[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I won't be happy if i know i have to hide from the police. Happiness means freedom, physically as well as mentally.

That is the exact thing I wanted to read.

So now, well, I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but, now, you can't deny that god gives happiness do people by having people mentally opresed and without liberty?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE you can't deny that god gives happiness do people by having people mentally opresed and without liberty?

This is not the God I'm talking about. God is magnanimous, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

The Christian God could have easily destroyed Satan but instead He give him dominion over the earth.

[davidgow77]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The Christian God could have easily destroyed Satan but instead He give him dominion over the earth.

In this respect, Satan should be interpreted as any action or thought which is based upon misunderstanding (sin literally means "to miss the mark"). It must be seen from this point that "God gives Satan dominion over the earth" literally means that the world is defined by the misunderstandings of humanity, and that the victory of God over Satan is a victory obtained by the understanding of the world in which we live, both physical and metaphysical. Looking at things from this point of view seems to show that the quest for a theory of everything needs to incorporate not only physical theory, but also metaphysical and religious explanations for our existence.

If we take this a step further, we can deduce that those who misunderstand the world in any way whatsoever are sinners, and that the only way to wash ourselves from sin is to seek to understand everything... to seek a theory of everything. This is what is meant by the quest for the holy grail, the Islamic concept of Jihad, and is a concept which is echoed by the Catholic doctrine of "oringinal sin" where everyone is born with a "profound misunderstanding."

DG

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Satan should be interpreted as any action or thought which is based upon misunderstanding

I haven't check it from the Book of Genesis, the Original Sin started from the temptation of Satan to Eve then to Adam to eat the fruits from the tree of knowledge or is it from the tree of life as disobedience of God's command. Consequently, both Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden. They were given a choice either to obey or not to obey God's Commandments.

[Guille]

if love needs energy, and create needs energy, and you say that to create is happiness, then, you say love is happiness?


I think there is no correct definitioon of love apart from giving the name of the acid it is in our brain that cretes that feeling.

And this is because love isn't really defined what it is, and because if you feel love you can't describe it correctly because you have felt it and that can interfere, for what the expirience of love was with you, but if you haven't felt love then you can't decribe it because you haven't felt it.
Love is.......confusion??' or maybe..........love is to create?

[davidgow77]

The Tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil" refers to the following: If you judge whether something is good or evil, you can only judge so from a certain perspective. Nobody thinks their own actions (based upon their own values) are evil, but are inclined toi think that the actions of others which on the face of things go against their own value systems, are evil (i.e. September 11th). However, from the perspective of others (i.e. the martyr hijackers), their actions were good. What this essentially means is that one should not sit in judgement as to whether something is good or evil, but should always strive to look at things from all perspectives. Another way of interpreting this is the phrase "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" which doesn't mean that one should avert ones eyes when an apparently evil action is committed before them, but who strives within his mind body and soul to find a better understanding (i.e. strives to remove their own sin) of the situation rather than just branding it "evil". In the broadest sense of this, the branding of something as evil literally means that one cannot understand it, and that one has accepted that one cannot understand it. So maybe evil is an acceptance of sin.... an acceptance of misunderstanding so that whatever is misunderstood becomes evil.

DG

[davidgow77]

Originally Posted by <<>> if love needs energy, and create needs energy, and you say that to create is happiness, then, you say love is happiness? I think there is no correct definitioon of love apart from giving the name of the acid it is in our brain that cretes that feeling. And this is because love isn't really defined what it is, and because if you feel love you can't describe it correctly because you have felt it and that can interfere, for what the expirience of love was with you, but if you haven't felt love then you can't decribe it because you haven't felt it. Love is.......confusion??' or maybe..........love is to create?

Love is entirely metaphysical and has no physical characteristics, which is why it resists interpretation by analogy, by drawing comparisons with the physical world. You could examine this statement from your anti-theist atheist perspective by examining the statement "God is Love"

Some would say that if Love exists, then this is evidence of God existing. Some would say that Love is no proof fro the existence of God, but I think you will find it very difficult to convince anyone that both God and Love do not exist.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 an acceptance of misunderstanding so that whatever is misunderstood becomes evil.

is misunderstanding the same as ignorance (lack of knowledge of any kind)?

When a child is growing up, he/she is ignorant of many things in life. As the child grows older, acquisition of knowledge progresses through experiences but these experiences can be good or bad, relatively speaking, as the distinctions of different cultural upbringings. Still, there can be some commonalities such as that to kill is always bad and to create something is always good. To kill just for a belief is always bad but to kill for the survival of the human race can sometimes be justified to be good.

It is the refusal to change one's belief that led to dogmatic point of view to which fanaticism would justify the killing of lives. But in many cultures, it is the belief that keeps them alive even through sufferings and hardships. But these sufferings are mentally self-inflicted not through physical oppression from the external world of other cultures.

[davidgow77]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao is misunderstanding the same as ignorance (lack of knowledge of any kind)? When a child is growing up, he/she is ignorant of many things in life.

I would argue that ignorance is the stance taken by someone when they have reached a level of understanding which they are comfortable with, and which allows them to live their lives in an acceptable manner without striving to understand the world any more. One cannot be, upon this arguement, perfectly ignorant, as this would mean a complete misunderstanding of absolutely everything, and no knowledge of the world (universe, either physical or metaphysical. Also, ignorance is specifically a belief that one does not need to aquire more knowledge or understanding; this clearly shows that children, who actively learn, are not ignorant of knowledge, but are simply of limited knoledge and understanding. If you were to look at the Biblical explanation for this phenomenon, there is a passage (I'm not sure where) that states "Let your children grow up in sin (misunderstanding)" which seems to demonstrate that the knowledge of the concept that children have limited knowledge/understanding is something that one must be aware of to transcend ignorance. In answer to your question, misunderstanding is not the same as ignorance (no one is free from misunderstanding/sin), but to be ignorant (see below definition) is itself a misunderstanding/sin. In light of this, I would never call a child ignorant because they are always seeking new awareness, knowledge and understanding, and can therefore only be referred to as unaware

Hope that sounds clear

I found the definition of ignorance on the wikipedia site (best site on the net bar this one!!)

"Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware (not knowing)."

DG

[Guille]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Love is entirely metaphysical and has no physical characteristics, which is why it resists interpretation by analogy, by drawing comparisons with the physical world. You could examine this statement from your anti-theist atheist perspective by examining the statement "God is Love" Some would say that if Love exists, then this is evidence of God existing. Some would say that Love is no proof fro the existence of God, but I think you will find it very difficult to convince anyone that both God and Love do not exist.

DG,

To start, for most believers of god, god isn't love. or maybe yes, but not only that. which leves the only possibility of love being god. which could be, but also not very good, because existence is over love, and so on.