Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

With the exeption of Judaism and Buddhism. Why does love alwasy play a big part in religions? Christianity and Hinduism displays different types of loves. Love between the sexes and love between creator and the creation. Is it really Love the driving energy behind immortality? Most of the stories involved the topic of love. So I keep wondering...do the gods wants us to love them?

Hmm, some Gods do. Some Gods' very existance depends on their followers love.

What do you mean my love?

Love is supposed to be the greatest feeling humans can achieve. From a non-religious perspective the creation of the idea of love in religions comes from the way people have perceived true happiness. It has always felt much better to love and be loved than any other emotion, so when religions developed, it would make sense that love woudl play a signicficant role. From a religous perspective it would seem that love promotes the good in people and that in order to maintain order and peace, love would have to be among humans not just for the happiness, but for the existence of the human race. If god didnt create love then chaos would be among us and war would be our demise. So it was imminent for our existence to have love. Whether god created that feeling and made it an important role in religion, or people tried to incorporate it into religions they created, that i do not know. I'd like to believe the first one because im christian, but who knows.

^ Wouldn't happiness be the highest emotion; love being the path to happiness?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hmm, some Gods do. Some Gods' very existance depends on their followers love.

love me or else.

*worships lil*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean my love?

Emotions, feelings, caring...etc.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
love me or else.

I didn't know you were a Christian.

I believe that love is a recurring theme because it is the strongest emotion. And BTW I don't understand why Judaism was left out. Love is central to the OT teachings.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Wouldn't happiness be the highest emotion; love being the path to happiness?

yes your right, but regardless love is the only way to achieve true happiness so thats why its anintegral part of religion

Originally posted by Nellinator
I believe that love is a recurring theme because it is the strongest emotion. And BTW I don't understand why Judaism was left out. Love is central to the OT teachings.

I've actually begun a comprehensive study of the bible and im currently in exodus. Love is important, but I would say the central teaching of the OT up to this point is believe in god and follow his rules. A lot of things the early Jews did would be considered most likely sinful in christianity and juadism today even though what they did was mainly to preserve the existence of the Israelites. Like I said, I've only read up through exodus, but the main theme thus far is listen to god and do as he instructs.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
yes your right, but regardless love is the only way to achieve true happiness so thats why its anintegral part of religion


But many religions hold sacrifice over happiness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Wouldn't happiness be the highest emotion; love being the path to happiness?

Isn't happiness more just satisfaction. Its not that high.

Fundamentalists are very "happy."

Originally posted by Alliance
Isn't happiness more just satisfaction. Its not that high.

Fundamentalists are very "happy."

Satisfaction is physical where as true happiness is transcending.

"true" happiness. That seems rather arbitrary...kind of like "true" Christians.

Originally posted by Alliance
"true" happiness. That seems rather arbitrary...kind of like "true" Christians.

Not in the Buddhist religion. It is a happiness that is not connected to the outside world.

AH!

And now we have discovered the source of the arbitrary!

Originally posted by Alliance
AH!

And now we have discovered the source of the arbitrary!

You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I believe that love is a recurring theme because it is the strongest emotion. And BTW I don't understand why Judaism was left out. Love is central to the OT teachings.

Since when does Love involve violence ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Since when does Love involve violence ?
Lots. I would defend my friends with violence if it was needed. IMO not all violence is bad. Often violence is needed. That all violence is all bad is one of the biggest lies told to our generation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Lots. I would defend my friends with violence if it was needed. IMO not all violence is bad. Often violence is needed. That all violence is all bad is one of the biggest lies told to our generation.

So if I beat up my wife, it's a good thing ? Violence and love go hand in hand ?

Damn...since when did Jesus teach violence was the way ? I thought he said "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemies"

Or is that more bullshit ?

You Christians contradict the hell out of each other, the hell out of yourself, and the hell out of the Bible (which in turn contradicts itself and you)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
With the exeption of Judaism and Buddhism. Why does love alwasy play a big part in religions? Christianity and Hinduism displays different types of loves. Love between the sexes and love between creator and the creation. Is it really Love the driving energy behind immortality? Most of the stories involved the topic of love. So I keep wondering...do the gods wants us to love them?

Simply answer? One gets more bees with honey. Of course Hinduism is far more accepting of the negative aspects of the world, and also the importance of death and destruction (in a form.)

But yes, to get converts: Promise something good.

OR

Promise something really good in the future.

OR

Promise some form of secret knowledge, greater understanding, whatever.

OR

Promise enjoyable things (wine, sexual rituals, etc)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So if I beat up my wife, it's a good thing ? Violence and love go hand in hand ?

Damn...since when did Jesus teach violence was the way ? I thought he said "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemies"

Or is that more bullshit ?

You Christians contradict the hell out of each other, the hell out of yourself, and the hell out of the Bible (which in turn contradicts itself and you)
You are placing words in my mouth and twisting what I say to serve your ends. You need to stop doing this because you do it a lot.

I would never support wife beating. I said sometimes violence is involved, but must be justified and gave an example where this would be true. Beating your wife is not justifiable. You are obsessed with the idea of contradictions, but have yet to prove a single contradiction. You are very spiteful and for that I pity you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Lots. I would defend my friends with violence if it was needed. IMO not all violence is bad. Often violence is needed. That all violence is all bad is one of the biggest lies told to our generation.

This reflects the kind of faith that Christianity would observed. Some Jesus' teachings were good, others were cruel, impractical , and in some cases just silly. And perhaps it is no surprising that not only have Christians often failed to practise Jesus' teachings, bu he often also failed to practise them himself. He taught that we should love our neighbour but he seems to have problems doing this himself. He believed that his teaching could lead people to heaven and yet he specifically instructed his disciples not to preach the Gospel to anyone but his own people, the Jews.

Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 10:5-6).

When a poor distressed woman came to Jesus begging for help he refused to help her simply because she was not Jewish. Teaching the Gospel to Canaanites was, he said, like taking food from children and throwing it to dogs.

A Canaanite woman from the vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon possession". Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us". He answered: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel". The woman came and knelt before him, "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs" (Matt 15:22-26).

It was only after strong urging from his disciples that Jesus finally decided to help the woman. So much for loving one's neighbour. Jesus taught that we should love our enemies, but again he seemed to have difficulties doing this. When the Pharisees criticized him he responded with a tirade of curses and insults (e.g. Jn 8:42-47, Matt 23:13-36).
Jesus said that we should not judge others (Matt 7:12) and claimed that he himself judged no one (Jn 8:15). But despite this he was constantly judging and condemning others, often in a harsh and sweeping manner (Jn 8:42-47, Matt 23:13-16)

In conformity with the Old Testament Jesus taught that we must honour our mother and father (Matt 19:19) but on other occasions he taught and practised the exact opposite.

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk 14:26).

This demand that to love Jesus we must be prepared to hate others, even our own parents, seems to be very much at odds with the idea of honouring parents - let alone with the idea of loving our neighbour. Once Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him while he was preaching only to be rudely rebuffed.

And his mother and brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him, and they said to him, "Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for you". And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and brothers!" (Mk 3:31-35).

Once when his mother spoke to him, he snapped at her: "0 woman, what have y( to do with me?" (Jn 2:4). And yet while he acted like this to his parents I condemned the Pharisees for their supposed hypocrisy over the law to honour mother and father (Matt 15:3-6, Mk 7:10-13).
In some instances, it is difficult to accuse Jesus of failing to practise what I preached for the simple reason that he taught contradictory things. Christians ai used to thinking of him as "gentle Jesus meek and mild", because of his command "to turn the other cheek" and to "not resist an evil person" (Matt 5:39). And indef. Jesus seems to have acted like this sometimes. But at other times he clearly saw his role as a violent one.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace but the sword. I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household (Matt 10:34-36).

Certainly he saw nothing wrong with using violence when he thought it was necessary. When he saw the money changers in the temple he lost his temper and lashed out with violence.

So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple areas: he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables (Jn 2:15).

Before his arrest Jesus was expecting trouble so he told his disciples to prepare themselves by getting weapons.
If you do not have a sword sell your cloak and buy one (Lk 22:36).

When he was arrested there was a fight during which "one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear" (Matt 26:51). It is very difficult for the Buddhist to reconcile such behaviour with the idea of being perfect. To retaliate against one's accusers, to lon one's temper and to encourage others to carry weapons and use them seem t negate the whole idea of moral perfection.

At this stage it might be good to point out that while most of Jesus' teachings are inadequate and ill-conceived, some are excellent. His teachings on love, forgiveness, humility and service to the sick and poor are worthy of the highest praise. However, none of this is unique. Such ideas are to be found, sometimes rnore fully, in the teachings of the Buddha, Confucius, Mo Tzu , Mahavira , Guru Nanak etc, most of whom lived centuries before Jesus. What is good in Jesus' Teachings is not unique and what is unique is not particularly good.

Christians have great difficulty understanding why Buddhists and other non-Christians cannot accept Jesus as the Lord and saviour as they themselves do. But when we read the life and teachings of the Buddha - a man who smiled at abuse, remained calm when provoked and who always discouraged violence.

You horribly misinterpret the Bible. I have seen you use the argument that Jesus referred to the Gentiles as dogs before, but you fail to mention that in the end he healed her. I believe that Jesus was encouraging her faith as he had foreknowledge of their meeting.
Regret once made an excellent explanation of the meaning of Jesus's teaching on judgement, but I cannot find it, so too bad. Ulitmately Jesus does not condemn judging, but rather tells us to be careful in how and when we judge. You may notice that not once did Jesus ever strike another person. You also need to realize that everyone of Jesus's actions were justified and that you frequently take his statements out of context. Meek does not mean that they are a push over because everyone knows that pushovers are never effective.
In your argument against Jesus in Mark concerning his mother and brothers is ridiculous. Jesus was with an entire crowd and said one parting sentence to them. This is not a rude rebuff. And do not feel like disputing everything you said and don't feel I need too. I'm sure most people hear understand how badly you take things out of context.

You may notice that it is never mentioned that Jesus struck another person.

This is convinient if your are trying to create a messiah construct around a person.

You say "never," but you'll likely never know will you.

People are almost always over-enfatuated with the purity of THEIR gods.

Originally posted by Alliance
You may notice that it is never mentioned that Jesus struck another person.

This is convinient if your are trying to create a messiah construct around a person.

You say "never," but you'll likely never know will you.

People are almost always over-enfatuated with the purity of THEIR gods.
You may have a point, but I hold that Jesus was definitely not a violent person and that all his actions were justified.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Wouldn't happiness be the highest emotion; love being the path to happiness?

I would say happiness is selfish, it is centered on the self. Love must needs be the goal, and happiness is the byproduct, not the end of the path.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But many religions hold sacrifice over happiness.

Sacrifice is selflessness. One gives up his personal wants in favor of another's.

Originally posted by Regret
I would say happiness is selfish, it is centered on the self. Love must needs be the goal, and happiness is the byproduct, not the end of the path.

Sacrifice is selflessness. One gives up his personal wants in favor of another's.

Lets examine this. Doing something "right" is going to make you personal gratification.

Therefore you can attribute any action as nothing but a self-serving delusion.

I could say the same about Regret's love as I could say about Shakya's happiness.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You may have a point, but I hold that Jesus was definitely not a violent person and that all his actions were justified.

He is not portrayed as violient and you are told his actions were justified...or you can justify them in a indocrinated logic that was meaningless 2000 years ago.

What matters is your perception of what you term Jesus. The myth has the power, not the man.

Originally posted by mahasattva
This reflects the kind of faith that Christianity would observed. Some Jesus' teachings were good, others were cruel, impractical , and in some cases just silly. And perhaps it is no surprising that not only have Christians often failed to practise Jesus' teachings, bu he often also failed to practise them himself. He taught that we should love our neighbour but he seems to have problems doing this himself. He believed that his teaching could lead people to heaven and yet he specifically instructed his disciples not to preach the Gospel to anyone but his own people, the Jews.

...

As to teaching those that were not Jews:



The Jews needed to be approached first for the simple reason that they were in error, and an attempt at removing the beam needed to be made first. After his resurrection the apostles were told to begin teaching the rest of mankind.


I believe you do not grasp the teachings held in the Bible.

I do not intend to be of offense, but you seem to be reading it with some form of bias leading your interpretation to a wrong conclusion. Many Christians get caught up in the same snare.



Given that this is central to the Christian religion, any interpretation that conflicts with this is thus impaired and in error.

Any Christian that states otherwise should read this next quote, because they are undoubtedly needing its reproach.

Originally posted by Alliance
Lets examine this. Doing something "right" is going to make you personal gratification.

Therefore you can attribute any action as nothing but a self-serving delusion.

I could say the same about Regret's love as I could say about Shakya's happiness.

It may give personal gratification, but a person should be motivated by the love, and not the gratification. The gratification is a byproduct, not the end. Love is the method to aiding others in gaining happiness, it should not be the method to achieving self gratification.

Originally posted by Regret
It may give personal gratification, but a person should be motivated by the love, and not the gratification. The gratification is a byproduct, not the end. Love is the method to aiding others in gaining happiness, it should not be the method to achieving self gratification.
Righto.

To simply answer that question in its purest form, well LOVE is the ultimate aspiration of Man sought by God. Love pure love is what God wants man to achieve, once you achieve that, you become devoid of sin

Originally posted by Nellinator
You may have a point, but I hold that Jesus was definitely not a violent person and that all his actions were justified.

I don't know, that whole messing up the money lenders stalls in the temple... I think could do a lot of things if the situation was right.

Originally posted by Regret
It may give personal gratification, but a person should be motivated by the love, and not the gratification. The gratification is a byproduct, not the end. Love is the method to aiding others in gaining happiness, it should not be the method to achieving self gratification.

and there is no way you can ever determine if the motication is from "love" or from gratification.

Love is many things, but it is just an emotion. It is no higher than any other emotion.

If you focus solely on it, you become unbalanced. It destroys your 'self'.

Originally posted by Alliance
and there is no way you can ever determine if the motication is from "love" or from gratification.

I don't believe it is necessary to worry about why others do what they do. IMO, a person should assume the best of others until it is shown to be wrong.

Originally posted by Alliance
Love is many things, but it is just an emotion. It is no higher than any other emotion.

I am referring to the acts that show that a person loves his neighbor. I am not speaking of the emotion alone, love without works is dead being alone.

Originally posted by Alliance
If you focus solely on it, you become unbalanced. It destroys your 'self'.

I agree.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are placing words in my mouth and twisting what I say to serve your ends. You need to stop doing this because you do it a lot.

I would never support wife beating. I said sometimes violence is involved, but must be justified and gave an example where this would be true. Beating your wife is not justifiable. You are obsessed with the idea of contradictions, but have yet to prove a single contradiction. You are very spiteful and for that I pity you.

yawn Spare me your pity, spare me your moral judgements Christian boy. You are not God, and you truly know nothing about me, so judging me as "spiteful" is irrelevant.

I have named MANY a contradiction on EVERY THREAD having to do with the Bible possible. You have either failed to prove those points were not contradictions, or chose to ignore them as it is inconvienent for you to address them. Pathetic

And again.....you fail to answer my actual question. You avoid the point, and just blab more irrelevant bullshit thinking it will suffice for an argument. Again, Pathetic

Answer my question please:If Jesus taught to "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" then how the f*ck would Violence be an acceptable aspect of LOVE ?

Another contradiction you have yet to resolve......

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
With the exeption of Judaism and Buddhism. Why does love alwasy play a big part in religions? Christianity and Hinduism displays different types of loves. Love between the sexes and love between creator and the creation. Is it really Love the driving energy behind immortality? Most of the stories involved the topic of love. So I keep wondering...do the gods wants us to love them?

What gods? God is one. God is Love; Love is a Person--Jesus the Christ.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What gods? God is one. God is Love; Love is a Person--Jesus the Christ.

They why would love turn it's back on people?

Because its JIA.

Love in Christianity comprises all virtues and should comprise all people, even the bad and enemies. Jesus asks us to love one another and rise to the challenge to fight sin. Love is seen as a set of behaviours that humankind is encouraged to act out.