God and love?

[Blaggard]

God loves all his creatures so we are told, and so we are told he expects us to equally love all he has created, through Jesus Christ his son this message was told again.

My question is a simple one, how can any from of love be it sexual or platonic, or other be wrong to Christianity, in and out of marriage, or between two loving people? Why is it we must love, but forbid love too, if we follow Christ et al prophets, and hence Gods will?

[Immanuel Can]

I guess the next question is, "Is there any form of desire/longing/appetite that is not 'love'?" Or are we going to say that whatever a person can want to do, with any other person or object under any conditions and circumstances, gets a pass because we decide to label it "love"? And if not, where are the boundaries between "love" and...well, the other thing, whatever we want to call it...rape, abuse, molestation, foulness, whatever....

There are going to need to be boundaries somewhere, unless we are utterly permissive of all such desires/longings/appetites. How do we place these boundaries in a non-arbitrary way?

[thedoc]

This illustrates a misunderstanding of the word Love, it really has little to do with sex, that is just a by product of 2 people deciding to spend a lot of time together in a committed relationship. Sex is a physical act that brings pleasure to 2 people who love each other.

[Immanuel Can]

No, no...no misunderstanding. I'm not asking what IS love, I'm asking if there's any point at which the meaning of that word has exhausted its usefulness and is being applied illegitimately. I think there pretty obviously has to be such a point: and Blaggard seems to suggest anything beyond "two loving people" (his words) might be it. But even within that, are there not areas of human behaviour to which the word "love" cannot be legitimately applied?

I'm pointing out that "love" is not an infinitely elastic word that can simply be invoked to baptize every form of desire. For if we are going to accuse God of being against "love," had we not best say what we think He's wrong to be against? And does that not also mean there are things which we would think He ought to be against -- and if He were not, we would equally question His judgment? If, for example, under the banner "love," someone asks for the right to molest a ("consenting") child, would we not rightly deny that rights-claim?

And why wouldn't we expect God to do so, then?

So I put the question bluntly: if God is against "love," what cases are you considering, "love" Mr. Blaggard?

[SpheresOfBalance]

God loves all his creatures so we are told, and so we are told he expects us to equally love all he has created, through Jesus Christ his son this message was told again.

My question is a simple one, how can any from of love be it sexual or platonic, or other be wrong to Christianity, in and out of marriage, or between two loving people? Why is it we must love, but forbid love too, if we follow Christ et al prophets, and hence Gods will?

Because the Christians say so, they say all kinds of crazy shit, you may have noticed by now. Except for a few, I'm considering you doc. And of course there are others.

So I guess my answer is, "why expect rationality from the irrational, be they Christians of otherwise?"

As the Beatles sang, and I certainly agree, "...all you need is love, all you need is love, love, love is all you need."

If a god loves all of his creation, then it's only logical that...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Whoops!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

You're missing the point. I'm asking "What ISN'T love, according to our definition for discussion?"

If "love" excuses anything, than anything done can be clothed in the language of "love" and made to appear legitimate: so what ISN'T legitimate? Can we agree?

[Blaggard]

Jesus was wrong. Don't you love Christian apologists and their erstwhile apologetics. You don't understand what is meant by love, you don't understand what love is. No I don't think Christians ever did either...

So let's ask what is love? If Jesus and God are wrong about it: what is it?

What is love, since neither the Greeks, Jesus or God are right about it what hence is that word, and what ergo does it mean? If indeed it has any meaning at all?

Immanuel can has the right of it. Although the question is of course a tautology in and of itself that no one can or ever will in fact be able to answer.

And why wouldn't we expect God to do so, then?

So I put the question bluntly: if God is against "love," what cases are you considering, "love" Mr. Blaggard?

Cart, horse, wheel, before, question put.

Let's start at the beginning if we can: define love..?

[Immanuel Can]

Blaggard:

You don't understand what is meant by love

Non sequitur. An incorrect assumption on your part, of course. And not relevant in any case. This topic is your party, not mine.

What we all need to know from you is "What do you consider NOT love"? Is there ANYTHING you would not say could be excused on the basis of the word "love"?

For remember, in your first message you accused God of being against love, and called upon us to agree that this was wrong. How can we judge the fairness of your accusation unless we know what you consider love, and also what you do not? How can we agree with you if you won't even make clear what we're supposed to be agreeing with? So it's on you to justify your statement. Then we'll see if we can agree. That's only fair.

As for what I think, if I knew what you meant, it might be that I would entirely agree: we'll have to see if that's what happens...but I, like everyone else, cannot possibly know that without you providing further information.

Tell us what you mean by "love."

[ReliStuPhD]

God loves all his creatures so we are told, and so we are told he expects us to equally love all he has created, through Jesus Christ his son this message was told again.

My question is a simple one, how can any from of love be it sexual or platonic, or other be wrong to Christianity, in and out of marriage, or between two loving people? Why is it we must love, but forbid love too, if we follow Christ et al prophets, and hence Gods will?

I think I.C.'s got a fair critique, but for the sake of clarity, we can sidestep it momentarily to get at your original point. Perhaps something like the following syllogism?

1. God expects us to uphold love.
2. God expects us to forbid non-love.
3. Therefore, to forbid love or uphold non-love is not to follow God's will.

I know that's not exactly airtight, but I think it nails down the basics of your argument. I also think it's a syllogism to which most here would assent (even if only for the sake of argument). Assuming I'm right, your primary question--"Why is it we must love, but forbid love too...?"--can be answered simply: if we are forbidding love, we are sinning. Of course, the next step is I.C.'s point: what constitutes the "love" that is being forbidden (i.e. is it love)? (e.g. taken in the context of the LGBTQ community, I would say it is love and to forbid it is sinful. Taken in the context of a pedophilia, I would say it is not love and to forbid it is right.)

[ReliStuPhD]

Let's start at the beginning if we can: define love..?

1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates>
b : an assurance of affection <give her my love>
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love>
b (1) : a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment (2) British —used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others
b : a person's adoration of God
5 : a god or personification of love
6 : an amorous episode : love affair
7 : the sexual embrace : copulation
8 : a score of zero (as in tennis)
9 : capitalized Christian Science : god

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD:

Blaggard's the one who needs to define his terms.

A dictionary's no good, unless it is exactly what Blaggard meant. But if it is that, then clearly the rest of his statement is untrue, namely that God forbids it -- since God does not forbid the dictionary definition except under particular circumstances. For example, God does not forbid "amorous episodes" unless they refer to an episode conducted under inappropriate circumstances.

Blaggard threw down. He's the one who's got to ante up.

[ReliStuPhD]

Blaggard's the one who needs to define his terms. A dictionary's no good...

I'm not sure I agree. Sure, Blaggard's whole system hinges on his use of "love," but the range of meanings isn't open-ended. He's going to have to stick to something recognizable if we're to avoid equivocation (otherwise, I may have to agree with him that seafaring is the best way to compute compact disc papers). The dictionary's a good place to start. After all, he may talking about tennis scores. (Anyway, dictionaries are good places to start )

[ReliStuPhD]

<double post>

[Immanuel Can]

dictionaries are good places to start

Starter stuff at best.

But when Blaggard "started," he was well past basic definitions, I presume. Since he was making an allegation, and assuming him to be a rational person making a rational statement, he must have had something specific in mind. I'm puzzled that so far he's so reticent about saying what it was.