Can God love?

[Drich]

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.

---

OFC he does.  His god lives inside his head.  Who else would speak for him if drich wouldn;t.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.