roccman wrote:SeaGypsy wrote:https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.facebook.com/NTDLifeOfficial/videos/438506363327497/&ved=0ahUKEwiJq6_FvYfXAhVLUbwKHQQCDxUQo7QBCCYwAA&usg=AOvVaw2tTGZq8W0fkFFztJeDnRYT
Probably require a Facebook account to open? Copy paste. Love is just another natural behaviour. Animals can't speak Greek, but they can be very loving.
I have given "love" and "caring" considerable thought - and have determined that evil/hate/revenge is based in love/caring. Consider this - a man will give his life for the banner he "believes" in. Because his family - far behind enemy lines - will be slaughtered if he does not - and in this sense - he must hate - because he cares.
Any other non-human animal who may be "very loving" will not hate or seek revenge.
Look into an old man's eyes - one who you feel has lived well. What one should notice - in the words of Tolkien - is a "care worn" face.
Cormac McCarthy states that "War is God" in Blood Meridian - I think he is as close to being right as one can be.
You bring up an interesting point. I think it pertains directly to the after school special mentality that argues about whether there is a God. You know, the one that says, "How can there be a God if there is so much evil in the world?" The well thought out question would actually be, "How could there not be evil in the world if there is a God?" Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden along with the Tree of Life? Well, if the garden is but a metaphor for the universe, and we are beings who are stumbling along trying to find true consciousness, you can sort of see why. A true consciousness will be composed of every facet of what makes up consciousness. It will understand all of the facets in the order of how they relate to each other. It won't be beholden to one particular facet. It could, indeed, use any facet as a tool. It wouldn't make any difference if there were evil. Evil doesn't rule anything, unless we let it, by subverting all of the other aspects to it. It takes fear or shame to create evil. They hid from God after they partook of the fruit, out of shame.
Everybody wants God to do this or that thing for them. People want money, or healing. Seldom do they want to change in the fundamental ways that keep them from those things, or falsely present them to their consciousness as panaceas. People don't seek enlightenment. They want stuff. Jesus went about healing all kinds of people because there were all kinds of people who needed healing. I don't think God can turn from helping people immediately when the proximity is that close. But that shouldn't be a reason to say that God must be dead or that there is no God only because we read those things and they aren't happening to us. We shouldn't expect God to be like Santa Claus. I don't think Jesus healed many of those people of the stupidity that lead them to need the things they traveled so many miles to get from him. Nor did he banish death from the lives of anybody who came to Him. He told some of them to, "Go and sin no more," but, with the exception of casting out demons, He didn't change anybody's consciousness fundamentally. I think that is because, ultimately, God is only trying to convince us of something we have to come to realize ourselves. Remember, he told almost everyone that He healed that their faith had made them whole.
It's like this, many say that we don't actually think for ourselves. Most of what we think is actually just us regurgitating what others say or do, after we process it a bit. There is a lot of doubt associated with that. Most of us don't have any original thoughts. Most of us don't have to. We can have our disabilities and keep our unenlightened selves. There is also the possibility that everything in time has already been done. That the arrow of time is simply an illusion. In that case, emotions are something that makes the observer in us comfortable with that. I don't know about that because of entropy, but there is a point to that, even if time does move one way. That struggle, and there is a sort of struggle there, does have a bearing upon the question of what sort of a resurrected self would religion be talking about when it talks about resurrecting the self. What age self? The self who was too young to have learned all of the things an old person might know? The creaky old self? Doesn't loss have to teach us something more than anger or doubt? Isn't there something central to eternal life in humility? Maybe it's the self that God can get hold of and teach something about ordering all of the facets, and overcoming fears? The one that exists over time and isn't worried so much about its body, though it does have one. Kind of the one you are right now, but are only partly able to understand because we don't have much faith and too much fear and shame.