Can God love?

[Syne]

I'm clearly saying that love can exist without reciprocity.

Then show an example of how that would work.

If you cannot see how love can be more than a selfish trade off, where you only feel it as long as you are getting something out of it, then you are probably beyond help. Love as a mere self-serving transaction is no love at all.

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.

What does that mean, other than perhaps erroneously implying that I'm an atheist?

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

Sort of, yes.

So you do believe in fairytale magic.

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.

If that's so, then this reciprocation is completely subjective. As you say, "can be interpreted by the parent as reciprocation". That doesn't mean any objective kind of reciprocity exists, and if it isn't objective, it doesn't really exist. So love can exist in an individual without any other input but their own beliefs, and all by your own assertions.

So what the hell have you been arguing?

 

[Greatest I am]

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.

No argument.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

“ Originally Posted by Syne
I'm clearly saying that love can exist without reciprocity. ”

Then show an example of how that would work. ”

If you cannot see how love can be more than a selfish trade off, where you only feel it as long as you are getting something out of it, then you are probably beyond help. Love as a mere self-serving transaction is no love at all.

================================

I see that when you cannot back your statements, you go to attack mode to deflect.

And you criticize me.

Regards
DL

 

[wynn]

If that's so, then this reciprocation is completely subjective. As you say, "can be interpreted by the parent as reciprocation". That doesn't mean any objective kind of reciprocity exists, and if it isn't objective, it doesn't really exist. So love can exist in an individual without any other input but their own beliefs, and all by your own assertions.

So what the hell have you been arguing?

Sometimes, love becomes rocket science ...

 

[Syne]

I see that when you cannot back your statements, you go to attack mode to deflect.

And I see that you don't deny, in the least, "love as a mere self-serving transaction". I've already given the example of parental love as existing where reciprocity from a helpless newborn infant cannot.

Still no luck with the forum literacy, huh?

Sometimes, love becomes rocket science ...

So completely pointless. Got it.

 

[Greatest I am]

And I see that you don't deny, in the least, "love as a mere self-serving transaction". I've already given the example of parental love as existing where reciprocity from a helpless newborn infant cannot.

Such a shallow thinker.

Why do people reproduce?

We are driven by nature to pass on our genes. When the baby lives through the tough go of being born, we accomplish our task. That is self-serving gratification of our instincts.

The baby, to us, shows his reciprocity by making it and thus shows that reciprocity, through it's efforts, is at play.

The bonding and elevation of that first love grow from that moment on.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Such a shallow thinker.

Why do people reproduce?

We are driven by nature to pass on our genes. When the baby lives through the tough go of being born, we accomplish our task. That is self-serving gratification of our instincts.

The baby, to us, shows his reciprocity by making it and thus shows that reciprocity, through it's efforts, is at play.

The bonding and elevation of that first love grow from that moment on.

So just like Wynn, your "reciprocity" is an equivocation that allows for the subjective belief of one individual to completely account for it. How is that any different from love existing without any necessity for an objective reciprocity?

You don't really have a clue what you are arguing, do you?

 

[Greatest I am]

Then why are you arguing with me if that is your view?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Then why are you arguing with me if that is your view?

Because you are an equivocating troll who doesn't make his own arguments clear. I've have to put a pry bar to it just to find out exactly what you meant by the simple word "reciprocity".

Try to keep from making up farcical definitions next time.

 

[river]

did god not cause the flood , as mass extinction action ?

yes he did

god loves what obeys him

 

[Greatest I am]

Because you are an equivocating troll who doesn't make his own arguments clear. I've have to put a pry bar to it just to find out exactly what you meant by the simple word "reciprocity".

Try to keep from making up farcical definitions next time.

Poor child. Your anger at yourself you take out here. Tsk tsk.

Reciprocity is a well know and defined term. Shall I link you to a dictionary?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

did god not cause the flood , as mass extinction action ?

yes he did

god loves what obeys him

Which version is real?

The one with 40 days or the one with 120 days?

You might also wonder why there are two stories of the same MYTH.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Reciprocity is a well know and defined term. Shall I link you to a dictionary?

Sure. Find me a reliable reference that says reciprocity includes the completely imagined. Or just admit that any god's love could exist with this same imagined reciprocity.

 

[Greatest I am]

Sure. Find me a reliable reference that says reciprocity includes the completely imagined. Or just admit that any god's love could exist with this same imagined reciprocity.

Proof is in the seeing.
Love is as love does.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Love is as love does.

Okay Forrest.

I guess that means you're out of arguments.

 

[Greatest I am]

No you deny the truth of that statement?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

No you deny the truth of that statement?

What "truth"? You've already admitted that real reciprocity isn't necessary for love to exist.

 

[Greatest I am]

What "truth"? You've already admitted that real reciprocity isn't necessary for love to exist.

This I have not done.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

You've already admitted that real reciprocity isn't necessary for love to exist.

This I have not done.

Yes, you have, you're just too thick to see it.

The baby, to us, shows his reciprocity by making it and thus shows that reciprocity, through it's efforts, is at play.

You are explicitly saying that your special definition of reciprocity includes things that cannot be distinguished from what the person would otherwise naturally do for their own survival, i.e. "making it". If it cannot be objectively differentiated then it must only reside in the perceptions (imagination) of the recipient.

But I'll play along a bit.

Proof is in the seeing.
Love is as love does.

"Proof" isn't necessary for something to exist.

So are all other emotions nonexistent if unexpressed? If so, I guess you don't believe in self-control. Are you just a puppet of your base desires?

 

[Greatest I am]

I would think that all emotions, to be true emotions, need to be shared. They should all have a recipient and the circle is not complete till acknowledged.

Positive emotions are what we send out to others. They are in a sense gifts. What good is a gift if it does not get to where it is sent?

Regards
DL