Egoinos

As far as I can tell, the agape family words were used pretty much as the English "love" is used - of many different contexts.
The reason I have said that primarily agape was used of sexual love, is because several dictionaries and encyclopaedias I referenced, did so. Those were the ones I quoted - I would overlook it and go with the usage as being like the English, except for the Liddell & Scott reference.

I do have a Bible program (PowerBible) but it does not have the LXX on it, otherwise I would. I did borrow a copy of the LXX in book form - but I could spend the rest of my life looking through it for every instance of the word "agape"!
If you know of any search engines on the net which have the LXX in them, I will look it up there.

--Egoinos--

platonist

why is "god" (or whomever wrote the bible) concerned with our sexual lives?

because sex influences us deeply, perhaps more than anything else. people are happier if they can avoid the emotional (and sometimes physical) tangles and snares that sex places in front of them. therefore, the person/s who wrote the bible gave people a law, a rule with great consequences, in order that they could be frightened into living lives that would be happier lives.

that's my point of view, in any case. it seems to me that this is much more clear in the torah than anywhere else. paul is different; in my mind, his debt on this point to the stoics and pythagoreans is obvious, especially for the "purification" motif wherein the body is evil to be transcended and the soul is divine. i myself prefer the jewish approach, but i don't really know that the xian one is that different. they both offer great benefits; the judaic law has potential to create as much happiness as possible for the maximum number of people, whereas the xian focusses more upon the individual attainment of that happiness.

Kosh

[quote]Originally posted by platonist:
<strong>
because sex influences us deeply, perhaps more than anything else. people are happier if they can avoid the emotional (and sometimes physical) tangles and snares that sex places in front of them.
</strong>

Unsupported assertion. Speak for yourself,
youngin'! I'm happier after I've been laid.
You'll realize this once you've experienced
it yourself.

Now we get some truth. Some people took their
own viewpoint, and decided to impose it on the
rest, along with threats and fear of an imaginary
God.

platonist

"Unsupported assertion. Speak for yourself,
youngin'! I'm happier after I've been laid.
You'll realize this once you've experienced
it yourself."

i could try to boost my "credibility" with you by telling you that i have had sex several times, but that would all be ad hominem anyway.

instead, i'll point out that your statement and mine aren't in contradiction. i agree that sex might be one of the factors that can help lead to happiness. however, let me ask you something: in your experience, are people always happier after the sexual act? it seems to me that people undergo a range of emotions, from sad and empty to happy. even if the act itself always leads to happiness, there are many things that come along with it that sometimes don't-- like babies, commitment, and a whole host of psychological repercussions that it takes a subtler mind than mine to fathom. i therefore don't say that sex is bad in itself-- and, i'd like to point out, neither do the torah or the xian writings-- only that it's a very powerful and difficult thing to handle without getting burned. as the recent headline at <a href="http://www.theonion.com" target="_blank">www.theonion.com</a> pointed out, orgies always turn out to be "a logistical nightmare," with some people getting hurt and confused because they aren't prepared to expect what they get from sex. (should one assume that they will? would that be rational?)

that's why i think that people in general are better off if they have some sexual pattern within which to live, such as marriage, and some firm lines drawn in order to make that pattern stick.

"Now we get some truth. Some people took their
own viewpoint, and decided to impose it on the
rest, along with threats and fear of an imaginary
God."

first of all, one needn't balk at the idea, or even at the terms in which you frame it. since the beginning of time, cultures have created traditions by espousing myths that at the least are impossible to substantiate and at most are wholly untrue. and since seeking the truth isn't something that most people want to do (or ought to be expected to do), what's wrong with that? humans came up with traditions and cultures, i think, because it was healthy to do so-- because it gave a necessary order to their lives. sometimes, "priests" or "shamans" or "rabbis" were the ones disseminating these traditions, and sometimes they knew better, but i think that a close review of the laws they gave reveals that they did it not for money or sex or power (none of those things would require the subtlety or hard work or--and especially--love that seems apparent in the holy books passed down to us) but in order to help people.

second, even if god doesn't exist, it still seems to me that it's healthier for most to believe in one.

there are three possibilities for morality: first, morality could be a thing given by god that we can't understand and must follow anyway; second, it could be a thing found by reason aside from any god's existence or nonexistence, in which case it would seem to me to be a very difficult thing to discover; or, third, morality mightn't exist, and there would be no reason for anyone to act in any particular way. i think most people need the first option and probably can't deal with the second. since society can't exist with the third, i'm fine with that.

(furthermore, the prospect of annihilation of one's soul is, i think, the most frightening prospect we as humans have to face; it's made easier by a belief in the immortal soul.)

(this is all just the oft-rehearsed 'noble lie' argument, but i think it makes sense. i use it because it seems most productive to argue as if religion were false. if it were true, i'm sure both of us would agree that it would be beneficial.)

jeff