Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One is the feeling a person gets from another person. This love is based on how a person makes another person feel.
The other type of love is an action or state of mind that allows a person to seek or desire good for another person no matter how the other person makes them feel.
Feelings of love generally fade over time. The action of love can be carried out as long as the person desires to do so.
It is concerning that fundamentalist ideologues can think of nothing else but homosexuality. I am beginning to think their obsession is more of a mental illness.
One is the feeling a person gets from another person. This love is based on how a person makes another person feel.
The other type of love is an action or state of mind that allows a person to seek or desire good for another person no matter how the other person makes them feel.
Feelings of love generally fade over time. The action of love can be carried out as long as the person desires to do so.
O.k. but...
Those two are just two types of intense infatuation. Both of them are partly misguided. One because it depends on volatile feelings, the other because it disregards any feeling or conditions at all, favoring corruption (power corrupts).
One is infatuation with the self and it feeling good from having the other, (Romantic?)
the other one is infatuation with the other and it feeling good from having the other (Motherly?)
I think True Love is a good mix of Friendship (liking the known person), Passion (romance and lust), and Commitment (eternal communal boundaries).
.....
other99, if love can't stay silent then don't ask the heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, King David and the girls he loved and loved him in his Harem, etc to tone down their public displays of affection. I know I hate polygamy more than Abrahamic religions (so polygamists "must" be the true Christians, like King David supposed ancestor of Jesus therefore Jesus has half of his DNA composed of Mary).
O.k. but...
Those two are just two types of intense infatuation. Both of them are partly misguided. One because it depends on volatile feelings, the other because it disregards any feeling or conditions at all, favoring corruption (power corrupts).
One is infatuation with the self and it feeling good from having the other, (Romantic?)
the other one is infatuation with the other and it feeling good from having the other (Motherly?)
I think True Love is a good mix of Friendship (liking the known person), Passion (romance and lust), and Commitment (eternal communal boundaries).
.....
other99, if love can't stay silent then don't ask the heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, King David and the girls he loved and loved him in his Harem, etc to tone down their public displays of affection. I know I hate polygamy more than Abrahamic religions (so polygamists "must" be the true Christians, like King David supposed ancestor of Jesus therefore Jesus has half of his DNA composed of Mary).
But if we are talking about love in a non-romantic sense, then passion is obviously not a necessity. When a person loves their children, passion and romance are not part of the equation. In this instance you truly care for the person. Even if your son or daughter spits in your face, tells you they hate you, and that they never want to see you again, you can still love them. I think you are right in this example though because often in a parent-child relationship there is something that the parent stands to gain from the child. The parent may be desiring a perfect family, or desiring to avoid public embarrassment for being a failure as a parent, etc.
True love though comes when there is nothing to be gained at all from the other person (I don't claim to be able to show this kind of love). I can't remember the story exactly, but in Les Miserables a priest was robbed or beaten by someone and instead of reporting the person to the police, the priest tried to help the person who mistreated him. To me that is the type of love that is noble.
If we are talking about love between 2 people, I believe you are right that it should be a mix of friendship, passion, and commitment.
“Love is the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth... Love is as love does. Love is an act of will -- namely, both an intention and an action. Will also implies choice. We do not have to love. We choose to love.”
― M. Scott Peck
But if we are talking about love in a non-romantic sense, then passion is obviously not a necessity. When a person loves their children, passion and romance are not part of the equation. In this instance you truly care for the person. Even if your son or daughter spits in your face, tells you they hate you, and that they never want to see you again, you can still love them. I think you are right in this example though because often in a parent-child relationship there is something that the parent stands to gain from the child. The parent may be desiring a perfect family, or desiring to avoid public embarrassment for being a failure as a parent, etc.
True love though comes when there is nothing to be gained at all from the other person (I don't claim to be able to show this kind of love). I can't remember the story exactly, but in Les Miserables a priest was robbed or beaten by someone and instead of reporting the person to the police, the priest tried to help the person who mistreated him. To me that is the type of love that is noble.
If we are talking about love between 2 people, I believe you are right that it should be a mix of friendship, passion, and commitment.
You are committed to your children for instinctual reasons, not because it is "good" other than to allow the children to procreate. (Motherly Infatuation?)
The love of your own children isn't "true love," it is forced/instinctual commitment. And that instinct doesn't require infatuation all the time (liking them for how they make you feel, or just liking them for being your children regardless of how they believe and act), but parental love does require some sort of commitment.
Yet you can't love your children if you don't educate them, if you allow them to walk all over you, then you have no idea what education is, and are just corrupting them.
One could choose to still love or feel that they still love someone that will never stop beating them for power-trip reasons, doesn't mean that "love" is right, even if it's your child.
Now, the idea of loving others and expecting nothing in return wouldn't work with a Christian Priest, because Christian mythology (which the priest would be aware of) tells one that to be a "committed follower of Christ" (i.e. more assured of the immortality and companionship that they religiously seek) they have to show they believe good by acting good.
Removing the carrot and stick from religion would be impossible, as religion is based on believed expectations, especially for the narrow benefit of the self. Still, if the priest disregarded all of the selfish incentives cemented into his religion, he would have to believe that sending the robber and beater to the police wouldn't be any help at all to them (in which case he wouldn't even support a police system) compared to himself shockingly forgiving and befriending the mistreated in order to educate him.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 09-23-2015 at 06:29 PM..
You are committed to your children for instinctual reasons, not because it is "good" other than to allow the children to procreate. (Motherly Infatuation?)
The love of your own children isn't "true love," it is forced/instinctual commitment. And that instinct doesn't require infatuation all the time (liking them for how they make you feel, or just liking them for being your children regardless of how they believe and act), but parental love does require some sort of commitment.
Yet you can't love your children if you don't educate them, if you allow them to walk all over you, then you have no idea what education is, and are just corrupting them.
One could choose to still love or feel that they still love someone that will never stop beating them for power-trip reasons, doesn't mean that "love" is right, even if it's your child.
Now, the idea of loving others and expecting nothing in return wouldn't work with a Christian Priest, because Christian mythology (which the priest would be aware of) tells one that to be a "committed follower of Christ" (i.e. more assured of the immortality and companionship that they religiously seek) they have to show they believe good by acting good.
Removing the carrot and stick from religion would be impossible, as religion is based on believed expectations, especially for the narrow benefit of the self. Still, if the priest disregarded all of the selfish incentives cemented into his religion, he would have to believe that sending the robber and beater to the police wouldn't be any help at all to them (in which case he wouldn't even support a police system) compared to himself shockingly forgiving and befriending the mistreated in order to educate him.
I agree with everything you said (except the Christian mythology part). The true, noble love that I was referring to would be the example where the priest doesn't seek revenge by reporting the criminal to the police, but instead forgives the criminal and tries to help the criminal become a better person.
I would like to believe that it is possible to be a Christian (thus a follower of Christ) for no other reason than to know and love God. Ideally that would be the only carrot stick involved. I believe that for many the only carrot stick is a desire to have a friendship with God, and to me, there is nothing wrong, or worthy of criticism in that.
So now someone else's pushing a movie that got seone banned from the office?
Sorry, I couldn't get past the part where they compared homosexuality to fornication. One is a sin, one is a choice. And making a distinction past that is kinda similar to being the guy who let the lesbian couple go into an elevator to die. You do not need to "witness" to homosexuals, and if the implication of this movie is that you are "saving" them by talking them out of it, or talking them into guilt for what is their own choice and their own love, then you can forget your "salvation". People don't want it.
I'm going to watch it again, but so far, I can see exactly why the woman was uncomfy at work. This is an awkward movie, and seems to be saying homosexuals need to be saved, more than the rest of us.
I watched it again, and couldn't get much farther. It was so offensive, and it had the Audacity to call itself accepting. Because that tripe had the gall to think that it was saving people. And the way that nobody told him to get lost for spreading this creepy "accepting" message. God loves you only if you change who you are, that's what he's saying.
Let's talk about idolatry. We have a book that dictates how we live our lives. We take what it has said at face value, we take the judgement of fear of a fiery furnace. Fear is the lowest operating system that a person can live in. What is the highest? Love. I didn't see much love so far. Patronizing is not love. Because you are perfect, you decide you can save me. All of us live in this life, all of us are imperfect. But the point is we live together. With stuff we have done. With stuff we do. But the God I know is not an idol. He is the one who told me "you have done nothing wrong"
Let me let you in on a secret. The bible was written as long passages. The fundamentalism loves to quote snippets. But you know what the definition of heresy is? It is literally "choosing parts" as in picking parts uou like and ignoring the others. I don't like this part but the whole neither thieves nor fornicators, nor homosexuals, etc will enter the kingdom of heaven. Yeah, that sounds like a pronouncement of damnation. But read on.
And that is what you were. But you have been washed clean. (1 cor 6:11)
biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-11.htm
The lie is to stop at the judgement. But Jesus doesn't stop at judgement. Jesus doesn't stop until others besides the worthy are welcome. Are these sinners? Yes. So are all of us. But Jesus doesn't stop at judgement. Jesus doesn't stop until Love happens.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 09-24-2015 at 08:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
