What is love?

[Loudmouth]

It was a loving God that created Andromeda . . .

We need more than assertion. We need actual verifiable facts and mechanisms.

There are so many deviations from that in the examples of human history that we have from the Spartans to the Nazis.

The Nazis killed their children and wives? Really?

How well did Nazism do in the world? Are people still using the philosophy of Sparta?

There is no natural reason to protect the old, the sick or the weak.

That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

The values that are attached to cultural decisions have a religious or non religious context and a godless context will very often ration the right to life.

One of the most Christian states in the US is Texas, and they have the highest execution rate.

Also, since you brought up the Nazis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

The Nazis thought God was with them.

Jesus was the physical evidence while on earth. The church is the evidence in his absence.

So you don't have any evidence. Physical evidence you don't have is not evidence.

 

[[serious]]

Love is an extremely complex biological construct incorporating facets of social convention. the ultimate goal, as with all selectable systems, is the avoidance of injury or destruction of our prodigy on an ongoing basis.

to put it more simply, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

 

[razzelflabben]

Before people shift this into the philosophy or theology forums please hear me out.

The Reductionist Materialist view of reality will attempt to explain this in one way while Christians and many normal people definitely think of it practically in an entirely different way. I wish to explore this discrepancy between usage and scientific analysis as a way of exploring the limits of the scientific methods, as an example of its misuse and as a platform to discuss the questions raised by its inadequacy.

It seems to me there are 3 distinct ways to describe the state of "being in love".

1) Reductionist Materialism: Will describe the biological systems involved , heightened levels of specific chemicals in specific areas etc
2) Humanism: This label may not be the best to apply and maybe the discussions related to this OP will provide me with a better one. The point of this perspective is that while it possesses a broader of view of what love is than 1) it cannot be regarded as a specifically religious answer to the understanding of love. This approach to describing the love state recognises that the software of our humanity is just as important as the hardware and that having all the biological conditions being in place may not necessarily result in love in all individuals in precisely the same circumstances. It explains this in terms of the internal logic of subjective systems that interact with these biological systems to produce different results in different cases. In this model science can inform the discussion setting limits and capabilities of what love is but it cannot give a complete account of causation as much of that causation is unobservable or individually unique.
3) Spiritual: A Spiritual explanation for love cites an otherworldly source for the capacity to love in the worst of circumstances e.g. Christ on the cross. Many Iraqi Christians have exhibited this kind of love. Forgiving those who burnt their houses and killed their friends and relatives and praying for their enemies for instance. There are others who have been selfless examples of love ministering to the suffering e.g. Mother Theresa or victims of cruel tyrannies e.g. Corrie Ten Boom who have continued to exhibit the qualities of loving when biological and even subjective reasoning would appear to give no cause for that to continue to be the case.

Reductionist Materialism would in my view reduce love to some kind of animal state. Humanism would make it a merely human phenomena describable in human terms and the Spiritual explanation would require a supernatural source for love.

where I think you have missed a lot, I also will say that I think that is the problem with trying to discuss love. Love is so large and complicated of a thing that trying to reduce it into "definitions" is really too much to ask of us. That being said, I think I understand your cited differences and for the most part agree.

The object of love varies considerably but I wish in the main to consider love as a personal phenomena in this OP rather than of ideas or systems for example. So love of a human person or a god or God would qualify in that respect.

So the questions:

1. What is love?

1. Love is a many faceted thing....lol just had to say it. Love can be anything from something we find pleasing, to a deep and abiding sacrificial caring for another. In fact, according to scripture, affection for someone leads to Love. II Peter 1:7.

When talking about Love, I always go with the Biblical version as it seems to encompass everything good about love without confusing as as to the varying meanings. The best definition I can find for that Love, is to put another above self in an act of humility, creating a covenant, whose intent/purpose is reconciliation/restoration. In fact, I find that those who are looking for one of the other two kinds of love you mention, are in their heart of hearts, looking for this unconditional love we see in the bible and in fact, the bible itself tells us that all men are looking for that love. Prov. 19:22

2. Which perspective do you take and why?

see above. The other reason I take this perspective is because God has called me to study Biblical love in depth and teach others what I have learned. It has become a full time ministry and my learning never stops, simply because the topic is that massive.

3. Why would you consider the other perspectives incomplete or untenable?

I guess the main reasons would be 1. they are included in Biblical Love, 2. Biblical Love is God's Love, thus absolute wisdom 3. everyone wants to be loved with a Biblical love, thus making it superior and 4. it simply is fascinating to study and learn just what that love is. I might also add 5. Biblical Love is healing, strengthening, it changes situations and transforms lives.

Well that is a few reasons, but let me also point out that Biblical Love and religious love are not at all the same thing, so maybe adding a fourth category would be good? Thanks for the question and post

 

[faroukfarouk]

where I think you have missed a lot, I also will say that I think that is the problem with trying to discuss love. Love is so large and complicated of a thing that trying to reduce it into "definitions" is really too much to ask of us. That being said, I think I understand your cited differences and for the most part agree.

1. Love is a many faceted thing....lol just had to say it. Love can be anything from something we find pleasing, to a deep and abiding sacrificial caring for another. In fact, according to scripture, affection for someone leads to Love. II Peter 1:7.

When talking about Love, I always go with the Biblical version as it seems to encompass everything good about love without confusing as as to the varying meanings. The best definition I can find for that Love, is to put another above self in an act of humility, creating a covenant, whose intent/purpose is reconciliation/restoration. In fact, I find that those who are looking for one of the other two kinds of love you mention, are in their heart of hearts, looking for this unconditional love we see in the bible and in fact, the bible itself tells us that all men are looking for that love. Prov. 19:22 see above. The other reason I take this perspective is because God has called me to study Biblical love in depth and teach others what I have learned. It has become a full time ministry and my learning never stops, simply because the topic is that massive. I guess the main reasons would be 1. they are included in Biblical Love, 2. Biblical Love is God's Love, thus absolute wisdom 3. everyone wants to be loved with a Biblical love, thus making it superior and 4. it simply is fascinating to study and learn just what that love is. I might also add 5. Biblical Love is healing, strengthening, it changes situations and transforms lives.

Well that is a few reasons, but let me also point out that Biblical Love and religious love are not at all the same thing, so maybe adding a fourth category would be good? Thanks for the question and post

razzelflabben:

Here's good perspective also:

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4.10).

 

[HitchSlap]

razzelflabben:

Here's good perspective also:

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4.10).

Human sacrifice, now that's a gesture. Is there an app for that?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Human sacrifice, now that's a gesture. Is there an app for that?

You are on a Christian site, and the truth of Christ dying for sinners at the Cross is likely to be important and precious on a site where Christians meet.

 

[razzelflabben]

razzelflabben:

Here's good perspective also:

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4.10).

One of the very first things that struck me as I began to study Love was how Love isn't just an action, or a feeling, it isn't even just an attitude, but it is all these and more. This passage is a wonderful example of that. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that we can give to God that could demonstrate to Him and knowledge of our Love, and yet, Christ could and did. He gave Himself, a willing sacrifice, He left behind His royal throne, His God nature, His beauty, His face to face communion with God the Father, He left His home, His comforts, His rights, to give us, His enemies, a chance to be Loved and know and understand what that Love really is all about. In the definition I presented, one of the most overlooked aspects is the humility of Love. Biblical Love's core is humility, making pride the opposite, another concept few people grasp.

Amen...thanks for the passage, spot on.

 

[razzelflabben]

Human sacrifice, now that's a gesture. Is there an app for that?

The "app" for human sacrifice is humility, real, deep, humility, the likes of which are powered by the indwelling HS.

CS Lewis said that humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less...it's a wonderful and powerful truth of what true humility is.

That being said, we are called all the time to humble ourselves enough to really Love others, the unfortunate reality is that rarely are we willing to set aside ourselves long enough to really love.

 

[HitchSlap]

The "app" for human sacrifice is humility, real, deep, humility, the likes of which are powered by the indwelling HS.

CS Lewis said that humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less...it's a wonderful and powerful truth of what true humility is.

That being said, we are called all the time to humble ourselves enough to really Love others, the unfortunate reality is that rarely are we willing to set aside ourselves long enough to really love.

Now humility I'm all for. Killing humans as a "propitiation" of anything, not so much.

 

[razzelflabben]

Now humility I'm all for. Killing humans as a "propitiation" of anything, not so much.

The killing of a human for propitiation of sin is referring to Jesus the Christ. But here is the rub for your claim here...He willingly gave His life, no one took it from Him. IOW's your upset because His humility was so great that He was a willing sacrifice, the exact same humility that you just spoke of being all for. You see, even in your objection, you contradict yourself. Your post here is saying, I'm all for humility until it is so complete as to die in anothers place, then I'm not for it anymore....truth be told, most of the world sees a willingness to die in anothers place as a good thing, a noble thing, a righteous thing to do. Think how many "heros" gave their life for this country, rescued people from fires, enemies, falls, etc. According to your response, their humility went too far, cause it cost them their lives, but according to most of us, it was the ultimate show of humility and love.

 

[HitchSlap]

The killing of a human for propitiation of sin is referring to Jesus the Christ. But here is the rub for your claim here...He willingly gave His life, no one took it from Him. IOW's your upset because His humility was so great that He was a willing sacrifice, the exact same humility that you just spoke of being all for. You see, even in your objection, you contradict yourself. Your post here is saying, I'm all for humility until it is so complete as to die in anothers place, then I'm not for it anymore....truth be told, most of the world sees a willingness to die in anothers place as a good thing, a noble thing, a righteous thing to do. Think how many "heros" gave their life for this country, rescued people from fires, enemies, falls, etc. According to your response, their humility went too far, cause it cost them their lives, but according to most of us, it was the ultimate show of humility and love.

Save your projection for others please.
The idea of the only way for a "debt" to be paid vicariously for all humanity for all time, from a human sacrifice (willing or not) is absurd.
And if it was willing, as you assert (there is no evidence for this), then one's mental capacities must at least be considered.
Even when I was Christian, I never conflated acts of heroism as equivalent to a religious idea of a one time human sacrifice to save all of humanity.

And while we're talking about this proposed human sacrifice, do you find it as underwhelming as I do? A guy sacrifices himself, to himself, to forgive for all eternity the sins of those he created, only to not stay dead after "three" nights, returns to himself so humanity can worship him for everything he did?

 

[razzelflabben]

Save your projection for others please.

excuse me...I responded directly to your post, no projection was involved at all and I would appreciate you not accusing me of such forum violations without cause.

The idea of the only way for a "debt" to be paid vicariously for all humanity for all time, from a human sacrifice (willing or not) is absurd.

that is your opinion, and I can respect it as your opinion, but to say that a willing sacrifice for our sins is not something that is about humility is non sense.

You see, the problem here is that you commented on something that you don't believe in as if it was something that all people doubt. I have no doubts, I have seen and felt the results. You on the other hand apparently have not, which is fine, but my comment was directed at your assertion that a willing sacrifice is not about humility not the off topic discussion of whether or not it is possible for one to die for the propitiation of anothers sins. IOW's I was commenting by staying on topic, not going off topic like you want to do here.

And if it was willing, as you assert (there is no evidence for this), then one's mental capacities must at least be considered.
Even when I was Christian, I never conflated acts of heroism as equivalent to a religious idea of a one time human sacrifice to save all of humanity.

that is your opinion, but as has been mentioned, this is a christian forum, thus the assumption is that those who are speaking from the standpoint of christendom will be assuming a willing sacrifice. To discuss whether or not it is a possible thing is off topic. It would make a great debate, you might want to consider starting another thread, but it doesn't belong here. That being said, let me point out that from the standpoint of what scripture teaches both in the OT and the NT, and the reasons for all of it, the conclusion that Jesus could be our propitiation is very logically laid out and I would love the opportunity to show that logical testimony to you. Doesn't matter if you agree or not, the logical path is clean, clear, and sound. As I am sure you know, logic doesn't make something absolute.

And while we're talking about this proposed human sacrifice, do you find it as underwhelming as I do? A guy sacrifices himself, to himself, to forgive for all eternity the sins of those he created, only to not stay dead after "three" nights, returns to himself so humanity can worship him for everything he did?

again, this is off topic so I won't be discussing it here, however, I will say this in answer to your question. I do not find the whole story underwhelming at all but rather overwhelming. the problem is that you leave out way too much story here to grasp just how high, how deep, how wide, God's Love really is.

When I began to study Biblical Love, I drew my husband into the project. A couple years into it, I asked my husband, when we began to study Biblical Love, did you have any idea how massive of a topic it really was. His response was like mine, we took scripture at it's word, that it was huge, but could not fathom just how huge at the time, about 8 years into the project, and we still have barely scratched the surface. So forgive me if I don't see your minut, attempt to discredit God as any authority on the matter of His Love. When you put all of it in it's proper place, it is not only logical and overwhelming, but so massive and awe inspiring that words are not enough to express all that is there for us to grasp. (Yes that even includes the "evil" God that some see in the OT, it isn't evil at all if you grasp what is happening, in fact, it is an amazing act of Love)

 

[mindlight]

We need more than assertion. We need actual verifiable facts and mechanisms.

Why do you need facts about the Andromeda galaxy to understand your own immediate potential relationship with a God of love or even with a wife or children or brothers or parents. Talk about pie in the sky! If you apply reductionist materialism to the max I suppose you will try and explain love in terms of neurochemistry, biology and the culminative impact of anthropological decisions. But that will just leave you confused and missing the point of what love is and what it changes.

The Nazis killed their children and wives? Really?

Some political prisoners were of course German, and Germans married to Jews often had their kids and wives removed. The Spartans never killed their kids - they left them on the hillside and if they were alive in the morning took them back into the people.

How well did Nazism do in the world? Are people still using the philosophy of Sparta?

It took the whole world to defeat the Nazis. If China ever tries something similar they have a larger base to work with. The Spartans won the Peloponesian war. Athens with its democracy etc was the weaker state. The Christian expectation is of a global tyranny in the end times that will out class the Nazis in terms of brutality and evil and especially against Christians.

That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

You do of course realise that Moores original formulation of the naturalistic fallacy is a form of ethical non naturalism.
As Alex Walter once said:

The naturalistic fallacy and Hume’s ‘law’ are frequently appealed to for the purpose of drawing limits around the scope of scientific inquiry into ethics and morality. These two objections are shown to be without force

You try to hide behind a philosophical argumentation that was never intended to limit ethical discussion and which gives no basis for doing so. The argumentation assumes a non natural source of ethics and morals. The facts are that nature is altooften brutal and from where else can a reductionist materialist draw his morals. If you do not think of love in terms of Gods kingdom then you will try and draw an understanding of it from the natural order. The strategy is akin to a marriage in which the basest most animalistic passions whether they include adultery , child abuse, violent abuse etc are regarded as reality rather than the loving attempt to affirm the truest, purest and most noble aspects of a wife including her sexual desire for her husband. Reductionist materialism in other words generates harlots not women and the naturalistic fallacy is no hiding place for you.

One of the most Christian states in the US is Texas, and they have the highest execution rate.

The numbers of people killed by abortion far exceeds the numbers executed. Execution after due process of law is not evil but murder is.

So you don't have any evidence. Physical evidence you don't have is not evidence.

We are talking about love. 7 billion human beings provide enough evidence. 2 billion Christians provide enough examples of the distinctive Christian take on this. But you are right the reductionist materialist is faced with the dilemma that normal scientific methodology and understandings cannot really categorise love in a meaningful scientific way. In a sense that is a major purpose of this OP to expose the shortcomings of scientific methodology when it comes to discussing the basis of love or indeed morals generally.

 

[mindlight]

Love is an extremely complex biological construct incorporating facets of social convention. the ultimate goal, as with all selectable systems, is the avoidance of injury or destruction of our prodigy on an ongoing basis.

to put it more simply, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Which is a rather impoverished view of love really. It makes it a matter of survival. It also gives no real reason for why a person should not hurt you. If you are sick, old and weak - you are burden. Why should the family unit jeopardise their own well being in order to safeguard yours. If love is based on an instinct to avoid pain and injury then for the greater number that interest is best served by killing you.

 

[mindlight]

where I think you have missed a lot, I also will say that I think that is the problem with trying to discuss love. Love is so large and complicated of a thing that trying to reduce it into "definitions" is really too much to ask of us. That being said, I think I understand your cited differences and for the most part agree.

1. Love is a many faceted thing....lol just had to say it. Love can be anything from something we find pleasing, to a deep and abiding sacrificial caring for another. In fact, according to scripture, affection for someone leads to Love. II Peter 1:7.

When talking about Love, I always go with the Biblical version as it seems to encompass everything good about love without confusing as as to the varying meanings. The best definition I can find for that Love, is to put another above self in an act of humility, creating a covenant, whose intent/purpose is reconciliation/restoration. In fact, I find that those who are looking for one of the other two kinds of love you mention, are in their heart of hearts, looking for this unconditional love we see in the bible and in fact, the bible itself tells us that all men are looking for that love. Prov. 19:22 see above. The other reason I take this perspective is because God has called me to study Biblical love in depth and teach others what I have learned. It has become a full time ministry and my learning never stops, simply because the topic is that massive. I guess the main reasons would be 1. they are included in Biblical Love, 2. Biblical Love is God's Love, thus absolute wisdom 3. everyone wants to be loved with a Biblical love, thus making it superior and 4. it simply is fascinating to study and learn just what that love is. I might also add 5. Biblical Love is healing, strengthening, it changes situations and transforms lives.

Well that is a few reasons, but let me also point out that Biblical Love and religious love are not at all the same thing, so maybe adding a fourth category would be good? Thanks for the question and post

Great post. I especially agreed with the bit in bolding. This is a kind of evidence. The whole world library of novels, films , songs and stories bring up the theme of love again and again regardless of cultures and time in history. It is a major preoccupation of just about every culture there has ever been. People will do all sorts of stupid or heroic things for love. Those of us who love or have loved have attempted to move heaven and earth to make love happen or to make it work. Yet there are only impoverished and unsatisfactory definitions from the reductive materialists who dominate discussions about truth. Clearly most normal people have a much larger understanding of what love is than do many reductive materialists as one would expect as someone who reads the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the questions:

1. What is love?
2. Which perspective do you take and why?
3. Why would you consider the other perspectives incomplete or untenable?

1. I go with your Biblical definition here. Love is expressed in writing in 1 Corinthians 13, the "Love Chapter." Between a husband and wife: the husband sacrifices, the wife submits (Ephesians 5).

2. While I argue extensively for Reductionist Materialism, or Ontological Reduction in the arena of creation, I believe love is a blending of the souls (mind, will, emotions) that eventually occurs when two people are obedient to the Scriptures toward one another. As we like to put it, love is like a triangle with God at the top. The closer the two parties draw to God, the closer they draw to each other.

3. Reductionist Materialism only speaks of the parts of the body involved in love. Love is much more than that. It is a gestalt where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanism, as far as I know, says one cannot love another until one loves himself first.

 

[[serious]]

1. I go with your Biblical definition here. Love is expressed in writing in 1 Corinthians 13, the "Love Chapter." Between a husband and wife: the husband sacrifices, the wife submits (Ephesians 5).

Interesting. Question:
Can love exist between coequal beings without such role disparity? Can brothers (lets assume twins so age isn't an issue) love each other? Can God the father love Jesus, or must one sacrifice and the other be subservient?

2. While I argue extensively for Reductionist Materialism, or Ontological Reduction in the arena of creation, I believe love is a blending of the souls (mind, will, emotions) that eventually occurs when two people are obedient to the Scriptures toward one another. As we like to put it, love is like a triangle with God at the top. The closer the two parties draw to God, the closer they draw to each other.

Can people of other faiths love each other? Can atheists love their children?

 

[razzelflabben]

Interesting. Question:
Can love exist between coequal beings without such role disparity? Can brothers (lets assume twins so age isn't an issue) love each other? Can God the father love Jesus, or must one sacrifice and the other be subservient?
Can people of other faiths love each other? Can atheists love their children?

some of the questions I was going to ask as well. I might also add, How do we know when we love or are being loved? What is the purpose of Love? How does Love fulfill that purpose? Who all are we suppose to Love and why?

Lots of people read a passage or two and think they understand all there is to know about Biblical Love, but the questions asked in the above post and this one, aren't even difficult to answer, these are the elementary teachings of Love.

BTW, I Cor. 13 is the characteristics of Love, not the definition of Love.

 

[Gracchus]

Yet there are only impoverished and unsatisfactory definitions from the reductive materialists who dominate discussions about truth. Clearly most normal people have a much larger understanding of what love is than do many reductive materialists as one would expect as someone who reads the bible.

As I pointed out, the definitions of "love" are unsatisfactory because they conflate phenomena. What is called "love" in English, was called, "eros", "philia", 'agape", or "sorge in Greek and even in Greek there was no clear delineation of meaning.

Remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave. "Normal" people see distorted, blurry shadows by flickering and uncertain light, and see very little of the beauty, depth, and color of the real world.

When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars

-- Walt Whitman

What the poet didn't understand is that the learned astronomer had looked longer and harder at the stars, had seen what the poet saw, and more. The poet looked at the stars and saw sparkling dust and sand sprinkled across a dome, but what the learned astronomer was a billion billion raging furnaces and countless circling planets in an unfathomable emptiness. Those “reductive materialists” so scorned by Mindlight don't see less than the mystics, they see more.

 

[mindlight]

As I pointed out, the definitions of "love" are unsatisfactory because they conflate phenomena. What is called "love" in English, was called, "eros", "philia", 'agape", or "sorge in Greek and even in Greek there was no clear delineation of meaning.

Remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave. "Normal" people see distorted, blurry shadows by flickering and uncertain light, and see very little of the beauty, depth, and color of the real world.

When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars

-- Walt Whitman

What the poet didn't understand is that the learned astronomer had looked longer and harder at the stars, had seen what the poet saw, and more. The poet looked at the stars and saw sparkling dust and sand sprinkled across a dome, but what the learned astronomer was a billion billion raging furnaces and countless circling planets in an unfathomable emptiness. Those “reductive materialists” so scorned by Mindlight don't see less than the mystics, they see more.

First I do not scorn scientists and consider much value to have been obtained by the application of its methods.
Second there is a great deal that science can tell us about stuff which is not common sense.
Third the study of the stars has nothing to do with love unless if has to do with a cultivation of appreciation for the Creator of said stars.

Yes the Greeks had a lot of words for love and these distinctions are referenced in the New Testament and Septugint that were written in Greek.

Regarding Platos allegory of the cave and the chained man who endeavours to understand the patterns behind shadows. Regarding love IMO that man is representative of a modern philosophy that lost its way several centuries ago. Most people live in the light and love in the light though even there they do not understand the things they can see and feel. Ignorance of the deeper patterns is more widespread but when it comes to loving silent contemplation is less effective a tool of understanding than doing and living it out.