Can God love?

[wynn]

Also, movies aren't usually known to be accurate depictions of life, especially Twilight.

How is Twilight an example of your assertion that love necessitates expression?

It's quite telling that you seem to ground your understanding of love in angst-riddled teen melodrama. It certainly would explain a lot.

Uh. :bugeye:

I think that fantasy films like that are very good at triggering our hidden assumptions and beliefs about love.
Not that they are a good representation of what a mature love would be like.

I think this is obvious.

 

[wynn]

It appears repetition is a major quality to his posts - though he seems to do better on this site then he does on others

Repetitio est mater studiorum!

 

[wynn]

Whatever your example was meant to be, it failed miserably. I guess you don't love any departed loved ones? How can you when you can't express it to them, and they certainly cannot reciprocate.

Do people stop loving each other when they are simply out of contact?

I think we agree that out of sight is not out of mind.

 

[Syne]

Whatever your example was meant to be, it failed miserably. I guess you don't love any departed loved ones? How can you when you can't express it to them, and they certainly cannot reciprocate.

Do people stop loving each other when they are simply out of contact?

I think we agree that out of sight is not out of mind.

Then it follows that love can exist where the ability to express it does not.

 

[wynn]

It depends on what you mean by "expression."

For example, in many countries in Europe, it is customary to bring flowers and candles to graves of family and friends.
Some people have in their homes altars to their living or deceased family and friends.
Then there are fanclubs for famous actors (living or dead) where people express their appreciation in words, pictures, in other ways.


I do not think though that a one-sided, non-reciprocated emotion can really be considered "love."
One can certianly be unilaterally infatuated, unilaterally "in love." But, as Aragorn tells Eowyn in "The Lord of the Rings" as he rejects her: "You love a phantom."

 

[Syne]

It depends on what you mean by "expression."

For example, in many countries in Europe, it is customary to bring flowers and candles to graves of family and friends.
Some people have in their homes altars to their living or deceased family and friends.
Then there are fanclubs for famous actors (living or dead) where people express their appreciation in words, pictures, in other ways.


I do not think though that a one-sided, non-reciprocated emotion can really be considered "love."
One can certianly be unilaterally infatuated, unilaterally "in love." But, as Aragorn tells Eowyn in "The Lord of the Rings" as he rejects her: "You love a phantom."

Again with the movies as your only frame of reference?! :bugeye:

You're really just a silly, shut-in teenage girl, aren't you?

I would argue that the person who requires reciprocation to feel love for someone is self-serving and not demonstrating love at all. Does a parent love an infant any less for that infants inability to express any reciprocity? Do they "love a phantom"? :bugeye:

 

[Greatest I am]

Don't you get tired of this? Anyone reading this just google search this persons handle, you will find that he/she posts this garbage in as many forums (both religious and not) as he/she can just to get a rise out of people. Nothing but a jerk with no respect for the beliefs of his/her fellow man/women.

Thanks for the advertising.
Let me know if you want a complete list.

Do you respect these of your fellow believers?

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM

Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Are we going to do this again? Multiple threads about basically the same general topic, posing rhetorical questions?

C'mon, GIA. there are existing threads in which these posts would fit.

True but I have many kudos on this one and it may be deserved if the number of theist, conspicuous in their absence is an indicator.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

God loves me

How special.

Yes, I ask, he answers. I need, he gives.

Do the 9 million who needlessly die and starve to death yearly not need as well?
Why are you not asking in their name?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Really? Love is solely defined by reciprocity? So people who may be unable to reciprocate with action, for various reasons, cannot possible love another?

Not quite. The two parties likely have a history of showing their love and the one who is no longer able to show some of what was done before still has the desire to do so. To desire is an action and does fit into what I define as reciprocity.

Either that's one hell of a bleak outlook, or you don't make it clear that the expression can merely be a communication.

The above should have answered this.

Most people who profess to love a god, do indeed feel reciprocity.

Delusion and self-gratificationof a need to feel special.

Or even by your reasoning:



So a god could not reciprocate what has not been demonstrated to be there. Seems you'd have to actually and genuinely love a god to even attempt to verify what you've asserted.

I do not understand this last.
How can you say something is reciprocity when it has been demonstrated not to be there?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

No, no he did not. Get a first hand source, or give me a better theory. God knew Jesus, King Angel would go to earth willingly, and he would ultimately be put to death by the "Jews who are not Jews." God did not plan this, he only knew it would happen. God does not interfere with nature for you, he doesn't interfere with nature with Jesus.

Is God not interfering with nature all the numerous times he is shown to kill us?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Again with the movies as your only frame of reference?! :bugeye:

:

Is a movie a better or worse frame of reference than a 3,000 year old book of myths?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

@GIA

Learn how to use quotes already. Are you just online forum illiterate?

Not quite. The two parties likely have a history of showing their love and the one who is no longer able to show some of what was done before still has the desire to do so. To desire is an action and does fit into what I define as reciprocity.

So by your own reasoning, a simple unexpressed desire is sufficient. That would apply to a god as well. Since an infant cannot reciprocate and has no former history, does that mean it cannot love? How does a person first come to love, if they have no history of reciprocity with anyone?

That is where your argument fails. If reciprocity is a necessity for love, then how do people magically initially reciprocate simultaneously? If one person cannot love without reciprocity, then how does love even begin? It is trivially obvious that what one person feels cannot be instantly reciprocated. (Unless you assume we are all psychic or something.)

Most people who profess to love a god, do indeed feel reciprocity

Delusion and self-gratificationof a need to feel special.

Have you had this subjective experience yourself, by which to judge?

So a god could not reciprocate what has not been demonstrated to be there. Seems you'd have to actually and genuinely love a god to even attempt to verify what you've asserted.

I do not understand this last.
How can you say something is reciprocity when it has been demonstrated not to be there?

Of course you don't understand. If love requires reciprocity, then only people who love a god could possibly experience the love of that god. And this is all by your own given reasoning.

And what demonstration are you talking about? The imaginary one you foist off as having any grounding in empirical fact?

Is a movie a better or worse frame of reference than a 3,000 year old book of myths?

That's the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, as those are not the only options.

 

[wynn]

Again with the movies as your only frame of reference?!

You're really just a silly, shut-in teenage girl, aren't you?

You're so closed-minded sometimes, it hurts.

I would argue that the person who requires reciprocation to feel love for someone is self-serving and not demonstrating love at all. Does a parent love an infant any less for that infants inability to express any reciprocity? Do they "love a phantom"?

I think that without reciprocity, one can have goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy. Love includes all these, and reciprocity.

Often, when someone claims to love another, what they actually feel is goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy. These can be unilateral. Love can only be when mutual.

 

[Syne]

You're so closed-minded sometimes, it hurts.

I know the difference between fiction and reality.

I think that without reciprocity, one can have goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy. Love includes all these, and reciprocity.

Often, when someone claims to love another, what they actually feel is goodwill, compassion, sympathetic joy. These can be unilateral. Love can only be when mutual.

So perhaps you can answer the question I just put to GIA. If love doesn't exist without reciprocity, then how did love ever come to exist? Are we psychic, that we can instantaneously and mutually reciprocate? :bugeye: Seems to defeat the definition of reciprocating.

So no one can ever love first? It's always some magical (and for you, theatrical) thing?


And since you didn't reply to my earlier question, I'll just have to assume that you don't believe parental love exists at all until a child is developed enough to reciprocate.

Nonsense.

 

[Greatest I am]

@GIA

Learn how to use quotes already. Are you just online forum illiterate?

Yes. Live with it.

So by your own reasoning, a simple unexpressed desire is sufficient. .

When it has history to the relationship behind it, yes.

Are you saying you do not agree?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Are you just illiterate?

Yes. Live with it.

When it has history to the relationship behind it, yes.

Are you saying you do not agree?

Are you seriously going to ignore the bulk of my post for this weak straw man? I'm clearly saying that love can exist without reciprocity. Period.

 

[Greatest I am]

Are you seriously going to ignore the bulk of my post for this weak straw man? I'm clearly saying that love can exist without reciprocity. Period.

Then show an example of how that would work.

Regards
DL

 

[keith1]

It is understandable for a primitive people to go to water over a sacrifice of siblings to prove love.
Yet it would be no proof or great loss for a deity to lose a sibling, since they would have such abilities to pump them out with cookie-cutter speed (the human surrogate virgins only increasing those numbers to valueless frivolity).

A deity that truly loved his people would therefore likely be self-sacrificing, so therefore likely self-exterminated, leaving the paradox of belief, to worship, collect alms, (a religious "toll" so to speak-for unwarranted privileges that an "available" deity could otherwise demand) reduced to a voluntary act, and the logic of a deity-less state once again confirmed.

A modern people must remain vigilant of the gullibility of reading truth into the ancient texts of a nonviable, uneducated, and primitive viewpoints.

 

[wynn]

I know the difference between fiction and reality.

Good for you! Someone needs to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

So perhaps you can answer the question I just put to GIA. If love doesn't exist without reciprocity, then how did love ever come to exist?

I guess Richard Dawkins can help you with that ... or not.

Are we psychic, that we can instantaneously and mutually reciprocate?

Sort of, yes.

So no one can ever love first? It's always some magical (and for you, theatrical) thing?

Actually, it's unilateral "love" that is theatrical.

And since you didn't reply to my earlier question, I'll just have to assume that you don't believe parental love exists at all until a child is developed enough to reciprocate.

One of the characteristics of parental-filial love is that it can set in the moment the two are aware of eachother; further, an infant simply looking at the parent can be interpreted by the parent as reciprocation from the infant.

The terms of reciprocation vary, depending on the kind of love.
The terms of reciprocation in parental-filial love are different from the terms of reciprocation in romantic love between a man and a woman, and again different from the terms of reciprocation between friends, for example.