If Jesus is Love....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then we are [b]ALL CHRISTIAN

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....

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 ? [/B]

I've never heard a Christian say that love was exclusively a Christian thing...did I miss a JIA post?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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?

Originally posted by ThePittman
That is a part of love but not what it means to love. If you gave your cat away to another owner it would “love” them just as much or if someone else paid more attention to them or was the one that feed them everyday they would “love” them more. You can have comfort and companionship without love as well so that is not a requirement.

However, when I go on vacation, I have someone take care of my cat everyday because she is 20 years old. When I get home she is always mad at me for a day or two. When I am gone she takes it personally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, when I go on vacation, I have someone take care of my cat everyday because she is 20 years old. When I get home she is always mad at me for a day or two. When I am gone she takes it personally.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Animals do have feeling much the same way as humans do and the do get depressed and happy and sad but “love” is more of abstract idea then feelings. If it was then it would be easy to classify and measure such as other feelings.

Please give me more of your definition of love.

Neurochemical imbalance...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neurochemical imbalance...

Can that happen in another animal other then humans?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please give me more of your definition of love.

Love in others is overlooking their flaws and caring for them no matter what they do be it good or bad or even against your beliefs, being there for them in their time of need even if it causes you pain or suffering.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can that happen in another animal other then humans?

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.

Then explain why a domestic dog will often adopt a kitten, or vise versa. Explain why a mother cat will breast feed puppies, or why a male German Shepard would adopt 3 baby birds as his own....

Explain why a pack of wolves would raise a child..or why a female gorilla would protect a fallen child in a zoo from her mate and her own children ?

These are unexplained scenarios that HAVE actually occurred....

Love isn't there huh ? 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then explain why a domestic dog will often adopt a kitten, or vise versa. Explain why a mother cat will breast feed puppies, or why a male German Shepard would adopt 3 baby birds as his own....

Explain why a pack of wolves would raise a child..or why a female gorilla would protect a fallen child in a zoo from her mate and her own children ?

These are unexplained scenarios that HAVE actually occurred....

Love isn't there huh ? 🙄

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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.

If Jesus is Love....then we are all Christian, because we all possess Love...therefore we possess Christ.

Biblical definition of Love is not the complete, factual, or relevant definition in this matter.

Love is beyond a definition, beyond words, beyond the limits of our language. If you cannot understand that, then you are as limitted as your precious Bible is. Sorry ❌

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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.

Am I discourteous? At times

Am I selfish? At times

Am I proud? VERY much so ✅

Am I loving ? Oh yesss...

Wait...the Bible says I'm not. Guess what....that means sh*t to me. The Bible is not fact. Please do not confuse the two.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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)

It is quit true that your statements must be objective to even pass as factual, but the very fact that your own bias is going into your arguments don't quite validate them as factual.

That is okay because who is to say that my definition of Love is factual?

Oh wait....I almost forgot ! I don't HAVE a definition of Love...no one does....it exists, but we cannot fully define it, because it exists in US ALL, and therefore our own intepretations and mental constructs will individualize this force we call love, therefore making no one definition accurate.

Logically speaking, if Christ is Love, then we all are of Christ...whether we realize it or not.

Love is not just a "Christian" concept...please get that through your head.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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.

But I am not relating it from a "Christian" perspective. I am relating it to NO individual perspective whatsoever.

We all have our own concept of Love, we all possess it. If it is FACT that Jesus is the actual embodyment of Love, then all who LOVE possess Christ, and are by default, Christian.

I am not Christian ❌

But I love my mother. I love my boyfreind. I love my brothers and sisters. Dearly...I know I love them. I dont care what definition you or anyone else would give Love. The very FACT that you are even TRYING to define Love shows how limitted your mental and emotional capacity for this force is, which is sad, but that is besides the point.

I know I love the people I love....dearly.....I need not prove this, for I cannot prove this, because the proof in this matter is subjective.

But if you claim that Christ is Love, then I possess him or it into my being since I possess Love.

Is this computing in your theological set mind ?

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
What you are trying to do is convolute the biblical-Christian version of love with the worldly definition of the term.

Never have I attempted such a thing, you obviously don't get the point.

The love that Christians have as human beings is equal to the Love I have as a human being.

Love is not Christian, it is not buddhist, it is not bound by any Human construct.

QUOTE=7690001]Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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.[/QUOTE]

You have shown your ignorance in this very statement. How sad ❌

LOVE in general is beyond our full understanding. As if Christian Love is any greater, less, or different than the Love that we ALL know to exist.

Seriously flawed logic? Such a mighty claim ! I admire that ! Now can you back it up ? WITH FACT ?

So far you have not displayed ONE FACT in your arguments. NOT ONE.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
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.

I made no solid definition of Love. I do not define it as a natural force, I metaphorically classify it as such for sake of argument.

You claim Christian Love is superior to "standard" Love as if it is Fact. If this is so fact, then I assume you can PROVE IT.

And please...no Biblical passages as evidense, because the Bible does NOT qualify as proof of anything.

How limitted you must be to think that all the complexities of this Universe, let alone this world, can be solved and answered through an outdated, self contradicting book... ❌

Originally posted by ThePittman
That is very simple, this doesn’t mean that they “love” this other animal but often they have lost their own offspring and the nurture instinct is still active.

In the cases I presented, none of the animals lost there offspring. I assure you. This happened at a first instance. Can you explain how this occurs if no real love is present ?

Let me ask you something....can a Mental Retard love his or her parents? Love another person or animal?

If so, then how can an intelligent animal not Love another as well ?

Originally posted by ThePittman
Animals know when someone is in pain or another animal is injured, some will take on a protective role that is normally within the animals’ behavior.

The kittens were not injured. ❌ The dog adopted them anyway.

The puppies were not injured ❌ The cat breast fed them anyway.

Originally posted by ThePittman
The same animals that “adopt” another species also kill them as well as well as kill off there own.

Yes, and what does this prove? That animals, according to thier individual personalities, will either love or not care for another animal, whether it be thier own species or of another.

How can such random emotional response be due to a fixed INSTINCT?

Thats BULLSHIT Pittman.....like HUMAN BEINGS, some animals are loving and some are cruel.

Best example: A mother lion fights off two male lions who killed her mate to protect her children. Out of the entire pride, SHE is the ONLY lioness defending the children. The other lionesses back down and allow thier offspring to be killed, but she defends hers to the death.

She dies with a huge gaping laceration on her side.

Now...if lionesses all rely on "instinct" then why did ONE lioness fight for her kids, while the others backed off ?

It makes most sense that she loved her children more than the other lionesses loved thier own.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What is love?
Changes in neurotransmitter and hormone levels.

❌ That would be infatuation.

A probable form of Love, but not the only kind of Love that exists.

1) If neurotransmitter and hormone levels determine the creation of "love" then what creates "hate" ? What chemicals in us create bigotry, disgust, and the various forms of prejudice?

2) Can you explain the chemical cause of love that occurs between mother and child? What about the lack of love between mother and child?

3) What about favoritism between a mother and one child over another child?

4) What about loving one person, and not loving another?

5) What about when a mother only loves her husband but hates her children? What about when she only loves her children, but hates her father? What about when she hates everyone in her family, except her nephew?

6) What about when a person loves one pet, but is disgusted by another?

7) What chemical reaction is responsible for racism ?

You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
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.

So you are comparing a Lioness to a rat ? Sounds logical to me 🙄

A creature of massive intelligence to a creature of pathetically low intelligence. As if thier love capacities are the same....hey, perhaps they are..who knows.

So what causes these chemical differences ? Is a lioness any less "loving" because she is not maternally aggressive? How do we know that a lioness who allows her children to be killed, didn't back out of fear and isn't in total devestation over the death of her kin?

During the Holocaust, many Jews watched as thier children, parents, siblings, etc. were slaughtered.....many of them did not fight. Does that mean they love thier family any less?

Did you consider the possibility that WEAKNESS (physical or mental) was a factor in a lioness or human's decision to put thier life before the life of thier loved one ?

In all of these cases this is out of the norm and not the normal behavior of any of these animals, if any of them considered them a threat they would have not and more than likely killed them. Love is an abstract term created by humans, there is no “true” definition of love and is a personal thing and animals can not understand abstract concepts.

If the cat had any fear from these dogs then it wouldn’t have fed them, just because they didn’t have a litter doesn’t mean that they are not in a nurture mode. The kittens and puppies were in danger and both of the opposite species can tell when a young is in danger and being hunger to an animal is danger.

If “love” is such a strong emotion and such a driving force that it would overcome natural instants of animals wouldn’t this be more prevalent in the animal kingdom?

Urizen, I really have no idea if animals feel love like we higher brain function animals do. I'd like to think so from my own experience with cats & dogs and the affection they have showed me when I pet, play and talk with them but, in respect to your lioness scenario. It could simply be that the one lioness in question had a much higher 'protect the offspring' instinct than the other lionesses as most female animals and some males are instinctively inclined to protect their young, sometimes at any cost.

Originally posted by ThePittman
In all of these cases this is out of the norm and not the normal behavior of any of these animals, if any of them considered them a threat they would have not and more than likely killed them. Love is an abstract term created by humans, there is no “true” definition of love and is a personal thing and animals can not understand abstract concepts.

Human Beings did not "invent" love. The word perhaps, but not the force. Human Beings often give names to something they know to exist but cannot explain.

I could not feel Love for anyone if Love didn't truly exist. If it was simply a human construct, i would not feel it for anyone. Neither would you.

Do you love your mother? Is your love for your mother definable? Did someone else make it up ? Did you make yourself love her?

Love is so abstract that WE cannot fully understand it either. Animals do not HAVE to understand it to possess it.

By your very logic, FEAR is just made up...and no one truly feels it, we only THINK we do 🙄

BTW...you do NOT truly know that these cases are out of the norm. What statistics or factual reference do you have to make that assertion? Do you watch animals every minute of your life and know this for a fact? Or do you only go by what you see on TV, and hear on the news ?

Originally posted by ThePittman
If the cat had any fear from these dogs then it wouldn’t have fed them, just because they didn’t have a litter doesn’t mean that they are not in a nurture mode. The kittens and puppies were in danger and both of the opposite species can tell when a young is in danger and being hunger to an animal is danger.

What motivation would an animal have to protect another animal from danger, if not Love ?

You're gonna say "INSTINCT"...can you prove that Instinct truly exists, and is not just something we made up ?

Originally posted by ThePittman
If “love” is such a strong emotion and such a driving force that it would overcome natural instants of animals wouldn’t this be more prevalent in the animal kingdom?

How do you know it's not ?

Do you live in a wild setting? Or are you AGAIN going by what you read, see, and hear ?

Long ago, people weren't even AWARE that many animals are homosexual.

Originally posted by Robtard
Urizen, I really have no idea if animals feel love like we higher brain function animals do. I'd like to think so from my own experience with cats & dogs and the affection they have showed me when I pet, play and talk with them but, in respect to your lioness scenario. It could simply be that the one lioness in question had a much higher 'protect the offspring' instinct than the other lionesses as most female animals and some males are instinctively inclined to protect their young, sometimes at any cost.

Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.

Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.

One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.

Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.

One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct.

Self preservation is an instinct, why do some people and animals have a greater self preservation instinct than others if instinct is linear and equal across the board?

Originally posted by Robtard
Self preservation is an instinct, why do some people and animals have a greater self preservation instinct than others if instinct is linear and equal across the board?

Define Self Preservation.

I will respond according to your own definition...keep in mind.....self preservation is more than just an instinct. It is a desire, an ideal, an influence.