Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is Love Logical


Guest end3

Recommended Posts

In contrast to the words of Three Dog Night "One is the loneliest number" and the theme song from MASH "Suicide is Easy" I would say love is quite logical. Seriously, love is an ideology created and derived from the sensory expression of attraction and affection. Even as an ex-evangelical I am still hard pressed to find a more fitting definition of love as it is found in a chapter (1 Cor. 13) of our old hand book. Based on that, the judeo-christian definition tells us what love is and what love is not. Pretty good principles to live by. I am sure there are other ideologies of love found in other books of faith...I just haven't researched it. It is interesting though how even as ex-christians our continued practice and understanding of love is influenced by religious definition...OR IS IT? Scratching my head now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I ponder this random yet well thought out question from our resident christian can someone tell me who in the hell came up with the ideology of love? That is to say, who put this understanding of attraction and affection in a box and called it LOVE? Damn I am sure the search for this answer is not going to be easy? Hmmm...maybe a google search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Def Leppard says, "Love Bites".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I ponder this random yet well thought out question from our resident christian can someone tell me who in the hell came up with the ideology of love? That is to say, who put this understanding of attraction and affection in a box and called it LOVE? Damn I am sure the search for this answer is not going to be easy? Hmmm...maybe a google search.

 

Cats and dogs have something very close to our emotional experience love. Certainly other apes do as well. Clearly this emotion evolved long ago among mammals. Now it might be more refined, nuanced or subtle in our species than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

So you are saying love in independent without the physical. How would that happen?

I didn't even say anything that could be interpreted that way, did I? I said it was emotional (and I've said a bazillion times before, even a few times to you in other threads, that emotions including love are neurological), and not the shallow "doing stuff " you seem to imply.

 

Let's cut past the chase. The NT God isn't a God of Love either. Unless you worship Ashtaroth/Ishtar/Aphrodite, which in that case it would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for End to try to drag that into this, BD. I'm hoping he'll realize what a stupid idea that is, but it sounds like the mincing, prancing-around-the-point sort of thing I've seen him do over and over again. This ain't a Boston courtroom and he's no Alan Shore. Which is too damn bad. Alan Shore is HAWT.

 

The "God of Love" isn't very loving at all. If love really was just "doing things," then Christians have a lot to explain regarding why their god doesn't do anything definitive, miraculous, or evidence-based. Everything I've seen Christians hallucinate as "God's love" looks like coincidence. Even as a Christian I was seeing that; it was painful to me to see people see a nice day or newly-found car keys as "proof" that God loved them. If Boyfriend!Jesus wants to push my thrill buttons, I prefer a nice Italian dinner out, a good bottle of wine, a drive out by the canyon, and a blanket spread under the Milky Way. Imagine how painful it was for me as a Christian to realize that I was the one doing *ALL* the work in my "relationship" with this imaginary friend. What a lot of wasted time... In sum, I don't know if Christians really understand love at all with all the horseshit they must wade through in order to justify their religion's deity's total lack of presence. I sure as fuck didn't while I was Christian.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying love in independent without the physical. How would that happen?

I didn't even say anything that could be interpreted that way, did I? I said it was emotional (and I've said a bazillion times before, even a few times to you in other threads, that emotions including love are neurological), and not the shallow "doing stuff " you seem to imply.

 

Let's cut past the chase. The NT God isn't a God of Love either. Unless you worship Ashtaroth/Ishtar/Aphrodite, which in that case it would be a different story.

So you are saying love in independent without the physical. How would that happen?

I didn't even say anything that could be interpreted that way, did I? I said it was emotional (and I've said a bazillion times before, even a few times to you in other threads, that emotions including love are neurological), and not the shallow "doing stuff " you seem to imply.

 

Let's cut past the chase. The NT God isn't a God of Love either. Unless you worship Ashtaroth/Ishtar/Aphrodite, which in that case it would be a different story.

 

The way I am understanding is emotions are a brain thing. Now either those feelings are derived from input to the body or the brain derives them from no input. That is what I see. Please clarify which or both you believe it is.

 

Just to give you an example to be more clear......I am assuming touch as one form of input. When I get touched or touch someone, then I am reasonably sure this gives me some sort of chemical message in my brain. So. if I take away all my sensory input, then is my brain capable of producing the same chemistry?

 

And in my mind this is directly tied to fatih and works. Again, going back to touch. Suppose my wife feels loved when shes touched. If I just tell her I my brain loves her, how would she actually derive love? And then you have like romantic love, hormones and all that natural instinctual attraction.....which I don't know much about. I know I can tell you who I am attracted to and why, but is this the same set of reactions in my brain as cultivated mature love or not?

 

You see where I am going?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey End!

 

I notice you visited my profile page.

 

Just fyi, I've removed the STOP PRESS notice about you. Everything's back as it was.

 

I hope we're cool now.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I am understanding is emotions are a brain thing. Now either those feelings are derived from input to the body or the brain derives them from no input. That is what I see. Please clarify which or both you believe it is.

 

Just to give you an example to be more clear......I am assuming touch as one form of input. When I get touched or touch someone, then I am reasonably sure this gives me some sort of chemical message in my brain. So. if I take away all my sensory input, then is my brain capable of producing the same chemistry?

 

Depends what you mean by "derives". I would say the emotion of love is derived from a combination of external stimulus and internal stimulus, and that "love" itself is an entirely internal stimulus (once you feel love for someone inside your head, your future actions and feelings are affected). You can get a feeling of love towards someone who's not around to trigger it just by thinking about that person, which is all happening inside the brain.

 

If you take away all your sensory input on a permanent basis, you sorta cease to exist. We aren't separate from our environment. As babies we develop the use of our senses in a feedback loop with the world around us, and throughout our lives we continue to be molded by our environments (just at a slower rate). Take away sensory input, and your brain changes. Take away all external sensory input, and your mind is still getting internal signals from the body. We aren't really separate units from our environment.

 

On the other hand, we're also not deterministic robots. We're more predictable than we'd like to admit sometimes, but we still can make choices. If love were all about external inputs and not about internal things happening in the brain itself, then we could make other people feel the way we want them to. We can't do that. We also have the ability to gradually change our response to stimuli - people in abusive relationships can, with time and a lot of work, learn to respond with emotions other than love to their abuser's attempts to manipulate them. You can also practice toning down your negative responses to difficult people, and though you may never end up trusting them or being best friends, you can get yourself to feel something that might be able to be called love towards them.

 

And in my mind this is directly tied to fatih and works. Again, going back to touch. Suppose my wife feels loved when shes touched. If I just tell her I my brain loves her, how would she actually derive love? And then you have like romantic love, hormones and all that natural instinctual attraction.....which I don't know much about. I know I can tell you who I am attracted to and why, but is this the same set of reactions in my brain as cultivated mature love or not?

 

Telling someone how you feel about them can be as powerful as demonstrating that love with actions. It definitely helps if the actions and the words line up, or else the other person will suspect that you're lying somehow. It means a lot to me when people tell me in words that they love me. Different people have different habits with how touchy they are. From someone who hugs everyone all the time, a hug doesn't mean they love you. From someone who's more stand-off-ish, going out of their way to initiate human contact means a lot. People may get more or less huggy when they're upset, which may or may not have any bearing on how they feel about you. Words can clarify this. Words let you know where you stand. And having someone say that they love you can trigger lots of feelings of being loved. If someone who's normally bubbly and friendly starts avoiding me, their words telling me that something traumatic happened to them and they just need some time to heal and that they still care about me does trigger feelings of love.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to learn how reason and use critical thinking then give up superstition. Trying to make this stuff fit suppression leads to bizarre results. For those who are too deep into superstition to find the way out the way to reason is to believe only in what we can detect. If you can't detect X then don't believe it is real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Spirochetes residing in the right part of your brain could cause you to feel quite convincingly loved/in love. Electrical/magnetic stimulation can accomplish the same thing (see God Helmet). Emotions get triggered by a variety of things. Certain locations are considered to be romantic places because the beauty or serenity is conducive to romantic feelings. Chocolate affects the brain in the same area where we can find "love."

 

Romantic love gets triggered by touch. Brotherly love doesn't involve the same kind of touching, if at all. Love of country is due to expectation and indoctrination. I love bacon and am eager to touch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spirochetes residing in the right part of your brain could cause you to feel quite convincingly loved/in love. Electrical/magnetic stimulation can accomplish the same thing (see God Helmet). Emotions get triggered by a variety of things. Certain locations are considered to be romantic places because the beauty or serenity is conducive to romantic feelings. Chocolate affects the brain in the same area where we can find "love."

 

Romantic love gets triggered by touch. Brotherly love doesn't involve the same kind of touching, if at all. Love of country is due to expectation and indoctrination. I love bacon and am eager to touch it.

 

The objection to my thought process was that love was natural, instinctual / innate and uncontrolable, yet there is admission that stimuli is part of the mechanism. I hate to call y'all wishy washy, but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

 

For example, if I send a hot babe some flowers and show her what I have in my pocket......i.e. MONEY, then there's a reasonable chance she will fall in love.

 

So you take the word innate and it says "oringinating in the mind". How the hell can they define it like that. You going to ask a baby if they are innately something?

 

I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I don't get it.

Love isn't a single thing and it doesn't have a single cause. Many forms of stimulation can promote the emotion, but it also can arise without external stimulus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

As I ponder this random yet well thought out question from our resident christian can someone tell me who in the hell came up with the ideology of love? That is to say, who put this understanding of attraction and affection in a box and called it LOVE? Damn I am sure the search for this answer is not going to be easy? Hmmm...maybe a google search.

Good point ttm......

 

Margee's 2 cents for what it's worth......

 

I think that this 'feeling' called love can be very logical and Illogical.

 

Logical love would be an instinct built into us, to develope the position of protecting others from injury or harm....The emotion is very mature and would die for the the cause of defending and safe-guarding another. Logical love protects your 'property', respecting it and working together in community with others so that everyone would be well taken care of. Logical love encourages. Logical love is responsibility to me.... helping others in my family and in the community so that we may all thrive together. Logical love would kill for the protection of the person or community if it was being threatened..

 

Illogical love for mating is a different story. It is also built into us by nature. It can be 'crazy-making' love. It's an emotion that can get pretty bi-polar. It also will kill, but for the reasons of jealously. It seeks and finds. It is hunting and waiting... and jealous and impatient... and thrilling and depressing. This type of love dosen't care most of the time about who you are attracted to. It makes you blind to certain qualities of the other person you are mating with. This love makes you want to change others after you've been with then awhile. It can love and hate very quickly. It can be a throw-away love...once the mating is done...you look and realize that that this was not love afterall.....it was a chemical reaction to a person for the process of mating...... Our ancestors used to mate , stay for awhile and then leave to find the next 'attractive' mate ..to produce once again..... why do you think we have so many marriage break-ups? Illogical love!

 

Outside of love relationships.... immature, Illogical love.. always wants to be right.

 

So is gods' love logical or illogical? I know my answer!! Remember, I feel that mature love protects....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yo BAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa!!!

 

How ya doin bro?

 

I'm good thanks. :)

 

U 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks BAA, and yes, we are cool,......I never was angry

 

Oh good!

I'm glad about that End. smile.png

 

 

 

As to the topic of this thread, imho love is not the single, unifying, underlying thing we might be mistaken for thinking it is. Nor is it either obvious or easy to understand.

 

For instance, the first of those links shows that C.S. Lewis grappled with the complex nature of the four loves. If each is distinct from, yet related to the other, then we aren't looking at something simple are we? Their relationship is dynamic and apt to change over time and with circumstances. Such a shifting, elusive thing makes analysis difficult, wouldn't you agree?

 

And there's another factor to consider.

Are the four loves described by the ancient Greeks the one true, full and definitive description of what love is and how it works? Or is there more than one description that's valid?

 

Other cultures hold to different values, societal rules and ethical standards, so it wouldn't be so surprising to find that (today) there are at least as many different definitions of love as there are different cultures. To muddy the waters even further, we can enlarge the range of possible definitions of love by looking back thru time. What of the Aztecs? The Picts? The Etruscans? The Australian aboriginal peoples, the Polynesians or the Inuits? In most cases we have little or no record of how their society's functioned, let alone what they thought love was and how it worked. So who's to say which definition/s of love is correct?

 

Then there's the religious aspect to consider.

If I were a Muslim I'd probably advocate that 'true' love is only described in the Quran. Or, if I were a Jew, I'd refer to the OT. As a Sikh..., as a Hindu..., as a Buddhist, etc., etc. You get the picture? So, does my affiliation to a particular belief system automatically guarantee that my definition of love is the right one?

 

Wendyshrug.gif

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objection to my thought process was that love was natural, instinctual / innate and uncontrolable, yet there is admission that stimuli is part of the mechanism. I hate to call y'all wishy washy, but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

 

For example, if I send a hot babe some flowers and show her what I have in my pocket......i.e. MONEY, then there's a reasonable chance she will fall in love.

 

So you take the word innate and it says "oringinating in the mind". How the hell can they define it like that. You going to ask a baby if they are innately something?

 

I don't get it.

 

First: End, that bit I bolded is quite disturbing. You know I've had concerns about you in that department for a while but seriously, you think that would be "love"? I guess it explains a lot, but not what you'd like, I don't think! You also completely miss some simple facts that totally invalidate your case: the young woman's reaction would not be predicated entirely by the rich guy's douchebaggery, but rather would be part and parcel of a mindset that had been inculcated over many years by her upbringing and media consumption. If some asshat did that to a woman who is *not* a Girls Gone Wild type, she'd laugh in his face.

 

Second: A lot of what you're going on about is an argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, so therefore it can't be the case. I suggest you pick up some textbooks about basic psychology and also neuropsychology. It's a fascinating field. This isn't the first time I've noticed you trying to debate something you patently don't grasp. It is not anybody else's duty to educate you, and I do hope you know that things might look a lot less complicated if you take the time to learn about this field. You sound like a toddler trying to one-up a physic professor.

 

Third: That isn't the entirety of the definition of innate, End, and your intellectual dishonesty is starting to grate on me. In fact dictionary.com lists that as the *THIRD* definition down. Further, YOU'RE the one who seems to be using the word "innate," or rather misusing it. You also should know by now that there are lots of ways of finding out what babies know and feel without "asking" them. (If you study even a tiny bit of developmental psych, you'll find that out--and it is NEAT.)

 

I don't follow you at all when you ask about "works through faith." "Faith" as I see Christians using it means "blind belief in something without a shred of evidence supporting it and in the face of plenty of evidence denying it." That is not love. It's not even sane. I think most people would define love as having both internal and external inputs and also reciprocity (a point I think you totally missed earlier, so I'll restate it). Your god gives you neither external inputs of any kind nor reciprocity; all you have is that "still small voice" and warm fuzzy feelings, which people find in many situations, even ones that don't involve religion at all. So can you please tell me how you get to love from the concept of "works through faith"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I ponder this random yet well thought out question from our resident christian can someone tell me who in the hell came up with the ideology of love? That is to say, who put this understanding of attraction and affection in a box and called it LOVE? Damn I am sure the search for this answer is not going to be easy? Hmmm...maybe a google search.

Good point ttm......

 

Margee's 2 cents for what it's worth......

 

I think that this 'feeling' called love can be very logical and Illogical.

 

Logical love would be an instinct built into us, to develope the position of protecting others from injury or harm....The emotion is very mature and would die for the the cause of defending and safe-guarding another. Logical love protects your 'property', respecting it and working together in community with others so that everyone would be well taken care of. Logical love encourages. Logical love is responsibility to me.... helping others in my family and in the community so that we may all thrive together. Logical love would kill for the protection of the person or community if it was being threatened..

 

Illogical love for mating is a different story. It is also built into us by nature. It can be 'crazy-making' love. It's an emotion that can get pretty bi-polar. It also will kill, but for the reasons of jealously. It seeks and finds. It is hunting and waiting... and jealous and impatient... and thrilling and depressing. This type of love dosen't care most of the time about who you are attracted to. It makes you blind to certain qualities of the other person you are mating with. This love makes you want to change others after you've been with then awhile. It can love and hate very quickly. It can be a throw-away love...once the mating is done...you look and realize that that this was not love afterall.....it was a chemical reaction to a person for the process of mating...... Our ancestors used to mate , stay for awhile and then leave to find the next 'attractive' mate ..to produce once again..... why do you think we have so many marriage break-ups? Illogical love!

 

Outside of love relationships.... immature, Illogical love.. always want to be right.

 

So is gods' love logical or illogical? I know my answer!! Remember, I feel that mature love protects....

 

 

You're always so profound Margee! ; )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First: End, that bit I bolded is quite disturbing. You know I've had concerns about you in that department for a while but seriously, you think that would be "love"? I guess it explains a lot, but not what you'd like, I don't think! You also completely miss some simple facts that totally invalidate your case: the young woman's reaction would not be predicated entirely by the rich guy's douchebaggery, but rather would be part and parcel of a mindset that had been inculcated over many years by her upbringing and media consumption. If some asshat did that to a woman who is *not* a Girls Gone Wild type, she'd laugh in his face.

First A, the comment was an attempt a humor......misdirection. Secondly, there are many women that can find themselves magically in love given the right dollar figure. I find that a bit disturbing but more realistic than anything.

 

What you were asking about faith and works. Christianity obviously touts doing good works, sometimes deliberately and sometimes by the heart. Both, and this refects the ongoing discussion, promote or cultivate potential good feelings or budding love in the target of the works. I find it no different than sending chocolates or flowers or helping someone. I don't have any argument that there are different avenues to yield love in the end.

 

And no offense A, and I appreciate you trying to get along....as am I, but you're not the dictionary police. The definition I used fits well into this conversation. "orignating in the mind"...if I recall. I have no problem thinking something orginates in the mind, but to be innate as I am describing, I am thinking it has to be orignial to an infant before ANY processing of the mind happens, any stimulus. If this is wrong, then I will gladly admit so. But again, my conversation doesn't have to neatly fit into your world nor educational view. I have been trying to give examples to go along with my thoughts so that people will more understand what I am trying to describe. I think that is a sign of respect, no? Better communication?

 

Back to the subject. I would find love logical if it were predictable. I find it predictable in the fact that we can do things (works), to alter the chances. If I do x, there's a better chance love will grow......which seems to depend on the view of the object via their life experiences.

 

On an abstract note, if you look at the human body as just kind of an exchange or processing center, then love is more of a relationship between one's surroundings. For example, I am in love with my bed and the rest I get. I am in love with nature. I am in love with food. I am in love with...... Can we know if this is love is supernatural....I don't think so. Can we say exclude that? I don't see how.

 

And btw, to your previous post. I used to set traps here years ago. I'm not as mean now. I had my own thoughts about it, and there may have been a tinge of venom, but I put it in the lion's den appropriately. And also, the content here has been lacking IMO....so I put something out there. In other words, if I were out to get y'all, I'd of set a better trap.....but your senses were not far off.....lol. I'll try to be more transparent in the future.....unless I am stressed of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definition of INNATE

 

 

 

: existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth

 

Got this from the "medical definition".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

You're always so profound Margee! ; )

Than you for that nice compliment ttm....it's just been my observation over the years, with a little life experience

and study....0-picture.gifwink.png

 

Getting old makes one just a little wiser than when one is so young and thinks they have all the answers... I sure wish wrinkles didn't come with the package!! rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

I'm waiting for End to try to drag that into this, BD. I'm hoping he'll realize what a stupid idea that is, but it sounds like the mincing, prancing-around-the-point sort of thing I've seen him do over and over again. This ain't a Boston courtroom and he's no Alan Shore. Which is too damn bad. Alan Shore is HAWT.

I was waiting too but I got too impatient. I knew he was hinting around at it.

 

So you are saying love in independent without the physical. How would that happen?

I didn't even say anything that could be interpreted that way, did I? I said it was emotional (and I've said a bazillion times before, even a few times to you in other threads, that emotions including love are neurological), and not the shallow "doing stuff " you seem to imply.

 

Let's cut past the chase. The NT God isn't a God of Love either. Unless you worship Ashtaroth/Ishtar/Aphrodite, which in that case it would be a different story.

 

The way I am understanding is emotions are a brain thing. Now either those feelings are derived from input to the body or the brain derives them from no input. That is what I see. Please clarify which or both you believe it is.

I highlighted the above. I'm not answering it again. Especially when I just answered this question in the very post you quoted, and refused to actually read and try to understand. That fact is obvious by the fact that it didn't answer your question. If you don't know what neurological means, you're a big boy, go directly to the dictionary. You're smarter than that.

 

 

Just to give you an example to be more clear......I am assuming touch as one form of input. When I get touched or touch someone, then I am reasonably sure this gives me some sort of chemical message in my brain. So. if I take away all my sensory input, then is my brain capable of producing the same chemistry?

 

And in my mind this is directly tied to faith and works.

I get what it is you are saying. We all do. We all also already know where you're going with this. How is it tied directly to faith and works?

 

Again, going back to touch. Suppose my wife feels loved when shes touched. If I just tell her I my brain loves her, how would she actually derive love? And then you have like romantic love, hormones and all that natural instinctual attraction.....which I don't know much about. I know I can tell you who I am attracted to and why, but is this the same set of reactions in my brain as cultivated mature love or not?

 

You see where I am going?

Water it down some more, I might understand it just as good as I did initially. Yeah, I get it.

 

Yes, when you're already in love or attracted to someone, touch is sexually and romantically stimulating. Now, have some creepy person do the same touch, and it won't be love you are feeling. It is because your brain (I.E. you) already is in love and wanting that, and we're biologically programmed to respond the way we do so that we keep doing it, so that we end up with babies, lots of babies!

 

I've already addressed this. Your problem is that you want me to just agree with you because you want to start with a conclusion and work from there, instead of starting with the work towards the conclusion. I'm not saying what you want to hear, because what you want to hear, you percieve it helps you argue for god. You've already tried this already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.