EverlastingMan
Regular Member
Well will may not be required to love, but christian theology says it is. And that is all I am saying.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
EverlastingMan said:Well will may not be required to love, but christian theology says it is. And that is all I am saying.
Love is not an emotion. It is an action. At least the word love in the New Testament is action. See the story of the good Samaritan or Matt 25:31 and following. You do consciously choose to follow the command of Jesus to love your neighbor.D McCloud said:You don't consciously choose to be loving or unloving. Love is an emotion, you don't choose your emotions.
I us very difficult to argue with such a reasonable approach.Lord Emsworth said:Chrisitan theology is bunk anyway.
I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?EverlastingMan said:No, according to christians Love is an act of the will. If there is no free will then there is no love, as they define it.
There is no non-willed love. Love is not a feeling or emotion.Patzak said:That's weird. If anything, I'd say that emotions aren't a very good example of something that would require free will. Although, I guess one could define TRUE love as a willful act. Though I think it would still be completely indistinguishable from non-willed love.
A situation where one doesn't realise they don't have free will - or rather, where it's impossible to figure out whether they have it or not. It just seems to me that people often consider determinism as somehow only applying to a part of them, maybe not always only the body (for the robot scenario) but still in a very limited way.PapaLandShark said:What, roughly, are you thinking of outside the "help help I'm a puppet!" mentality then?
You're oversimplifying things; nobody's talking about machinery; consider electrodes sticked into a brain instead. Now sure, love is a complex emotion and would probably be hard to stimulate but as far as I know it's already possible to induce certain feelings or sensations by stimulating the right parts of the brain. And if the brain is susceptible to such simple manipulation, don't you think that the totality of all the possible effects could stimulate it to something more complex like love?elman said:I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?
What is it then? What is it about love that exists in any other way than by being felt, what's the part of love that exists outside of the mind of the one who loves?elman said:Love is not a feeling or emotion.
elman said:Love is not an emotion. It is an action. At least the word love in the New Testament is action. See the story of the good Samaritan or Matt 25:31 and following. You do consciously choose to follow the command of Jesus to love your neighbor.
elman said:I us very difficult to argue with such a reasonable approach.
Love is an act on behalf of someone other than one's self. To help someone in need is to love.No I don't think you can create love by stimulating someone else's brain and love is not an emotion.Patzak said:You're oversimplifying things; nobody's talking about machinery; consider electrodes sticked into a brain instead. Now sure, love is a complex emotion and would probably be hard to stimulate but as far as I know it's already possible to induce certain feelings or sensations by stimulating the right parts of the brain. And if the brain is susceptible to such simple manipulation, don't you think that the totality of all the possible effects could stimulate it to something more complex like love?
What is it then? What is it about love that exists in any other way than by being felt, what's the part of love that exists outside of the mind of the one who loves?
As I said you are too smart for me.Lord Emsworth said:As if you had anything to argue for.
Sex is not love. You are talking about sex. I am talking about love and we are not talking about the same thing.David Gould said:If love is the thing that we are using to tell a free will universe from a deterministic one, we need to present an argument for what would happen in universe f and what would happen in universe d.
In universe f, would we choose to love somebody or would we fall in love - in other words, come to love somebody because of what we see in them?
I would suggest that if we had free will we could choose to love or not love somebody.
So, in universe f we could choose who (and what) to love.
In universe d, we could not do this. Who and what we loved would arise in us with no choice in the matter. People would love people who were not good choices for them, simply because they would be unable to choose otherwise.
I do not think that love is a very good example for proponents of free will to use ...
elman said:Sex is not love. You are talking about sex. I am talking about love and we are not talking about the same thing.
1. We are not talking about tractors or pieces of machineries, but about self aware human beings without "freewill".elman said:I don't know how you would define love if there is no free will. How would a tractor or piece of machinery love?
You are still using the term in a sense that I am not talking about. We can become very attached to our pets. I am not talking about feelings or attachments. I am talking about actions on behalf of another. You can do that for a cat but it is not something you fall into.David Gould said:I am not talking about sex. For example, I fell in love with my cats.
Loving actions do require free will. If you act without a choice, you do not act in love. An act that is compelled is not an act out of love. There are no self aware human beings without free will. That is what defines a human being, an entity capable of loving another or refusing to love another.quatona said:1. We are not talking about tractors or pieces of machineries, but about self aware human beings without "freewill".
2. Above you have given the following definition:
Love is not an emotion. It is an action.
Actions don´t require free will.
Your argumentation tends to get a bit too circular, for my taste.elman said:Loving actions do require free will. If you act without a choice, you do not act in love. An act that is compelled is not an act out of love. There are no self aware human beings without free will. That is what defines a human being, an entity capable of loving another or refusing to love another.
elman said:You are still using the term in a sense that I am not talking about. We can become very attached to our pets. I am not talking about feelings or attachments. I am talking about actions on behalf of another. You can do that for a cat but it is not something you fall into.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?