Can All "rules" be seen as leading to and steming from Love

[needimprovement]

Christ tells us that the two greatest commandments are based on Love and that everything else stems from it.

 

 

Mt 22:36-40 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

 

 

So - My question is, can we, as Catholics and as Christians, trace every rule back to this "rule of Love"?

 

Can you think of any rule that is not traceable to the "Law of Love"?

[Klaynos]

Maybe you should ask this on a Christian forum, as 'we' are not all Christians and catholics here.

 

I would say no, most if not all rules, certainly the ones that appear in different cultures that have been separated from each other for a long time stem from the rules leading to an advantage in the Genes of those abiding by the rules as a society being passed on to the next generation.

 

Yes, we have evidence for trials taking place in ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece, before the story of Jesus started.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, not even all the laws in the Bible. See for example the killing of homosexuals, the forbidding of certain foods, the requirement to leave farmland fallow every 7 years, the whole concept of "unclean", the forbidding of worshiping any other gods. Some of these laws are based on hate, some on practicality.

[padren]

It really boils down to how you want to think about Love. Is the ban on clothing of mixed fibers a result of love? If "the people of the day" had a hankering for mixed fiber clothing that was a mix of cotton and asbestos then it could be... some sort of "tough love" but it is a bit of a stretch.

 

It's a matter of choice more than analysis: If you believe God is all about love, and that he makes choices that people don't always understand in the way a child doesn't always understand their parents you can "give him the benefit of the doubt" but it's not based on a rational analysis of the various laws and actions of God as described in scripture, it's based on select scripture that defines his motivations as being that way and choosing to invest in that.

[pioneer]

No, not even all the laws in the Bible. See for example the killing of homosexuals, the forbidding of certain foods, the requirement to leave farmland fallow every 7 years, the whole concept of "unclean", the forbidding of worshiping any other gods. Some of these laws are based on hate, some on practicality.

 

I tend to think most of these laws were practical in their day. Forbidden certain foods, like shell fish, made practical sense before refrigeration, in a hot place without ice. It is easy to get sick. Once you know about red tide, proper storage and refrigeration, this became more of a tradition.

 

Leaving farmland to fallow every 7 years was good for the soil since it allows time for nature to renew the soil at very little cost. Once you know about pH, nutrients levels and soil amenities, the modern farmer can artificially compensate for the 7th year rest. But if you don't know these things, the 7th year rest of the land will still work.

 

Being forbidden to Worship other gods was also practical, in the sense that two or more opposing religions, in a wild irrational time, will not allow one people to get along as well. Religion is one of those things that gets emotional. There will also be those who will see an opportunity for a power grab, feeding the irrationality for their own gains. Having one faith for the group circumvents an easy path that can be used to feed dissociation. Once a rational structure and understanding forms in culture, the irrationality of religious debate is more peaceful and won't disrupt the culture.

 

Let us look at homosexuals and other sexual behavior, but at a time before modern medicine. A good experiment, would be to simulate those times, to see if what they came up with was based on practical decisions. They did not have science and medicine like we have today, nor did they necessarily understanding the cause and effect of STD's. The experiment would need to take away all the modern medical prosthesis, such as medicines for STD's, etc. What we would do is allow all possible sexual behavior at the beginning of the experiment. We then let nature take its course in a green way. When the STD's and AIDS thin the herd, what types of behavior would be left standing? To maintain this natural result (nature took her course), rather than redo this experiment for every generation, as though this is random and not predictable, they made the steady state of nature, the law of the land.

 

Maybe in modern times, we can take perpetuate any behavior, since we can cheat mother nature with synthetic drugs. But then again, religion has humans above the animals, so the path of mother nature was not meant to be the final path for humans.

Edited August 19, 2010 by pioneer

[Marat]

From a position external to the Christian view, one might ask whether love is itself such an unambiguously positive force? Buddhists might say that love draws you excessively into specific attachments to the things of the world, which can only lead to possessiveness, loss, hurt, disappointment, and grief. There is also the expression, 'Killing someone with kindness,' which points to a possibly negative, suffocating, smothering, autonomy-denying, invasive, aggressive aspect of love, and this too would make it a poor candidate for being the foundation of all morality.

 

In favor of the Golden Rule, however, we might note that Kant's highly rational deduction of human morality from a secure philosophical foundation came to the same conclusion as stated in the New Testament, that loving one's neighbor as oneself was the essence of the moral attitude.

[needimprovement]

No, not even all the laws in the Bible. See for example the killing of homosexuals, the forbidding of certain foods, the requirement to leave farmland fallow every 7 years, the whole concept of "unclean", the forbidding of worshiping any other gods. Some of these laws are based on hate, some on practicality.

Well - My original question was aimed primarily at NT and current teachings etc within the Church. However, you bring up a good point. Of course how we view things (Morally and Lovingly) today is quite different than how preceding generations have viewed things.

 

As to ANY of the above things being based on hate, I'd wonder.....Practicality yes, but then practicality can be seen as a form of Love or arising from Love.

The forbidding of certain foods and various other dietary practices, as well as being "unclean" has been explained, in the majority of cases, as matters of health. Practical? Certainly. Loving? Yup since it helps to keep the community healthy.

Letting farmland rest every seven years is good practice as it allows the land to rest and recover. Such practices (though rarely employed today) have long been recognized as sound agricultural practice. Again - Practical? Yes, Loving? also yes in that it preserves the Land for future generation who do not then starve due to the greed of their forebearers.

Worshiping no other God's? Well covered by the first and greatest commandment. How can you Love the Lord God with your whole being and then worship other Gods? Doesn't work.

Finally the thing about Homosexuals...There could be any number of reasons for this law other than "hate". I will agree that it is a complex issue, but mostly because we have a very different understanding today than they did back then.

[Edtharan]

Worshiping no other God's? Well covered by the first and greatest commandment. How can you Love the Lord God with your whole being and then worship other Gods? Doesn't work.

I would disagree with this. You can have two parents and love them both equally and with all your heart. So why not love more than one God too?

[needimprovement]

I would disagree with this. You can have two parents and love them both equally and with all your heart. So why not love more than one God too?

First of all because there IS no more than one God.

Secondly because to divide our Love in this way results in, as Jesus says, Loving one and dispising the other.

 

Third, I Love both my parents with all may heart for The Love of God, which they instilled in my from a young age. Therefore, all stems from the Love of God. It is a unified agape Love, not some finite love that must be "divided up". When all Love that I show comes from the One God then it is infinite.

[Ophiolite]

Third, I Love both my parents with all may heart for The Love of God, which they instilled in my from a young age. Therefore, all stems from the Love of God.

So how do you account for atheists, raised in an atheist household who love both their parents with 'all their heart'?

[iNow]

So how do you account for atheists, raised in an atheist household who love both their parents with 'all their heart'?

He would rationalize with another self-reinforcing delusion by saying that their love still flows from god and they just choose to ignore that this is the source... That even though they reject god, god does not reject them and still shows gods love. He would say the source is the same whether or not you accept the validity of that source as realistic or not.

 

In other words, belief in god is not a logically-derived position, so logic alone is not often enough to refute that belief.

[Edtharan]

First of all because there IS no more than one God.

Have you proof of this? There are people who still believe that the Norse Gods exist, so you have to explain why their beliefs are false and yours are not.

 

Secondly because to divide our Love in this way results in, as Jesus says, Loving one and dispising the other.

No it doesn't. Just because someone can put a bunch of words together in a sentance does not make it true.

 

If I, as a finite being, can love two (or more) people equally (my parents - all all my family too), both and individually with all my heart, why can't I do so to other beings. Actually, if you really believed in this, then you could not love your parents because to lvoe them wou8ld be to remove some of your capacilty to love God.

 

So either you "dispise" your partents and love God, or you really can love more than one being with all your heart (and Jesus is proved wrong).

 

Third, I Love both my parents with all may heart for The Love of God, which they instilled in my from a young age. Therefore, all stems from the Love of God. It is a unified agape Love, not some finite love that must be "divided up". When all Love that I show comes from the One God then it is infinite.

So are you saying that if I don't love God, I can not love anyone? Well I don't love God and I do love many people (eg: Family) and this is a real and true love. So how does this affect your argument? Well it disproves it is what it does.

[Moontanman]

I tend to think most of these laws were practical in their day. Forbidden certain foods, like shell fish, made practical sense before refrigeration, in a hot place without ice. It is easy to get sick. Once you know about red tide, proper storage and refrigeration, this became more of a tradition.

 

Seriously HB, you can eat shellfish on site, no need to store them, the dangers of things like red tides applies to regular fish as well and land animals can make you sick too. this makes no sense at all...

 

Leaving farmland to fallow every 7 years was good for the soil since it allows time for nature to renew the soil at very little cost. Once you know about pH, nutrients levels and soil amenities, the modern farmer can artificially compensate for the 7th year rest. But if you don't know these things, the 7th year rest of the land will still work.

 

Letting farm land lie fallow for one year would not bring it back to being fertile, 7 was a special religious number and you have to do far more than let land lie fallow to make a difference. If God had said grow legumes in the soil and plow them under every few years you would have a point but again this is simply not true.

 

Being forbidden to Worship other gods was also practical, in the sense that two or more opposing religions, in a wild irrational time, will not allow one people to get along as well. Religion is one of those things that gets emotional. There will also be those who will see an opportunity for a power grab, feeding the irrationality for their own gains. Having one faith for the group circumvents an easy path that can be used to feed dissociation. Once a rational structure and understanding forms in culture, the irrationality of religious debate is more peaceful and won't disrupt the culture.

 

Only the rule against more than one god makes it a problem, many more tolerant societies did quite well with multiple gods...

 

Let us look at homosexuals and other sexual behavior, but at a time before modern medicine. A good experiment, would be to simulate those times, to see if what they came up with was based on practical decisions. They did not have science and medicine like we have today, nor did they necessarily understanding the cause and effect of STD's. The experiment would need to take away all the modern medical prosthesis, such as medicines for STD's, etc. What we would do is allow all possible sexual behavior at the beginning of the experiment. We then let nature take its course in a green way. When the STD's and AIDS thin the herd, what types of behavior would be left standing? To maintain this natural result (nature took her course), rather than redo this experiment for every generation, as though this is random and not predictable, they made the steady state of nature, the law of the land.

 

So STDs do not affect heterosexual people? Aids in ancient times? Aids is a modern disease, originating in the early 1900s, again you assertion does not hold water...

 

Maybe in modern times, we can take perpetuate any behavior, since we can cheat mother nature with synthetic drugs. But then again, religion has humans above the animals, so the path of mother nature was not meant to be the final path for humans.

 

Not meant to be the path of humans by who? you assume God is real and then justify his laws by that assumption. Failure of logic in this is obvious ....

[Ringer]

I tend to think most of these laws were practical in their day. Forbidden certain foods, like shell fish, made practical sense before refrigeration, in a hot place without ice. It is easy to get sick. Once you know about red tide, proper storage and refrigeration, this became more of a tradition.

 

Most theologians don't think this was a matter of hygiene as much as a matter of differentiating social groups. If you live in the same area as other groups that all look more or less alike then an easy way to stay separate from others is what you eat.

 

 

Leaving farmland to fallow every 7 years was good for the soil since it allows time for nature to renew the soil at very little cost. Once you know about pH, nutrients levels and soil amenities, the modern farmer can artificially compensate for the 7th year rest. But if you don't know these things, the 7th year rest of the land will still work.

As moontanman said, letting the ground sit would do very little. But again as he said, 7 was symbolic. Such as the day of rest, etc

 

Being forbidden to Worship other gods was also practical, in the sense that two or more opposing religions, in a wild irrational time, will not allow one people to get along as well. Religion is one of those things that gets emotional. There will also be those who will see an opportunity for a power grab, feeding the irrationality for their own gains. Having one faith for the group circumvents an easy path that can be used to feed dissociation. Once a rational structure and understanding forms in culture, the irrationality of religious debate is more peaceful and won't disrupt the culture.

 

Polytheism did, and still does, work fine for most people who practiced it.

 

 

Let us look at homosexuals and other sexual behavior, but at a time before modern medicine. A good experiment, would be to simulate those times, to see if what they came up with was based on practical decisions. They did not have science and medicine like we have today, nor did they necessarily understanding the cause and effect of STD's. The experiment would need to take away all the modern medical prosthesis, such as medicines for STD's, etc. What we would do is allow all possible sexual behavior at the beginning of the experiment. We then let nature take its course in a green way. When the STD's and AIDS thin the herd, what types of behavior would be left standing? To maintain this natural result (nature took her course), rather than redo this experiment for every generation, as though this is random and not predictable, they made the steady state of nature, the law of the land.

 

Maybe in modern times, we can take perpetuate any behavior, since we can cheat mother nature with synthetic drugs. But then again, religion has humans above the animals, so the path of mother nature was not meant to be the final path for humans.

 

 

Do you really think that in biblical times they knew disease came from having sex with multiple partners or same sex partners? If they did they would probably make laws to outlaw polygamy, prostitution, etc. And would have loved the ideas of condoms. This was the idea that it was unnatural to have intercourse with the same sex or with a different species because it wasn't about making children it was about physical pleasure.

 

First of all because there IS no more than one God.

Secondly because to divide our Love in this way results in, as Jesus says, Loving one and dispising the other.

 

God would disagree that there is only one god:

Exodus 15:11 "Who is like You among the gods, O LORD?"

Deuteronomy 6:14 "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you"

2 Kings 17:35 ""You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them"

Even Exodus 20:3 is "You shall have no other gods before me" not there are no other gods. Also, the Egyptians used their gods to make miracles same as moses before the plagues.

Your second point is thrown off by saying you can't divide you love by a quote from Jesus, who isn't god, but gods only son. Thus your love is divided by 2 "lordly beings". Such as worshiping at the cross is symbolic of worship of Jesus not god.

[needimprovement]

Have you proof of this? There are people who still believe that the Norse Gods exist, so you have to explain why their beliefs are false and yours are not.

I have the same "proof" as you do.

 

No it doesn't. Just because someone can put a bunch of words together in a sentance does not make it true.

 

If I, as a finite being, can love two (or more) people equally (my parents - all all my family too), both and individually with all my heart, why can't I do so to other beings. Actually, if you really believed in this, then you could not love your parents because to lvoe them wou8ld be to remove some of your capacilty to love God.

 

So either you "dispise" your partents and love God, or you really can love more than one being with all your heart (and Jesus is proved wrong).

 

 

So are you saying that if I don't love God, I can not love anyone? Well I don't love God and I do love many people (eg: Family) and this is a real and true love. So how does this affect your argument? Well it disproves it is what it does.

The fact that you are making the arguments above demonstrates that you have no Idea of how Christian Love works.

 

It isn't "That" I Love, it's "How" I Love.

By Placing Love of God and obeying his commands first, and Loving others "as myself" second am able to properly love others with the same infinite capacity with which God Loves us.

All rightly ordered Love stems from God. Love God - then show that Love to others.

[Ringer]

I have the same "proof" as you do.

 

 

The fact that you are making the arguments above demonstrates that you have no Idea of how Christian Love works.

 

It isn't "That" I Love, it's "How" I Love.

By Placing Love of God and obeying his commands first, and Loving others "as myself" second am able to properly love others with the same infinite capacity with which God Loves us.

All rightly ordered Love stems from God. Love God - then show that Love to others.

 

 

 

Then what exactly are you meaning by love? That Christian's have a completely different emotion than other humans. And what? They use the same word so not to confuse other people?

 

You also say all love stems from Yahweh, but that assumes existence of Yahweh. Who are you to say that all love doesn't stem from Aphrodite.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Ringer

[Edtharan]

The fact that you are making the arguments above demonstrates that you have no Idea of how Christian Love works.

I have been batised and have taken holy communion. Yes, I have been schooled in the ways of christianity. You do not know who I am so you can't make such claims about me.

 

It isn't "That" I Love, it's "How" I Love.

By Placing Love of God and obeying his commands first, and Loving others "as myself" second am able to properly love others with the same infinite capacity with which God Loves us.

The whole point is that you sais that it was imposible to love more thqan one God. The bible clearly states that you love God like a parent, a teacher or a king. In these terms, my coiunter argument is perfectly valid. Based on the teachings of the bible the Love one feels for God is not differnet to the love one feels for a partent. If one is capable of loving more than one parent, or even loving God and a parent, then we have the capacity to love more than one God. The forms of worship as specified in the bible are the same forms of worship one would expect to do for a bronze age king, so even the form of adoration is consistant with this.

 

The bible says that you are not to love other God, not that you don't have the capacity to do so.

 

All rightly ordered Love stems from God. Love God - then show that Love to others.

Simple question: Why?

 

Why does this have to be the way, have you got evidence for it or is this something someone told you and you are repeating it?

[john5746]

Can you think of any rule that is not traceable to the "Law of Love"?

 

I think many people can and have provided some good arguments. But, the question is can you? I doubt it, since anyone who thinks the torture of another human being comes from love can justify anything.

[needimprovement]

Then what exactly are you meaning by love? That Christian's have a completely different emotion than other humans. And what? They use the same word so not to confuse other people?

Love, as we speak of it is not an emotion although it can generate emotional responses. Emotions change with the wind and avail us nothing. If you wish to place love as an emotion, then how can anyone "love" their spouse for a lifetime. One moment you will "feel" love, another moment you might "feel" anger, even hate, and most of the time you will likely "feel" apathy.

Love, real lasting love, is a decision. It is to desire the greatest good for the object of our Love. It is love that lasts through all the emotional ups and downs of life. It is the clinging to each other in faith. This then is Love.

St Paul teaches us about Love:

 

1 Cor 13:

4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

Christ taught us about Love too. By his selfless healing of others; by his teachings of gentleness and acceptance and giving; by his death on the cross. He tells us that, no greater Love has a man than he lay down his life for his fellow.

 

This then is "Agape" Love. Love that gives and does not take. Love that desires the highest good for another even though it require sacrifice from me.

It is not "Eros" love that one might associate with aphrodite. Love that is emotive and fickle.

 

You also say all love stems from Yahweh, but that assumes existence of Yahweh. Who are you to say that all love doesn't stem from Aphrodite.

That assumes the existance of aphrodite then doesn't it.....

Edited August 25, 2010 by needimprovement

[Ringer]

Love, as we speak of it is not an emotion although it can generate emotional responses. Emotions change with the wind and avail us nothing. If you wish to place love as an emotion, then how can anyone "love" their spouse for a lifetime. One moment you will "feel" love, another moment you might "feel" anger, even hate, and most of the time you will likely "feel" apathy.

Love, real lasting love, is a decision. It is to desire the greatest good for the object of our Love. It is love that lasts through all the emotional ups and downs of life. It is the clinging to each other in faith. This then is Love.

 

Love is an emotion by all accounts I have ever heard. I love my mother, it's an emotion, even if I do feel anger toward her I love her. That doesn't make it any less of an emotion.

 

 

 

Christ taught us about Love too. By his selfless healing of others; by his teachings of gentleness and acceptance and giving; by his death on the cross. He tells us that, no greater Love has a man than he lay down his life for his fellow.

 

never said he didn't.

 

This then is "Agape" Love. Love that gives and does not take. Love that desires the highest good for another even though it require sacrifice from me.

It is not "Eros" love that one might associate with aphrodite. Love that is emotive and fickle.

 

Eros love would be lust and associated with cupid more than Aphrodite.

 

 

That assumes the existance of aphrodite then doesn't it.....

 

 

Yes it does. That's the point, you can't assume existence.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Love, as we speak of it is not an emotion although it can generate emotional responses. Emotions change with the wind and avail us nothing. If you wish to place love as an emotion, then how can anyone "love" their spouse for a lifetime. One moment you will "feel" love, another moment you might "feel" anger, even hate, and most of the time you will likely "feel" apathy.

Love, real lasting love, is a decision. It is to desire the greatest good for the object of our Love. It is love that lasts through all the emotional ups and downs of life. It is the clinging to each other in faith. This then is Love.

St Paul teaches us about Love:

 

Maybe "commitment" would be a better word for the above. Love would have to have an emotional component, even if it is accompanied by commitment.

[Severian]

Do we have any observable physical evidence that "love" really exists as anything other than a chemical illusion? I suspect not, which makes it rather difficult to discuss on a science forum.

[Edtharan]

1 Cor 13:

4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

SO according to the bible it is not love if it involves jelousy, insist on its own way is not resentful and bears and endures all things.

 

The bible states that God is jelsous (and also resentful) of us loving other Gods (it one of the 10 comandments if you need a reference).

 

God also insists on the forms of worship (half the 10 commandments are about how we are to worship God and much of the rules in the bible (besides the 10 commandments are also about this)

 

If Gods love for us could endure and bear all things then it would be imposible to sin against God, but as sin is a major part of the christian religion (you are taught that you are born in sin and have to repent for it) and if we don't we can't get into Heaven, then we can conclude that God's love for us can't bear all things because He can't bear us sinning against Him.

 

So by your own claim, God can not love us. Or if He dose, then your claims about the nature of love are wrong.

 

Which one are you willing to admit you are wrong in?

 

Christ taught us about Love too. By his selfless healing of others; by his teachings of gentleness and acceptance and giving; by his death on the cross. He tells us that, no greater Love has a man than he lay down his life for his fellow.

 

This then is "Agape" Love. Love that gives and does not take. Love that desires the highest good for another even though it require sacrifice from me.

It is not "Eros" love that one might associate with aphrodite. Love that is emotive and fickle.

Science had actually determined that there are at least 3 emotions of love that we can feel. These can be paraphrased as: Short Term, Medium Term and Long term.

 

Short Term love is more what one can considder lust and it generally laasts for a few days to about a month. It is an emotion that brings two strangers together for reproductive purposes.

 

Medium Term love is an emotion that kicks in after about a month or so of knowing someone. This lasts for several years and helps keep a couple together for the purposes of child rearing.

 

Long Term love is an emotion that helps bind a couple together over sucessive children and keeps the group together to support each other (as we are a social species).

 

These have distinct behavioural and emotive (and even physiological - that is neural and chemical) responses. They are distinct emotions.

 

That assumes the existance of aphrodite then doesn't it.....

And that is the point. You are assuming anotyher God exists, that of the Christian God.

 

On what ground would you reject the existance of Aphrodite? Love exists, and She is supposed to be the Goddess of love, so is that not proof She exists?

 

Well not. It is possible for love to exist without the need for a God, so the existance of love does not act as proof of the existance of the Goddess Aphrodite (remember what I keep saying how proof needs to differentiate claims).

 

If the existance of Love can proove the existance of the Christian God, then it is also proof that Aphrodite exists. As this then does nto distinguish between the two Gods, then it is not proof for one or the other. And, since Love can be directly traced back to phisiological responses, it also means that Love does not need the existance of a God.

 

Of course, a God could have created love, but the phyisiological cause of love means that one is not necesary and so the existance of love does not offer proof of a God (either the christian God, or Aphrodite) because it can not differentiate between the need for a God and the non-existance of that God.

 

I understand you point of view (I was taught the christian view point), but I found I could not reconsile it with rationality.

 

What turned me into an athiest is this question: If God were to give us a gift, would it be a sin not to use it? God gave us the gift of rationality and inteligence, so not using them would be considdered a sin. BUt, using ratioanlity and inteligence, I can not reconcile God with what is writen in the bible. So the only conclusion is that either the bible is wrong (and therefore the God as described in the bible does not exist), or no God exists.

 

From this, I concluded that to assume the existance of any God is a false assumption and the only thing left is agnosticism or atheism. I started out as agnostic, but the more I looked for evidence of any God the more of an athiest I became.

[Sisyphus]

Do we have any observable physical evidence that "love" really exists as anything other than a chemical illusion? I suspect not, which makes it rather difficult to discuss on a science forum.

 

How would knowing how something works make it illusory? And if it was, why couldn't an illusion be a source of all "rules?"

[needimprovement]

Love is an emotion by all accounts I have ever heard. I love my mother, it's an emotion, even if I do feel anger toward her I love her. That doesn't make it any less of an emotion.

Emotion is certainly a component of many things. However the emotion is not necessarily the thing itself.

You say that, "Love is an emotion by all accounts I have ever heard". This is incorrect on two points. First "by all accounts I have ever heard" is now incorrect since you have heard from me and from St Paul that Love is not "emotion".

Secondly it would be more correct to say that Love has an emotional component, but that emotional component is not "Love" in itself. you yourself make this clear when you say that you "Love" your mother even if you feel "anger" toward her. One moment you "feel" (emotion) love and the next moment you "feel" (emotion) anger toward her. Yet regardless of how these feelings change, the underlying core of Love does not Change.

You still want the highest good for the object of your love (your mother).

 

As to the other matters surrounding God's existance, I can do little to help you in this matter. A wise man once said, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof is possible."

 

My abilities of argumentation, of reason, of persuasion are insufficient to sway another from outright rejection to belief. The only one who can convince you of God's existance is the Holy Spirit and the only way He can do that is if you open you heart and mind to the possibility.