You know, this is why I still continue to study religion.

This is in reply to 602408 and sequitur. I have to bump it up myself, it seems.


602416 (Markaba)

Yes, and I am saying that it is possible to both love someone and deliberately hurt them.

Put examples to it. I really can't conceive of it. To me, "tough love" unless you are training an undercover agent to resist torture, is just a rationalization of abuse.

For one thing, people's feelings are not consistent, even from day to day. Sometimes they are angry and lash out at a beloved,

I recognized that in my post. I just refuze to call the angry moments "love." When another emotion dominates, then love takes the back seat and the other emotion (anger, here) leads.

And then that person does something that just grates on you, and you lash out. That's not accidental; you mean to hurt them (emotionally).

Sure, but at that discrete point in time you are not loving. Same as one or another event or physical condition may make you forget another emotion you usually feel.

You seem to define love strictly through a series of behaviors, but behaviors are only half the story. There is also an emotional component to it. If there isn't, then what exactly is that feeling you guys keep saying you feel towards girls? I don't know exactly what love is (I don't think anyone does), but I know what it isn't: a set of behaviors, full stop. So, there is an emotional component to love. In fact, the emotional component is pretty much the only part of the definition that everyone agrees on. And here's the thing about emotions: they fuck with our heads. No one who actually has emotions is immune from that. Are you?

This is a very theologically rich paragraph. Really.

First of all, yes, Love is an emotion. But the emotion of love is a disposition to do good, help and exalt, not to treat wrong, harm and disparage. I thought that would also be agreed upon. It seems it isn't. If we cannot agree on this, I don't think there is much scope to discuss further.

What exactly is the feeling I feel towards girls? Lust. A disposition to reproducing with them, or trying to. Since the idea can be abstracted, an attraction to that idea beyond specific known girls. Since reproduction is tied to sex, an attraction to their sexual beings and a disposition to do sexual things with them. Since successful hoomin reproduction necessitates nurturing the partner, a drive to nurture them.

Love, in the case of hot little girls, comes after lust, because it comes after lust guides me to know them and then I find out about the person. I lust after the girl, but I only can love the person. And the love for the person I certainly can feel for non-girls, or ugly girls, or anyone I am not sexually attracted to and wouldn't have sex with. Love, as in the disposition to do good, help and exalt, goes beyond my lust for girls.

***

Am I immune to emotions? No. But I try very hard to be.

If there are universals in religion, "Control Your Emotions" is one.

In the West, the Western Christian formulation of the seven deadly sins is the most widely known formulation of "control your emotions" there is. All the Seven are emotions, and all are felt by everyone at one time or another. Notice that of the Seven, Sloth contradicts all the others, Pride and Envy contradict each other, and Greed contradicts all except Pride and Envy. This is because emotions can contradict other emotions, and it is actually not so frequent that one dominates over another all or most of the time. But though one emotion may hold the other in check, again, think of Pride vs Envy, any of them should be controlled. Unlike many particular sins, we can see the effects that the Seven have over yourself and those around you. Notice further than all Seven are emotions which are positive to have in moderation. Complete lack of any of the Seven would be disastrous for yourself - they are deadly only because of immoderate indulging, not because of being there at all. Again, Control Your Emotions.

That isn't the first Western formulation, even. The Greeks already pointed out the difference in meanings between people being "master of yourself" and "slave of yourself" -- meaning essentially whether the person controlled their emotions or didn't; becoming a master or a slave to them.

But it isn't, by far, the strongest formulation. For that you have to go East. The Second Noble Truth of Buddhism includes all of the Seven, and quite a little more; and taken as a whole, the Four are a much greater call and commitment to control your emotions than sermons about the Seven are. It is a lot more central a theological point for Buddhists than for Western Christians, or indeed, anyone in the Abrahamic world.

And... yes, I do try very consciously to control my emotions. This doesn't mean I don't feel any; what it means is that I do not allow them to dominate my thought and action.

***

Further, you are taking an Augustinian definition of Love.

Although other debates have generally taken precedence in schisms and mutual condemnation between Christians, the Augustinians vs Pelagians debate and its offshoots are at least just as interesting and subtle as any, and in many ways more so.

The Augustinian position, essentially, is that Christian Salvation is achieved through faith alone. Since Augustine became the hegemonic theologian in Western Christianity in the early Middle Ages, it became the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. But Augustine wrote that in a specific context with specific political implications. First, some Christians were interjecting against a Church that was becoming a worldly power and demanding a greater standard of behavior. So did two forces which were relevant to Augustine. The Donatists were a North African based church who demanded higher standards of behavior from its flock than mainline Catholics and excluded all Christians who had committed apostasy during times of prosecution -- even, and especially, church authorities. Pelagius, a theologian of British origin, and his followers, also demanded greater standards of behavior from clergy and flock alike but also insisted that good acts alone could bring about Salvation and because of free will, this was accessible to anyone. Augustine fought both because he was aware the Church didn't meet its own standards but needed to preserve his racket dependent on its power; further he fought the Pelagians also because if good works could bring about Salvation, then it wasn't necessary to be a part of the Catholic Church (something very important in dealing with all Pagans, but also non-Catholic Christians, and even Catholics who would not be faithful enough to the church structure.)

Since Augustine was the only important theologian of the era who wrote in Latin (rather than Greek) his influence over the medieval Catholic Church was disproportionate, and this position became the official position of the RCC. However, immediately it was criticized because of the obvious problem: if Salvation is through faith only, then good works do not matter. The Orthodox churches, influenced by the Greek language theologians, have never recognized Augustine as a theological authority, and this is one of the reasons. This was one of the first movements to the theological split between Western and Eastern Christians. Even the medieval RCC, aware of the problem that the Augustinian formulation did nothing to condemn wrongful acts, while continuing officially to endorse Augustine came to declare that "faith without works is death" (ie, not Salvation.) But although Pelagians were declared heretics, the doctrinal debate whether man is capable to avoid sin out of their own free will, and whether this achieves Salvation, has always endured because it so obviously cuts across very central tenets of Christianity. Fully Pelagian theology after the original Pelagians is rare (though not non-existent) but the intermediate doctrine of Semi-Pelagianism, which means explicitly that both faith and acts act together (coinciding with the saying that faith without works is death,) is frequent, and is, de facto, though explained and based differently, the position of the Orthodox who are not committed to Augustine. And this is how many years later, Luther formulated his stance as a return to the straight Augustinian position and accused the RCC as Pelagian. In my opinion, the Reformed view (esp. the Calvinist but largely also the Arminian view) is the only way to solve the issue without contradicting other parts of Christian theology: Salvation through Grace alone (ie, faith;) but Grace causes the Elect to do the right works. This makes works not the means of Salvation, but still a sign of belonging to the Elect, so still remarking their importance together with faith. Incidentally, it also solves the problem of taking the Augustinian view of Grace Alone while rejecting his view that the Catholic Church alone made Salvation possible - the one True Church is told by its behavior. So, while on the outside Augustinian, Calvinists and Arminians would actually have opposed Augustine had they been contemporaries.

You are defining love as faith (emotion) alone.

This poses theological problems.

But that's just it! Don't you get it yet? Love is NOT rational! And it never will be.

I didn't say that love had to be rational. I said it had to have a rational definition.

It kinda is part of the definition of "definition" that it be rational.

There are any number of things which are not rational; it doesn't prevent us from defining them rationally.

no one has yet come up with a way to be absolutely sure someone else cares about you.

Of course not. That would be telepathy.

What is the best proxy?
A history of their behavior...

when you trust someone that completely, you open yourself up to all sorts of delusions and emotional nonsense.

Is this an argument for intervention?

See, you don't always know when you're hurting someone.

Of course you do.

I know as an anti-contacter you have to deny you do. But think outside this issue for now. Think about every other case, not inter-generational sex.

Of course you know when you are hurting someone.

If you deny the hurtfulness, it's not that you are being deluded, it's that you don't care.

if you truly love somebody, then you can't get away from it.

Sorry, but destroying the village to save it is not love. Anyone with a disposition to do good, help and exalt, would not destroy the village.

As a side note, remember that loving someone isn't always giving them whatever they want. In other words, love is not always about making/keeping the other person happy.

I would also like examples here, to be sure I am not misunderstanding.

But, assuming the meaning I consider most logical: that sometimes people can learn through pain more than they can from being spared that pain; then that is still making the other person happy. You are exchanging present happiness for a distant, but larger, happiness. You are still not hurting; just choosing to maximize in the long term rather than the short term.

Consider the hypothetical question of what would they do different if they knew it was their last day of life? And this is of course, not really a hypothetical: it is very real for people of all ages with terminal diseases.

That's why loving parents place limits on their children; because they care about them and want the best for them. Anyway, the difference between an abusive parent and a caring parent (who uses reasonable discipline) isn't always one of quality but rather one of quantity. There are some things that should always be avoided (e.g. striking a child), but there are other things where it's a matter of the right amount versus the wrong amount. For example, sometimes it is appropriate to criticize a child's behavior, but you can take it too far, and then it becomes abusive.

These are all acts, not emotions.



602428 (Dante)

Any parent who has disciplined a child in any way knows that what they feel is fear ( for the child's safety ) and a host of other emotions. But that discipline does not cultivate nor come out of the feeling of love, nor is an act of love. The clue which should occur to the rationalizer who claims that everything which occurs in a "loving relationship" just MUST be love; is that you would hope that a third party who was concerned for the safety of a child they did not love would act as you did for the same emotional reasons you did.

To me that is called "human decency" and love goes beyond that. It goes further and deeper than decency.

Giving a sick child a medicine and soup is decency. Tucking them into bed next is love.

And same, if reverse, for discipline. Decency only demands to prevent the urgent and preventable. It is love which turns it into a pretext to show closeness and commitment.

And as to the snippy argument? We all have our failings. But we also know that even in the absence of a "loving relationship" it serves no positive purpose. Petty irritation and its expressions are not acts expressing the positive emotions that might make any two parties choose in the relationship in which they occur.

And this is one of the (maybe the greatest at interpersonal level) reasons to control your emotions.



602437 (Baldur)

Which brings us back to my original point: For many, "Girl Lovers are not molesters" is true by definition, because the definition of "Girl Lover" excludes those who do not act in love. Many use the term "Girl Lover" to differentiate between those who LOVE girls and those who are merely ATTRACTED to girls. Perhaps your personal definition differs.

Of course.

Is this a new edition of the award winning show "Who Is Not A True Girl Lover".



602445 (Markaba)

Likewise, being shitty to someone doesn't necessarily mean you don't love them. Love is, first and foremost, an emotional connection. That's the basis for everything it is or will become. This notion that you can identify love by a set of behaviors is absurd.

This is why I regard your position as Augustinian. Faith without works. You're saying exactly that.

And that reductionist view of love is one reason why you will never make any headway with society, because anyone who has any experience with it can tell you that it's just not that simple.

Cut it. Nobody has ever argued against child or pedophile rights because pedophiles have a view of love that is not Augustinian.

Probably the simplest thing you can say about love is that it's a balancing act between giving your loved one what they want versus giving them what they need, but even that falls woefully short of describing what it's about.

I find that entirely disparaging. The idea that you can have a better idea of what X needs than X is, imho, full of contempt and condescension.

This doesn't mean I have never disagreed with my LGFs. It means that if I disagree I have to tell them how (implicitly why) my impression of their needs is different to theirs.

What makes you guys think MAPs will somehow be better than that? That's the real issue I've always had with adult-child relationships. It's not that I think MAPs are more evil than society at large; it's that I know they are exactly the same degree of messed up as other factions of society, and that's enough.

Not a bad point, but you failed to consider that children have many watchers -- at least compared to adults.

Indeed, some of us have pointed out that age apartheid leads directly to children having less watchers, increasing the safety of any of their fewer watchers to abuse them (in any form.)

Children's brains are still forming, and the stakes are just way too high.

True, but hypocritical. The effect of schooling in dumbing them down is at least comparable.



602446 (Markaba)

Exactly. The behavioral part of a loving relationship is important, but it doesn't define what love is. The parameters of a functional relationship are not synonymous with love. Love is a big part of it, but they aren't interchangeable concepts.

I would say, if anything, that love requires that behavior, even if that behavior, isolated, doesn't exhaust what love is. Ie, no love without behavior; even if not all love is only behavior.

Nonsense. Discipline can arise from different things, but one of them is a fear for the well-being of the child. Why do you fear for the child's well-being? Because you care about them.

This is just hiding the premize so it's not evident and asking us to accept it repackaged.

Yes, because you care. Now, why do you care?

Love is one possible reason. There are many possible reasons to care. Not all of which even refer back to the child.

This is obvious if we leave the parental setting.

A school teacher and headmaster discipline without love. They do care. But why do they care? They care because it is their job, and directly (in private schools) or indirectly (in public) it affects their own pay or school conditions.



602458 (Dante)

OTOH, I am inclined to reject the angry person beating someone else out of jealousy as someone who is both feeling love and expressing love. They may say, "I do this because I love you," but their actions and their anger say something entirely different.

Right now in the news there are those saying that love is so complex that whipping a child until he bleeds cannot be deemed child abuse.

I say that actions speak louder than words. And that love is what you practice, not some theory you think about.

And you Sir, take a Pelagian definition of love.

I've been inside marriage and inside child-rearing. And I can tell you that what you deem "reductionist" is the only thing that makes emotional sense to me from within. We are all flawed in the practice of love. And sometimes you must react to others from another emotion. But that doesn't mean that in the moment you can't tell what you feel or what you're doing.

The arguing with the spouse doesn't invalidate the love. But it sure doesn't feel like love from within. And I'll just have to assume that anyone criticizing it as reductionist hasn't experienced it that way for themself. I have.

Further, familiarity breeds routine. And with routine come more chances to argue about things which are overall less important, but nonetheless become the one important thing with a person you spend so much time with in such personal spaces.

Ethan has argued that parents sexually abuse offspring because offspring are there. Whatever the merits of that argument, it is true that being there naturally creates more opportunities for anger to present itself at some grievance - as it also creates more opportunities for grievance, even, especially, the minor kind.



602464 (Markaba)

What qtns and Baldur described was NOT subjective. What they have said is that love can be defined solely by a set of behaviors. How is that subjective?

I agree.

But this is what happens when you debate the Three Headed Hydra as if we had only one head.

You are an Augustinian for whom love is feeling without works. Dante is a Pelagian for whom it's works, not feeling, which establish the existence of love. Baldur is a Semi-Pelagian for whom lapses in works do not deny feeling but works are more essential to define love. I am a Calvinist for whom works are the identifiable sign of the feeling and the lack of works the sign of the reverse.

Behaviors (not the motivations behind them, since it has already been determined by qtns and B that these things are irrelevant--just the behaviors)

I never said motivations are irrelevant. But, overall, the way you understood probably doesn't misinterpret me in this stance, so I won't object.

What I do think about motivations are these two things:

1. They are unknowable. Therefore, it makes no sense to speculate about them and is at best a distraction and waste of resources.

2. Ex post, since actions have consequences, you can infer motivations by the effects of an action: the consequences of the action are its motivation.

In this thread we have only dealt with things covered by the first of these assertions. I think you can see that this position, although not claiming that motivations are irrelevant, leads still to their exclusion from the argument, because they are unknowable. So in the end your interpretation of my position is right, even if you didn't totally understood my reasoning leading me there.


No doubt there are, and that's exactly WHY this shit is complex: because those people know that they can get leverage by using the truth.

Or by using an intellectually lazy but emotionally appealing argument which whitewashes their own... erm, sins.

And many people will buy into their position fully because there is truth in the argument that discipline is important to raising happy, healthy kids,

Yes, but the rest is a non-sequitur...

and people then associate that bad behavior with the truth.

...here. This is a non-sequitur. Because discipline therefore child abuse just doesn't compute.

That the abusers behave badly doesn't invalidate the argument they use to justify there [behavior.]

No, it only invalidates that it applies to them.

Spouse abuse isn't wrong because of the motivations behind it; it's wrong for its own reasons (which I will assume we are already on the same page about). Can we agree on that much?

I can agree on that much. My peeve is that the very reasons why abuse is wrong negate the existence of love.

Bad works do negate the existence of faith.

Well, it's a nice sentiment, but ultimately it's a thought-terminating cliche and not an informative description of reality.

Adolf Eichmann had extensively studied the Hebrew language, the Torah and the Talmud. Upon his arrest kidnapping, he received the Mossad forces with a "Shema Israel," the holiest prayer in Judaism.

"Actions speak louder" is only not an informative description when you take all words at face value, and baze your opinions on words. But people lie, and people have many different reasons to lie too, and some lies include self-deception (meaning, they are sincerely held beliefs, not outright attempts at deceit,) so words are simply not reliable enough.

Acts are.

Maybe you can take away the thinking part of it and the behavioral part of it and it would still be love, but you cannot take away the emotional component. Thus, our evaluation of love is has to start from there.

Certainly most children would rather live under a fair and benevolent robot who provides for their care and never says anything, than under a thuggish parent/spouse who says "I love you" many times.

But again, you just have an Augustinian definition while all the others have a definition that necessarily includes works. (Or in my case, where works are symptomatic)

And frankly, if that is love, something that doesn't include works, then I disown love. Call me a hater.

But my whole point is that love doesn't end because you weren't feeling loving at the moment. If it did, then relationships would have a 0% success rate, because every time a hitch occurred, that would be the end of the relationship

Love has lapses. Nobody said it didn't. But the very definition of a lapse is that of a temporary suspension even within a long term continuity.

Do you assume that I have never been angry or upset at someone I loved?

One of my LGFs used to upset me often because she didn't finish her food.

Then I beat her black and blue.

Oh wait, no I didn't.

Because I don't care.

Oh wait, no, because I love her.

So I dealt with that thing which upsets me (and notice it isn't something which directly harms her) in a different way which changed her behavior but where my works would continue to show her love and not harm her, hurt her or demean her.



602496 (Markaba)

But they ARE more important in terms of determining what love IS.

As stated before: since they are unknowable, it makes absolutely no sense to include them in a definition as it would need to know something unknowable.

Although here (thanks to the modification introduced by Baldur) the second statement I made also applies: You can gauge motivations by the consequences of an action. If the consequences are clearly harmful, there is not a loving motivation present.

Which raises another point: I hope that people here aren't so literal-minded that they can't see that I'm NOT actually defending abusive or bad behaviors.

As Augustine was not defending bad behaviors. But eventually the triumph of his idea led to bad behaviors being tolerated because they became regarded as unimportant.

My contention all along has been that to define love simply by a set of behaviors is to misunderstand and oversimplify it.

Yet, a statement of "I love you" is no less an oversimplification. And because there are incentives to lie (not all even related to abuse - the statement can be used by a couple who explicitly know they're marrying for financial purposes to justify themselves to others,) this is not reliable.

I am doing my best not to get pulled into any of those slippery things where Dante or qtns twists what I say to make seem like the opposite of what I actually mean.

Trust me; I've read enough of the Augustinian - Pelagian debate to know what you mean.