What is Love?

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:09 pm

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?

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:00 pm

KingandPriest wrote:
marco wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:

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.]

I thought you quoted that passage because I asked if a Christian can define love without crediting a baseless creature for inventing it....Hmmm....

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:01 pm

MadeNew wrote: 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)

Great example of how to use two other subjective concepts to define the first subjective concept.

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:05 pm

KingandPriest wrote:
marco wrote:
MadeNew wrote: 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?

You "cannot" know or see someone you are dating online? You "cannot" know or see an unborn child? Fascinating. You'll have to explain this one a little deeper for me...

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:07 pm

Kenisaw wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:
marco wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:

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.]
I thought you quoted that passage because I asked if a Christian can define love without crediting a baseless creature for inventing it....Hmmm....

Where does this passage credit anyone or anything. It was marco who described it as a poetic miracle. By definition a miracle includes a divine agency. Have I cheapened the definition of the word miracle too when I asked marco a follow up question?

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:19 pm

KingandPriest wrote:
Kenisaw wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:
marco wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:

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.]
I thought you quoted that passage because I asked if a Christian can define love without crediting a baseless creature for inventing it....Hmmm....
Where does this passage credit anyone or anything. It was marco who described it as a poetic miracle. By definition a miracle includes a divine agency. Have I cheapened the definition of the word miracle too when I asked marco a follow up question?

O_o

I guess I will assume this was an attempt at humor. Given that you specifically posted that bible passage in post 48 in response to my question (listed again in post 60) about defining love without a god creatures help, only to turn around and wonder if it is a revelation from some kind of divine critter in your musings with Marco.

Pardon me if I don't chuckle.

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:53 pm

[Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

Marco introduced the term miracle in his post. This promted me to question why he would attribute these words with a divine agency.

I believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write such words. I was shocked to see a non-theist describe the words as a miracle, but the truth can often be shocking.

marco · Post by **marco** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:32 pm

KingandPriest wrote: [Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

Marco introduced the term miracle in his post. This promted me to question why he would attribute these words with a divine agency.

I believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write such words. I was shocked to see a non-theist describe the words as a miracle, but the truth can often be shocking.

Pliny 2000 years ago suggested that "with iron, wars will occur and not only hand-to-hand but from a distance with winged weapons launched from engines." Poor old Pliny never knew Jesus but here he is talking like a prophet.

The word "miraculum" from "mirus", wonderful, was commonly used among the Romans to describe a wonder, as when the boy Servius Tullius seemed to have flames encircling his head, suggestive of kingship. The wonder is that Paul, who is often repulsive in his dictates, managed to speak so well of love. But if non-theists can do wonders, I suppose occasionally theists can too. The devil has no monopoly on fine tunes.

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:45 pm

marco wrote:The devil has no monopoly on fine tunes.

Where did this come from?
How do you get from talking about miracles and the history of the word, to the devil?

When defining love, do you often include the devil in your definition?
If so, why?

marco · Post by **marco** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:14 am

KingandPriest wrote:
Where did this come from?
How do you get from talking about miracles and the history of the word, to the devil?

When defining love, do you often include the devil in your definition?
If so, why?

Hello KingandPriest. I will have to supply footnotes, as TS Eliot did with most of his obscure poetry.

I was being self-deprecating, and regarding non-theists as being on the side of Satan. There is a saying: He who is not FOR me is AGAINST me. And Virgil cleverly says that its an easy descent into hell.

Some definitions of love would include indulging in evil. Love covers many virtues and vices. There is of course Bosie's famous: "Love that dare not speak its name," which landed Wilde in hot water. Love that lives in Christian texts is hardly recognisable as anything other than strong intention, hope or even delusion.

KingandPriest · Post by **KingandPriest** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:37 am

marco wrote:
KingandPriest wrote:
Where did this come from?
How do you get from talking about miracles and the history of the word, to the devil?

When defining love, do you often include the devil in your definition?
If so, why?

Hello KingandPriest. I will have to supply footnotes, as TS Eliot did with most of his obscure poetry.

I was being self-deprecating, and regarding non-theists as being on the side of Satan. There is a saying: He who is not FOR me is AGAINST me. And Virgil cleverly says that its an easy descent into hell.

Some definitions of love would include indulging in evil. Love covers many virtues and vices. There is of course Bosie's famous: "Love that dare not speak its name," which landed Wilde in hot water. Love that lives in Christian texts is hardly recognisable as anything other than strong intention, hope or even delusion.

Thanks for the clarification, I was beginning to wonder.