God's Villainy

[Jac3510]

Bullshit.  Everyone values relationships based upon returns.  You value a wife for the love gives you, her parenting skills, cooking ability, etc (or any combination of these and/or other traits you value).  You wouldn't make a woman your wife if she offered nothing in return.  The same for friends, if the friend offers nothing in return, he will quickly be labeled "not much of a friend".  There's even a saying "a friend in need is a friend indeed", the meaning being that a person who is willing to provide you with something valuable (even if just moral support) when you need that something.  Every relationship that we foster is based entirely on what we get from it.

Maybe you value relationships based on what you get out of them. I don't. I think that is an absolutely terrible way to live and ultimately makes love impossible. I have very good friends who I get nothing in return from, and these are very dear to me. Just the opposite, anyone who valued my friendship based on what they got out of me wouldn't be much of a friend at all. A parasite? Sure. A friend? Not in the least.

Jac, your last few statements (underlined) bring all the words before it toppling down.

To me, it seems PS isn't necessarily talking about material things, rather in a very broad sense ("the love she gives you in return". It's just that everything we do in life and take time to engage in it's because we get something out of it. Always. From the same respect, if you were to tell a friend, "I don't really get anything out of being around you. No sense of pleasure, happiness, nothing...." They would probably say, "Oh, thanks! See ya. Have a nice life."

Enjoying the company of a friend does not make you a parasite. It's quid pro quo.

I am aware of what PS is saying, and I still don't accept it. As far as my words you underlined, they are perfectly consistent with the rest of what I said. I don't value a friendship of any kind (including my marriage) based on what I get out of them. A person who claims to be my friend because of what I give them is not a friend. A parasite would be a better definition. That doesn't mean I'm not their friend. I don't require perfection or anything resembling as much for friendship. How could I as I am far from perfect myself?!?

Love is unconditional. Absolutely unconditional. I know we don't have much of that in our society, but it's the most fulfilling way to live.

[PoopShoot]

Love is unconditional. Absolutely unconditional. I know we don't have much of that in our society, but it's the most fulfilling way to live.

So if your wife cheated on you, you'd be perfectly ok with it?  I doubt it.  If your friend intentionally burned your house to the ground, he'd still be a great fellow?  I don't believe it for a second.

[Sophus]

I am aware of what PS is saying, and I still don't accept it. As far as my words you underlined, they are perfectly consistent with the rest of what I said. I don't value a friendship of any kind (including my marriage) based on what I get out of them. A person who claims to be my friend because of what I give them is not a friend. A parasite would be a better definition. That doesn't mean I'm not their friend. I don't require perfection or anything resembling as much for friendship. How could I as I am far from perfect myself?!?

Friendship is mutual.

Love is unconditional. Absolutely unconditional. I know we don't have much of that in our society, but it's the most fulfilling way to live.

There is a mature love versus an immature love, a much more encompassing one versus a petty one, which I refer to as, not love, but symbiotic attachment. But absolute unconditional love? There is no such real thing. Even the great philosopher of love, Erich Fromm, noted this off the bat in his book The Art of Loving.

[Jac3510]

So if your wife cheated on you, you'd be perfectly ok with it?  I doubt it.  If your friend intentionally burned your house to the ground, he'd still be a great fellow?  I don't believe it for a second.

I wouldn't divorce my wife if she cheated on me, and if my friend burned my house to the ground, he would have consequences to suffer just as I do when I make mistakes. He wouldn't be a great fellow because none of us, not the least being me, are great fellows.

See, this is what I am trying to tell you: we don't love people because they are good or bad. We love them because they are the people in our lives and we want what is best for them. You can believe that or not believe it. That's not really my problem. I am telling that you we have no right to pass judgments on anyone, because all of us are fallen creatures. All judgment is the pot calling the kettle black. Sure, I can say my wife ought not cheat on me (and hopefully she won't). But that doesn't have any impact on how or why I love her. And friends ought to treat one another in one way and not in others, but that has nothing to do with whether or not, how, or why you love them.

I can only control my own actions and attitudes, PS. The moment I start placing expectations and requirements on others, I become little more than a slave master. If people want to treat others right, then the world will be a better place. If not, we'll all have a little bit of a sadder world to live in. That doesn't change the fact, though, that the only thing I can do is love without condition.

Friendship is mutual.

Perhaps for you. For me, it's a one way street. If a friend wishes to befriend me, then so much the better, but my friendship is not predicated on the action of the other.

There is a mature love versus an immature love, a much more encompassing one versus a petty one, which I refer to as, not love, but symbiotic attachment. But absolute unconditional love? There is no such real thing. Even the great philosopher of love, Erich Fromm, noted this off the bat in his book The Art of Loving.

Then I feel bad for Mr. Fromm. I used to live that way. I can't imagine going back.

[PoopShoot]

If people want to treat others right, then the world will be a better place.

Non sequitur.  I never advocated treating anyone any differently than I wish to be treated.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that the only thing I can do is love without condition.

Somehow I think the consequences mentioned for your friend who intentionally burned your house probably include loss of your friendship.

[Jac3510]

Non sequitur.  I never advocated treating anyone any differently than I wish to be treated.

I'm not being technical here, PS. Intentions have nothing to do with the quality of the world. But if people do treat each other better, the world will be a better place. That doesn't change the fact that relationships shouldn't be valued based on how someone treats me.

Somehow I think the consequences mentioned for your friend who intentionally burned your house probably include loss of your friendship.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.." ~ Jesus (Matt. 5:43-48)

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." ~ Paul (Rom. 12:14-21)

[Sophus]

Friendship is mutual.

Perhaps for you. For me, it's a one way street. If a friend wishes to befriend me, then so much the better, but my friendship is not predicated on the action of the other.

Why doesn't the Christian God do that? You either befriend him or burn in hell. You have higher standards of love then him. I have higher standards of love than him.

There is a mature love versus an immature love, a much more encompassing one versus a petty one, which I refer to as, not love, but symbiotic attachment. But absolute unconditional love? There is no such real thing. Even the great philosopher of love, Erich Fromm, noted this off the bat in his book The Art of Loving.

Then I feel bad for Mr. Fromm. I used to live that way. I can't imagine going back.

You're reading way too much into this. Fromm never said only do stuff for people if they do stuff for you back. Quite to the contrary, he thought love was autotelic. Yet at the same time, there's no way in any action of life you can possibly do anything that you do not choose to do because you want to get something beneficial from it or avoid something negative from it.

I've cut some old ties because friends were too egocentric, judgmental and obnoxious. Doesn't mean I hate them, but it's decisions I had to make out of respect for myself.

[PoopShoot]

That doesn't change the fact that relationships shouldn't be valued based on how someone treats me.

So you value a friend who treats you like shit?

The scriptures you posted make no sense as a response to the quote they follow.

[Reginus]

You're reading way too much into this. Fromm never said only do stuff for people if they do stuff for you back. Quite to the contrary, he thought love was autotelic. Yet at the same time, there's no way in any action of life you can possibly do anything that you do not choose to do because you want to get something beneficial from it or avoid something negative from it.

I've cut some old ties because friends were too egocentric, judgmental and obnoxious. Doesn't mean I hate them, but it's decisions I had to make out of respect for myself.

Are you saying that it is impossible to love your enemies?  That despite that, say, MLK preached this, he didn't actually love his enemies?

[i_am_i]

You're reading way too much into this. Fromm never said only do stuff for people if they do stuff for you back. Quite to the contrary, he thought love was autotelic. Yet at the same time, there's no way in any action of life you can possibly do anything that you do not choose to do because you want to get something beneficial from it or avoid something negative from it.

I've cut some old ties because friends were too egocentric, judgmental and obnoxious. Doesn't mean I hate them, but it's decisions I had to make out of respect for myself.

Are you saying that it is impossible to love your enemies?  That despite that, say, MLK preached this, he didn't actually love his enemies?

Of course he didn't love his enemies. Do you love your enemies? Do you even have any enemies? If so, why?

I don't have any enemies, not one. If I do have an enemy I sure as hell don't know about it. I know for a fact that I am nobody's enemy unless for some strange reason someone considers me to be one.

What a primitive concept, the idea of having enemies. It's silly.

[tymygy]

Okay, this is an argument that can spin in circles forever.

personally, I value a friend, not for what he will give to me but for what he will not take away. A friend that is just another person like me, but doesn't talk shit about me, or wouldn't care what I said abiout him/her would be a good enough friend for me. A person, who treats me like shit, takes things and doesn't return them, emotionally hurts me is NOT a good enough friend for me.

Now jac, say your wife did nothing for you exept degrade you physically and emotionally, took away your "manlyhood" if you would, would you love her? (or have ever loved her?) Now say your wife does nothing for you, but she also doesn't make you feel like shit, and she never has anything bad to say about you, would you still love her? Probably. Now imagine your wife, she is perfect, she loves you more than anything, she would give her life for you in a heartbeat. She would defend you if it meant degrading her own "image". Would you love her more than the other two options?? Why or why not?

Same goes for a friend.

[Reginus]

You're reading way too much into this. Fromm never said only do stuff for people if they do stuff for you back. Quite to the contrary, he thought love was autotelic. Yet at the same time, there's no way in any action of life you can possibly do anything that you do not choose to do because you want to get something beneficial from it or avoid something negative from it.

I've cut some old ties because friends were too egocentric, judgmental and obnoxious. Doesn't mean I hate them, but it's decisions I had to make out of respect for myself.

Are you saying that it is impossible to love your enemies?  That despite that, say, MLK preached this, he didn't actually love his enemies?

Of course he didn't love his enemies. Do you love your enemies? Do you even have any enemies? If so, why?

I don't have any enemies, not one. If I do have an enemy I sure as hell don't know about it. I know for a fact that I am nobody's enemy unless for some strange reason someone considers me to be one.

What a primitive concept, the idea of having enemies. It's silly.

For the purposes of my argument, let's define enemy as "someone who hates you, or engages in activities antagonistic to you."  Certainly MLK had enemies in this sense.

[i_am_i]

Are you saying that it is impossible to love your enemies?  That despite that, say, MLK preached this, he didn't actually love his enemies?

Of course he didn't love his enemies. Do you love your enemies? Do you even have any enemies? If so, why?

I don't have any enemies, not one. If I do have an enemy I sure as hell don't know about it. I know for a fact that I am nobody's enemy unless for some strange reason someone considers me to be one.

What a primitive concept, the idea of having enemies. It's silly.

For the purposes of my argument, let's define enemy as "someone who hates you, or engages in activities antagonistic to you."  Certainly MLK had enemies in this sense.

Okay, let's. I very much doubt that Martin Luther King Junior loved those who hated him or engaged in activities that were antagonistic to him. I can, however, imagine that he was convinced that he should, being that he was a Christian.

[Sophus]

MLK protested peacefully. I seriously doubt that means he loved the people who arrested him or would have "loved" the man who killed him. You can try to show them undeserved respect or be civil toward them but if one were to look at the psychology behind it, I really doubt the mental state could qualify anywhere near the warm fuzzies of love.

[Reginus]

Okay, let's. I very much doubt that Martin Luther King Junior loved those who hated him or engaged in activities that were antagonistic to him. I can, however, imagine that he was convinced that he should, being that he was a Christian.

Did he ever do or say anything to harm an enemy?  Is there any person who knew him well who has testified that he hated or even did not love his enemies?