User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 159

  1. #121
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.
    I read nearly this entire thread and yet the thing that bothers me the most is this first line.

    You have essentially defined love and then used it outside of the definition, using qualities only inherent in your definition that would not apply to the broader (out of this definition) meaning. In this case, you have defined and qualified love in a Christian unconditional sense. The defined quality does not generalize to all definitions of love.

    You cannot have an unconditional relationship with another human under God's law, granted, but your relationship is condoned/endorsed by God (and here we can argue into the different Christian viewpoints). We presume he wants us to both be happy and has sex (multiply); these outlets cannot be formed under the same definition of love that we use with God. God doesn't have a sexual relationship with you, nor provides companionship (in the human/physiological pair bonding/social connectivity sense) and so forth. There is no single quality that applies to both God's love and relationship love as it is defined here. The definition, the qualification of love, is entirely different.

  2. #122
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Physical attraction is grouped in with 'sex'. It is inferior to love. We treat it first in our culture. We treat it like it is necessary for love. But it isn't. You can have sex (physical attraction) lead you if you like, as may others. Most people do. If we find our mates based on physical attraction (who we want to potentially have sex with), we run the risk of attaching prematurely or to someone not right for us. Or to hurting or being hurt unnecessarily. And to wasting time, and to lots of other things that are not Godly or enriching. Yes, it might be fun, but it isn't good for us overall.
    What do you think is the basis of sexual attraction? Is there an assumption that it is rooted in the physical? Are you suggesting that people are first attracted to a body and then love a person?

    I think sexual attraction is an expression of the depth and complexity of our minds. Physical attributes often serve as metaphors for more intangible qualities of a person. Large eyes evoke feelings of innocence, strong frames imply a person who likes to protect others, even large breasts represent providing sustenance. It can kill the libido to analyze these things, but it is important to ask why dark hair, an elegant profile, or even large white teeth and a big smile make people desire intimacy with the person possessing these physical attributes.

    On one level my hypothesis is that we are attracted to intangible attributes expressed in physique and demeanor of a person we meet. For myself I actually feel no attraction to an unknown man who is symmetrical and muscular in his features i.e. attractive. If I don't have proof he is kind and intelligent, I cannot feel sexual attraction. For my attraction to my husband now, I admired him as an intelligent and fair minded individual for a few years before I ever saw him and before we were friends. I felt connected in a meaningful way before seeing him, but when I saw his picture, I saw in his face the expression and representation of everything I value. I knew he could understand the complexities of my emotional experience when I saw his eyes, and I knew he could love and appreciate me by the set of his expression. That is when I wanted to be intimate with him.

    I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.

    On a personal level, I have a reason why I don't feel as easily connected to really tall men. My life has conditioned this, so am I limiting myself or taking control metaphorically for how I desire to have my life turn out? In my theories about sexuality, I think our natural sexual impulses often contain at their core ways to help us take control of our lives and heal from them. Conditioning can limit our choices, but there could be a positive side to this process as well.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  3. #123
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.
    This is the crux of the issue.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #124
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I suppose women are slightly more complicated in this regard. But here's my take on it.

    I've considered my bi-'curiosity' at one point when I've felt genuine feelings of deep care for another person that was of the same sex (although his sexuality itself was debatable, transgender). But whilest I did feel a sort of connection I could best describe as love. I had no sexual feelings for him whatsoever. And trust me when I say I seriously considered about a possible relationship here. Ultimately he was just not what I needed and I not what he needed. And whilest we remained friends, I made our future clear and he ended up in a good relationship with someone that did fit him well, so all it well that ends well.

    Sexuality is and always will be one of the most important factors to consider potential lifelong partners, at least for me. In fact, I think it is the only thing that I could never compromise on.

    In fact, if I did try to force that relationship on me and that person, I would always feel like I would not be able to give him what he truely deserves, which is physical affection. That kind of love only does harm.
    I would not call that love worthy of basing a relationship on, nor one that God likely sanctioned as such. Perhaps it was just a very intense friendly love (we need to come up with some new terms here), or perhaps over more time like that, the love would have deepened or changed in such a way as to become sexually charged.


    Thanks Fluffy!! Need more story......
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  5. #125
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    What do you think is the basis of sexual attraction? Is there an assumption that it is rooted in the physical? Are you suggesting that people are first attracted to a body and then love a person?

    I think sexual attraction is an expression of the depth and complexity of our minds. Physical attributes often serve as metaphors for more intangible qualities of a person. Large eyes evoke feelings of innocence, strong frames imply a person who likes to protect others, even large breasts represent providing sustenance. It can kill the libido to analyze these things, but it is important to ask why dark hair, an elegant profile, or even large white teeth and a big smile make people desire intimacy with the person possessing these physical attributes.

    On one level my hypothesis is that we are attracted to intangible attributes expressed in physique and demeanor of a person we meet. For myself I actually feel no attraction to an unknown man who is symmetrical and muscular in his features i.e. attractive. If I don't have proof he is kind and intelligent, I cannot feel sexual attraction. For my attraction to my husband now, I admired him as an intelligent and fair minded individual for a few years before I ever saw him and before we were friends. I felt connected in a meaningful way before seeing him, but when I saw his picture, I saw in his face the expression and representation of everything I value. I knew he could understand the complexities of my emotional experience when I saw his eyes, and I knew he could love and appreciate me by the set of his expression. That is when I wanted to be intimate with him.

    I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.

    On a personal level, I have a reason why I don't feel as easily connected to really tall men. My life has conditioned this, so am I limiting myself or taking control metaphorically for how I desire to have my life turn out? In my theories about sexuality, I think our natural sexual impulses often contain at their core ways to help us take control of our lives and heal from them. Conditioning can limit our choices, but there could be a positive side to this process as well.

    I think this is a very good post, and very valid. Thank you for writing it.

    When I said physical attraction was linked to 'sex' to cascade on the previous page, I spoke inaccurately, without qualifying it. Physical attraction is very complex. There, I was speaking about physical attraction as it is implied by just being hot for someone's body because they are beautiful or fit or stylish or any other materialistic way, which is how I think many of us are in our society. But physical attraction IS a valid part of feeling able to love another when it's a deeper kind of phenomenon besides just noticing someone's physical attributes; and maybe the most prophetic part, because it usually happens initially and quickly.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that physical attraction is the slave to either lust or love....it can identify lustfully those superficial characteristics that mean someone would give you materially those things that you feel would make you happy. Or physical attraction can help you identify those ephemeral and deeper things that you pick up when you see someone...like you are saying about the smile, or just knowing in an instant if someone has something that would fit you. These are more qualities associated with love, so it illustrates that love is your primary goal, not lust.

    But the qualities in the aforementioned category are going to probably be more cookie-cutter and proscribed, being able to be applied to many potential partners--big tits, easy, fit, sassy, whatever, tall, smart. The qualities in the latter group are going to be as variable as the partner(s); and might change drastically depending upon the person. I mean a nice smile that denotes love can vary greatly. With my point being that while a gender or an orientation can easily fall into the first category, it isn't so easy to stuff a gender or orientation into the second category--anyone can be loving, anyone can have similar values, it is not gender nor orientation specific.


    I am glad you called that out. Physical attraction is very important in selecting a long term mate (at least for many, not all). But the kind of physical attraction that is the most important is still the kind that would exist independent of a specific group.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  6. #126
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I read nearly this entire thread and yet the thing that bothers me the most is this first line.

    You have essentially defined love and then used it outside of the definition, using qualities only inherent in your definition that would not apply to the broader (out of this definition) meaning. In this case, you have defined and qualified love in a Christian unconditional sense. The defined quality does not generalize to all definitions of love.

    You cannot have an unconditional relationship with another human under God's law, granted, but your relationship is condoned/endorsed by God (and here we can argue into the different Christian viewpoints). We presume he wants us to both be happy and has sex (multiply); these outlets cannot be formed under the same definition of love that we use with God. God doesn't have a sexual relationship with you, nor provides companionship (in the human/physiological pair bonding/social connectivity sense) and so forth. There is no single quality that applies to both God's love and relationship love as it is defined here. The definition, the qualification of love, is entirely different.

    But really you only need believe in God, not Jesus, based on my explanation of love:

    I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.
    Right?


    And I'm not really following exactly your line of thought in the last paragraph. Would you care to elaborate?

    If God's love is ideal and perfect (agape) and lusty love is at the other end of the spectrum>


    God/Agape--------/-------------/--------------/-----------------/------------/------lusty love


    Then in between are all the other kinds of love. How pure our love is depends upon us, really. I was going to say who we are in relationship with, but really, how we treat one person is likely how we will treat another. If we are living truly coram Deo, then we might be able to give a more pure love because we are with God more often and God's love is pure, and makes us more pure (hopefully). If we are living in this world only (where the prince of the air, or satan, rules), then our love will likely reflect that. Maybe it will be more materialistic or superficial or selfish, for example.

    I think a person could exude a healthy love without having concept of God, and a person could exude an unhealthy love who is very devout. I just think it's more likely to be the other way around--the more we walk with God, the more pure we will be and therefore our love will be; and the more we don't, the more we will be a slave to lust.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #127
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    But really you only need believe in God, not Jesus, based on my explanation of love:
    Yup, for sure! I assumed a personal relationship which is typically Christian.

    Then in between are all the other kinds of love.
    The line must be expressed in units of "something" in order to have a continuum like that. What quality makes one's love for God greater than their love of another human? It could be seen as degree of devotion ("quantity"), or as you speak to innocence, a measurement of sin or purity ("quality"). I believe you have a qualitative view of the difference, judging from the thread.

    What I believe we will reduce it to is; define God as good, taking (one of) God's virtues and extrapolate the lack of it.

    That's fine but it does end up being definition chasing. With God as the ultimate good, it follows that all qualities coming from the relationship of God would be ultimately good, and therefore all other mortal qualities in existance would be inferior. All measurements would show that. We can put lust at one end of the spectrum, God at the other and name a unit of what is being measured. The unit is irrelevant: if you call it love, it's love, and qualitively is measured. Anything can be placed on the axis and the argument remains the same. (For example, you could argue that waffles are inferior to God's breakfast! And if pancakes are in the middle, you can simply define the qualitative difference as smoothness.)

    Your view rests on the perceived virtues of God. You would not apply lust as a virtue of God. Those that do would simply place their opposing value as a diminished version of God's virtues. It would be equally valid to say that compassion is the lowest form of emotion, if you were to change God's virtue... and so forth.

    I believe that you cannot create a Form to bridge concepts; the concepts must interect of their own natures to draw meaning from them. This is especially true when bridging between the immaterial and the material; trying to define a relationship with God to human lust requires such a bridge. In line with that, given that God is ultimately all encompassing and all virtues come from God, all aspects are themselves qualitative close to or far from God's will on their own merits. Lust is not intrinsically far away from God's will and inferior to platonic relationships. Lust in marriage serves both an important and sanctioned part of God's will/plan, for example.

    Or, put in (not so) awesome ascii Venn diagrams;

    Code:
         ###        ###
        #   #      #   #
       #     #    #     #
      #  GOD  #  # LUST  #
       #     #    #     #
        #   #      #   #
         ###        ###
    Code:
    Adding a bridge to overlap the concept.
    
         ###          ###
        #   #  %%%%  #   #
       #     #%    %#     #
      #  GOD %#LOVE#% LUST #
       #     #%    %#     #
        #   #  %%%%  #   #
         ###          ###
    What I believe it should look like;

    Code:
    
             , - ~ ~ ~ - ,
         , '               ' ,
       ,          ###          ,
      ,   GOD    #   #           ,
     ,          #     #           ,
     ,         #  LUST #          ,
     ,          #     #           ,
      ,          #   #           ,
       ,          ###           ,
         ,                  , '
           ' - , _ _ _ ,  '
    I just think it's more likely to be the other way around--the more we walk with God, the more pure we will be and therefore our love will be; and the more we don't, the more we will be a slave to lust.
    I agree in principle, but I do not believe that they connect this way. Walking with God makes lust pure(r). The purity of anything is derived from how close you walk to God.

  8. #128
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Yup, for sure! I assumed a personal relationship which is typically Christian.
    Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?

    The line must be expressed in units of "something" in order to have a continuum like that. What quality makes one's love for God greater than their love of another human? It could be seen as degree of devotion ("quantity"), or as you speak to innocence, a measurement of sin or purity ("quality"). I believe you have a qualitative view of the difference, judging from the thread.

    What I believe we will reduce it to is; define God as good, taking (one of) God's virtues and extrapolate the lack of it.

    That's fine but it does end up being definition chasing. With God as the ultimate good, it follows that all qualities coming from the relationship of God would be ultimately good, and therefore all other mortal qualities in existance would be inferior. All measurements would show that. We can put lust at one end of the spectrum, God at the other and name a unit of what is being measured. The unit is irrelevant: if you call it love, it's love, and qualitively is measured. Anything can be placed on the axis and the argument remains the same. (For example, you could argue that waffles are inferior to God's breakfast! And if pancakes are in the middle, you can simply define the qualitative difference as smoothness.)
    The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.

    The only thing that still needs fleshing out are the types of love in between. And as we contemplate it, it really has nothing to do with sex. Because 'brotherly' love or 'friendly' love can be closer to agape (unconditional) love than eros-type love.

    So, really we have to come up with new terms to describe love that is in various stages of impurity. Since I proposed before that our ability to love is reflective and dependent upon how pure WE are, then perhaps the defining characteristic is some measure of our 'love health'. We could make up an unconditional love/lusty love test and see how people fall out on the continuum. And then correlate that with a sexual orientation test to see if those who typically fall out closer to Agape love tend to be sexually open-oriented or not.

    Do these tests already exist, and are they of good quality? I would want about 100 questions on such a test. And the test would have to have a proper proportion of love/lust questions, equally weighted along the continuum as well.

    It would still be nice to identify types of love, because CS Lewis only identified 4 of them. And I think that could be broken down a bit more. ?

    Your view rests on the perceived virtues of God. You would not apply lust as a virtue of God.
    You can have 'lusty love' though. Those who perhaps are not very healthy but have a kernel of love in them wanting to be exposed to light. Most of what they do might be selfish and lusty, but perhaps the kernel of love underneath might be close enough to the surface to pervade it somewhat. I think of abusive relationships or something like that, where the people involved have never really known a pure type of love on the 'agape' side of the continuum. Love is still in them because we are all God's creations and as such have that love spring within, wanting to flow forth, but that pure love is covered over in the sh** from living, and therefore made unclean. It's not that they don't feel or express some real love there, just that it's so dirty as to be difficult to enjoy for very long.

    Those that do would simply place their opposing value as a diminished version of God's virtues. It would be equally valid to say that compassion is the lowest form of emotion, if you were to change God's virtue... and so forth.
    Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.

    I believe that you cannot create a Form to bridge concepts; the concepts must interect of their own natures to draw meaning from them. This is especially true when bridging between the immaterial and the material; trying to define a relationship with God to human lust requires such a bridge. In line with that, given that God is ultimately all encompassing and all virtues come from God, all aspects are themselves qualitative close to or far from God's will on their own merits. Lust is not intrinsically far away from God's will and inferior to platonic relationships. Lust in marriage serves both an important and sanctioned part of God's will/plan, for example.

    Or, put in (not so) awesome ascii Venn diagrams;

    Code:
         ###        ###
        #   #      #   #
       #     #    #     #
      #  GOD  #  # LUST  #
       #     #    #     #
        #   #      #   #
         ###        ###
    Code:
    Adding a bridge to overlap the concept.
    
         ###          ###
        #   #  %%%%  #   #
       #     #%    %#     #
      #  GOD %#LOVE#% LUST #
       #     #%    %#     #
        #   #  %%%%  #   #
         ###          ###
    What I believe it should look like;

    Code:
    
             , - ~ ~ ~ - ,
         , '               ' ,
       ,          ###          ,
      ,   GOD    #   #           ,
     ,          #     #           ,
     ,         #  LUST #          ,
     ,          #     #           ,
      ,          #   #           ,
       ,          ###           ,
         ,                  , '
           ' - , _ _ _ ,  '
    I wish I could recreate this and change it around. You get an A for effort. Mainly for making me laugh at your wit. What is up with the last little diagram? Of course God is around everything....lol

    I agree in principle, but I do not believe that they connect this way. Walking with God makes lust pure(r). The purity of anything is derived from how close you walk to God.
    Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  9. #129
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?
    Well... it depends on your belief, I guess. I probably should of said Abrahamic religions. They all have a more personal relationship to God. I'd hesitate to use closer/further, since that could be interpretted as being "outside of God's grace". It's just the relationship we have with God that differs.

    The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.
    What if I said I rejected the concept that lusty love is the least pure? I can understand God's love being the most pure, but why do we place lusty love on the complete opposite? What is the inherent quality of lust that is impure?

    Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.
    Hah, or it was really late. Sometimes I wonder!

    No, what I mean is that God's definition requires defining purity as good; if we step away from a Christian set of virtues, into something like Animism, you get a very different world view on what the spectrum would be. In a Totemic group, God would be defined very differently, and many of the traits that the Totemic spirit has would be viewed equally good. What I meant is that it requires a particular definition of God and his virtue to have this definition of Love. If that is the case, then the argument isn't generalised, but specific to a religious belief (ie: God is like this/says this, therefore...)

    Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.
    I say there is more love in lust than in a platonic relationship. I believe God's mandate to marry, mate and procreate is greater than His mandate for brotherhood.

  10. #130
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?
    Well... it depends on your belief, I guess. I probably should of said Abrahamic religions. They all have a more personal relationship to God. I'd hesitate to use closer/further, since that could be interpretted as being "outside of God's grace". It's just the relationship we have with God that differs.

    The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.
    What if I said I rejected the concept that lusty love is the least pure? I can understand God's love being the most pure, but why do we place lusty love on the complete opposite? What is the inherent quality of lust that is impure?

    Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.
    Hah, or it was really late. Sometimes I wonder!

    No, what I mean is that God's definition requires defining purity as good; if we step away from a Christian set of virtues, into something like Animism, you get a very different world view on what the spectrum would be. In a Totemic group, God would be defined very differently, and many of the traits that the Totemic spirit has would be viewed equally good. What I meant is that it requires a particular definition of God and his virtue to have this definition of Love. If that is the case, then the argument isn't generalised, but specific to a religious belief (ie: God is like this/says this, therefore...)

    Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.
    I say there is more love in lust than in a platonic relationship. I believe God's mandate to marry, mate and procreate is greater than His mandate for brotherhood.

Similar Threads

  1. When there is no personality to type.
    By Tabula in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 10:24 AM
  2. In Charity There is No Excess - Help Type Me!!
    By Applez in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 10:45 PM
  3. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM
  4. If IP is EJ then is IP IP or can it be IJ?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 09:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO