How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (4 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

The purpose of salvation, the purpose of grace is to give God's children the liberty to love. And find love. While I'm sure there are many exceptions to the rule, the "painting with a wide brush" view is that Paul's churches aren't filled with those where the Jewish legalistic nonsense that is demonstrated (probably unfairly) by the Pharisee characters in the Gospel, they are gentiles, they were pagans. The message of salvation was probably nice, but they started hanging out, the started getting a bit of belief, they found faith because they first found communities. Places where people took care of one another. The church and faith and all of that is dying out not because one doesn't any longer hear the idea of salvation, it is dying out because loving communities are dying out. Build those communities of love and faith will follow. Love is the greatest! Love is the message. Everything else is a function of love.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I like the KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 13. Instead of "love", it used "charity". I think "charity" takes a relatively abstract idea like "love" and makes it a bit more concrete.

I like love better! Here is a lyric that demonstrates why

Rob Fahey's original:

​

Remembering when times were bad​

Love is all we need and love was all we had​

Or KJV version:

Remembering when times were bad​

Charity is all we need and charity was all we had​

​

 

[Joe Bryant]

You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort.

It's tiring when you drop accusations like this and don't clarify.

Exactly what are you talking about here?

Moderators and I sometimes remove posts that are over the line for what we ask folks to post here.

Whether I agree with the point or not has zero to do with it. What exactly are you saying?

You asked me to drop it, so I did, but you still keep bringing it up. What direction do you want to go? This particular comment comes from removing a post of mine saying I have no control over you accepting/rejecting the way I use the board. You said I was putting words in peoples' mouths merely because I put a post on the board as I was catching up on my readings (hadn't been here for a few days) and it was right under some post I hadn't even read yet. You jumped to a huge conclusion which (shocker) was wrong and accused me of doing something I wasn't. I attempted to explain how I use this board, you doubled down and I responded. That response got removed. There was nothing wrong with it other than me not allowing your version of events to go uncorrected. I wasn't calling people names. I wasn't talking politics. Nowhere near your "line".

I apologize as it looked like a post you made was deleted with some others when it shouldn't have been.

I can assure you that you're wrong with the "You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with" accusation. That's not how it works here, Now or in the past.

It's disappointing you think I'm jumping to "huge conclusions (shocker)". I try pretty hard not to do that, but I will continue to be careful there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I like the KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 13. Instead of "love", it used "charity". I think "charity" takes a relatively abstract idea like "love" and makes it a bit more concrete.

I like love better! Here is a lyric that demonstrates why

Rob Fahey's original:

​

Remembering when times were bad​

Love is all we need and love was all we had​

Or KJV version:

Remembering when times were bad​

Charity is all we need and charity was all we had​

​

Thanks. I can see both sides of that one.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.

This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

​

Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

What word is that?

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,​

the Lamb who was slain,​

whose blood set us free​

to be people of God. (a random link)​

​

Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.

Thanks. Can you elaborate more on what you mean?

 

[Paddington]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.

This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

​

Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

What word is that?

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,​

the Lamb who was slain,​

whose blood set us free​

to be people of God. (a random link)​

​

Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.

I believe you are wrong. I believe that believers carry out the Commandments way more than non-believers. An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer. When a Christian tells what He believes is the truth of the Word of God, the Non Beliver sees him as hateful, intolerant and a bigot.

 

[Zow]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.

This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

​

Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

What word is that?

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,​

the Lamb who was slain,​

whose blood set us free​

to be people of God. (a random link)​

​

Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.

I believe you are wrong. I believe that believers carry out the Commandments way more than non-believers. An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer. When a Christian tells what He believes is the truth of the Word of God, the Non Beliver sees him as hateful, intolerant and a bigot.

Sigh.

 

[Paddington]

Zow, Isn't that word a Chinese (Cantonese) greeting?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.

This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

​

Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

What word is that?

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,​

the Lamb who was slain,​

whose blood set us free​

to be people of God. (a random link)​

​

Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.

I believe you are wrong. I believe that believers carry out the Commandments way more than non-believers. An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer. When a Christian tells what He believes is the truth of the Word of God, the Non Beliver sees him as hateful, intolerant and a bigot.

I don't know how one measures that sort of thing.

And why I asked @Navin Johnson to please elaborate on the post "I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'."

 

[Captain Cranks]

Navin and Paddington are both wrong in their generalizations. A truly devoted Christian will likely be a closer adherent to Jesus' teachings than the average non-believer, but I also see a lot of non-believers behaving in a more Christ-like manner than some Christians. Loving thy neighbor, practicing forgiveness, give to those in need, etc. aren't principles only taught in the Bible and some people do it better than others regardless of their faith.

 

[Captain Cranks]

When a Christian tells what He believes is the truth of the Word of God, the Non Beliver sees him as hateful, intolerant and a bigot.

I won't go as far to say the way many Christians treat homosexuals (and now trans) is hateful, but it's absolutely intolerant and bigoted based on the definition of those terms.

intolerance: Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

bigoted: Obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

 

[Zow]

Zow, Isn't that word a Chinese (Cantonese) greeting?

I don't know.

I do know that it was the more polite response to your post trashing non-believers after one (me) complimented you just a short while ago than what went through my mind when I read it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.

This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

​

Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

What word is that?

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,​

the Lamb who was slain,​

whose blood set us free​

to be people of God. (a random link)​

​

Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)

Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.

I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.

I believe you are wrong. I believe that believers carry out the Commandments way more than non-believers. An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer. When a Christian tells what He believes is the truth of the Word of God, the Non Beliver sees him as hateful, intolerant and a bigot.

Not all believers have the same definition of love. I'll also point out that when a Christian professes his/her beliefs in a hateful, intolerant and bigoted fashion, they SHOULD be seen that way. I've been accused of being many things in my interactions with non-believers and believers alike. Hateful, intolerant and a bigot aren't on the list. Approach, perception and tone are important. If this is a constant problem for you, maybe not project that onto others and look inward instead.

 

[dkp993]

An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer.

The arrogance and condescension of this statement is hard to fathom, yet you wonder why this viewpoint is considered hateful or intolerant. Unreal.

 

[Paddington]

Zow, Isn't that word a Chinese (Cantonese) greeting?

I don't know.

I do know that it was the more polite response to your post trashing non-believers after one (me) complimented you just a short while ago than what went through my mind when I read it.

This is what I am talking about. Me telling the truth of what I believe is not "Trashing" non Believers. Your perception is flawed. So, it can be said that non believers keep the Commandments more than believers and that's ok, but if I dare disagree with that statement and reverse it, then I am "trashing non believers?" Don't you see the double standard here? Just like a Muslim, Hindu, Buddist and think their religion of right and all others are wrong, but if a Christian thinks the same thing, the Christian is somehow a hateful, bigot. It's incorrect thinking. Be consistent in your thinking.

 

[fatness]

Just like a Muslim, Hindu, Buddist and think their religion of right and all others are wrong, but if a Christian thinks the same thing, the Christian is somehow a hateful, bigot. It's incorrect thinking. Be consistent in your thinking.

So you're saying Christians are victims?

 

[BobbyLayne]

1 Peter 3:9

Don't repay evil for evil. Don't retaliate with insults when people insult you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing. That is what God has called you to do, and he will grant you his blessing.

for unbelievers:

What does 1 Peter 3 9 mean?

Instead of repaying evil with evil or insult with insult, Peter commands those in Christ to "bless," or give a blessing. A blessing is a positive statement. For a Christian, it's a request that God would help another person to succeed in some way, that he or she would experience God's favor.

for believers:

A YouVersion content creator breaks down I Peter 3:9 beautifully

---

@Paddington - I'm going to resist the temptation to admonish and instead praise you. That little foot stomp was a rare glimpse at you being human. Petulant, yes, but still - for once you showed yourself to be something more than a BibleBot quoting scripture and referring everyone to post #1.

You may have me on ignore (hopefully someone quotes this and you might see this), but I would love to hear your testimony of how Christ has impacted your life in a personal way.

I ask this because I think it would be impactful to know your experiential evidence that Jesus is alive, and that the Holy Spirit dwells inside every believer.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Let’s take it down a few degrees here. It’s not helpful to anyone to resort to insults, name calling and pejoratives.

Let’s back up to I Corinthians 13.

A very familiar and adored passage. We hear it often included in wedding ceremonies. For the sake of context, I'll repost verses 4-8a and 13:

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.

Love never fails.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

---

Many took umbrage with @Paddington saying "An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer."

Hear me out on this - he has a point.

Paul, in his first epistle (letter) to the Corinthians, wrote about love - and in doing so, had to choose carefully what kind of love he meant.

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Let’s take it down a few degrees here. It’s not helpful to anyone to resort to insults, name calling and pejoratives.

Thank you.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Truth requires known/proven facts. Belief is a position beyond what the facts/evidence support. The two are not compatible and should never be used together. Beliefs are neither "true" or "false". If something can be shown to be "true" or "false" then it's not a belief. It's a fact or disproven assertion.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Let’s take it down a few degrees here. It’s not helpful to anyone to resort to insults, name calling and pejoratives.

Let’s back up to I Corinthians 13.

A very familiar and adored passage. We hear it often included in wedding ceremonies. For the sake of context, I'll repost verses 4-8a and 13:

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.

Love never fails.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

---

Many took umbrage with @Paddington saying "An unbeliever's definition of love is not the same as the definition of Love of a believer."

Hear me out on this - he has a point.

Paul, in his first epistle (letter) to the Corinthians, wrote about love - and in doing so, had to choose carefully what kind of love he meant.

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

Major word study nerd here. Spent about 18 months on the word "love" in the Bible. It's found between 300 and 1000 times (depending on translation....newer translations have more appearances for obvious reasons). It is an incredibly loaded word and it means tons of different things. Here's my attempt to boil it down to just a thought or two.

Love is that realization that every single thing that God puts on this earth has value and that we are wise to acknowledge that by raising those things above our personal. We humble ourselves to acknowledge that, at minimum, person x is put on earth just like we are for by a God who wants them to be here. Our humility lies in raising that person up and acknowledging their value simply because they are. Even if we can't see the value in them we have faith that God knows better and we respect that.

Who has what definition is really not important to me as I KNOW that if we ask a thousand different people to define love, we'll get 1000 different answers. Ask 1000 believers, you'll get 1000 different answers. There is no single definition believers universally accept.

 

[Paddington]

Just like a Muslim, Hindu, Buddist and think their religion of right and all others are wrong, but if a Christian thinks the same thing, the Christian is somehow a hateful, bigot. It's incorrect thinking. Be consistent in your thinking.

So you're saying Christians are victims?

Victims of what?

 

[Zow]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity. That's obviously false as those words were all part of the Greek before the Bible was even written. I do agree with you that Paddington is demonstrably wrong in his comments starting with the notion of a single definition of love. #1, there are multiple definitions and #2, its for absolute certain that not all Christians agree on a single one of those multiple definitions.

 

[Zow]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

I must be having a bad day. I don't see it. I see Paddington asserting that believers have A different definition of love from nonbelievers. IMO, that can be true or false given the definition those people are using. I don't subscribe to the notion that all believers use the same definition of love. I'll use myself as an example. As I posted above, has anyone here heard of love described that way?

Bobby shows multiple words supporting the notion that "love" has multiple different meanings. I don't see where Bobby is asserting that these definitions are unique to the Bible/Christianity though. I don't see Paddington making that assertion either (other than to say a nonbeliever's definition is different from a believer's definition. As pointed out, that may or may not be true depending on the individuals involved). He's suggested that believers have A single definition of love and I completely disagree with that.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

 

[dgreen]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I think this is what Bobby and Paddington are claiming. Bobby laid out the various Greek words that we translate as "love" to then point out that agape is a level of love that Christians should reach.

 

[Zow]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

 

[Zow]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I think this is what Bobby and Paddington are claiming. Bobby laid out the various Greek words that we translate as "love" to then point out that agape is a level of love that Christians should reach.

And I don't see it at all as exclusive to Christians. Selfless love can be attained by anybody under the definition of Agape.

 

[dgreen]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

Maybe. I'm certainly not going to make claims about what your love is or isn't towards your wife and kids. Personally, I'll say I fall short all the time. My attitude and actions towards my wife way too often is based on whether or not I like what she's doing. I am not very loving way too often. Hosea uses the metaphor of a cheating wife, and the husband, Hosea, being asked to repeatedly welcome her back because Israel, like the wife, repeatedly cheats on God and he repeatedly brought them back to him. Jesus says to love your enemy. I'm not familiar enough with other religions or life-philosophies to say whether or not they also call adherents to that level of love. Maybe they do. But, I'm very confident that both Christians and non-Christians regularly fail at that kid of love.

 

[Zow]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

Maybe. I'm certainly not going to make claims about what your love is or isn't towards your wife and kids. Personally, I'll say I fall short all the time. My attitude and actions towards my wife way too often is based on whether or not I like what she's doing. I am not very loving way too often. Hosea uses the metaphor of a cheating wife, and the husband, Hosea, being asked to repeatedly welcome her back because Israel, like the wife, repeatedly cheats on God and he repeatedly brought them back to him. Jesus says to love your enemy. I'm not familiar enough with other religions or life-philosophies to say whether or not they also call adherents to that level of love. Maybe they do. But, I'm very confident that both Christians and non-Christians regularly fail at that kid of love.

But this isn't the issue.

The issue is the myopic claim that only Christians can exude this love.

 

[-fish-]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

I must be having a bad day. I don't see it. I see Paddington asserting that believers have A different definition of love from nonbelievers. IMO, that can be true or false given the definition those people are using. I don't subscribe to the notion that all believers use the same definition of love. I'll use myself as an example. As I posted above, has anyone here heard of love described that way?

Bobby shows multiple words supporting the notion that "love" has multiple different meanings. I don't see where Bobby is asserting that these definitions are unique to the Bible/Christianity though. I don't see Paddington making that assertion either (other than to say a nonbeliever's definition is different from a believer's definition. As pointed out, that may or may not be true depending on the individuals involved). He's suggested that believers have A single definition of love and I completely disagree with that.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

Part of this issue is that agape love literally means something different to Christians, since the term has been incorporated into the teachings. There are writings referring to agape love such as that toward your spouse or child predating Christ, which simply meant an unconditional, unselfish love. In this context, it has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Relying solely on a religious etymology contributes to a myopic view that only believers of x can demonstrate y.

 

[Zow]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

I must be having a bad day. I don't see it. I see Paddington asserting that believers have A different definition of love from nonbelievers. IMO, that can be true or false given the definition those people are using. I don't subscribe to the notion that all believers use the same definition of love. I'll use myself as an example. As I posted above, has anyone here heard of love described that way?

Bobby shows multiple words supporting the notion that "love" has multiple different meanings. I don't see where Bobby is asserting that these definitions are unique to the Bible/Christianity though. I don't see Paddington making that assertion either (other than to say a nonbeliever's definition is different from a believer's definition. As pointed out, that may or may not be true depending on the individuals involved). He's suggested that believers have A single definition of love and I completely disagree with that.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

Part of this issue is that agape love literally means something different to Christians, since the term has been incorporated into the teachings. There are writings referring to agape love such as that toward your spouse or child predating Christ, which simply meant an unconditional, unselfish love. In this context, it has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Relying solely on a religious etymology contributes to a myopic view that only believers of x can demonstrate y.

So you're saying that the Christian faith took a non-religious or at least a non-Christian concept or term and adopted it as its own? No way...

 

[-fish-]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

I must be having a bad day. I don't see it. I see Paddington asserting that believers have A different definition of love from nonbelievers. IMO, that can be true or false given the definition those people are using. I don't subscribe to the notion that all believers use the same definition of love. I'll use myself as an example. As I posted above, has anyone here heard of love described that way?

Bobby shows multiple words supporting the notion that "love" has multiple different meanings. I don't see where Bobby is asserting that these definitions are unique to the Bible/Christianity though. I don't see Paddington making that assertion either (other than to say a nonbeliever's definition is different from a believer's definition. As pointed out, that may or may not be true depending on the individuals involved). He's suggested that believers have A single definition of love and I completely disagree with that.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

Part of this issue is that agape love literally means something different to Christians, since the term has been incorporated into the teachings. There are writings referring to agape love such as that toward your spouse or child predating Christ, which simply meant an unconditional, unselfish love. In this context, it has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Relying solely on a religious etymology contributes to a myopic view that only believers of x can demonstrate y.

So you're saying that the Christian faith took a non-religious or at least a non-Christian concept or term and adopted it as its own? No way...

Well, not only that, but attempting to making it exclusive to create the argument that others are incapable of something.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that Christ provided a set of instructions on how to treat other humans, which he fully acknowledged all people are capable of. The idea that you can only act toward other people consistently with those instructions by becoming a believer is where this discussion hit a wall. It does come off as condescending and exclusive, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? You can be the greatest person in the world and sacrifice yourself for others, but you didn't say the magic words so you're not allowed into the club.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The Koine Greek has four words which can be translated "love" in english.

1) Philia, 2) Eros, 3) Storge, and 4) Agape

We could think of these different types of corresponding love: Friendship, Sensuality, Affection, and Charity.

1. Phileo love is friendly. It is the natural love one has for their friends, especially close friends. The city of brotherly love derives its name from this - Philadelphia.
2. Storge love is familial. It is the natural love one has for their family. It is the love that comes naturally when you spend enough time with someone or grow up with someone.
3. Eros is sexual love. It comes from being sexually attracted to someone. This love is demonstrated in Song of Songs. The word erotic derives from this root.
4. Agape love is sacrificial and selfless. It does not expect love in return. It is the love God the Father has toward us.

I Corinthians 13 is agape love. It is the love that describes why God sent his only son to the cross. We love him, because he first loved us.

Hope that helps in some small way.

I'm not so certain that these concepts of "love" are exclusive to the Bible and/or Christianity. In other words, I see no impediment to a non-believer espousing these four types of love and, therefore, Paddington did not have a meaningful point.

Maybe I missed it, but I am not sure anyone is saying these concepts are exclusive to the Bible/Christianity.

That's how I interpret Bobby's slight defense of Paddington's claim (where Bobby says that Paddington has a point). See the full post from the one I quoted.

I must be having a bad day. I don't see it. I see Paddington asserting that believers have A different definition of love from nonbelievers. IMO, that can be true or false given the definition those people are using. I don't subscribe to the notion that all believers use the same definition of love. I'll use myself as an example. As I posted above, has anyone here heard of love described that way?

Bobby shows multiple words supporting the notion that "love" has multiple different meanings. I don't see where Bobby is asserting that these definitions are unique to the Bible/Christianity though. I don't see Paddington making that assertion either (other than to say a nonbeliever's definition is different from a believer's definition. As pointed out, that may or may not be true depending on the individuals involved). He's suggested that believers have A single definition of love and I completely disagree with that.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

Part of this issue is that agape love literally means something different to Christians, since the term has been incorporated into the teachings. There are writings referring to agape love such as that toward your spouse or child predating Christ, which simply meant an unconditional, unselfish love. In this context, it has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Relying solely on a religious etymology contributes to a myopic view that only believers of x can demonstrate y.

Right. I already pointed out that these words already existed prior to the times of the Bible. Words change meaning all the time and they mean different things to different people depending on context. To a Christian, agape has a definition and it's most certainly different in some ways from what it was prior to Biblical teachings, but it's as close as the Greek could get to describing what the love between God and his follower is. Context and empathy are critical when doing word studies and having convos on those words.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

 

[-fish-]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

 

[Zow]

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

 

[dgreen]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I think this goes well with my understanding of the Hebrew word (אָהֵב - ahav) often translated "love". That word appears in treaties/covenants in that part of the ancient world to basically mean loyalty/fidelity and is contrasted with the idea of rebellion. To "love" the king was to be loyal to him and to him only. To "love" God is, in the analogy of kings in the ancient world, to have him as your king and to live your life as your king wants you to live it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

I'll reply to both since it seems you missed an important belief I expressed. I don't think Christians can express agape love either. I believe it is something to aspire to and I believe that aspiration is modeled in God's love for us. It requires a perfect application we simply aren't capable of as broken people. You won't find this in definitions and the like as it is a BELIEF of mine that I have come to embrace as I did the word study with my dad and his men's group. Where the dictionary definitions go awry IMO is in expressing the purity and consistency of unconditional love or sacrificial love. Agape love is loving EVERY SINGLE TIME in lieu of other emotions.

And again, I don't think that's what Bobby is saying, but he can chime in for himself. Paddington clearly isn't saying it as he seems to believe that all believers have the same definition of love which is different from non-believers. You can try and get him to explain that further, but on it's face, it's pretty wrong.

I will say @Fish "love" in the Bible is most definitely a concept. I think of it that way significantly more than as a single meaning word as you can see in my attempt to define it above.

 

[dgreen]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

I'll reply to both since it seems you missed an important belief I expressed. I don't think Christians can express agape love either. I believe it is something to aspire to and I believe that aspiration is modeled in God's love for us. It requires a perfect application we simply aren't capable of as broken people. You won't find this in definitions and the like as it is a BELIEF of mine that I have come to embrace as I did the word study with my dad and his men's group. Where the dictionary definitions go awry IMO is in expressing the purity and consistency of unconditional love or sacrificial love. Agape love is loving EVERY SINGLE TIME in lieu of other emotions.

And again, I don't think that's what Bobby is saying, but he can chime in for himself. Paddington clearly isn't saying it as he seems to believe that all believers have the same definition of love which is different from non-believers. You can try and get him to explain that further, but on it's face, it's pretty wrong.

I will say @Fish "love" in the Bible is most definitely a concept. I think of it that way significantly more than as a single meaning word as you can see in my attempt to define it above.

Also, modern dictionaries are reflecting a word's current usage. What you are doing is trying to explain how you think the Biblical authors used the word. Those can easily be different things. The only thing that really matters is what the original author intended it to mean. How we use the word is irrelevant.

 

[Zow]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

I'll reply to both since it seems you missed an important belief I expressed. I don't think Christians can express agape love either. I believe it is something to aspire to and I believe that aspiration is modeled in God's love for us. It requires a perfect application we simply aren't capable of as broken people. You won't find this in definitions and the like as it is a BELIEF of mine that I have come to embrace as I did the word study with my dad and his men's group. Where the dictionary definitions go awry IMO is in expressing the purity and consistency of unconditional love or sacrificial love. Agape love is loving EVERY SINGLE TIME in lieu of other emotions.

And again, I don't think that's what Bobby is saying, but he can chime in for himself. Paddington clearly isn't saying it as he seems to believe that all believers have the same definition of love which is different from non-believers. You can try and get him to explain that further, but on it's face, it's pretty wrong.

I will say @Fish "love" in the Bible is most definitely a concept. I think of it that way significantly more than as a single meaning word as you can see in my attempt to define it above.

Also, modern dictionaries are reflecting a word's current usage. What you are doing is trying to explain how you think the Biblical authors used the word. Those can easily be different things. The only thing that really matters is what the original author intended it to mean. How we use the word is irrelevant.

But this wasn't even an original Christian word!



ETA: I'm going to stop being flabbergasted by this as @-fish- already hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the what's happening here that a believer is simply taking a secular word and defining it differently so as to claim it only applies to a believer. This shouldn't be surprising to me.

 

[dgreen]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

I'll reply to both since it seems you missed an important belief I expressed. I don't think Christians can express agape love either. I believe it is something to aspire to and I believe that aspiration is modeled in God's love for us. It requires a perfect application we simply aren't capable of as broken people. You won't find this in definitions and the like as it is a BELIEF of mine that I have come to embrace as I did the word study with my dad and his men's group. Where the dictionary definitions go awry IMO is in expressing the purity and consistency of unconditional love or sacrificial love. Agape love is loving EVERY SINGLE TIME in lieu of other emotions.

And again, I don't think that's what Bobby is saying, but he can chime in for himself. Paddington clearly isn't saying it as he seems to believe that all believers have the same definition of love which is different from non-believers. You can try and get him to explain that further, but on it's face, it's pretty wrong.

I will say @Fish "love" in the Bible is most definitely a concept. I think of it that way significantly more than as a single meaning word as you can see in my attempt to define it above.

Also, modern dictionaries are reflecting a word's current usage. What you are doing is trying to explain how you think the Biblical authors used the word. Those can easily be different things. The only thing that really matters is what the original author intended it to mean. How we use the word is irrelevant.

But this wasn't even an original Christian word!

I don't understand your point.

 

[Zow]

And I want to be clear. I don't think even Christians can display agape love. It requires consistency that we simply don't have. It IS, however, how God loves us. <-----This is my belief.

To me, this discussion isn't all that different than the "agnostic" vs "atheist" discussion. When someone says "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I can't know one way or the other" but labels themselves "atheist", that's incorrect. They are agnostic, and honestly the most logical in their position. This isn't all that different. Bobby brings up the general definitions of each of the words, but they all have bits and pieces of each other that are the same. To the point where, IMO, this sort of discussion is a fruitless one outside of academic study.

Thanks for this. So for the sake of this discussion, it's less of a word than a concept, and the concept is defined by the religious belief. So "non-believers can't achieve agape love" just means "since I am defining this by an acceptance of Christian belief" therefore it is impossible for anyone else to achieve.

I will point out I don't see how a nonbeliever (I'm assuming we're talking about those that lean towards agnosticism and/or atheism) would ever get to Agape love though. That would be completely nonsensical to them I'd think.

I should hope that I feel agape love towards my wife and kids but, alas, I'm a non-believing heathen per a few in this thread.

In the greek that's the "storage" love. Thus my point. Agape is pretty specific to a kind of love believers see between themselves and their God. It's pretty spiritual and specific. That's why there's such a word study around "love" in general. It would make zero sense for someone who doesn't believe in God to ascribe to a love that is unique between God and a person.

According to dictionary.com:

agape. Original Greek: ἀγάπη (agápē) Agape is often defined as unconditional, sacrificial love. Agape is the kind of love that is felt by a person willing to do anything for another, including sacrificing themselves, without expecting anything in return.

Don't see anything about storage or anything inherent to religious in this definition that allows Paddington and Bobby to champion it as some exclusive believer trait. By a plan reading it seems attainable from a parent to a child most specifically (as I love them and would run into traffic for them if necessary no matter how crazy they drive me).

I'll reply to both since it seems you missed an important belief I expressed. I don't think Christians can express agape love either. I believe it is something to aspire to and I believe that aspiration is modeled in God's love for us. It requires a perfect application we simply aren't capable of as broken people. You won't find this in definitions and the like as it is a BELIEF of mine that I have come to embrace as I did the word study with my dad and his men's group. Where the dictionary definitions go awry IMO is in expressing the purity and consistency of unconditional love or sacrificial love. Agape love is loving EVERY SINGLE TIME in lieu of other emotions.

And again, I don't think that's what Bobby is saying, but he can chime in for himself. Paddington clearly isn't saying it as he seems to believe that all believers have the same definition of love which is different from non-believers. You can try and get him to explain that further, but on it's face, it's pretty wrong.

I will say @Fish "love" in the Bible is most definitely a concept. I think of it that way significantly more than as a single meaning word as you can see in my attempt to define it above.

Also, modern dictionaries are reflecting a word's current usage. What you are doing is trying to explain how you think the Biblical authors used the word. Those can easily be different things. The only thing that really matters is what the original author intended it to mean. How we use the word is irrelevant.

But this wasn't even an original Christian word!

I don't understand your point.

Forget it.

 

[dgreen]

@Zow I'm seriously interested in this conversation, but I'm honestly not sure what the disagreement is about. Maybe we are disagreeing on where meaning lies? Does meaning lie in the words themselves, the author's intention by using the words he used, or the reader who is hearing the message? I contend meaning lies in the author's intention. Their words mean what they intend them to mean. Maybe you are arguing that meaning lies in the word itself? If someone uses a word, their message is bound by the definition of that word even if they intend to convey some different message?

 

[Zow]

@Zow I'm seriously interested in this conversation, but I'm honestly not sure what the disagreement is about. Maybe we are disagreeing on where meaning lies? Does meaning lie in the words themselves, the author's intention by using the words he used, or the reader who is hearing the message? I contend meaning lies in the author's intention. Their words mean what they intend them to mean. Maybe you are arguing that meaning lies in the word itself? If someone uses a word, their message is bound by the definition of that word even if they intend to convey some different message?

@-fish- explained the issue better than I did.

My initial point was that Paddington's point was a terribly condescending and myopic one, that Bobby's point claiming that Paddington has a point is flawed or weak because Agape love exists outside the Bible and can logically be espoused (or never attained) by believers and non-believers alike, and then my point was that redefining the word to fit some Christian definition so that a believer can appropriate and champion the word as their own to flow back in to Paddington's original point of condescension is an illogical and grossly unfair point to advance.

 

[-fish-]

You know those guys with portable amps that stand outside concerts and sporting events screaming at everyone that they're going to hell? Does anyone think those guys have ever converted anyone? Are they following Jesus' teachings about spreading the good word?

 

[Captain Cranks]

You know those guys with portable amps that stand outside concerts and sporting events screaming at everyone that they're going to hell? Does anyone think those guys have ever converted anyone? Are they following Jesus' teachings about spreading the good word?

I'd venture a guess that at least one of us here would say yes.

 

[Zow]

You know those guys with portable amps that stand outside concerts and sporting events screaming at everyone that they're going to hell? Does anyone think those guys have ever converted anyone? Are they following Jesus' teachings about spreading the good word?

Do your local courthouses have religious groups huddled outside of them offering prayer, etc.?

Pretty much every courthouse here in northern AZ will have at least one religious group outside of it during normal court hours. Most of them are Jehovah's Witnesses I believe. They aren't doing anything wrong and don't cause a problem, but I've seen like maybe 2 people ever stop to talk with them and I'm in a court almost daily here since 2008 so I've walked by them 100s to thousands of times.

I always wonder just how many people they are able to "reach" given all that effort though I suppose that if you truly believe what you're preaching then just reaching one person justify that massive amount of time. Reminds me of the guy screaming with a microphone at crows type thing - though much less invasive.

ETA: Come to think of it, I did have a client once stop and do a little prayer with the religious guy there, and it calmed my client so that was cool.