God's Villainy

[Tank]

We do not 'value people based on who and what they are' but who and what we perceive them to be.ne is not a mind reader, one is not psychic, one does not have second sight.

My wife is my wife. My daughter is my daughter. My Christian friends are brothers and sisters in Christ. People are the very image of God and thus are worthy of the deepest respect. Above all, people are loved by God, which is the absolutely object basis on which I love them, for if God loves them, what possible right could I have not to?

None of these things are a matter of perception. They are matters of fact. When I say, then, that we love people based on who and what they are, I am not speaking of something so trivial as their personalities. Personalities change. They are not who or what you are. One of my favorite songs as the following chorus:

I am a flower quickly fading, here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean, a vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I'm calling, Lord You catch me when I'm falling
And You've told me who I am
I am Yours

If that is true of me, how much more true is it of everyone else? Whether you believe it or not, I am convinced of the fact that you have been created by God, that you are His very image, and that you are loved dearly and incomprehensibly by this same God. You are divine royalty, a son of God. That's not perception, Chris. There's nothing in you that would cause me to believe that anymore than there is something in my wife that would cause me to believe that about her. I know it because God as told me in His Word, which I know you don't accept, but which I obviously do.

So yes, I most definitely love on the basis of who and what people are. I love based on identity, not behavior. The former is immobile and sure and the basis of true trust and unconditional support. The latter is fickle, changing, untrustworthy, and turns me into some selfish, self-serving god in my own mind, in which I declare by my sovereign right who deserves my love and who does not based on how well they keep my commands, my expectations of them.

Is it possible I am wrong? Obviously, yes. Perhaps my wife is absolutely nothing more than a bag of atoms functioning in one way or another. But, either way, I don't love her because of who she treats me, but because of who she is.

Edited to reflect third person.

Chris, you are extremely naive if you think you have ever seen all and understood everything about anybody. I have been married 30 years and my wife and I still fill in gaps in each others perceptions of each other.  

People often see in others what they want to see in them. The last film Peter Sellers made, Being There, deals with this issue. He plays a character who says very little and agrees a lot. Those around him treat him as a blank canvas and paint their desires onto him. It's a great film, with a great message.

As people rarely know themselves and change throughout their lives what possibility is there to understand even one other human being? I'll tell you, none, none whatsoever.

[PoopShoot]

And the need for justice or revenge?

When was that brought up?  This makes me wonder if you're illegitimately ascribing actions to me.

[Jac3510]

Chris, you are extremely naive if you think you have ever seen all and understood everything about anybody. I have been married 30 years and my wife and I still fill in gaps in each others perceptions of each other.  

People often see in others what they want to see in them. The last film Peter Sellers made, Being There, deals with this issue. He plays a character who says very little and agrees a lot. Those around him treat him as a blank canvas and paint their desires onto him. It's a great film, with a great message.

As people rarely know themselves and change throughout their lives what possibility is there to understand even one other human being? I'll tell you, none, none whatsoever.

Oh, I don't think I've understood everything about anybody. not even myself.

That is precisely why I don't value relationships based on how they treat me. I don't know anyone, even my own wife, well enough to know why she would or would not treat me in a certain way. And I'm sure all can agree that the motivation for an action is just as important as the action itself. If my wife decides to do something as simple as give me a massage, it will mean something very different if she does so just because she wants to "be nice" rather than if she does so to make another man jealous. How, then, could I ever value her based on how she treats me, since I can never really know completely why she does anything she does? As the years pass, I learn more about her, as I'm sure you have with your own wife. But that doesn't mean I ever know such things.

That does not, however, change the fact that I know that she is a child of God, my wife, and the mother of my own child. I deeply value her and our relationship on those solid facts, and primarily and most importantly the first of those. That is something I do know, and that is why I love her as I do--without condition of any kind. She can do what she wants. I love her just the same, no matter what she does or does not do.

------------------------------------------------

And the need for justice or revenge?

When was that brought up?  This makes me wonder if you're illegitimately ascribing actions to me.

Not attributing anything to you. Addressing concepts generally. You asked (at least, I think it was you) about a person who burned my house down. I mentioned forgiveness. Where, then, is justice? Some demand it. I don't. I'm not saying you do. I leave all that up to God.

[PoopShoot]

Not attributing anything to you. Addressing concepts generally. You asked (at least, I think it was you) about a person who burned my house down. I mentioned forgiveness. Where, then, is justice? Some demand it. I don't. I'm not saying you do. I leave all that up to God.

Fair enough.  Would you remain friends with them?  Would the relationship itself still be valuable to you?

[Jac3510]

Fair enough.  Would you remain friends with them?  Would the relationship itself still be valuable to you?

Absolutely, if they would still have it. Either way, I would still deeply value the friendship, even if lost, and would do everything I was able to be there for them if in need.

[Tank]

Chris, you are extremely naive if you think you have ever seen all and understood everything about anybody. I have been married 30 years and my wife and I still fill in gaps in each others perceptions of each other.  

People often see in others what they want to see in them. The last film Peter Sellers made, Being There, deals with this issue. He plays a character who says very little and agrees a lot. Those around him treat him as a blank canvas and paint their desires onto him. It's a great film, with a great message.

As people rarely know themselves and change throughout their lives what possibility is there to understand even one other human being? I'll tell you, none, none whatsoever.

Oh, I don't think I've understood everything about anybody. not even myself.

That is precisely why I don't value relationships based on how they treat me. I don't know anyone, even my own wife, well enough to know why she would or would not treat me in a certain way. And I'm sure all can agree that the motivation for an action is just as important as the action itself. If my wife decides to do something as simple as give me a massage, it will mean something very different if she does so just because she wants to "be nice" rather than if she does so to make another man jealous. How, then, could I ever value her based on how she treats me, since I can never really know completely why she does anything she does? As the years pass, I learn more about her, as I'm sure you have with your own wife. But that doesn't mean I ever know such things.

That does not, however, change the fact that I know that she is a child of God, my wife, and the mother of my own child. I deeply value her and our relationship on those solid facts, and primarily and most importantly the first of those. That is something I do know, and that is why I love her as I do--without condition of any kind. She can do what she wants. I love her just the same, no matter what she does or does not do.

How you feel towards your wife is one thing, how you perceive her (your feelings would be an interpretation of your perceptions) is another and what she really is is something different still.

We do not 'value people based on who and what they are' but who and what we perceive them to be. One is not a mind reader, one is not psychic, one does not have second sight.

You said that we 'value people on who and what they are.' As you can not possibly know 'who and what they are' you can only be forming a value based on your perception of what they are, who you think they are. You can love your wife as I can mine and we hope they don't lie to us when they say they love us in return, but unfortunately we can never know if they really mean it or not. So we react to what they say and how they behave and form a perception of their feelings towards us based on that and nothing else. How we react to their behaviour is down to our genes, memes and experience nothing more and nothing less. Our self programming 'slimeware' does it's best. You appear to have been well programmed by the hormones that coursed through your body when you met and fell in 'love' your wife and imprinted on her. As I was with mine  

[Jac3510]

Oh, I don't think I've understood everything about anybody. not even myself.

That is precisely why I don't value relationships based on how they treat me. I don't know anyone, even my own wife, well enough to know why she would or would not treat me in a certain way. And I'm sure all can agree that the motivation for an action is just as important as the action itself. If my wife decides to do something as simple as give me a massage, it will mean something very different if she does so just because she wants to "be nice" rather than if she does so to make another man jealous. How, then, could I ever value her based on how she treats me, since I can never really know completely why she does anything she does? As the years pass, I learn more about her, as I'm sure you have with your own wife. But that doesn't mean I ever know such things.

That does not, however, change the fact that I know that she is a child of God, my wife, and the mother of my own child. I deeply value her and our relationship on those solid facts, and primarily and most importantly the first of those. That is something I do know, and that is why I love her as I do--without condition of any kind. She can do what she wants. I love her just the same, no matter what she does or does not do.

How you feel towards your wife is one thing, how you perceive her (your feelings would be an interpretation of your perceptions) is another and what she really is is something different still.

You said that we 'value people on who and what they are.' As you can not possibly know 'who and what they are' you can only be forming a value based on your perception of what they are, who you think they are. You can love your wife as I can mine and we hope they don't lie to us when they say they love us in return, but unfortunately we can never know if they really mean it or not. So we react to what they say and how they behave and form a perception of their feelings towards us based on that and nothing else. How we react to their behaviour is down to our genes, memes and experience nothing more and nothing less. Our self programming 'slimeware' does it's best. You appear to have been well programmed by the hormones that coursed through your body when you met and fell in 'love' your wife and imprinted on her. As I was with mine  

Chris, with all due respect, you are arguing against something I never said and are ignoring what I did say. Notice the word I put in red above. I've not argued once about my feelings. On the contrary, I said, concerning emotions:

"Whatever emotions I do or do not have are just that--emotions. I regard people as valuable because of who they are"

I would very kindly ask you to address my point rather than one of your own making. I'll take it you simply misread me, as I have been prone to do in the past, so we will consider this all clarification.

Again, then, without reference to emotions, I value my relationship with my wife based on who and what she is, not my perception of who and what she is. I am not talking about personality traits, which can change. I am talking about her basic essence. She is a human being and a fellow child of God. God loves her. Therefore, I love her. He loves her unconditionally. Therefore I love her unconditionally. There is no perception in that whatsoever. It is something that is simply true (assuming, of course, Christianity, which I do). I don't know in what manner you love your wife. I would not pretend to presume. Perhaps you love her unconditionally, perhaps not. I am telling you that I love my wife unconditionally because God does and because she is a human being who fundamentally should be loved. As I would never in a million years venture to tell you on what basis you love you wife, I would ask that you not tell me on what basis I love mine.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

I've tried to read all of this, but I miss stuff sometimes.  Forgive me if I'm being redundant.  It seems you have your goalposts on wheels brother.  To avoid a derail, I'll stick to the love thing.  Your definition of love seems absolutely meaningless.  If you have a friend you share weekly tea with and he burns down your house, you would still go have weekly tea with the chap. Correct?  It stands to reason that if for whatever reason you decided to kill his wife, he would still continue to have weekly tea with you if he had the same mindset as you.  Under your definition of love, we can do any manner of atrocities to one another and still say we love each other.  You can keep any kind of love that would encourage a woman to stay with a wife beater or a child to stay quiet about molestation.  

I do not in any way mean to suggest that you advocate doing anything bad to anybody, but it does seem to be the logical consequence of your definition of love.

[Tank]

Oh, I don't think I've understood everything about anybody. not even myself.

That is precisely why I don't value relationships based on how they treat me. I don't know anyone, even my own wife, well enough to know why she would or would not treat me in a certain way. And I'm sure all can agree that the motivation for an action is just as important as the action itself. If my wife decides to do something as simple as give me a massage, it will mean something very different if she does so just because she wants to "be nice" rather than if she does so to make another man jealous. How, then, could I ever value her based on how she treats me, since I can never really know completely why she does anything she does? As the years pass, I learn more about her, as I'm sure you have with your own wife. But that doesn't mean I ever know such things.

That does not, however, change the fact that I know that she is a child of God, my wife, and the mother of my own child. I deeply value her and our relationship on those solid facts, and primarily and most importantly the first of those. That is something I do know, and that is why I love her as I do--without condition of any kind. She can do what she wants. I love her just the same, no matter what she does or does not do.

How you feel towards your wife is one thing, how you perceive her (your feelings would be an interpretation of your perceptions) is another and what she really is is something different still.

You said that we 'value people on who and what they are.' As you can not possibly know 'who and what they are' you can only be forming a value based on your perception of what they are, who you think they are. You can love your wife as I can mine and we hope they don't lie to us when they say they love us in return, but unfortunately we can never know if they really mean it or not. So we react to what they say and how they behave and form a perception of their feelings towards us based on that and nothing else. How we react to their behaviour is down to our genes, memes and experience nothing more and nothing less. Our self programming 'slimeware' does it's best. You appear to have been well programmed by the hormones that coursed through your body when you met and fell in 'love' your wife and imprinted on her. As I was with mine  

Chris, with all due respect, you are arguing against something I never said and are ignoring what I did say. Notice the word I put in red above. I've not argued once about my feelings. On the contrary, I said, concerning emotions:

"Whatever emotions I do or do not have are just that--emotions. I regard people as valuable because of who they are"

I would very kindly ask you to address my point rather than one of your own making. I'll take it you simply misread me, as I have been prone to do in the past, so we will consider this all clarification.

Again, then, without reference to emotions, I value my relationship with my wife based on who and what she is, not my perception of who and what she is. I am not talking about personality traits, which can change. I am talking about her basic essence. She is a human being and a fellow child of God. God loves her. Therefore, I love her. He loves her unconditionally. Therefore I love her unconditionally. There is no perception in that whatsoever. It is something that is simply true (assuming, of course, Christianity, which I do). I don't know in what manner you love your wife. I would not pretend to presume. Perhaps you love her unconditionally, perhaps not. I am telling you that I love my wife unconditionally because God does and because she is a human being who fundamentally should be loved. As I would never in a million years venture to tell you on what basis you love you wife, I would ask that you not tell me on what basis I love mine.

If you wish to build your world view on superstition and belief in the supernatural, that is your choice, but do not expect me to take a word you write seriously, after that pile of cods wollop.

I value my relationship with my wife based on who and what she is, not my perception of who and what she is.

This statement is the issue everything else is irrelevent. You have the same physical senses that I do. They are imperfect. Your relationship with anybody is based on your experiences of them, witnessing their interactions with others and the received second hand impressions of other people of them, nothing else. As one can not know, with absolutly certainty, what or who a person really is one's understanding of them will always be imperfect, it will thus be a flawed perception of the reality of the person. As such your relationship with a person, any person, will be incomplete and imperfect.

Nobody has a perfect understanding of reality, our senses are not perfect, our brain is not perfect so our understanding is imperfect. We live in a world where everything we react to is based on our perception of it, not its reality. We perceive  colour, as a child we can't even name that colour until we have it explained to us what to call it by being shown something that is say Red and being told the colour is Red. There is no innate property of Redness, just what we are told by are parents we should call Red. Our reality is our perception of that which is around us and nothing else.

Is it a problem that our perception of reality is not perfect? In an everyday pragmatic sense it is not a problem. Most people get along okay with an imperfect and incomplete understanding of reality. Thus our perception of reality is good enough, it is 'fit for purpose.' It allows us to survive.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

I've tried to read all of this, but I miss stuff sometimes.  Forgive me if I'm being redundant.  It seems you have your goalposts on wheels brother.  To avoid a derail, I'll stick to the love thing.  Your definition of love seems absolutely meaningless.  If you have a friend you share weekly tea with and he burns down your house, you would still go have weekly tea with the chap. Correct?  It stands to reason that if for whatever reason you decided to kill his wife, he would still continue to have weekly tea with you if he had the same mindset as you.  Under your definition of love, we can do any manner of atrocities to one another and still say we love each other.  You can keep any kind of love that would encourage a woman to stay with a wife beater or a child to stay quiet about molestation.  

I do not in any way mean to suggest that you advocate doing anything bad to anybody, but it does seem to be the logical consequence of your definition of love.

I can assure you I'm saying nothing different now that I did at the beginning of this. The "goalposts" have hardly been moved.

So, let's look at the issue you raise. As far as my definition of love goes, I refer you to my blog post on the matter.

Next, if my friend burns down my house, our relationship would be harmed, but not its value, which has been the issue under discussion. My response would be to go to the person and try to find out what caused them to take that course of action and seek reconciliation. Why? Because I still value the friendship. Upon said reconciliation, yes, I would immediately return to my weekly tea. I would, then, do everything in my power to bring about such reconciliation. The same would be the case if I killed his wife, in your example.

That does not mean, however, that we can do anything we want to each other and say we love each other. That is the entire point. To love someone is to seek what is best for them. When I am burning down someone's house, I am decidedly not seeking what is best for them, but only gratifying my own desire for revenge, destruction, or whatever other negative idea that is prompting such behavior. However, if my friend loves me, he can forgive me for not loving him, as I can others. He can only forgive if he values me as a person and our relationship, not based on what I do (or else all that would be over), but based on who and what I am.

So there are three separate issues here:

1. The value of the person and of the relationship
2. The means by which love is expressed
3. The forgiveness we offer because we love

Now, it is a standard objection across all times and cultures to grace that we can do whatever we like and get away with it. In fact, Paul received just this same objection when he preached the Gospel: "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (Rom 6:1) He had just finished explaining that salvation is by grace alone. The natural thought (and many have it) is this: oh, so I can accept God's grace and then go on sinning as much as I want! And the answer, quite frankly, is yes, you can do that. But we ought not, because in doing so we are not loving God.

In human terms, my wife knows that she can do whatever she likes and that I will never leave her--I will always forgive her. That doesn't make her want to go out and do things that will hurt me. Just the opposite, because she knows that my love for her is not conditional, she doesn't feel like she has to "earn" my love and is free to love me all the more. She is under no pressure, and she loves me more greatly than she otherwise would. And I in precisely the same way love her all the more as I know that her love is not conditional. That's the practical consequence.

The logical consequence you point to, then, is not a consequence of love, but of grace. If my wife loves me gracefully (that is, unconditionally), then I can hurt her without affecting her love for me. That is grace. In hurting her, however, I am not loving her. Love is always seeking the best for its object. I, then, choose to love unconditionally, and I leave it to God to worry about how people respond to me.

EDIT:

Tank, you can have your belief. I have mine. I have already said that I start with the assumption (in this area) that Christianity is true. On that basis, I know that God loves people unconditionally, and therefore, I love them unconditionally. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Christianity is false. That doesn't change the fact that my love is still freely given, expecting nothing in return. Again, I'll not presume for one second whether or not you love in that way. I can only tell you that, however you do or don't relate to you spouse, don't project that onto me. I've told you plainly how I relate to mine and to others. My relationships, even with non-Christians, are absolutely lived out through the context of my faith, since I start from the belief that everyone--even you--is a child of God and should therefore be loved unconditionally.

In short, my perceptions of you mean nothing. As I grow in my relationships with people, my perceptions change, and as a result, how I may respond in any given situation changes. But the underlying issue is always there, always the same: whatever I think I know about people, I choose to love without finding fault. I hold no expectations. I am owed nothing, and I owe all everything. Or, again, to cite Paul on the matter, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (Phil 2:3)

Call it naive. Call it superstitious. Call it whatever you want. I can tell you, as can my wife, that unconditional love, both given and received, is an amazing experience.

[humblesmurph]

Chris (not you Leslie)

So you are saying that there is absolutely nothing a person with your mindset wouldn't forgive of her spouse?  Beatings? Rape? Child molestation?  At what point does a person with your mindset separate themselves from such a marriage?

Furthermore, could that person be rightly said to be loving the abusive spouse if she cut all ties to him for fear of losing her life?

[Jac3510]

Chris (not you Leslie)

So you are saying that there is absolutely nothing a person with your mindset wouldn't forgive of her spouse?  Beatings? Rape? Child molestation?  At what point does a person with your mindset separate themselves from such a marriage?

Furthermore, could that person be rightly said to be loving the abusive spouse if she cut all ties to him for fear of losing her life?

You always forgive, no matter what. You always love, no matter what. In the case of marriage, since that is your example, that doesn't mean you have to stay married. It means you should exhaust absolutely all means possible to save your marriage. There is a difference in forgiving a person and putting yourself in a dangerous situation. We are to live in peace with others (including our spouses) to the full extent that we are capable. Sometimes, some people will have nothing other than violence (in a literal or figurative sense of the word). In such a case, the loving thing to do is remove yourself from the situation. Love is unconditional and doesn't keep a record of wrongs. It is not, though, a pushover. Love seeks the best for its object, and love, then, is tough. To allow an abusive person to stay married to you is to give them a false sense of reality that can hurt them elsewhere (not to mention any children!).

At this point, we are moving towards a discussion on ethics. I am not a deontologist. There are no hard and fast rules on how to act in any given moment. We are to act in the most virtuous way possible at any given moment given the circumstances. But again, let me emphasize strongly, what we are to do in any given situation (what action we are to take) will differ. What does not differ is that we do everything in absolute, unconditional love, because people and relationships are inherently valuable, and that value never changes because of how we treat it. That value, however, is relative to other valuable things (i.e., our children's lives), and so all things must be held in balance. The common thread is, again, simply that we don't value or base our relationships on what we get out of them, but we love and give unconditionally regardless of what we do or do not receive.

[Sophus]

To forgive is to excuse. You shouldn't excuse a killer because in doing so you allow the possibility for him to do it again. You cannot work toward bettering the world if every horrible thing is to be "forgiven".

[humblesmurph]

Chris (not you Leslie)

So you are saying that there is absolutely nothing a person with your mindset wouldn't forgive of her spouse?  Beatings? Rape? Child molestation?  At what point does a person with your mindset separate themselves from such a marriage?

Furthermore, could that person be rightly said to be loving the abusive spouse if she cut all ties to him for fear of losing her life?

You always forgive, no matter what. You always love, no matter what. In the case of marriage, since that is your example, that doesn't mean you have to stay married. It means you should exhaust absolutely all means possible to save your marriage. There is a difference in forgiving a person and putting yourself in a dangerous situation. We are to live in peace with others (including our spouses) to the full extent that we are capable. Sometimes, some people will have nothing other than violence (in a literal or figurative sense of the word). In such a case, the loving thing to do is remove yourself from the situation. Love is unconditional and doesn't keep a record of wrongs. It is not, though, a pushover. Love seeks the best for its object, and love, then, is tough. To allow an abusive person to stay married to you is to give them a false sense of reality that can hurt them elsewhere (not to mention any children!).

At this point, we are moving towards a discussion on ethics. I am not a deontologist. There are no hard and fast rules on how to act in any given moment. We are to act in the most virtuous way possible at any given moment given the circumstances. But again, let me emphasize strongly, what we are to do in any given situation (what action we are to take) will differ. What does not differ is that we do everything in absolute, unconditional love, because people and relationships are inherently valuable, and that value never changes because of how we treat it. That value, however, is relative to other valuable things (i.e., our children's lives), and so all things must be held in balance. The common thread is, again, simply that we don't value or base our relationships on what we get out of them, but we love and give unconditionally regardless of what we do or do not receive.

I don't think we need an ethicist for this.  We just need to have an understanding of what unconditionally means.  In the same post you agree that there are conditions under which it would be prudent for a wife to not continue to be giving and loving to her spouse and then talk of unconditional love.  

I don't think you properly addressed my last question.  If my wife is cooking cleaning and sexing, and she ceases to do those things because I'm beating the living crap out of her, is she still showing unconditional love?

edit: by ceasing to do those things I mean divorcing me and ceasing to do those things.

[pinkocommie]

To forgive is to excuse. You shouldn't excuse a killer because in doing so you allow the possibility for him to do it again. You cannot work toward bettering the world if every horrible thing is to be "forgiven".

I don't know if I agree with that.  I forgive my ex husband for beating me up, but I don't feel like I've excused his actions by any stretch of the imagination.  Maybe I don't understand your full meaning here?