[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 20 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

Good, and ...!

(just picking one of the feelings) Why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love?

My position should be pretty clear. Love is a complex emotion with primary and secondary qualities. For many, it is based on the innate capacitities of empathy and attachment. There is the original love of the child, and then the adult version that develops later. Call them Level 1 love and Level 2 love. There is also the element of trust and mutuality, both of which have different forms at Level 1 and Level 2.

In the sense that I use the term "love", it is neither rational nor moral (Whitehead, 1929). I would also add that Carl Rogers offered the definition of love as "unconditional positive regard". Searle (1998) adds that love has a bi-directional direction of fit. In other words to "know love" requires the capacity to love and be loved, as with empathy.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 20 February 2009 - 01:28 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 20 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

My position should be pretty clear. Love is a complex emotion with primary and secondary qualities. For many, it is based on the innate capacitities of empathy and attachment. There is the original love of the child, and then the adult version that develops later. Call them Level 1 love and Level 2 love. There is also the element of trust and mutuality, both of which have different forms at Level 1 and Level 2.

In the sense that I use the term "love", it is neither rational nor moral (Whitehead, 1929). I would also add that Carl Rogers offered the definition of love as "unconditional positive regard". Searle (1998) adds that love has a bi-directional direction of fit. In other words to "know love" requires the capacity to love and be loved, as with empathy.

"(Love) is neither rational nor moral." Up until this point, you had not indicated that you considered love to be rather empty of any meaning. I suspect you don't really believe it is.

This is not necessarily an easy question. We know love exists and can get some handle on a definition of what it is, but, why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? Why should we know love?

Don't rush an answer. This one takes some thought.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 20 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

"(Love) is neither rational nor moral." Up until this point, you had not indicated that you considered love to be rather empty of any meaning. I suspect you don't really believe it is.

This is not necessarily an easy question. We know love exists and can get some handle on a definition of what it is, but, why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? Why should we know love?

Don't rush an answer. This one takes some thought.

I gave you my answer. Give it some thought.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 20 2009, 10:07 PM, said:

I gave you my answer. Give it some thought.

Love is that selfless,"unconditional positive regard"; and described other ways.

The only thing that gives love any meaning is the personal-infinite God being the ultimate cause. He loved first, he made us in His image with the capacity to love and told us what love is. He is why love has meaning. He is what gives real meaning to love.

There is no other source that can give any real meaning to love.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 21 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Love is that selfless,"unconditional positive regard"; and described other ways.

The only thing that gives love any meaning is the personal-infinite God being the ultimate cause. He loved first, he made us in His image with the capacity to love and told us what love is. He is why love has meaning. He is what gives real meaning to love.

There is no other source that can give any real meaning to love.

If love is an innate capacity it, like all capacities, is a means by which we acquire knowledge of the world.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 21 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

If love is an innate capacity it, like all capacities, is a means by which we acquire knowledge of the world.

The personal-infinite God is the ultimate cause.
He loved first.
Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is.
The personal-infinite Christian God is the only answer to give real meaning to love.

There is no knowledge of the world that can be the ultimate cause of love, to give it meaning.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 21 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

The personal-infinite God is the ultimate cause.
He loved first.
Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is.
The personal-infinite Christian God is the only answer to give real meaning to love.

There is no knowledge of the world that can be the ultimate cause of love, to give it meaning.

"Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is." There is your metaphor. Just don't take the second phrase too literally.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 21 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

"Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is." There is your metaphor. Just don't take the second phrase too literally.

For some reason you are still not able to consider God actually communicating with man in a way man can understand. There is no use having a silent God. We would not know anything about Him. He has spoken and told us what He is and that He existed before all else, and so we have the answer to the existence of what is. That is the reason we know.
Man beginning with himself, can define the philosphical problem of existence, be he cannot generate from himself the answer to the problem, which is the infinite-personal, triune God is there, and the the infinite-personal, triune God is not silent.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 23 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

For some reason you are still not able to consider God actually communicating with man in a way man can understand. There is no use having a silent God. We would not know anything about Him. He has spoken and told us what He is and that He existed before all else, and so we have the answer to the existence of what is. That is the reason we know.
Man beginning with himself, can define the philosphical problem of existence, be he cannot generate from himself the answer to the problem, which is the infinite-personal, triune God is there, and the the infinite-personal, triune God is not silent.

You might read my posts. I wear a pin everday that represents the idea that "God Is Still Speaking". I mentioned this on another thread. The idea came from an old Gracie Allen line, "never put a period where God put a coma".

This post has been edited by minsocal: 23 February 2009 - 06:07 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 23 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

You might read my posts. I wear a pin everday that represents the idea that "God Is Still Speaking". I mentioned this on another thread. The idea came from an old Gracie Allen line, "never put a period where God put a coma".

It is that you had just previously asked I not take the phrase about God speaking to man about what love is "too literally."
This appeared to be your saying that you believe He did not. Did I misinterpret you? Is you pin your metaphor?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 24 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

It is that you had just previously asked I not take the phrase about God speaking to man about what love is "too literally."
This appeared to be your saying that you believe He did not. Did I misinterpret you? Is you pin your metaphor?

Sometimes the windmill speaks and the flower is silent. Sometimes the flower speaks and the windmill is silent. This can be found in one person. This can be found in God.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 February 2009 - 06:56 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 24 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Sometimes the windmill speaks and the flower is silent. Sometimes the flower speaks and the windmill is silent. This can be found in one person. This can be found in God.

I see we are still in the metaphor mode. You know, it could be construed that your metaphor means the different persons of God speak to each other. Why, it could belie the very essence of progessive epistemology!

If you would recognize it, it could also be a door through which you could see God is what gives real meaning to love and is the one who demonstrates that love is rational and moral.

[minsocal]

As previously stated, practical rationality has four basic components: cognition, conation, intuition and emotion. If any of the four components were sufficient causes for behavior, this would not be be rationality in the sense used here. Rationality requires an agent with an enduring sense of self and the capacity to act ot not act (volition) based on a prior set of beliefs (cognition), intuitions, emotions, or any combination thereof.

Note that there is no 'law' that says any of the components must be in accord with each other. One can desire to behave morally, yet hold beliefs contrary to the desire. I can desire to treat all religions with respect but, as was my case, it took some time to realize that this desire had, over time, come to match my own beliefs. It could have been the other way around!

This introduces another factor into consideration. The view of the Bible as a set of 'laws' is synchronic. That is, the person either accepts or rejects a view based on the assumption it is God's word. Learning, however, has a diachronic component. This simply means that over time we gradually bring a diverse set of factors into higher levels of coherence and correspondence. In other words, human development is a lifelong task.

We need to be careful how we interpret and apply passages from the Bible. Take, for example, the concept of 'original sin'. This concept appears to require the assumption of a divide between God and Nature. I, for one, do not believe in such a division. A belief in a God of Love combined with monotheism makes a 'corrupt nature' somewhat hard to explain. In other words, I certainly do not believe in the devil, that would deny monotheism unless one is willing to do a lot of intellectual tapdancing. I do not believe that a God of Love created a corrupt Nature. I do not believe that Nature became corrupt after the fact.

Is there an alternative interpretation? Of course, there always is. The alternative is to take who and what we are and take what is sometimes regarded as 'corrupt' and move it into rational analysis. This is currently taking place in psychology and some forms of theology.

[davidk]

When the Bible speaks of itself as "the Law", do you interpret that to mean it as just being a book of rules or as the body of God's commandments and revelations to man?

If the creator God made the created universe, how does the Progressive explain God and nature not having a divide? Man needs an explanation for this observable division.

It may be hard to explain but that is the need. How does the Progressive explain the dilemma of how man with all his wonder and nobility, can yet be horribly cruel? If man in his cruelty was created that way, you're right- God would be cruel. If God is love and He created everything good, how do we presume to fight social evil? Wouldn't that be fighting God who made the world as it is?

[minsocal]

As I understand it, Progressive Christianity has it's own coherent set of beliefs that, to a large degree, agree with science and the Bible at the same time. This set of beliefs is not limited to Christianity. It is becoming clearer and clearer that certain core intuitions and core moral emotions are shared by all cultures.

To put it bluntly, God does not favor only Christians.

Part of our problem has to do with assumptions and questions. As I have noted elsewhere, the concept of 'time' is a human necessity not related to God the Creator. The human concept of time creates an illusion that there is a divide between nature and the divine. Spinoza, a Jew, sensed this in the teachings of Jesus and, paid the price. Spinoza, in this sense, anticipated the theory of evolution. Strip out the human element of time and the theology changes.

Again, to put it bluntly, C. G. Jung was critical of Christianity for it's failure to to account for evil. Yes, that's what he said and I agree. How so?

Step one in the denial of responsibility is for humans to create a 'devil'. This serves two purposes. We can excuse our own bad behavior with the explanation "the devil made me do it". We can also 'demonize' the 'other'. Christian sects do this to each other as well as any other religion. The mutual demonization of Christian sects against each other is a serious problem.

The issue here is captured in the words "join" and "disjoin". Unite and divide.

The first element to look for in all discussions of morality is the "locus of responsibilty". I could repeat this point to some individuals 100 times with no effect. Others get it quite easily.

God gave us the task to become moral and self-responsible individuals. She gave us a finite time to do this. So, let's get on with it!

[davidk]

Biblical Christianity not only supports the scientific method, but is a siginificant reason for its existence. Again to imply Biblical Christianitry claims any exclusive right to moral motions or God's generosity is factually false.

Since the creator God created all else, time was created by God. If made for no other reason than for man, it doesn't make time any less real. Time actually exists.

Jung's criticism of Biblical Christianity's failure to account for evil is not for the lack of a Christian's accounting, but his disagreement with the Biblical premise.

Biblical Christianity places the decision of each individual to behave badly or not, squarely on the individuals shoulders.

The first element to look for in all discussions of morality is: it's definition and why does it make any difference!

[minsocal]

Frankly, if it takes blunt language to make a point, then why not? I grew up on a farm. From the time when I was very young, I watched cows attempt to mount cows in heat (ewww ... how unatural according to some). But, there it is, nature as created by God. But then, when a cow is having touble birthing, you fight like heck to save both lives. And, you might learn that before reading the Bible, or it might seem natural before reading the Bible.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 28 February 2009 - 07:39 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 28 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Frankly, if it takes blunt language to make a point, then why not? I grew up on a farm. From the time when I was very young, I watched cows attempt to mount cows in heat (ewww ... how unatural according to some). But, there it is, nature as created by God. But then, when a cow is having touble birthing, you fight like heck to save both lives. And, you might learn that before reading the Bible, or it might seem natural before reading the Bible.

I hope you're not saying we should behave like cows!
Some of the problems progressives have is in understanding the two created divisions of everything: God from man and nature; and, God and man from nature.
---
I agree, again, that all men have moral motions. While man's not required to read the Bible to behave morally, the Bible does truly teach why morality has meaning.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Mar 2 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

I hope you're not saying we should behave like cows!
Some of the problems progressives have is in understanding the two created divisions of everything: God from man and nature; and, God and man from nature.
---
I agree, again, that all men have moral motions. While man's not required to read the Bible to behave morally, the Bible does truly teach why morality has meaning.

Progressives have no such problem, davidk. God never created such a division. It is YOU who created the division. I do not think anybody here here agrees with you davidk. Not one.

[minsocal]

davidk,

I come from four generations of progressive Christians. Yes, four generations. Tracing back to Kant. They put their lives on the line to oppose the practice of "red string chidren". These were poor children who were forced to wear a red string around their neck so the military could pick them out for manadatory service. Time and time again, they resisted the military machine. They did this at their own risk. Generation after generation. They did this on Christian principles.

When they came to this country, they were astounded that Americans did not even care for their animals. They could not comprehend leaving animals out in the cold of winter. Instead, they built barns to shelter their animals. God told them to be good stewards of creation, and this they understood.

What I get from your responses is that this means nothing to you. That being the case, you will never be comfortable in the world of progressives. You will only bask in the egotistical view of 'man' above nature. You have a right to that view, I guess, but just keep it to your own group if you would. I, for one, do not welcome it.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 02 March 2009 - 10:02 PM