How is love not the meaning to life and reason for our existence? (faith, bishop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, love in this sense is all about a support system for the long time it takes for a child to become independent (as far as any of us can be) and that has traditionally been a mating pair and filial love (generally stronger in the female) but "it takes a village" is also true. Problems come when the support system has broken down.
Well, love in this sense is all about a support system for the long time it takes for a child to become independent (as far as any of us can be) and that has traditionally been a mating pair and filial love (generally stronger in the female) but "it takes a village" is also true. Problems come when the support system has broken down.
Well, I grant that infant mortality would soar if we treated our children like spiders or turtles do, letting them hatch and immediately fend for themselves.
If we simply neglected them as the worst of parents currently do, mortality would increase but I doubt we would face extinction.
By that sense I guess you could say that love is central to the continuation of our species as we know it. Linking this to the forum, I would say that biological processes are sufficient to explain our parental care ithout needing a god.
I would take it further and say the meaning of life is to share a loving relationship with our creator, who I believe is Yahweh.
You’re in love with an unsubstantiated character in a book. I can’t conceive having a loving relationship with a deadbeat dad that I have never met, but at least I know he existed.
It seems to me that lust and the desire physical pleasure are sufficient to ensure procreation.
And after the act was performed, the woman becomes fat with a 'weird big belly', talkin' cavemen here,
without love what would happen to the woman and the babies?
You’re in love with an unsubstantiated character in a book.
This is a point I try to make often...being in love with an idea, a hope in an invisible Being from stories is
'ok', I guess. I'm not knocking it exactly....but there's more!!!! And it breeds untruths.
To truly love this Being...you must know 'Him' up-close and personally, intimately.
Otherwise it's like saying you love the puppy that you have a photo of that you will be getting
in a few more weeks.
But, is that truly ' love'? Love is being with the puppy thru thick and thin, knowing his personality,
playing with him, forgiving him...but mainly getting to know him.
Saying this is my way of encouraging people to sit in stillness and know God, intimately.
And that is why I enjoy atheists more, than those that talk dogma, rules, hellish and 'holier-than-thou' concepts to me.
Well, I grant that infant mortality would soar if we treated our children like spiders or turtles do, letting them hatch and immediately fend for themselves.
If we simply neglected them as the worst of parents currently do, mortality would increase but I doubt we would face extinction.
By that sense I guess you could say that love is central to the continuation of our species as we know it. Linking this to the forum, I would say that biological processes are sufficient to explain our parental care ithout needing a god.
I'm not meaning to slight feral children but, did you mean to type morality would 'decrease'?
I'm not meaning to slight feral children but, did you mean to type morality would 'decrease'?
No, I meant that death rates would get higher.
I don’t know that morality (behavior) would get worse. I view morality as closely tied to our biology. Do we consider turtles to be immoral because they lay their eggs on a beach and swim a thousand miles away? Similarly, if, as a species, we did not care about children/others, would we be immoral?
Are we immoral now because we do not care for those living in appalling conditions in refugee camps? A strict utilitarian would say we go need to care for them, even at significant personal detriment, otherwise we are acting immorally.
If we were a fundamentally different type of creature without the capacity to love we would view morality very differently.
I don’t know that morality (behavior) would get worse. I view morality as closely tied to our biology. Do we consider turtles to be immoral because they lay their eggs on a beach and swim a thousand miles away? Similarly, if, as a species, we did not care about children/others, would we be immoral?
For some species yes, others no.
Quote:
Are we immoral now because we do not care for those living in appalling conditions in refugee camps? A strict utilitarian would say we go need to care for them, even at significant personal detriment, otherwise we are acting immorally.
Charity begins @ home.
Quote:
If we were a fundamentally different type of creature without the capacity to love we would view morality very differently.
Yes, some members of the reptile kingdom serve as great examples...gators and such.
Interesting, "morality" vs "mortality." Could we say they are inversely proportionate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
