What is Love?

[KingandPriest]

This topic is vitally important to those who accept and maintain a belief in Jesus Christ. As such, the topic of love must be understood before one can even attempt to understand or know God.

So in short, I ask:

I. Non-theistic definition of what is love?
or
Theistic definition of what is love?

II. What is the greatest expression of love one can have for another?

[marco]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

I understand what you say, but I have been through that before.
Remember the father that alliowed his son to go through a painful operation for the child's well being? That's definitely a loving father, wouldn't you agree?

Of course the father is showing love. This has nothing to do with God actually having his son tortured and killed ostensibly to appease himself.

If we leaf through the pages of the Bible it would be hard to see God's love except in situations that force us to accept something horrific as love. There is nothing horrific in a father allowing his son to be operated upon to have him well again. Love sometimes has to make terrible decisions, exemplified by Sophie's Choice. But these awful decisions come about through human helplessness. They don't apply to God, so that when pain is imposed it is God who is allowing it.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

Of course the father is showing love. This has nothing to do with God actually having his son tortured and killed ostensibly to appease himself.

Oh yes, it does.
In fact, it has everything to do with that. See if this makes it even clearer than I can say.
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODBible/do ... 53_1_VIDEO

If we leaf through the pages of the Bible it would be hard to see God's love except in situations that force us to accept something horrific as love. There is nothing horrific in a father allowing his son to be operated upon to have him well again. Love sometimes has to make terrible decisions, exemplified by Sophie's Choice. But these awful decisions come about through human helplessness. They don't apply to God, so that when pain is imposed it is God who is allowing it.

I think getting the whole picture in any given situation is vital.
Isn't that how puzzles work? See the link above.

[marco]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

Of course the father is showing love. This has nothing to do with God actually having his son tortured and killed ostensibly to appease himself.

Oh yes, it does.
In fact, it has everything to do with that. See if this makes it even clearer than I can say.

Well it won't make it clearer since I don't discuss with videos. If you have a point to make, then your own writing skills are the ones required.

I think getting the whole picture in any given situation is vital.
Isn't that how puzzles work? See the link above.

"I'll get my big brother to answer you," is an inadequate reply. Of course getting the whole picture is vital, but I don't want this taken literally, via video pictures.
Disappointing.

[OnceConvinced]

Love is a strong feeling of emotion, of desire, compassion, empathy, wanting whats best for another person.

Is wanting the best for someone whom you dont really know very well yet not love? That is what you suggested.

Wanting the best for someone is driven by feelings of love and compassion. Wanting the best for someone is not an action. It's a matter of the heart.

Of course it starts out as loveless. You dont just wave a magic want and create feelings of love.

Okay " so wanting the best for another person whom you might not know as well as fiancs know each other in the West doesnt demonstrate love. That means that you think your definition of love trumps others.

Why do you presume to hold your standard of love up as superior to other cultures idea of love?

I go with the standard definition of what love is whether it is superior or not. I go by what is generally accepted in our western culture. I am not interested in backward countries like Iraq and what they claim it to be. Those are people who think its ok to have sex with children and stone rape victims to death. They are hardly a benchmark for love.

As I have already pointed out. You can do loving actions and still hate a person.

You cannot love a person and refrain from doing loving actions.

Yes you can. I have already given you examples of how that is possible. Im not going to repeat myself.

I doubt [that the romantic feelings come, but they begin w/the actions in arranged marriages] very much. If they were being abused or mistreated, what makes you think that any amount of loving actions is going to result in loving feelings?

One would infer from your comments that all or at least most arranged marriages stay loveless (as you define the term love)

I cant see why you would infer that from my comments. If they are being treated well and happy, then feelings of love would naturally blossom. Love is something that develops. You tend to hear that a lot from people in arranged marriages and how they Grew to love their spouse.

and/or are abusive and remain that way. Dont you think thats a tad narrow-minded?

Why would you develop warm feelings towards those who abuse you? That only happens in cases where someone is being mentally manipulated in some way, is in denial of the abuse, or has come to believe that the abuse they are receiving is a form of love (as with children brought up in abusive homes).

Love does not need actions for it to be there.

I think that love must have loving actions.

I think it SHOULD and WOULD. However as per other posts I have shown you how there are circumstances where its not possible or even appropriate to show loving actions to someone you love.

If it doesnt then that love is lip-service.

So a family member who lives 1000s of miles away sends you a message in Facebook telling you they love you and youll think to yourself That person hasnt done anything for me lately, so why should I believe them?

If ones spouse is in Iraq then one should at least desire to do loving actions.

I have already agreed with this. It should be obvious to you then that just the desire to do loving actions is enough. Love should not be judged on a persons ability or inability to perform loving actions.

He loved us FIRST! The action came second.

Did God love Adam before Adam was created?

Did God love my children when I was ten " years before they were created?

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ephesians 1:1-23
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ...

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

God is omniscient. Christians claim he lives in a dimension of timelessness and that he knows all that is going to happen. He knows who he is going to create and what they are going to be like. He knows us before we were even born. So thus it would make sense to say that he can love us even thousands of years before our births. (Adam included)

The point is, that if love is an action than John 3:16 would not say "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son..."

It would say this: For God gave his only son so that he could love the world

But no, it very clearly states the love came first before the action.

You really need to stop arguing with me on this one and go argue with Jesus.

Do all the people who work in a homeless shelter or in a shelter for battered women not love them?

Why would you think that? You dont know their motives. They could be there out of a sense of guilt or obligation. A Christian for instance could be there just to earn brownie points from God. They may even want to impress other people at how caring and benevolent they are.

My guess though, is that most are there because they have compassion and empathy for those less fortunate than them. (feelings that already existed). It all stems from feelings, after all they dont necessarily know those people individually... unlike God when he sent his only son.

You are holding your view of love up as the absolute standard.

Nope, Im just trying to point out how love is about emotions and what is going on inside you and it is that love that drives us to perform loving acts. I make no claims that it is superior to any other ideas about love.

[JLB32168]

Wanting the best for someone is driven by feelings of love and compassion. Wanting the best for someone is not an action. It's a matter of the heart.

I disagree that it isnt an action.

I go with the standard definition of what love is whether it is superior or not.

Right " your definition is superior to that of the East. Yours places more emphasis on the way you make me feel, rather than the Eastern definition where it is my desire to make you feel happy.

I am not interested in backward countries like Iraq and what they claim it to be. Those are people who think its ok to have sex with children and stone rape victims to death. They are hardly a benchmark for love.

There are Iraqis and Middle Easterners in the West who are every bit as educated as their Western counterparts, but who think the same way. There are also many Westerners who think the same thing.

Are you more forward thinking than they are?

Yes you can.

Okay " so you feel one can love another and not do anything, but its still love. I find such love to be quite hollow.

I cant see why you would infer that from my comments. If they are being treated well and happy, then feelings of love would naturally blossom.

Okay " so doing kind things for people in and of itself isnt love, but having a deep feeling for someone, while not doing anything constitutes love.

I completely understand.

I think it SHOULD and WOULD. However as per other posts I have shown you how there are circumstances where its not possible or even appropriate to show loving actions to someone you love.

What if you love someone, but that person you love refuses to have anything to do with you? What then?[/quote]If you still do kind things for that person, does that mean that you dont love them? An autistic child or adult might find his parents to be insufferably uncomfortable to be around. Your definition would mean that the parents no longer love their child. Loving someone secretly, but failing to do anything to evince that love, is only love in the West. I dont find such love to be anything other than lip service.

So a family member who lives 1000s of miles away sends you a message in Facebook telling you they love you and youll think to yourself That person hasnt done anything for me lately, so why should I believe them?

If s/he has done something to show that love before then theres evidence for that but to just say I love you w/o every having shown it.

Thats not love " even for most Westerners.

Did God love my children when I was ten " years before they were created?

You avoided the question. You said that God love first and then did the actions. Did God love Adam before Adam was created?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 25 by marco]

Are you actually arguing AGAINST the love of God? God acts in precisely the way you describe, and you rhetorically ask - has this person love?

No, absolutely not.
God acts in this loving way.
1. Acting in behalf of the innocent.
e.g. - As the barbaric animal of a man tried to take the innocent little girl, the father, with the skills he had gained through years of pitching a ball at speeds of 90 mph, threw the wrench, striking the assailant in the head.

And killing newborns in a worldwide flood, even though they could not possibly be evil...Now that's acting in a loving way...

2. Punishing evil doers.
e.g. - He caused fire and sulphur to rain down on their heads.

Notice - Not taking advantage of, and torturing, or preying upon the innocent.

But not on the Nazis, who were butchering millions. No, the innocent died while the evil-doers had a free for all...

Your rationalizations fail, miserably.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

I understand what you say, but I have been through that before.
Remember the father that alliowed his son to go through a painful operation for the child's well being? That's definitely a loving father, wouldn't you agree?

It was your god creature's love that let Mengele and his bunch perform all sorts of painful operations on unwilling people? How about when he tried to sew two gypsy twins together to make siamese twins? Thanks to your god for allowing that...

[KingandPriest]

Why does the question of love include so much vitriol from non-theists?

Because of the inaccurate way you define it I suppose, and the fact that you think some baseless being is responsible for it. Maybe it's because so many Christians think it is an objective thing when it is a constantly changing, subjective concept. Who knows exactly.

Why is the first reaction of providing one's own definition of love, come along with disdain and hate towards the expression of love found in the bible?

You even have a Christian in this thread saying that the killings of your god's son is nonsense because there is no trinity. Why don't you cultists get your 20,000 sects together and figure out what is what before you worry about what atheists think...

Can a person describe love without attacking Christianity?

Can a Christian define love without crediting a baseless creature for inventing it?

So I take it you cannot describe love without attacking Christianity?

To your latter question, can a Christian define love without crediting a baseless creature for inventing it?
Sure, we can point to this definition: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

[marco]

Sure, we can point to this definition: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

This is a poetic miracle. Paul looked outside of himself at what would constitute Love and got it perfect. Generally he is too wrapped up in his arrogant humility to bother with such fiddly things. But didn't he do well here?

[KingandPriest]

Sure, we can point to this definition: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

This is a poetic miracle. Paul looked outside of himself at what would constitute Love and got it perfect. Generally he is too wrapped up in his arrogant humility to bother with such fiddly things. But didn't he do well here?

Since you describe the biblical description of love as a poetic miracle, does that mean you think Paul received this revelation from God?

Is this definition the revelation of a divine agency?

[Sorry, I couldn't resist.]