There’s no definition in your quote that you provided of yourself. What is your definition of murder? All you said is that it ‘must have a dead victim’. — Bob Ross

Your definition of murder is "the direct intentional killing of an innocent person".
My definition of murder is "a death not sanctioned by God". — GregW

Let's use your definition of murder as it applies here. For God to have murdered you, you must be innocent, and you must be dead. You cannot just be innocent and dead to other people, you must be innocent and dead to God because God holds the exclusive judgement on innocence and death. — GregW

Bob, if you use my definition of murder in place of your definition of murder in all your arguments that God had committed murder in the Old Testament, then you would find that God had not committed murder by my definition of murder, on earth or anywhere else.

Bob, I gave you this definition of murder in our discussion two weeks ago.

Let me post my full quote for context.

Bob, we are at loggerheads because not only can't we agree on the definition of murder, but we also can't agree on the definition of death. A murder must have a dead victim. If the victim is alive, then it's not murder. My position, my argument is that God did not commit murder in the Old Testament because not only is God perfectly good but also the people He supposedly murdered is not truly dead.
— GregW

In a previous post, we have argued over the definition of murder:

Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives?
— GregW

Bob, this is only true if the murder, killing, death is not sanctioned by God. So, murder is a death not sanctioned by God. — GregW

Your definition of murder is 'the direct intentional killing of an innocent person".
My definition of murder is "a death not sanctioned by God".

Bob, your definition of murder, the direct intentional killing of an innocent person applies only to you, to me, and to other people. It does not apply to God

Logically, it would apply to any circumstance where an innocent person is directly intentionally killed. God is not exempt: you would have to redefine murder to support your case. I am still waiting for a definition of murder from you. — Bob Ross

Let's use your definition of murder as it applies here. For God to have murdered you, you must be innocent, and you must be dead. You cannot just be innocent and dead to other people, you must be innocent and dead to God because God holds the exclusive judgement on innocence and death.

To cease to exist to God is just for God to no longer will one’s existence, since we actively get our being from Him, and so this would be the ultimate death of ourselves as soul. Again, this is not what death means in the context of murder: we are talking about the death of a body. — Bob Ross

When you talk about the death of a body, you are only talking about a partial definition of death. God does not commit murder. Even if God killed you, body and soul, and you are truly dead, you have been judged and given due process by God. You were not murdered by God.

@Bob Ross
@Leontiskos
@Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, but then, again, you have to deny that murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. You cannot have the cake here and eat it too.

If you do deny that definition, then I would like to hear your definition that is consistent with this view that God does not murder when killing innocent people. — Bob Ross

In previous posts, I had discussions with you and with Gregory of the Beard of Ockham on the definition of death.

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", .... — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I would like to add another description of death to the list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.

In (1), (2), (4), you are dead to the world, but you are not dead to God, even if God appeared to have murdered, killed, and made you dead. If you are not dead to God, then you have not been murdered, killed, or made dead by God. — GregW

The commandment against murder does not apply to God because God does not commit murder. Even in (5) when God killed you and you are dead to God, you have been judged and given due process by God, you were not murdered. — GregW

Bob, your definition of murder, the direct intentional killing of an innocent person applies only to you, to me, and to other people. It does not apply to God. If you are innocent, you are alive to God, then God have many options to keeping you alive anywhere, on earth as well as in heaven.

So far we have five senses of death:

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", ....
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.
— GregW

It is not clear to me how (5) is different from (3), unless maybe you believe that God destroys, i.e. literally annihilates the soul in (5)? To my understanding, "separated eternally from God" and "dead to God" are the same thing. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Gregory, (3) is distinguish from (5) in that you are not dead to God in (3). You still exist in Hell. In (5), you are dead to God. You cease to exist to God.

... but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.

But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)?
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).

Okay, we agree that human beings commit murder by causing death in senses 1, 2, 4 (except I would not include 4 because it is not true death). However, I was under the impression that elsewhere you were saying God did not commit murder when He put someone to death in sense 1, 2, or 4, but only if He killed someone in sense 3 or 5. Maybe I misunderstood, but if that was what you meant, is that not an equivocation? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

In (1), (2), (4), you are dead to the world, but you are not dead to God, even if God appeared to have murdered, killed, and made you dead. If you are not dead to God, then you have not been murdered, killed, or made dead by God.

Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).

And why would that commandment not apply to God himself in senses 1, 2, 4? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The commandment against murder does not apply to God because God does not commit murder. Even in (5) when God killed you and you are dead to God, you have been judged and given due process by God, you were not murdered.

Death can mean various things. (1) When a person stops breathing and the heart stops beating and soon the body begins to decay, people say "he is dead," without necessarily understanding what death is, i.e., its essence. (2) Traditionally, death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body. This is called the First Death in Christian theology. (3) There is also the Second Death, when the soul is separated eternally from God (goes to hell). (4) In 1968, the Harvard Medical School promoted the concept of "brain death", allowing organs to be harvested for transplant while they are still fresh because the patient's (donor's) heart and lungs are still functioning. (See David S. Oderberg, Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach, sec. 2.7.) And there may be others. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I'd like to add another description of death to your list:
(5) When a person is dead to God. When a person ceased to exist to God.

Mathematicians can define their terms as they like, but in an ethical discussion about murder, we must understand death in the right sense. GregW thinks (3) is the appropriate sense of death for murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

No. I do not think that (3) and (5) are the appropriate sense of death for murder. Murder can only be committed by people, not God. The death described in sense (3) and (5) are the prerogatives only of God, it is not murder.

But this cannot be correct, for it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3). How, then, did Cain kill his brother (Genesis 4:8)? How did Lamech slay one or two men (4:23)? How did Moses kill the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12)? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, it is beyond the power of any human being to put another to death in sense (3), but Cain, Lamech, and Moses did murder, kill, and cause death in sense (1), (2) and (4).

Why is there a commandment against murder (Gen. 9:5-7, Ex. 20:13)? It is pointless to prohibit what cannot be done. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is a commandment against murder because God did not want us to murder, kill, and cause death without His sanction. It is not pointless for God to prohibit murder as described by (1), (2), and (4).

Bob, we are at loggerheads because not only can't we agree on the definition of murder

You never provided a definition of murder: I am still waiting to hear it. — Bob Ross

Let me post my full quote for context.

Bob, we are at loggerheads because not only can't we agree on the definition of murder, but we also can't agree on the definition of death. A murder must have a dead victim. If the victim is alive, then it's not murder. My position, my argument is that God did not commit murder in the Old Testament because not only is God perfectly good but also the people He supposedly murdered is not truly dead. — GregW

In a previous post, we have argued over the definition of murder:

Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives? — GregW

Bob, this is only true if the murder, killing, death is not sanctioned by God. So, murder is a death not sanctioned by God.

Your defense of my charge of God committing murder is that no one can commit murder on earth because no person actually dies completely when they are “killed”. — Bob Ross

In a previous post we have also argued over why God does not commit murder does not mean that no one can commit murder on earth.

Bob, here's the flaw in your logic. You cannot compare yourself to God. Just because God does not commit murder does not mean that no one ever commits murder. If you kill an innocent infant, then you have committed murder even though to God the infant is not truly dead. But to you, and more importantly to the justice system, the infant is dead. Just because the murdered infant is not dead to God does not mean that you are absolved of this evil act. — GregW

You were with your friend living an innocent ordinary life when God appears and struck you with a thunder bolt.

Everyone would call this “God killed you”. For you, you couldn’t say that because you didn’t actually die. How would you describe it?

 Your friends all said that you were murdered by God when they buried you.

Let’s take a step back, though: you are saying that God didn’t kill me—let’s forget if it’s murder for a second. Do you agree God killed me? — Bob Ross

Bob, you were murdered, killed, made dead by God when He struck you with a thunderbolt. All your friends blasphemously accused God of murdering you. You were dead to your friends, but you are not dead to God. This distinguishes the definition of death to your friend and the definition of death to God.

You were brought to heaven, body and soul., and in the presence of God, you asked Him: why did you murdered me?

This is incoherent with the hypothetical as outlined before this sentence. If God struck you down with a thunder bolt, then your body lost its life—you were killed: you are dead. Now, your soul has a faculty of mind which is immutable because it is immaterial; so although the body and the soul’s faculties which pertain to bodily/material functions ceases, the mind continues to live. — Bob Ross

Yes?

You have now posited that God either did not end your body’s life—kill you—but instead teleported you to his “throne” to judge you OR God did in fact kill you and then resurrected your body. Which is it in your view?

 Now you are truly dead — Bob Ross

This is the full quote:

You were brought to heaven, body and soul., and in the presence of God, you asked Him: why did you murdered me? God replied, Bob, I didn't murder you, you're still alive. But since you accuse me of murdering you, you are dead to me. You immediately disappeared from the presence of God. Now you are truly dead. — GregW

You are truly dead when you are dead to God. This is God's definition of death.

You are equivocating the killing of a person in the natural sense of the body dying and the soul be killed. — Bob Ross

There is no equivocating, when you are dead to God, you are truly dead body and soul.

We apparently disagree on the definition of death. What is your definition of death?

Yeah, but you entirely misunderstand my post. If you posit that God, the knower of all, in fact said that X is the best course, then that is by definition the best course. — Hanover

In a previous post, you said:

Your hypothetical, strictly construed, is that God directed the order, so here we know it was God's will. — Hanover

You are saying that as long as you are certain that the order came from God, you are justified in carrying out that order because it is God's will.

The problem is not that following X is the best course. The problem is in authenticating X and personally deciding that X is the course of God's will.

Then you need to refurbish your position. You said that God does not murder because when he kills us we don't truly die. This applies to all killings within your view.

You need to clearly define what murder is and then apply that standard to God's killings. So far you just keep ad hoc patching your view. You say God can't murder because you don't really die, but we both agree that's false; so now you are appealing to God just being special.

I'll ask you again: how do you define murder? — Bob Ross

Bob, we are at loggerheads because not only can't we agree on the definition of murder, but we also can't agree on the definition of death. A murder must have a dead victim. If the victim is alive, then it's not murder. My position, my argument is that God did not commit murder in the Old Testament because not only is God perfectly good but also the people He supposedly murdered is not truly dead.

Let me use you in a story as an example. You were with your friend living an innocent ordinary life when God appears and struck you with a thunder bolt. Your friends all said that you were murdered by God when they buried you. You were brought to heaven, body and soul., and in the presence of God, you asked: Him why did you murdered me? God replied, Bob, I didn't murder you, you're still alive. But since you accuse me of murdering you, you are dead to me. You immediately disappeared from the presence of God. Now you are truly dead. Bob, let me ask this, were you murdered by God on earth as well as in heaven?

I agree that there are legally justified killings. If you commit a legally justified killing, then you will likely not be in trouble with the law. let's look at a hypothetical example. God asked a man to hijack an airplane and crash it into a building full of evil people. In obeying God's command, is he justified in killing thousands of people? Is this a justifiable killing in a court of law? — GregW

Your hypothetical assumes God assessed the evil of the people within the building and determined that their death would save the world from greater harm, or perhaps he assessed their just dessert to be death by airplane. That is, this was not the killing of innocent people, and it would go somewhere along the lines of any other preemptive response (like self defense) or just punishment.

This is not to suggest that when someone believes God tells them to do something that they are justified in doing it or that that there isn't real danger in relying upon what you believe the will of God is when you act. Your hypothetical, strictly construed, is that God directed the order, so here we know it was God's will. — Hanover

Hanover, you appear to be saying that as long as you are certain that the order cane from God, you are justified in the killings of thousands of people. Sadly, I think that most people agree with you. Today, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and religious leaders have ordered men to fly airplanes to drop bombs into buildings full of people, innocent or not. These are all considered to be legally justified killings, we no longer need to use God for justification.

Ok, thank you for the clarification. If you are using my definition and leveraging that God is not murdering people because they can't truly die, then no one ever commits murder. Are you accepting that? I want to make sure we are on the same page about the consistent conclusion of your position here.

If I kill an innocent infant, then the same logic would apply: I have not murdered them because they haven't truly died. — Bob Ross

Bob, here's the flaw in your logic. You cannot compare yourself to God. Just because God does not commit murder does not mean that no one ever commits murder. If you kill an innocent infant, then you have committed murder even though to God the infant is not truly dead. But to you, and more importantly to the justice system, the infant is dead. Just because the murdered infant is not dead to God does not mean that you are absolved of this evil act.

Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives? By that reasoning, all human deaths are murders by God. I would argue that If God go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven to face God's judgement. — GregW

↪GregW I don't think that is true. God may indirectly intentionally kill people or let them die; but He does not directly intentionally kill people (notwithstanding just punishment).

What definition of murder are you using? — Bob Ross

Bob, I am using your definition of murder. In Genesis, God directly intentionally cursed man to suffer and eventually die when He expelled man from the Garden of Eden. You have many posts saying that God directly intentionally killed all the Amalekites. I am arguing that God killing us or letting us die is not murder because we are not (yet) dead to God until after His judgement.

GregW, murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being. By your logic, then, if I go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven. — Bob Ross

Bob, by your reasoning, if "murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person and a killing is to end the natural life of a being", then aren't we destined to be murdered by God eventually and intentionally as we lead our innocent ordinary lives? By that reasoning, all human deaths are murders by God. I would argue that If God go and kill someone it isn't murder because they haven't truly died since their soul is immutable and ends up in heaven to face God's judgement.

There are legally justified killings. Self defense is an example. If you know with 100% certainty that your failure to protect others will result in death, that would be justified. Our hypothetical is usual in that it gives literally god-like certainty, so I'd say it'd be justified. — Hanover

I agree that there are legally justified killings. If you commit a legally justified killing, then you will likely not be in trouble with the law. let's look at a hypothetical example. God asked a man to hijack an airplane and crash it into a building full of evil people. In obeying God's command, is he justified in killing thousands of people? Is this a justifiable killing in a court of law?

God didn't tell you to murder. He asked you to commit a justifiable killing. — Hanover

If God asked you to commit a justifiable killing, then you won't be in trouble with God. Do you wonder why the "God defense" don't usually work in a court of law?

There was nothing invalid about the form of my argument. Murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person. God did that in the OT, or rather it is purported that God did that. Either God did it and committed murder or He didn't. If He did and murder is unjust, then God is unjust. However, God is all-just, so God cannot commit murder; so the OT cannot be correct. You may not find it plausible, but the argument is logically sound. — Bob Ross

Bob, the form of your argument is valid, it is logically sound. Let's look at this another way. My argument is that God did not murder the Amalekites because they are not truly dead. God only destroyed their flesh and brought them to judgement. They will be properly tried and will not be truly dead until God passes His judgement. This is not murder.

@Hanover

So, to your question: if there were a community of demons, some old, some young, and some cute as a button, all of whom you know for certain will perform horrible acts of violence, destruction, and mayhem because God himself told you they would, are you not obligated to nip that in the bud? — Hanover

You are not obligated to nip that in the bud. The original premise is that God is perfectly good and not evil. God cannot and will not command you to do evil things, like murder. You cannot justify your evil acts by saying that God himself told you to do it. It is your choice.

So you are right that there is no other being above Him: He is constrained by His own nature to be perfectly good. So my argument is perfectly valid: if God is all-just (because it is in His nature to be all-just and not merely because you are defining arbitrarily God's commands as what defines justice) and murder is unjust, then God cannot commit murder; but God does commit murder in the OT, so that is not God or they got the facts wrong. — Bob Ross

Bob, your argument is not perfectly valid. It is only partly valid. You argued that God is perfectly good
and cannot be evil. You argue that if "God does commit murder in the OT, then that is not God, or they got the facts wrong." This is a valid argument. But when you said that God committed murder, your argument became invalid. I would argue that God did not commit murder in the Old Testament, He did not murder the Amalekites because they were not truly dead. God only destroyed their flesh and brought them to judgement. God's judgement and justice is perfect. You are only truly dead when you are dead to God.

Red Sky, Jeremy Murray, I just did a review of the posts in this discussion, and I found your questions about love that I had missed in my first reading. Here are my better late than never replies.

Is the ability to feel love something you are born with? — Red Sky

Greg, could the “things of God” not simply be what many religious people mean by God, essentially? — Jeremy Murray

The "things of God" are not the same as God. They are an essential part of God. I choose to believe that before all else, there exist the perfection of God, which include the "perfect things of God": perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire. We commonly call this desire, love. The ability to feel love and goodness are with us from the beginning because love and goodness are the image of God.

Our world views are too different to continue this discussion. Take care. — Tom Storm

Take care, Tom.
I enjoyed our discourse.

Tom, every argument you made in your post is wrong, here's why.

Yes, you can love evil. — Tom Storm

Evil is a part of bad. If you can love evil, then what evil and bad things can you love?

And sometimes you may not know it as evil. — Tom Storm

If you loved something that you didn't know was evil, then you were fooled. You did not love evil.

Love is a feeling for someone or something. An emotion. It doesn't come with a quality control function. — Tom Storm

Love is not just an emotion. Love is a desire for someone or something that is good. Love, the desire for only the good, is the ultimate quality control function.

You seem to have a preoccupation with good and evil, and take a strongly binary view of them. — Tom Storm

I believe a strongly binary view of good and evil is the only view to take.

Personally, I don’t think the difference is always so clear. I tend to see good and evil as contingent qualities, shaped by context, perspective, and circumstance. While there are obvious examples of actions driven by hatred or self-sacrifice, at a broader, more human level, evil (which is not a category I generally use) is not always so easy to identify. Some acts of duty and patriotism and courage may also be considered evil. — Tom Storm

The measure of good and evil is not always obvious. The path to good and from evil can be narrow and short. It can sometimes be as thin as a razor's edge.

We love our wives, our children, our family, our friends because to us they are beautiful and good.
— GregW

Doesn't work for me. I love because I love. It's a feeling and nowhere does good or beautiful enter my conception. I would say love moves beyond such characteristics. Love transcends qualities. — Tom Storm

Love is not just a feeling. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. You love because the thing you love is good. You cannot love evil. Love does not transcend qualities; love is the desire for the qualities of the good.

Love is a part of desire as the lover is a part of the non-lover because the lover and the non-lover can both exist as a part of the same person. While the non-lover can desire many things such as wealth and power along with the beautiful and good, the lover desire only the beautiful and good.
— GregW

I can't follow this. Can you summarise the point I'm lost in the lover-non-lover-lover-non-lover train. — Tom Storm

Love is a part of desire. The part that desires only the good. The statements distinguish love from desire.

The lover is a part of the non-lover. While the non-lover can desire many things, the lover desires only the good. The statements distinguish the lover from the non-lover.

Now, there is no shame in desiring and using power. The shame is in using power not well but badly. Everyone sees that power can be used for good or for evil, but the power of love can be used only for good. The power of love is not just the means of attainment but also of creativity, the creation of the beautiful and good. "The great and subtle power of love" lies first in the creation of the lover. It is love that turns the non-lover into the lover.
— GregW

Why are you talking about power? What have I missed? — Tom Storm

The power of love is a part of power. While power can be used to attain many things, the power of love can be used to attain only the good. The statements distinguish power from the power of love.

When love is described as a power, it generally means that the experience of love can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. In this way, love can clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being. Yet I suspect that naked ambition and jealousy can also provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds. — Tom Storm

I agree that love and the power of love "can make hardship and suffering bearable and inspire us to strive for things beyond ordinary ambition. It can also clothe, soothe, and rebuild a broken and deprived being." I do not agree "that naked ambition and jealousy can provide a similar fillip toward transformative deeds."

@PoeticUniverse

— Love = Truth, Beauty, and Goodness — — PoeticUniverse

Beautiful poem.

Is love really the same as truth, beauty, and goodness? If not, what distinguish love from truth, beauty, and goodness?

Well, in many cases, self-love may be more akin to narcissism, so probably not, especially if we understand love as a rich, selfless experience involving abnegation and sacrifice. — Tom Storm

By way of example, things like brotherly love or love for ethnic peers without any personal relationship. Solidarity being some a priori "love" type claim which rests on anything other than direct personal affection. — AmadeusD

Allow me to present my entire train of thought on the subject of love.

We love our wives, our children, our family, our friends because to us they are beautiful and good.

Self-love, brotherly love, love of ethnic peers(?), philia, eros, agape, storge.... etc. are all a part of love.

Love is a part of desire as the lover is a part of the non-lover because the lover and the non-lover can both exist as a part of the same person. While the non-lover can desire many things such as wealth and power along with the beautiful and good, the lover desire only the beautiful and good.

Now, there is no shame in desiring and using power. The shame is in using power not well but badly. Everyone sees that power can be used for good or for evil, but the power of love can be used only for good. The power of love is not just the means of attainment but also of creativity, the creation of the beautiful and good. "The great and subtle power of love" lies first in the creation of the lover. It is love that turns the non-lover into the lover.

That said, there seem forms of 'love' which are not actually to do with affection, and to do with some "solidarity" notion. Hence, far too amorphous. — AmadeusD

AmadeusD, what is some "solidarity" notion?

Let me ask this. The career criminals and gang members that you say never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. Do they love themselves?
— GregW

I don't know what you mean by "do they love themselves?" — Tom Storm

I mean can they experience love by loving themselves?

I think the concept of Love is far too amorphous to say anything about it. Affection? That works. — AmadeusD

AmadeusD, isn't affection just love to a lesser degree?

Humans are normally and naturally capable of love, and it's essential that we receive it in infancy going forward. — BC

BC, I agree with you. Infants who are not nurtured or loved are prone to become psychotic. But isn't the treatment for neglected infants nurture and love?

Thsi form you -
I believe this is possible only if love is just a desire
— GregW

If I read this correctly then i woudl have thought it was precisely the opposite. Love as desire is readily sought and found. I'm not sure I'd count this as love. — Tom Storm

Tom, let me present an apology of my arguments. This is what I said in my post.

Love is not the same as desire. Love is a part of desire just as the lover is a part of the non-lover. While the non-lover may desire many things including the beautiful and good. The lover desire only the beautiful and good, of the ugly and bad there can be no love.

Tom Storm suggested that there are some people who never experience love. Is it possible that there are people so immersed in ugliness and evil that it precludes the beautiful and good and love can never be experienced?

I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it.
— Tom Storm

I believe this is possible only if love is just a desire. — GregW

Let me ask this. The career criminals and gang members that you say never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. Do they love themselves?

I have come up with some thoughts, after a review of our discourse. I would like to offer an apology of my statements of love, beauty, and good. Like the ancient Greek poets and the ancient Greek philosophers, I think that we may be speaking past each other by speaking in two different languages. The language of mythos and the language of logos. So how do we reconcile the differences in how we present our arguments?

BC suggested that there are different kinds of love, such as philia, eros, agape, storge.... etc.

These are not different parts of love, they are different kinds of love. All the various kinds of love, in your phrase "love as a whole", are what attaches us to one another, and without which we would not exist. — BC

The Greek poets and the Greek philosophers also speak of different kinds of love. The poets suggest that "love is divine" or that love is at least something between the mortal and the divine. The philosophers suggest that "love is a desire.... the desire for the beautiful and good". This sounds true but it is not the complete truth. Love is not the same as desire. Love is a part of desire just as the lover is a part of the non-lover. While the non-lover may desire many things including the beautiful and good. The lover desire only the beautiful and good, of the ugly and bad there can be no love.

Tom Storm suggested that there are some people who never experience love. Is it possible that there are people so immersed in ugliness and evil that it precludes the beautiful and good and love can never be experienced?

I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

I believe this is possible only if love is just a desire. In a poem, Aristophanes described the origin of Love:

".... Black-winged Night
Into the bosom of Erebus dark and deep
Laid a wind-born egg, and as the seasons rolled
Forth sprang Love, the long-for, shining, with
wings of gold."

The poem suggests that even in the darkest and deepest part of Erebus, we will find love.

As for faith, I choose to believe in the God of perfection. The God who is not only perfectly good but also perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil.
— GregW

He seems nice — Malcolm Parry

He is perfectly nice.

The frame of reference for true beauty and true goodness is perfection
— GregW

What for you is perfection? — Malcolm Parry

As I see it, truth, beauty, virtue, and such are a part of goodness; goodness is a part of true goodness; true goodness is a part of perfection; and perfection is a part of God.

Expand on that, please. What is the frame of reference for true beauty etc?

Is it your faith in God? If so, I'll stick with my original statement. — Malcolm Parry

The frame of reference for true beauty and true goodness is perfection. If we define perfect beauty and perfect goodness as beauty and goodness to the highest degree, then the measure between beauty and goodness, and between perfect beauty and perfect goodness is just a matter of degrees. We know that beauty and goodness exist because we can measure the beauty and goodness of beautiful and good things with our senses. So true beauty and true goodness exist as beauty and goodness to the highest degree.

As for faith, I choose to believe in the God of perfection. The God who is not only perfectly good but also perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil.

I feel not believing in a 'God', faith, personal spiritual practice or otherwise also has unpleasant consequences. — Jeremy Murray

I can totally relate to the Christian notion that God is love, even though I think the Biblical explanation of God. Satan and sin are messed up. Believing in a personal God has unpleasant consequences, — Athena

I believe that not believing in "the things of God", like beauty, truth, virtue, and love have more unpleasant consequences.

I’m not convinced there is a beautifully absolute. It is all relative to the beholder. — Malcolm Parry

Let me tell you why I believe that beauty is not relative to the beholder. I believe that it is our own measure of beauty that is relative to the beholder. Beauty, like truth, justice, piety, and the other virtues are a part of good; and truth absolute, true beauty, true virtue, and true love are a part of goodness absolute; and goodness absolute is a part of God.

There is a savage beauty in an apex predator despatching it's prey. — Malcolm Parry

There are people who say that there is a beautiful world where all our needs are provided for, where we live a life of simplicity and contentment free from vexation and strife. A world where knowledge is forbidden, where savagery is banished, and where the lion lay with the lamb. Aren't you glad that we live in a world where savage beauty can exist?

A serial killer could see beauty when his hands are around the neck of a victim taking their last breath? — Malcolm Parry

To answer your question, let me define some terms as the basis for our discourse. The beautiful is that which is nearest to beauty and the ugly is the farthest. The ugly is measured against the beautiful, and the beautiful is measured against beauty, and beauty is measured against what Plato called "beauty absolute", and beauty absolute have no part of ugliness. However, between the beautiful and the ugly is a range of measures. Let's call these measures not beautiful and not ugly.

By his measure, the serial killer sees the murder as beautiful. Let's take the victim's point of view, by his measure, the victim sees the murder as very, very, ugly. Now how should the beauty of the murder be measured? There is beauty and ugliness in most human endeavors. Most people would say, at best, the murder should be measured at the low end of the not beautiful and not ugly range. But beauty should not be measured by what most people say. The beautiful murder as measured by the killer, must be measured against beauty, and beauty absolute. The murder falls short of the beautiful because the ugliness of the murder falls short of beauty and beauty absolute which have no part of ugliness.

Winged chariot? — Tom Storm

Too over the top? This is an allusion to the revelation of beauty absolute in a speech by Socrates in the dialogue Phaedrus.

I don't think any subject in philosophy is undisputed and undebatable. — Tom Storm

Yeah, philosophy is endlessly debatable. What I meant to say was that debating this beauty, beauty absolute, is fruitless.

Beauty and goodness are the defining attributes of beautiful and good things — GregW

That's a circular argument. E.g., Truth is what true statements express. — Tom Storm

I was trying to distinguish beauty from beautiful things. Beautiful things are a part of beauty, just as true statements are a part of truth.

what exactly is beauty as you understand it and how do you access or recognise it? — Tom Storm

As I see it, beauty is a part of good, the part that is perceived by our senses. When we say that the sunset was beautiful, we are saying that the sunset looked good. When we say that the symphony was beautiful, we are saying that the symphony sounded good. When we say that the sex was beautiful, we are saying that the sex felt good. Beauty is sensible goodness.

I’m saying that they are abstractions because they are not physical things, they are ideas and there are dramatic variations in what people recognise as good or beautiful, — Tom Storm

I believe the "they" that you say are abstractions are beauty and goodness and not the beautiful and good. Beauty and goodness are the defining attributes of beautiful and good things. The beauty of art, music, and human interactions are physical things that can be experienced by our sense of sight, hearing, and feeling. Beauty and goodness belong to the undisputed class. It is our measure of the beautiful and good that can be debated. It is the "dramatic variations in what people recognize as good or beautiful" that is endlessly debated. I believe what you described as intangible abstractions is the recognition of beauty absolute with knowledge absolute in existence absolute. The beauty and goodness that can only be witnessed in a winged chariot through the "heaven above the heavens". This beauty [s undisputed and undebatable.

As for the beautiful and the good—no doubt some people attempt pursue these abstract notions through things like porn or sport, perhaps? — Tom Storm

The beautiful and good are not abstract notions. Beautiful and good things exist. It can be experienced through art, music, and human interactions like friendship and marriage. Not just through things like porn (?) or sport.

Plato believed in transcendentals (the forms in his language) and thought there was an ideal form of love (along with beauty and goodness). I don't. — Tom Storm

I can understand why you don't believe that "Love is a mighty God".

some people never experience love — Tom Storm

I can't understand why you believe that "some people never experience love". Are you saying that some people never experience the desire for the beautiful and good?

Because it goes beyond the limits of self it is beyond the ratios of comparison and attains to the immeasurable. In this sense, to answer you question in a way satisfactory to the rational mind would be to set a limit to the illimitable. — unenlightened

You are raising idea of transcendentals - I have no good reason to believe in ideals or values which transcend ordinary experince or material reality. — Tom Storm

I do not agree that love is immeasurable and illimitable. Love is an experience shared by all. I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire, a desire for the beautiful and good.