Love

[Four]

Because it was getting a bit rude to be posting in that other thread, and it's an interesting discussion.. lets move it over here.

I define love as such:

Love is our involuntary response to virtue... for good or for bad. I feel we recognize virtues in other people, that we hold important in ourselves... it means love might be brought on by different virtues by different people.

For instance to some, spirituality might be a big virtue that one might involuntarily respond to...

So saying that, i don't think you can love someone you've never met or know nothing about, its hollow. It sounds nice when you say it, but when you think about it it doesn't mean much.

So.. what is your definition of love?

[JB0704]

Because I am a Christian, I am going to have to post a scripture on here to explain it......as a Christian, the term is defined for us....

1 Corinthians 13:3-8
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.

[Four]

Originally Posted by JB0704

Because I am a Christian, I am going to have to post a scripture on here to explain it......as a Christian, the term is defined for us....

Interesting.. I dont really know if that is a definition, if it is it isnt a definition of a concept...

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing

This isn't a definition of love, just stressing the importance, not that I have a real objection.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.

This treats love not as a concept or emotion but something more personified. This could be a description of a personality of a person. I would say that love can't be angered at all, because love doesn't have emotions, love isn't a person.

[stringmusic]

Originally Posted by Four

This could be a description of a personality of a person.

But it's a description of the personality traits of a person who loves another person/other people.

[Four]

Originally Posted by stringmusic

But it's a description of the personality traits of a person who loves another person/other people.

AHHH, so its not a definition of love, but a way to identify a person that is in love (or if you are in love)

[JB0704]

Originally Posted by Four

AHHH, so its not a definition of love, but a way to identify a person that is in love (or if you are in love)

That is one way to describe it. I guess the concept is identified by the characteristics it displays.

[Four]

Originally Posted by JB0704

That is one way to describe it. I guess the concept is identified by the characteristics it displays.

But, would you say that anytime those characteristics are displayed it's always love? OR may one person have those traits but not be in love?

[stringmusic]

Originally Posted by Four

AHHH, so its not a definition of love, but a way to identify a person that is in love (or if you are in love)

To me, it is still a definition of love, by describing the charateristics of a person in love, and yes, it could be used to identify if a person is in love or not.

[Four]

Originally Posted by stringmusic

To me, it is still a definition of love, by describing the charateristics of a person in love, and yes, it could be used to identify if a person is in love or not.

Would you agree that it is a poor definition if it cannot properly distinguish love from other things?

[JB0704]

Originally Posted by Four

But, would you say that anytime those characteristics are displayed it's always love? OR may one person have those traits but not be in love?

Not sure. I would think a person's "lov" would be demonstrated by those characteristics. But, I recon a person could do those things and hate somebody at the same time.....it just wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[stringmusic]

Originally Posted by Four

Would you agree that it is a poor definition if it cannot properly distinguish love from other things?

No, because love has a multi-definition does not mean that the biblical definition is poor. The words used in the bible can be used to describe or define other things, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't give a(I would say "the") definition of love.

[Four]

Originally Posted by stringmusic

No, because love has a multi-definition does not mean that the biblical definition is poor. The words used in the bible can be used to describe or define other things, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't give a(I would say "the") definition of love.

I'm not even saying that it's a poor description of what love looks like, only that it's a somewhat ambiguous definition.

What i mean to say is.. if i told you the definition of an apple was round and red, and you found a round and red object that wasn't an apple (lets say a red tennis ball, or red rock) That would mean i gave you a fairly poor definition of apple, right?

I will however admit that using something that exists physically is easier to defined / identify than a concept.

[stringmusic]

Originally Posted by Four

I'm not even saying that it's a poor description of what love looks like, only that it's a somewhat ambiguous definition.

What i mean to say is.. if i told you the definition of an apple was round and red, and you found a round and red object that wasn't an apple (lets say a red tennis ball, or red rock) That would mean i gave you a fairly poor definition of apple, right?

I see your point, but, I see the biblical definition as a little stronger than your above definition. If you added to the two worded definition of the apple, say, it is edible, describe the taste, and that it has seeds in the middle, then I could probably bring you an apple.

I will however admit that using something that exists physically is easier to defined / identify than a concept.

I agree, and that is possibly why it is describe that way.

[JB0704]

BTW, most Christians either have that definition read at their weddings, or, have it inscribed on their wedding rings....I'm guilty to both....

[gordon 2]

Originally Posted by Four

Because it was getting a bit rude to be posting in that other thread, and it's an interesting discussion.. lets move it over here.

I define love as such:

Love is our involuntary response to virtue... for good or for bad. I feel we recognize virtues in other people, that we hold important in ourselves... it means love might be brought on by different virtues by different people.

For instance to some, spirituality might be a big virtue that one might involuntarily respond to...

So saying that, i don't think you can love someone you've never met or know nothing about, its hollow. It sounds nice when you say it, but when you think about it it doesn't mean much.

So.. what is your definition of love?

Your definition is very interesting.

He's mine using your ideas. Love is the acting out of what we deem virtuous and therefore, once more love can be voluntary.

For example, a husband who takes back his cheating wife several times is doing a definate voluntary act. ( I'm think in this case or example the cheating spouse is bi-polar and for reasons deemed virtuous, she can do no wrong from principles and concepts deemed virtuous by her husband.)

To forgive and forget is not involuntary. To work for peace and justice is not involuntary. And especially voluntary if done and in so doing to forgo greater interest of personal and immediate gain.

[Four]

Originally Posted by gordon 2

Your definition is very interesting.

He's mine using your ideas. Love is the acting out of what we deem virtuous and therefore, once more love can be voluntary.

For example, a husband who takes back his cheating wife several times is doing a definate voluntary act. ( I'm think in this case or example the cheating spouse is bi-polar and for reasons deemed virtuous, she can do no wrong from principles and concepts deemed virtuous by her husband.)

To forgive and forget is not involuntary. To work for peace and justice is not involuntary. And especially voluntary if done and in so doing to forgo greater interest of personal and immediate gain.

Hmm i think you misunderstood. I believe love itself is a reaction to virtue, and it's involuntary. Virtuous actions themselves are voluntary, but our "love" for them isn't. So in that respect i don't believe in unconditional love.

[hobbs27]

I wonder how or why love evolved into us humans.From the standpoint of an atheist ofcourse.

[Four]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

I wonder how or why love evolved into us humans.From the standpoint of an atheist ofcourse.

given we're communal animals we need to be able to form bonds for survival. I imagine at first those that showed no empathy or compassion died off faster than others as survival of a lone individual is harder than in a group. In order to recognize virtue in another was helpful in building tribes / communities.

BTW, that's me just talking i havent looked up any sources

edit: not to far off the mark i guess

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

[1gr8bldr]

Those who claim to love everyone are fooling themselves. The bible says we are to love one another, so what would we expect them to say? But the truth is, even the church is a poor reflection of love. Love is involuntary. It comes from the heart. It is not a discipline, and no one can rightfully claim to love everyone just because they say so. Spouse and family is as far as love usually goes. If we loved our neighbor as ourself, we would all be middle class. No poor and no rich. What is yours would be mine and what is mine would be yours. For those of you thinking that I'm wrong, that you do love everyone as yourself, I'm sure that there are plenty of homeless that you can give it all to or at least let them live with you since you love everyone

[ambush80]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Those who claim to love everyone are fooling themselves. The bible says we are to love one another, so what would we expect them to say? But the truth is, even the church is a poor reflection of love. Love is involuntary. It comes from the heart. It is not a discipline, and no one can rightfully claim to love everyone just because they say so. Spouse and family is as far as love usually goes. If we loved our neighbor as ourself, we would all be middle class. No poor and no rich. What is yours would be mine and what is mine would be yours. For those of you thinking that I'm wrong, that you do love everyone as yourself, I'm sure that there are plenty of homeless that you can give it all to or at least let them live with you since you love everyone

That's an astute observation.

[gordon 2]

Ok. I'll try again in my own words. Love is( drum roll) making hay where there is none. It is very volontary.

Love is an action which creates many things. I love, you love, we love... used as a noun it refers to an action. Love is something we make happen. We have " comfortable feelings" and "special or out of the ordinary feelings" for some people for many reasons, emotions, familiarity and chemistry. The choices to lust for or to love are volontary.

Animals don't love, they make hay when there is some.

[Ronnie T]

Biblically, and understood by many Christians, the definition of the four Greek words used for love are:

1. Eros, which is sexual or romantic love.

2. Phileo, which is a brotherly love toward someone we really like.

3. Agape, which is the deepest love, which is based on doing good things for another person.

4. Storgay, which is the love of one's relatives. It is a relatively unknown word that is used only twice in scripture and only as a compound word.

[Ronnie T]

Agape love is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love taught in the Bible.

It is not driven by emotions, and it is not given in response to some good that's been done. It is a decision to love, even when there's no other reason.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by gordon 2

Ok. I'll try again in my own words. Love is( drum roll) making hay where there is none. It is very volontary.

Love is an action which creates many things. I love, you love, we love... used as a noun it refers to an action. Love is something we make happen. We have " comfortable feelings" and "special or out of the ordinary feelings" for some people for many reasons, emotions, familiarity and chemistry. The choices to lust for or to love are volontary.

Animals don't love, they make hay when there is some.

Disciplined love is fake love

[1gr8bldr]

I ask my wife which she would prefer given the option. The disciplined love that my past preacher often spoke about as he tried to teach others how to love their wives [which usually consisted of him boasting about what he does such as flowers, etc,] Or would she rather me love her because I think she is wonderful. Disciplined love from the head? or love from the heart?

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by Ronnie T

Agape love is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love taught in the Bible.

It is not driven by emotions, and it is not given in response to some good that's been done. It is a decision to love, even when there's no other reason.

Love is not a decission of the head. If it does not come from the heart then it no longer qualifies as love.

[ross the deer slayer]

Isn't love a genuine care or concern for someone, wanting to help someone or look after someone? Well that's kind of how I feel about it when its directed to other people

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by ross the deer slayer

Isn't love a genuine care or concern for someone, wanting to help someone or look after someone? Well that's kind of how I feel about it when its directed to other people

This I agree, you can't chose to be genuine

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by Ronnie T

Agape love is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love taught in the Bible.

It is not driven by emotions, and it is not given in response to some good that's been done. It is a decision to love, even when there's no other reason.

Agape love is indeed the highest of the four, yet there's one more mentioned in 1John 3:1. The Agape love that is so great John couldn't explain it but to say,"Behold what manner of love has the Father bestowed upon us."
According to my strongs, Agape was the greek word translated here, and everytime I read this I think of John confused over trying to describe how great of love it is,trying to find the perfect adjective explaining how great the Fathers love is, and coming up empty.

Love is a gift, be it given or recieved and all love comes from God.

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by Four

given we're communal animals we need to be able to form bonds for survival. I imagine at first those that showed no empathy or compassion died off faster than others as survival of a lone individual is harder than in a group. In order to recognize virtue in another was helpful in building tribes / communities.

BTW, that's me just talking i havent looked up any sources

edit: not to far off the mark i guess

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

How could hate still exist after all these years? I would think by now hate would have been taken care of by natural selection since love is required for our existence.

[gordon 2]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Love is not a decission of the head. If it does not come from the heart then it no longer qualifies as love.

If love is not a decision of the head...kick Isaiah to the curb and most prophets. Even Jesus. I just figured out why males forget important dates and get their better halves aniversary cards they read with their elbows. ( I include myself in this. LOL )

[gordon 2]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

How could hate still exist after all these years? I would think by now hate would have been taken care of by natural selection since love is required for our existence.

Because love is a human thing of the spirit and not the flesh. Simple as that.

[gordon 2]

Originally Posted by ross the deer slayer

Isn't love a genuine care or concern for someone, wanting to help someone or look after someone? Well that's kind of how I feel about it when its directed to other people

Yes that is what it is. Why don't we ask our mothers what love is. They have all kinds of experience with the many aspects of love including a ear full if we are in ignorance of it. If it was not for my mother's love I would still be beating up my brothers or getting beat up buy them. I would never have known to "respect" girls or else! And "respect for grand parents...well...what a loving concept, mama".

[Ronnie T]

Originally Posted by 1gr8bldr

Love is not a decission of the head. If it does not come from the heart then it no longer qualifies as love.

Your head IS your heart. The greatest love is agape love, because in it you love unconditionally.

In emotional love, you'll unconditionally love the one who loves you. You'll give your life for that person.
But if that person is your wife, and she's caught cheating on you with 8 guyes from down the street, you'll stop loving her.

In Agape love, God's love, godly love, you'll even love the one who mistreats you.

In agape love, not only do you stop and help the injured man, but you stop and help him even if he is your enemy.

It's a love that comes with the cross. It's the impossible love. It's illogical.

[teneyedoc]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

How could hate still exist after all these years? I would think by now hate would have been taken care of by natural selection since love is required for our existence.

Well, natural selection still hasn't gotten rid of manatees, as much as it's tried.

[1gr8bldr]

If I pick a person and declare, "I will love that person", that is not love. Love is not decided, it flows from the heart. Disciplined love, or the love you guys are defending, is a sort of "have to" because you gave yourself the responsibility of it. But that disqualifies itself because now it is your obligation of your commitment to love.

[Four]

Originally Posted by gordon 2

Ok. I'll try again in my own words. Love is( drum roll) making hay where there is none. It is very volontary.

Love is an action which creates many things. I love, you love, we love... used as a noun it refers to an action. Love is something we make happen. We have " comfortable feelings" and "special or out of the ordinary feelings" for some people for many reasons, emotions, familiarity and chemistry. The choices to lust for or to love are volontary.

Animals don't love, they make hay when there is some.

Good point, i suppose we should mention love can be a noun or a verb. The noun love (the emotional state, etc) i believe is involuntary, but of course the verb is not... thats kinda what a verb is To love, vs. in love

[Four]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

How could hate still exist after all these years? I would think by now hate would have been taken care of by natural selection since love is required for our existence.

Are you an evolution denier?

[hobbs27]

Originally Posted by Four

Are you an evolution denier?

Im not sure, I just wanted to hear from an atheist as to how they might rationalize the evolution of love, and I appreciate your answers.I find it informative to know how people with differing opinions think.

[Four]

Originally Posted by hobbs27

Im not sure, I just wanted to hear from an atheist as to how they might rationalize the evolution of love, and I appreciate your answers.I find it informative to know how people with differing opinions think.

Ok, i was just getting the vibe that the conversation was moving from a discussion to mocking.

I figure "hate" or dislike has as much of a spot as a positive feeling.

Unfortunately i think it might be a bit worn out, but at some point things like racism helped protect people. Back when people didnt move around much, an "outsider" was a threat.

Also, love might help tell good people much like hate would help tell bad people

[1gr8bldr]

Maybe I can explain it this way; Did you decide to love your children? or do you just love them. The first sounds like it would come from a step mom. The second from a mother or father. Which would you rather have as a son or daughter?

[ted_BSR]

RonnieT and Gordon2 have it right. Love is a verb. There are several different kinds of love which RonnieT pointed out, but it is definetly a verb. Action required. Decision required. The warm fuzzy feeling that happens is a byproduct of the action. It is a verb. You have to decide to do it.

[ted_BSR]

Originally Posted by Four

Are you an evolution denier?

I know this question was not directed at me, but I am curious. What is your definition of "evolution"?

[Four]

Originally Posted by ted_BSR

I know this question was not directed at me, but I am curious. What is your definition of "evolution"?

Genetic change in groups of organisms over generations

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Four

Because it was getting a bit rude to be posting in that other thread, and it's an interesting discussion.. lets move it over here.

I define love as such:

Love is our involuntary response to virtue... for good or for bad. I feel we recognize virtues in other people, that we hold important in ourselves... it means love might be brought on by different virtues by different people.

For instance to some, spirituality might be a big virtue that one might involuntarily respond to...

So saying that, i don't think you can love someone you've never met or know nothing about, its hollow. It sounds nice when you say it, but when you think about it it doesn't mean much.

So.. what is your definition of love?

Sounds like you've been reading Ayn Rand.

Love is a state wherein the happiness and well-being of another are essential to your own happiness and well-being.

[1gr8bldr]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Sounds like you've been reading Ayn Rand.

Love is a state wherein the happiness and well-being of another are essential to your own happiness and well-being.

That is a good way of putting it, which takes into account "love as oneself"

[ted_BSR]

Originally Posted by Four

Genetic change in groups of organisms over generations

I agree, I would simplify it as, "change over time". Civilizations or politics can also evolve, without genetics coming into play at all.

Here is another question about evolution. Do you consider it to explain the origins of man? For example, all life evolved from single celled organisms. Do you believe that sea slugs and gorillas, and humans all "evolved" from a common ancestor?

[Four]

Originally Posted by ted_BSR

I agree, I would simplify it as, "change over time". Civilizations or politics can also evolve, without genetics coming into play at all.

It could be, but in the context i was referring to it was biological evolution by natural selection.

Originally Posted by ted_BSR

Here is another question about evolution. Do you consider it to explain the origins of man? For example, all life evolved from single celled organisms. Do you believe that sea slugs and gorillas, and humans all "evolved" from a common ancestor?

It's the explanation for all complex life so far. The only thing it doesn't encompass is when the inorganic became organic.

Originally Posted by ted_BSR

Do you believe that sea slugs and gorillas, and humans all "evolved" from a common

Yes.

[StriperAddict]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Love is a state wherein the happiness and well-being of another are essential to your own happiness and well-being.

I understand what you're saying but this is also something of "co-dependency".

However, being free to contribute to another's best interests despite what they feel about you is love. It's sacrificial, not based on feelings, although feelings can and will come, good or bad. Our Lord went to the cross for all, "while we were yet sinners", regardless of them.

[ted_BSR]

Originally Posted by Four

It could be, but in the context i was referring to it was biological evolution by natural selection.



It's the explanation for all complex life so far. The only thing it doesn't encompass is when the inorganic became organic.



Yes.

Again, I know the question was not posed for me, and this is probably a topic for another thread, but I have to deny your definition of evolution. Yup, I am an evolution denier (per your definition).

And I have another off topic question. What do you mean by “when the inorganic became organic”? Thanks, Ted