Can God love?

[Drich]

Er... awkward But maybe I just wanted to have a discussion rather an argument, because I'm actually interested in the subject and it's new to me... and there's no point if we're talking about different things.

Anyway, what did I get right? I don't hear that very often

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.

Here's the thing sport. When I tell you are wrong I can do so with source material to back me up. Like when I divid the word eros into a clinical term and a description for one of the greek forms of 'love.' I can give you primary and secondary material to support what i have to say.

You best effort usually begins with nut-huh, and you give some folkie/hipster definition and hope it will stick with out being challenged by anything real.

Here's the thing. I gave primary and secondary source material to prove my definition from a transitive and contextual perspective. and again all you have provided so far is a 'nut-huh.'

---

---

that's a lie earlier this week you were asking my to "go get papa."

You can;t possibly be so dull as to imagine that I thought you would..or were even capable of doing so..can you...?
I just caught you in a lie what do you mean?

---

Continuing along.  If a god has love, then it seeks, it desires, it pursues that beauty and value it sees but does not possess.  A god may not have a body, so it may not seek or desire or find value in my peener...lustful bodily eros, butithe must in some way be incomplete and unwhole in the absence of my possession as a valuable and beautiful thing.

A god asserted to be complete and whole in every way, that desires for nothing because it has everything.....cannot possibly love, cannot express eros..because love is found in the seeking.  It may be benevolent, (agape).  It may be friendly (philia)..it may even be empathetic (storge)..but it does not love....eros.

More broadly, the retrograde christians god possesses none of these things by reference to it;s purported actions and position...all retrograde christians assertions to the contrary...but is that really surprising?  They didn;t come up with any of this, it was yet another borrowed ladder grafted onto their confused mythology as a bid to purchase the credibility that came with classical pagan intellectual traditions.

---

Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

It's not clear what specific meaning to attach to the passage you cite, as it's vague and speaks in metaphor.  It's also unclear what to make of it given that it appears to be contradicted by Colossians 2:9 which says: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..."  All it seems to indicate is that no one checked the bible for consistency.

Regardless, I'm not sure this formulation of yours is entirely helpful.  It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is not composed of any parts?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he consists of a body and a soul or spirit?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is a necessary being?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is a contingent being?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is immortal?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is mortal?

Google dictionary defines an essence as, "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."  Wikipedia for its part has this to say about essence:

In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. ... For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).

Wikipedia || Essence

So a thing's essence is that by which we are able to identify something as a specific kind of thing.  Thusly, a thing maintains a particular identity only in so far as it possesses all and only those essential properties which define that thing.  If you subtract essential properties from a thing, then it is no longer that thing.  This pertains to Christ if the supposed attributes he gave up are essential properties.  (Note that the trinity is defined as three persons who possess one essence.  If Jesus and God the Father possess different essential properties, you've entered the land of polytheism.)  So a thing is no longer that thing if it is without some of the essential properties which define that thing.  Likewise, if a thing possesses additional essential properties, it is no longer that thing, for the thing that it was is without essential properties which it has.  (This does not apply to accidental properties which you can add and subtract all day long.)  It's also worth noting that the essential attributes which define a man do so only with respect to the man, not necessarily with respect to Jesus, as they are not the sole essential properties which Jesus possesses.  If Jesus possesses both the essential properties of man and God, then he is neither man nor God, but something else entirely new.  (Which violates the doctrine that Christ is co-eternal with God the Father.)  In that case, Jesus would be 'a' god, perhaps, but not God with a capital 'G'.  The only way you can successfully identify Jesus as God is to treat the man-like properties as accidental properties, such that Jesus does possess all and only those essential properties which define him as God.  But then your contention that Jesus is both man and God is false because he no longer possesses the essential properties of a man.  It seems that the only way you can reach the conclusion that Jesus is both man and God, at least along this path, is by playing with essential properties in a way which is not valid, which undermines your entire argument.

valid response for maybe "your specific version of the God of the bible. However this description fails in light of Who the God of the bible claims to be.

The God of the bible first and foremost is the Great I am. This may not seem like anything more than a throwback to a sailor cartoon. but to be an I am is to have awareness to be the great I am is to be the author of all awareness. Meaning God not only know who he is and we are God know all that needs to be.

Second attribute the God of the bible aware Himself is the simplest and yet most complete description of any diet and yet so whole no paradox or wiseman could corrupt His title. God calls Himself the alpha and omega, mean He is the first and the last the first means to originate or conceptualize what is needed and the last being the one with the authority and power to execute what He then wants.

So how does this undermine your thoughts on God?/Your minimum requirements? The I am bit identifies exactly what was needed for God to indewell man. The Alpha and Omega conceives and the executes placing Christ the Son in the host of Jesus Bar Joseph of Nazareth. 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.