Can you sacrfice your love for God, for God?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

What is the highest love that you can offer for God? The love of God.
Is it possible to sacrifice this love, for the sake of a greater cause for humanties? What will the idea of God then be? Is our ultimate goal is to be his servants, if not, why would God want to resurrect us ?

In the sacrfice ritual, picking a lamb to be sacrifice for the safety of his brother
Issac said , " Must it be the one I love the most to be sacrifce"
Abraham said , yes"

–
God said to Abraham to prove his love, by telling Abrham to sacrifice his son

theory

Jesus told Judas to betray him

2

You’re looking for excuses.

“Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes!”

quoth the devil in the South Park movie. Baloney then, baloney now.

3

or cubicao.tk/nature/chaosevolution_2.html
[/quote]

4

or cubicao.tk/nature/chaosevolution_2.html
[/quote]

5

[/quote]

ur link doesn’t work to explain my question. Try using something else.

6

I just read Dr. Ray’s brilliant attack on something. I’m not sure. First I thought it was academia (tojan horse) then it was religion, then wikipedia, then educators, then scientist (who he says should be castrated - what about female ones?), then religion again, then santa-claus, the math some more, then americans (who he says are dumbasses), then god some more, then americans again, the all humans, then academics again, then me (he says “you have not…”), then Einstein, then more about teachers and academics,
then Americans some more, then religious people some more, then Caltech professors, then me again, the government, then religious people, universitites.

Then, he admits that he’s been diagnosed as schizophrenic… I wonder if he’s been taking his pills.

then attacks universities some more, and the Union of concerned scientists

my god, it goes on for another page.

and he calls himself the wisest man in the world.

way to go Dr. Ray, if that is your real name.

LMFAO,
gemty

7

Perhaps Timecube is so popular because it hinges on some sort of schitzophrenic continuance…?

Does anyone else have the feeling there is more to this thing than pure idiocy?

The next paradigm shift will come from something that seems odd now… we have to keep our minds open to possibility that timecube is somehow accurate.

8

Removed for being off-topic. (Was about the thread’s title.)

9

I don’t think that its just pure idiocy… I just don’t think that there’s anything to it. I’ve never read a cogent and clear account of the claims.

Its always phrased in this ridiculous way that is absolutely impossible to understand . I have no idea whether or not they’re right. I can’t prove it mathematically, but I have major suspicions about the following issues:

  1. The dude refers to himself as the “wisest of all humans”
  2. It is claimed that the conclusions we can reach from this are absolute truths - a troubled notion in itself, and one that does not stand alone.
  3. -1 x -1 not equalling 1, and pi not equalling 3.14… (although pi should be easy to demonstrate)
  4. The epistemilogical proofs. You can see them here:
    http://www.cubicao.tk/proof.html just scroll down a bit.

case28 - how do we determine whether or not something is consistent with reality?
case 29 - consistency between disparate elements does not prove their truth, it proves that they are consistent. They could be consistently wrong.
case30 - if anything with indertiminable truth values is considered to lack truth then a whole lot of timecube’s own scientific proofs are not truth apt.

Case 30 I find exceptionally troubling. Essentially, anything with indertiminable truth value is considered to be untrue. This cannot be the case. A claim with indeterminable truth value is not untrue, it is indertiminable.

Think about the ramifications of this epistemological claim: anything that has an indeterminable truth value is untrue.

This claim, in itself is subject to the criterion it sets. Can this claim itself be conclusively demonstrated to be true? No, it cannot, as such, it violates it’s own criteria and cannot be accepted. (I’ll elaborate more if I need to here)

I dunno, I guess my main issue is that it says everything you think is wrong, here is how it actually is, without disproving my thoughts or even proving its own claims in a rigorous way.

Its mostly just rhetoric and theatrics from what I can see.

cheers,
gemty