Atheism/evolution

Originally posted by epiphinehas
A big part of being a Christian is looking toward eternal things, of anticipating the eternal bliss of fellowship with the Lord of heaven and earth, as part of preparation for eternity. This goes hand in hand, though, with the practice of the radical agape of which you've spoken so eloquently; such being God's command. We love God because he fir a person who claims to be Christian would dilute the radicalness of Christ's agape.

I get what you are saying here but I cant help but feel that the earlier parts of your post contradict what you are saying here or are attempts to excuse not following your own words.
I tend to agree with vistesd in that certain types of love are not rational, and even go further and claim that when they are rational then it is not the same love. You state that "We love God because he first loved us,.." and "...such being God's command" both of which imply conditional love or at least love based on a rational argument.
Do you love your enemy because you are commanded to by Christ or because you see that it is right, or do you simply feel love for him for no rational reason?

Is it possible that the love Christ talked of was so radical that he asked that you love everyone (even the least of his children) so much that you would be willing to give up everything (even your place in heaven) for them? I do not know, I am not a Bible scholar. What I do know is that I am yet to meet a single Christian who is willing to state that they would give up their place in heaven for the love of another. Invariably they fall back on the avoidance syndrome that you just demonstrated ie there is no point contemplating it as it is not on the table. But why do you refuse to address it? Why not simply admit that your love falls short of that standard and that you not believe such love is required of you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I get what you are saying here but I cant help but feel that the earlier parts of ...Do you love your enemy because you are commanded to by Christ or because you see that it is right, or do you simply feel love for him for no rational reason?

...

It is not human nature to love one's enemy, not under any circumstance.

Therefore, one must begin loving one's enemy because it is commanded by Jesus (not Christ), and in the practice of doing so one experiences the spiritual truth of the commandment.

There is no other way to learn to love one's enemy.

Originally posted by Badwater
It is not human nature to love one's enemy, not under any circumstance.

Therefore, one must begin loving one's enemy because it is commanded by Jesus (not Christ), and in the practice of doing so one experiences the spiritual truth of the commandment.

There is no other way to learn to love one's enemy.

Rubbish.
People have been doing this long beore Jesusand will be doing it long after his memory is dust.

Originally posted by amannion
Rubbish.
People have been doing this long beore Jesusand will be doing it long after his memory is dust.

you are too quick to call someone's opinion rubbish. i refrain to call your opinion rubbish for the exact reasons you should have considered: it is an opinion, argue it, counter argue it, respect it, agree or disagree with it.


badwater was claiming it was not human nature to love one's enemy. how could it? in the beginning we were all competitors, when the enemy was the one who would steal your women, food, children. thus endanger your tribe, your life and your purpose in life. as such, in order to survive, enemies had to be crushed, whether they were other humans or predators.

badwater was claiming that love your enemy comes as a command from jesus. if you claim that other philosophers have given this advice before jesus you make a pointless claim as most people that obey that command do so mostly because jesus said so and have never heard of your philosophers.

so which of these opinions do you call rubbish?

sure you could be calling his post rubbish because you decided to claim something different. at which i must ask: do you think that humans love their enemies as an interior impulse as opposed to some outside factor as Buddha or Jesus? In which case i must ask how the weather is like in your wonderful world and if the unicorns are all pink or if there are also other colours.
nowadays the common philosophy is: you are my enemy, i will freakin crush you. examples abound.

Originally posted by amannion
Rubbish.
People have been doing this long beore Jesusand will be doing it long after his memory is dust.

Seconded.

Many people have loved their enemies without following Jesus' or anyone else commands.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so which of these opinions do you call rubbish?

The bit where he says "There is no other way to learn to love one's enemy." is obviously and blatantly false and a single counter example suffices to prove it wrong. Since such counter examples abound and the poster is almost certainly aware of such examples, his post can accurately be described as 'rubbish'.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
badwater was claiming it was not human nature to love one's enemy. how could it? in the beginning we were all competitors, when the enemy was the one who would steal your women, food, children. thus endanger your tribe, your life and your purpose in life. as such, in order to survive, enemies had to be crushed, whether they were other humans or predators.

Which 'beginning' was that? When did we stop being competitors and get civilized? Now your post is in danger of being labelled 'rubbish' as you clearly have not thought it through. Not only have humans been social animals throughout their history, but at no point does your argument prove anything about human nature. Human nature is not about history, or logical behavior, human nature is about how we behave 'naturally' if such a thing even exists.
Considering the number of people who do love their enemy, I would say that it is definitely within the scope of human nature even though it might not be universal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The bit where he says "There is no other way to learn to love one's enemy." is obviously and blatantly false and a single counter example suffices to prove it wrong. Since such counter examples abound and the poster is almost certainly aware of such examples, his post can accurately be described as 'rubbish'.

wait a second.
we are talking about human nature here. if you say that someone other than jesus can convince the jerks that are humans to love their enemies, sure it can happen.
if you are saying that each human has the capability to develop this aspect on his/her own then again i must ask how the weather is like in that wonderful world.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which 'beginning' was that? When did we stop being competitors and get civilized? Now your post is in danger of being labelled 'rubbish' as you clearly have not thought it through. Not only have humans been social animals throughout their history, but at no point does your argument prove anything about human nature. Human nature is not about history, or l ...[text shortened]... t it is definitely within the scope of human nature even though it might not be universal.

by stopping to be competitors i am referring to the fact that it is no longer required to kill your competitor in order to survive. nowadays the resources are plentiful enough that it seems petty to hurt or kill your competitor just to have an extra potato or better cable TV. so some will abstain from ruthless tactics(though some will still make you go bankrupt just so he can make another million).


take away most of the world resources and you have brutes that will slice and kill each other to survive. if you disagree to this i again must ask how the weather is like.

jesus however doesn't give conditions. "love your enemy if you have enough sh|t" . he says love your enemy no matter what. which is slightly different that what most humans are capable of.

PS(i should make a thread in which to discuss just how fragile todays population is that you cannot write sh|t without them crying and feeling broken and violated)

Originally posted by amannion
Rubbish.
People have been doing this long beore Jesusand will be doing it long after his memory is dust.

Agreed.
Guatama Bhudda was 500 years before christ. There is one very famous story where the Bhudda was approached by a notorious murderer at the time. Bhudda showed no fear when confronted with his own death and had nothing but love for his would-be killer. The murderer is said to have renounced his sinful ways and become a follower of the bhudda after their encounter.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Agreed.
Guatama Bhudda was 500 years before christ. There is one very famous story where the Bhudda was approached by a notorious murderer at the time. Bhudda showed no fear when confronted with his own death and had nothing but love for his would-be killer. The murderer is said to have renounced his sinful ways and become a follower of the bhudda after their encounter.

you seem to be missing the bigger picture. just because jesus wasn't the first to come up with the idea doesn't change the fact that humans are in general, a race of jerks. they need outside stimulus to act in such a selfless manner.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wait a second.
we are talking about human nature here.

We are talking about several things, not just human nature.

if you say that someone other than jesus can convince the jerks that are humans to love their enemies, sure it can happen.
So you agree that when he said "There is no other way to learn to love one's enemy." he was wrong?
Would you go as far as to call it rubbish, or is that uncalled for?

if you are saying that each human has the capability to develop this aspect on his/her own then again i must ask how the weather is like in that wonderful world.
I did not say that. But neither do I agree with the opposite ie that we are all incapable of developing that aspect - which is what both you and he are arguing when you claim it is human nature to never love your enemy.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you seem to be missing the bigger picture. just because jesus wasn't the first to come up with the idea doesn't change the fact that humans are in general, a race of jerks. they need outside stimulus to act in such a selfless manner.

So what was Bhuddas and Jesus' outside stimulus? Or are you supporting knightmeister and his claim that he can do nothing right without Gods help?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by stopping to be competitors i am referring to the fact that it is no longer required to kill your competitor in order to survive.

I will ask again. Which date or period are you referring to when you claim that killing was required for survival? Which date or period was it "when the enemy was the one who would steal your women, food, children. thus endanger your tribe, your life and your purpose in life. "? How has that changed? Who are our enemies now and why are they more lovable?

nowadays the resources are plentiful enough
You are clearly living in a first world country and your blindness to the rest of the world is one of the reasons the US has so many enemies.

jesus however doesn't give conditions. "love your enemy if you have enough sh|t" . he says love your enemy no matter what. which is slightly different that what most humans are capable of.
I don't believe that most humans are incapable of it. I simply don't believe that most humans are motivated to do it - for the sake of everlasting life or otherwise, nor does it come naturally to all of us - as love for a spouse and family does. But I am not convinced that it is human nature to hate your enemy (and not love him) neither am I convinced that Jesus nor any other specific figure is required before a man can love his enemy.
And lastly I am not convinced that significantly more people claiming to be Christian love their enemy than people professing to be atheist.

PS(i should make a thread in which to discuss just how fragile todays population is that you cannot write sh|t without them crying and feeling broken and violated)
Wasn't it you that objected to the word 'rubbish'?