Can God love?

[brewer]

---

god is love is another mental crutch. Just like all of the other "god is .........".

And theoretical science isn't? 

Here get this: 100 trillion years ago there was nothing except in the center of what would be a the known universe. and in that center was a basket ball... a basket ball solid of course because in that basket ball contained all matter all planets all oceans all stars everything! then it exploded the uncaused cause for no reason despite what would be an unfathomable amount of gravity caused an outward explosion!!

And all the small minds said amen, tell me more because that is soooo much more plausible than any part of creation.

I don't think I said a thing about science but thanks for trying to play the science card incorrectly.

And yes, while only a theory, it is immensely more plausible and amenable to change as we understand more.

[The Grand Nudger]

There has never been a moment in all of human history that a person has claimed that a wizard did something as anything other than a vocal expression of the fact that they have absolutely no clue.  

"More plausible" doesn;t even approach the reality of the matter.   The wizard explanation has the constant handicap of having been idiotically false at every turn, for everything, at all times. Even the religious have come to understand this...with the exception of a vanishingly small number of dimwitted retrogrades..as they attempt to coopt all of the better explanations that those retrogrades find implausible.

[emjay]

Funnily enough I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment that covers this subject, comparing, contrasting, and logically analysing three concepts of love; Plato's eros, Christian agape, and Aristotle's philia.

Where in a nutshell eros is deemed man's route to God, and agape, God's route to man. Eros is acquisitive love based on seeking value... 'the good' (whatever that may be for a person). The logic goes... as I presently understand it... you cannot want what you already have except inasmuch as to keep it into the future, therefore you want the good and you want to keep it forever... ie you want eternal good... and therefore immortality. So where to Plato the Gods are both immortal and want for nothing, they cannot themselves love but only be the objects of man's love, hence man's route to God.

And where, in comparison, agape is God's route to man, conceptualised as a value-creating rather than value-seeking type of love.

So far in my reading, Plato's concept of eros makes a lot of sense to me. I mean I'm not seeking metaphysical immortality but I understand and agree with the psychological principles behind what he's saying... that you seek value and seek to maintain it... which is essentially seeking immortality if only in the moment. It's just that nonexistence poses no threat to that, in the sense that it is the absence of seeking full stop. In other words I understand seeking that sort of 'eternal good' in life, but ceasing to exist poses no threat to that.

Anyway, as it stands agape makes less sense to me, but I'm not even half way through the book yet. So it remains to be seen, how coherent that will be as a concept to me.

Rob maybe read this slowly a few more times...

Emjay you've hit the nail on the head.

Think of Agape' to start with as the 'respect' one has for very valued employee.. then image how that relationship changes over time and the employee becomes like a son, and respect and love develops over time sometimes even strong than a father son mother daughter relationship could ever, because these two being elect to serve and honor one another. one looking out for the other. sadly not every paternal relationship works out this way. now imagine a life time of serving the same man/family or rather look at how joseph (coat of many colors ) served pharaoh by interpreting his dreams and helped egypt through feast times and famine to the point egypt became the most wealthy buying out other countries riches for the grain joseph had them store up. then at the end of all that look at how Joseph was rewarded for his service. he was placed in charge of all of egypt. the only one who had say over joseph was pharaoh himself. but it was joseph who was sat on the throne and ruled the nation of egypt.

The respect given to joseph by pharaoh was a form of agape love. in how agape is manifest pharaoh could literally not give joseph any more and still be pharaoh. God offers the same thing based on our understanding and our talents and abilities. God's agape is to form a life tailor made for you and to suit your strengths and challenge your weaknesses to bring you up to a standard so that when you pass on you can continue to serve in the most satisfying and perfect way.

I believe all other forms of 'love' are secondary or substitutes for agape. because once you experience true agape you will know that is what we were orginally designed for. that agape is what is missing in all of our lives. Pure agape can only be sourced by God. in this life we get a vibe or strong feeling of love from God from time to time, but never get to feel the all encomassing submersion.. the closest is baptism in a day to day believer's life. (which don't get me wrong is extremely strong sense of love) it's just God has so much more to give.

The problem is, that's not the impression I'm getting about what agape is from what I'm reading (but as I said, so far). Ie as I understand it, it's not a love based on attachment... because attachment implies fear of/aversion to abandonment/loss... ie attachment is the 'eternal good' part. So a relationship developing over time and resulting in closer bonds as you describe smacks to me of 'erosic' love rather than agapic love. And respect as you describe it for an employer/employee relationship still implies a value-judgement to me; ie if I employ someone, I'll respect their autonomy but only up to a point; if they start being disruptive I may fire them and conversely if they work well I may promote them. So the standard of measure... value... in that case is whether they're a good employee or not.

So as I understand it, if God's agape is not based on merit (ie value)... ie the righteous and sinners are equally 'agaped' simply on account that their acts, whether good or bad, are not a factor in this love... then it is hard to see what agape means in any meaningful and relatable sense to humanly experienced love or how there could be any kind of deepening relationship between the two. In other words, it seems a highly impersonal form of love.

For instance, if God 'wants' your company in heaven and/or would feel 'sorrow' at the loss of your (as in anyone's) soul to hell, then that implies (to me) erosic love... that would be an example of attachment or an 'eternal good' relative to God if he sought that, that God would lack if separated from your soul by it being in hell. But the only alternative I see is an 'attitude' more akin to 'meh'; eg agape as I understand it would be something like this; God: "meh, I love all you guys and respect your autonomy (ie free will) because I created you... I'm putting this offer of salvation out there, but I'm meh as to whether you take it or not. Indiscriminately I'll offer you all help in achieving that goal if you ask for it, but that should not be taken as favour or a personal attachment relationship, because ultimately I do not care whether you take it or not and I make the same offer to all." Is that what you mean by agape? If so it's not a deepening personal relationship as such and more akin... in the workplace... to the offer by employers of 'opportunities for career advancement' (as well as a code of conduct as grounds for dismissal). Respect but not attachment.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Looks like my post got lost. Doesn't matter; no one cares. (not even me)

[Mystic]

Looks like my post got lost. Doesn't matter; no one cares. (not even me)

I care 

[Minimalist]

god is love is another mental crutch. Just like all of the other "god is .........".

God is a turd floating in the universal toilet.

[Silver]

A fictional being is only imbued with the characteristics bestowed upon it by its imaginative creator.

All this agape hooey is mere apologetic nonsense.

[brewer]

god is love is another mental crutch. Just like all of the other "god is .........".

God is a turd floating in the universal toilet.

Mental flotation device, I can work with that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Those creators saw fit to place their god in the body of a man and declare him,fully human, in any case.  It;s not just apologetic bullshit..its pointless apologetic bullshit in service of revitalizing their deity as it;s more terrifying and inhuman incarnation in the face of looming cultural defeat.

[Silver]

I remember theists rallying around the idea that the manifestation to human form took place due to god wanting to better understand humanity. Unfortunately, it seems god learned nothing from that experience, because he himself did not change from the monster he has always been.

---

Theists get irrationally stuck on this idea that a sacrifice on their behalf is a wonderful thing. It's entirely emotional and not even remotely logical.