Can God love?

[emjay]

@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.

[Drich]

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 Grand Nudger]

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.

[Drich]

---

---

I think the problem lies in your understanding of eros. you define it as wanting or longing.. why wanting and longing are apart of eros that wanting and longing is limited to sexual drive. Eros is passionate seual love.. I hope God is not wanting to share 'eros' with me/us or Heaven can quickly turn to Hell.

Just so we are on the same page

Eros = Sexual lust/love
Agape =  Respect, honor, commitment through a whole host of challenges and trials. the love God has for us.
phillia= bonded brotherly love, as in band of brother war bonds and or deep friendships.

No, no... eros as I'm reading about is much more involved than that; that's one example of it, and what it's most associated with, sure, but that's not all there is to it, and that part is something that Plato would consider one of it's baser forms, mainly on account of its transience. The way I'm understanding it is x loves (seeks to possess) y because y has value to x... but where y can be anything... ie it's value-seeking love. So sexual lust is just one example of it, y in that case being beauty, but y could be anything that has value to you. But where you cannot seek something you already possess, only inasmuch as seeking not to lose it (ie seeking its permanence... eternal-ness), this means you can only seek what you lack. And where in the book, that is contrasted with agape as being a type of love that is not based on seeking value because its source - God - lacks nothing... and is eternal. So, according to the book, agape is not value-seeking, but value-creating, but as I said, that's still a murky concept to me. But fair enough that I may well be misunderstanding things as this is a new subject to me, and it's a complicated read, but just take it that what I meant by eros... even if erroneously... was human love/want in all its forms... with value being anything that you can seek... basically you seek positive experiences, or to maintain existing positive experiences, but those experiences can come in different forms, some more transient than others (eg lusts), some nobler than others, some more selfless than others. As for philia, I haven't really got onto that yet where I'm up to in the book but from what little has been said, I find it harder to understand because Aristotle's writing style is decidedly more cryptic than Plato's But in a one liner earlier in the book it basically said that philia was conceptually mid-way between eros and agape. But yeah, maybe I am getting a bit confused in my definitions, overcomplicating things as I tend to do... I just need to finish reading the book... and then probably reread it a few times

Here is where we examine source material. Source material can be categorized into three forms primary source first draft/print of a document being discussed an author of a book concerning his book an eye witness or a new paper of a days event.. secondary sources compiled reference material like lexicons and concordances, then tertiary material which amount to commentaried and compiled interpreted information. like books on a given subject matter. for instance your book. 

Now to cross reference a book's facts is to seek out a secondary source or primary source like a lexicon for koine greek to english or maybe a koine to english dictionary.

first we start with a common english defination:
Definition of Eros

1: the Greek god of erotic love — compare 

2: 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 

: love conceived by Plato as a fundamental creative impulse having a sensual element: erotic love or desire

further down that page it is noted defination two is the medical defination of the word. the first centry/love defination pertains to erotic love.

Then we look at what other forms the word eros took in the first century:
The primary use of the word was to identify the greek god of passion and sex. Eros was also known to the romans as cupid.
https://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Eros/eros.html

The for the final nail we look at how the word eros was used in the ancient greek by using a greek to english dictionary
Definition

Eros pronunciation: [AIR - ohs]


Of the four Greek terms that describe love in the Bible, eros is probably the most familiar today. It's easy to see the connection between eros and our modern word "erotic." And there are certainly similarities between those two terms — as well as a few differences.

Eros is the Greek term that describes romantic or sexual love. The term also portrays the idea of passion and intensity of feeling. The word was originally connected with the goddess Eros of Greek mythology.
The meaning of eros is slightly different than our modern term "erotic" because we often associate "erotic" with ideas or practices that are naughty or inappropriate. This wasn't the case with eros. Instead, eros described the healthy, common expressions of physical love. In the Scriptures, eros primarily refers to those expressions of love carried out between a husband and wife.

Seems to me there is only one defination to Eros and that is a passionate/sexual/physical type of love.

[Mystic]

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.

[Drich]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[*Deidre*]

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.

[Drich]

@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...

[The Grand Nudger]

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.