Can God love?

[possibletarian]

The analogy only works is when the kid refuses to take his shoes off, the Father leaves him out there day and night to starve to death, and then tortures him for eternity, while explaining ''you did this yourself''.

[Godscreated]

 
God does accept people as they are, it doesn't matter your condition. What matters is you are wanting a change and God wants to be there to guide you through the change. God accepted me as I was and accepts me as I am now, His love has rang true in my life because I wanted it.

Agape... with conditions.  Sorry, GC, it doesn't work that way.  If he doesn't accept me unless I want to change, then he doesn't truly accept me.  Your complaint is ridiculous on the face of it.  What if you said to your wife, "I accept you as you are, but only if you're willing to change"?  That would be pure hypocrisy.

Steve has given you the answer. Agape has no conditions and I said that at the beginning of the post. I can love and do love many different people but I do not have to like certain things about them to love them, including my wife. Like Steve said, God loves you but He will not allow your sin into His presence. That sin part of your life is what has to change, you being willing and God directing.

GC

[Fake Messiah]

LOL! Listen to this absurdity: because I stand for the opposite principles than ISIS I am like ISIS. It seems that you have much more in common with ISIS like you both hate gay people's right to marriage (if not even the mere existence of gays) and woman's rights.

You have no 'moral stability' you right and wrong are based on society.. So then what makes you think this society can not make mistakes? what makes you think this society hasn't already made huge mistakes? So why then haven't stand against your pop morality? that's right because you have no sense of true righteousness and you've been programed to do what ever society says without question. Just like the ISIS guys and just like the Nazis in germany.

And yet I end up having completely opposite stance on gays, women rights and Jews than ISIS. While it is you who is following "right" moral credo end up having same stance as ISIS & Hitler. As well as many other Christian pastors like pastor Steven Anderson





My morality, as well as any sane person, comes from what makes sense and not just what it says in the Bible. Like gays - you, ISIS, Hitler and Steven Anderson want to kill them because it says so in the Bible/ Koran, while I rationally ask myself "Is there any reason to kill gay people? Are they doing harm by their existence? Is there any reason except Bible not to allow gays to marry? What harm does gay marriage does? (answer: none)". I don't blindly follow some barbaric Bronze Age stance, I think.

Now because you have never challenged or said I can not stand with popular morality it is wrong, that puts you in the same boat as a radicalized ISIS fighter or a 1930's german. Meaning with your current mind set if you were born in an isis rule area or in 1930 germany your value system would allow you to simply do what the crowd is doing, if ISIS rape murder steal, if German basically the white version of that.

ISIS taking it's morals from popular morality? What are you smoking? They take their morals from an ancient holy book, just like you do and just like ISIS & Hitler do.

If I was born in ISIS rule? And yet you weren't born in ISIS rule and would still do terror attack that ISIS does, like their attacks and killing of Muslims, or their bombings of music concerts that represent popular culture that you hate so much and see it as source of evil. It's because you were both brainwashed by same primitive people that wrote basically same books.

There are, after all, millions of nonbelievers in the US alone. If they are the most immoral people in America we should notice their reign of terror. Strangely, however, atheists are not raping and pillaging and generally clogging America's court systems at a detectable rate. These people, supposedly immoral by definition, seem eerily quiet.

[Angrboda]

Agape... with conditions.  Sorry, GC, it doesn't work that way.  If he doesn't accept me unless I want to change, then he doesn't truly accept me.  Your complaint is ridiculous on the face of it.  What if you said to your wife, "I accept you as you are, but only if you're willing to change"?  That would be pure hypocrisy.

Steve has given you the answer. Agape has no conditions and I said that at the beginning of the post. I can love and do love many different people but I do not have to like certain things about them to love them, including my wife. Like Steve said, God loves you but He will not allow your sin into His presence. That sin part of your life is what has to change, you being willing and God directing.

GC

[robvalue]

How can they keep saying two completely contradictory things in the same sentence and not notice?

[chimp3]

Christians, Making shit up for 2000 years!

[emjay]

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.

you are only looking at one side of the examle. you even said that if an employee did wrong you would fire them. agape is not about rewards as much as it is about commitment it is about sticking with a person thick thin good or bad, because you've made the commitment to do so. 1 cor 13 paul give his person break down of agape.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have aprophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, bso as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 cIf I give away all I have, and dif I deliver up my body to be burned,1 but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 eLove is patient and fkind; love gdoes not envy or boast; it his not arrogant 5 or rude. It idoes not insist on its own way; it jis not irritable or resentful;2 6 it kdoes not rejoice at wrongdoing, but lrejoices with the truth. 7 mLove bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, eendures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For nwe know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but owhen the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For pnow we see in a mirror dimly, but qthen face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as rI have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

In the description of love you do see reward but you also see alot of self sacrifice. Something required on both sides of the relationship.
In the employee senserio the agape is the patients to train up the employee in a position he would stand to benefit from. it's not the reward or benefical nature of the position that is the expression of love but the loss the owner or job provider will endure while the employee gets up to speed/learns the job. And over time it is the commitment to stick with this employee if he messes up alot. God does this when we convert and have nothing but good intentions but make mistakes just because we do not know the job, and agape covers us when later we becme luke warm ish and begin to back slide till we finally mature and fill the position as God intended. That is agape. it is not merrit based as more than likly we will not be able to live long enogh to 'make god money' in our application of the jobs we have. Yet God rewards us anyway. That is the difference between the agape I'm trying to describe and your recounting of it.

I have no problem with Paul's description of love there. For instance I would define depression as the absence of hope, and without hope, everything is meaningless. Or to be the richest man in the world, but alone and without love or companionship would be its own hell... because no man is an island. Or the power of love to metaphorically move mountains. Or the endurance of love. Or self-sacrificing love...even without hope of self-gain or even acknowledgment by another; to seek good for the other for their sake rather than your own, even at cost to you, and even with no expectation of gratitude, acknowledgment or even knowledge by the other... such as the self-sacrificing love a parent has for their child.

But those things to me are a description of earthly love... human love... not... or at least not necessarily agape. That's what I'm trying to work out here... what agape is in comparison to human love, and where from my position as an atheist as opposed to yours as a theist, agape is theoretical rather than self-evident, hence trying to discover not only what it is but whether it's a coherent concept, just as this thread is. For the sake of argument I'm all putting all kinds of human love... whether egocentric or 'othercentric'... under the heading of eros, because it's as good a theory as any for present purposes, and some interpretations (in the book I'm reading) see no need for it to be entirely egocentric... ie based on personal gain... and I'd agree with that; I'd say the essence of it is seeking the eternal good, whether that be for yourself or someone else. Plato seems a lot more cynical in his approach, essentially saying that the love of a parent for the child is egocentric because the child is the parent's closest thing to achieving immortality, I guess equivalent to arguing the evolutionary reasons for that love. But what does he know (about his own theory)? I prefer the other interpretation, because that sort of self-sacrificial/othercentric love is not just restricted to parent-child. But whether eros is the best description for it or something else, I don't know... time will tell on that... but the point is that by eros I'm referring to human love as we know and understand it (and misunderstand it ).

The book I'm reading... Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love (by Alan Soble, 1989)... is very interesting and I'd thoroughly recommend it. Its main purpose is to analyse and define the essence of love... something that we all know what it is but at the same time don't know what it is... primarily using these three classical sources for discussion. It does have quite a theist bent, but then, so does antiquity... so I can forgive that So my perspective and goal in this is understanding love itself, with discussion of agape being incidental rather than my main objective. But whether god exists or agape exists or not, it's still useful in that task if for no other reason than it reveals what our (as in human) ideals might be.

The concern I'm having with what you're saying is that you're describing a reciprocal relationship, but in the cause of understanding agape, if agape resembles human love, then to me it can't be agape. Ie if god wants anything from you or for you... then he's wanting... eros; wanting. Hence suggesting 'meh' as the only alternative that takes out the human love... eros... aspect.

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...

Yes revelation tells us once the door to hell is closed there will be a great morning for all who are lost. However the more we know/the more mature we become the less that feeling of loss can hold us. I know it is of little consolation now, but it would be like loosing your fav toy when you were 4 and loosing your favorite pen now. when you were four your fav toy could have been akin to loosing a friend or even limb. and now while yes you may really liked that pen and you may think about it from time to time you understand the nature of loosing things and can and will except it is gone. Especially if said pen were scientiant and choose to be separated from you and the world you chose to live in.

As I said, I'm concentrating on the divine side of this equation, not the human side... trying to discover what agape is as separate from human love... eros... and therefore not including any aspects of eros.

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.

If i never read the bible and tried to peice together the nature of God and salvation this would be close to what I think I might have come up with n my own.

The bible however describes it several different ways. often time as a God being a rich man and us being servants/slaes or even as a richman who son is to be married and us as equals..

This is a combination of several parables.

Imagine God to be a very wealthy man who has rules for living on his land, but at the same time said enforcement of said rules would not come till you moved off the land, and no matter what at some point everyone would have to move off his land, and deal with the land owner privately to settle up.

Now the purpose of this was to gauge or prove to the people the nature of their own hearts. meaning the land owner wanted to prove to the people whether they loved him and all he provided, or if the loved themselves and took advantage when they thought he was not looking.

Now because all the people who live on the grace of the rich land owner never saw the immediate lash of the whip they all over time began to steal and break the rick land owners laws, and taught their children to also do so.

So the land owner sent several servant to speak on his behalf telling the people right from wrong, and the people revolted and beat and killed the servants/prophets.

Then the land owner sent his one and only son. Here is where the Agape' comes in. Knowing what they would do, to the son. the land owner took their evil intent and used the blood split for good. AS they both knew the land owner and son knew that only the blood of the son would be enough to cover the laws broken by the servants living on the land. That way the law ceased being the measure of whether or not people were rewarded/punished after they moved off the land. and it became about whether or not they chose to serve in this life and the next. they only caveat was you pay homage to the son's sacrifice, and to forgive as you have been forgiven.

There is no Meh when it costs a life to make the arrangements for the choice provided.

For God Agape is providing the choice and sticking with you when someone better could easily take your place. Agape is also extended to those who love their sin more, and God like the rest will lament on that day when all are sealed into the pit. but that's it because a choice was made. either serve God in His creation or serve self.

I understand the example you're giving here... but my concern is whether that can be called agape as opposed to a different/higher form of eros on God's part. For instance by personifying god and saying he would lament on that day along with all the rest, that implies wanting/attachment/loss... eros. And with your example of the landowner, the landowner is indeed human... he may have higher status and power than his tenants, he may be aloof and interact with them differently than they do to him, he may be incredibly anal and love his rules and regulations, and respect fairness and equal opportunities... but despite all that, he's human and he still wants something. But for agape to make any sense to me, there can be no want involved, hence the meh example.

[Silver]

How can they keep saying two completely contradictory things in the same sentence and not notice?

Because what they consider "logic", which it isn't in the slightest, is theistically based rather than realistically based.

[Angrboda]

This whole idea that God would love me 'if', is, I think, rather beside the point. If God chooses not to let me near because of some supposed flaw, or whether he cannot, is, I think an irrelevant distinction. Love, in order to be real, has to actually involve, you know, "loving" the other. If God neither does actually let me near, regardless of whether he simply won't, or because he can't, then God's love for me is never actualized. Love that is never tested isn't really love, it's just the idea of love. We have no idea whether God would or would not embrace me in spite of my flaws because he never actually does. So this idea that God has agape for me is hollow, empty, and meaningless. It is like the teenager's "undying love" for her boyfriend that turns out not to be so undying after all. God's love cuts and runs at the first sign of trouble. How Christians consider that agape, or anything at all, is beyond me. That's not love, it's just a romantic notion. It's the idea that God would love you if he could, but he can't, so he shan't. It's nothing real, it's just empty words.

[Silver]

This whole idea that God would love me 'if', is, I think, rather beside the point. If God chooses not to let me near because of some supposed flaw, or whether he cannot, is, I think an irrelevant distinction. Love, in order to be real, has to actually involve, you know, "loving" the other. If God neither does actually let me near, regardless of whether he simply won't, or because he can't, then God's love for me is never actualized. Love that is never tested isn't really love, it's just the idea of love. We have no idea whether God would or would not embrace me in spite of my flaws because he never actually does. So this idea that God has agape for me is hollow, empty, and meaningless. It is like the teenager's "undying love" for her boyfriend that turns out not to be so undying after all. God's love cuts and runs at the first sign of trouble. How Christians consider that agape, or anything at all, is beyond me. That's not love, it's just a romantic notion. It's the idea that God would love you if he could, but he can't, so he shan't. It's nothing real, it's just empty words.

Brilliant.

/thread