And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit. — Agustino

Are you ok? Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed by your Ayn Rand reference that exemplifies you to be nothing but a very angry person?

You should have just remained quite, your first ad hominem post towards me may have actually worked, but now you just look insane. :-|

Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed once again by your Ayn Rand picture that exemplifies nothing but a very angry person? — TimeLine

Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O (if so, it seems that your habit of asking that kind of questions hasn't changed)

Also, you should try to quote the bit that was actually addressed to you, not the bit that has nothing to do with you whatsoever. It seems you see "me me me" in everything.

I'm not sure all these ad homs are compatible with Jesus' core teaching being love...

Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O — Agustino

I never said that. I wasn't even aware you were married, I thought you were a teenager.

I also fail to understand why you say I think only about 'me me me' when I am the one being quoted? If the purpose of my post is about autonomy in interpreting the scriptures, being independent and an individual is the point, so it is unfair that you imply objectivism and Ayn Rand, which is merely ad hom attacking me.

I guess it is a good thing that you have kept me up all night, considering now I can avoid all of this Sunday by sleeping... :-d

Peace out.

When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that. — TimeLine

Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why?

Do you feel as if I've been yelling?

When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself. — TimeLine

I feel like all I tried to do was make some jokes about god and the smurfs, and you've somehow been triggered into defense mode. You seem pretty sure that I'm filled with hate towards religion, but perhaps you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity?

You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord. — TimeLine

I think if we're honest, Timeline, as soon as the scissors came out of my bag you've been whaling at me in fear of having your own umbilical be cut.

— TimeLine

:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom. — TimeLine

It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right?

I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing. — TimeLine

So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?

Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion?

Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations. — TimeLine

"Biblical hermenutics independent of religion"... Oh my... How does that work? Do we forget about everything religious and then abstractly interpret the texts however we want?

Sadly, the intent of the authors weren't independent of religion. You're treating it like poetry in whom you've found delightful subjective meaning... Good for you?

Geographical locations (I'm guessing you mean specific places in the holy land) are represented by people? Negative, the bible often talks about specific locations and even explains what they're called and why. If people are places, are places people?

The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence. — TimeLine

Holy fuck... :D

So the slaughtered lamb represents the death of the innocence of the Israelites? (or did they gain innocence that way)? Either way it doesn't make much sense because the Israelites didn't exist yet. What's more likely is that the lamb was intended as sacrifice which pleases god, much like how Abel pleased god by sacrificing livestock.

In the old testament those who please god earn god's love and blessings, and we please (and displease) god through sacrifice and submission (and no sacrifice and no submission).

Hagar definitely does not represent "troublesome Muslims" because they wouldn't exist for a thousand or more so years. Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome.

But that said, God promised Abraham directly that his descendants would become as numerous as the stars and inherit the promised land. He didn't need to go through some weird "be willing to kill your own son" metaphor to elucidate on that promise.

So what I'm arguing here is that the original (and of course, mainstream) meaning of the text is vastly removed from your own interpretation. Whoever wrote it wasn't trying to say what you choose to take out of it. You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow (like the mainstream meaning of the Issac parable).

In the case of the Issac parable, the 'geographical interpretation' is pretty much nonsensical and everyone knows it's a story which demonstrates how Abraham was willing to put his own son to death because that's how much faith in god he had. It's a story about the moral supremacy of faith in god and that's the interpretation my original criticism applies to.

When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted. — TimeLine

You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule.

But all you're really saying here is that by conforming to Jesus' teachings other conformists will persecute you. At the time that was certainly true, but it's not as if that means anything at all in today's world.

Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography.

oh, THERE YOU ARE! So glad you reappeared. Have you been unwell, in prison, recovering from a car crash, or just too busy to be a piston of debate here?

Alternately we purr and sputter, sputter and purr, like an unpredictable engine; some pistons like to escape from their chambers to clash with one another.

The absolute core is Love. — Agustino

What does Love mean to you?

"Asceticism" (if by this one means restraining greed, lust, selfishness and the like) is part of Love. — Agustino

I understand asceticism as a philosophy of abstaining from pleasure. But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. How do you reconcile these two? How do you abstain from pleasure and also love?

Morality and virtue are also parts of Love. — Agustino

I really don't know how you formulate your categories, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that love is a virtue, rather than to say that virtue is a part of love?

oh, THERE YOU ARE! So glad you reappeared. — Bitter Crank

You missed me? :D

Have you been unwell, in prison, recovering from a car crash, or just too busy to be a piston of debate here? — Bitter Crank

Actually I was protesting against the Three Stooges who have "liquidated" one of my friends. If you make a little bit of a search through some of my last comments, you'll see what I'm talking about.

in prison — Bitter Crank

Not yet, but I might land there given my financial illiteracy, and reliance on incapable accountants - I've had to change 4 so-far. For example, one conversation:

Me: "So I will soon need you to do some of my bookings. When can I come by to discuss?"
Her: "Umm I'm very busy at the moment, so I don't know right now. Is it possible to call you by tomorrow when I reach my office?"
Me: "Okay, no problem, I'll wait for your call"

{2 days pass - No call}

I call again.

Me: "Hi, this is XXX. We spoke on Monday and you told me you'd call me once you reach your office to plan for a meeting. So have you had the time to check your schedule and see when we can do it?"
Her: "Oh I'm not in the office right now. Is it possible to call you back later this afternoon?"
Me: "Okay, no problem"

{4 days pass - No call}

I call again.

Me: "Hi this is XXX. We spoke last week Thursday, and you told me you'd call when you manage to check your schedule. So did you manage to check?"
Her: "No, I have been unfortunately very busy, my sincere apologies. Is it possible to call you back in 2-3 hours?"
Me: "Okay, that's fine, but please don't forget. Thanks!"

{5 hours pass, no call - I decide to ditch her and find another accountant}

>:O >:O >:O >:O In fact to this day, I still don't have an answer from that woman. And other accountants don't seem to be much better - either don't know what to do, take too long, are rude, etc. Too many incapable people who don't put heart in what they do. Many leeches around, who like to suck money without doing a proper job. Or who only care to work properly if a big corporation is on the other side. And then people wonder why economies aren't working well.

What does Love mean to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

To care deeply about others / someone and find existence meaningful. An openness of the soul towards others.

But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering.

I really don't know how you formulate your categories, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that love is a virtue, rather than to say that virtue is a part of love? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms.

Love is the first among equal virtues.

Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why? — VagabondSpectre

What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail.

Holy fuck... :D — VagabondSpectre

I probably shouldn't have laughed.

It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right? — VagabondSpectre

Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following:

...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre

I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.

Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit.

So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?

Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion? — VagabondSpectre

Erich Fromm speaks of love perfectly whereby to love is an activity that requires study and practice, it is not simply a given that you feel. This pursuit can take place in various ways such as familial love, erotic love, brotherly love and the love of God and each of these activities involves this practice. So, religions offer the assistance in the practice of the love of God, but the troubling aspect to this is that love as a subjective experience is an autonomous experience to the individual and humans have reason, consciousness and an awareness of ourselves and others. Thus, there is this displacement of our autonomous position that causes angst, an anxiety of the reality that we are separate from others and alone. This compels us to conform, to prevent ourselves from taking the responsibility for our own existence and as such our practice of love is not authentic but rather it becomes seeking and working very hard to attain the love of other people whether it is church leaders or our friends or family, but never really learning to give love as mature, independent adults that no longer seek it from others.

So, if we eliminate the religious influence and the specificity it offers the individual who has conformed so as to avoid the angst, it enables us to take a broader approach. So, it no longer becomes an attempt to seek the approval from other people, but it becomes concepts like righteousness, virtue, honesty etc despite people, culture, norms. God without religion is both specific and non-specific, and thus when you have the faith without imagining the illusions that religions offer about God, it is to love all things that epistemically enables us to seek moral consciousness in that very broader concept. There is no possibility of proving the existence or the non-existence of God, but nevertheless the idea is that since God is perfect good, our attempt to draw ourselves closer to God is our attempt to draw ourselves closer to perfect good and thus serves epistemically as a necessity to improve our moral well-being.

Reaching epistemic perfection is impossible because that would be like saying reaching God. It is the process towards reaching this that is possible and remains infinite because we are all both good and evil as that is the natural product of consciousness and the finitude of our existence. The constant attempt to perfect our moral side, our good side is the very practice of love. Biblical parables offer the opportunity for a person to think about moral concepts independently, but if one loves their religious institution or some other object or thing, they have conformed to agree to the interpretations made on their behalf and never learn to think and practice love autonomously.

So I stand that mainstream religion only enables conformity and I do not stand for mainstream interpretations of biblical parables, that conformity makes it impossible for one to practice autonomously. My point is that you need to make it yourself as they have a utility in your moral development if analysed independently.

Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome. — VagabondSpectre

That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant.

You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow — VagabondSpectre

(Y)

But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable.

You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule. — VagabondSpectre

It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything.

Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography. — VagabondSpectre

It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation.

The issue with love is that it has so many meanings and dimensions. In the ancient world, there was a distinction between agápē, philia, eros, and storge (love for children and family). In the context of 'religion and spirituality' the most important is agápē, meaning the kind of unconditional compassion and self-giving that is not in the least sentimental or even, in some ways, personal (in that it regards everyone - friends and strangers, even enemies - equally.) Originally it denoted love of the soul for God. So, when Jesus commanded 'love one another as I have loved you', I think it was this dimension of love - agápē - that was being referred to, as it underlies and strengthens all the others, which, conversly, if they are not built on a foundation of agápē, will not endure.

(Hey, it's Sunday, after all. ;-) )

Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino

As Wayfarer pointed out, there are several kinds of 'love'. Clearly here we are talking about agápē. Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. Pleasure is clearly and obviously associated with eros. However, I believe that pleasure in a special sense should be associated with agápē. Just because eros is so concerned with erotic pleasure doesn't mean that "pleasure" means the same thing when applied to agápē. The pleasure of unconditional love is not physically felt, it's a pleasure of the spirit--the only way I can put it.

It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agápē. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agápē. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agápē, should be that kind of pleasure.

I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino

I don't understand this. You are separating joy from pleasure. But isn't joy a form of pleasure? How can joy be separated from pleasure if joy is a form of pleasure? So if love is related to joy, and joy is a form of pleasure, how do you separate love from pleasure? Your claim that pleasures and pains cannot co-existence is meaningless, because we can experience pleasure in one respect while simultaneously experiencing pain in another respect.

Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms. — Agustino

This doesn't make sense either. You are saying that love is like an organ of the body which makes virtue possible. But we now that virtue is dependent on the intellect, it requires clear reasoning, and rational decisions. Virtue does not require love, love requires virtue, which requires intellect. Intellect brings about rational decisions, which brings about virtue, and virtue brings into existence love. So it may be the case that love is the desired end, but love is not what makes virtue possible, you have this inverted. It is the desire for love, which indicates a wanting, or privation of love, which might bring about virtue, not love itself. And as the desired end, why would you not call love a form of pleasure?

I agree with you here, joy is a pleasure. Likewise, pleasure and pain are often intertwined.

we know that virtue is dependent on the intellect, it requires clear reasoning, and rational decisions. Virtue does not require love, love requires virtue, which requires intellect. Intellect brings about rational decisions, which brings about virtue, and virtue brings into existence love. — Metaphysician Undercover

I largely agree with this up to the last statement that "virtue brings into existence love" because "love" seems to be a primary phenomena, not coming from something else. Also, how would virtue bring love into existence?

What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail. — TimeLine

We're trying to do different things then I think: you aim to rise above the zealous and derive superior (rational in this case) moral value from scriptures, and I aim to descend into the intellectual realm of the harmfully zealous to confront them on their own terms; I aim to persuade them. I paint severe pictures because the intended audience is in a place where reason alone can be utterly unpersuasive. When I satirize and ridicule specific religious stories, traditions, and beliefs, I'm attempting to force people to think about content using discomfort as a driving force. It's about forcing people to answer questions they otherwise don't ask on their own because of the nature of their belief system (i.e, they marginalize and discard doubt).

It's not those invoking love and virtue that I address though (not unless they're looking to have their ideas tested), it's those who try to invoke (shitty (religious)) moral standards and wield them as if they're anything but plastic and abominable.

Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following: — TimeLine

...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre


I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.

Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit. — TimeLine

Religion can also unintentionally imbue shitty moral standards into their mysticism which then poses a challenge to rational moral agents who would have people learn to wipe. Whether you are or aren't Christian (I'm well aware you're not religious) isn't really relevant though to what I've contributed to this thread, which is that there's a dark side to Christian love (yes I'm generalizing, but I'm doing so well within reasonable bounds).

My main concern in our discussion is to defend my moral critique of the damnation aspect in Christianity, so as you find me resisting your own interpretations of biblical scripture, keep in mind it's because I'm criticizing an interpretation that you evidently don't wield. And as I continue to accuse you of harboring love for Christianity, keep in mind it is in response to your continuous accusation that I'm harboring emotional hatred for it. I find many Christian tenets to be morally repulsive, disgusting, and even worthy of hate, but I've already become somewhat dispassionate in regards to how I feel about it.

That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant. — TimeLine

You're trying to strain historicity from this, but why? Why not consult historical research? That said, historical/theistic genealogy isn't the take-away which concerns me, which should be clear at this point.

But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable. — TimeLine

Morally, metaphorically, literally, abstractly, historically, not at all: all are options for interpretation. My main target is the mainstream moral one, but if I can tag the other bases while I'm at it (even if only to reinforce my moral criticism), I'll do it.

It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything. — TimeLine

I totally disagree. The more reliably you treat people as they want to be treated the more reliably they reciprocate. Such reliability is actually one of the virtues which causes us to place intrinsic value in the lives of those who display it. Surrounding one's self with reliable and moral people is both greedy and rational. There is indeed reciprocation. Yes some places have immoral customs, but reciprocation exists even in such places within whatever arbitrary bounds their customs mandate (usually customs which are religiously inspired and perpetuated I might note...).

It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation. — TimeLine

If we do go back to the origins of the story, we find a world in which human sacrifice was a known practice. Sacrificing things (offering them) to the gods for blessings is this ancient superstition that has existed for as long as humans have been stupid. That's the real meat behind the entire idea of sacrifice; that's why they do it. In the bible this idea is mainstay: first with livestock, then with Issac (but not in the end, as you say) and finally with Jesus himself. When I read the bible (around age 15) I couldn't understand why god wasn't pleased by Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables but was very pleased with Abel's offering of dead animals; did Cain not work equally hard for his bounty? The answer can only be that to sacrifice a living thing is inherently a greater sacrifice (therefore worthy of more appreciation). Human sacrifice is therefore a greater sacrifice if we value human life more than animal life. The life of Jesus himself then becomes the greatest sacrifice of all. Christians spend a lot of time reflecting on the sacrifice that Jesus made so that we could be forgiven and it causes us to feel thankful to him for doing so, but they spend very little time asking themselves why they need god to forgive them in the first place, or why god needs a sacrifice in order to do actual forgiving.

Ancient belief systems are loaded to the brim with this kind of arbitrary superstitious baggage, and while they do manage to gather some useful moral positions, they also collect a whole lot of hooey. If you're looking to use reason to improve your morals, I recommend primarily using the non-fictional world because old world scripture only has so much to offer.

Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. — Bitter Crank

I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. How many are willing to die for their children? Quite many. How many are willing to die for the man/woman they love? Quite many. And note, that eros is not only sexual. It's a much deeper and stronger desire for that particular person (which does include sexuality). Do not confuse eros with its corrupted form (lust).

Also our society has a tendency to squish eros whenever it finds it - "ah just another bitch, you'll find another one!"

The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams.

It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agápē. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agápē. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agápē, should be that kind of pleasure. — Bitter Crank

Well, okay, but that's not pleasure as generally understood. That's why I made a distinction between joy/pleasure.

religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue — TimeLine

I have actually said nothing about religion until now, so I have no idea what you're on about.

But apparently you see nothing wrong about parroting what a virtuous woman you are, and how the rest of us are all mindless losers (as if we actually gave a damn about it :P ). And this isn't the first thread where you've done that, I've been following discussions over here and have stumbled on it countless times. And there's many other members who have picked up on it too, Heister, John, etc. but apparently you go on living in your own world. Wake up - it's not all about you. A little bit less arrogance would take you a long way. And whether you believe it or not, I'm saying this as honest and friendly advice. This is not a virtue competition, it's a philosophy forum.

I appreciate the testimony of Jesus — TimeLine

I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. — TimeLine

Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals :P

Jesus answered, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. — John 14:6

Is this the testimony you just said you respect?

I largely agree with this up to the last statement that "virtue brings into existence love" because "love" seems to be a primary phenomena, not coming from something else. Also, how would virtue bring love into existence? — Bitter Crank

I think the issue here is how we define "love". It is a broad term, and we could be referring to a thing called "love", or we could be referring to the activity of loving. Most often we use the term broadly and ambiguously, perhaps equivocatively. When I say "virtue brings into existence love", I mean love as a thing, and we class this thing as a virtue. We can look at the existence of virtuous acts and conclude, there is love there. But if we say that a loving attitude is required for virtuous acts, and we call this loving attitude "love", then we have Agustine's perspective in which love precedes virtue.

I am not so quick to call this attitude, which is required for virtue, "love". You ask, "how would virtue bring love into existence?", and I think it is only by apprehending good, or virtue, that we are moved to love. If we place love as prior to apprehending good, as Agustino does, that apprehending good follows from loving acts, then we allow that love may move us toward either good or bad. If we observe human acts, as loving acts, with no prior apprehension of good, we have no means to distinguish true love from other forms of love which are not so true. But if we say love can only move us toward the good, and only true love is real love, and therefore good pure and simple, then it is necessary that we apprehend good prior to loving, in order that our loving actions be only good, and not a mixture of good and bad.

So I believe that the attitude which is required for virtue is an apprehension of the good, not "love", which is one (a very important one) of the virtues. And "love" itself, if it is to be understood as necessarily good, must follow from an apprehension of good. To put this in perspective of Jesus' message, I would say that true love can only follow from, after, apprehending God, as the apprehension of good. It is not through loving that we apprehend God, but through our apprehension of God that we behave lovingly.

I don't understand this. You are separating joy from pleasure. But isn't joy a form of pleasure? How can joy be separated from pleasure if joy is a form of pleasure? So if love is related to joy, and joy is a form of pleasure, how do you separate love from pleasure? Your claim that pleasures and pains cannot co-existence is meaningless, because we can experience pleasure in one respect while simultaneously experiencing pain in another respect. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't affirmed that joy is a form of pleasure. Pleasure could lead to joy, but they are definitely not the same. Suffering for that matter can also lead to joy. Does it follow from there that joy is a form of suffering?

Another reason for the separation of pleasure from love is that love is an out-going movement, breaking through the prison of the self. Pleasure on the other hand is self-centered.

Apprehension of the good is not possible in the absence of love - at least not according to Jesus. That's why there exists an unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which effectively translates into a hardening of the heart, and a complete elimination of love. People who have reached that point are beyond redemption because they can no longer apprehend the good.

What you are talking about in your last post with the apprehension of the Good is Platonic/Neo-platonic but definitely not Christian.

Also don't forget that God must take the first step in order for salvation to be possible. So without God's love, no apprehension of the good can occur.

Also, Love doesn't remove choice, so of course the theoretical possibility for sin still exists.

The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams. — Agustino

Yes. Good point.

I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. — Agustino

Storge isn't thought about, talked, written about enough. And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering, and storge the motivator of sacrificial suffering (when needed).

I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. — TimeLine

Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough?

I wanted to confirm that I read and am thinking about your post. Parsing out love and virtue as you do...

So I believe that the attitude which is required for virtue is an apprehension of the good, not "love", which is one (a very important one) of the virtues. And "love" itself, if it is to be understood as necessarily good, must follow from an apprehension of good. To put this in perspective of Jesus' message, I would say that true love can only follow from, after, apprehending God, as the apprehension of good. It is not through loving that we apprehend God, but through our apprehension of God that we behave lovingly — Metaphysician Undercover

will require some reflection. In what order should these be?

---->apprehension of God ---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->love

or

---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->apprehension of God ---->love

or something else?

The Greatest Commandment(s) in Christianity. Matthew 22:35-40:
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[as @Wosret pointed out earlier]. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I think that's it, pretty much.

And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering — Bitter Crank

I agree, it can also lead to a lot of suffering. Society is generally responsible for a large part of that suffering though. "Well-meaning" friends, family, etc.

Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough? — Bitter Crank

Why is that rich? What else is supposed to happen that is 'expected' of me? And it depends on what you interpret as God. My choices are.

Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals — Agustino

Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this.

You can play this game with everyone else. This is the final time I am going to ask you to do this, stop harrassing me.

But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino

" Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause." Spinoza.

" Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause." Spinoza. — John

I think that needs a bit of context or elucidation because prima facie it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Perhaps these associated excerpts form Part 3 of the Ethics, On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions, will help clarify the context for you:

"Thus we see, the mind can undergo many changes, and can pass sometimes to a state of greater perfection, sometimes to a state of lesser perfection. These passive states of transition explain to us the emotions of pleasure and pain. By pleasure therefore in the following propositions I shall signify a passive state wherein the mind passes to greater perfection. By pain I shall signify a passive state whereby the mind passes to a lesser perfection. Further, the emotion of pleasure in reference to the body and mind together I shall call stimulation (titillatio) or merriment (hilaritus), the emotion of pain in the same relation I shall call suffering or melancholy. But we must bear in mind, that stimulation and suffering are attributed to man, when one part of his nature is more affected than the rest, merriment and melancholy, when all parts are alike affected. What I mean by desire I have explained in Proposition 9 of this part; beyond these three I recognize no other primary emotion; I will show as I proceed, that all other emotions arise from these three.
Prop. 11: Note

The mind, as far as it can, endeavors to conceive those things, which increase or help the power of activity in the body.
Prop. 12

When the mind conceives things which diminish or hinder the body's power of activity, it endeavors, as far as possible, to remember things which exclude the existence of the first-named things [that are diminishing the power of activity].
Prop. 13

Hence it follows, that the mind shrinks from conceiving those things, which diminish or constrain the power of itself or of the body.
Prop. 13: Corollary

From what has been said we can clearly understand the nature of Love and Hate. Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause: Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause. We further see, that he who loves necessarily endeavors to have, and to keep present to him, the object of his love; while he who hates endeavors to remove and destroy the object of his hatred.
Prop. 13: Note

If the mind has once been affected by two emotions at the same time, it will, whenever it is afterwords affected by one of the two, be also affected by the other.
Prop. 14

Anything can, accidentally, be the cause of pleasure, pain, or desire.
Prop. 15

Simply from the fact that we have regarded a thing with the emotion of pleasure or pain, though that thing be not the efficient cause of the emotion, we can either love or hate it.
Prop. 15: Corollary

Hence we understand how it may happen, that we love or hate a thing without any cause for our emotion being known to us; merely, as the phrase is, from sympathy or antipathy. We should refer to the same category those objects, which affect us pleasurably or painfully, simply because they resemble other things which affect us in the same way.
Prop. 15: Note

Simply from the fact that we conceive, that an object has some point of resemblance to another object which is wont to affect the mind pleasurably or painfully, although the point of resemblance is not the efficient cause of the said emotions, we shall still regard the first-named object with love or hate.
Prop. 16

If we conceive that a thing, which is wont to affect us painfully, has any point of resemblance to another thing which is wont to affect us with an equally strong emotion of pleasure, we shall hate the first-named thing, and at the same time we shall love it."

For example, you might love meditation because it increases your body/mind's capacity for pleasurable feelings of harmony, relaxation, quietude and illumination. You might hate distractions, self-indulgent tendencies and laziness (if you give in to them) because they give rise to displeasure in the form of annoyance, self-disgust and self-castigation, and chaotic feelings that your life is going nowhere, etc.

Spinoza talking about how love is our understanding (idea) of an external cause (e.g. family) which brings us pleasure. This is a descriptive account of love. He isn't talking about the motivation or reason to act, just talking about the states involved in love. In the following sentence (which John has posted), he talks about what people do when they are in love (keep what they love present).

He's describing love and locating it's metaphysical significance-- to love is to understand an external cause which brings us pleasure (e.g. family, friends, discussing philosophy, etc.). The lover seeks to protect and keep this cause present in the world.