image stats
rating
3.16
votes
6
views
1119
uploader
Wolfgang613
comments
52
date added
2010-05-16
category
Art/Culture
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

This is what love is

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
This is what love is

Comments for: This is what love is
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: May 16, 2010 01:37PM

proverbs 5:19...
Andy Krayst Report This Comment
Date: May 16, 2010 02:39PM

perverts 24:7...
Go read a sience book, you dumb fuck!
No bearded old man built this earth - it was evolution (and evolution doesn't molest children!)!
Onyma Report This Comment
Date: May 16, 2010 04:02PM

Technically "evolution" does. Evolution produced humans, and humans molest children. As do Bonobo monkeys, also products of evolution. In fact, actually every under-aged creature subjected to an unwanted sexual advance for the entire span of time on this planet was a product of evolution, but only a fractional percentage of them were a product of the church.

If you want to be specific about it. smiling
smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16/05/2010 04:03PM by Onyma.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 16, 2010 04:21PM

Andy, you are watching way too much TV and believing everything they tell you. Leonardo da Vinci painted God as a bearded man. There is not physical description of God in the Bible.

In the way I understand things, evolution is the method that God used to create everything. There is nothing in the Bible that denounces evolution.

As far as molesting children goes, that is against the Christen faith, and is only a big topic because of some sick Catholic priests and a cover up by the Catholic Church. It is a far exception from the norm even in the Catholic Church.

I recommend you read the Bible first before you go off ranting against it. Otherwise, you will sound like a fool. nerd smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 17, 2010 06:24AM

Wolfie you are correct one thing people should remember is when God created everything in six days. What needs to be asked is how long was God's day? Since the Bible said God the entire universe, was his day the 24 hours it takes the earth to make one revolution or is his time frame something much much larger. I choose to believe his day would be many thousands of our years and evolution could be a huge factor in it. How could we be so petty as to limit God's time frame alongside ours?
Andy Kryst Report This Comment
Date: May 17, 2010 05:37PM

You all must be kidding!
God "used" evolution to create the earth?! Do you listen to your own words?!
And btw. it's not only molesting children... What about killing in the name of god for ages and ages (for example the crusades, burning "whitches", etc.)?!
How in god's name (*lol*) can you believe such humbug?! A higher might? A man with a beard? Whatever it is - it's scientifically sure that all plants and animals grew from each other!! And what dumb theory is that with "evolution actually molested children"... WTF?! Read it over again and tell me that you're serious about that!!!
duane Report This Comment
Date: May 17, 2010 07:29PM

If your correct about evolution auntie, then everything would be a result of it.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 18, 2010 12:22AM

No Andy, I am serious. Evolution is the method that God used to create everything. We are just now figuring it out. He did it so perfectly that he didn't leave any messy fingerprints or tool marks behind. So it is easy to understand why so many people cut God out of the picture. We are too used to seeing our own imperfections in the things we create, and by these imperfections we tend to judge everything. Even God. It is not God who sent the crusaders into Jerusalem, nor was it God who presided over the Salem witch trials. It was our own foolishness that did these things. We may use the Lord's name in vain to justify our actions, but it is our own failures we are trying to cover up. God gave us free will to follow him or turn and stumble down our own miserable path. I chose to follow God. This does not make me perfect; it makes me a follower of God.cool smiley

As for "evolution actually molested children"... that is all Onyma's. Not mine.totally
lost



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21/05/2010 09:17PM by Wolfgang613.
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: May 18, 2010 12:23AM



Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 19, 2010 01:24AM

I think I just broke Pro... Sorry
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 19, 2010 06:53AM

Wolfie I understand what you are saying but not to be nit picky you should really watch your spelling because when you use fallow instead of follow you probably lose some people. The things people do in the name of God only means that those people are using their free will to make choices they do not want to be blamed for themselves so they use God to take the blame and that is just wrong. I belive in God completely but God never made me do anything anytime in my life. Everything I have done was of my own choosing, right or wrong and it was not God who made me do it. He gave us free will and I choose to use that free will to do what I think is right and hope he approves of it. The only time we will know if he approves is when we die and we are judged for our life here on earth.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: May 19, 2010 09:09AM

If God is love and belief in God is embracement of that love, thanks, but leave me outta the loop.

With most every atrocity committed by man against man in the history of mankind (<- strange term that) having hinged on and been justified by one faction or another of some form of organized religion against non-believers or believers of differing views on religion I see no correlation there between belief and love, much less tolerance and acceptance of ones fellow man, unless of course they are believers of the same bag of wind.

Then, when folks push for acceptance of that omnipotent, omniscient all loving invisible man in the sky concept which simply flies in the face of any sort of rational thought, you've really lost me for sure.

Even when you discount the religious fringe dweller crowds that believe in the most far out and preposterous concepts of God or worship and make a bee-line for the mainstream stuff the underlying conscious suspension of logic required to believe in some concept that not only seems illogical, but also requires one to swallow all this preposterous stuff "on absolute faith", well .... just count me out.

To believe in equality for all humankind, peace among all races and beliefs, acceptance of scientifically verifiable ideas and philosophies must in the face of true logic reject any and all religions as heretical hate monger groups whose leaders propagate the continuation of fear and hatred between others while makin some nice fat bank sittin on the side lines runnin the show.

My belief is that even the heads of all organized religions themselves are not believers and instead are predatory shit stirrers whose job is to keep the kettle roiling in their own self interest eye rolling
smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 20, 2010 06:01AM

The problem is not the belief in God. The problem is organized religion. It was organized religion which caused all the killings in the name of God. Don't confuse God with organized religion I am sure God does not live in the churches, God lives in our hearts not in brick and mortar buildings. God does not require other people to read the word and tell you what it means. The meaning is determined by one's own heart not what someone wearing robes tells you it means. You can call it anything you like if you live a life of respect of others and love of others then you are living with God. Mr. Kim is a good man and doesn't believe in God but he does follow God's teachings whether he calls it God or not I believe God is guiding him anyway. Go with God friend Kim.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: May 21, 2010 12:27AM

JG, you entirely miss the point!

Sure enough, organized religious factions are the ones that have committed the actions I mentioned but the other undeniable truth is that every one of these actions were undertaken by followers of a faith which at its very core revolved around belief in some form of divine (yet improvable) deity. This means that belief in a god, some god was still central to these actions.

If you have any doubts about belief in some god having been at the root of all these atrocities you are so totally blind to this truth that sadly I can't begin to help you see the truth in it all.

One last thought to ponder : Name one example of an atheist attack on even a single city, much less a country or continent like followers of god have certainly done.

Don't bother, that's a totally rhetorical question, but just in case you're unsure, the answer is 0.

BTW, my personal god does go with me where ever I am as I'm always there grinning
smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 21, 2010 08:46AM

Granted, belief in God is common denominator in all the things you described but it was the false doctrine of the organized religions which brought them about. The simple fact of someone believing in God does not make someone go out and kill others unless their belief is distorted by teaching them that it is God's wish for them to do it. There could be one deranged person who believes God is personally telling him to do something like that but the same could be said for a deranged atheist who decides to kill Christians. Allah does not tell Al Qaeda to go out and kill in his name it is the Imans of that radical Islamic faction that tells them it is God's will. God is in all of us everyday and it is our free will which determines how we use it.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: May 21, 2010 09:32AM

You had it 100% right when you said belief in a god is the common denominator and then you try and turn that statement around in the rest of your reply.

Sorry, but the fact still remains immutable : Religion and or belief in some god IS at the root of this issue.

Mankind as a whole would be far better off without religions in general. Religion is the single most divisive issue on the planet and its varied followers continue to belittle, discriminate and kill members of differing faiths and all in the name of their preferred imaginary friend.

Religion is an assault upon mankinds intellect and logic and has been causing murder and mayhem all across the globe since it was 1st embraced.

If all religions were somehow to suddenly disappear globally it would magically also erase at a minimum 50% of the inhumanity of people against one another as the core reason they despise and kill one another would also disappear with it allowing people to see how much they are alike one another instead of the current situation which uses religion to divide them and keep them in a constant state of hate for one another.

Though I know it's an impossible goal, the best thing that could happen for our continuation as a race of peoples would be to eliminate all religions from the world. Such an act would do more good for the world as a whole than the current embracement of all these self claimed "religions of peace and love" ever could (*horse*)

smoking
smiley
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 21, 2010 09:29PM

Mrkim wrote:"Name one example of an atheist attack on even a single city, much less a country or continent like followers of god have certainly done."

I accept your challenge Mrkim. In a world Communism. Thats right the old red menace. They are atheists by doctrine and did their best to stamp out all religions beliefs they came across. They also murdered, raped and pillaged their way across Asia with no less zealotry than any religious group ever did. No, you can not claim that they are simply a political group for they did indeed seek out religious groups to persecute for their religious beliefs and tried to impose atheism in its place. If you doubt me just pull out a history book and look up the Bolshevik Revolution, the Communist take over of China, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. hot smiley

What you ,Mrkim, are blind to is that mans inhumanity to man has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the fact that man's nature is evil, and if we do not hold ourselves to a moral center we will decay to nothing more than a bunch of savages murdering, raping, and pillaging our way cross the landscape. If you remove religion it will not change a thing as the Communist of the world have proven. Religion gives us that moral center and holds us accountable for our actions.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 22, 2010 06:37AM

I would also add that one can believe in God not not be part of any religion. Religion is only dangerous when it becomes organized. When a group of people get together and tell others what the word of God is and they actually have no clue what the real word is. If ones heart is open to it the word will come to them without the aid of other people. All religions are trying to say that theirs is God's religion, I believe God had no one religion in mind. God only wants people to follow him and be moral individuals. He does not want people to fight and kill in his name, he only wants people to love in his name. Therefore religions are bad but belief in God by itself is not.

Organized atheism is just as bad as organized religion. One believer is not dangerous nor is one atheist but when you get many together they become dangerous. When a group of people get together who believe in the same thing they then try to force their beliefs on others and when those believers are a majority then their force can get more violent. Wolfie is right, humans are inherently violent people, I wouldn't say evil but violent would fit most. The right to life movemnet is one example. A group of believers getting together to force their beliefs on others and it typically gets violent. It is human nature not their belief that brings about the violence. When someone feels they are having no impact the escalate and resort to violence and if a large group feel the same way then it gets worse (ie. the crusades). Therefore belife in anything is not the problem but organizing those believers is where the trouble begins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/05/2010 06:54AM by jgoins.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 22, 2010 02:28PM

jgoins, I will agree that forcing ones beliefs on others is wrong and that most organized religions have done this at one time, but you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is a great deal of good that has been done through organized religions groups. For example the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, City Missions, and Covenant House all stem from organized religion and would not exist without it. I am part of an organized religious group called The Episcopal Church. Yes, we have made mistakes, but we have learned from our mistakes and are trying not to repeat them. We know that we can not force anyone to believe in God or believe in God the same way that we do. We are, trying to do good in the world by spreading "The Good News" and helping those in need. cool smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 22, 2010 05:37PM

i see that as nothing more than preying on the less fortunate in an attempt to convince them to follow the same fantasy you believe.

and i was attempted to be raised episco also



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/05/2010 05:38PM by fossil_digger.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 23, 2010 07:28AM

I have read the Bible several times and haven't seen anything in it that says God wants organized religion. The closest I have seen was the passage about 2 or more who gather in the name of God he will be there but it does not mention organizations. What little good organized religion does is far outweighed by the brain washing and misdeeds they do (ie Catholic Church). The preacher of your church stands in front of you and tells you what the Bible says and means. I simply do not not anyone to translate it for me when it means something different to everyone who reads it. My point is that organizing just about anything is bad in some ways even something as noble as right to life movement. I was stating that to blame God for all the misdeeds of human kind in the past is wrong. It is the humans in charge of the organizations who guide them now and in the past so it would be better to blame the humans for the crusades instead of God. It is human beings who run the organized religions which makes them do the things they do. About the only thing God can be blamed for is creating mankind and giving him free will, I don't blame him I thank him.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: May 23, 2010 11:47PM

Ok, here we go ...

Since communism is a political ideology, by no stretch of the imagination can you tie it to atheism which is a not political in nature. Just because churches were closed and followers persecuted under communist rule in some places it still does not put communism and atheism together. This had much more to do with stamping out all assembly except those proposed/sansctioned by the "state" in efforts to minimize the possibility of organized dissent than it did with anything like the concepts of atheism.

Every atheist I've ever met would say they don't really care about believers and their temples, The only things that get us riled up is imposing religious concepts within government and believers tryin to tell us all about the fire and brimstone crap just because we choose not believe in their imaginary friends.


What you ,Mrkim, are blind to is that mans inhumanity to man has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the fact that man's nature is evil, and if we do not hold ourselves to a moral center we will decay to nothing more than a bunch of savages murdering, raping, and pillaging our way cross the landscape. If you remove religion it will not change a thing as the Communist of the world have proven. Religion gives us that moral center and holds us accountable for our actions.

Dude, your above statements are so full of holes yet chocked full of that Mmmm, Mmm, good ol self righteous religious bullshit it's incredible.

If mans nature is evil, talk to your god about that shit since you profess he made us and .... if memory serves supposedly "in his own image".

What is pure unadulterated crap is your self righteous religilous crap about morality somehow being rooted in religious belief. That is such a preposterous statement, but I know too that you believers have now told and heard that lie so many times ya'll even believe it makes sense. Let me clue you in, it doesn't.

By your logic since I fail to embrace religion I must then be an immoral person and it seems I'm way behind in my duties since I've never raped, pillaged or murdered anyone.

Try for once stepping away from yourself and examine the concepts of religion from outside the teachings that have likely been shoved down you since early in life. Hell, try proving religion though something verifiable like science, that oughta keep you busy for an eon or 2.

But really man, you need to try thinking for yourself instead of just believin whatever people say, do some real research, and actually THINK FOR YOURSELF, and ... by all means stop swillin the Kool Aid (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 25, 2010 01:49AM

Excuse me Mrkim but Lenin, Mow, and Pol Pot touted Atheism as doctrine. They and many others committed many evils in the name of their Atheist beliefs. Trying to split hairs and say it was just a political ideology is like saying the Crusades were just a land grab by the Medieval Church.

Do I think you are an immoral person? No, at lest from what you have posted I don't. I don't know you well enough to make that call. Being an Atheist does not make you immoral. What I was trying to say is that the moral codes that you and I live by were derived from religious teachings.

As far as being brainwashed into my religious convictions that could not be further from the truth. My eyes are wide open. I know what the truth is. No I can not prove God exist by a man made means. If I did it would be the proof that God is man made. Yes I know you will not like this answer. Only if you are willing to open you hart, mind, and sprite to God will you find proof of his existence. You must open the door. God will not force the issue. I am sure you have heard this before and dismissed it as religious babel, but how can God prove himself to you if you refuse his existence? If he came up to you and handed you a hundred dollar bill, how would you know it was God? confused
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 25, 2010 06:54AM

Can it be proven that the sky is blue to a person who was born blind. No, the blind person would have to take it on faith that what everyone tells them is true.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 25, 2010 08:22AM

faith is blind. eye rolling
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 26, 2010 07:00AM

If blind people have to take so much on faith then why shouldn't the rest of us be that trusting.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 26, 2010 12:26PM

blind people dont go on faith, they use their more in tuned senses to feel, hear and smell their way around.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 27, 2010 06:48AM

But there are some things they have to take on faith like colors. Colors can't be felt, heard or smelled. There are other things which have to be experienced through site alone and the blind have to take them on faith and trust in others.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: May 27, 2010 09:54AM

Morality defined scientifically:


"Psychopaths shed light on a crucial subset of decision-making that's referred to as morality. Morality can be a squishy, vague concept, and yet, at its simplest level, it's nothing but a series of choices about how we treat other people. When you act in a moral manner - when you recoil from violence, treat others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are making decisions that take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of others, sympathizing with their states of mind.

"This is what psychopaths can't do. ... They are missing the primal emotional cues that the rest of us use as guides when making moral decisions. The psychopath's brain is bored by expressions of terror. The main problem seems to be a broken amygdala, a brain area responsible for propagating aversive emotions such as fear and anxiety. As a result, psychopaths never feel bad when they make other people feel bad. ... Hurting someone else is just another way of getting what he wants, a perfectly reasonable way to satisfy desires. The absence of emotion makes the most basic moral concepts incomprehensible. G. K. Chesterton was right: 'The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.'

"At first glance, the connection between morality and the emotions might be a little unnerving. Moral decisions are supposed to rest on a firm logical and legal foundation. Doing the right thing means carefully weighing competing claims, like a dispassionate judge. These aspirations have a long history. The luminaries of the Enlightenment, such as Leibniz and Descartes, tried to construct a moral system entirely free of feelings. Immanuel Kant argued that doing the right thing was merely a consequence of acting rationally. Immorality, he said, was a result of illogic. ... The modern legal system still subscribes to this antiquated set of assumptions and pardons anybody who demonstrates a 'defect in rationality' - these people are declared legally insane, since the rational brain is supposedly responsible for distinguishing between right and wrong. If you can't reason, then you shouldn't be punished.

"But all of these old conceptions of morality are based on a fundamental mistake. Neuroscience can now see the substrate of moral decisions, and there's nothing rational about it. 'Moral judgment is like aesthetic judgment,' writes Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia. 'When you see a painting, you usually know instantly and automatically whether you like it. If someone asks you to explain your judgment, you confabulate ... Moral arguments are much the same: Two people feel strongly about an issue, their feelings come first, and their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each other.'

"Kant and his followers thought the rational brain acted like a scientist: we used reason to arrive at an accurate view of the world. This meant that morality was based on objective values; moral judgments described moral facts. But the mind doesn't work this way. When you are confronted with an ethical dilemma, the unconscious automatically generates an emotional reaction. (This is what psychopaths can't do.) Within a few milliseconds, the brain has made up its mind; you know what is right and what is wrong. These moral instincts aren't rational. ...

"It's only after the emotions have already made the moral decision that those rational circuits in the prefrontal cortex are activated. People come up with persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition. When it comes to making ethical decisions, human rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer. This inner attorney gathers bits of evidence, post hoc justifications, and pithy rhetoric in order to make the automatic reaction seem reasonable. But this reasonableness is just a facade, an elaborate self- delusion. Benjamin Franklin said it best in his autobiography: 'So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.'

"In other words, our standard view of morality - the philosophical consensus for thousands of years - has been exactly backward. We've assumed that our moral decisions are the byproducts of rational thought, that humanity's moral rules are founded in such things as the Ten Commandments and Kant's categorical imperative. Philosophers and theologians have spilled lots of ink arguing about the precise logic of certain ethical dilemmas. But these arguments miss the central reality of moral decisions, which is that logic and legality have little to do with anything."

Author: Jonah Lehrer
Title: How We Decide smileys
with beer

smoking
smiley
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 05:13AM

Well thank you Mrkim for backing up my statement completely. This discourse of how moral decisions are emotional and are not bases in logic or legality is exactly what I am talking about. By the way, if you were thinking that science is the absence of God you are very mistaken. Science is the study of God's creation. Most physiologist regard religious belief as emotional in nature, and here we can see that it is these emotions that we use to make moral decisions and thus a moral code of conduct.

"When you act in a moral manner - when you recoil from violence, treat others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are making decisions that take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of others, sympathizing with their states of mind."

If this was written more poetically it could be straight from scripture.

"But these arguments miss the central reality of moral decisions, which is that logic and legality have little to do with anything."

This is in total agreement with the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teachings. It is not a by laws or man's logic that we have morality, but from the emotional (spiritual) connection. Thus, we get our moral center from Religion.grinning
smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28/05/2010 05:15AM by Wolfgang613.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 06:06AM

Well Mr. Kim, I will admit that most of that went way over my head. All I can say is that I try to do what feels right to me and I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated. Call it the Golden Rule or God's teachings but I believe it is the way God would want it. I believe God watches over all good people even if they do not believe in him because even non believers can come to him at any moment in their lives.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 04:12PM

ha ha, i got the last word in. up yours
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 04:52PM

you did?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 05:48PM

yup
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: May 28, 2010 07:52PM

I don't think so...
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 29, 2010 07:05AM

I don't think so either
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: May 29, 2010 12:27PM

uh huh infinity! tongue
sticking out smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: May 30, 2010 05:42AM

What's the difference between a duck?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: June 01, 2010 08:14PM

He who laughs last didn't get the joke. clown
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: June 01, 2010 09:39PM

you lost
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: June 02, 2010 07:55AM

NOT
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: June 02, 2010 12:38PM

you can't get down from an elephant
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: June 04, 2010 06:59AM

How many adcbeasts does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: June 04, 2010 02:53PM

OK how many adcbeasts dose it take?
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: June 04, 2010 06:30PM

3
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: June 05, 2010 06:52AM

One to hold the bulb and two to turn the ladder.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: June 05, 2010 12:43PM

Isn't that creating jobs in a recessionary economy. tongue
sticking out smiley spinning
smiley sticking its tongue out tongue
sticking out smiley
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: June 05, 2010 12:46PM

How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb? smiling
bouncing smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: June 06, 2010 06:39AM

Do they know what light bulbs are?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: June 07, 2010 09:19PM

At least 5... One to change the light bulb and as least four to sit around and reminisce how great the old one was. nerd smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: June 08, 2010 07:09AM

reminisce, I remember how good life was back when gas was $.19 a gallon.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 07, 2011 09:13PM

i win. up yours