God does not love you...

[Drich]

By the way, nothing "allows" me to disbelieve in god. I disbelieve in god because there is nothing to prove it exists.

Then why argue the nature of his love?

It seems to me if you can attest to the love of God, you most certainly believe you know something of God.

Oh, you mean like this?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#SH1c

This is a good reference, one apparently you did not read in it's entirety.
For it does not support your position.

or this?

http://faculty.txwes.edu/mskerr/files/3304_ch10.htm

No, this would be considered a commentary. Do you not understand the contrast between the authority of reference material, and the conjecture found in personal or even an official commentary?

How about this?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=agape love

again no. This is not reference material. It is just a definition that does not support your assertion.

Clean up your spelling and grammar if you want to add any authority to your derisive manner of speaking. If you want to construct your arguments like a four-year-old and elevate yourself above others in this thread, don't expect me to respect what you have to say.

Do you not find it amusing a four year old's argument has the ability to deconstruct and dismiss all of your perfectly spelled out and grammatically correct responses?

I have always found that when people like you run out of relevant material to argue, the conversation appeals to their education as an attempt to accomplish what their well worded but poorly supported argument could not. As if somehow the legitimacy of the argument is tied to how you spell.

I have also found this to be true: Those who can do, Those who can't teach. Those who can't teach grade posts, rather than address the topic being discussed.

---

Which god is loving me again?

Did you not read the post you quoted? God does not love you He offers a specific love to you.

There are thousands of gods and millions of interpretations.

what section of the forum are we in again?? Your help here could answer your own question.

Why is your interpretation the right one?

Because I took the original Greek word being represented and crossed it to the English.

---

It is pure self-mockery that Abish continues to suggest only he has access to knowledge of that "special kind" of lovin'.

Theism: Totally helpless enslaved imbeciles selling misery.

(Foolish attempt number 4)
So if that is self mockery.. What is it when someone who claim to not believe in God, claims to know more of the love said God offers, than someone who has spent the majority of his life studying that same God?

How is it that you can know of this God's love when you claim He does not exist? If you believe He does not exist then how can you argue about the "special kind of lovin" being offered?