Okay. In the context of the Christian faith, love is what the Bible defines it to be. Perhaps the most extensive definition you'll find in the Bible is from the passage I already gave you.
Then such a definiton of love is almost distinct from any notions I would communicate or have thus far extrapolated from my own or others usage of the word..."kind" was the only word I would have previously accepted to be a concept associated with love. Furthermore when I hear someone say they love someone then I must infer that they can never fall out of love with them since love never fails...I must also infer other things but I want to move onto to your other responses, however...
Well, if its a
Christian who says they love someone and they are doing so in the power of God, then, no, they ought not to "fall out of love". Here you're touching on the difference between what the world commonly thinks of as "love" and what God in His Word teaches us is love. Typically, when people, who are not operating under the biblical definition of love, speak of love, they are referring to a
feeling. The Bible, however, defines love primarily as an
action - often of a self-sacrificing nature - that seeks the benefit of another, not oneself.
To put it another way would you accept a definition of love to be precisely as it is given in that passage, nothing more, nothing less?
with such a definition a son who at any time did not act kindly towards his mother would therefore not love his mother for the duration of that unkindness...but if there exists one point at which his mother was not loved by him then at all points he must not have loved her since love never fails.
Um, I don't think so. When the Bible says "love never fails" it is setting a standard. If the son you mentioned ceased at some point to love his mother, then his love simply has not met the standard set by God. This, however, doesn't mean he has
never loved his mother, only that his love is not of the unfailing sort God desires his love to be.
Yeah, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater increases confusion. It seems to me you have enough of a definition of love to talk about it with reasonable clarity. Where meaning becomes "fuzzy" we can simply make some additional clarifications.
I have ambiguity, when I hear someone say that god loves me I haven't got the foggiest notion of what they're on about. I know that he isn't bothered whether I live or die since the same must have held for all those who have died...I also know he doesn't care if I suffer, since the same must be true for all those that have suffered and so on...
Really? You haven't
any idea
at all? Given your obvious intelligence, I think that's unlikely...
Has it occurred to you that your view of death and God's are different? God makes it pretty clear in the Bible that death is merely the doorway through which we pass into something far better than what we presently know (for those who are His children). For the Christian, death isn't a punishment; it is the gateway to reward! What, then, is evil about God allowing someone to die? If the Bible is true, then death is the beginning of really living! Mind you, I'm speaking of all this from the perspective of one who is born-again. The story is rather different for those who spend their life here with their back to God...
Death was never part of God's original creation. It wasn't until Adam and Eve made the wicked choice they did that death entered into the picture. That you and I continue to bear the consequence of their evil choice is testimony to the awfulness of Sin. It is also testimony to the reality of the spiritual law God has established that Sin always results in Death. We die, not because God isn't bothered by our death, but because we all sin and when we do, we die. In fact, the Bible says that "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked." As a result, He has made a way for all men to escape the death penalty of Sin. You can anticipate life after death just as joyfully as I do.
And God does care that you suffer. When our life here concludes, He will bring us to a place where we will never suffer again. But even now, God works in a myriad of ways to alleviate human pain and suffering. He doesn't eliminate all suffering but this by no means suggests He doesn't care about it.
It has been noted that pain has value. Ask a leper and he'll tell you why. Sin also produces suffering. For God to nullify all the suffering brought about by sin would render our choices to do good or evil moot. This would, essentially, annul our free will, which God, apparently, highly values.
No need to apologise...it is the response I would have been made were our roles reversed.
But suppose I was a big hairy prison convict sharing your shower cubicle and unknown to you I had just been released from solitary confinement, a bit slow witted, hadn't been fed for 3 days and was acting under the erroneous assumption that you had lots of food; and my request for you to show me love was given as an opportunistic plea for some badly needed food; remember this has been my first interaction with humans in three days...I might get a bit angry if you took my request the wrong way.
How responsible can I be for what is unknown to me? Besides, I think if the convict was merely hungry he would, slow-witted or not, simply ask for some food. If he did get angry at me for misunderstanding, he would, ultimately, have only himself to blame. I mean, really, why would he be asking for food in the shower?:o
The problem here is that my definition of love - especially as it pertains to my faith - is based entirely upon what the Bible says. I cannot give you a definition of love that doesn't reference Scripture.
Again this definition differs from other usages...and people have a tendancy to mix them up...I have no chance in making a point when the word "love" is used because people will equivocate.
I guess this is why the word "clarification" has come into use in our language. Rotten equivocators...
Sin doesn't just involve doing things that "miff" God. Sin destroys. It decimates lives both temporally and eternally. The disastrous effects of Sin ripple outward from their point of origin to harm many others. Sin darkens hearts, blinds minds, and cripples faith. For these reasons God hates sin and took the steps He did to free us from its devastating power and consequences.
See, your god is omnipotent...so presumably, unless your god is bounded in what he can do (whereby I would conceive of a god that can circumvent such bounds, and it would be a more powerful god than yours) he could make it such that "sin" didn't decimate or destroy...so I find this particular bit to be somewhat absurd given how your god is defined.
I think "absurd" might be a bit strong.
Sure, God could make it so Sin didn't result in death; He's more than powerful enough to do that, but that would necessarily require a lessening of His holiness. You see, God's method of dealing with Sin doesn't revolve around His
power but His
holiness. In light of His holy character, it is appropriate that the payment for Sin is death. The Bible says that "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." Apart from judging it, God will have nothing to do with Sin. This is His nature; God and Sin are anathema and so all who Sin must die.
Not quite. He paid the penalty for Sin with the perfect life of His Son. This was not so much a religious act as it was a legal or judicial one.
But I say your god levied the penalty...and he could just as easily not have levied it, Eithre that or he could just make the consequences of sin that little less destructive (given that sin (not doing as God says) has such consequences of course)
Yes, God made the Law of Sin and Death -- and He abides by it. I'm pretty sure you'd be quick as a lightning to point out and criticize if He didn't. But God is not only holy, He is also just. And that justice requires that He follow His own rules. Thus, rather than capriciously abrogating His own law, He fulfilled it on our behalf. This doesn't seem particularly absurd to me...
God never needed sacrifices, we did. He required payment for sin, but He never needed it.
You'll have to help me out here I'm a bit slow...how is require and need different in this context?
Yeah, sorry, I should have been clearer here. God's requirement in this instance was a judicial one. God Himself does not need the sacrifice of His Son. His law, however, does. If Christ were never sacrificed, God would not be in the least diminished. Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of God's law on
our behalf, it was not the fulfillment of God's personal need. If God needs anything, He cannot be God; for God, by definition, is without need.
Peace.
I'm noticing a little bit of off-topicness here and there, please go back to 
