Bibli-idolatry

[Marsh]

To say that the meaning we give the word "love" is a deviation from its original meaning, you're assuming that the word actually had an exact definition.

The word "love" is an English word. The New Testament was written long before English evolved into its modern form. The word "love" would have been distorted over and over again in the last 1,000 years as English/British culture and the English language matured. The meaning of the word was never set in stone.

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that the meaning of the word "love" has changed from what it originally meant. I'm saying that love-- the thing itself-- has been misrepresented by its Greek definition, and the idea that it is divided into three Aristotelian categories.

Every language has a word, or several words, that roughly equate to what we know in English as love. However, regardless of any language or any culture's thoughts on the subject, love is. Love is, because God created a reality in which love-- the immutable truth of the idea-- exists.

When the Bible reads something like "God is love," or "love your neighbour as you love yourself," it is saying something that goes beyond words. It's not the same as when Shakespeare uses the word, because Shakespeare's mind can only understand love to a small degree in comparison to what love really is. When God uses the word (and yes, I'm assuming that Jesus' words are God's words and Jesus' words as written are what he actually said) it has a much bigger meaning.

To interpret the holy usage of the word "love" through the lens of unenlightened (non-Christian) Greek philosophy is an exercise in futility, leading only to misunderstandings masquerading as truth.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Marsh —

I do think you're being somewhat overly dogmatic on this point.

You've misunderstood. I'm not saying that the meaning of the word "love" has changed from what it originally meant.

But love is a younger term than either the Greek or the Hebrew?

I'm saying that love-- the thing itself-- has been misrepresented by its Greek definition, and the idea that it is divided into three Aristotelian categories.

I would say there are many more categories implied by the term 'love' than inferred by 'eros' of the Greeks. And if you're saying that eros only equate to buggery, then you're misrepresenting the word by limiting it to one context, when it is far wider than that.

You seem to be arguing as if 'love' means something different to 'eros' or 'philia' or 'agape' in Greek, or 'dodim' or 'ahaba' in Hebrew ...

And St John used both 'agape' and 'philia' — and 'philia' he used to add another dimension of meaning in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples.

So how can one word, 'love', properly represent 'agape' and 'philia' without blurring the distinction between the two?

Every language has a word, or several words, that roughly equate to what we know in English as love. However, regardless of any language or any culture's thoughts on the subject, love is. Love is, because God created a reality in which love-- the immutable truth of the idea-- exists.

Well you can't say that, because God didn't use the term 'love', nor did Jesus, He used his word which we translate by the word 'love', and that term comes with its own baggage, as does any other.

'Eros' might weill imply the joys of buggery on the lips of a pederast, but then so does 'love' when used by a pederast today. The only difference is one spoke Greek, the other one speaks English.

But eros equally infers the very immutable truth of the idea in some of the philosophical writings.

When the Bible reads something like "God is love," or "love your neighbour as you love yourself," it is saying something that goes beyond words.

Are you sure? To me it defines the nature of a meaningful relation, and love knows no bounds ... but I assume, for example, that the equation:
God is love — I love Toffee Crisps — Therefore God is a Toffeee Crisp
is wrong.

It's all a matter of context, surely?

If whatever-it-is goes beyond words, then either 'love' is the wrong word, and misrepresents what it is, or 'love' itself is meaningless ... d'you see?

Scripture says we must love God, not that we must relate to God in a way that cannot be put into words, nor that God relates to us in a way that cannot be put into words. If that were the case, then God and man would be like two people lost in the dark. Rather, Scripture says God loves us without limit, and we should love Him likewise ... we should be perfect in love ... a tall order.

When God uses the word (and yes, I'm assuming that Jesus' words are God's words and Jesus' words as written are what he actually said) it has a much bigger meaning.

But neither God nor Jesus used the word 'love'.

So maybe agape has a much bigger and more precise meaning than love, which is, after all,a rather indeterminate, catch-all covering everything, good and bad?

Love can mean lust ... agape can't.

To interpret the holy usage of the word "love" through the lens of unenlightened (non-Christian) Greek philosophy is an exercise in futility, leading only to misunderstandings masquerading as truth.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Scripture didn't invent love, man knew love before Scripture ... it's fundamental to his being.

And you're touching the limitation of language ... but we have to start somewhere.

The translators of the Septuagint used the Greek term 'agape', a term which occurs infrequently in Greek usage, to set it apart from common contemporary understanding, and signify something new (and because of its similar sound, I believe, to ahaba).

I would suggest, on that basis, that 'agape' is closer to the divine idea than the word 'love', because to call the nature of the relation between creature and Creator 'love', when love has so many other meanings ... more than agape ... and more even than eros ...

Thomas

 

[bob x]

I assume, for example, that the equation:
God is love — I love Toffee Crisps — Therefore God is a Toffeee Crisp
is wrong.

Of course that's wrong. It goes:

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles was blind
__________________
Therefore, Ray Charles was God.

The translators of the Septuagint used the Greek term 'agape', a term which occurs infrequently in Greek usage, to set it apart from common contemporary understanding, and signify something new (and because of its similar sound, I believe, to ahaba)

A lot of words did cross over between Semitic and Indo-European (shesh, sheva' "six, seven" is a famous case) so agape and a-h-b may actually be the same word.

 

[Marsh]

I would say there are many more categories implied by the term 'love' than inferred by 'eros' of the Greeks. And if you're saying that eros only equate to buggery, then you're misrepresenting the word by limiting it to one context, when it is far wider than that.

But you do admit that if love is to be divided into categories, and if one of those categories is to be designated as Eros as the Greeks maintain, that the buggery of children by Greek philosophers is within the scope of that category?

Is it not written, "You will know a tree by its fruit," and "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit"? Now, if Eros is truly love (and not something else), then why does it produce bad fruit? Or is it the case that the buggery of children isn't actually a bad thing, if the bugger has good intentions?

So how can one word, 'love', properly represent 'agape' and 'philia' without blurring the distinction between the two?

It can properly represent... both of these things because these two things are actually the same thing: love. There's no difference between them that will hold up to examination as proving their distinctiveness.

See, here is exactly the bias I was talking about: you seem unable to think about love in any terms other than agape, philea, etc, and as a result can't understand the point I'm trying to make.

Well you can't say that, because God didn't use the term 'love', nor did Jesus, He used his word which we translate by the word 'love', and that term comes with its own baggage, as does any other.

You're right; God didn't use the word "love." God used the idea "love." And when God used it, it was one idea, not three.

Are you sure? To me it defines the nature of a meaningful relation, and love knows no bounds ... but I assume, for example, that the equation:
God is love — I love Toffee Crisps — Therefore God is a Toffeee Crisp
is wrong.

Where'd you study elementary logic? No offense, but the professor should be horsewhipped



Honestly, and I know I'm being biased when I say this, but I'll say it anyways: this defense of Eros as an aspect of love is pretty flimsy. You're arguing over technicalities and linguistics, while barely touching on the actual WORD of God.

Who gives a &%$# what Plato thought love was? Plato was a worldly scholar; not a prophet.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Marsh —

But you do admit that if love is to be divided into categories, and if one of those categories is to be designated as Eros as the Greeks maintain, that the buggery of children by Greek philosophers is within the scope of that category?

I rather see it as we who deploy the term erroneously, and therefore the necessity to categorise. Surely we must both admit that 'love' designates the buggery of children, rape, lust, even murder ...

I would further argue that the Philosophers sought, by the categories, to bring the idea back to its original meaning, which transcends the sexual, and thereby sensible, dimension.

Eros in that context is the idea of the love of the object that 'completes' the subject — that object can be one's spouse, one's child, one's friend ... but in any sense excludes the sexual dimension. It is the receptive dimension of love.

Agape is the love given by the subject that completes its object, and again that object can be spouse, child, friend ...

Thus man's search for God is always erotic — God has no 'need' of man in that sense, but man has need of God.

Put another way, man seeks his source of being, his home, his rest. "My soul is restless until it rests in Thee."

God's search for man is different, because God is not seeking Himself, but rather than man should find his true self, and true being, in God.

God's love reveals to man something of man's true nature, but reveals nothing to God of His true nature, because God knows Himself as Himself utterly. Man's being will always be a mystery to himself until he finds rest in the source of his being.

Man suffers the absence of the connection to the source, but God is impassible.

Yet God wills the restoration of man's original state, and allows, in that sense, the idea of a 'divine joy' in that restoration, so that man might better comprehend the intimacy of union that God opens to him.

Is it not written, "You will know a tree by its fruit," and "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit"? Now, if Eros is truly love (and not something else), then why does it produce bad fruit? Or is it the case that the buggery of children isn't actually a bad thing, if the bugger has good intentions?

It can properly represent... both of these things because these two things are actually the same thing: love. There's no difference between them that will hold up to examination as proving their distinctiveness.

It can ... but that does not mean that man should assume a divine status, an equality of status with God by virtue of the union accorded to him ... thus the love God has for man will always be utterly different to the love man has for God.

You're right; God didn't use the word "love." God used the idea "love." And when God used it, it was one idea, not three.

But buggery is no part of that idea, whether the term used to express the idea is agape, eros, philia ... or love.

Honestly, and I know I'm being biased when I say this, but I'll say it anyways: this defense of Eros as an aspect of love is pretty flimsy. You're arguing over technicalities and linguistics, while barely touching on the actual WORD of God.

And I will argue that defence of the the term Eros as only signifying lust, or moreover an immoral attachment, it also flimsy and inaccurate. I think that a profound insight into eros gives us a great insight into the meaning of the WORD of God.

I have experience first hand the idea that because God loves, then sex is OK. You have to discriminate the meaning of the word in context. It was that lack of discrimination that lead to the idea of temple prostitution.

Who gives a &%$# what Plato thought love was? Plato was a worldly scholar; not a prophet.

I would argue he was not without wisdom nor insight, though. The Fathers believed he must have read Moses to have come to the insights he did. I rather believe 'the spirit bloweth where it listeth'.

Thomas

 

[Marsh]

I rather see it as we who deploy the term erroneously, and therefore the necessity to categorise. Surely we must both admit that 'love' designates the buggery of children, rape, lust, even murder ...

Umm.... what?! I mean........ what?!

....

If the philosophers were trying to bring love back to its original meaning, why did they end up with three meanings, instead of one? They were not simplifying the subject at all; they were over-complicating it, which is exactly where we stand right now in this conversation.

The search for God is erotic? That's an incredible stretch to make, Thomas. That erotic love is on the one hand entirely intellectual, and on the other entirely physical... do you actually believe your conclusions? It sounds to me like you are forcing the issue based on an intrinsic bias toward Greek thought.

Love is much more clear than philosophers or theologians would have us believe; they complicate things because, if they didn't, they'd all be out of a job, right?

God is love. God is good. It seems to me that "good" and "love" mean essentially the same thing, "good" being the noun or adjective form of the idea, and "love" being the verb.

The concept of agape love and philea love are actually the same thing: they both involve selfless acts of goodness toward other people.

The concept of erotic love is selfishness.

Sex isn't a bad thing. Making love is a good thing. There is a distinction here.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Marsh —

If the philosophers were trying to bring love back to its original meaning, why did they end up with three meanings, instead of one?

To differentiate between the common and the specific. For the sal
ke of precision. That's why 'love' as a term does not suffice today, it can mean anything and everything.

They were not simplifying the subject at all; they were over-complicating it, which is exactly where we stand right now in this conversation.

Not at all. I think you're over-generalising. I think 'love' in the common contemporary contextr is not at all what the Bible is talking about.

The search for God is erotic? That's an incredible stretch to make, Thomas.

Not at all. That's standard theology.

Love is much more clear than philosophers or theologians would have us believe; they complicate things because, if they didn't, they'd all be out of a job, right?

Wrong.

God is love.

What is love?

God is good. It seems to me that "good" and "love" mean essentially the same thing, "good" being the noun or adjective form of the idea, and "love" being the verb.

No, don't agree with that at all.

The concept of agape love and philea love are actually the same thing: they both involve selfless acts of goodness toward other people.

No they don't. Philea is friendship, agape is more intimate.

The concept of erotic love is selfishness.

The common understanding of the term is ... but that is not what eros means.

The concept of love today is equally selfishness. Moreso, in fact, than what the Greeks implied by eros. Take a look at culture.

Thomas

 

[shawn]

The word EROS has more to do with the material than the spirit as evidenced by the pantheons of the gods which the old ones used to explain these concepts. EROS was a son of a higher duality.
Yes, a force of creation, but lower down on the tree.
AGAPE is a higher more rarified version as it is related to satisfaction, appreciation, gratitude, unity etc.
The Greeks, aware of the hidden aspects of the Hebrew system (kabbalah) which is contained in the Bible used a variety of words in an effort to replicate this idea.
Which is why there are 4 gospels and not 3 as there are 4 worlds in Kabbalah.

 

[bob x]

If the philosophers were trying to bring love back to its original meaning, why did they end up with three meanings, instead of one?

What makes you think there was originally only "one" concept? That is just an artifact of our English language, which unlike most languages is rather impoverished in its vocabulary here and lumps together a lot of distinct things.

 

[Marsh]

What makes you think there was originally only "one" concept? That is just an artifact of our English language, which unlike most languages is rather impoverished in its vocabulary here and lumps together a lot of distinct things.

Because in the beginning there was God, and God was only one thing. Now, if God is love (which is to say, God's character is the personification of love), then does it not follow that the true meaning of love is one thing, rather than several things?

My thoughts do not derive from the English language; they derive from the Bible-- specifically, from my understanding of God.

Love is not a human creation; it existed before humans, because God existed before humans.

Just because somebody uses a term doesn't mean they actually understand its true meaning. Anyone can say "I love you," but just saying the words doesn't mean they actually do love you. A comparison: I can put my cat's poop in a box and call it beautiful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is beautiful.

Greek meditations on love are essentially cat crap in a box. The problem is that if you leave cat crap in the room long enough, you start getting used to the smell.

 

[Marsh]

To differentiate between the common and the specific. For the sake of precision. That's why 'love' as a term does not suffice today, it can mean anything and everything.

The first rule of logic is that terms do not mean all things to all people; they mean what they mean, and any added meaning or improper use of the term is illogical.

Not at all. That's standard theology.

And theology is conjecture. Ever thought the theologians might be wrong, Tommy?

The concept of love today is equally selfishness. Moreso, in fact, than what the Greeks implied by eros. Take a look at culture.

Didn't Jesus say that by the time of the end, love would run cold? Think that might be because the true meaning of love has been hijacked?

 

[bob x]

The first rule of logic is that terms do not mean all things to all people; they mean what they mean, and any added meaning or improper use of the term is illogical.

You can't arbitrarily take away meanings either. The term "love" in English is an exceedingly broad one, including a lot of meanings that you would not care to describe as the nature of God: that was Tom's point about "I love Toffee Crisps", a point which seems to have whooshed over your head.

And theology is conjecture. Ever thought the theologians might be wrong, Tommy?

Theology is a blind man searching a coal cellar at midnight for a black cat who is not there.

Didn't Jesus say that by the time of the end, love would run cold?

Of course he didn't say that, since he was not speaking English. He said something in Aramaic which we can only know through Greek translation, probably talking about ahaba which agape more or less shares the meaning of.

 

[Thomas]

And theology is conjecture. Ever thought the theologians might be wrong, Tommy?

Any what are you doing, if not theology?

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

What is Love then?

.... and why can't love be categorized (Sub divided into individual parts)? Eros, Philia, and Agape seem to define appropriately the differing levels of love that we as humans experience. If God (As essence) is love than surely He would represent Agape, but we as humans experience Agape in lesser forms as we are hard pressed to love all unconditionally, perfectly, and w/o partiality.

Eros and Philia are simply lesser forms of Agape in my mind. We as humans must learn to crawl before we are able to walk after all, so perhaps the differing levels of love as defined in the NT, enable us to prepare ourselves to love perfectly, unconditionally, and w/o partiality?

I do not however, believe for one second that any type of love (No matter what level) is selfish. If it is, then perhaps it isn't love at all, but rather that which stems from a selfish heart? I think we often times decieve ourselves into believing we are experiencing Eros, when we are actually experiencing something in opposition to love altogether (Lust).

GK

 

[Marsh]

You can't arbitrarily take away meanings either. The term "love" in English is an exceedingly broad one, including a lot of meanings that you would not care to describe as the nature of God: that was Tom's point about "I love Toffee Crisps", a point which seems to have whooshed over your head.

Nobody really loves Toffee Crisps, guy. I thought you were bright enough to see the distinction...

Of course he didn't say that, since he was not speaking English. He said something in Aramaic which we can only know through Greek translation, probably talking about ahaba which agape more or less shares the meaning of.

*sigh*

 

[Marsh]

Any what are you doing, if not theology?

Thomas

Theology is extrapolating meaning from something that was not said. Interpretation is listening to what has been said. I'm interpreting.

 

[horiturk]

the bible is about God,and contains some of God's words inspired or recorded from being "spoken" directly but God did not write the entire bible. At most God directly inspired people to record it but it wasn't dictated,as the Quran claims to be.

 

[Thomas]

Theology is extrapolating meaning from something that was not said.

No, theology is extrapolating meaning from what has been said — all theology rests on the authority of Scripture.

Interpretation is listening to what has been said. I'm interpreting.

Then you're doing theology.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Theology is extrapolating meaning from something that was not said. Interpretation is listening to what has been said. I'm interpreting.

"Theology is a blind man searching the coal cellar at midnight for a black cat who is elsewhere." It's someone else's line, but I can't remember who to credit right now.