Amos

Of course Love is perfect because Love has no opposite in and of itself. Things can only go wrong when we try to use it for our own advantage and this is only possible if we live beside ourselves. For this to be possible there must be two of us in which one is the the giver of Love and the second the taker of this given Love.

For there to be two of us we only need to be divided in our own mind between our primary image wherein we are the continuity of God (called Lord God and the giver of this Love), and the secondary image wherein we are in conflict with our own primary identity as God. From here the argument takes on many different directions about the existence of God but the fact remains that we all have the potential to be God and actually are God to the same extent as we know who we really are (and it don't really matter if we agree with this or not).

As seen from our primary identity Love in pure form (agape) has no opposites, is not selfish, is not protective, not jalous, and has no object or purpose to serve other than the beatification of Life itself. This would make Love the giver of Life and Life itself the recipient of this Love and therefore God is called Love and Lord God is called Life in the bible (notice here that only Lord God can get angry).

In our secondary identity, wherein we are somewhat alienated from our primary identity, we are able to isolate and extract from this unconditional love and use it to benefit and enhance our ego identity. It is here that we create our own opposites to love and this is only possible because we are somewhat alienated from our true identity as God (or there would be sickness, marriage, pain and darkness in heaven).

An argument can be made that sickness, marriage, pain and darkness are good because if we are the continuity of God the existence of God is also contingent upon the things we learn while in the absense of God.

Amos

Hello Patroclus, may I just pouint out that we are all the same and the only reason why we think we are different is because of our human condition which is and remains only a condition that belongs to the being called man. So everybody thinks [he or she] is different.

Luiseach

Actually, that's quite a curious thought...I wonder what it is about the human condition that makes us think we are different from one another?

Amos

Hello Luise, nice to see you again.

The human condition is to be cherished and greatly to be praised because it makes you special and an ideal individual. You and I both, and for one, it is what makes us male and female. In this difference--which I called "alienation"-- lies the caused for you to be attracted to your husband (assuming you are a married female) and this conditional love is required for creation, procreation and all sorts of good things that makes live worth living while in exile (later to be abandonned as a wasteland).

Luiseach

Hi Amos!

I agree that humanity should be cherished in ourselves and others.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying....are you saying that people's feelings of difference from one another - alienation - lead them towards love? That we are under the illusion of difference in order to make us value in others what we think we don't already possess in ourselves?

I see you recall the philosophical Eliot discussion from long ago!

John Page

Exactly. You're not explaining the what. One of the troubles we have with definition is context because without context there is no meaning. The reason I'm being picky is that my definition of belief considers it to be an accepted a priori truth (irrespective of whether it can be proven or not). A belief might be elevated to a fact, for example, with supporting evidence.

So what I'm poking at is the definition of god as a concept that supports or assists in the development of beliefs that may or may not be beneficial to the believer. Applying Darwinianism (chuckle) to this then beliefs that deliver benefits will be adopted (regardless of whether they are true or not).

So, in arriving at definitions in order for sensible debate to occur we should, I propose, discuss the purpose and the context of the definition itself. Hopefully I have illustrated above how redefining belief can throw a different light on why xians believe, as opposed to why they say or why they think they believe.

Cheers, John

Patroclus

-Amos
Another question of faith, in my estimation. If you choose to believe that underneath the surface of our humanity is some common 'substance' that unites us all, I suppose that is fine. However, unless I am mistaking your meaning, I do not tend to agree with you. I agree that the human condition is unique to humanity, but I also think that the Robert condition is unique to Robert (that is me). In short, I truly think that we are individuals who should strive to be more united, not a united front that, in our infallible entropy, has somehow forgotten the concept. I think neither one of our cases are absolutely provable. So, I will leave it at that.

-John Page
And what I have been arguing all along (see my first post) is that no definition can be agreed upon deeper than the level of the purposes of debate. There may be some common ground among some groups of people. But people will always bring biases based on culture, experience, etc. that will make debate concerning God impossible unless God is 1) limited to a few, specific character traits, strictly for the purpose of debate, and then 2) is understood as different (at least to some degree) in everybody's mind.

In other words, John, if you and I were to actually debate about the existence of God, we would have to do so according one or two agreed-upon character traits: such as goodness or light.

It is impossible to discuss God as a whole, and almost so to discuss God in part.

Amos

Exactly. As "the being" called man we are identical but as humans we are different.

The alienation I referred to was actually from our own soul (subconscious mind) and therefore we seek justification for life in the land of power, wealth and beauty (Gen.2:10-14). While so alienated we journey "along the road-dust of the sun" (poem by Eliot or Browning?), and it is at this time that we enhance our ego consciousness (persona) to become individuals with an identity of our own. We do this well and therefore can and will be prolific in all aspects of life.

Yes, the wasteland is left behind when the greater good is found, so the poem goes, and this will not be until after we have 'bloomed where we were planted.' Hence our old garden patch becomes a wasteland.

The attraction of love is really a matter of balancing assets with liabilities (strengths and weaknesses) and therefore opposites will always attract to render "marriages arranged in heaven." Sorry, I am a bit traditional here but if "love is blind" it is not the same as a rational relationship and therefore it must have been arranged in heaven.

Amos

OK except that it is not faith but fact. The human condition is our humanity and the destiny of mankind is shaped by it.

John Page

I don't think the existence or non-existence of god has anything to do with goodness or light.

Having said this, it seems we concur that some common ground is required in order to disagree....

Cheers, john