Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I would think you do have a choice whether to love your daughter or not.

What? :eek: :eek: :eek:

PDN wrote: »

They had a choice - and they chose not to love.

They didn't choose not to love their children. They didn't love their children, and as such choose to do things that hurt them.

PDN

bogwalrus wrote: »

So when they say the love of god is in your hearts (or something like that) does it mean gods love is a choice or something. Please explain that for me please, the whole gods love to his flock if it is based on what you say then it doesnt really mean much no?

For some reason i get the feeling that the atheists should be arguing for your point of view PDN and you for the atheists one.

Not at all. If love is something you can't help then it would be pretty pointless of Jesus to command you to love your enemies, wouldn't it? The same would apply to the commands for us to love God and to love our neighbours and our fellow men.

I think the issue of God's love towards us is a bit different in that God is Love - ie love is an integral part of His nature. But it is certainly our choice whether we have God's love in our hearts or not - in other words, whether we choose to love other people.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I would think you do have a choice whether to love your daughter or not. As a pastor I deal every day with the consequences of men who deliberately took choices that harmed their children (ie having an affair, knowing full well that it would destroy their marriage and devastate their kids). They had a choice - and they chose not to love. Love, and hate, are not some cosmic forces that hold us helplessly in their grip. We choose whether to love or not, and we choose whether to hate or not.

Ah, there I think we obviously have a difference of definition. I would say that someone who chose to have an affair may well love their children just as much as the person who didn't - but is not as wise. You, I think, concatenate the two where I would separate them.

I suspect, however, that there is little practical difference between the two approaches. I imagine you would urge such a man to "love his wife and children more", meaning to act practically towards them in a loving way - whereas I would say that "if you love your wife and children, you should act towards them in a loving way".

I must admit, though, I think that having a list is actually quite self-serving, although there is the opt-out of "the woman God picked for me". I may be a little biased at the moment, for various reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

They didn't choose not to love their children. They didn't love their children, and as such choose to do things that hurt them.

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

By the same logic Martin Luther King wasn't a good person at all - by some biological quirk he just didn't fall victim to the blind forces of hate. Equally Fred Phelps is blameless since he just hasn't happened to fall in love with most of the human race.

robindch

PDN wrote:

We choose whether to love or not, and we choose whether to hate or not.[...] IMO the whole concept of 'falling in love' is an unthinking and irrational denial of personal responsibility.

If you hadn't posted your earlier posts, I'd have said that you were trolling at this point, but it seems that you're not.

Personally, I can't understand it at all. I can't choose whom to hate, detest, enjoy, like or love (or anything else) any more than I can choose who to find funny.

Perhaps it's different with you and Brian? Are you really able to keep your emotions under conscious control to that extent? I can't believe that anybody could, but perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps that's the difference that I was wondering about in that earlier post about religious control and irreligious passion.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. If love is something you can't help then it would be pretty pointless of Jesus to command you to love your enemies, wouldn't it? The same would apply to the commands for us to love God and to love our neighbours and our fellow men.

Yes but it is something you can't help, so when you do this you are just pretending. You don't love them, but you can still act as if you do.

Its like eating food you don't like. [EDIT]Or as Robin said, finding something funny[/EDIT]

You can't decide to like a food that you don't like. You either like it or don't like it. It is a involuntary response.

You can still eat the food. You can still pretend to like it. You can choose to do all these things. But you cannot physically alter the way your taste buds are processing that information into your brain.

TBH saying that love is something one chooses to do simply demeans love down to a level where it ends up being something fake and shallow, like when teenage girls run around the place saying "Oh I love this new outfit" or "Oh I love the new Britney Spears song"

It becomes just a word

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

I can choose who to find funny.

Excellent example.

Its like saying "I thought about that joke, it matched a number of criteria, and I've decided to find it hilarious .. har har har"

Our emotions simply do not work like that

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

Of course it is there fault! They have to look after and provide for their children, even if they don't love them. I would strongly recommend they fake it as much as they can for sake of their children. That is called parental responsibility. None of that has got anything to do with if they love them or not. They either do love them or they don't. Either way they decide how to react based on that.

Allah, this is the weirdest conversation I've ever had, I swear to Allah.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

If you hadn't posted your earlier posts, I'd have said that you were trolling at this point, but it seems that you're not.

Personally, I can't understand it at all. I can't choose whom to hate, detest, enjoy, like or love (or anything else) any more than I can choose who to find funny.

Perhaps it's different with you and Brian? Are you really able to keep your emotions under conscious control to that extent? I can't believe that anybody could, but perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps that's the difference that I was wondering about in that earlier post about religious control and irreligious passion.

So you admit you are more prone to emotionalism than a Pentecostal preacher? That must be a first.

I must admit that I am surprised that something that is so commonplace for Christians seems to be blowing everyone's minds. This is the centre of who we are as believers. We believe that the presence of God the Holy Spirit within us enables us to choose to love anyone, even our enemies.

An example of this would be Corrie ten Boom who was sent to Ravensbruk Concentration Camp because she and her family sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland. The rest of her family perished, but she survived. Years later she was speaking at a Christian meeting and met one of the most sadistic guards from the Camp - now a born-again Christian. Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him. That was a choice.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

Or they love their children, but not as much as themselves (selfish) - or they love their children, but don't think through the outcomes of their actions (stupid).


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him.

What do you mean "love him" ... they started dating?

See I don't think you are talking about emotions, you are talking about actions. Like the dead beat dad ignoring his children instead of "loving them", or you deciding to commit to your wife.

This woman didn't decide to forgive the guard. She decided to see if she could forgive the guard, and found out that she could. Big difference

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean "love him" ... they started dating?

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So you admit you are more prone to emotionalism than a Pentecostal preacher? That must be a first.

I must admit that I am surprised that something that is so commonplace for Christians seems to be blowing everyone's minds. This is the centre of who we are as believers. We believe that the presence of God the Holy Spirit within us enables us to choose to love anyone, even our enemies.

An example of this would be Corrie ten Boom who was sent to Ravensbruk Concentration Camp because she and her family sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland. The rest of her family perished, but she survived. Years later she was speaking at a Christian meeting and met one of the most sadistic guards from the Camp - now a born-again Christian. Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him. That was a choice.

And one that, as so often with religious beliefs, makes it clear that good things come only from God. Corrie ten Boom is not a better person because she was able to forgive and feel compassion for camp guards - which is what I would say - but "she prayed and received the grace of God". Of course, one might say that she was a better person because she chose to pray.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

True, but there is more to love than mere actions.

This woman didn't love the guard.

She forgave him and treated him with the same respect that she gives everyone else. She shook his hand. That in itself is amazing. But its not love, the emotion.

She didn't long to be with him, as a husband may for his wife. She didn't say up all night when he was out late in case something happened to him, as a mother may do for her daughter. She didn't visit him every day for 40 years as two friends with platonic love may do.

Of course she doesn't have to love the guard for that act of forgiveness to be amazing. You are talking about different emotions.

Calling that "love" simply devalues what the word "love" means. Just because Jesus said "love your enemy" does mean that any time someone shows compassion to a current or former enemy that is "love"

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

There is also more to love than compassion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

On what grounds do you choose who you fall in love with someone PDN?

Do you make a list? Why would you choose someone over anyone else? Do you tell the person that you decided to love them, and you could equally decide not to love?

TBH I my be being a little harsh on you. I think you are simply confusing love with commitment. I find it inconceivable that you would really have decided to fall in love with your wife (and I imagine she would divorce you tomorrow if you said that to her). What you did do is decide to commit to her because you loved her and wanted to be with her and wanted to make her happy. The reason it was her rather than any of the other 3 billion women on the planet is because you fell in love with her.

Yep, a list is made

She has to be a she.

She has to be able to commit and just fall in and out of love whenever she feels like it.

A commitment first to God, then to family.

An understanding of the importance to unconditional love.

There is the start.

I am finding the atheists here making out that choosing to fall in and out of love as a switch that can be turned on and off. That is so far from the truth.

When someone make sthat choice it is followed by heartbreak, tears, periods of grieving, hurt relationship, etc, etc.

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Sorry to be harsh guys but that is what you are coming across as.

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yep, a list is made

She has to be a she.

She has to be able to commit and just fall in and out of love whenever she feels like it.

A commitment first to God, then to family.

An understanding of the importance to unconditional love.

There is the start.

I am finding the atheists here making out that choosing to fall in and out of love as a switch that can be turned on and off. That is so far from the truth.

When someone make sthat choice it is followed by heartbreak, tears, periods of grieving, hurt relationship, etc, etc.

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Sorry to be harsh guys but that is what you are coming across as.

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

Whether atheist or not, anyone who stays married knows that marriage requires commitment, and commitment requires a decision. What I would argue is that there is more to love than just the commitment. If you love your wife only because it is your duty as a Christian to do so, that debases the term to be equivalent to 'duty'. If you argue that you do not love your wife "only because it is your duty", then you admit that there is more to it than that. Which is it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whether atheist or not, anyone who stays married knows that marriage requires commitment, and commitment requires a decision. What I would argue is that there is more to love than just the commitment. If you love your wife only because it is your duty as a Christian to do so, that debases the term to be equivalent to 'duty'. If you argue that you do not love your wife "only because it is your duty", then you admit that there is more to it than that. Which is it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course there I smore to it than that. It is a special gift from God. The ability to love. It is the part of being made 'in His image'.

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

SubjectSean

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

I know people who are married to many wives who love all of them I don't think that when they were falling in lust with the newer ones they fell out of love with the older ones.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Of course there I smore to it than that. It is a special gift from God. The ability to love. It is the part of being made 'in His image'.

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

Well, there you go - identical to the atheist picture. Apart, obviously, from the 'special gift from God' belief.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

Er, no - that's what you and PDN are accusing us of. None of us have suggested any such thing.

Essentially, you've set up what I would consider a false dichotomy - lust on the one hand, and committed marital love on the other. Every intimate relation between a man and a woman is then corralled into those two categories. It has the 'political' advantage of making everything outside marriage necessarily lust, of course, but it's a falsehood, and rather an obvious one at that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Er, excuse me. You are drawing up lists as to who you will or will not decide to be in love with.

Isn't that the definition of "satisfying your current needs" PDN decided to be in love with his wife because she supports Arsenal (at what point did he say "Yes, now I will be in love with you"?)

The atheists are saying that love is a magical emotion that comes over someone, often without them even realising it is happening. We don't control and decide who we love any more than we decide what art we find beautiful, what music moves us, what jokes we find funny or what food we like the taste of. We choose none of these things.

No one has ever said "I didn't like rice, but I have decided that it will be my favourite food now". No one has ever said "I have decided I am going to find Dane Cook hilarious"

The idea that one would decide to be in love with someone is utterly alien to most people here. You might as well say I decided to cry at the end of Awakenings because I decide I would find it really sad. You either find it really sad or you don't. You can't choose to find it really sad.

Yet the Christians (bizarrely) are saying that love is in fact a bit like buying a car, more a life style choice than an emotion. Tick of the boxes and then decide to make yourself love the person. Simple as that. Does it come in red?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

But that is the point BC. The atheists are the ones saying that you cannot decide to fall in or out of love with someone. It is an emotion beyond rational choice. You can't decide to fall out of love with someone.

The Christians (well you and PDN) are in fact saying you can actually decide to be in love with someone, and you can logically decide not to be in love with someone, since it isn't an emotion it is just something you do.

PDN

Normally these threads go in a fairly predictable direction, but I must admit that I am totally amazed by the reaction I've got to something that is very common among Christians. It is a part of our faith that we should not be dominated by our impulses and emotions. Maybe I have been wrong in assuming that all people have the power to choose to love - maybe this is just a Christian thing?

After all, the concept of the spirit overcoming the flesh is a Christian doctrine, and the Bible does say that before we were saved our spirits were dead. So maybe the problem is that the atheists have something missing?

Your choice of marriage partner is, apart from the decision to accept or reject Christ, the most important decision you will ever make. IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons. Some of the posters on this board appear to be on an emotional par with the women who marry an obviously violent and abusive man and say, "But I can't help it - I love him".

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN decided to being love with his wife because she supports Arsenal.

Oh get a sense of humour will you? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

So what are you talking about then? You didn't choose to fall for her, you just did. You didn't choose to have strong feelings for her, you just did. You didn't choose to be in love with her, you just where.

You choose to stick around because you wanted to stick around. You didn't choose to want to stick around.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

No? Why would we think that?

As Scofflaw suggests I think that is both what you and PDN wish we were saying so you could dig yourself out of the hole of saying that being in love with someone is something you rationally decide to do.

I don't think either you or PDN actually believe this.

Your description of falling for your wife certainly doesn't suggest that you rationally decided to fall for her. You rationally decided to continue seeing her, right up to your now, but you did that because you were falling for her.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is a part of our faith that we should not be dominated by our impulses and emotions. Maybe I have been wrong in assuming that all people have the power to choose to love - maybe this is just a Christian thing?

"to love" ... PDN you are talking about actions, not emotions.

You can choose to be kind, considerate, even loving, to others. But you can't choose to be in love with someone. You can either be in love with someone, or you can fake it and do it anyway, for what ever reason.

Its like eating a meal. You either like the food or you don't. You can't decide to like the food. You can choose to eat it or not, even if you don't like it.

The two things are separate. You either do or do not like the food. You don't decide this. But either way you can eat or not eat the food.

PDN wrote: »

So maybe the problem is that the atheists have something missing?

Well to be honest PDN if I took your posts on face value I would have to conclude that you have never actually been in love, because if you think that love is something a person rationally decides to do, then you aren't experiencing the emotion of love as I, or most of the posters here, understand it. You are simply going through the motions, acting in a loving manner towards someone else, without the genuine emotion behind that action.

Now I seriously doubt that is the case, but I do have wonder about your insistence that being in love with your wife was something you decided to do.

PDN wrote: »

Your choice of marriage partner is, apart from the decision to accept or reject Christ, the most important decision you will ever make. IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons.

Of course. But we aren't talking about choosing to marry someone. We are talking about choosing to be in love with someone.

As I said a good number of posts ago, a person can rationally choose to marry someone they love (or don't love), or they can rationally choose not to marry someone they love (or don't love), for a large number of reason. I've seen this happen before.

But you seem to have completely removed the emotion, and you are just left with the decision.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons.

As I see it, you're using the word 'love' in a context that I'd see as meaning 'commitment'. I'd see 'love' as what you seem to be referring to as 'lust' - its the thing that puts you into the frame. But, indeed, the decision for marriage shouldn't proceed without a couple investigating what they think they are committing to.

I'm not sure about the extent to which there's a real disagreement here. Is 'love' the same as 'I walk a line'? Do incompetent parents necessarily not love their child?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

"to love" ... PDN you are talking about actions, not emotions.

Well to be honest PDN if I took your posts on face value I would have to conclude that you have never actually been in love, because if you think that love is something a person rationally decides to do, then you aren't experiencing the emotion of love as I, or most of the posters here, understand it. You are simply going through the motions, acting in a loving manner towards someone else, without the genuine emotion behind that action.

Now I seriously doubt that is the case, but I do have wonder about your insistence that being in love with your wife was something you decided to do.

Love is so much more than an emotion. It is a choice, and emotions follow that choice.

We are not mere animals that are controlled by impulses and emotions. We can make decisions, and our decisions can determine our emotions rather than the other way round.

You can choose to be afraid or you can choose to have faith. You can choose to be joyful or you can choose to be miserable. My wife and I chose to love one another many years ago. We believe that the number one ministry God has entrusted to us is to one another, and so for 21 years of married life we have worked to increase that love and to serve one another. The result is that we are head over heels in love with each other, and totally secure in the knowledge that we're not about to fall out of love with other. We don't have to worry about 'magic' (your word, not mine) taking our love away because magic didn't give it to us in the first place. We have built a wonderful marriage on choice and principles, not because we kissed our brains goodbye to be brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking love is some kind of mystical feeling.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Love is so much more than an emotion. It is a choice, and emotions follow that choice.

We are not mere animals that are controlled by impulses and emotions. We can make decisions, and our decisions can determine our emotions rather than the other way round.

You can choose to be afraid or you can choose to have faith. You can choose to be joyful or you can choose to be miserable. My wife and I chose to love one another many years ago. We believe that the number one ministry God has entrusted to us is to one another, and so for 21 years of married life we have worked to increase that love and to serve one another. The result is that we are head over heels in love with each other, and totally secure in the knowledge that we're not about to fall out of love with other. We don't have to worry about 'magic' (your word, not mine) taking our love away because magic didn't give it to us in the first place. We have built a wonderful marriage on choice and principles, not because we kissed our brains goodbye to be brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking love is some kind of mystical feeling.

Again, who says these are the only two choices? No-one is arguing that marriage should be on the basis of infatuation (well, no-one here), and everyone here accepts that commitment is a decision.

However, you have both used the word 'love' to indicate only commitment, and nothing more, as if that commitment was something that happened once you'd ticked off sufficient points on a list of compatibility questions - that's what the amazement is over. BC has made it clear that that is not actually happened in his case. Perhaps it is what happened in your case - if so, I don't think we're the ones with "something missing".

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

When i was born i was wired as a sentient conscious being to feel the vast number of emotions that all sentient beings feel (like dogs and other animals alike). It was not a choice as a child or teenager to feel all those emotions of heartbreak and love as when it is a first time there is lack of knowledge of those feelings.

I understand that people who had consistently felt bad emotions over their lives from trying to be loved start to adapt psychologically by means of logical reasoning and thus destroying their capability of loving (this could also be a psychological problem).

I believe this might be somewhat related to your beliefs as christians also where your beliefs are preventing yourself from ever feeling the true emotion of love. I am just speculating and cannot give you a reason how your beliefs as christians can prevent you from truly loving someone. But maybe it is due to the lack of mystery where you know of your existence and origins through your bible and god and this is limiting you to not be able to immerse yourself in the unknown and true beauty of the universe, humanity and life. As you can see from other posts by atheist we are open to the idea of a "love" which is something that is abstract such as creativity in music and art. I am a musician myself and i truly engulf myself in music i like and i dance to it and let go to it and the feelings & emotions that you feel are just too complicated to explain and to be honest cant be explained.

PDN

bogwalrus wrote: »

I believe this might be somewhat related to your beliefs as christians also where your beliefs are preventing yourself from ever feeling the true emotion of love. I am just speculating and cannot give you a reason how your beliefs as christians can prevent you from truly loving someone.

Nonsense. I feel true love & I truly love people. I am simply saying that I got there by choice. I went through all that teenage stuff and it wasn't true love at all. It doesn't come close to what I have now with my wife.

The funny thing is that we have hundreds of youth from non-Christian homes in our church. My wife and I go away camping with them each year. Again and again they come to us and ask for advice about relationships and marriage because the love they see in our marriage is much more real than what they see in their parents' lives. Our 19-year old daughter has told me that she wants a marriage like ours.