Defining My Perception of Love

[junebug72]

I think your confusing God's love with His justice. He has them both and they compliment each other.
He loved us so much he sent his son to die for us. So that we might be saved.
He loves us so much, he must be just in His judgment of us.

Justice? I don't consider holocaust victims frying for eternity while Hitler spends his days with God, that's the once saved always saved philosophy , Hitler was Catholic, justice. In fact I think eternal torture is beyond the realm of justice even for Hitler and Stalin, also Catholic. Maybe a day for each victim but eternity seems harsh to me even for the lowest of human scum bags. We only get a small amount of time to learn how to be good considering the amount of time that has already existed for God, infinity right? Our time on this planet is a blink of God's eye, right?

Who says God must be right? You know I'm atheist right? These kind of answers are not productive for this thread. This could easily derail this thread. This conversation is about your human perception of love. Not a debate about God's existence and this is where I feel I'm being led to.

 

[Strivax]

Hello. My name is JB for short. I am extremely interested in how you as an individual define; LOVE.

Hi JB. I don't think love can be defined, only experienced. And those that have experienced it, know what it is, and understand when another has experienced it, too.

If I have a point to make, relevant to this forum, it is that I tend to get annoyed when people who think themselves Christian, yet do not love their neighbour, let alone their enemy, treat Christianity as if it were their personal intellectual property, and seek to use it as an excuse to shore up their worldly advantages.

Essentially, the measure of love is the extent of sacrifice, and the extent of willingness to sacrifice, for the benefit of the beloved, which, for real Christians, means everyone else. And if everyone were so willing, then we might have paradise on earth for us all, not just a fortune-favoured, lucky, wealthy few.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[junebug72]

Actually, I think you have that backward.

Mark 9.38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.
40 For he who is not against us is on our side."

Yes I did. Thank you for correcting me. I still find it insulting to be told I can not love unless I follow the bible. I was trying to make the point that maybe it was okay with Jesus for us to work together. You debunked that. It's not a part of my worldview I love my species. I want nothing but the best for us all. Roofs over our heads, modest good ones too not shacks or trailers, food in our bellies but not too much and shoes on our feet and good health/old age. Most of all I want us loved to the moon and back.

I would give my life for that.

 

[junebug72]

You're right. I know you're new around here, but do you believe in tolerance at first sight? I think I tolerate you. I tolerate you with all my heart. I've fallen madly in tolerance with you.

Yes! Yes! and more Yes! You get me, you really get me. That's very nice of you to say. Although I think it's sarcasm. I never said it was a synonym. I still like the way your words sound.

That could easily become a new motto or something. If you love me you must tolerate me. Because I love you I'll make it easy by being respectful and kind. I will tolerate you too. As a result we will find peace even though we disagree about other things. That's love right there.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes! Yes! and more Yes! You get me, you really get me. That's very nice of you to say. Although I think it's sarcasm. I never said it was a synonym. I still like the way your words sound.

That could easily become a new motto or something. If you love me you must tolerate me. Because I love you I'll make it easy by being respectful and kind. I will tolerate you too. As a result we will find peace even though we disagree about other things. That's love right there.

Yep that's love alright. Too bad we can't have sex though. I'm already tolerating someone else.

 

[smithed64]

Justice? I don't consider holocaust victims frying for eternity while Hitler spends his days with God, that's the once saved always saved philosophy , Hitler was Catholic, justice. In fact I think eternal torture is beyond the realm of justice even for Hitler and Stalin, also Catholic. Maybe a day for each victim but eternity seems harsh to me even for the lowest of human scum bags. We only get a small amount of time to learn how to be good considering the amount of time that has already existed for God, infinity right? Our time on this planet is a blink of God's eye, right?

Who says God must be right? You know I'm atheist right? These kind of answers are not productive for this thread. This could easily derail this thread. This conversation is about your human perception of love. Not a debate about God's existence and this is where I feel I'm being led to.

I spoke my perception of his love.

He loves us, and because He loves us, his justice is just.

Who says He's wrong?
Not concerned whether your atheist or not. Doesn't matter and has no factor on God's love.

No one can lead you to anywhere, if you don't want to go.

And justice, isn't once saved always saved belief...alone...it's biblical. But again, that's another thread.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is a discussion not a lecture. I'm not obligated to agree with you. I'm saying maybe if you used empathy to understand why your wife that loves you let you down then your perception would change from she let me down to she had a bad day, no need to get angry. I've known couples that fight just to make up, because the passion is strong, but that does not mean anger was the MORAL way to react.

IMHO, anger is a childish emotion that does no good for anybody. No not 1. When you're angry you're not rational. You can become violent. Anger is a gateway emotion to chaos.

The most successful couples I know don't get angry at each other. If you can't have empathy for the closet most loved people in your life how are you supposed to have empathy for strangers?

If I respect and cherish the fire my chances of getting burnt are very low.

It is very preachy to say things like 'maybe if you used empathy to understand your wife' as you are assuming you understand the mechanics of another's relationship. The post before this you insinuated that I don't love my wife. Both are not very equitable or empathic things to say to someone in a discussion. I can assure you, no one understands another person's relationships, often not even that person.

When you love someone, you think so highly of them that you think they would transcend a petty 'bad day' mentality. When they fail you, you are disappointed. If you don't, then that means you have likely lowered your expectation of them, which is of course not very loving. This is a catch-22 if we consider what you propose 'love', in my opinion.

I have never met these 'successful' couples that never fight and quite frankly do not believe they exist. Neither for that matter does Psychology or Psychiatry and what you describe sounds like avoidant or dependant personality disorder.
On both a practical and a theoretical level, I cannot see how they can exist.

As to anger being a childish emotion: your point? All emotions are childish things. Love itself is a very childish thing. The first emotion a child experiences is the rush of bonding oxytocin with its mother, the same chemical that facilitates all love.
Lovers even act childishly at first. Writing notes, giggling, going off on their own etc. Very puerile behaviour indeed.
However, all emotions have their place and purpose. No emotion is 'bad', although if given free reign can result in evil. This is classical Golden Mean territory. Anger is necessary to push through when you are at your limit, to establish Justice, to have righteous indignation push you to do something against all odds. It can make us do what is necessary and right even when we do not want to.

Watch Pixar's Inside Out with your grandchild when you have time. You need a more nuanced appreciation for the need of all emotions instead of putting 'empathy' on some pedestal like a god.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As to God and love:

God is Love, but we cannot really comprehend His love. It is described as a husband and his bridegroom by Jesus, a Father and his children quite often, a friend in the Psalms or hymns, a lover in the Song of Songs. These are simply metaphors for the ineffanable.

For we simply do not know. JuneBug said earlier that the best fathers approach patience. Perhaps, but often what would have set a child right was not patience with his wrongdoing but punishment. I think the reason @junebug72 considers them 'good fathers' is because they fit her conception of what a good father should be, not that they necessarily are so. I have a friend who had a very strict father and he told me numerous times he was very thankful for this or he would have ended up in a gutter somewhere. He needed a fearsome authoritarian as another needs an avuncular and patient one. The trick is being the correct one when it is called for.

For God to love us wayward humans, he would have to be merciful and kind, but strict and Just. He would have to be all things in fact or he could not be said to be Love. For men need to be reprimanded as well as praised and encouraged. We need challenges and to find our own moral feet, which a merely meek charicature in the sky would never be able to do. Only a complex, multifaceted true expression of the Divine could suffice.
The supreme example of Love however is the Incarnation. The willing degradation and execution to Atone for the sins of His children is the ultimate selfless act of a parent, of Love. Within it we see the interplay of Mercy, Justice, Compassion, Charity. This is why I am a Christian, for no greater or fuller act of Love can be fathomed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Justice? I don't consider holocaust victims frying for eternity while Hitler spends his days with God, that's the once saved always saved philosophy , Hitler was Catholic, justice. In fact I think eternal torture is beyond the realm of justice even for Hitler and Stalin, also Catholic. Maybe a day for each victim but eternity seems harsh to me even for the lowest of human scum bags. We only get a small amount of time to learn how to be good considering the amount of time that has already existed for God, infinity right? Our time on this planet is a blink of God's eye, right?

Who says God must be right? You know I'm atheist right? These kind of answers are not productive for this thread. This could easily derail this thread. This conversation is about your human perception of love. Not a debate about God's existence and this is where I feel I'm being led to.

Just to point out:
1.Catholics don't ascribe to Once Saved Always Saved.
2. Hitler repudiated his Catholicism, so is technically an Apostate when presented with the book the Origins of National Socialism by a Catholic Bishop.
3. Stalin was raised Orthodox, not Catholic, but became an Atheist.

This is a bit of specious argumentation here. Lets talk of human love then, but remember to a Christian human love is basically a pale imitation of the real thing, Divine Love, so you picked a topic that will likely be easily and quickly derailed toward God.

 

[junebug72]

Yep that's love alright. Too bad we can't have sex though. I'm already tolerating someone else.

I'm doing celibacy anyways. I'm a cancer survivor and I'm not ready. I'm at a point in my life where I'm really focusing on the interpersonal me. Things like that would just complicate my life. I'm a meemaw now what else do I need?

 

[junebug72]

Just to point out:
1.Catholics don't ascribe to Once Saved Always Saved.
2. Hitler repudiated his Catholicism, so is technically an Apostate when presented with the book the Origins of National Socialism by a Catholic Bishop.
3. Stalin was raised Orthodox, not Catholic, but became an Atheist.

This is a bit of specious argumentation here. Lets talk of human love then, but remember to a Christian human love is basically a pale imitation of the real thing, Divine Love, so you picked a topic that will likely be easily and quickly derailed toward God.

Many other doctrines do, which one is it?

Have it your way. I'm easy to get along with. Unfortunately I'm out of time this morning. If you compare human love, like Jesus said, with God's love then God would not do something I would not do. It's not that complicated if you take Jesus' words into consideration. That falsifies Yahweh as his father, IMHO. It rules out HELL as well.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Many other doctrines do, which one is it?

Have it your way. I'm easy to get along with. Unfortunately I'm out of time this morning. If you compare human love, like Jesus said, with God's love then God would not do something I would not do. It's not that complicated if you take Jesus' words into consideration. That falsifies Yahweh as his father, IMHO. It rules out HELL as well.

Could you please direct me to which verses you are referring? I am not following how you came to this conclusion, so obviously I am missing a few steps.

 

[junebug72]

Could you please direct me to which verses you are referring? I am not following how you came to this conclusion, so obviously I am missing a few steps.

Sure I will. Luke 11:11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

 

[junebug72]

Yes. Setting them free could be experienced by them as punishment.

Would you provide an example please? In human terms? Thanks.

 

[Chesterton]

Would you provide an example please? In human terms? Thanks.

If you wanted to be free of your lover, and they set you free, then you realized you were madly in love with them, but it was too late to be taken back, the pain of loss and separation might feel like punishment.

 

[MehGuy]

Being a sadist, I think my idea of a loving relationship is different than most. Lol.

As for me, I guess I look at love through an evolutionary lens.

 

[Strivax]

...As for me, I guess I look at love through an evolutionary lens.

Love, for humans, among other animals, may indeed be an evolutionary adaptation. But is it 'nothing but' an evolutionary adaptation, or did God so contrive the universe that it would inevitably develop the capacity for love of it's own accord?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[junebug72]

If you wanted to be free of your lover, and they set you free, then you realized you were madly in love with them, but it was too late to be taken back, the pain of loss and separation might feel like punishment.

In that scenario you punished yourself. You asked to be set free. I believe the rest of the thought goes like this: If you love someone set them free. If it's meant to be they will come back to you.

 

[junebug72]

Being a sadist, I think my idea of a loving relationship is different than most. Lol.

As for me, I guess I look at love through an evolutionary lens.

Would explain in your own words what you mean by sadist? To each their own. I'm not judgey. Masochists need love too. I just want to understand your perception of it.

Does that mean you view love as necessary to procreate? Survive?

 

[Galatea]

I think love, in terms of romantic love, is finding the person who is the other part of you, it is a recognition. It is finding the one you were born for, your split apart. The other half of your soul.

If people who love each other are angry, I think many times it is a manifestation of fear. Fear that the beloved does not love, fear of disappointing the beloved, fear of having caused hurt, fear of losing the beloved, fear of not being good enough, fear of betrayal, etc.

I think you are not taking into effect that the people who can hurt us or who we can hurt are only the people we love. If a random person told me "I hate you." I might be annoyed, but not hurt because I do not know the random stranger and do not love them (except as a fellow human being). The only people who can really hurt me are the ones I love, because I am close to the fire, and sometimes sparks fly out and strike me.

People are imperfect beings, and we get angry, hurt, confused, etc. Ultimately, love is forgiveness and restoration. I remember the first time I told my mother I hated her (first and only time, thank goodness). I was a teenager, it struck my mother like a knife to the heart. The minute I said it, I was sorry. She forgave me, and the relationship was restored. This is love, it's not perfect, but it is unfailing. I often think of the parable of the prodigal son. He basically put his father through Hell, by leaving and degrading himself. The Bible doesn't mention it, but I can imagine how many tears were shed, how angry and wrathful the father might have been, how many sleepless nights he must have suffered, wondering where his boy was and if he was alright or even still alive.

The son came back and the father did not just welcome him back, but held a feast in his honor and restored the son to his former position. The son had planned to ask to be a servant. This to me means love- in all human relationships, not that there won't be all these terrible things, there will be because we are fallen creatures. But forgiveness and restoration are there if love is there.

I think confusion and chaos can come into love if there is a problem with communication. These things happen due to misunderstandings. When communication is restored, confusion and chaos cease. I know you are an atheist, but love to me in all relationships is akin to God's love. No matter what we might do, He always loves us, and we can always come back to Him and be restored in fellowship. So, even if there is a rift, if love is there it can be repaired.

I think it is simplistic not to think there is no suffering in love. There always is, if the love is true. It's not always perfect. Parents suffer when their children are disobedient, children suffer when their parents fail them, people suffer when they are hurt by each other. I realize you are not a Christian, but to us, the supreme example of love is also the extreme example of suffering. Christ is love, but also the Man of constant sorrow. If He did not love, He would not have suffered. I am not a Catholic, but I always liked the image of Christ with the bleeding heart. It reminds us that He loves and suffers even still.

The tolerance, respect, and kindness is just civility, not deep down love. Someone wrote, "The course of true love never did run smooth." I think this might be the reason why so many of our books, films, songs, etc. incorporate love and pain. Cruelty and wrath, chaos and confusion may happen. The question I would ask is, what were the causes of such feelings? If they are borne of hate, it is not love. But if they are borne of miscommunication and misunderstanding, these things could coexist with love.