@Drich. Yeah, I think I've grossly misunderstood the meaning of eros. I thought it could be generalised to mean seeking any sort of value... ie the only way human life progresses is by constantly seeking from moment to moment; if we did not want anything... be it food, comfort etc... we would do nothing... and eventually die... in other words, humans are goal-driven even when that goal is only to maintain our current state. So I was characterising value in that sense as the seeking/attainment of any goal. And where I thought, under that scheme, a goal did not need to be egocentric in nature... because it's perfectly evident from looking at psychology that not all goals are. But that's not what eros is saying at all; it's saying that we can only love what has pleasure or ulility for us and us alone... ie it is entirely egocentric.

Say for example that the world consists of you, me, and a winning lottery ticket... of which I'm the current holder. Under eros it would make sense for me to keep the ticket because it would be expected to provide me with utility and pleasure. But say I choose to give it to you. I could give it to you publicly and then, though losing the ticket and the utility/pleasure it would provide, could instead gain a different type of egocentric pleasure/utility... your gratitude... or at least the expectation of it... and other social feelings related to pride. That would therefore appear to be another example of eros since it is egocentric. But say now that I choose to give it to you completely anonymously. In that case I could still get some indirect egocentric benefit out of the act if doing it in some way improved my self-esteem or whatever... made me feel like a good person for doing it. But finally, say I give you the ticket completely anonymously - ie with no hope or expectation that you or anyone else will ever know I gave it to you - and for the sole reason that I want you to be happy... and the reason for wanting that may be love, sympathy, or empathy for you etc and that alone. In this case there is no egocentric benefit aside from whatever happy feeling I get from you being happy; there is no material benefit, there is no social benefit, and there is no self-esteem benefit.

It's the latter of those four that appears to have no place in eros... though I thought it did in my earlier characterisations/generalisations of eros because even the happy feeling that comes from someone else being happy is something that I feel in my consciousness... but it looks like that's taking the word egocentric too far. So anyway, since the latter type of love is a reality but eros makes no provision for it, I accept that eros is the wrong word for what I've been trying to describe... and won't use it again in this context.

(June 22, 2018 at 12:06 am)Astreja Wrote:

(June 21, 2018 at 3:28 pm)Drich Wrote: Understand turn your world view on it's ear and demand you think for yourself is the biggest reason I am here. because if you learn to actually think for yourself you could find so much more than what you are being told is out there.

This is exactly what I mean, Drich.  You're assuming we don't think for ourselves, simply because we don't find your worldview convincing.  You're not our teacher, and you're coming across as condescending.

what teacher is not more knowledgeable than his students? How does any teacher react when questioned by a student who presume to know better? Take any teacher put them in this very specific situation and have them hold a no compromise counterpoint world view to your point. Tell me they too would not be condescending given everything you all say and do.

No to mention this place does not respect weakness nor unsureadness. you all are always on the hunt to try and assimilate the believer/haveing them compromise their beliefs to be found 'moral' by your standards, and while someone like that maybe well liked, they are often not respected when it comes to their message on God.

I am here to spread the truth about God and the bible in the same way Christ did. No, He was very authoritative and condescending to those who argued what he knew to be true. so much so the leadership of his day had him killed.

The vast body of christianity envisions jesus as a kind and gentle shepherd.  Frustrated assholes re-envision him as a frustrated asshole. Persoanlly, I wonder how many distinct personal jesi there actually are in the world...each minor or major difference allowing a believer to drape christ in some part of their own personality...projecting themselves and their own words and opinions into the mouth and person of a god. This was, ofc, the characters initial purpose..so they;re not really doing anything revolutionary no matter how they go about it or what subject they choose as a pet project - be it the nature of gods love or the method in which he communicated or comported himself.

God will not love but has compassion for the oppressors and their supporters and watchers. As for love as in acceptance of who you are, no, he will reject such people.

(June 22, 2018 at 11:17 am)Khemikal Wrote: The vast body of christianity envisions jesus as a kind and gentle shepherd.  Frustrated assholes re-envision him as a frustrated asshole.  Persoanlly, I wonder how many distinct personal jesi there actually are in the world...each minor or major difference allowing a believer to drape christ in some part of their own personality...projecting themselves and their own words and opinions into the mouth and person of a god.  This was, ofc, the characters initial purpose..so they;re not really doing anything revolutionary no matter how they go about it or what subject they choose as a pet project - be it the nature of gods love or the method in which he communicated or comported himself.

What you continually fail to understand is all shepherds had two sides. look at the story of david in his duties as a shepherd. he was kind and could not do enough for his flock making sure their every need has been met, yet to the wolf lion or bear david became a monster, he slaughtered them without hesitation or mercy. it matter not what the reason the lion or bear killed (feed cubs) David struck first struck hard and without mercy.

Just stop, lol.  You dont have to keep telling me that your own personal jesus is an asshole...I already know. Hell, had you not already told us all of the ways that your personal jesus was an asshole it would have been an easy guess just by reference to you.

I think God is loving but maybe it’s my own perceptions that are limited? I don’t adhere to religion per se, but part of my thinking might come from religions. I don’t have a prerequisite that a god is tantamount to a genie in a bottle that should grant my every wish and provide me with a life free of pain. I guess the question is - if God allows suffering etc then how can he be loving?

I think it’s difficult to convince people that one almighty God loves them, when they are hurting and some of that hurt might be coming from their families, loved ones, etc

It’s hard to be loving sometimes ourselves and many people have different ideas of how to define it. But if my definition of “godly love” is to experience a life void of strife and others to do the same, my opinion of God being loving would be negative.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

(June 22, 2018 at 10:37 am)emjay Wrote: @Drich. Yeah, I think I've grossly misunderstood the meaning of eros. I thought it could be generalised to mean seeking any sort of value... ie the only way human life progresses is by constantly seeking from moment to moment; if we did not want anything... be it food, comfort etc... we would do nothing... and eventually die... in other words, humans are goal-driven even when that goal is only to maintain our current state. So I was characterising value in that sense as the seeking/attainment of any goal. And where I thought, under that scheme, a goal did not need to be egocentric in nature... because it's perfectly evident from looking at psychology that not all goals are. But that's not what eros is saying at all; it's saying that we can only love what has pleasure or ulility for us and us alone... ie it is entirely egocentric.

Say for example that the world consists of you, me, and a winning lottery ticket... of which I'm the current holder. Under eros it would make sense for me to keep the ticket because it would be expected to provide me with utility and pleasure. But say I choose to give it to you. I could give it to you publicly and then, though losing the ticket and the utility/pleasure it would provide, could instead gain a different type of egocentric pleasure/utility... your gratitude... or at least the expectation of it... and other social feelings related to pride. That would therefore appear to be another example of eros since it is egocentric. But say now that I choose to give it to you completely anonymously. In that case I could still get some indirect egocentric benefit out of the act if doing it in some way improved my self-esteem or whatever... made me feel like a good person for doing it. But finally, say I give you the ticket completely anonymously - ie with no hope or expectation that you or anyone else will ever know I gave it to you - and for the sole reason that I want you to be happy... and the reason for wanting that may be love, sympathy, or empathy for you etc and that alone. In this case there is no egocentric benefit aside from whatever happy feeling I get from you being happy; there is no material benefit, there is no social benefit, and there is no self-esteem benefit.

It's the latter of those four that appears to have no place in eros... though I thought it did in my earlier characterisations/generalisations of eros because even the happy feeling that comes from someone else being happy is something that I feel in my consciousness... but it looks like that's taking the word egocentric too far. So anyway, since the latter type of love is a reality but eros makes no provision for it, I accept that eros is the wrong word for what I've been trying to describe... and won't use it again in this context.

 this maybe the first time any of you has ever taken a correction of mine and accepted it publically.... Never before, has it mattered if I was right or not.. I don't know what to do now.. I guess I should say thank you or your welcome or something, but again find my self at a loss for words..

Maybe I'll go and argue with someone else about the sky being blue and come back to this...

Emjays a bit of a pushover, lol.  The only thing he profoundly misunderstood is what -you- are referring to with eros.  He actually got it right from his source material.