nil about how or what I think. You (Sam) say, “I have several friends who openly deny the existence of God, which certainly disqualifies the practice of following Jesus.” Quite the sentence! I know we haven’t ever discussed my beliefs (or lack thereof), and I’m not even sure if I’m included among those several spoken of, so I can ignore what I might consider a bit of presumption if you were talking about the non-religious as a whole.
Christians deny the existence of several gods, but have been convinced that one in particular holds the promise of eternal life. I don’t actively believe in or worship any gods, but I don’t deny their existence. I think the odds are decidedly against this existence, but I don’t feel like it’s intellectually honest or socially productive to repudiate things that are so individually defined. I’m pretty sure there’s not an invisible blue circular triangle floating in space, but I don’t go out and preach in opposition to it. I realize that some would call this splitting hairs, but it’s an important distinction for me.
As for disbelief in the Bible God making someone ineligible for Jesus-following, you may have to qualify that with following Jesus “the way I see fit,” i.e., believing he is The One true Way. There have been several who hold to his tenets (Thomas Jefferson included [good ol' TJ]) while at the same time rejecting the supernatural. And sticking to your line of thought in that paragraph, there are also several who find spirituality, or some sense of transcendence or deeper meaning, quite naturally in the arts, meditation, etc.
I guess all I’m saying is that all this mutually exclusive stuff you were describing really isn’t so much, and it’s a good thing to get out of the way at the beginning of what could be a pretty cool conversation.
Sorry I write so much. Peace.
I guess I wasn’t a clear or careful as I thought. The sentence referenced about believing in God and following Jesus was meant to simply say this; for those who deny the existence of God, following Jesus is irrelevant. Yes, there are many who believe in God but don’t follow Jesus. I would say to your comment about holding to the tenants of Jesus but not believing in God – that is a stark contradiction. You can follow tenants, but that is not what I meant by following Jesus. It has little to do with “the way I see fit” but rather, what Jesus had to say about it. And no, you were not one of the friends I referenced, nor was I referencing the non-religious as a whole. The point was that I believe that Jesus came, suffered, died and was resurrected to set things right, and I wish to have conversation with others – not excluding anyone. Atheists are one example of someone who is not a Christian, I was just using an example and providing a context.
I appreciate your response, and hope this clears things up a bit.
So there seems to be a lull in the conversation so let me attempt to liven it back up. It will be short for I have to leave for work soon. But I feel before I move on from what was talked about above I need to ask Sam a question I’ve been meaning to for a long time. What do you believe and why do you believe it? As we can see a little from above and a lot from your conversation with that dove character on a previous post that saying you believe in god and/or jesus doesn’t say much about what your beliefs truly are. I think Steve slightly answered this question for himself in his post above and if you wanted I could do the same, but as for now, and before I feel like I can do much in a conversation I need to know what it is you believe so I’m not debating straw men.
Hello. I stumbled upon this interesting conversation, and I hope no one minds my two cents.
We are made in His likeness and reflect His divinity in our spiritual selves. I believe that our ability to reason, to use logic, to understand the concepts of right and wrong all are part of that likeness which we were given. It’s what sets us profoundly apart from animals. It is what gives us the free will to choose to love one another and our Creator. People cheat themselves out of the true power of love when they think it is simply an emotion. It isn’t an emotion; it’s a conscious action of choice. God, like us (or rather: We, like Him) desires to have loving relationships with others. To that end, we are made in His image, with the ability to actually love. As for the use of “our” and “us”, I’ve always automatically assumed He is speaking to the Son and the Holy Ghost.
I was raised in the church and have been more than sufficiently schooled in Christian apologetics. I am quite puzzled about these Christians Ms. Bussolati knows who have disregarded the Old Testament with a flip of their wrist. In my experience, it is people in the church who display such apathy towards the scriptures that tend to later become atheists. There are definitely tough questions about the Old Testament, and rather than honestly seek answers, they decide just not to believe. Other atheists just like to bring up the tough questions in the form of straw man arguments against God’s existence, and they don’t actually care to learn the answers. Their disbelief is not grounded in anything the Bible says, and to claim it is grounded in science is either disingenuous, intellectually lazy, or both. It is grounded in simple self-interest. I am willing to bet that I could explain the story of Abraham and Isaac to your satisfaction, Ms. Bussolati, and it wouldn’t change your disbelief in God. You would just keep finding other reasons not to believe. Am I right?
Sorry to pick on you, ma’am, but I also have to ask: If you ever have children, will you desire that they love you, or do you believe it will be masturbatory to concern yourself with such things?
Ethan,
Why?
You believe that our ability to reason, to use logic, to understand concepts of right and wrong came from god. Why? What evidence or for what reason do you use to come to this conclusion? I’m not going to bother with the rest of that first paragraph because it all stems from a flawed premise. You can not believe you have a leg to stand on with non-believers and people that believe differently from you with this type of argument. This makes me weary of your claim that you are sufficiently schooled in christian apologetics.
Nikel wasn’t implying that the whole of the old testament was disregarded, just the real evil parts that most christians like to ignore. Things like endorsing slavery, genocide, rape, and human sacrifice. Which I’m sure (or I hope) that you don’t enjoy it as much as your old testament god does. I’m sure you could explain the Abraham/Issac story in a way that you have justified to yourself, but god playing the old bait and switch doesn’t sound noble or benevolent to my godless morals nor Nikel’s, but I’m sure it would be fun to watch you try. Would you kill your son for god? Of course he didn’t kill his son but what about Jephthah? He actually does sacrifice his daughter. How have you justified this?
Nikel will be tangible to her children, protecting them, caring for them, providing for them, all the things that your absent god has not done. It’s a silly notion to compare a parents loving care for her child to a character in a book.
She said she had unanswered questions as to how Christians believe humans reflect God’s divinity and His likeness. The way I understood her question, she was not seeking for someone to convince her of any argument. She was merely looking for an explanation. I was not arguing any particular point so much as I was providing possible insight on mainstream Christian thought.
Obviously when she attempted to indict Christians for ignoring the Old Testament she was referring to the particularly nasty bits. What sort of argument would she have otherwise? I invite you to walk into any Christian bookstore to find for yourself the scads of books on the very issues you believe we ignore. (Make sure you check out Jephthah and His Vow by David Marcus, which has some wonderful insight on the story). I have to ask, however, what you wish to achieve by arguing that God is a big ole meanie when such arguments hold no relevance in regards to the question of whether or not He exists?
I respectfully point out that you do not know my history. That being the case, you are very much in danger of losing your audience when you carelessly make statements such as that God hasn’t provided, protected or cared for me or my family.
I hate to speak for Nikel but I’m sure she still has many unanswered questions because you did a poor job of explaining. Your belief on what god is has no bearing on truth.
Is their christian consensus on why Jephthah killed his daughter, or why god played games with Abraham? I’m sure there are plenty of books by people scrambling to justify these actions so they can continue to believe without upsetting their own natural moral compass, but murder is murder my friend. As well as rape is rape, and slavery is slavery. The mere fact that you try to justify such atrocities is dumbfounding. I agree that such things have no bearing on whether god is real or not, but it is a good meter on how dangerous religion can be with any number of justifications from this holy book, and at the moment that’s what we were arguing, the point Nikel was responding to this statement by Sam, “There are many creation stories in different religions, many with gods who are either bored or mad or vengeful, who create humans as their play things.” in which she said the god of the bible is just as bored, mad, and vengeful.
As for your last paragraph, I agree, and I apologize if I seemed to come across in a bad light, but what you fail to realize is comparing what I like to believe is real love (that of family and strong personal relationships) to the love of a god (which I believe to be superstition, folklore, and imaginary) seems to me just as offensive and silly as my making general statements about what god has provided you. This is why, in the post prior to your first, I asked that we start out explaining what one believes and why they believe it. You did an ok on the what, but have ignored the why on two subsequent responses.
I apologize again for any sweeping generalizations I may have made on your beliefs but you did so on your first post saying “Their (athiests) disbelief is not grounded in anything the Bible says, and to claim it is grounded in science is either disingenuous, intellectually lazy, or both.” So let me help you understand a little better. Athiests don’t look for answers in the bible just as we don’t look for answers in Dr. Suess books. And the next part is astonishing and shows a real disconnect from reality. I think the true definition of disingenuous and intellectually dishonest would be, when faced with an unknown, instead of asking questions and investigating, one points to the sky and says magic men did it. Everything we know, we know because of science, and to call that disingenuous is in itself completely flawed.
Here is a little frame of reference.
Jesse, I believe what would be called an orthodox theology – nicene creed, apostles creed sum it up well. I also believe that Scripture wasn’t written in a vacuum and Jesus’ life didn’t take place in a vacuum. When we understand the historical and social issues at play, it helps to understand not only Scripture, but God himself.
Scripture always proved to be revolutionary and socially progressive.
It’s a dangerous place to be when we start calling one another disingenuous, dishonest, flawed, etc. Really folks? If that were the case, we wouldn’t be here having a conversation. Be respectful of each other is all I ask. Keep the discussion rolling…
Jesse, one question for you: do we know love because of science? not neuroscience explanation for triggers in our synapses – but love that drives you crazy and makes your bones hurt, completely irrational. Science and faith does not have to be an either/or scenario – but rather, perhaps, a both/and. Thoughts?
Sam,
I’m not really sure what you mean by your vacuum explanation. I’ve seen you write this before, could you explain this more so I can understand.
I would like to apologize for any disrespect I have shown, I tried to match Ethan’s tone as best I could.
Why not neuroscience? We see parts of the brain light up in different tests, showing that love is not a thing disconnected from ourselves. You can’t restrict my answer when said restriction can do a perfectly decent job of explaining it. If you think that love is some out of body thing, that god endowed us with the ability to love, I see absolutely no evidence of this, and while I can watch a screen light up with evidence of brain activity from love, where is any physical evidence that god does anything to inflict love?
Jesse, great questions. About the vacuum: what I mean is that many people approach the Chrisitan faith in 21st century America with little to no understanding of the Hebraic roots, or the social/historical context in which both the Old and New Testaments were written. If we attempt to apply principles in an ancient book to our lives without understanding the backdrop against which it was written, there will be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.
About “knowing” love, I understand that we have the ability to see a response to love, like what you mentioned, but that doesn’t explain love. Where does it come from? Why can’t we shake it? Why do we need it? Why do we care?
I don’t have research data on this, but how can you research the “why” questions in life? Perhaps they are meant to be experienced and wrestled with, not analyzed? Science tries to figure out how, but what I find equally incredible is why. Hope this helps a bit.
Well, apparently things blew up on here this week and I totally missed it. I’m going to try and jump in, but be patient if I don’t address of all the issues being discussed right now.
I do have one very important thing to say: Ms. Bussolati is my mom. I appreciate the respect, but you can just call me Nikel.
But the first issue I would like to seriously address would be the charge that explaining biblical stories, parables, scripture, etc. would not convince me of the bible’s truth and that I would only come up with more reasons not to believe. It was my understanding that the purpose of this exercise was to engage in a meaningful dialogue with each other, not to convince each other of anything. Just because hearing an explanation for a story or scripture will not dissuade me from my non-belief does that mean that there is not merit in answering my questions.
After writing my post, and talking to some people, I have gathered that most people feel that the “us” and “our” are references to the trinity. Not to behave exactly how Ethan predicted I would, but that brings me to Steve’s point. Why is this one of the only examples of this? Did the god of the Old Testament suddenly become self-aware and realize how creepy he was being?
I would also like to address Jesse’s point regarding what I believe and why, which may help to answer some of the charges against me. I am an atheist because after extensive reading of the bible and other philosophical texts, having discussions with believers and non-believers, and after taking a far amount of time to consider all possibilities, I have come to the conclusion that there is no higher power, god, or an other spiritual manifestation of a higher intelligence. If I don’t believe that the bible is truth, why would I look to it for answers?
When I said that I had unanswered questions, I was referring to the nature of creation as a whole, not specifically to the issue of “likeness” or “image.” As far as viewing the love of my children as masturbatory, if I did birth children as a result of having sex with someone else, and not created them out of nothing (a scientific impossibility), those children would be a product of the union of my egg and some dude’s sperm, and thus a “likeness” of two people. I would also not expect my children to worship me or take care of my pets.
I never said that all Christians ignore the old testament, just a fair amount of the ones that I know, that’s why I posed my question here. I was hoping that someone would give me an actual answer. I may not accept the answer as truth, but I will accept it as your explanation.
As far as Sam’s point with regards to love and science. If love is a result of science (specifically neuroscience), does that make it less real or less valid? I mean we already know the effects of pheromones, hormones, and other biological responses that impact who we choose to spend our lives with, if a higher power isn’t involved in those things are they less significant?
So if I understand you right, because the bible was not written in a vacuum, it is up to believers to update it for themselves. I am supposing about a belief (it would still be great if you would respond to the what and why you believe question so I could cease with supposing) that god divinely inspired the bible, why wouldn’t he write it so it could be understood through out the centuries, why would he make it so archaic and why would the morals pulled from the bible be morphed so much over the centuries since it was written?
About love, you are leading the question to a supernatural response. I can’t tell you exactly why love has evolved like it did, but it seems more logical to assume it has to do with mate selection and child rearing than supernatural forces.
What I need to get across is ‘love’ is a label. One couldn’t define love in a way that says what it is as opposed to how it feels. Love is a combination of marketing, hormones, brain activity, and evolution. This may sound cold, but as Nikel said above it feels no less real to me. I don’t feel like I have “cheated myself out of the true power of love”.
What is the problem with ‘I don’t know’. I often find theists trying to discredit science’s power of explanation without any consideration with why you would give god the ability to explain these things.
No, it is not up to believers to update Scripture. It is up to believers to study it and to understand the social and historical factors that would have influenced the text when it was written.
Since the reference to the Apostle’s and Nicene creed was less than satisfactory on my beliefs, yes, I believe Scripture to be divinely inspired. I also believe it was written by men, throughout history. Simply to say God wrote it so it should all be clear is to simplify the depth of the text.
As to your comment about love being a label; I have to disagree. Labeling love seems like an attempt to take something that exists outside of us, inside of us, through us and despite us and making it understandable. What is the problem with ‘I don’t know’ in this case? Marketing, hormones, brain activity, and evolution are all factors in social interaction – but fall far short of understanding love.
Also, I am in no way attempting to discredit science – and I will repeat what I have already said: to me, science and faith are not an either/or but rather a both/and.
[...] & Why Jump to Comments Over at The Conversation we are having quite the discussion. I had asked people to explain what they believe and why they [...]
Just in case anyone wanted my what & why I do not believe in god, it is here: http://wp.me/pAFIq-26
Sam,
Right, I get what your saying, but I’m not sure I get why god would allow man to get his grubby little hands on the text. How do you differentiate what was the true message of god and what was the addition of the writers? Are you not using your own natural moral compass to determine what rules you should follow and which you think are barbaric?
I’m not sure you can disagree that love is a label. If we called love ‘flipflap’, then ‘flipflap’ would be the label we put on the feeling of love. If we have a box, and inside this box we have chemical and social reactions that correlate (and in some instances cause) the feeling of love, what makes you feel the need to place love outside of this box? I’m not sure how science and faith can be both/and when the contradict one another. Science only identifies and deals with the natural, in science nothing else exists. If you are saying love is an external, supernatural force, that’s contradictory to science.
God could keep us from the text, but it is meant to be more than that. Not a list of rules, or dictated monologue. Rather a dialogue, where we wrestle with, study and debate the text.
I’m not sure you can disagree that love is beyond a label. Love can be felt, but it is more than a feeling. Love is much an action as running or writing.
I never claimed love to be supernatural. Science falls short of explaining love, that’s all. It’s not contradictory to science, just beyond science. I am not sure why we need to “understand” love – perhaps it’s because we want to control it, and when we can’t seem to apply normal rules to such an interesting and powerful concept, we get nervous. You can try to explain away love, but then you have missed it altogether. Part of the power of love is that we feel we control it until we find ourselves being totally controlled by it.
You seem to be comfortable saying “I don’t know” when it comes to God, but not when it comes to science, even when it’s a legitimate lack of knowledge. But perhaps I am reading into things a bit.
I would also like to take a second and invite Ethan, Steve and John back into the conversation, as well as those of you who are reading along but not throwing in your 2 cents…
I would also like Ethan, Steve, John, and Nikel back in to comment on all this, I just have one thing more to say. I am ok with saying I don’t know when it comes to science, you have to say I don’t know when it comes to science otherwise you can no longer progress. What I’m not ok saying it that it is beyond science, or that we can’t know. I think we can know, but to be able to completely explain love it would take much greater knowledge than we currently have.
Yeah love and stuff isn’t something we can completely understand yet, but I believe science will be able to explain it when we get smarter or have better technology, etc.
I was thinking about something that you said to me on Tuesday night, Sam. You were talking to me about irrational love and how science can’t explain that. Am I remembering that right? What makes its irrational exactly?
I know we talked about not being able to sleep, being sick to your stomach, just obsessed with someone type stuff, but, if we really think about it, is it really that irrational? Especially if you look at it in terms of evolutionary processes, I feel like maybe that’s just how evolution or nature has ensured propagation of the species and the construction of the family unit. Maybe this irrational love is what kicks in to ensure that dudes stay with ladies, commit, and keep it in their pants and stuff.
Nikel,
to me, what makes love irrational at times, is that it can go against the good of society and evolutionary process. So to make the claim that love is a product of environmental factors and exists to enhance the evolutionary process seems a bit short sighted. The question of why we need to be loved and will stop at nothing to get and/or give it seems to be larger than evolution. Make sense?
Sam,
I understand what you’re saying because love is an extraordinary thing, and it seems strange to even try to explian it.
But even though it seems strange doesn’t make it impossible. You are talking about love, which is a feeling, and one person’s feeling of love can be completely different then another person’s feeling. You talk about the different things you associate with love, but have you not ever felt one of those symptoms before when not feeling love. I know I’ve had the butterflys in my stomach before giving a speech in class. They are different, I’m aware because what you are associating with that feeling isn’t love, its nervousness, and love comes in tandem with other feelings.
What I find difficult to reconcile with your belief of the unexplanablility of love is that the feelings you get from love are physical reactions for the most part, reactions we can associate with other activities other than love. Is love in the same category as nerves, or apprehension, or suprise, or fear? If not what seperates them? Love being a process of evolution is anything BUT shortsighted. If that is the answer, to me, that’s so much more amazing than magic.
I’m sorry maybe you’ve answered this already and I forgotten, but what do you think love is?
We can see and analyze the reaction to love (butterflies, rage, etc) but it doesn’t answer the larger question at play that I have been trying to get at; where does love come from?
I believe love can be emotional, but is not an emotion. As I mentioned previously, love is as much an action as running or writing.
I believe love is innate, and we are created to need and give love.
But why? What leads you to this conclusion? To me, the things I know (know as much as is possible) because they have natural causes and natural reactions. So I’m not sure what would lead someone to think that love is anything but an offshoot of that.
What makes love special? Or do you also believe we were created to hate, or suffer?
People hurt other people. That is a given. When you chose to love someone, you are risking part of yourself. They can chose to return your love or discard you. It is a choice with great risk associated.
To me, Jesus embodies this love, he gave his life for us to be reconciled to God, and we can return that love or discard him. It was a choice with great risk associated. Love is action.
Sam, I am surprised at how your every word has been taken and broken down. I don’t know of anyone who could carry on a conversation with every word being taken so literal. I simply don’t understand how a person can look at all the little details about life and come to the conclusion that everthing around us has happened by chance. One day there was nothing and then there was this really Big Bang and life happened. And to be at a place in time, thousands of years from the existence of the first human being, we still haven’t become smart enough or haven’t developed the technology yet to explain where love comes from? Here are some more questions for the conversation: where does the sense of right and wrong come from? Why do we need purpose? Why do we need hope? Why do we have desires? Why do we desire love? I’m not sure how a person could come to reason, ”I’m here to simply walk out a scientific formula placed together to equate the meaning of life, and that meaning is that there is no meaning at all. I’m. really just here fulfilling my place in the chain of evolution.” There are many things that science can prove, but at the same time science does not have an answer for everything, and this is because there are certain things that simply can’t be explained. In other words, they are beyond science. This holds true especially in the area of love. The only other thing I’d like to make mention of us that thus far, this conversation has been extremely focused on the Old Testament with brief mentions of Jesus. When we look at the Bible as a whole and in context, we see an entirely different picture of who God is. I think its important to see God in his entirety and in context. There’s my two cents…
Derian, thanks for joining in. I think the difference is here “there are certain things that simply can’t be explained” and as has been mentioned before “eventually science will have an explanation.”
To me, this represents both as a belief system, Christians believing in a Creator God, and atheists believing in the explanation of science – at the end of the day, we are believing in the hope that someday, our questions will be answered. By what is what separates those beliefs.
Anyone care to jump back in?
It is interesting to me that everyone is here to have a real conversation. If we are all telling the truth and just want to learn why others feel/believe the way they do,why are we ripping into one another? I believe that this is the root of why so many ‘christians’ walk away from christianity. People say that they just want to hear why someone believes they way they do, but in reality they really want to pursuade… To me being a christian is being Christ like…Christ didn’t treat people who believed different than him the way we treat people who believe differetly than us. Needless to say, maybe, I am a believer in God and Jesus Christ. I do not pretend that I know it all, and I am far from my little bro.(Sam) in the intelect department. But, what I do know is that I believe in God, and I believe that He loves me. Even though I can not see Him, I can see the effects of Him in my personal life. Sam…I love you and I admire you so much!