If Jesus is Love....

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then I apologise to Shakya for my ignorance. I do not know much about Buddhism I admit. But the way I heard there was a guy called Buddha, that started it all. I may be wrong, but at least I have admitted being ill-informed.

His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He only became "Buddha" when he acheived Enlightenment. But, in that sense, we all have the power to be Buddhas, at least within traditional Buddhist thought.

But no worries. Lack of knowledge and inherent biases, both good and bad, are things I try to dispel when I can. Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing, and usually leads to people either resenting other religions, or not fully understanding their own religion (which I would contend is the state of most fundamentalists).

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then I apologise to Shakya for my ignorance. I do not know much about Buddhism I admit. But the way I heard there was a guy called Buddha, that started it all. I may be wrong, but at least I have admitted being ill-informed.

That person was called Shakyamuni. His real name was Shuddhodana Gautama. Buddha was what he became when he was enlightened. The word Buddha is kind of like the word saint. A person can be a saint or saint can me a state of being. Someone who is saintly, as an example.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Fighting to pretect your children is natural like fighting to protect your gameboy. The mother lion feels as though, since the cubs depend on the mother, it's the mother's duty to protect the cubs at all cost. It's like subconscious responsibility or something.

You have no fkn idea what you are talkn about do you ? 😬

There are mother lions who allow thier children to be killed by a new dominating male. Then there are mother lions who fight to the death to protect thier own children, even from a new male dominator.

It is NOT a program.....

On National Geographic there was ONE female lion, in the midst of many, the ONLY female lion who fought TWO grown male lions to protect her cubs. The two lions cut her side open, and she STILL FOUGHT...she fought until she DIED....

The other lionesses just sat there and watched, allowing thier children to get killed one by one....

On another account, a female lion left one of her cubs alone to die....he had a broken leg, and could not continue moving.....she abandoned him because she had no way of furthering thier journey.

Mother lions protect thier young at all costs huh?

Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING ✅

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's biological normal. It happens in spiders aswell.

Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.

Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature....

Originally posted by lord xyz
Describe this "experience with love". I mean, first you say love is an emotion, then a force, then a natural instict, which is it?

It is a natural force. I never said it was an emotion alone..... ❌

I beleive Love is beyond words...sorry, but the above was the best definition I could come up with. The fact that you cannot forumlate your own, because you feel it does not exist , I find sad ❌

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Meaningless? You mean like speaking ? I find most of your posts a waste of time....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]WRONG Shaky is not telling you how to live your life. He is not condemning you either. He is simply trying to share his discovery with you.

JIA, on the other hand, wants you to throw away everything you learned on your own, close your mind, and blindly beleive something he has no proof of.

Shaky wants you to discover what he discovered for yourself, so that you don't HAVE to blindly take in what he says.[/B]

Disclaimer: I have already admitted my ignorance of Buddhism. 😐

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Athiesm had fundamentalists, you my freind would be the first....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You display consistant and almost intentional ignorance, close mindedness, and solid beleif in the non existance of anything you cannot SEE.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are just as "wrong" as Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists for your refusal to investigate anything that contradicts your current mindset.

I'm just not the kind of person who would believe in something made-up to make my life easier. There is nothing that decides things, nothing that makes moralities an absolute when it comes to society. In the real world, it's the smart people who stay on top.

And the fact that you're calling me a fundamentalist shows your ignorance. If you haven't noticed already, I reply to as much people as I can in a debate, I look at what everyone is saying, I admit when I am wrong. Can't say the same about fundamentalists or.... you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
... Not really, if I am shown facts that prove things like the above list, I shall take note, and see them as fact...

I don't believe this. I gave to a way to find proof, and you rejected it without even trying.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He only became "Buddha" when he acheived Enlightenment. But, in that sense, we all have the power to be Buddhas, at least within traditional Buddhist thought.

But no worries. Lack of knowledge and inherent biases, both good and bad, are things I try to dispel when I can. Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing, and usually leads to people either resenting other religions, or not fully understanding their own religion (which I would contend is the state of most fundamentalists).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That person was called Shakyamuni. His real name was Shuddhodana Gautama. Buddha was what he became when he was enlightened. The word Buddha is kind of like the word saint. A person can be a saint or saint can me a state of being. Someone who is saintly, as an example.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You have no fkn idea what you are talkn about do you ? 😬

There are mother lions who allow thier children to be killed by a new dominating male. Then there are mother lions who fight to the death to protect thier own children, even from a new male dominator.

It is [b]NOT a program.....[/B]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
On National Geographic there was ONE female lion, in the midst of many, the ONLY female lion who fought TWO grown male lions to protect her cubs. The two lions cut her side open, and she STILL FOUGHT...she fought until she DIED....

The other lionesses just sat there and watched, allowing thier children to get killed one by one....

On another account, a female lion left one of her cubs alone to die....he had a broken leg, and could not continue moving.....she abandoned him because she had no way of furthering thier journey.

Mother lions protect thier young at all costs huh?

Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING ✅

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.

Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It is a [b]natural force. I never said it was an emotion alone..... ❌[/B]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I beleive Love is beyond words...sorry, but the above was the best definition I could come up with. The fact that you cannot forumlate your own, because you feel it does not exist , I find sad ❌

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe this. I gave to a way to find proof, and you rejected it without even trying.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I merely didn't understand Shakya; I respect what you said.

OK. 👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK. 👆

Originally posted by lord xyz
Says the guy who's hobbie is to tell catholics they don't know the bible, and has the record of threads about homosexuality in christianity.
I was merely stating that Shakya telling me what to do, is just like what JIA does.

1) A lot of Catholics AND Protestants happen to know very little about thier own source of reference.

2) Shakya is NOT telling you what to do....he made a suggestion so you can see from his perspective. Your refusal to give his advice a try, when it can harm you in NO WAY, nor does it require you to surrender yourself, ONLY discover it- shows an INTENT of ignorance.

You might say "Oh yeah Urizen ! Well you bash Christianity all the time, but you never truly investigated thier religion, have you?"

And I would simply reply that I was raised Catholic, I have read the Bible all my life, beleived all my life..and OUTGREW IT...atleast I INVESTIGATEDwhat I now refer to as "bullshit"

You, on the other hand, seem to make NO EFFORT to investigate what you doubt. You say you do not beleive in Buddhism, that it is "bullshit", yet you admitted that you know nothing about it.

How pathetic... ❌

Originally posted by lord xyz
Disclaimer: I have already admitted my ignorance of Buddhism. 😐
Just because I am against everything supernatural doesn't make me a fundamentalist.

True, but your immediate denial of the existance of forces other than what you see as FACT is what makes you an "Athiest" fundamentalist, in metaphoric terms of speaking.

You have a stern pre-disposition to claim that if something cannot be proven then it DOES NOT EXIST..period.

The FUNDAMENTALISM in that is CLEAR. Show me proof..if you cannot, then you are lying. That simple.

THAT IS JUST AS IGNORANT AND FUNDAMENTAL AS SAYING "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO"......

Originally posted by lord xyz
I can't see air but I believe in it. I'm not intentionally ignorant, I just don't see why people think it's okay to believe in special magical forces and shit, then laugh at people who believe in different magical special forces. It's the same thing. Anything made up, to me is bullshit, and something I won't believe.

You can't see Air, but you breathe it. There is your proof..nice try.

Air is also scientifically proven...

I am not saying you have to beleive in something that there is no proof of. You don't...but to tear down someone else's beleif, to call if "bullshit" whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, whatever....when you have no true knowledge of what those Faiths consist of....is willful ignorance.

I admit that I find it hilarious when people argue whose mythology is real. Yes, I am guilty as charged....but atleast I made an effort to know what those "mythologies" consist of before I began making those kind of remarks.

Buddhism is not a belief in any God or any supernatural force. It is a beleif in man and the possibility that mankind can elevate to something better, that every individual can find enlightenment as a human being through personal journey and interaction with other human beings. It is a PHILOSOPHY first, and a religion second.

And it is BASED on much much logic if you actually took the TIME to read up on it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
These are examples of things made-up (not all things made-up). some of you here that believe in 1 or 2 of these probably laugh at others who believe in some of the others. It's all the same basic stuff really.

Shaky does not laugh at JIA for his beleifs....Shaky laughs at JIA for his ignorance and hypocrisy.

It is not all the same stuff...Christianity, Judaism, and Islam fall under Monotheism. Hinduism falls under Polytheism. Buddhism falls more under philosophical theology.....each has a different basis.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not really, if I am shown facts that prove things like the above list, I shall take note, and see them as fact.

Seems logical to me...however, it seems to me that you claim statements such as "God does not exist" or "Buddhism is bullshit" as FACT rather than your own opinion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm just not the kind of person who would believe in something made-up to make my life easier. There is nothing that decides things, nothing that makes moralities an absolute when it comes to society. In the real world, it's the smart people who stay on top.

In the Real World it's the rich people that stay on top. A lot of smart people end up on the loosing end due to personal weaknesses.

And since when are Athiests automatically smart ?

There are lots of intelligent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Agnostics.

And FYI....a lot of people do not become Christian or Buddhist to make thier lives easier... only cowards do.

A lot of people turn to a certain Faith because that is what they TRULY beleive.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And the fact that you're calling me a fundamentalist shows your ignorance. If you haven't noticed already, I reply to as much people as I can in a debate, I look at what everyone is saying, I admit when I am wrong. Can't say the same about fundamentalists or.... you.

You are a Fundamentalist in Athiesm. You have already displayed a willful ignorance of anything that contradicts your current beleifs, and you possess a closed mind to anything that cannot be immediately proven.

I always admit when I am wrong.....just point out where I am wrong in THIS argument, and I will confess.

If Jesus is Love
and Love is blind
Then Ray Charles must be Jesus!

Originally posted by lord xyz
When the **** did I ever say program?

You claimed that a Mother Lion protects her child out of instincts, and not love. That is suggesting her concern for her child is programmed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So is your debating tactic. I mean, all you do is flame and insult, calling people stupid attacking them where you think they are wrong. That's all you do.

When did I insult you ? I only insult people who insult me first.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You are not a good debator, you are a troll. You have no purpose on these forums.

That deserves a big 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

Not a good debator? The only person whose insulting anyone here is you....I have not insulted you once.

I have called out your ignorance. You took that offensively ? Please....

I am making a sincere argument against you, and instead of addressing it you resort to name calling and baby like behavior.

Originally posted by lord xyz

That's not what I said you retard.

And I am insulting ? wow

Originally posted by lord xyz
"motherly program"? Where did you get that from? I said that the babies eating the mother is natural. I didn't mention anything about a "motherly program". And you're calling me ignorant.

Read the above....

Originally posted by lord xyz
😆

droolio

Originally posted by lord xyz
This part of your post is probably the dumbest thing someone's ever said to me. You are ignorant, yourt posts alone against catholicism have shown that all you do here is flame other people's point of views. Your credibility is quite possibly one of the lowest.

How so ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then we are ALL CHRISTIAN

It all depends on how one defines a Christian. How do you define one?Just posting the simple statement "then we are all christian" does not a Christian make. If a Christian is one who follows Christ, would that then mean that a Christian is anyone who practices love? Perhaps--or perhaps not. The easiest way to answer your original inquiry is by defining what love is -- biblically speaking of course.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

If I speak in the tongues of men and angels,
but have not love,
I have become sounding brass or a tinkling symbol.

And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing.

And if I dole out all my goods, and
if I deliver my body that I may boast
but have not love, nothing I am profited.

Love is long suffering,
love is kind,
it is not jealous,
love does not boast,
it is not inflated.

It is not discourteous,
it is not selfish,
it is not irritable,
it does not enumerate the evil.
It does not rejoice over the wrong, but rejoices in the truth

It covers all things,
it has faith for all things,
it hopes in all things,
it endures in all things.

Love never falls in ruins;
but whether prophecies, they will be abolished; or
tongues, they will cease; or
knowledge, it will be superseded.

For we know in part and we prophecy in part.

But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will be superseded.

When I was an infant,
I spoke as an infant,
I reckoned as an infant;

when I became [an adult],
I abolished the things of the infant.

For now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know as also I was fully known.

But now remains
faith, hope, love,

these three;

but the greatest of these is love.

Are you dicourteous Urizen? Are you selfish? Are you proud? If you are any one of these, then I do believe -- yes I do indeed believe, that biblically speaking, you would not be considered loving. So what does this mean? Many would assert that this definition of love does not coincide with yours on a technical level, specifically in regards to what a Christian is supposed to demonstrate. So of course -- without obfuscating the terminology any more than necessary, one could then assume that your definition of what a Christian is--quite certainly, is an incorrect one.(of course, one would have to assume that all my statements above are clearly objective for this assumption to be factual)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This whole argument about Jesus being the Embodyment or Personification of Love has a major loophole.

WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED LOVE IN SOME FORM, AND WE ALL POSSESS IT. WE ALL POSSESS THE CAPABILITIES OF LOVE, IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO CHRISTIANITY....

Ha Ha Ha. Loophole, how so? I seem to recall a certain individual posting that to know love is to know the "Christian" experience. Once again, if we go by the defition of love as defined by the bible, then Jesus does indeed represent the "embodyment" of love as you put it, at least when relating to it from a "Christian" perspective.

What you are trying to do is convolute the biblical-Christian version of love with the worldly definition of the term. These definitions are not interchangeable -- since the righteous-godly love that Jesus personifies, requires a much greater understanding, is far more complex, and far less fickle then what we as humans consider love to be. So it would appear Urizon, that the only "loophole" -- is the one you've presented with seriously flawed logic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So please....Conservative Fundmentalist Christians, please stop claiming that LOVE is only a Christian thing, because LOVE has existed way before Christianity and it exists WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY...

Love is independent of any religion...Love is NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.

Like I said....if Jesus TRULY IS LOVE PERSONIFIED, then we ALL HAVE JESUS WITHIN US BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE......in some way, shape, or form.

So please..minds like JIA and Sonnet who claim that those who are not Christians do not know the meaning of love, ENOUGH of that horse-half ass ignorance !

I do thank you guys for inspiring this thread, however.

Thoughts ?

My initial thought is that that Jesus is indeed present in some--specifically, those who believe him to be the "I am" listed in the bible--who in turn also believe him to be the savior of mankind--as well as believe him to be God incarnate. I also think that your definition of love is an erroneous one, particularly when you attempt to relate it to "love" as it defined in the bible.

Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Love in animals in not what we call love, they protect their young not because they love them but it is they instinct and survival, they must breed and multiply or they die. You also forget that most species kill their young as well if they are not fit to survive.

I don't think you post is completely true. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think you post is completely true. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle.

What is love?
Changes in neurotransmitter and hormone levels.
With regard to the mother lion thing; oxytocin levels have been shown to correlate with maternal aggression, and inhibiting oxtocin results in reduction of maternal behaviors; in the rat model at least.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Are their different degrees, yes but they only do this for survival not love or what we consider love. There is a caring nature for some species but in general it is not love.

The main reason I disagree with you is my cat has the ability to show companionate love for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The main reason I disagree with you is my cat has the ability to show companionate love for me.

Originally posted by ThePittman
What you are doing is adding your views to your cat not that the cat is showing you love but it requires comfort and companionship, it could easily be anyone else.

What is the difference between myself and my cat. Please do not tell me that my cat is an animal and I am not. Because I will only tell you that I am also an animal. I have a bigger brain then my cat, and therefore can experience things that she cannot, but I do not believe that love is one of those. We need comfort and companionship, are you saying that that is not love?