Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes against

I thought it was common knowledge that love is selfless, especially with regard to what god to worship.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

[i]4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.[/i]

I suppose so, but most Christians don’t see it that way.

A lot of your arguments are based on “Stuff that goes without saying”.

It’s not at all clear that love has to be selflessness. It’s just your idea that it is.

And even that is far from the original statement “any being can only love itself” which remains unjustified.

You do like your authorities.

It seems then that love is a condition when the interests of one person aligns with the interests of another in symbiosis and is therefore often a function of intelligence. Psychopathic lack of empathy is a deficiency of the brain. Jesus’ request of forgiveness for his crucifiers was an expression of the intelligence required to realize that the people didn’t understand what they were doing. Primates are more capable of love than earthworms. Love is the extent to which one realizes that consideration for others is consideration for oneself.

So what should I assume that you do not know? Everything?

My physics professor said the same to the class: what is it that I should realize that you do not know? I have to expect that you know something or we can’t communicate at all, which is becoming to be the case. You must at least have some prerequisite knowledge.

And it’s just your idea that it isn’t.

Nooo… it remains to be challenged. You’re free to offer a challenge at any time. Show me how a being could love something other than itself.

Well upon what are we to hinge our definitions, which are completely subjective and arbitrary, if we do not have an authority? Shall we burn all the dictionaries because they might be authoritative? What is your point?

Your making some claims about love but your assuming we have the same definition of love as you do. And frankly I don’t think it’s the only possible definition or even the majority definition.

Yes it is my idea.

You’re making a claim. I’m asking you for your reasoning.

Why should I show you anything when I’m not making a claim?

I’m pointing to some examples in order to draw out your reasoning.

It’s still a mystery.

Presumably people use the dictionary because they believe it to be correct.

You use the bible as an authority but you don’t believe it. Right?

Aren’t you basically saying that all love is selfish and also pointing to the bible which says that love is selfless? WTF

I don’t think it need be a function of intelligence. It’s not something one needs to work out. Empathy can come directly. There may need to be some minimum intelligence, but once that threshold is crossed I don’t think there is some neat graph. And animals even take risks cross species for other animals in trouble.

Or it was guilt disguised as love on Jesus’ part.

Why would I believe that there exists people who do not consider love to mean selflessness? Giving is an expression of love and that is surely considered selfless whereas greed is selfish, even though giving is ultimately selfish, but not apparently selfish (readily seen as selfish).

Ultimately, you cannot love someone else because you cannot care about someone else unless caring about someone else benefits you, but then it’s not caring about them, but caring about YOU.

Use whatever synonym you want:

You cannot love someone else.
You cannot care about someone else.
You cannot regard someone else.
You cannot worship someone else.

So, you (the one who ironically hasn’t differentiated between your/you’re properly - innocent mistake no doubt, but ironic that it would occur in the context of appealing to yourself as an authority) don’t think the majority definition of love is selflessness. So what merit should I derive from that? Should I say to myself “Phyllo doesn’t agree, therefore I’m wrong.”? You’re appealing to yourself as authority.

And I’ve supplied my reasoning in abundance.

Because you’re making the claim that my claim is wrong, yet you refuse to substantiate your claim.

Where?

If so, then it’s not my fault.

Well, if we don’t have agreeable definitions then we have nothing.

It depends on the issue. The bible is a great source of wisdom but also a great source of confusion. Alan says the bible should be ceremoniously and reverently burned every Easter and I agree. We shouldn’t callously or irreverently burn books, but we should ceremoniously burn that book lest it become a graven image and object of worship.

Yes. I’m saying the bible is right in defining love, but wrong in that love can exist. What we call love, is not love; it’s just selfish ass-hattery, but that fact isn’t readily apparent, so we flatter ourselves for possessing this divine attribute that’s no less simian than any other of our attributes. Once again, arrogance rears it’s head in the conversation because we’ve deified this love concept in adoration of ourselves.

I’m just pointing out that empathy comes from some part of the brain, so if it doesn’t exist, it’s like missing part of the brain, which is a good definition of lack of intelligence I think. I suppose you could argue that neuron count may not be as important as architecture, but once again, if someone is missing a part or the brain, then they’re probably missing that bit of architecture as well.

Then we have empirical correlations such as race, iq, and crime (ethics, morality, love or lack of) and countries with higher average iqs have less violent crime. Intelligence seems strongly correlated with ethics.

Helmuth Nyborg says the threshold is about 80-85 iq before democracy breaks down, so he’s worried about nuclear countries who are letting Muslims in because the ave IQ will become increasingly watered-down until democracy fails and we have a dictatorial country with nukes. I can link you to a video on it if you’re interested.

I don’t doubt it, but they’re probably not earthworms.

I never considered that. Why would it be guilt?

I see it like a child says to the parent “I hate you!” And the parent says “Oh you’re just mad and I don’t believe that.”

If the crucifiers had understood what they were doing, they wouldn’t have done it, so no sin had been committed.

Perhaps, but I do not trust people who idol worship a genocidal son murdering demiurge that they can somehow see as good.

If Christians are that far of the mark on good and evil, why would you trust them on any other issue?

Better to trust the Gnostic Christian as they do not agree much with the Christian worshipers of a satanic god.

Regards
DL

When I look around, I see lots of people who love other people. I see lots of people who care about other people. I see lots of people who have high regard for other people.

I don’t know it they love selflessly. I’m not in their heads. But it seems possible in some cases considering their behavior.

I don’t think that love needs to be selfless. I don’t think there is anything wrong with loving and getting something in return. That doesn’t negate love.

These are my observations of myself and others.

That’s all I’m going to say about it.

Missing the mark a lot doesn’t mean they don’t hit it sometimes and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

What’s a gnostic christian? Is that opposed to an agnostic christian where one values faith and the other values conceptual knowledge?

Gnostic = conceptual, cataphatic knowledge = what god is = painter applying paint to produce an image
Agnostic = nonconceptual, apophatic knowledge (ie faith) = what god isn’t = sculptor removing stone to reveal an image

Why wouldn’t it be possible that they could do all those things for a self-centered reason?

What’s an example of selfish love? I love you so much that I’m going to eat all your pizza? Or I love you so much that I’m going to share my pizza with you? It seems there always needs to be some self-sacrifice to constitute love, but it’s hidden from view that the self-sacrifice is for the person’s own benefit. IOW, I share my pizza, you are happy, I’m happy that you are happy. But people don’t see it that way at first since they see it as giving up some pizza and that’s a sacrifice and an expression of love. Aww… he’s sharing his pizza. No, I just value your happiness more than I value the remaining pizza that will probably be stale in the morning anyway lol.

It doesn’t matter what the situation is, I will always do what I perceive as best for me and that would be true of any being because how could any being do what it didn’t want to do? If God sent his only begotten son to die, then he did it because he wanted to and because that’s what made him happy… or happier than the alternative. So it’s ultimately not about our salvation, but God’s happiness.

What the heck, I am going to make a little digression. I think we currently are way too reductionistic when it comes to intelligence and identity in that we refer to ourselves as basically brains driving cars (the rest of our bodies) and even narrow it down to neurons. First we have large neuronal complexes in the heart and gut. Yes, less neurons than in the brain, but systems can be organized to give much more weight to portions with less parts. I am not simply a brain, I am the whole organism. Second, glial cells, which are not neurons have been found to play a huge role in intelligence and mind. Before they were considered merely structural, glue, but in the last decade we are finding that they play a huge role in who we are and how (well) we think. And then there is the endocrine system. And then…well, there’s other research indicating that the self may be much more spread out in the body, in fact everywhere. Now back to what you wrote more specifically: the brain has a lot more functions than what tends to be indicated by ‘intelligence’. If you are using the term in a very broad sense, fine, but my contacts with the very high IQ people has NOT led me to believe there is great correlation between IQ and empathy.

I would guess that countries where people do well on IQ tests have a lot of other factors that could affect things like crime.

That’s why I mentioned a minimum.

I could be wrong, I sometimes mix you and Sillouette up, glancing too fast at the names, and heck you’re both smart guys so it’s no insult, but…weren’t you standing up for standing up against bullies including being potentially violent in discussion with thnkdr?

It can seem loving to not be angry at and be ‘understanding’ of people doing you harm. Battered women, for example, are often very intelligent at coming up for reasons not to stay with the rage and fear they have at their spouses and let those feelings lead to actions that would be better for them. I see Jesus as perpetuating problematic ‘understanding’ there which can lead to increased self-hate, guilt and allow more room for the unempathic.

(see, it’s not just Watts who ruffles my feathers )

If I see a parent who knowingly let’s his kid nail him to a tree and forgives the kids while they are nailing him to the tree, I see a parent with guilt or self-hatred. In the abstract, safely out of the hands of sadistic brutes one can ALSO notice that they are confused. But all we get is the deep empathy he feels for people torturing him. To not also hate them is confused and is part of the damage Christianity has done to the world.

1. I don’t think that is the case. There are people who know what they are doing and do not care. 2) there is not need to choose between understanding and having the natural reactions to being abused by people who CONSISTANTLY avoid feeling into what they are doing. You can react with rage and understand. Jesus cut himself in half. If he can understand them he can also understand his own anger and fear and let these flow freely.

All these religious leaders share a common ACCEPT WHAT IS OTHER THAN ME AND WHAT IS OUTSIDE ME BUT JUDGE WHAT IS INSIDE ESPECIALLY EMOTIONS AND DESIRE rule. They have a double standard and it has caused untold damage to people trying to live up to these models, because the models systematize self-hate but call it love.

I guess it comes down to the fact that I don’t understand a lot of this.

Why define love as selfless?

Why would a person who says that all acts are selfish also use the definition “love is selfless” when discussing love?

And it’s not just here in this thread … Why do some people insist that altruism is selfish?

Why do all acts need to be reduced to the two categories of selfish or selfless?

It’s absolutistic, all or nothing, black and white, zero-sum thinking. Why people prefer that kind of thinking over relativistic, both and, more or less, nonzero thinking is another question.

If love = X% selfishness + 100-X% selflessness then we couldn’t have a definition for love since we’d spend all our time on the slippery slope looking for a place to draw the line. If you want definitions and communication, you have to have absolutes.

Because that’s the spirit of it. Otherwise it would be greed, self-centered.

Just to point out that selfless acts do not exist.

Because selfless acts do not exist. I thought it was fairly common knowledge since my philosophy 101 class hammered the point home and it seems like we may have even entertained the idea in high school. Also Alan uses it to show that Christianity is an impossible religion since we cannot love God nor neighbor because we can only love ourselves. I’m really surprised that this has become a topic for debate on a philosophy forum.

Because there is only self and other?

That’s like saying water= only H2O molecules. And then looking around and saying there is no water anywhere. The water that we actually find in the world, always contains impurities and contaminants but that doesn’t stop people from being able to identify water. They don’t become paralyzed or obsessed by the problem of identifying water.

In fact, some impurities in give water a pleasant taste when compared to pure H2O molecules.

Sure, when considered as discreet objects.

But the motivation for an act can be any combination of interest in self and interest in others - one other or many others.

I never took philosophy 101 so that probably explains it.

Doesn’t Alan also say that there is no self? Which technically would make all acts selfless.

It’s weird that people debate stuff on a philosophy forum.