Blasphemy against the holy spirit is saying consent violation is bad.
Jesus made a vow to eternally damn anyone who thinks life is fucked up and fixes it.
Wrong & wrong.
No Ichthus. You really don’t get it do you?
Pointing out that there’s a flaw in existence is what blasphemy is.
If you manage to fix all those flaws…
You’re still bound to blasphemy even if everyone besides you goes to heaven forever.
Blasphemy is saying something is structurally wrong with all existence.
Blasphemy is also fixing all of it to everyone’s satisfaction.
If you do all of that…
Jesus still has a vow to keep… “never forgiven no matter what you say or do”
He must send the messiah to hell forever (nobody else).
This was yesterday:
You were singing a different tune yesterday.
Did Charles poop in your Cheerios?
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
But it’s only hell if you don’t wanna be there. Otherwise, it’s paradise.
Ok, I’m in.
You really don’t get it do you?
You don’t understand how the Bible works.
Blasphemy is proving beyond reasonable doubt that existence has a structural problem to fix.
Obviously, if you spend all your spirit to fix it, you’re admitting there’s a structural problem to existence.
If you do actually fix it…. Jesus has to keep his vow to eternally damn you.
Our capacity is meant for giving consent to solve for x, not for violating it.
Seeing a problem (brokenness) is the first step toward the answer/solution (wholeness).
Imagine a wholeness that makes brokenness a possibility so others can share in wholeness. It problematizes itself to give us something to solve.
The Trinity could’ve hoarded all the wholeness, but how whole is hoarding? Hoarding doesn’t solve anything.
Now we’re all like mini puzzles that get to solve each other.
Keep asking, seeking, knocking.
You’ll find it.
You are arrogant to think this has been solved.
You’re still in the Jesus Nintendo game.
There are millions of popular spiritual games besides the Bible game.
Insofar as they contain (maybe reflect or multiply is a better word?) truth, it’s all the same truth. Insofar as they add (or remove) in a way that distorts truth, they aren’t what I’m looking for.
Accept no imitations. Accept only the genuine original.
I have found an answer to that question which I cannot shake off.
Love is when your well being is tied or at least “bottlenecked” by the well being of the person or people you love.
That is to say you cannot be any more happy, joyful or content, than what you believe the person you love is at any given moment.
Also, quite often, the person you love being made happy or joyful is in itself what brings you joy and happiness.
Love is when you are linked to another, in that way.
Why we begin to love someone is probably best answered evolutionarily…
That is to say the most predictive and accurate answer is probably as a genetic utility function, rather than some spiritual or poetic force of nature.
That bonded feeling is what facilitates and motivates cooperative and altruistic actions that ultimately is the human survival strategy. To function as a tribal group, rather than solitary creatures.
As this bond is made stronger and more potent, this then permits our young to be made more vulnerable at birth by being minimally functional and requiring near constant care for a great deal of time before any degree of independence is achieved. Meaning it debilitates one or more of the adults who in place of their normal duties now have to divert attention to this small useless lump of crying flesh… and yet this child is not perceived (normally) as a detriment or liability or even a burdon, as it brings us much joy and fulfillment to render it aid and watch it grow… not just for the biological parents, but the entire tribe.
Functional explanations tied to survival will always … leave a stone in my shoe … because a lot of things have to happen simultaneously … not in sequence …before you can even get off the ground, whereas evolution is sequential… a painfully slow sequence … like expecting a car engine to gradually acquire its essential-for-running components AS it is running (before it has all the essential components). It seems irreducibly complex, like a “singu”larity. Wholeness. Homeostasis. But meh, what do I know? I’m divorced. Just seems there is a “life” beyond merely surviving… one we are not merely born into, and must choose (back).
And how are we to “choose” anything absent preference or motive?
There is a nature to our very being and to experience love is part of that nature… as much as it is to experiencing pain, pleasure or beauty… these are our motives for actions and choices.
Certainly nurture plays a role in how we perceive the world and therefore WHEN we might have those experiences or when we might have to choose between conflicting values… but we cannot choose absent value.
So the answer to why we experience such things that form the basis of our values cannot then be a matter of our choosing… but a question of our nature and how it is that our nature is what it is.
IOW, experiencing love is not a matter of “should” or “ought” for us, it just IS part of our nature… and there will be iterations of humans for whom that isn’t true.
Evolutionary forces, in the scientific model, care little about the end product being a car or a bike or anything else…
So to imagine them conspiering to create an engine, a heart or a human is obviously at odds with that paradigm.
It produces random iterations and alterations and survival (in part) selects which iterations are propagated into the future…
If something should resemble a car at some point in this process, it’s no more the end goal than was any iteration prior to it resembling a car… or any iteration of that car that comes after.
But we can very much speculate as to why one iteration survived when others did not… and thereby learn why the humans that we are today experience love.
I can understand why this scheme doesn’t sit well with you (or me for that matter)… we humans, being tribal animals, don’t organize that way and such a “might makes right” survival of the fittest model would be detrimental and counterproductive for us to adopt and emulate as a means of generating solidarity and cooperation. But unlike religious stories, scientific ones are not meant to be prescriptive… but rather be descriptive and true.
It seems that it is part of our nature to see that the conditions for survival do not satisfy our need for more than mere survival.
Why would we have such a need for More than mere survival, if there is no More (being described by the Golden Rule—because it always is, because it always chooses/affirms, that other=self)? (I AM that I AM)
What if those survival needs are just tutors making possible our seeing the choice for More (true, whole life that is not fleeting or broken)?
What if the whole universe is a ladder? An invitation. To ascend and descend.
Love may be more than just one thing.
Compassion or sympathy (caring about another’s welfare and wellbeing, wanting what you believe is best for them, or what they believe is best for themselves) may be one of if not the main ingredient, but I think there’s more to it than that.
Empathy is of course important, being able to put yourself in their shoes, imagine or infer what they’re feeling and feel it yourself, which’s of course easier if you’ve been through whatever you believe they’re going through.
Adoration also comes to mind, seeing the strength, beauty or potential in another, their intrinsic value, and extrinsic.
But also vulnerability, you can’t really love someone if you feel they’re completely lacking in any need.
Familiarity, we love who we can relate to, opposites tend to repel, and also, what we can relate to, it’s why dogs and cats make better pets than say arthropods and mollusks.
Respect I believe is a massive part of what love is, we respect other people’s boundaries, their autonomy and individuality, their fundamental right to decide who they are and what’s best for themselves, for themselves, even if we don’t always agree with their choices.
Reciprocation, being fair with others and wanting them to be fair with us.
And last but not least, acceptance, it doesn’t mean we condone everything they do, but fundamentally we accept the person as a whole, warts and all, despite, or perhaps even because of their shortcomings.
We may offer criticism but it’s constructive, not to tear down but build up into what’s best for them, not just what’s best for us.
I’d say love may be holistic, irreducible, all of these things and perhaps more are important parts of what love is.
Gloominary,
Pairing this with your “What is left?” thread gives me an idea I think you would love.
A compatibility graph.
Like … you mention emotions, fairness, and so forth. A compatible friendship between two or more people will be complimentary and not necessarily identical on a number of factors like you would find on the mbti (personality scale).
I wonder if there is a stress point where there can either be too much complementarity (antagonistic quality differences), or too much similarity (not enough complementarity) so that two people who have exceeded that stress point may be incompatible… their personality differences may be irreconcilable, even if one of them would reconcile/relate to the other, given the opportunity.
One of those, “There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy” … our personalities just don’t mesh.
(…not one of those, “I don’t know how to disagree and still be kind,” situations.)
Mad Man P & Gloominary raise many good points.
–
I think some of the benefits to the arrival of love,
was the ability to overwrite the shortfalls of other urges.
For example, if you had an overabundance of hate,
how would that play out in a tribal setting?
Could you forgive the mistakes of others?
Would you seek revenge against imperfections which all are susceptible to?
Or perhaps, would you engage in behavior which undermines the tribe as a unit?
You need something to keep in this urge in check.
Even if you don’t have love for the transgressor,
perhaps if someone you love cares for them,
then to hurt the other is to indirectly hurt the self - through the mutual link.
In tribes, all are connected.
The odds are, someone’s going advocate the interests of each party.
Furthermore, love can provide meaning.
Intelligence introduces the question of ‘Why?’.
In the face of dire circumstances,
love is a source of meaning.
Where other reasons pale,
love is powerful enough to justify perseverance.
When we talk of survival -
intelligent beings with meaning
will endure and overcome far more,
than intelligent beings without meaning.
“The best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.” - Dalai Lama
I can understand in certain relationships,
people can become stronger as a unit,
by sacrificing aspects of their own competence,
to devote energy to specializing in certain areas -
with all members repeating this in differing aspects,
thereby producing a unit stronger than what any part alone could be.
This unit renders individuals vulnerable,
as their stability is reliant on others.
This position demands trust.
This is one strategy.
Alternatively, people could be self sufficient units.
Where one’s presence isn’t to address the deficits of another.
Rather, where members find value in the company of others.
If there’s trust, members can still delegate tasks,
and support each other in moments of self vulnerability / adversity.
Basically love is altruism, believing others have intrinsic value.
It doesn’t mean you necessarily disregard your own value in your relationship with them, just that you consider their intrinsic value, welfare and wellbeing, often along with yours in your relationship, whatever that might be.
We don’t love uniformly.
Some are more altruistic than others, meaning they value others more than others do.
We also love in different ways, according to our personality; instincts, intuitions, feelings, moods, observations, beliefs, morals, values, talents, tastes, and upbringing, which may vary from person to person and from time to time.
And love is normally different depending on what your relationship with the person you love is.
The way we love our partner, our immediate family, children, siblings, parents, extended family, friends, aquaintenances and pets is all different, in degree, expression and how that love is felt, not just because of social convention but because of who we are innately, and our rationale.
And love depends as much on others as it does ourselves.
The more relatable and adorable we feel people are, the more good traits or potential we feel they possess, the more we love them.
The more they care about us and others we care about, the more we love them.
Love is holistic, it happens at every level, it’s expressed in how we talk to others and, if intimate, how we touch them
It’s felt in the form of compassion, sympathy or just a desire to help, to make ourselves useful, our self esteem tends to get a boost when we help others when we want to, conversely we feel guilt when we help others less than we feel we should or when we believe we’ve harmed them.
We may feel remorse, and a desire to make amends, for redemption.
We feel upset, and angry when we feel our love has been underappreciated.
And of course love can be forced, or faked, people and society sometimes expect things from us we in our heart don’t want to give, but we may do so anyway, out of shame, fear of social isolation or retribution, or because we’re just selfish and we’re using someone.
Above all love is both an organic, and socialized phenomenon, and so it’s extremely dynamic and variable, we don’t just get out our utilitarian calculators and calculate the greatest happiness for the greatest number, maybe if you’re in a position of great power and so great responsibility for hundreds, thousands or millions of people, you do that, but ordinarily, love is both a far more spontaneous and/or ritualized affair.
Gloom,
[tab]If you preface your statement with it’s all your opinion, then OK. Otherwise:
This thread is entitled ‘What is Love?’
I was speaking to my opinion of that.
I was not speaking to each individual’s interpretation of love,
nor how each individual ought apply their conception of love.
Likewise,
It is not for you to declare how another ought apply their love.
You have your opinion, but your opinion isn’t the only rational answer.
The the line you bolded and underlined is not for you to declare.
How another seeks to apply their love is their prerogative.
One may seek to apply value to everything,
such that one’s experiencing of everything,
holds value to one.
[one possible reason]
I do not have the incentive to dive into this point with you - it’s a different can of worms altogether.
So I don’t expect I will, even though I have strong sense as to where your point emerges.
I don’t think there’s only one correct conception and application of love.
Also dislike people stating opinions like this.
Seems kind of like a point not up for discussion.[/tab]
Gloominary,
I wonder though 
is THAT having “real” love for them? IS that “real” love?
I might be wrong here but that might be more like actually “liking” them a lot or feeling closer to them than we do others because of how they make us feel. There might be a bit of self- love there, no - not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that but is it altruistic?
That could be gratitude for them but is gratitude necessarily love?
What happens if these people who we feel are adorable start changing? Does our so-called love for them change too? I think that “real” love is unconditional. A relationship may change but where does the love go? Does it go?
You said below or was it above lol:
You left out - and acting according to that belief.
Love without action is simply feeling/emotion.
Are vampire bats more loving than we are? 
Come to think of it, it’s not just about (reciprocal) altruism, that’s really only one side of the coin, it’s also about wanting to experience, and enjoy others, in a benign, and wholesome way, their beauty, wit, humor, vitality and idiosyncrasies, what makes them tick.
It’s about sharing ourselves and moments together, about closeness, and affection.
Not just helping each other, altho that’s obviously a huge aspect of it, but how we make each other feel when spending time together for its own sake.