 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/22/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | Christians often use the term, "love," but what does really it mean? More importantly and more specifically, what how does the Bible define the love we should have for God and for each other?
In the "Gun Supporters" thread, the definition was put forth that to love another is "to ascribe infinite worth to them." Does this agree with Scripture, Reason, or Experience?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/22/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John. The full definition that was suggested on the other thread goes like this: Love is ascribing infinite worth to another at cost to oneself. I stole that from Greg Boyd’s sermon series on love. Let’s talk about it.
Here is another definition, stolen from Søren Kierkegaard: Love is helping someone else love God more.
Here are some things Jesus says about love:
1) Love the Lord your God with all your everything.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
3) Love your enemy.
Here is a cool Latin phrase about love, from a 15th c. Florentine philosopher: venus significat humanitatem [love makes us human].
Here is what the Beetles said about love: All you need is love.
Here is something Bjørk says about love: All is full of love.
See below for something Dostoyevsky says about love.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/22/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi John. The full definition that was suggested on the other thread goes like this: Love is ascribing infinite worth to another at cost to oneself. I stole that from Greg Boyd’s sermon series on love. Let’s talk about it.
I certainly did not intend to misrepresent the full definition. Thanks. I still am left wondering how this can be actually practiced, as "infinite worth" simply cannot be ascribed to every person. It seems clear to me that the only being who can have infinite (i.e., limitless) worth is God.
It seems to me that the biblical definition of agapao is unselfish goodwill to all, and that this has more to do with moral obligation than with sentimentality. I of course am quite open to criticism of this understanding.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 05/22/2003 11:52:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/22/2003 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Only God is truly infinite in and of himself. So I don't believe we can ascribe "infinite worth" to anyone. Nor do I believe that love "costs," us, because, in that sense, it would not be cost. WE would want to do it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 5/23/2003 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | |
John says:quote:
It seems to me that the biblical definition of agapao is unselfish goodwill to all, and that this has more to do with moral obligation than with sentimentality. I of course am quite open to criticism of this understanding.
Maybe I'm missing something, who offered love that equates to sentimentality?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/23/2003 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | It would seem that we're going to reach a dead-end if we try to define/describe the mechanics of love; the literal, "Okay, here's a piece of love. What exactly is it made of?"
If, however, we define love in view of what is happening when love is expressed (the movement of love), I think we have half a chance of arriving at a reasonable definition of love or, at least, being able to identify its many facets.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/23/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman
Nor do I believe that love "costs," us, because, in that sense, it would not be cost. WE would want to do it.
Iconoclast
Did Jesus want to die on a cross? Did it "cost" Him something?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/23/2003 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra, I thought Doc's definition had to do with "unsurpassable" worth rather than "infinite" worth?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 5/23/2003 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Christ provides us with the perfect definition: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Moreover, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). Essentially, love, “agape”, is an act of complete self-denial, or rather, self-sacrifice to another. Love in action is self-sacrifice, just as God’s love in action, Christ, gave up his own life for the world. Paul realizes such a notion in his letter to the church in Rome: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1). So much of what it means to love is culminated in simple relations with others, relations where the self is deprived of and/or denied so that true communion can be manifested. Clearly this is witnessed once again through the workings of the Holy Spirit, particularly in the creation of communion and the establishment of relations between God and man. The love of the Father is actualized unto man through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. In an ultimate sense then, the trinity epitomizes love in its purest and utmost form in that each person engages in a relationship of self-denial with the others thus producing a community or communion of untainted altruism.
-Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/23/2003 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra, I thought Doc's definition had to do with "unsurpassable" worth rather than "infinite" worth?
Okay, how is "unsurpassable" different from "infinite"?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/23/2003 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | MBD said:
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, who offered love that equates to sentimentality?
To my mind, to ascribe infinite worth to a human has to do with sentimentality (feelings) as it certainly cannot have to do with reason, for infinite worth only applies to God. It seems to me that "feelings of niceness" are basically how love is defined by those who hold to the "ascribe infinite worth" definition of love, based on their antipathy towards biblical moral standards, calling anyone who tries to uphold such as "legalistic." This has been my repeated experience with the so-called non-judgemental crowd here.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/23/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It would seem that we're going to reach a dead-end if we try to define/describe the mechanics of love; the literal, "Okay, here's a piece of love. What exactly is it made of?"
Of course we cannot define love as if it were mechanical; it self-evidently cannot ever in any case be mechanical.
However, if we do not give some definition to love, we are left with mere sentimentality, in which anything can be called "love," even telling people that no matter what they believe in, so long as they're nice, they will enter heaven.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 05/23/2003 11:26:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/24/2003 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
Okay, how is "unsurpassable" different from "infinite"?
Iconoclast
The logic for saying that we should ascribe "unsurpassable" worth to people comes from the view that this is exactly what God does. And if God ascribes "unsurpassable" worth to each and every one of us then for us to ascribe something less than this to each other is to deny God's valuing of other people.
Like you say God has "infinite" worth. Now if God chooses to lay down His life for each and EVERY one of us then this very act is an act of ascribing a truly immense amount of worth to us. It is considered "unsurpassable" because it seems like there is nothing more a God who has infinite worth could do in ascribing love to us. What would "surpass" God dying for us when it comes to ascribing worth to us?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/24/2003 09:00:41 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/24/2003 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | From the "Free Will" thread:
quote:
Tom
I think Doc’s three points are right on too. I really was gonna say the same things. Rats. Being rejected, hurt, and so sacrificing for love is not essential to love. It’s characteristic of love in relation to a fallen world. Love will sacrifice when it’s rejected. But it doesn’t follow necessarily from the essential nature of love that it must be rejected and wounded or that it must create the circumstances that either may or must lead to such rejection.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/24/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp
Okay, how is "unsurpassable" different from "infinite"?
Iconoclast
The logic for saying that we should ascribe "unsurpassable" worth to people comes from the view that this is exactly what God does. And if God ascribes "unsurpassable" worth to each and every one of us then for us to ascribe something less than this to each other is to deny God's valuing of other people.
Like you say God has "infinite" worth. Now if God chooses to lay down His life for each and EVERY one of us then this very act is an act of ascribing a truly immense amount of worth to us. It is considered "unsurpassable" because it seems like there is nothing more a God who has infinite worth could do in ascribing love to us. What would "surpass" God dying for us when it comes to ascribing worth to us?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/24/2003 09:00:41 AM
The problem is that if you try to actually apply this idea of ascribing infinite worth to another, you by definition cannot ascribe infinite worth to ALL people. To love one infinitely is to hate all others. What I'm saying is that of necessity we must value others relatively. Jesus said essentially this when he said:
¶ Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them,
26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:25-27 NASB)
Most commentators I am aware of say Jesus meant "love less than" when he said hate.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/1/2003 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
It seems to me that "feelings of niceness" are basically how love is defined by those who hold to the "ascribe infinite worth" definition of love, based on their antipathy towards biblical moral standards, calling anyone who tries to uphold such as "legalistic."
…
It seems to me that the biblical definition of agapao is unselfish goodwill to all, and that this has more to do with moral obligation than with sentimentality. I of course am quite open to criticism of this understanding.
Iconoclast
John, are you open to the criticism that your definition of love here is a legal definition?
You say love is a “moral obligation”. Moral obligation = based on law = legal definition = legalistic view of love.
Isn’t this a fair criticism? Isn’t it fair to say that you are espousing a legalistic view of love? Am I misunderstanding what you mean by “moral obligation”? Don’t you mean “based on law”?
By the way, do you really want God to “love” you because it is his moral obligation? Do you want your spouse to “love” you because it is her moral obligation?
Also, “ascribing unsurpassable worth” to another at a cost to oneself has nothing to do with sentimentality. Who is sentimental or has “feelings of niceness” towards an enemy? This definition is also about action. It is about actual behavior. To “ascribe unsurpassable worth” to another at a cost to oneself ultimately means to lay down your life for even your enemy.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/1/2003 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ike,
What I would like to see (if it's not too much to ask) is "faith that satisfies the mind, and inspires the heart." Your definition of love is clearly illogical and impractical (deny it as you might). And of course you would accuse me of being legalistic. Yada, yada, yada.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2003 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
John, are you open to the criticism that your definition of love here is a legal definition?
You say love is a “moral obligation”. Moral obligation = based on law = legal definition = legalistic view of love.
Isn’t this a fair criticism? Isn’t it fair to say that you are espousing a legalistic view of love? Am I misunderstanding what you mean by “moral obligation”? Don’t you mean “based on law”?
By the way, do you really want God to “love” you because it is his moral obligation? Do you want your spouse to “love” you because it is her moral obligation?
John
As I understand this (I think I've tried to make it clear in the other threads where we have discussed this issue of love vs. ethics), all are morally obligated to be loving. It is only right to love. I think perhaps I am being misunderstood to mean that no feelings are involved. That is definitely not what I mean. I just think that we need to guard against a sentimentalist sort of nicey-nice idea of "love" when we are speaking of the scriptural definition of love. I am basing my definition of love on what I have found the Bible itself says God's love is like--benevolence (or goodwill) toward all.
It does not seem clear to me that moral obligation is by definition legalistic, if motives (heart, ultimate intention) are kept foremost in mind. (See my next post).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/03/2003 02:57:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/2/2003 9:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps the following example will help make my point more clear.
I deeply and dearly love my wife and our four-month-old daughter. Because of this, there are certain actions I must do, just as there are certain actions I must NOT do.
The latter would include: Being faithful to both of them by: working to provide a living for them, changing diapers, taking the trash out, making sure their health is maintained as much as possible, teaching my daughter (especially when she gets a bit older), being affectionate with both my wife and my daughter, etc. In all these things, my motive must be (and is) love.
The former would include: Negating any of the above obligations (and privileges!) I must not be a bum or else I am not loving my wife and daughter. I must not be an adulterer (even in my heart) or else I am not loving my wife and daughter. I must not be indifferent to their needs or else I am not being loving. And so on and so forth.
Now of course I do not have to consciously think about either being loving or avoiding unloving actions as long as my heart (ultimate intention) is where it should be.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/03/2003 02:51:55 AM
Edited by - John Earp on 06/04/2003 12:18:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 6:38 AM (GMT -6) | | for what its worth (probably not much...) I agree with Electra that love is best UNDERSTOOD by a human being as:
One person helping another person love God more.
This definitely includes the example that Christ gives us that love is self-sacrificial.
But we also need to include that love always includes three. You, the neighbor and God. If all three are not involved, it is not Christian love. This is implicit in the idea of our highest way of relating as a person to another human person is to help them love God more.
For a further defense of this perspective, check out Kierkegaard's "Works of Love".
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/4/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Love is four...
Still processing...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|