# Natural Empathy and Supernatural Love
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [December 9, 2007, 9:20pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030 "2007-12-09T21:20:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 13
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2007, 9:20pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/1 "2007-12-09T21:20:39Z")
Natural Empathy and Supernatural Love
In this thread I’m just making sure my ideas on morality are consistent…
Some verses on generally revealed morality: Luke 6:32-35; Romans 1:19; 2:14.
A while back I compiled a list of potentially conflicting ideas I was holding, and set it on the back-burner. I have since returned to it, and wanted to show how the ideas, as it turns out, are not conflicting. This list was sparked when I read in “Jesus Among Other Gods” by Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis’ mention that “the great moral creeds of mankind’s civilizations have given testimony to the general revelation of God in the striking resemblance of their basic ethical principles,” (362). I mentioned I had never thought about it that way, in my “How does nature know?” thread:
[viewtopic.php?t=159231&highlight=](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=159231&highlight=) I don’t know why I never considered it when reading Romans 2:14… I guess I just wasn’t ready (some flavors take time to blend). This realization caused me to analyze everything I had said/thought previously that could be in error in the light of the realization, or at least needed to be linked with this realization. Consistency between beliefs is highly important to anyone who values Truth.
In my “meme” thread I said or implied values are temporary (not eternal) unless one adopts God’s values (unchangeable and everlasting). This thought, in connection with the new realization, leads to the question – are the values of “general revelation” God’s eternal values, or man’s temporary values?
[viewtopic.php?t=153884&highlight=](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=153884&highlight=) Something that sticks out almost right away is that the similar principles found in those creeds are not necessarily the same as God’s moral law – which is higher. “Even sinners love those who love them (general revelation)…. Love your enemy (special revelation),” (Luke 6:32-35).
In dorkydood’s “problem of evil” thread I said “Evil is not a surpassing, however. It is a degeneration (and I’ll add, in this thread, ‘or denaturizing’). Of course humans cannot surpass God in stuff where surpassing applies. God would be the perfection implied by ‘degeneration’. It is not God who is degenerating – He is distinct from His creation, though also intimately relating with it. Humans, in the image of God, degenerate apart from Him – the only way back is atonement,” and again “evil is [i]not[/i[part of life or nature as they are meant to be – but is a degeneration.” [viewtopic.php?t=155247&highlight=](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=155247&highlight=)
Also in the “problem of evil” thread I said God’s moral law is implementable in (passing the “ought implies can” test), but not sustained by, the natural universe (because following His law requires His super-natural intervention; nature is only part of reality, not the whole of reality). At first this made me ask – are the values of general revelation not an example of God’s moral law being both implementable in and sustained by the natural universe? But, as we just saw a couple paragraphs up, God’s moral law is more than what is received in general revelation. Also, once human perception enters the picture, nature isn’t the only ‘sustainer’ (one could argue nature is ‘never’ the only sustainer) – humans take over that role. That our nature includes empathy is part of general revelation, and what we do with that empathy is super-natural selection (I somewhat mentioned this recently in Dionysus’ “Lucifer” thread)…
> [@](#):
>
> Something you may not realize is that you are calling human free will “supernatural selection”. Would you disagree with that? I would not disagree – as long as one realizes it (as well as supernatural miracles) is not “anti-natural”. Supernatural and natural are both part of reality as a whole.
>
> But when you realize this, you realize that for us to execute every repeat offender – is not “natural selection” – it is the same “supernatural selection” we do when we help them. Our very perceptual presence makes it impossible for “natural selection” (if it has anything to do with anything) to run its course as if we weren’t there… because we are responsible for whatever action or non-action is taken.
[viewtopic.php?t=160843&highlight=](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=160843&highlight=)
Also in the “problem of evil” thread, while we’re talking about empathy, I said God can’t put (against our will) empathy or values in our heart; that what we learn about empathy and values (including from others’ suffering) is how He puts it (though not against our will) into our hearts (because to put empathy or values in our heart against our will is not love, because love must be chosen freely… see my “predestination and free will” thread). In a social psychology course one learns empathy is a natural inclination (general revelation, ought implies can), and the lacking of it is like a birth defect. Additionally, though empathy may be a natural inclination, it must be nurtured, much like a plant must be nurtured in order to grow well. I feel it necessary to clarify that the fact we are born with the inclination for empathy does not mean it has been put in our heart against our will – without it, we would have no will, as it is part of what makes our will possible. Studies show that the reason certain individuals who lack empathy have such a hard time navigating through life is that they cannot empathize with their own self (in the future, in planning) in order to act in their own best interest – this is a huge obstacle to the will (an obstacle God can remove, if asked). General revelation (empathy) is ‘nature’ (plus a human’s super-natural selection, mentioned above) – and both God’s law and an underdeveloped conscience are learned (nurtured, the former example being super-nature, the latter being de-nature). God’s law would be super-nature or super-nurture, since it existed before the generally revealed (in nature) moral law, and does not depend on human learning for its existence.
Lastly, in my thread “Biological Homeostasis and Existential Intelligence” (in a reply to the original thread external to this site) I write, “I guess you could unintentionally conform to God’s will (general revelation) if you didn’t know that loving is God’s will. The only problem with that is the love of which we are capable apart form God is a mere hint of the love He desires to share with us, and in turn share with eachother (in this thread I will add that this is ‘supernatural, special revelation’).”
[viewtopic.php?t=157709&highlight=](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=157709&highlight=)
Constructive thoughts are welcome… even deconstructive constructive ones. :0)
---
### Author:  [@DeSpinozist](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/DeSpinozist)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/2 "2007-12-09T21:36:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I guess you could unintentionally conform to God’s will (general revelation) if you didn’t know that loving is God’s will. The only problem with that is the love of which we are capable apart form God is a mere hint of the love He desires to share with us, and in turn share with eachother (in this thread I will add that this is ‘supernatural, special revelation’).
This is question begging. You are assuming that God has the faculty to love, and then assuming further that his faculty to love [unknown term] is the same as your faculty to love [unknown term]. You do not know the completeness by which God loves, nor do you know the completeness by which you love. You cannot say that our ability to love conforms with his because they’re both unknown terms.
You’ve stated that [unknown term] conforms to [unknown term].
Furthermore, “unintentionally” doing something does not prove that what is being done follows from what it conforms to. You want to argue that it does follow from it because if it does not, then you are arguing that our faculty to love comes from something other than God.
You’ve stated that our unintentional actions to love [unknown term] follows from God’s preordained description to love (coming from his faculty to love) [unknown term].
Even in this case, what does it mean to be a “mere hint” of God? Is God merely a really loving person or is God’s love categorically different from our own? If he’s just a really loving person (a superlover), then by analogy, we could say he’s just a really strong person (omnipotence) or a really smart person (omniscience), but he has no infinite (infinitude is a categorically different faculty); thus, he has no absolute governance over our actions. At this point, it becomes completely arbitrary to love like God loves. It would be like saying, “I wish to love like Barry White loves.” It’s utterly meaningless and subjective.
So we must assume that God has a completely radical faculty of love which we are not similar to (his infinitude). But in this case, it becomes unintelligible to speak of his love. We are finite and cannot understand the sort of love God possesses. So why speak of it? It’s meaningless. Find love within yourself as best as you can understand it.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/3 "2007-12-09T21:38:13Z")
Tortoise, Do you see any inherent inconsistency in my post, and can you trace it to inconsistency in the Bible?
Don’t tuck head-and-tail-and-feet in your shell… by all means, speak up.
DeSpinozist, I’ll be off-line for a while, but will return. Thankyou.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [December 11, 2007, 7:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/4 "2007-12-11T07:06:01Z")
Tortoise,
The site to which you have linked me… those “contradictions” are ridiculous. I can help you with them if you need help. I only skimmed about the first twenty. I used to ask questions like that when I was losing faith (obviously I have since been refound). I’m not going to spend too much time on this unless I see some evidence that you have actually attempted to think rationally about this. Show me your thought process, and I’ll help loosen a knot for you, Lord-willing.
> [@DeSpinozist](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I guess you could unintentionally conform to God’s will (general revelation) if you didn’t know that loving is God’s will. The only problem with that is the love of which we are capable apart from God is a mere hint of the love He desires to share with us, and in turn share with eachother (in this thread I will add that this is ‘supernatural, special revelation’).
>
> This is question begging. You are assuming that God has the faculty to love, and then assuming further that his faculty to love [unknown term] is the same as your faculty to love [unknown term].
>
> Question begging is when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Nothing I said in that quote assumes this, and it isn’t something I am trying to prove. However, it is true that we are made in God’s image, and therefore have the same capacity for love (a capacity that is never quite fulfilled apart from Him). Love defined:
> [bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyB … anguage=en](http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=love§ion=0&version=niv&showtools=1&language=en)
> [godandscience.org/love/biblicallove.html](http://www.godandscience.org/love/biblicallove.html)
>
> You do not know the completeness by which God loves, nor do you know the completeness by which you love. You cannot say that our ability to love conforms with his because they’re both unknown terms.
>
> I wasn’t trying to prove our love equals His love, but if I did try to prove that – it is not necessary to be omniscient in order to know. For example, I know with certainty that I do not love perfectly. I hope the above definition of the sort of love I am referring to – helped.
>
> You’ve stated that [unknown term] conforms to [unknown term].
>
> Follow the above links. I’ve actually stated (in a roundabout way) that one cannot conform to God’s will unintentionally.
>
> Furthermore, “unintentionally” doing something does not prove that what is being done follows from what it conforms to.
>
> You think I said that “unintentionally conforming to God’s will” follows from “God’s will”? I didn’t say that.
>
> You want to argue that it does follow from it because if it does not, then you are arguing that our faculty to love comes from something other than God.
>
> Actually, I was questioning the importance of intention/focus in conforming to God’s will. I was not arguing that our capacity to love comes from God – it does, though we can’t do it right without Him.
>
> You’ve stated that our unintentional actions to love [unknown term] follows from God’s preordained description to love (coming from his faculty to love) [unknown term].
>
> Actually, I’ve argued that we cannot love unintentionally.
>
> Even in this case, what does it mean to be a “mere hint” of God? Is God merely a really loving person
>
> Yes.
>
> or is God’s love categorically different from our own?
>
> Not if we love in union with Him.
>
> If he’s just a really loving person (a superlover), then by analogy, we could say he’s just a really strong person (omnipotence) or a really smart person (omniscience), but he has no infinite (infinitude is a categorically different faculty);
>
> Saying He is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient are all accurate – why you tack “but he has no infinte…” on to that does not make sense to me.
>
> thus, he has no absolute governance over our actions.
>
> That doesn’t follow from what you’ve said. You might enjoy reading my “predestination and free will” thread.
>
> At this point, it becomes completely arbitrary to love like God loves. It would be like saying, “I wish to love like Barry White loves.” It’s utterly meaningless and subjective.
>
> I don’t know who Barry White is… but… if you consider that God is love… then here is a good comparison… it would be like saying, “I want to play piano like Beethoven,” or “I want to paint like Dali,” or “I want to make cars like Chevrolet.” I know people might disagree that Beethoven, Dali, and Chevrolet are the best examples of a pianist, artist, and manufacturer of automobiles (respectively) – but God is the best at love… so much so that He is love.
>
> So we must assume that God has a completely radical faculty of love which we are not similar to (his infinitude).
>
> That would be incorrect to assume. Why you tack “his infinitude” on to that does not make sense to me. Yes, we love imperfectly… but… we do love… when in union with Him.
>
> But in this case, it becomes unintelligible to speak of his love. We are finite and cannot understand the sort of love God possesses. So why speak of it? It’s meaningless.
>
> Love is not so hard to understand. It is just hard to do. Without God.
>
> Find love within yourself as best as you can understand it.
>
> There isn’t any, without God in my heart. Not the kind of love you’ll find defined in those links above.
By the way, while we’re on the subject of love… you said something over in the “If God cannot lie yet God can do anything…†thread about why God cannot have intent, that I’d like to tie into this:
> [@](#):
>
> “However, God does not have intent. For God to have intent, it would have to have intentions towards something. God’s motivation towards that something would have to arise from something which it lacks. God is not deficient of anything, being absolutely infinite; therefore, God has no intent.â€
– DeSpinozist
Here’s a few things to think about…
> [@](#):
>
> “God’s attention does not pass from thought to thought, for His knowledge embraces everything in a single spiritual co-intuition. For if God is simple, then His thoughts are not sequential but simultaneous. He does not know things inferentially but intuitively. On the contrary, if God is not simple, then He could think in temporal succession. And, as some have shown, if God is temporal, then He is also spatial. Indeed, such a God would even be material (which is contrary to Scripture, e.g., John 4:24). And if God is limited to the space/time world, then He could think no faster than the speed of light. Thus He would not even be able to know the whole universe at a given moment, to say nothing of having infallible knowledge of the future,†(pp. 52-53, Geisler, “Chosen But Freeâ€).
God does not will from a lack. All that He wills is already fulfilled from His perspective (beyond time). If He did not love, it would contradict His nature. He does not love from a lack, but from His perfection… and we are in turn to love likewise… the infinite well thing I mentioned in Phil 27 of 79’s “Are you evil?” thread… To Ingenium’s suggestion that “We can agree, I think, that giving, or generosity, is fundamentally about the giver,†I replied:
> [@](#):
>
> “It sounds like you are really asking whether we love because the person is inherently lovable or deserving of or needful of love – or whether we love because we’ve got love to give. There is selfish giving (which isn’t really giving) and there is other-focused, selfless giving. Sometimes we do what we call “love†not out of ‘having love to give’ but out of a deficit (read Plato’s Symposium). Other times, the best times, we love because God gives us His love, and we’ve got plenty left over to share. A good analogy is the well of creativity. Some seem to have bottomless wells, others’ dry up easily. God’s well of creativity and love is infinite and one-and-the-same, and we draw from it when we walk with Him. His power (love, creativity) is perfected in our weakness (deficit) (2 Cor 12:9),†(posted in Phil 27 of 79’s “Are you evil?†thread).
> [ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … ty#1886198](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1886198&highlight=creativity#1886198)
And here’s an interesting article, if you have spare time…
[reformation21.org/Past\_Issue … bility/94/](http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/)
You can also look up Ned Flanders’ “Does God love you?” thread and my “Overcoming and Lapis Lazuli” thread for more of my thoughts on love… not that you haven’t heard enough already! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@capslockf9](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/capslockf9)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2007, 2:19am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/5 "2007-12-12T02:19:21Z")
To most; attachments, wants, and desires are to be met and/ or fullfilled as prerequesite to love. Most humans love- family, country, and God. They do not love the rest of his creation.
They don’t give a damn that the polar bear is loosing it’s hunting grounds, they don’t give a damn that people are dying of aids in far off countries, they dont give a damn that children are sent to war, they don’t give a damn as long as hamburgers stay at for around a dollar.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2007, 6:01am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/6 "2007-12-12T06:01:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I couldn’t care less about your biblical apologetics,
> for the same reason that I couldn’t care less about Aesop apologetics.
– Tortoise
What motivated you to click on this thread?
> [@](#):
>
> To most; attachments, wants, and desires are to be met and/ or fullfilled as prerequesite to love. Most humans love- family, country, and God. They do not love the rest of his creation.
> They don’t give a damn that the polar bear is loosing it’s hunting grounds, they don’t give a damn that people are dying of aids in far off countries, they dont give a damn that children are sent to war, they don’t give a damn as long as hamburgers stay at for around a dollar.
– capslockf9
We are stewards of this earth and every being in it. Most people still need to know God’s love.
---
### Author:  [@abowloforanges](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/abowloforanges)
#### Post date: [December 12, 2007, 6:38am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/7 "2007-12-12T06:38:19Z")
> [@Tortoise](#):
>
> I couldn’t care less about your biblical apologetics,
> for the same reason that I couldn’t care less about Aesop apologetics.
your continuing presence in this thread would suggest otherwise.
---
### Author:  [@capslockf9](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/capslockf9)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/8 "2007-12-26T00:08:09Z")
I do not know if “divine love” exists . Natural empathy is for sure. But any other emotion is is not divine and/or from nature.
---
### Author:  [@munty13](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/munty13)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2007, 12:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/9 "2007-12-26T12:49:05Z")
Empathy is not part of Divine love, it is produced chemically by the mind. It stems from self preservation responses.
Divine love, or unconditional love, is devoid of any delusions or attachments created by the mind; it’s not chemical, it’s a state of BEING.
---
### Author:  [@capslockf9](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/capslockf9)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/10 "2007-12-26T22:33:36Z")
> [@munty13](#):
>
> Empathy is not part of Divine love, it is produced chemically by the mind. It stems from self preservation responses.
>
> Divine love, or unconditional love, is devoid of any delusions or attachments created by the mind; it’s not chemical, it’s a state of BEING.
The opposite ends of the spectrum in awakeness is : ego beings and spiritual beings ( nihilist or transcendentalist)
Ego beings are mind that are lost in matter and all its wonder full forms. This people love only if there something in it for them.
Unconditional love will from a mind that has no nationality, no religion, no erroneous pride, no unexamined beliefs (suchas belief in distinct race groups) etc…—I do not know if this is Divine Love but it’s probably as close as we can get.
---
### Author:  [@munty13](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/munty13)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2007, 10:52am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/11 "2007-12-27T10:52:21Z")
The funny thing is, man is unconditional love; we place all these ridiculous conditions upon it. We can’t get close to unconditinal love; we ARE unconditional love.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2007, 5:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/12 "2007-12-27T17:52:36Z")
munty… define uncondition love and explain how we are it.
I am editing the original post because one of my sources is incorrect.
---
### Author:  [@munty13](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/munty13)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2007, 11:51am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/natural-empathy-and-supernatural-love/19030/13 "2007-12-28T11:51:22Z")
The closest word to unconditional love that the mind can grasp is acceptance. It’s accepting ourselves, all others, and the Universe at large as perfect.
If we follow the teachings of Jesus who asked us not to judge; he asked us not to worry; and he asked us to love those that hate us. This is unconditional love. If you analyse what he is in affect saying, it asks us to literally do nothing; these behaviours arise when we do nothing.
The hardest thing for a human to do is love those that hate us. It’s not suggesting we run over and hug the person who is perhaps trying to hurt us, but to only accept them. It’s possible, once you understand the human condition, to accept negative behaviours as displays of fear; and to accept that your enemies act only out of fear; they do not wish to harm you, but act only to protect themselves.
Unconditional love is the absolute absence of fear.