(June 22, 2018 at 4:43 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I didn't know you speak for God, Drich. lol

Good lawd, get over yourself.

All Christians do in places like this. that is why we must measure our words carefully.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 4:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: OFC he does.  His god lives inside his head.  Who else would speak for him if drich wouldn;t.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Drich Wrote: so then why would a loving God allow bad things to happen???
Do you see? a loving God by the defination of loving can't that = paradox paradox= no god in a closed mind. So then what are the options? look at the word loving, is it a valid interpertation of the word the greeks used to describe that aspect of god? answer??? no. the Greeks used Agape. Agape only describes one aspect of love the part that will see you through pain and suffering the aspect that supports respect and undeserved support. so do God love? no not as you understand the word. God Agape

This is just about the only thing worth responding too..since it;s fact adjacent.

Do I see a paradox between a loving god and a god that allows bad things to happen..or, at least doesn;t do anything when they do?  No.  I see people who love either allowing bad things to happen or being incap[able of preventing them from happening.  The saving grace, in their case..is that they would if they could - that they at least love even though they can;t make al;l the bad things go away.  "Paradoxes" like these aren;t really a problem for me, because I;m not a believer, theyre a problem for believers...but only insomuch as they cant stand to admit that every mythology contains inconsistency.

Insisting that god actually doesnt love, but is somehow benevolent doesn;t escape this particular complaint in any case..so you;ve tied your scrotum into a knot for no good god damned reason and I again point out that others feel no need to do so.  Your own personal jesus is an inconsistent dick....amd other peoples personal jesus are also commonly inconsistent..but at least they love.

You are wrong again. God is consistent and love, but with in the confines of Agape. God does not "love" God Agape' with i the confines of Agape God's love is limitless.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 7:13 pm)emjay Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You;re not going to get a "conversation" out of Drich, lol. Heres here to fish for souls by telling you you;re wrong about everything.

Eros.  It actually is the desire of value and the seeking out of value or transcendent beauty..at least in it;s classical conception. In point of fact..eros -is- love.  The other categories, like philia...that was friendship.  Agape...good will and benevolence.  When Drich thinks eros he thinks titties....but thats not actually what it was envisioned as, even if it included that as the very lowest form of eros.  Of the body driving the eros car rather than the soul doing so.

Well yeah, I know he's here to preach, and how he goes about it, but my interest here was in understanding these three terms - eros, agape, and philia - in reference to love in general and the question of the OP. So on that score I was interested in his, or anyone else's, perspectives on those three terms... to supplement and/or correct my own understanding from reading the book. So since he tends to talk about agape a lot, there was no reason not to think he wouldn't be knowledgeable about the subject, what it's defined as at least. Just as you are, and just as I welcome your perspective as well. After all, both of your descriptions of the three seem pretty similar, except for his focus on the erotic of eros... but if that's how he uses the term, then so be it... that's his perspective... all to be weighed into the final analysis so to speak. But since I don't see it like that... ie as erotic only... and neither do you apparently... but instead (now... following my 'gross misunderstanding') see it as strictly about egocentric, but not 'othercentric', value-seeking of any kind (which still may be wrong... but that's where I'm up to with my understanding)... it means than in order to have a fruitful discussion with him I need to either reformulate my questions in his usage of the terms, or reformulate them without use of the terms at all... or at least not with the contentious eros, since the only alternative is us talking past each other using different definitions. In other words that's probably the end of the discussion for now... just need to keep on reading.

Just so we are clear The word Eros can be used in two different ways. from a 'clinical persective'
: the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs, as sublimated impulses, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind — compare

Or as a form of 'greek love' sexual or erotic love or desire.

I know the word has other implications, but not when spoken of through the lens of love.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 7:44 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 7:13 pm)emjay Wrote: But since I don't see it like that... ie as erotic only... and neither do you apparently... but instead (now... following my 'gross misunderstanding') see it as strictly about egocentric, but not 'othercentric', value-seeking of any kind (which still may be wrong... but that's where I'm up to with my understanding)... it means than in order to have a fruitful discussion with him I need to either reformulate my questions in his usage of the terms, or reformulate them without use of the terms at all... or at least not with the contentious eros, since the only alternative is us talking past each other using different definitions. In other words that's probably the end of the discussion for now... just need to keep on reading.

"Otherseeking" would be storge.  It gets lost as people focus on the other three.  Natural affection and empathy.  The exclusive otherseeking value.  

It;s a pretty simple breakdown (particularly for all the ink spilt on account of it).  

Eros-Love
Philia-Friendship
Storge-Empathy
Agape-Benevolence

The question for drich would be - Is god benevolent?   Magic hateball says no, lol.  

Reference material please... I looked up these words using several main stream koine greek sources and none of them show this break down nor these definitions.

By your narrow one word definition I'd ask you is God love? The bible repeats this phrase over and over and each time the bible used this word it is always a variant on the word Agape.

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

Unless being so is impossible. It's routinely acknowledged that God can't create square circles. What relationship you see between God being the "I am" and this question is something you'll have to elucidate more completely. If all you're saying is that God can do anything he wants to do, then most would disagree with you on that point. So you need something more specific than what you've claimed here. You'd have to start by at least clarifying what it means to be both God and man. If being God and man is fundamentally incoherent, no amount of Alpha and Omega will get you there.

More importantly, it must square with Christian theology, and the bible, else you're just wasting your time and mine.

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

In other words: with the apparent seemliness of god doing absolutely nothing, he might as well not exist.

All praise to God who destroys the oppressors and avenges the oppressed.

(June 25, 2018 at 7:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

Unless being so is impossible.  It's routinely acknowledged that God can't create square circles.  What relationship you see between God being the "I am" and this question is something you'll have to elucidate more completely.  If all you're saying is that God can do anything he wants to do, then most would disagree with you on that point.  So you need something more specific than what you've claimed here.  You'd have to start by at least clarifying what it means to be both God and man.   If being God and man is fundamentally incoherent, no amount of Alpha and Omega will get you there.

More importantly, it must square with Christian theology, and the bible, else you're just wasting your time and mine.

well one, I don't know anyone who would disagree that God could do anything He wants to do. again.. that is the definition of alpha and omega. Let's look at where God told john of patmos this: Rev1:8 The Lord God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.[c] I am the one who is, who always was, and who is coming. I am the All-Powerful.”

The "I AM" God declares Himself to be all powerful through the declaration of being the alpha and omega. Alpha being the first thought or authority and omega meaning the last who has a say on any such matter. In other words He is complete no other source or authority superceeds Him.
Which is why (on this statement alone) no one can argue that God can't do whatever God seeks to do. Again what authority what rule would be empowered to challenge or make God cease? on who's authority if God is the first word and last word on anything He/I am decides to do.

God and man I thought it important to first describe what it is to be God. As we discussed the subdivision of man (body mind Spirit Soul.)

God or rather Christ Had a mind and body, like ours. he got hurt and he got hungry. When He was tempted in the desert His body and mind were weaken with 40 fast, which tested his spirit or his instinct or need for self preservation to do things Satan's way and not the way f the Father. (Satan way: "bow to me and all you see is yours." Father's way: die on the cross) which means he had a spirit like we did. So then that leaves a soul. did Jesus have a soul like we do? yes, but his soul was the son of God, and not a rank in file member of God's creation. We know this because he refers to himself as such. As well as referring to himself as the son of man. which means he claimed both.

So the question you may ask can look like: did jesus retain his omnipotence? no does that diminish him as God? no As He was still the son of God. Doesn't God have to be omnipotent? Again an alpha and omega can be whatever He wants to be. (per His quoted words) That is where the R/C church f's up in their theological views of God. the see God as omnimax all the time, and is bound by the rules of omnimax meaning God must be the extreme in power knowledge love ect... that is why you guys can come up with so many paradoxes where the church says omnimax only and the bible shows God doing something contrary. In truth an alpha and omega can is so all powerful he can lessen or weaken himself to fit a smaller role if need be. which is an expression of absolute/complete power. If God's power only work one way then He would be incomplete. The ability to completely fill a need or meet someone 1/2 way is a true power. The oppsite is being obligated to go all the way when you know 1/2 is what is needed.

So in essence Jesus was limited by the same things we are limited by, but at the same time where we have our soul Jesus had the Son of God.

Again try to imagine we are an amalgamation of parts that create a being. we are a physical body, the body has a mind to make it function, the spirit is the body's instinct it's the body's direction reason and base function. (think ape dolphin dog) the soul which is the higher cognitive ability God gave us. the part of us that can potentially last forever. God reduced Himself down to fit this frame work, but rather than a common soul Jesus the boby was indwelled with the Son of God.

---

(June 25, 2018 at 7:37 pm)Kit Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

In other words: with the apparent seemliness of god doing absolutely nothing, he might as well not exist.

To those who build their homes on the sand yes! To other's God rains down all manner of blessing and riches.

(June 26, 2018 at 11:54 am)Drich Wrote: To those who build their homes on the sand yes! To other's God rains down all manner of blessing and riches.

More realistically, they are illogically attributing life to god.