Since the Official Video thread was getting cluttered...perhaps a mod can fix it all up later, my attempts have dropped some hypertext links here and there.

Props.

I guess part of the confusion is with the definition of love:

Christian conceptions of love (when applied to contexts such as "love thy neighbor" and such) operate more on the axis of storge - agape than philia - eros.

Just a quick response for now (I think there is something really important about this topic, but I don't think the discussion so far has really got close to it - my fault - hopefully someone else's input might help steer the topic back onto a more interesting and relevant tack).


First, you are playing fast and loose with my simplified definition, and also affirming the consequent (?)
If you love someone, you will put their needs and well-being ahead of your own.
If you put someone's needs and well-being ahead of your own, you don't necessarily love them. A fireman does not pull someone out of a burning building because they love that individual.

The Kravinsky fellow I had not heard of before, he performed a philanthropic act of incredible magnitude. I did not see a mention of his religion anywhere so far. I did see it mentioned that he weighed the value of a random persons life against the risk of the surgery in order to justify the act. Would a Christian think they should be donating organs by default?

But I am not talking about a "love of humanity", but loving each individual ("as you love yourself"). Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but isn't "love your neighbour" referring to the individual level, say in contrast to "love your neighbours" or "love your neighbourhood" etc?

I will concede that I hold a particularly high reservation for the term "love" and only apply it to my immediate and closest friends and family. I still think it is not possible to love someone that you do not know, beyond a superficial manner (btw I do not mean superficial in the sense of the magnitude of the act, but in how personal the act is).


More generally, loving your neighbour is only the second most important command, and if your fellow humans are not at the top of the list, couldn't this have a real effect on how (or even if) you love your neighbour (depending on the neighbour)?

Thanks for doing this and I agree it's definitely worthy of splitting out.

I'm going to come back to this but I think it may be worth distinguishing a love for humans or humanity and love for individuals.

What are yalls views on John 15, where Jesus hammers the "love each" other theme?

I suppose you could argue that Jesus isn't necessarily commanding that we love strangers, but simply your friends, or your brothers/sisters perhaps. However, concerning love of strangers, I feel the Parable of the Good Samaritan covers that.

Fun discussion, btw. Thanks for ripping it out of the video thread, I never would've seen it.

Nice sediment but i dont think you can command love.

I am resisting the douchey urge to post some pic of sedimentary rocks.... I assume you meant "sentiment". In any case I think you are correct that commanding love seems ineffective. IMO this is the point. Christ commands us to love other people but this is actually impossible. Therefore we must rely on Christs' spiritual strength to live through us to love others.

Loving others is not a command any person can achieve in their own strength or by a mere exercise of the will. As I try and love other people I am confronted with my own inadequacy and selfishness. I need Christ (continually) to change my mind and heart to be the kind of person that actually loves other people.

Therefore Jesus' command is complex. It is not a command to "do", but rather a command to "be" different. In essence a spiritual transformation of the heart is required (ongoing).

thanks, this is what I meant to say but never quite said

I'm curious about this part. You admit that you aren't capable ot loving a stranger with your own strength or willpower (perfectly understandable imo). How then does it feel when Christ does it for you? Are you overcome with a sudden rush of loving feelings for them?

I can only speak for myself, and I'd rephrase it a bit because the experience that I have of this is not cleanly separated from myself, i.e if it is Christ doing it, it is Christ doing it through and in me, that is it's not like watching someone else do something. But yes the experience is one of expansiveness and peace and contentment and joy and love. And I find that it comes about through making a conscious effort to be present with God and mindful of those qualities that we are commanded to try to embody

We still havent got down to the nitty gritty of what love actually IS.

Is it a feeling? If so its not always here. When someone asks, " do you love me" there will be times when you are not feeling love for that person, but you may still answer "yes, I love you"


Is it a concept, an idea? You only apply it to your closest friends and family. Why? Because that is what the idea of love tells you.
Love is something that you do to your family and closest friends, therefore, you apply the label to your family and closest friends.
Why do you love your family? Does everyone love their family? should everyone love their family?

When someone says to you "I love you" what does that mean? Are they somehow bestowing something on you? How? Is it that somehow you are special, and engender in them a feeling of love? if so, how do you do that?Why is it important that you have people that say "I love you" to you?

It seems like its a badge, an achievement, a statement of worth of self. It seems like its something you gain, something you can lose, something you can give and take back again.

Is it possible to love, without an object to love?

as long as you have a subject to love I think you'll be OK

ok is it possible to love without a subject or object?

yes, ok, but what IS it?

Video was just to lighten the mood.

If you want a definition then I suppose we could start with the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives various definitions depending on the context but the one that is related to this discussion is '1: feel deep affection for someone'

Not just affection, but deep affection.

ok, but that begs the question, "what is affection".
Your definition implies that its a feeling. So, when the feeling is not there( which is likely most of the time) does that mean that you dont love the person?

First thought: I think perhaps it is not possible to love without having an "Other" to love

Various philosophers or theologians have taken this to be something ontological. "Esse est co-esse". I think Christian ontology and understanding of love requires the idea. Love in the mystical tradition is something about the nature of Being itself, rather than just a feeling or a behavioral pattern or a set of moral imperatives or whatever. Love is the real going out of the lover to the beloved.

I've never subscribed to 'love' as an emotion, but rather as an action. I don't always 'feel' a strong emotional 'love' with people I'm close to (even my wife at times), but I do Love them. In the same regard, when I act in kindness and compassion towards another person, I am showing them Love. If I give a hungry stranger a meal, I have shown him Love. This is the crux of Christ's message, and is the very core of his teaching and crucifixion.

While this may have been a foreign concept to what were very tribal communities, it's not that difficult to grasp. I think if Christians held closely to this teaching and released all other dogma, Christianity would flourish.

Only on rare occasion do I feel a sense of warmth or compassion towards someone else (maybe it could be/should be more...).

I think it becomes more natural once there is a mental assent to wanting to do good toward others. In addition to a mental assent about doing good one still needs God to continually soften the heart to make it "real". I don't have a good way to put this into words or be articulate about it. Well Named's explanation is good too.

It is generally not a super emotional experience for me, but maybe it should be I don't know. It is kind of a spiritual mystery. I am doing the good work physically, but meanwhile I am yielding to Christ who is the one actually doing the good in and through me.

KBC, your background in Christianity gives you good insight. I am moving more in the direction of wanting to live out love, rather than cling to a narrow view of doctrine. IME so many Christians emphasize doctrine stringently and defend doctrine vehemently but often lack love (IMO). On the other hand I know some Christians (and I hope to be one of these) that lives out love toward others while holding theological concepts with an open hand. Obv. some points of doctrine can't be negotiable otherwise it is just a free for all, but the over emphasis of doctrine at the expense of love seem incorrect.

The truth is that most of Jesus' teaching was pretty darn vague. What was crystal clear was love God and love people.

Not necessarily that love is a feeling, but it evokes a feeling. wrt your question can you love without a target, I don't think so, and this might be supported by when the target is not in your current thoughts, the feeling of love is not necessarily present. Usually when you bring the target into your thoughts, you will feel those feelings again.

When you described it as a concept, this is where I start to have some problems. I mentioned in the OP that I see a cultural difference in young Americans (I'm not sure what the actual divisions are, and it might be more that I am the one that is the outlier) that they apply love to everyone around them, whether they are close friends or much more casual. I don't know if they are describing a fake feeling, or they are comfortable with a much more diluted description than I am.


This is getting at what I was originally describing as being in conflict. As dereds pointed out, we should differentiate between a love for humanity and a love for individuals. I am suggesting that you do not love the stranger that you feed or show kindness toward, you simply "show kindness" etc. The reason why you do it is because you do have a love for humanity, and you are demonstrating it in this act. But the stranger could have been a completely different individual and you would have done the same thing. This is what I am trying to dig away at, can you love a stranger? I don't think you can.

Still think commanding love is messed up.

As far as not being able to love others without Jesus. Thats even more so.

I think you can love a stranger. Once you meet them and show them love they cease to be part of the faceless sum of humanity and now move to the individual category. That is a beautiful transition. The person who is unknown and unloved becomes known and loved. I can think of instances in my life where this has been the case.

Take the example of a passerby giving their coat to a homeless person. It is an act of love to shield them from the elements. But more than that it is an act of love to acknowledge that they matter as an individual and are not just a faceless member of humankind. It is the personal interaction that makes the difference IMO.

maybe I am missing your point though?

This doesnt make sense. If love evokes a feeling, then you need to tell me what this love is that causes the evoking? Is it an object? an idea? what?



This contradicts above where you saying love isnt a feeling, and now you say "the feeling of love", so I am a bit confused

It sounds like thoughts of the target are "the love", and not the target itself, or the feelings. What is special about the thoughts of the target?