Love?

[Tenchi]

"I love you, Jill."

"I love you, too, Sam."

"You've done so many things for me. You've given me so much, Jill. I can't thank you enough."

"Okay...Um, hmmm...what do you mean, exactly, by 'love,' Sam?"

"Well, I'm just so grateful to you for everything. You love me; you spend time with me; you help me. I want you to know how thankful I am for what you do for me."

"So, when you say you love me, you mean you're grateful to me?"

"Absolutely."

"Uh...is that it, Sam?"

"What do you mean? You've done so much for me, Jill; I'd do anything for you. I don't want you to be angry with me, or feel disappointed in me. How could I ever do anything to make you upset? You've been so wonderful to me."

"So, when you say you love me, you also mean you feel an obligation to me?"

"Right. I do. How could I do anything less for you than what you've done for me. I -"

"Yeah, yeah, I get it, Sam. I scratch your back, you scratch mine."

"I don't think I'd put it quite like that, Jill..."

"Oh? Is there more to your love for me? More than gratefulness and obligation?"

"You sound unhappy, Jill. Have I said something wrong? I sure hope not. I dread the idea that I'd make you stop loving me. Nothing would be more awful to me than that you would leave me. What a thought! There's nothing I fear more. I'll do anything to keep such a thing from happening!"

"I see. Are you often acting from fear in our relationship?"

"Yes. Shouldn't I? Why wouldn't I fear your anger and unhappiness with me? I love you and want you to stay with me."

"You've been selfish with me, sometimes, Sam, putting yourself before me. Were you afraid of losing me in those instances? It didn't seem like it to me..."

"I...uh...can't seem to stop myself, sometimes, Jill. But I do try to make up for when I'm selfish; I feel so guilty if I don't, y'know?"

"You must feel guilty a lot."

"No kidding! The guilt is so strong, if I don't treat you nice. So strong! What's the matter, Jill? You look upset."

"Sam, you've just told me that gratefulness, obligation, fear and guilt are the things that keep you in relationship with me. Is that all there is to your love?"

"All there is? What do you mean? Those things aren't nothing; they're a part of every relationship between people. Sheesh. Since you're in such a critical mood, Jill, why don't you tell me what you mean by 'love'."

"That's easy: I desire you, Sam. I want you more than anything else. I long to be with you, to know you and to enjoy you. I want more and more of you, Sam, as each day passes. I would give up anything, do anything, in order to fulfill my desire, my love, for you. That's what I mean by 'love,' Sam. This is what is motivating everything I do with, and for, you, not obligation, or guilt, or fear."
"Oh. Uh...wow. I want you, too, Jill. Very much... I really do love you - though I've let a lot of other things crowd in, and replace, and maybe even cool that desire.

"I don't want anything else from you, Sam, but your love. Nothing else is strong enough, deep enough, and fulfilling enough to keep us together. Will you let go of these other weak, ugly things and let your desire for me grow and move you in our relationship?"

"Yes, Jill, I will. I love you."

"I know, Sam. I love you, too."

Matthew 22:36-38 (NASB)
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (NASB)
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Is this a story that is to represent God to us?

 

[Tenchi]

No, it's an allegory of sorts, drawing out how people often substitute various things for love in their walk with God. I've met many, many believers over the years who are walking with God out of fear, and/or obligation, and/or religious vanity, and/or mere gratefulness, but who have very little actual love for Him. They honor God with their lips, dutifully obeying Him as best they can, fearful if they don't, they'll lose their salvation, but their hearts are far from Him. Many of them aren't even clear about what God means by "love." And so, I wrote this little exchange.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, it's an allegory of sorts, drawing out how people often substitute various things for love in their walk with God. I've met many, many believers over the years who are walking with God out of fear, and/or obligation, and/or religious vanity, and/or mere gratefulness, but who have very little actual love for Him. They honor God with their lips, dutifully obeying Him as best they can, fearful if they don't, they'll lose their salvation, but their hearts are far from Him. Many of them aren't even clear about what God means by "love." And so, I wrote this little exchange.

I’ve known hundreds if not thousands if christians and never met one like this. By the way, they aren’t “walking with God.”

The story you imagined doesn’t represent God, by the way. No one who really walked with writing down these matters (the Bible) describe Him as you have done. None. It’s really better to
comfort others with the truth then something out of your imagination.

 

[Tenchi]

I’ve known hundreds if not thousands if christians and never met one like this. By the way, they aren’t “walking with God.”

And your point is?

My experience has been different. And I've written from that experience, not from yours which is unknown to me.

The story you imagined doesn’t represent God, by the way.

As I already explained, it wasn't meant to.

No one who really walked with writing down these matters (the Bible) describe Him as you have done.

You aren't listening to me. The allegory isn't about God. Surely this is evident to you. The two speakers in the story are Jill and Sam, who are humans, obviously, talking, not about God, but about LOVE.

Are you just looking for argument? It sure seems like it.

It’s really better to
comfort others with the truth then something out of your imagination.

False dichotomy. Look it up.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And your point is?

My experience has been different. And I've written from that experience, not from yours which is unknown to me.



As I already explained, it wasn't meant to.



You aren't listening to me. The allegory isn't about God. Surely this is evident to you. The two speakers in the story are Jill and Sam, who are humans, obviously, talking, not about God, but about LOVE.

Are you just looking for argument? It sure seems like it.



False dichotomy. Look it up.

Do you know two humans who have this kind of relationship? If so, what good does it do to tell the many who don’t about it? You wrote it to tell those who aren’t loved by anyone that much that Sam is? Is this encouraging?

Do you think either of those humans described display godly love? I can assure they don’t. What is described is definitely human somewhat selfish desire. Gods love is nothing like that and no scripture describes it as such.

 

[Tenchi]

Do you know two humans who have this kind of relationship? If so, what good does it do to tell the many who don’t about it? You wrote it to tell those who aren’t loved by anyone that much that Sam is? Is this encouraging?

Are you the Christianforums post police? I wrote in the vein of "If the shoe fits, wear it." If in your case it doesn't, well, don't "wear" the "shoe" I've described.

Do you think either of those humans described display godly love?

You ought, I think, to read the allegory again - but without looking for a reason to argue about it. Do you object so strongly to the story because it touches somehow on your own love - or lack thereof - of God?

What is described is definitely human somewhat selfish desire. Gods love is nothing like that and no scripture describes it as such.

You've quite missed the purpose of the allegory. Too much eagerness to find fault and not enough willingness to understand, it seems to me. Ah, well. You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Are you the Christianforums post police? I wrote in the vein of "If the shoe fits, wear it." If in your case it doesn't, well, don't "wear" the "shoe" I've described.

This is an open chat forum. If you can’t stand people evaluating what you write, don’t write anything.

You ought, I think, to read the allegory again - but without looking for a reason to argue about it. Do you object so strongly to the story because it touches somehow on your own love - or lack thereof - of God?

It’s untrue in man or God. It represents nothing real. That’s the reason.

You've quite missed the purpose of the allegory. Too much eagerness to find fault and not enough willingness to understand, it seems to me. Ah, well. You can lead a horse to water...

I understand it quite well. I just don’t swallow it and you don’t like others evaluating what you writ

 

[Tenchi]

This is an open chat forum. If you can’t stand people evaluating what you write, don’t write anything.

It's not evaluation that I don't like; it's evaluation that has little or nothing to do with what I've written that's problematic to me. I end up having to defend my writing against largely pointless criticism - just as I'm doing now.

It’s untrue in man or God. It represents nothing real. That’s the reason.

Mere assertion is not sufficient to establish the accuracy, the truth, of what you're asserting. A man who only says, "The moon is made of cheddar cheese," has yet to offer a reason why his assertion about the moon ought to be accepted as true.

I understand it quite well. I just don’t swallow it and you don’t like others evaluating what you writ

See? Just more contentiousness. You really do like to fight with others - and rather unpleasantly, too. Apparently, you aren't aware that this puts the clarity and value of your criticisms in doubt - especially when it is evident that, whatever you may claim about understanding what you're criticizing, you very clearly don't understand it.

Anyway, please cease to snark at my OP. You've missed its point entirely and are unwilling to acknowledge you have, so there's little purpose in me going back-and-forth with you about it. We aren't even actually discussing the allegory, just your mistaken notions about it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's not evaluation that I don't like; it's evaluation that has little or nothing to do with what I've written that's problematic to me. I end up having to defend my writing against largely pointless criticism - just as I'm doing now.

Not really. The story you invented has no match in human experience nor ought it to have. It is not a tale of godly love. God does not consider those thoughts ones of love nor do humans.

Mere assertion is not sufficient to establish the accuracy, the truth, of what you're asserting. A man who only says, "The moon is made of cheddar cheese," has yet to offer a reason why his assertion about the moon ought to be accepted as true.

Does the man who says the moon is not made of cheddar cheese have to offer a reason why his assertion about the moon ought to be accepted as true?

See? Just more contentiousness. You really do like to fight with others - and rather unpleasantly, too. Apparently, you aren't aware that this puts the clarity and value of your criticisms in doubt - especially when it is evident that, whatever you may claim about understanding what you're criticizing, you very clearly don't understand it.

Another personal attack from you. I do not like to fight with others but this comforts you to think this instead of allowing evaluation of what you write. I evaluate your writing and you do not like it. This is, actually, what the noble Bereans did and Paul did not say to them, "you just like to fight" because he wanted them to believe the truth, not think what he said was great.

Anyway, please cease to snark at my OP. You've missed its point entirely and are unwilling to acknowledge you have, so there's little purpose in me going back-and-forth with you about it. We aren't even actually discussing the allegory, just your mistaken notions about it.

Another personal attack that is unfounded. Defend your thesis if you think it has merit. But you cannot or will not.

 

[Tenchi]

The story you invented has no match in human experience nor ought it to have.

Well, as I've already said, it does have a "match" - just not, apparently, in your limited, personal experience.

Does the man who says the moon is not made of cheddar cheese have to offer a reason why his assertion about the moon ought to be accepted as true?

Of course. Every assertion one wants to make requires supporting justification - especially if there is counter-evidence to the assertion (as there is in the case of this thread).

Another personal attack from you. I do not like to fight with others but this comforts you to think this instead of allowing evaluation of what you write.

But my comment is an evaluation of what you've written - and only an evaluation of that writing. Do you deny that you've been contentious in your remarks in this thread? I can cite from your posts where you've been so. Would you like me to make a list?

I evaluate your writing and you do not like it.

The pot calling the kettle black, here, Dorothy Mae. Though, your "evaluation" remains entirely blind to the actual substance of the allegory in question.

This is, actually, what the noble Bereans did and Paul did not say to them, "you just like to fight" because he wanted them to believe the truth, not think what he said was great.

The Bereans examined Paul's teaching in the light of holy Scripture, not according to their own personal experience, which would necessarily differ from that of Paul (and even each other). You, though, have made your "evaluation" offered in this thread entirely from the basis of your own personal experience. What's more, when you were told the allegory did not speak to the nature and character of God by the one who wrote it, you continued to criticize the allegory as though it did.

Another personal attack that is unfounded. Defend your thesis if you think it has merit. But you cannot or will not.

??? Dorothy Mae, I don't know what's motivating this very odd, combative approach you've taken to engaging with me about my little story, but I'm done talking with you about it. One cannot "defend their thesis" to a person willfully deaf and blind to its defense.

Peace, Sister.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well, as I've already said, it does have a "match" - just not, apparently, in your limited, personal experience.

My experience is much greater than yours. But let me ask you, is this a conversation you’ve actually had with a person?

Of course. Every assertion one wants to make requires supporting justification - especially if there is counter-evidence to the assertion (as there is in the case of this thread).

This is not done in real life. The who requires everyone who tells him anything to supply sufficient evidence will soon be alone.

But my comment is an evaluation of what you've written - and only an evaluation of that writing.

No you failed to support your position, a point you just said is required. You don’t live up to the standards you require of others.

Do you deny that you've been contentious in your remarks in this thread?

Totally.

I can cite from your posts where you've been so. Would you like me to make a list?

Do so. But you want to see an imaginary motivation do you don’t have to support your position. It’s the old ad hominem argument when you can’t answer questions.

The pot calling the kettle black, here, Dorothy Mae. Though, your "evaluation" remains entirely blind to the actual substance of the allegory in question.

Now it’s an allegory?? You said it doesn’t have to resemble anything real and now it does. It’s not an allegory. It’s an imaginary tale divorced from all reality.

The Bereans examined Paul's teaching in the light of holy Scripture, not according to their own personal experience, which would necessarily differ from that of Paul (and even each other).

I examine writings in light of scripture. Your teaching isn’t there.

You, though, have made your "evaluation" offered in this thread entirely from the basis of your own personal experience. What's more, when you were told the allegory did not speak to the nature and character of God by the one who wrote it, you continued to criticize the allegory as though it did.

Well since you admit it fits neither God no man, we agree. No one in the heavens or the earth thinks or talks as your imaginary exchange depicts. We agree.

??? Dorothy Mae, I don't know what's motivating this very odd, combative approach you've taken to engaging with me about my little story, but I'm done talking with you about it. One cannot "defend their thesis" to a person willfully deaf and blind to its defense.

Ah, the ad hominem again

Peace, Sister.

“Be warm be filled.”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My motive in questioning this narrative is that I’ve heard this false representation of the heart of God and no one who walked with Him says that this is his heart. This picture Is not what God thinks or feels. It feeds the human ego or pride if you will. Makes the one who embraces this feel they are important and God is eager to be with them if they will condescend to spare Him time.

 

[Tenchi]

My experience is much greater than yours.

How could you possibly know this? You know next to nothing about me.

But let me ask you, is this a conversation you’ve actually had with a person?

It is a distillation of nearly three decades of discipling men. In my many thousands of conversations with them, there have surfaced several common "counterfeits" of the love motive in their lives as disciples of Christ. The allegory, story, parable, conversation - whatever you want to call it - in my OP points to each of these counterfeits, suggesting a better motive: the love motive.

This is not done in real life. The who requires everyone who tells him anything to supply sufficient evidence will soon be alone.

I didn't say anything about requiring everyone to supply sufficient evidence for anything they might say, only for their assertions - especially those for which there is counter-evidence opposing their assertion. Regardless, your response here is an obvious deflection from my point: If you make an assertion you're logically obliged to justify it. Your statement above does not defeat, or even attempt to rebut, this point.

No you failed to support your position, a point you just said is required. You don’t live up to the standards you require of others.

I'm afraid that the more you go on, the clearer it is that you don't understand much of what I'm writing to you.

Do you deny that you've been contentious in your remarks in this thread?

Totally.

Lol! I figured this would be your answer. I'd have bet money it would be.

Do so. But you want to see an imaginary motivation do you don’t have to support your position. It’s the old ad hominem argument when you can’t answer questions.

- "I’ve known hundreds if not thousands if christians and never met one like this. By the way, they aren’t “walking with God.”

- "The story you imagined doesn’t represent God, by the way. No one who really walked with writing down these matters (the Bible) describe Him as you have done. None."

- "Do you think either of those humans described display godly love? I can assure they don’t. What is described is definitely human somewhat selfish desire. Gods love is nothing like that and no scripture describes it as such."

- "It’s untrue in man or God. It represents nothing real."

- "Not really. The story you invented has no match in human experience nor ought it to have. It is not a tale of godly love. God does not consider those thoughts ones of love nor do humans."

- "My experience is much greater than yours."

As for the charge of ad hominem, it's clear that you don't understand what an ad hominem is. My remarks have only addressed what is evident in your posts, addressing the character of your thinking that they express. I have made no statements about your person except in this regard, which cannot be avoided when you are pretending to an understanding of my words that your own constantly show that you don't really possess and attacking unpleasantly a position I don't hold but you are convinced that I do. I'm not using ad hominem to escape explanation of my OP; you simply seem incapable of actually understanding the responses I've given you and respond in ugly, fractious fashion when this is pointed out.

Now it’s an allegory?? You said it doesn’t have to resemble anything real and now it does.

Where did I write, "It (my OP) doesn't have to resemble anything real"? And my very first response to you indicated that my OP was an allegory.

From post #3: "No, it's an allegory of sorts, drawing out how people often substitute various things for love in their walk with God."

See? You don't seem to have a grasp of the basic content of the conversation in which you're trying to participate. Yikes.

ou said it doesn’t have to resemble anything real and now it does. It’s not an allegory. It’s an imaginary tale divorced from all reality.

Merely saying so doesn't make it so. In fact, as I've explained, the OP does have a great deal to do with reality - just not yours, apparently.

I examine writings in light of scripture. Your teaching isn’t there.

Which statement serves to do the exact opposite of what you think it does - especially when you offer no scripture in support of it.

Well since you admit it fits neither God no man, we agree.

And, again, writing such a thing reveals how little you understand what I'm communicating to you.

No one in the heavens or the earth thinks or talks as your imaginary exchange depicts. We agree.

No, we most certainly don't. Wow.

Ah, the ad hominem again

No, a statement of what is evident in nearly every one of your posts to this thread.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

How could you possibly know this? You know next to nothing about me.

You would be surprised how much you reveal of yourself when you write. Stories out of your imagination reveal the most.

It is a distillation of nearly three decades of discipling men. In my many thousands of conversations with them, there have surfaced several common "counterfeits" of the love motive in their lives as disciples of Christ. The allegory, story, parable, conversation - whatever you want to call it - in my OP points to each of these counterfeits, suggesting a better motive: the love motive.

You said the story you wrote has no match in real life. You changing your mind? The story is as egoistic as one can imagine.

I didn't say anything about requiring everyone to supply sufficient evidence for anything they might say, only for their assertions - especially those for which there is counter-evidence opposing their assertion. Regardless, your response here is an obvious deflection from my point: If you make an assertion you're logically obliged to justify it. Your statement above does not defeat, or even attempt to rebut, this point.

The above in assertion and you need to supply evidence according to your position.

I'm afraid that the more you go on, the clearer it is that you don't understand much of what I'm writing to you.

I understand very well what you write, deeper than you understand it. No one in the whole of the Kingdom of God who walked with God thinks as you wrote. here. No one. Since you think this is "deeper love" it shows that you understand less of what you wrote than they do.

Totally.

Lol! I figured this would be your answer. I'd have bet money it would be.



- "I’ve known hundreds if not thousands if christians and never met one like this. By the way, they aren’t “walking with God.”

- "The story you imagined doesn’t represent God, by the way. No one who really walked with writing down these matters (the Bible) describe Him as you have done. None."

- "Do you think either of those humans described display godly love? I can assure they don’t. What is described is definitely human somewhat selfish desire. Gods love is nothing like that and no scripture describes it as such."

- "It’s untrue in man or God. It represents nothing real."

- "Not really. The story you invented has no match in human experience nor ought it to have. It is not a tale of godly love. God does not consider those thoughts ones of love nor do humans."

- "My experience is much greater than yours."

As for the charge of ad hominem, it's clear that you don't understand what an ad hominem is. My remarks have only addressed what is evident in your posts, addressing the character of your thinking that they express.

Apparently the ad hominem argument is not clear. You right away spoke to my motives as though you know them, which is an ad hominem. I actually said my motives and that was not clear to you.

I have warned believers of thinking what you wrote is what God thinks about them. More than this I cannot do. If this is what you have told disciples to think that God thinks this of them, then I am sorry for them. They will need constantly being told this as there is no power in the untruth. The truth of what God thinks of a man is so powerful, one does not need to have it repeated.

Let's move on..