FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-30-2005, 06:35 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 13,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David B
My interpretation is that 'love one another' means 'love one another'.

What is hard about that?
Love has several different meanings. You haven't even offered us an interpretation of your own, but a mere re-stating of the original words.

Does love mean "be in romantic love with" or "have feelings for" or "care about" or "treat with kindness" or what? All you do is tell me I'm wrong without backing up your claim.
Splarnst is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 06:37 PM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 13,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diana
The "love the Lore your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, etc" commandment has the same problem, incidentally. It commands me to love--not to attempt to love God or behave as though I love God.
But what does it mean to love someone? You haven't clarified this yet.
Splarnst is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:11 PM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi Europe and Philippines
Posts: 11,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
[rant]
So, I found this new testement quote, which says:
"LOVE ONE ANOTHER!"
-John 15:12

let me ask you this; wtf. you can't just tell someone to love someone, and there it is. you can't ask someone to love. you can't command someone to love. what difference will it make if you tell people "love one another"? that won't make people love eachother. you can't make people love one another.

in my subjective and possibly offensive opinion, one must choose between blasphemy against "gawd", or blasphemy against love and the human condition. i would rather denounce a god which may and or may not exist, rather than my own humanity.

trying to love someone won't make a fat fart of a difference. why not teach tolerance, rather than love? tolerance is a rational decision. love isn't effected by whether or not you want to love. so to all those who command it, i say f*** you.
[/rant]
Using all senses of the word "love people will love out of choice. Thus it doesn't mean one type of love needs to be different than another. As people interact their degree of liking may increase but the choice is still theirs.

If for instance they saw the sense in loving each other in the human sense, they could do this through reasons and coming to terms with or eradicating any concepts (ie racial, different opinions likes and dislikes etc).

A white racist will hate afro americans for instance, not because of what they are but he/she has picture in his/her mind which acts as a filter over what he/she sees.

The 72 year old billionaire who marries a 21 year beauty queen probably won't be bothered about being loved rather on what she offers and whether it's still in working order.

Dictators command love but really get slavering in response which they deem as love and respect.

We can learn about each others humanity and develop a humanitarian (and arguably a spiritual) love for each other.

Christ said "Love your enemies?" Why not? Nothing would annoy them more. :wave:

Does this answer at least in part, your point?
whichphilosophy is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 07:24 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 3,034
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolutionary
But what does it mean to love someone? You haven't clarified this yet.
It is difficult to give an exact dictionary definition of any emotion or state of mind, because they are all so subjective and ephemeral. In what sense must we "love" our neighbor?

If the above paragraph makes you think dirty thoughts, don't blame me. :angel:

--Jared
JaredM is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 08:37 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

It really helps to cite the full passage as well as give preliminary information. Oh, and it wouldn't help to know a good bit of Greek, would it?

αυτη εστιν η εντολη η εμη ινα αγαπατε αλληλους καθως ηγαπησα υμας
This is the command of me that you love others according as I loved you.

The word in question is αγαπη. The sort of love implied with αγαπη is not romantic love, is not friendship, not even familiar love, but divine love, a selfless love not for the person himself, but for the "soul" of the person. This is in common with other Johannine thought such as Jesus dying because he loved us (Jn. 3.16) and we dying for our brethren because of love for them (1 Jn. 3.16). It's not a feeling per se, but more of an act.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 10:19 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whichphilosophy
Dictators command love but really get slavering in response which they deem as love and respect.
What amazes me is how the god, who asks that we love one another, demonstrates his love of humankind with earthquakes, floods, pestilence, etc.

Even those who grovel before that god seem to be as likely to be swept away by the waves as those who don't.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 10-31-2005, 04:30 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer
The word in question is αγαπη. The sort of love implied with αγαπη is not romantic love, is not friendship, not even familiar love, but divine love, a selfless love not for the person himself, but for the "soul" of the person. This is in common with other Johannine thought such as Jesus dying because he loved us (Jn. 3.16) and we dying for our brethren because of love for them (1 Jn. 3.16). It's not a feeling per se, but more of an act.
The way I understand it, we're commanded to love as Jesus did. This leaves us a couple of choices in interpretation:

Jesus didn't really love us. He just acted like he did. We are to emulate this action.

He really did love us--the emotion from whence his behavior sprang--and we are commanded to emulate that feeling--and the resultant behavior--for everyone.

That leaves us in the same pickle, though.

(And yes...as has been mentioned already, I do interpret from a fundamentalist POV. Based on the assumption that the bible is meant for everyone, it follows that it should be accessible to all and should make sense to all. For this reason, a straightforward interpretation makes logical sense to me. If anyone wishes to argue that the bible is intended for a special few who can interpret it non-literally and somehow just right the way God intended, it follows that it wasn't meant for everyone, and I will happily drop my case.)

d
diana is offline  
Old 10-31-2005, 10:25 AM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 13,161
Default

Thanks, Chris Weimer. I was hoping someone would come along with the Greek.
Splarnst is offline  
Old 10-31-2005, 03:34 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diana
The way I understand it, we're commanded to love as Jesus did. This leaves us a couple of choices in interpretation:

He really did love us--the emotion from whence his behavior sprang--and we are commanded to emulate that feeling--and the resultant behavior--for everyone.
No, he is not commanding for his disciples (let's keep it in context here) to have that feeling of love, but that action, i.e. he helped the poor, he cured the afflicted, he died for our salvation, that sort of thing. Technically, there is no real feeling involved, although Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 picks up on that idea and says that if you don't have the feeling, the action really doesn't mean anything at all.

Quote:
(And yes...as has been mentioned already, I do interpret from a fundamentalist POV. Based on the assumption that the bible is meant for everyone, it follows that it should be accessible to all and should make sense to all. For this reason, a straightforward interpretation makes logical sense to me. If anyone wishes to argue that the bible is intended for a special few who can interpret it non-literally and somehow just right the way God intended, it follows that it wasn't meant for everyone, and I will happily drop my case.)
Well, for one, I'm not a Christian at all, so I call it as I see it. There's no non-literal reinterpretation around this issue, you merely have to acquaint yourself with the Greek. If it happens to fall in line with a certain Christian's philosophy, so be it.

Oh, and for your case, the Bible was not written for everyone. The Old Testament was written only for the Israelites and the New Testament for the followers of Christ. (The Gospels are more or less thought to have been written as a testimony for the author's sects, or for Christians in general). So, case dropped?

Chris
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-31-2005, 03:36 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolutionary
Thanks, Chris Weimer. I was hoping someone would come along with the Greek.
Not a problem. Someone ought to do it.

Chris
Chris Weimer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.