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]

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?

If I could find any verification that Yahweh ever displayed what Paul depicts I would unhesitatingly say you are right. On the other hand I don't think Shakespeare, Pushkin, Virgil, Goethe or Baudelaire got their lines from God, nor was Keats the amanuensis of the Holy Spirit.

But I do consider David's beautiful lines: "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice...." reflect a sadness and a very human love of one man for another. The lines dignify humanity in the way that Michelangelo has raised man almost to the level of a god by his outstanding artistry. If love is sought, then David expresses it even more profoundly than Paul's idealism, for David speaks from the wounding of his heart.

[KingandPriest]

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?

If I could find any verification that Yahweh ever displayed what Paul depicts I would unhesitatingly say you are right. On the other hand I don't think Shakespeare, Pushkin, Virgil, Goethe or Baudelaire got their lines from God, nor was Keats the amanuensis of the Holy Spirit.

But I do consider David's beautiful lines: "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice...." reflect a sadness and a very human love of one man for another. The lines dignify humanity in the way that Michelangelo has raised man almost to the level of a god by his outstanding artistry. If love is sought, then David expresses it even more profoundly than Paul's idealism, for David speaks from the wounding of his heart.

Would you describe the works of Shakespeare, Pushkin, Virgil, Goethe or Baudelaire as "poetic miracles" as well?

What is the miraculous portion of a poetic miracle?

[MadeNew]

love is an understanding of that which is right and good.

"If you don't love God, you don't know God"
(Inspired quote from God, and 1 John 4:8)

[marco]

love is an understanding of that which is right and good.

"If you don't love God, you don't know God"
(Inspired quote from God, and 1 John 4:8)

And if you think you love God, you do not know what love means.

It is not possible for a human to love an entity that he/ she cannot know or see. It is wishful thinking or simple pretence.

[marco]

Would you describe the works of Shakespeare, Pushkin, Virgil, Goethe or Baudelaire as "poetic miracles" as well?

What is the miraculous portion of a poetic miracle?

Homer nods, of course, and only occasionally do great people reach the sublime. In Prague there is an astronomical clock and legend has it that its creator was blinded so that he would never again create anything as good. So miracles of creativity may not always be rewarded with human love.

But yes, I think that great works are, poetically, miracles of creation by beings of clay.
The wonderful part is the invisible element that speaks to the beholder and offers inspiration. Yes, it's a little bit like religious faith, isn't it? Except the miracle workers are mere humans.

[KingandPriest]

love is an understanding of that which is right and good.

"If you don't love God, you don't know God"
(Inspired quote from God, and 1 John 4:8)

And if you think you love God, you do not know what love means.

It is not possible for a human to love an entity that he/ she cannot know or see. It is wishful thinking or simple pretence.

So is it impossible for a person to love a person they are communicating via online dating?

In some cases, individuals claim to love someone they have never met or seen. A picture online hardly counts as knowing or seeing a person, would you agree?

What about a parent who claims to love an unborn child? Is this love not real either?

[Willum]

love is an understanding of that which is right and good.

"If you don't love God, you don't know God"
(Inspired quote from God, and 1 John 4:8)

And if you think you love God, you do not know what love means.

It is not possible for a human to love an entity that he/ she cannot know or see. It is wishful thinking or simple pretence.

So is it impossible for a person to love a person they are communicating via online dating?

In some cases, individuals claim to love someone they have never met or seen. A picture online hardly counts as knowing or seeing a person, would you agree?

What about a parent who claims to love an unborn child? Is this love not real either?

So on-line dating is wishful thinking?
So the person they have never met can not be shown to exist?
Is an unborn child a simple pretense?

God may very well be, and the love for such a thing a form of delusion.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Anyone can play "stump the dummy," K&P. See?

[marco]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.

So is it impossible for a person to love a person they are communicating via online dating?

It is certainly possible for love to arise from communication, photos, compliments and mutual examination of traits. The internet has thrown aside the starched formality of Victorian introductions and plunges people into sometimes explicit knowledge of how each works. What is important is that distance has been removed; invisibility does not apply; communication of flaws and strengths fuels love. Deception and delusion of course are highly possible.

In the case of God none of this applies except in a figurative fashion. The object of love is endowed with whatever tenderness the lover gives him. This is delusion.

In some cases, individuals claim to love someone they have never met or seen. A picture online hardly counts as knowing or seeing a person, would you agree?

You are coming close to what happens with people and God; there is no picture so one is invented. People talk of God's heart breaking over sin. Ridiculous of course. But a picture does inspire the stirrings of love or lust. [/quote]

What about a parent who claims to love an unborn child? Is this love not real either?[/quote]

The claim is just a claim. The person endows the future child with all the filial graces they can imagine and an emotion is stirred. Nonetheless this is pretence, a beautiful pretence perhaps. People who "love" God endow him with what they want to be there and they necessarily forget the bad bits in the OT. I do not call this love.

[OnceConvinced]

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.

Seriously. Go argue with Jesus. He is the one that said God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

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.

Then you clearly have never experience that deepness of emotions.

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.

Clearly you dont. Anyone can perform a loving action. It can be because
1) They are doing it out of guilt
2) They are going it out of fear
3) They are doing it out of a sense of duty
4) They are doing it to earn favours for the person they are doing it for.
5) They are doing it to earn brownie points from God
Or they could be doing it because they love that person, just like God gave his only son because he loved us.

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?

If you still do kind things for that person, does that mean that you dont love them? [/quote]

If you love them you MAY continue to do those acts. You may not give up. Or you may realise that your love is not being returned and decide to move on. However, that doesnt mean you cease to love the person.

I still have love for people from my past, but I no longer have dealings with them. It is no longer possible or even appropriate for me to perform loving actions for those people. That doesnt mean I no longer 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.

Not at all. My guess is they will continue to love that person. I love my parents but I couldn't bear to live with them!

Love just doesnt get switched off or on. If you had experienced that type of love yourself, you would know it doesnt. You dont just get to switch it off or on.

It seems its your definition which would fit the above scenario. In your world you go from loving someone to hating them just because you moved out of their house.

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.

Its love. Whether you like it or not. Its just love where actions cant be taken.

]
Did God love Adam before Adam was created?

I thought Id made that quite clear. YES! He knew us all before we were born. He loved us all before we were even knitted together in our mothers wombs. That is why when Christ died for mankind, he died for everyone living and those yet to come. Because God loved us even before we were born.

Do I have to quote all those verses again? I wont bother, because Im guessing you will just ignore them all again.

Ill just stick to Jesuss own words. For God so LOVED the world HE GAVE his only son.

Jesus should be the one we listen to here, shouldnt we? Not some guy from Iraq.

[Kenisaw]

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?

Before I can get around to do that I have to fix all the inaccurate musings that Christians are throwing out first...

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)

From a book whose words are supposedly inspired by a baseless creature. How trite.