Love?

[Ztheberean]

By the way most of us love, we could never be known as His disciples. There is a way we can know---by the fruits that are of God---because we are chosen by God; because we are ordained by God (Jn 15:16). To walk in love, within its good works [of mercy and patience], as Jesus loved, is therefore the ordained walk of affectionate loving ability (Eph 5:2 and 2:10). Note: that we cannot lovingly walk outside of this ordination of God. Many churchy-people believe that their ordination to minister is the only acceptable ordination; however, this ordination of men runs counter to this ordination of God, which can come upon everyone.

 

[felix]

By the way most of us love, we could never be known as His disciples. There is a way we can know---by the fruits that are of God---because we are chosen by God; because we are ordained by God (Jn 15:16). To walk in love, within its good works [of mercy and patience], as Jesus loved, is therefore the ordained walk of affectionate loving ability (Eph 5:2 and 2:10). Note: that we cannot lovingly walk outside of this ordination of God. Many churchy-people believe that their ordination to minister is the only acceptable ordination; however, this ordination of men runs counter to this ordination of God, which can come upon everyone.

Yes, those who do not love the way Christ said are not His disciples. Also, every Christian is a minister of God.

 

[childeye]

Amen, we are easily ensnared through misunderstandings. Let us receive one another as we would want to be received.

 

[ivdavid]

I could start another thread if anyone here feels this post is deviating from the OP.

Since this is aptly titled "Love?", I wanted to discuss what we exactly mean by love.

I have heard people quoting "God is love". It is absolutely true. If a person loves, then it is evidence of that person knowing God - for God is love and love is of God. But what is this love itself?

I have heard people say that "love is keeping the commandments of God". I agree that if one does love God, he will keep His commandments, but then again, what is this love itself?

We are describing 'love' w.r.t. its evidential effects but not w.r.t. itself in an absolute deterministic sense.

So, what is love?
Is it an intense form of "like" or is it something else? Is there a complete difference between 'I love pizza' and 'I love my wife' or is the difference only in the degree of love the person has for that object of love?

Is love an emotion that is the result of the satisfaction of certain desires in us - or is love an initial desire that, on satisfaction, results in certain emotions?

 

[felix]

I could start another thread if anyone here feels this post is deviating from the OP.

Since this is aptly titled "Love?", I wanted to discuss what we exactly mean by love.

I have heard people quoting "God is love". It is absolutely true. If a person loves, then it is evidence of that person knowing God - for God is love and love is of God. But what is this love itself?

I have heard people say that "love is keeping the commandments of God". I agree that if one does love God, he will keep His commandments, but then again, what is this love itself?

We are describing 'love' w.r.t. its evidential effects but not w.r.t. itself in an absolute deterministic sense.

So, what is love?
Is it an intense form of "like" or is it something else? Is there a complete difference between 'I love pizza' and 'I love my wife' or is the difference only in the degree of love the person has for that object of love?

Is love an emotion that is the result of the satisfaction of certain desires in us - or is love an initial desire that, on satisfaction, results in certain emotions?

(Song 8:6-7) .. For love [is as] strong as death, Jealousy [as] cruel as the grave; Its flames [are] flames of fire, A most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly despised. ..

Will you die for loving a pizza? definitely not.

God expects a love that you will die, go to grave, despised all your wealth to some stranger and even your enemy.

(1John 3:16) By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

If you cannot "die" for others, then you don't have the love of God in you.

This is the true love Scripture speaks about.

 

[for_his_glory]

The word Love is the Greek word AGAPE. It's a spiritual love that has nothing to do with the flesh, but that of a persons very spirit. It's a love that says it doesn't matter who you are or what you have done I will still love you. We are instructed to love our enemies and pray for them as anyone can change if they choose to do so. We might not always see eye to eye on things, but we are to love one another as this is the greatest commandment of all.

 

[ivdavid]

I appreciate all the different constructive views on love so far. I only wish we could make it clearer because it's still vague in my mind.

As I said, We are describing 'love' w.r.t. its evidential effects but not w.r.t. itself in an absolute deterministic sense.

Felix - "If you cannot "die" for others, then you don't have the love of God in you."
This is absolutely true. But this doesn't define what love itself is. It only provides a way to determine if love is present or not - but what is this love itself?

for_his_glory - "It's a spiritual love that has nothing to do with the flesh, but that of a persons very spirit. It's a love that says it doesn't matter who you are or what you have done I will still love you."
Very true. I see you have defined a specific type of love - namely, 'spiritual love'. But what is love itself?

Can it even be put in words?

 

[felix]

But what is love itself?

Can it even be put in words?

Love is an emotion of strong affection and personal attachment.

Can you put hatred in words? If you can, then love is just opposite of it.

 

[Elijah674]

By the way most of us love, we could never be known as His disciples. There is a way we can know---by the fruits that are of God---because we are chosen by God; because we are ordained by God (Jn 15:16). To walk in love, within its good works [of mercy and patience], as Jesus loved, is therefore the ordained walk of affectionate loving ability (Eph 5:2 and 2:10). Note: that we cannot lovingly walk outside of this ordination of God. Many churchy-people believe that their ordination to minister is the only acceptable ordination; however, this ordination of men runs counter to this ordination of God, which can come upon everyone.

It that a question? What is love in bottom line? All mankind are born with love. It saves no one. It has not all been lost by sin, but is nearing bottom, huh?

Man is required to be Born Again, brought back to the starting point of Adam before sin [spiritually]. (not bodily) It is then that love has the real Agape MOTIVE! So the question is answered ONLY then, Love is Their (Godhead) Moral [[PRINCIPLE!]]

All of this lovey dovey stuff, + excitement, emotion, racket noise & the like is just tied on stuff. Works for God & others are not always easy or costless, they come from required Moral Principles! Such as Christ going to the cross 'feeling' seperated from His Father!

Yet, never does 'looking' good to others such as outward works of what the world thinks is love, make one having the recreated moral Principle that is love!

--Elijah

 

[ivdavid]

Love is an emotion of strong affection and personal attachment.

Yes, thanks felix. I was looking for something like this to discuss on.

Aren't emotions the reaction/response to actions that have already occurred? But love seems to precede our very actions - in that our every action must be dictated by love. In that sense, could love still be described as an emotion?

Can you put hatred in words? If you can, then love is just opposite of it.

I thought hatred was defined from love. And I'm not sure if they are diametric opposites - i think in any particular act, love is placed at 100% and anything less is hate. I can't imagine 'loving' a person 90% - I think I'd technically say I hated that person then. And that I hated a person more if I was somewhere at say 75%. So, if we define love, then the absence of love is hate.

Any views on this?

 

[for_his_glory]

love is an acceptance word of devotion to something or someone you like. Love can be an emotion even though at times our emotions can be deceiving. Love is like religion that is pure and undefiled before God as we express our feelings for one another in action, James 1:27. Love has many definitions as it's character forms a variety of diversities.

 

[felix]

Yes, thanks felix. I was looking for something like this to discuss on.

Aren't emotions the reaction/response to actions that have already occurred? But love seems to precede our very actions - in that our every action must be dictated by love. In that sense, could love still be described as an emotion?

Yes, you are correct.

God said not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and if they ate, they will surely die. But Adam and Eve ate when they knew not it was good or evil, which means they disobeyed while innocent. Now, mankind is facing death for something he did when he was innocent. Man is totally helpless as he is going to die. Throughout scriptures, we have seen God saving and defending the innocent. Now, God wants to save the fallen mankind, but God cannot take His Word back which He said to them, the punishment for eating that fruit. No one can save mankind except God Himself, but not against His own Word who is again God Himself. This made God love man so much because he is helpless and facing death for something he did when he was innocent. So, the Word, who is God Himself became flesh, became a normal man and entered death itself to be victorious over death. So, God saved man through one Man Jesus Christ.

It's not a requirement for God to save mankind but God loved mankind so much because he is helpless and facing death for his innocent act. Since, God loved us, we are supposed to love the same way.

(1John 4:10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

I thought hatred was defined from love. And I'm not sure if they are diametric opposites - i think in any particular act, love is placed at 100% and anything less is hate. I can't imagine 'loving' a person 90% - I think I'd technically say I hated that person then. And that I hated a person more if I was somewhere at say 75%. So, if we define love, then the absence of love is hate.

Any views on this?

Do you love God the same way you love your pizza? In fact loving pizza is not even love. It's a language problem because English isn't that rich (compared to some classical languages) and it's all called love but I speak another classical language which has the word love defined very accurately based on who we love.

• Love between parents and children/close relatives - பாசம் (paasam)
• Love between lovers - காதல் (kaadal)
• Love between husband and wife - நேசம் (naesam)
• Love towards strangers/general love - அன்பு (anbu)
• Love towards objects/events - ஆசை (aasai)

If you do a translation back to English, all can be translated as love (yet some affection or desire depending on context). You can use the same 'love' for everything listed above in English but in the other language, you can't use 'kadal' (meant for lovers), for parents and children or strangers or objects/events. You can use 'anbu' for everything except for objects.

I believe such differences exist in ancient Greek and Hebrew as well (not for love specifically but for other words, where meaning and context which that particular word brings out is completely missed out in English and other translated languages).

You can clearly see the different levels of love expressed as different words in a language.

 

[childeye]

Yes, you are correct.

God said not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and if they ate, they will surely die. But Adam and Eve ate when they knew not it was good or evil, which means they disobeyed while innocent. Now, mankind is facing death for something he did when he was innocent. Man is totally helpless as he is going to die. Throughout scriptures, we have seen God saving and defending the innocent. Now, God wants to save the fallen mankind, but God cannot take His Word back which He said to them, the punishment for eating that fruit. No one can save mankind except God Himself, but not against His own Word who is again God Himself. This made God love man so much because he is helpless and facing death for something he did when he was innocent. So, the Word, who is God Himself became flesh, became a normal man and entered death itself to be victorious over death. So, God saved man through one Man Jesus Christ.

It's not a requirement for God to save mankind but God loved mankind so much because he is helpless and facing death for his innocent act. Since, God loved us, we are supposed to love the same way.

(1John 4:10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.




Do you love God the same way you love your pizza? In fact loving pizza is not even love. It's a language problem because English isn't that rich (compared to some classical languages) and it's all called love but I speak another classical language which has the word love defined very accurately based on who we love.

• Love between parents and children/close relatives - பாசம் (paasam)
• Love between lovers - காதல் (kaadal)
• Love between husband and wife - நேசம் (naesam)
• Love towards strangers/general love - அன்பு (anbu)
• Love towards objects/events - ஆசை (aasai)

If you do a translation back to English, all can be translated as love (yet some affection or desire depending on context). You can use the same 'love' for everything listed above in English but in the other language, you can't use 'kadal' (meant for lovers), for parents and children or strangers or objects/events. You can use 'anbu' for everything except for objects.

I believe such differences exist in ancient Greek and Hebrew as well (not for love specifically but for other words, where meaning and context which that particular word brings out is completely missed out in English and other translated languages).

You can clearly see the different levels of love expressed as different words in a language.

Wow Felix. Your statement that Adam and Eve were innocent erases culpability. Satan will be out of business if you don't shut-up.

 

[ivdavid]

But Adam and Eve ate when they knew not it was good or evil, which means they disobeyed while innocent. Now, mankind is facing death for something he did when he was innocent.

I don't want to deviate too much from our main topic of discussion, but I have a problem understanding what you mean here. How does it matter if a person is innocent until the time of disobedience - doesn't the very fact that one disobeyed make him guilty and no longer innocent? I think you mean 'innocent' to mean 'deceived' - as in, they didn't conceive of a plan to disobey God all by themselves but were deceived into disobeying God - is that how you meant 'innocent'?
Well, even in that case, the transgressor is deemed guilty - not innocent.

It's a language problem because English isn't that rich (compared to some classical languages) and it's all called love but I speak another classical language which has the word love defined very accurately based on who we love.

Nice to know that you too are a tamilian. Anyway, though I acknowledge the nuances of language playing a role in being precise or vague in expressing through words - I am more focussed on the Biblical usage of the word 'Agape' which I believe is independent of languages for our comprehension.

Love between friends, love between family members, love between strangers etc. - all these distinctions provided by language make for convenient and specific references in our day-to-day communication. But when God commanded us to love Him and to love our neighbor, all these distinctions break down. It matters not if that person is a friend or stranger - the same love applies to them as commanded by God. Though I believe people are capable of showing such love without being able to define it precisely in words, I simply felt it would be nice to also know what exactly we're doing when we're 'loving' God and our neighbors.

Do you love God the same way you love your pizza? In fact loving pizza is not even love.

Exactly. I think you're absolutely right there. So we must differentiate between what we call 'love for pizza' and 'love for God and neighbor'. I'd be interested to know what the difference between the two actually is....

 

[felix]

Wow Felix. Your statement that Adam and Eve were innocent erases culpability. Satan will be out of business if you don't shut-up.

I don't understand. Why should I shut-up for saying the truth?

 

[felix]

I don't want to deviate too much from our main topic of discussion, but I have a problem understanding what you mean here. How does it matter if a person is innocent until the time of disobedience - doesn't the very fact that one disobeyed make him guilty and no longer innocent? I think you mean 'innocent' to mean 'deceived' - as in, they didn't conceive of a plan to disobey God all by themselves but were deceived into disobeying God - is that how you meant 'innocent'?
Well, even in that case, the transgressor is deemed guilty - not innocent.

Innocent simply means not knowing good or evil. A person not knowing good and evil cannot be guilty because he/she does know it's wrong. His disobedience is not a sin becausehe/she does not even know 'disobedience' by itself is wrong or evil.

 

[childeye]

I don't understand. Why should I shut-up for saying the truth?

As I said the Truth puts the Father of lies out of business. It's a compliment.

 

[felix]

As I said the Truth puts the Father of lies out of business. It's a compliment.

Oh .. Thank you

 

[ivdavid]

Innocent simply means not knowing good or evil.

I see you define 'innocent' differently. That's fine. I was operating under the meaning of it being 'not guilty of transgression'. And I consider Adam guilty of transgression in the garden. Note, I'm not being judgmental here - I am merely referring to God's law and its being transgressed as a factual matter. I am not saying Adam committed sin - rather, I'm saying a sin was committed by Adam - if you can discern the causative difference in what I'm focussing on.

Childeye, I think I understand your views on culpability of man(rather non-culpability) in the context of the works of the devil. And w.r.t. the devil, I'd say man is not causatively evil just as I would say that w.r.t. God, man is not causatively good. But I would nonetheless hold man[every man including myself] responsible and guilty for their sins in a very specific sense. Let me put it this way - sin in the flesh makes it deserving of condemnation and hence man is guilty as long as he is in the flesh, though he himself is not causatively sinful. And he is not at all in the least bit guilty[state of guilt and condemnation] when he is regenerated in the spirit.

Perhaps I'll have to try and explain myself better - but let this suffice for now. And if this topic requires much more discussion, let's shift this to another thread.

A person not knowing good and evil cannot be guilty because he/she does [not] know it's wrong.

Here, you are saying that Adam did do wrong but he isn't guilty of having done that wrong because he didn't know that it was wrong. Have I got that right? This seems like thin ground, felix. I'd agree if you said such people cannot emotively feel guilty until they receive such knowledge - rather than absolutely determining that they are not guilty.

Any who has transgressed the will of God is guilty - guilty of having transgressed it - whether they're aware of it or not at the time. Lev 5:17 deals with this. And yes, obviously, this guilt can be perceived only at the time of realization -ie at the time of receiving knowledge that this is sin.

His disobedience is not a sin becausehe/she does not even know 'disobedience' by itself is wrong or evil.

You're claiming Adam didn't sin in the garden - Romans 5:16 states he did. We might have to re-evaluate our definitions. Again felix, don't consider what I say as a stance against you - I'm trying to sincerely find out what it is that seems to be the conflict to you.

 

[felix]

I see you define 'innocent' differently. That's fine. I was operating under the meaning of it being 'not guilty of transgression'. And I consider Adam guilty of transgression in the garden. Note, I'm not being judgmental here - I am merely referring to God's law and its being transgressed as a factual matter. I am not saying Adam committed sin - rather, I'm saying a sin was committed by Adam - if you can discern the causative difference in what I'm focussing on.

Here, you are saying that Adam did do wrong but he isn't guilty of having done that wrong because he didn't know that it was wrong. Have I got that right? This seems like thin ground, felix. I'd agree if you said such people cannot emotively feel guilty until they receive such knowledge - rather than absolutely determining that they are not guilty.

Any who has transgressed the will of God is guilty - guilty of having transgressed it - whether they're aware of it or not at the time. Lev 5:17 deals with this. And yes, obviously, this guilt can be perceived onlal y at the time of realization -ie at the time of receiving knowledge that this is sin.

It's true that innocent is guiltless, blameless. I was more focused on the context rather than the actual meaning. Since, Scripture doesn't use the word innocent, i should have maintained 'not knowing good and evil'.

Below is an example of children not knowing good and evil are blameless:
In Deut 1:34-41, God allows only children who knew not good and evil (apart from Joshua and Caleb) to posses Israel. The rest who had sinned as in v41 did not enter.

Little children are innocent because they knew not good and evil and are blameless. If you tell a little child not to do something and if that little child did contrary to what you said, has he/she disobeyed? No, because, children does not even know what disobedience is, even after doing it. Well that my point, to say, Adam and Eve knew not good and evil and what disobedience itself is when they disobeyed.

You're claiming Adam didn't sin in the garden - Romans 5:16 states he did. We might have to re-evaluate our definitions. Again felix, don't consider what I say as a stance against you - I'm trying to sincerely find out what it is that seems to be the conflict to you.

Thanks for Rom 5:16. Since, Rom 5:16 says Adam sinned, and Adam knew not good and evil according to Gen, I could say, it's unintentional sin and even in the law (Leviticus 4), it's still not worthy for death but the punishment however for mankind is death.

totopic

I could rephrase like..
When Adam's knew not what sin itself is, his unintentional sin caused all of mankind to face death but not really worthy for death, who is totally helpless. So, God loved mankind to save by becoming a Man, Jesus Christ to save all mankind through His death by overcoming death. Now Christ has the keys to death, so that anyone who believes in that Man will also live through that Man.