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.
Originally Posted by TKramar True, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But a victim of physical abuse claiming that her abuser hits her out of love clearly doesn't know what love is. Love isn’t something that means whatever you want it to.
One could argue that your last remark shows that Love is something that means whatever you want it to mean. The abused could argue that thier love is better than yours. Would YOU allow yourself to be abused to satisfy the person you suppsedly loved? Then, if not, perhaps (the argument might go) YOU are the one who does not know what love really is.
Ok I'd not be happy with that argument but it does show up an apparent flaw in your defining (admittedly on a social consesus) what is or is not admissible as 'love' and anyone else's definition which doesn't fit is not 'really' love.
However, this is getting a bit off topic except that it does reflect on the myriad concepts that 'God' means to different people and the flaw in one person saying that 'real' God is the way they (and the group they belong to) define it and all the others are not 'real' God.
To categorize god as a belief is like saying a piece of sheet music is the symphony. You look at the notes on a page they are pretty bland. They are not the music. You experience the music.
Someone can say "I don't believe in music" but that doesn't make music go away, it just means they are deaf.
One could argue that your last remark shows that Love is something that means whatever you want it to mean. The abused could argue that thier love is better than yours.
No that is impossible.
I believe that there are 2 kinds of love, the love of self which isn't truly love, but it is the fundament for the 2nd kind of the love where you love others more than yourself. So in order to love others it is essential to also love yourself. But people whose love for themselves is greater than their love for others are incapable of loving others.
Often these people only use the people they claim to love for their own end.
I mean if you believe that love can fit any definition you want you would have no problem believing a rapist who claims that he raped his victim because he loved her. If you truly love someone it would be impossible to rape her.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
That's a different matter or argument.
Is it?
If you read the Bible with the understanding that God isn't the anthropomorphic man - made god your interpretation of the Bible will be different than that of the fundamentalist Christian.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA No that is impossible.
I believe that there are 2 kinds of love, the love of self which isn't truly love, but it is the fundament for the 2nd kind of the love where you love others more than yourself. So in order to love others it is essential to also love yourself. But people whose love for themselves is greater than their love for others are incapable of loving others.
Often these people only use the people they claim to love for their own end.
I mean if you believe that love can fit any definition you want you would have no problem believing a rapist who claims that he raped his victim because he loved her. If you truly love someone it would be impossible to rape her.
No, you have it back to front. The person doing the abusing arguably could not really love the abused but the abused, by allowing it in order to please the abuser could well argue that is a very deep kind of love.
Rape is different. The person being raped does not want to participate.
Quote:
Is it? If you read the Bible with the understanding that God isn't the anthropomorphic man - made god your interpretation of the Bible will be different than that of the fundamentalist Christian.
Certainly. So, since the god - concept you were talking about was not that fundamentalist Christian kind and not to be found in the Bible, it was, as I said, a different 'god' concept and different argument.
The person doing the abusing arguably could not really love the abused but the abused
I would even say that the person doing the abuse is only capable of loving himself.
He clearly loves himself more than the person he is abusing.
And let me state clearly that abuse is not a prerequisite in order to love.
Quote:
Rape is different.
Rape isn't a form of abuse?
Or do you believe that it is possible that love is a form of abuse?
Or that it is possible that love can have an element of abuse?
Quote:
Certainly. So, since the god - concept you were talking about was not that fundamentalist Christian kind and not to be found in the Bible, it was, as I said, a different 'god' concept and different argument.
Yet the lesson to love others like you love yourself is found in the Bible.
Christians (and everyone else for that matter) who don't understand this are simply unable to understand love.
The thing with love is that if you did not have loving parents as a child the concept of love will be hard ( maybe even impossible?) to understand.
And if you don't understand love you cannot understand the message of Jesus (or the Bible).
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA I would even say that the person doing the abuse is only capable of loving himself.
He clearly loves himself more than the person he is abusing.
And let me state clearly that abuse is not a prerequisite in order to love.
Let me state again that the question of love applies only to the abused person who is accepting it NOT to the person doing it.
Quote:
Rape isn't a form of abuse?
Or do you believe that it is possible that love is a form of abuse?
Or that it is possible that love can have an element of abuse?
Yes, but there isn't any question of willing assent. THAT is where it is a different question, and that's why even the question of 'love' doesn't come into it.
Quote:
Yet the lesson to love others like you love yourself is found in the Bible.
Christians (and everyone else for that matter) who don't understand this are simply unable to understand love.
The thing with love is that if you did not have loving parents as a child the concept of love will be hard ( maybe even impossible?) to understand.
And if you don't understand love you cannot understand the message of Jesus (or the Bible).
That may be true. Though there are other (less loving) messages in the Bible and it's a bit selective to pick out the more positive ones.
However, the thread is not about love but about god - belief, so let's not drift off - topic.
"What does “believing in God” actually mean?"
More like always voting Republican, supporting capitalism, cheering for war, getting down on the poor, keeping a watchful eye on the sex lives of others, and a few other things.
True, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But a victim of physical abuse claiming that her abuser hits her out of love clearly doesn't know what love is. Love isn’t something that means whatever you want it to.
I wouldn't know--I don't believe in love. I don't necessarily disbelieve in it, I've just not seen any evidence that it exists.
Let me state again that the question of love applies only to the abused person who is accepting it NOT to the person doing it.
True, but to be in a loving relationship love has to be a 2 way street. The victim who only claims that the abuser not only abuses her but also loves her (because for example he always apologises to her that he has hit her) completely disregards the fact that abuse doesn't belong in a loving relationship.
Quote:
Yes, but there isn't any question of willing assent. THAT is where it is a different question, and that's why even the question of 'love' doesn't come into it.
Are you truly suggesting that people trapped in an abusive relationship secretly are masochistic and want to be abused?
Quote:
That may be true. Though there are other (less loving) messages in the Bible and it's a bit selective to pick out the more positive ones.
Not if you know what love is.
Like the Bible says love doesn't command, love only asks.
Love doesn't require you to enter an S&M relationship where God (or your significant other) is the master and the believer is nothing but a slave.
Nor does God (read: love) requires you to give up free will or your ego.
Love wants you to be ego-less, which is completely different from not having any ego.
Quote:
However, the thread is not about love but about god - belief, so let's not drift off - topic.
To believe in God is at the very least acknowledging that others are as important as yourself (your ego).
Which 'coincidently' ( well it really is no coincidence at all) is the most basic definition of love.
To love another is to acknowledge that she is at the very least as important as yourself, which is the 1st step of leaving your childhood (imo young children can only be egocentric) and becoming an adult.
Originally Posted by TKramar
Quote:
I wouldn't know--I don't believe in love. I don't necessarily disbelieve in it, I've just not seen any evidence that it exists.
Could that be because your parents have starved you as a child and considered this a form of 'tough love'?
FYI I disagree I would call purposely starving a child systematic abuse.
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.
True, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Love isn’t something that means whatever you want it to.
One could argue that your last remark shows that Love is something that means whatever you want it to mean. The abused could argue that thier love is better than yours. Would YOU allow yourself to be abused to satisfy the person you suppsedly loved? Then, if not, perhaps (the argument might go) YOU are the one who does not know what love really is.
No that is impossible.
Is it?
maybe even impossible?) to understand. 
Are you truly suggesting that people trapped in an abusive relationship secretly are masochistic and want to be abused?
