Kay 17: doesn't the bolded come from a reciprocal obligation??

No it doesn't. It would have been if Christ's love was conditional on our loving Him back but it isn't. besides it is about loving other people so it is not like we are paying Christ back or doing Him a favor. Christ loves us anyway whether we choose to love other people or not. When we choose to love other people, we are exhibiting Christ's character.

Is there a duty on a Christian to be altruistic SOLELY because he is a follower of Christ??

It is not a duty, it is the very nature of being a follower of Christ

.

SNCOQ3: .

^^^^Lol! That was class! Nice image!

Mr_Anony:
No it doesn't. It would have been if Christ's love was conditional on our loving Him back but it isn't. besides it is about loving other people so it is not like we are paying Christ back or doing Him a favor. Christ loves us anyway whether we choose to love other people or not. When we choose to love other people, we are exhibiting Christ's character.

It is not a duty, it is the very nature of being a follower of Christ

But a Christian is whoever adopts the nature of Christ and by virtue of that, entitled to the spoils of Heaven, right? There is a big catch in being a Christian.

I have big issues with both anony and scon for believing morality is only through a Christian source.

Kay 17:

But a Christian is whoever adopts the nature of Christ and by virtue of that, entitled to the spoils of Heaven, right? There is a big catch in being a Christian.

You keep missing the point. You don't become a christian because You are targeting the "spoils of Heaven". You become a Christian because you fall in love with Christ.

What you are implying is like saying that you fell in love with your wife because she is rich and you want a part in her riches. You simply didn't fall in love with her if that is the case.

Christianity is all about Christ. Heaven just comes with the package.

If you truly understand love, then you will have no problem understanding Christianity.

So first man loves Jesus. If man is capable of expressing/having such love for a person, why do you deny the possibility of love for other ppl.

Kay 17: So first man loves Jesus. If man is capable of expressing/having such love for a person, why do you deny the possibility of love for other ppl.

It appears you have missed the point of all I have been saying. I am not saying that the humanist or anyone else is incapable of love, what I am saying is that love does not fit within the rationale of secular humanism. You can talk about Tolerance yes, but Love no.

Kay 17: I have big issues with both anony and scon for believing morality is only through a Christian source.

I think the following phrase describes what SNCOQ3 and I have been saying

....Having a form of godliness but denying it's power.... 2 Timothy 3:5

Mr_Anony:
It appears you have missed the point of all I have been saying. I am not saying that the humanist or anyone else is incapable of love, what I am saying is that love does not fit within the rationale of secular humanism. You can talk about Tolerance yes, but Love no.

Mr_Anony:
I think the following phrase describes what SNCOQ3 and I have been saying

....Having a form of godliness but denying it's power.... 2 Timothy 3:5

As you have implied, its within man's innate Nature to LOVE, therefore compatible with whatever philosophy man puts his heart to. Probably you believe godliness IS similar to love.

Kay 17:
As you have implied, its within man's innate Nature to LOVE, therefore compatible with whatever philosophy man puts his heart to.

No it is not within man's innate nature to love. I have not implied any such thing, what I have implied is that it is man's innate nature to be selfish. For man to love, man must acknowledge a power that is beyond him i.e he must diminish the importance of the individual self else his love simply makes no sense.

Love is not automatically compatible with whatever philosophy a man comes up with. That is simply not true.

Probably you believe godliness IS similar to love.

The very nature of godliness is love.

Mr_Anony:
I think the following phrase describes what SNCOQ3 and I have been saying

....Having a form of godliness but denying it's power.... 2 Timothy 3:5

Lol, but you people will never understand that your cherished book is not valued by everyone. You can quote Timothy, mark, and whoever else, it doesn't matter.
Think of a Muslim quoting the Quran while trying to make a point and how irrelevant it is you. That's how irrelevant your bible is to non believers.

Anyway, I agree with you. Unless someone is in love with jesus, they can't be altruistic.

Martian:

Lol, but you people will never understand that your cherished book is not valued by everyone. You can quote Timothy, mark, and whoever else, it doesn't matter.
Think of a Muslim quoting the Quran while trying to make a point and how irrelevant it is you. That's how irrelevant your bible is to non believers.

Anyway, I agree with you. Unless someone is in love with jesus, they can't be altruistic.

ok

But love is simply an expression of emotion to another person/object or one's self and in Christianity, you believe that the first step is loving Jesus! Therefore it can be expressed towards any other person!

Kay 17: But love is simply an expression of emotion to another person/object or one's self and in Christianity, you believe that the first step is loving Jesus! Therefore it can be expressed towards any other person!

Love is not an emotion, love is a commitment. For a christian, love is character. Yes the first step is loving Jesus (incidentally, the evidence that one loves Jesus is that one loves his neighbour)

That said, I don't see how your statement relates to altruism logically following from a system where individualism and self-defined valuing is held as core to the system.

Mr_Anony:
Love is not an emotion, love is a commitment. For a christian, love is character. Yes the first step is loving Jesus (incidentally, the evidence that one loves Jesus is that one loves his neighbour)

That said, I don't see how your statement relates to altruism logically following from a system where individualism and self-defined valuing is held as core to the system.

Epic fail



So, there is now "christian love"


Anony, you have been debunked! Stop trying to redefine "love".


Love is an emotion or a feeling. Love is not rational or else robots would have feelings.

But I have found Jesus in the pages of the bible, instruct his followers to love thy neighbours as their selves!! Self is still a standard, but for a humanist, it extends to encompass all humanity.

Love is yea, a character etc, but its an emotion also. Since you admit humans are capable of love why doubt its validity in humanism.

Kay 17: But I have found Jesus in the pages of the bible, instruct his followers to love thy neighbours as their selves!! Self is still a standard, but for a humanist, it extends to encompass all humanity.

You have only quoted half of the statement. The preceeding part which you omitted is Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

Love is yea, a character etc, but its an emotion also. Since you admit humans are capable of love why doubt its validity in humanism.

What is valid in humanism does not depend on what human beings are capable of. Human beings are also capable of fear. Is this also a valued in humanism?

The question is: How do you reconcile selfless love to a value system based on self-definition? Whether love is an emotion or not is not even relevant in this matter.

MacDaddy01:



Epic fail



So, there is now "christian love"


Anony, you have been debunked! Stop trying to redefine "love".


Love is an emotion or a feeling. Love is not rational or else robots would have feelings.

Fine, so if love is not rational, why then is it highly valued in a system that upholds rationality as paramount?

Mr_Anony:
You have only quoted half of the statement. The preceeding part which you omitted is Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

This right here is a demand FROM man to LoVE!! Therefore Love is within man's nature and freewill

What is valid in humanism does not depend on what human beings are capable of. Human beings are also capable of fear. Is this also a valued in humanism?

The question is: How do you reconcile selfless love to a value system based on self-definition? Whether love is an emotion or not is not even relevant in this matter.

you still fail deliberately not to understand what I'm saying. Nobody said either that humanism praises all of what man is capable of.

Self definition isn't selfishness, as I have been repeating in this thread.

Kay 17:

This right here is a demand FROM man to LoVE!! Therefore Love is within man's nature and freewill

It is within man's freewill yes, but within his nature no. For man to love, he must relinquish himself.

you still fail deliberately not to understand what I'm saying. Nobody said either that humanism praises all of what man is capable of.

Self definition isn't selfishness, as I have been repeating in this thread.

I understand you. I don't claim that self-definition and selfishness are the same either.
All I have said is that to value love as highly moral is not the rational outcome of a self-defined morality.

Mr_Anony:
Fine, so if love is not rational, why then is it highly valued in a system that upholds rationality as paramount?

lololol. Mr. Anony and his disingenuous questions!


Love is not rational but it is inevitable. It is necessary and it is the only bond by which we humans can live together in peace.

Love is a part of humanity. Should humanism not address something that is both human and peaceful?

Mr_Anony:
It is within man's freewill yes, but within his nature no. For man to love, he must relinquish himself.

It is in man's nature to love or else you are a psychopath

MacDaddy01:


lololol. Mr. Anony and his disingenuous questions!


Love is not rational but it is inevitable. It is necessary and it is the only bond by which we humans can live together in peace.

Love isn't really a necessity for peace, tolerance is enough for peace to exist.

Love is a part of humanity. Should humanism not address something that is both human and peaceful?

Love is expressed in humanity yes but so are a lot of other things. Why must secular humanism address what is both human and peaceful?
If humanism must embrace love then it is willing to uphold something that it considers to not be rational.
If this is the case, then it may well be but it can no longer claim to be a rational pathway or lay claim to the rational high ground.
It simply enters the realm of blind-faith i.e. accepting something in spite of it's better judgment.

How fallacious must Anony get in order to try and discredit humanism?

Mr_Anony:
Love isn't really a necessity for peace, tolerance is enough for peace to exist.

You cant tolerate without love.

"hate the sin, love the sinner" --- you should know that

the only reason that you can tolerate my atheistic arguments is that you love me as a basic human being but the problem is that I am lost to God's word?

Mr_Anony:
Love is expressed in humanity yes but so are a lot of other things. Why must secular humanism address what is both human and peaceful?

Humanism- for a better world for humanity.

Explain how we get to a better world without love and peace. Explain why humanism should avoid something that is human nature and central to our goal?

Mr_Anony:
If humanism must embrace love then it is willing to uphold something that it considers to not be rational.

Something that is naturally irrational can be used rationally. Your brain is not rational. It is hardwired to see patterns even though such patterns might not exist.

Love is something that is inevitable and necessary and so we use it rationally.

Mr_Anony:
It simply enters the realm of blind-faith i.e. accepting something in spite of it's better judgment.

Mr_Anony:
It is within man's freewill yes, but within his nature no. For man to love, he must relinquish himself.

But man loves himself, right? If so then he is capable and naturally expected to love!!

I understand you. I don't claim that self-definition and selfishness are the same either.
All I have said is that to value love as highly moral is not the rational outcome of a self-defined morality.

For the humanist's axioms/ideals of community and unity, love is definitely a rational pursuit.

Kay 17:

But man loves himself, right? If so then he is capable and naturally expected to love!!

If man loves himself above all else, how then is it rational that he sacrifice himself for something other than himself.

For the humanist's axioms/ideals of community and unity, love is definitely a rational pursuit.

What then is the rational behind love? Mind you, love is different from tolerance and mutuality

MacDaddy01: How fallacious must Anony get in order to try and discredit humanism?

You cant tolerate without love.

"hate the sin, love the sinner" --- you should know that

the only reason that you can tolerate my atheistic arguments is that you love me as a basic human being but the problem is that I am lost to God's word?

Actually, you can tolerate without love. You don't necessarily need to love your boss but you tolerate him and his rudeness because he pays you at the end of the month.

Love the sinner, hate the sin entails that I must go out of my way to do good for the sinner even to the point of dying for him. Mind you I still hate what he does (tolerance cannot give you that)

Humanism- for a better world for humanity.

Explain how we get to a better world without love and peace. Explain why humanism should avoid something that is human nature and central to our goal?

You are assuming that human nature is love and peace. On the contrary, it isn't. Human nature is selfishness and pride. When a man makes the expression "I am only human" he often doesn't refer to his higher qualities. Secular humanism glosses over these things.
A better world for humanity will not come from human nature. It must come from something beyond it.

Something that is naturally irrational can be used rationally. Your brain is not rational. It is hardwired to see patterns even though such patterns might not exist.

Love is something that is inevitable and necessary and so we use it rationally.

On the contrary, it is because my mind is rational that it seeks patterns. An irrational mind will not seek patterns at all. love is not irrational. It is a reasoned decision.
It is not a fleeting emotion, it is a commited action. Love is very different from merely taking a liking to something

Mr_Anony:
Actually, you can tolerate without love. You don't necessarily need to love your boss but you tolerate him and his rudeness because he pays you at the end of the month.

Love the sinner, hate the sin entails that I must go out of my way to do good for the sinner even to the point of dying for him. Mind you I still hate what he does (tolerance cannot give you that)

You cant tolerate without love. Simple. Tolerance is not submission. No one has the right to be rude to you. A hostile workplace is wrong.

Your mistranslation of "love the sineer, hate the sin" is hilarious. Keep using Joagbaje's style of twisting scriptures. The quote is mostly used to refer to christians and homosexuals. It has nothing to do with sacrifice or dying for someone

Mr_Anony:
You are assuming that human nature is love and peace. On the contrary, it isn't. Human nature is selfishness and pride. When a man makes the expression "I am only human" he often doesn't refer to his higher qualities. Secular humanism glosses over these things.
A better world for humanity will not come from human nature. It must come from something beyond it.

Human nature is complex. We can love and we can hate. It is far more than selfishness and pride. We can ben proud and we can be humble. Man is both good and evil.

Love and war are both in our nature.

Humanists choose love because it is more productive than war.

Mr_Anony:
On the contrary, it is because my mind is rational that it seeks patterns. An irrational mind will not seek patterns at all. love is not irrational. It is a reasoned decision.
It is not a fleeting emotion, it is a commited action. Love is very different from merely taking a liking to something

Wrong. Your brain always chooses to find patterns. Always. Your brain is not rational. Not everthing in this world has a pattern. Finding patterns in things that do not have pattern is irrational.

By default we are irrational.


Love is naturally irrational. We have evolved socially to understand that love can be used rationally despite its nature. We differentiate beween different types of love- platonic, fatherly love, romantic etc.

Mr_Anony:
If man loves himself above all else, how then is it rational that he sacrifice himself for something other than himself.

Let's set this straight: man is perfectly capable of Love, right?

With this ability, he is able to Love Jesus. Not just Jesus but any object.

Kay 17:

Let's set this straight: man is perfectly capable of Love, right?

With this ability, he is able to Love Jesus. Not just Jesus but any object.

No, man is incapable of love on his own. To love, man must surrender to something beyond himself. Jesus is not an object you develop a liking for. Jesus is a person you commit yourself to.
Love is not an ability.We recognize love when we see it but it is not something that we can bring about. If love is manufactured, then it is not love.

MacDaddy01:

You cant tolerate without love. Simple. Tolerance is not submission. No one has the right to be rude to you. A hostile workplace is wrong.

Your mistranslation of "love the sineer, hate the sin" is hilarious. Keep using Joagbaje's style of twisting scriptures. The quote is mostly used to refer to christians and homosexuals. It has nothing to do with sacrifice or dying for someone






Human nature is complex. We can love and we can hate. It is far more than selfishness and pride. We can ben proud and we can be humble. Man is both good and evil.

Love and war are both in our nature.

Humanists choose love because it is more productive than war.



Wrong. Your brain always chooses to find patterns. Always. Your brain is not rational. Not everthing in this world has a pattern. Finding patterns in things that do not have pattern is irrational.

By default we are irrational.


Love is naturally irrational. We have evolved socially to understand that love can be used rationally despite its nature. We differentiate beween different types of love- platonic, fatherly love, romantic etc.

You don't know what love is