What must I do to be Born Again?

[whag]

So, you believe that love is obligatory after all?

Where do you get that from?

In post #197 you made it sound like there is no obligation to love.

Are you reading what you write?

If there is no obligation to love, one wonders where this concept of "love" springs from.

This discussion stemmed from your analogy comparing the gift of salvation to a monarch's pardon in exchange for fealty. Fealty was the analogue to love. When NORM said that was a condition, you acknowledged the redundancy of the term. Good on you.


You then chided NORM saying that he'd refuse to inherit the generous lotto winner's gift because of the condition. Bad move. A more accurate comparison involves more than a short drive but the giver's demand to be adored. I submit that is a huge condition, whether love originates from the ether or not. Would that be an example of ethereal love?

You have two options here. You can continue to cobble together crap analogies to deride, or you can elucidate on love that transcends the human-condition. That's too coarse grained a phrase for me to know what you're talking about.

[RBerman]

You can do that later, but please first address my reply about smell and trust. You said that the smell/trust relationship indicated spiritual faculties. That explanation was meant to explain that babies have the faculties to hate God. Please explain.

I did not say that the smell/trust relationship indicated spiritual faculties, nor did I intend to do so; that would be silly. Let me elaborate and hopefully clarify.

Some people object to the idea of infants having faith, because they (some people, not infants) conceive of faith primarily in terms of propositions, truth-claims which must first be comprehended in order to be either believed or disbelieved. Believing that "Jesus died on the cross for my sins" or the like. Obviously a lot of basic knowledge underlies the constituent terms of such a proposition, and those without that knowledge (with or without the cognitive faculties to even learn that knowledge) cannot meaningfully interact with the proposition either positively or negatively. They can just say, "Huh?"

However, when we speak of "trust in God" or "trust in Christ," we're talking about a disposition. It might be thought of as parallel to the disposition that lower animals can have toward each other, or that human babies can have toward their caregivers, based on sensations of sound or smell or touch, rather than based on assent to truth-claims. But I wasn't trying to say our disposition toward God is the same as that animal disposition, or governed by the same faculties. We don't smell God, obviously. (Well, I don't, anyway.) It's a spiritual faculty inherent in man as God's image-bearer.

RBerman wasn't arguing that a combination of smell receptors and trust = spiritual faculties. He said, "Babies respond with trust to the sound and smell of their parents." Sound and smell result in trust/faith of parents. I imagine RBerman would have no problem affirming that yes, chimps and puppies also have some form of faith based on the sound and smell of their parents.

Correct.

[RBerman]

That context has problems if you apply it to the real world. Being a Muslim, Mormon, or atheist doesn't constitute anything like a crime. The former are beliefs that derive from upbringing and/or enculturation; the latter is simply skepticism of religion.

Crime is defined by the law, which in turn is defined by the lawgiver. If the Lawgiver says that something is a crime, our opinions on the matter don't matter any more than the opinions of that rancher dude in the West who, unhappy that his cattle are no longer allowed to graze on federal land, has decided that the federal government has no business owning land in the states anyway, so he's doing to defy the law. Not that I want to derail this thread into a debate on federal vs state vs individual powers. Indeed, he's thinking like an American: we make the law here through our consensus. But what if some laws are more like the law of gravity, on which we do not get to vote?

[RBerman]

I think RBerman already confirmed that there were conditions. You seem hung up on the word "free". I guess it depends on how you define "free" then. Christians probably mean something like, "without merit", and open to all peoples, and not just Jews.

In your version of "free", I imagine a scenario where a stranger tells you he's willing to give you a lottery ticket "FOR FREE", but there are conditions to receiving the prize money from this winning ticket. It involves you getting in your car and driving to your local gas station (or wherever) to redeem it. I can see you grumpily folding your arms and saying something like "I appreciate your gift, but it is NOT free. Hurrumph!"

Correct again, Danny Elfman fan!

I imagine he sees redundancy in religious rhetoric as trying too hard. "Gift" is enough.

As I mentioned earlier, "free gift" is simply a phrase from the Bible, appearing several times in Romans 5:15ff. I agree there's a rhetorical redundancy at play there, and I'd be happy to talk about salvation as simply a "gift," as Paul himself does in Ephesians 2:8ff.

Just spitballing here, but he also might also consider the condition too human to be believed, since love isn't usually something people view as "compulsory." I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, nor would I know how to actualize it. I think that's why these lotto and king analogies fail.

All analogies fail if stretched too far, those included.

[RBerman]

And three times you've confirmed what you are unwilling to admit.

On the contrary, I am happy to admit it, but not without contextualizing my answer by using the term as the Bible does.

Actually, the thing you folks continually gloss over is that Christians make a rather big stink about the fact that in THEIR religion, salvation is a "free gift," unlike every other religion that has conditions and is "works" based. That's what makes it unique.

However, as this thread has shown, you are just like everyone else - you must earn the favor of your god. In your case, it is a certain "belief system and acceptance of this as actual fact" in order to be saved. Thus; a works-based religion. By works, we mean that something must be DONE in order to be saved. This is true of every religion, so Christianity is not unique in this sense.

Your definition of "something must be done" is substantially broader than the one against which the Bible is reacting in the "free gift" passage. It's not helpful to discuss Romans 5 (the passage which uses the term "free gift") without reference to the preceding four chapters, which set the stage by discussing the ways that men try to earn God's favor through keeping the Torah either explicitly (i.e., if they are Jewish) or implicitly (i.e., if they are Gentiles). Paul's contrast is not between totally unconditional salvation and conditional salvation, as your posts continue to claim. Rather, Paul's contrast is between salvation through perfect Torah-keeping, and salvation through trust in Jesus as a sacrifice which propitiates God's wrath over our universal failure to keep Torah perfectly. In that latter context, and in comparison to the considerable ceremonial demands of the Torah, salvation is a "free gift" through faith-- not unconditional, since faith is indeed a condition, as you have noted so frequently.

I also happen to be among those Christians who believe that faith itself is an unconditional gift from God to some men, according to his good pleasure. But that belief is not necessary in order to coherently affirm that salvation is a "free gift" as that term is used in Romans 5, with the proper context of Romans 1-4 as background.

[OingoBoingo]

Where do you get that from?

You seemed to be wavering. In post #197 you said that there is no obligation to love. When I asked you in post #198 if, by "no obligation", you thought that love was more than physiological, maybe something transcendent, you replied by telling me in post #209 that transcendence can have all sort of meanings. To me this hints at cognitive dissonance. You're an atheist, and I'm assuming a materialist. You want to be careful not to say that love is more than physiology, but you also want to hold on to your original claim (maybe to save face?).

Are you reading what you write?

Yep. I can slow down if you're having a hard time keeping up though.

This discussion stemmed from your analogy comparing the gift of salvation to a monarch's pardon in exchange for fealty. Fealty was the analogue to love. When NORM said that was a condition, you acknowledged the redundancy of the term. Good on you.


You then chided NORM saying that he'd refuse to inherit the generous lotto winner's gift because of the condition. Bad move.

Nope. It wasn't a bad move. I had moved on from my original point in my first analogy to a new point in the second analogy. The new point was that people are probably okay with calling something free even when conditions are applied. That was all.

A more accurate comparison involves more than a short drive but the giver's demand to be adored. I submit that is a huge condition, whether love originates from the ether or not. Would that be an example of ethereal love?

I don't know what ethereal love is. Is that something like the non-obligatory love you mentioned in post #197?

You have two options here. You can continue to cobble together crap analogies to deride, or you can elucidate on love that transcends the human-condition. That's too coarse grained a phrase for me to know what you're talking about.

All I'm trying to do is figure out what you mean by non-obligatory love. My profs at university would tell us that love is nothing but a biological urge (maybe the release of chemicals in the brain) brought about by the evolutionary process. You may think your love for your mother is non-obligatory, but the science says otherwise. That's why I asked you if you believed that love was transcendent. I had assumed that you knew what the word "transcendent" meant. I guess I assumed wrong.

[whag]

I did not say that the smell/trust relationship indicated spiritual faculties, nor did I intend to do so; that would be silly. Let me elaborate and hopefully clarify.

Some people object to the idea of infants having faith, because they (some people, not infants) conceive of faith primarily in terms of propositions, truth-claims which must first be comprehended in order to be either believed or disbelieved. Believing that "Jesus died on the cross for my sins" or the like. Obviously a lot of basic knowledge underlies the constituent terms of such a proposition, and those without that knowledge (with or without the cognitive faculties to even learn that knowledge) cannot meaningfully interact with the proposition either positively or negatively. They can just say, "Huh?"

I couldn't have phrased it better myself. The concept of punishing unelect babies makes no sense because babies don't have "a lot of basic knowledge" that "underlies the constituent terms of the proposition." They "cannot meaningfully interact with the proposition positively or negatively." Now try explaining how babies rebel against God in their hearts without a basic underlying knowledge and meaningful interaction.

However, when we speak of "trust in God" or "trust in Christ," we're talking about a disposition. It might be thought of as parallel to the disposition that lower animals can have toward each other, or that human babies can have toward their caregivers, based on sensations of sound or smell or touch, rather than based on assent to truth-claims.

If I'm understanding you correctly, babies are born with the predisposition to trust God. Please explain how that turns to rebellion without a lot of underlying knowledge and the cognitive faculties required to have meaningful interaction.

But I wasn't trying to say our disposition toward God is the same as that animal disposition, or governed by the same faculties. We don't smell God, obviously. (Well, I don't, anyway.) It's a spiritual faculty inherent in man as God's image-bearer.



Correct.

It was a good analogy. I'm just having a hard time understanding how the predisposition gives way to rebellion sans knowledge and the ability to meaningfully interact.

[RBerman]

Is this describing a "state of mind?"

"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." - Romans 10:9

Yes, "believe in your heart" certainly is referring to a "state of mind" in modern parlance-- an internal disposition. Romans 10 occurs quite late in Paul's discussion of salvation, of course. By that point he's already covered how saying or doing specific things cannot save you (Romans 2-3) because we are saved by faith (Romans 4), a state of mind. However, Paul is also quick to point out in Romans 6 that if one truly has a state of mind which causes him to trust in Jesus, one will also act like it. That would include a willingness to publicly admit association with Jesus, hence the instruction to "confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,'" which was a challenge to the Roman salute of, "Caesar is Lord."

[OingoBoingo]

Correct again, Danny Elfman fan!

;)

[RBerman]

I couldn't have phrased it better myself. The concept of punishing unelect babies makes no sense because babies don't have "a lot of basic knowledge" that "underlies the constituent terms of the proposition." They "cannot meaningfully interact with the proposition positively or negatively." Now try explaining how babies rebel against God in their hearts without a basic underlying knowledge and meaningful interaction.

That was the point of my second paragraph. I'm not sure how far I can go with "how" except to say that it's a universal human faculty independent from cognition.

If I'm understanding you correctly, babies are born with the predisposition to trust God. Please explain how that turns to rebellion without a lot of underlying knowledge and the cognitive faculties required to have meaningful interaction.

More precisely, babies (even before being born) possess a spiritual dimension which may be inclined to either trust or mistrust God. As a spiritual interaction, it's not dependent on the physical sensorium or on cognitive faculties. That also makes it a world not amenable to analysis by our usual tools-- like the challenge of explaining color to a man born blind, only worse.

[whag]

You seemed to be wavering. In post #197 you said that there is no obligation to love.

Right. In all cases of love in my life, none is driven by obligation. Like I said, I wouldn't know how to enact love driven by obligation. "Go love that person" is probably actualized differently in your life and experience than mine. Or perhaps they match exactly, but you still have to define it.

Some say that Jesus commanded obligatory love of one's neighbors. There's a start but it needs exemplification. Is that the love that transcends the human condition?

When I asked you in post #198 if, by "no obligation", you thought that love was more than physiological, maybe something transcendent, you replied by telling me in post #209 that transcendence can have all sort of meanings.

You disagree with that? I fail to see how you can keep missing that transcendence of the human condition can have different meanings. How hard would it be to define what you meant?

To me this hints at cognitive dissonance. You're an atheist, and I'm assuming a materialist. You want to be careful not to say that love is more than physiology, but you also want to hold on to your original claim to save face.*

I want to be careful to express myself, surely, but not to hide any cognitive dissonance. My love for my mom, sister, or wife, or isn't driven by obligation. That would be bleak to think I'm loved by someone out of obligation rather than for reasons.

Are you reading what you write?



Yep. I can slow down if you're having a hard time keeping up though.

Please do! If you're serious, thanks for the offer.

Nope. It wasn't a bad move. I had moved on from my original point in my first analogy to a new point in the second analogy. The new point was that people are probably okay with calling something free even when conditions are applied. That was all.

People are probably okay with leaving the "free" out of "bday present," as well. One needn't gild a lily.

don't know what ethereal love is. Is that something like the non-obligatory love you mentioned in post #197?

I meant non-material love that transcends the human condition that you mentioned. Etheric would be a more accurate word, but that's still a form of the physical. Is "supernatural" a better word? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

All I'm trying to do is figure out what you mean by non-obligatory love.

I gave you an example. I love my mom for reasons. I rescind love, or my love naturally dissipates, for reasons. That love can come back, sometimes, such as in the case of my wife who I recently reconciled with. Is that what you mean by transcendent?

My profs at university would tell us that love is nothing but a biological urge (maybe the release of chemicals in the brain) brought about by the evolutionary process. You may think your love for your mother is non-obligatory, but the science says otherwise.

Interesting. Science says maternal love is transcendent? I hadn't heard science's definition of transcendence.

That's why I asked you if you believed that love was transcendent. I had assumed that you knew what the word "transcendent" meant. I guess I assumed wrong.

You peg me as an atheist, then asked me if I believe in a fuzzy notion of non-material love? I'm not following you.

Better to define what you mean by love that "transcends the human condition."

[OingoBoingo]

You disagree with that? I fail to see how you can keep missing that transcendence of the human condition can have different meanings. How hard would it be to define what you meant?

I thought I made my meaning clear when I preceded the question about transcendence with the one about physiology, but I guess I was moving too fast for you.

Please do! If you're serious, thanks for the offer.

Oh, okay. The word "transcendent" means something like "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

I meant non-material love that transcends the human condition that you mentioned. Etheric would be a more accurate word, but that's still a form of the physical. Is "supernatural" a better word? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Oh! I don't know. That's why I asked you. Do you feel like the non-obligatory love you have for your mom is supernatural? If you go back to my post #198 you'll see that I'm asking you what you think, as to not put words in your mouth. I can see what might have gone wrong though. My first sentence is phrased like a question, but I accidentally forgot to use a question mark, or a semi-colon. Is that what tripped you up?

I gave you an example. I love my mom for reasons. I rescind love, or my love naturally dissipates, for reasons. That love can come back, sometimes, such as in the case of my wife who I recently reconciled with. Is that what you mean by transcendent?

See above for how I'm using the word transcendent.

Interesting. Science says maternal love is transcendent? I hadn't heard science's definition of transcendence.

Oops. It looks like you lost track again. You believe that love is non-obligatory. That's why I asked you if you thought that love was more than physiological, if you thought it was transcendent (something that is beyond merely physical human experience). My biology profs don't think love is transcendent. Instead, they feel it is rooted in the physiological. When a child loves its mother, this love is actually the result of an evolutionary process that ensures the survival of the child. Its in a child's very nature to love their mother. By stating that your love for your mother is non-obligatory in post #197 you make it sound as though your love is something that bypasses or is outside of your biology. Biologists say that a child is driven to love its mother. You seem to disagree.

You peg me as an atheist, then asked me if I believe in a fuzzy notion of non-material love? I'm not following you.

Well exactly! That's why I thought it was so weird when you said that love is non-obligatory. I thought to myself "surely that's not what he wants to say". So that's why I asked you if you thought that love was non-physiological/transcendent.

Better to define what you mean by love that "transcends the human condition."

See above for the definition I'm using. Just out of curiosity, what are some of your alternative definitions?

[whag]

I thought I made my meaning clear when I preceded the question about transcendence with the one about physiology, but I guess I was moving too fast for you.

Yes, you were. Transparent gloating, very dignified.

Oh, okay. The word "transcendent" means something like "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

"Something like" or the actual lifted definition? =) (You know it so well you had to Google it, eh?)

You're still not being clear, having not defined the human condition.

A dad can treat his daughter badly, and the daughter feels no obligation to remain in a love state. She has the choice to express love back to him via forgiveness, but that isn't compulsory by any stretch of the imagination. If she forgave him and actively restored that love (like I did after my wife had some extramarital flings), I don't see how that's love beyond the human condition, which is the way you originally phrased it.

Oh! I don't know. That's why I asked you. Do you feel like the non-obligatory love you have for your mom is supernatural? If you go back to my post #198 you'll see that I'm asking you what you think, as to not put words in your mouth. I can see what might have gone wrong though. My first sentence is phrased like a question, but I accidentally forgot to use a question mark, or a semi-colon. Is that what tripped you up?

No. Your thinking that non-compulsory love implies the supernatural tripped me up. Perhaps you should address a married couple or paternal example.

Oops. It looks like you lost track again. You believe that love is non-obligatory. That's why I asked you if you thought that love was more than physiological, if you thought it was transcendent (something that is beyond merely physical human experience). My biology profs don't think love is transcendent.
Instead, they feel it is rooted in the physiological. When a child loves its mother, this love is actually the result of an evolutionary process that ensures the survival of the child.

Of course it's rooted in the physiological. Not just in humans but also other mammals, the neural effects of deprivation can be seen. The brain literally grows faster and makes healthy connections when a child isn't deprived or abused. Jeffery Dahmer was deprived of parental time, his parents later admitted, and his brain was literally malformed as a result.

Its in a child's very nature to love their mother. By stating that your love for your mother is non-obligatory in post #197 you make it sound as though your love is something that bypasses or is outside of your biology.

Ah, there's the misunderstanding. You think--or your professors think--that maternal bonding is love?

Biologists say that a child is driven to love its mother. You seem to disagree.

No, they say that mammalian maternal bonding is a precursor to love, not love. Surely they don't conclude that adopted children have a compulsory, obligatory love for their birth parents, or that either is obliged to love either.

See above for the definition I'm using. Just out of curiosity, what are some of your alternative definitions?

I was more tripped up by the entire phrase and what you meant by "human condition," which is broadly defined. Is transcending human experience the same as transcending the human condition? Just don't pass it off as something you're too slick to Google ;).

[OingoBoingo]

Yes, you were. Transparent gloating, very dignified.

Asking you if you think love is something other than physiological is transparent gloating? That's a new one.

"Something like" or the actual lifted definition? =) (You know it so well you had to Google it, eh?)

So...I'm confused. You didn't want a dictionary definition of the word "transcendent"? You wanted me to just, like, make up a definition? Strange....
I can tell you that what I mean by transcendent is just what the dictionary says it is. I'm not using it in any special way.

You're still not being clear, having not defined the human condition.

Human condition is defined as: The characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. Wikipedia tells us that it is a subject of the following fields of study: philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, demographics, evolutionary biology, cultural studies, and sociobiology. Since I mentioned physiology in post #198, I assumed you got through context that I was referring to the human condition as it relates to the physical (evolutionary biology/evolutionary psychology and the like). I guess I overestimated.

A dad can treat his daughter badly, and the daughter feels no obligation to remain in a love state. She has the choice to express love back to him via forgiveness, but that isn't compulsory by any stretch of the imagination. If she forgave him and actively restored that love (like I did after my wife had some extramarital flings), I don't see how that's love beyond the human condition, which is the way you originally phrased it.

So, going back to your original example about your love for your mother. You don't think there's anything within your biology that (for lack of better word) urges you to love her? Love is just a switch you're able to flip on and off.

No. Your thinking that non-compulsory love implies the supernatural tripped me up.

You dropped the word "supernatural". I'm just trying to figure out what you believe non-obligatory love is. Earlier when I asked you to define "love" you refused.

Of course it's rooted in the physiological. Not just in humans but also other mammals, the neural effects of deprivation can be seen. The brain literally grows faster and makes healthy connections when a child isn't deprived or abused. Jeffery Dahmer was deprived of parental time, his parents later admitted, and his brain was literally malformed as a result.

Oh, good. So we're finally on the same page. So when you wrote, I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, you don't think your biology has something to say about that?

Ah, there's the misunderstanding. You think--or your professors think--that maternal bonding is love?

Sure. I don't think they'd have a problem saying that.

No, they say that mammalian maternal bonding is a precursor to love, not love. Surely they don't conclude that adopted children have a compulsory, obligatory love for their birth parents, or that either is obliged to love either.

You're hairsplitting. When referring to love biologists are talking about the result of a physiological process. See below:

Source: The neurobiology of love

Maternal and romantic love share a common and crucial evolutionary purpose, that of maintaining and promoting the species. They also share a functional purpose, in that both require that individuals stay together for a period of their lives. Both are thus calculated by nature to ensure the formation of firm bonds between individuals, by making of them rewarding experiences. It is not surprising to find that both sentiments share common brain areas. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...14579307004875

© Copyright Original Source

Source: LOVE: AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE MAMMALIAN AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM

Although we assume that love is a unique human emotion, several neurobiological processes involved in the experience and expression of love are shared with other mammals. The phylogenetic origins of these processes reflect their antecedent adaptive function. In mammals, these processes have evolved into an integrated neurobehavioral system, which promotes proximity, reproduction, and physical safety. Central to the neural mediation of these processes is the autonomic nervous system. The focus of this paper is to describe how the autonomic nervous system is involved in the processes associated with feelings of love and behaviors linked to reproduction. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06453098000572

© Copyright Original Source

And from the abstract of another paper:

Source: The Neurobiology of Love.

Love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon, relying on trust, belief, pleasure and reward activities within the brain, i.e., limbic processes. These processes critically involve oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, and serotonergic signaling. Moreover, endorphin and endogenous morphinergic mechanisms, coupled to nitric oxide autoregulatory pathways, play a role. Naturally rewarding or pleasurable activities are necessary for survival and appetitive motivation, usually governing beneficial biological behaviors like eating, sex, and reproduction. Yet, a broad basis of common signaling and beneficial neurobiological features exists with connection to the love concept, thereby combining physiological aspects related to maternal, romantic or sexual love and attachment with other healthy activities or neurobiological states. Medical practice can make use of this concept, i.e., mind/body or integrative medicine. Thus, love, pleasure, and lust have a stress-reducing and health-promoting potential, since they carry the ability to heal or facilitate beneficial motivation and behavior. In addition, love and pleasure ensure the survival of individuals and their species. After all, love is a joyful and useful activity that encompasses wellness and feelings of well-being. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990719

© Copyright Original Source

I was more tripped up by the entire phrase and what you meant by "human condition," which is broadly defined. Is transcending human experience the same as transcending the human condition?

If the context is something physiological, then sure.

Just don't pass it off as something you're too slick to Google ;).

Not sure I get your hangup about using a common definition. Guess when you've got nothing else to lob, nitpicking one's use of Google after you've asked them to define terminology is all you've got.

[whag]

So...I'm confused. You didn't want a dictionary definition of the word "transcendent"?

No. I have the interwebs, too. Your phrase needed explication.

You wanted me to just, like, make up a definition? Strange....
I can tell you that what I mean by transcendent is just what the dictionary says it is. I'm not using it in any special way.

"transcends the human condition"

Human condition is defined as: The characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. Wikipedia tells us that it is a subject of the following fields of study: philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, demographics, evolutionary biology, cultural studies, and sociobiology. Since I mentioned physiology in post #198, I assumed you got through context that I was referring to the human condition as it relates to the physical (evolutionary biology/evolutionary psychology and the like). I guess I overestimated.

In that case, you meant physical, which is a condition we share with all species. Thanks to Google, you realized HC means much more than "experience."

So, going back to your original example about your love for your mother. You don't think there's anything within your biology that (for lack of better word) urges you to love her? Love is just a switch you're able to flip on and off.

No. Those bonds don't guarantee that trajectory. They're the precursor to love.

You dropped the word "supernatural". I'm just trying to figure out what you believe non-obligatory love is. Earlier when I asked you to define "love" you refused.

Earlier I asked you to define "love that transcends the human condition." You refused.

Love is very broadly defined. I gave you personal examples of my mom and wife, a hypothetical example of paternal love, and even a possible example of obligatory love from the Bible. You refused to give me your take on those. The bible example seemed pertinent, since it seems to be an example of "love that transcends the human condition" and is, for all intents and purposes, obligatory (since it obliges one to love). It that a different kind of obligatory? It helps if you explain what you mean.

Oh, good. So we're finally on the same page. So when you wrote, I love my mom. I feel no obligation to love her, you don't think your biology has something to say about that?

Not unless chimps love their moms. No, my love for her is based on reasons. I'm not obligated/compelled to love my mom, dad, sister, wife, or you.

Sure. I don't think they'd have a problem saying that.



You're hairsplitting. When referring to love biologists are talking about the result of a physiological process. See below:

Try quoting the part that says maternal bonding obliges children to love mom. If you're calling mammalian maternal bonding "love," this is hardly the case of hairsplitting.

Not sure I get your hangup about using a common definition. Guess when you've got nothing else to lob, nitpicking one's use of Google after you've asked them to define terminology is all you've got.

No, I just thought it was funny you said it means "something like...." then gave the lifted definition. It doesn't help when you brag about knowing the word and forget you said "transcends the human condition."

Okay, so at this point I've given you two personal examples. I expect you to do me the courtesy of opening yourself up, too. Chill on the war talk and elucidate me on how you express obligatory love to anybody. Who knows? We might both learn something.