God does not love you...

[Drich]

No, I do not attest to the love of god. I am contesting your biased interpretations of your own holy book. Nothing more, nothing less.

How so?

Actually it does. My position is merely that you are wrong in your assessment.

Then please restate your position.

A definition is reference material.

Not without a being tied to a legitimate source. Otherwise it is just a definition.

As this source does not support your assessment, it upholds my position. You are redefining words to suit your needs.

My position is that Agape is not a love that is free from terms or conditions. (as per John 3:16) One must adhere to said terms in order to receive the boundless nature of this form of Love that God is offering.

This point has been stated and restated a dozen times now, if you believe I am changing anything then go back and reread my previous posts.

Pity that you don't understand that literally everything you read is commentary. Whether it is based on facts or not is the crux of it.

I have listed 3 actual reference books for the other person who wanted to argue this very same argument. At least that person and I were able to agree on the authority of what true reference material looks like. (wiki-p, random outlines in sociology and phantom definitions not being apart of the discussion.)

[Shell B]

Ah, yes, "random" definitions from trustworthy universities.

This is an utter waste of time. All of your beliefs are based on your own interpretations. They make it possible for you to read the Bible and not hate the antagonist of the piece. Read the Bible from a literal perspective and you will see things differently. Until such a time as you can manage that, you will continue to make shoddy arguments in order to support your preconceived ideas of god. Good luck with that.

[Drich]

Ah, yes, "random" definitions from trustworthy universities.

This is an utter waste of time. All of your beliefs are based on your own interpretations. They make it possible for you to read the Bible and not hate the antagonist of the piece. Read the Bible from a literal perspective and you will see things differently. Until such a time as you can manage that, you will continue to make shoddy arguments in order to support your preconceived ideas of god. Good luck with that.

So you refuse to restate your position, you ignore legitimate translation material such as Strong's, Thayer's, Bullingers, or BDag lexicons. In favor of random material that may or may not be consistent with the specific translation of passages from the bible that is actually being discussed. Just so you can harp on a undefined and illusive point that seems to float where ever you wish to argue from.

Which BTW now seems to favor a literal English reading of the bible, rather than correcting my understanding of the Greek. Which means you would have us ignore the original Greek text, in favor of what is easiest for you to understand and argue. You are correct this does seem to have been a great waist of time.

[Shell B]

Why should I "restate" my position? From the word go, I have merely contested your "definition" of agape love.

It's waste. For fuck's sake.

[genkaus]

Unless your intention is to argue a straw man then may I suggest that you go back and reread what has be "purported."

What has been purported is that he decides things about people's life an death without even consulting them. That is evil.

[Epimethean]

Agape refers to the paternal love of God for man and of man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity. (The Hebrew ahev has a slightly wider semantic range than agape). Agape arguably draws on elements from both eros and philia in that it seeks a perfect kind of love that is at once a fondness, a transcending of the particular, and a passion without the necessity of reciprocity. The concept is expanded on in the Judaic-Christian tradition of loving God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving “thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). The love of God requires absolute devotion that is reminiscent of Plato’s love of Beauty (and Christian translators of Plato such as St. Augustine employed the connections), which involves an erotic passion, awe, and desire that transcends earthly cares and obstacles. Aquinas, on the other hand, picked up on the Aristotelian theories of friendship and love to proclaim God as the most rational being and hence the most deserving of one’s love, respect, and considerations.

The universalist command to “love thy neighbor as thyself” refers the subject to those surrounding him, whom he should love unilaterally if necessary. The command employs the logic of mutual reciprocity, and hints at an Aristotelian basis that the subject should love himself in some appropriate manner: for awkward results would ensue if he loved himself in a particularly inappropriate, perverted manner! (Philosophers can debate the nature of “self-love” implied in this-from the Aristotelian notion that self-love is necessary for any kind of interpersonal love, to the condemnation of egoism and the impoverished examples that pride and self-glorification from which to base one’s love of another. St. Augustine relinquishes the debate–he claims that no command is needed for a man to love himself (De bono viduitatis, xxi.) Analogous to the logic of “it is better to give than to receive”, the universalism of agape requires an initial invocation from someone: in a reversal of the Aristotelian position, the onus for the Christian is on the morally superior to extend love to others. Nonetheless, the command also entails an egalitarian love-hence the Christian code to “love thy enemies” (Matthew 5:44-45). Such love transcends any perfectionist or aristocratic notions that some are (or should be) more loveable than others. Agape finds echoes in the ethics of Kant and Kierkegaard, who assert the moral importance of giving impartial respect or love to another person qua human being in the abstract.

However, loving one’s neighbor impartially (James 2:9) invokes serious ethical concerns, especially if the neighbor ostensibly does not warrant love. Debate thus begins on what elements of a neighbor’s conduct should be included in agape, and which should be excluded. Early Christians asked whether the principle applied only to disciples of Christ or to all. The impartialists won the debate asserting that the neighbor’s humanity provides the primary condition of being loved; nonetheless his actions may require a second order of criticisms, for the logic of brotherly love implies that it is a moral improvement on brotherly hate. For metaphysical dualists, loving the soul rather than the neighbor’s body or deeds provides a useful escape clause-or in turn the justification for penalizing the other’s body for sin and moral transgressions, while releasing the proper object of love-the soul-from its secular torments. For Christian pacifists, “turning the other cheek” to aggression and violence implies a hope that the aggressor will eventually learn to comprehend the higher values of peace, forgiveness, and a love for humanity.

The universalism of agape runs counter to the partialism of Aristotle and poses a variety of ethical implications. Aquinas admits a partialism in love towards those we are related while maintaining that we should be charitable to all, whereas others such as Kierkegaard insist on impartiality. Recently, Hugh LaFallotte (1991) has noted that to love those one is partial towards is not necessarily a negation of the impartiality principle, for impartialism could admit loving those closer to one as an impartial principle, and, employing Aristotle’s conception of self-love, iterates that loving others requires an intimacy that can only be gained from being partially intimate. Others would claim that the concept of universal love, of loving all equally, is not only impracticable, but logically empty-Aristotle, for example, argues: “One cannot be a friend to many people in the sense of having friendship of the perfect type with them, just as one cannot be in love with many people at once (for love is a sort of excess of feeling, and it is the nature of such only to be felt towards one person)” (NE, VIII.6).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#SH1c

---

Drich, you serve weak sauce. You probably have no understanding of the connections between Attic, Koine, Katharevousa and Demotic Greek. Typical fundie.

[Drich]

Why should I "restate" my position? From the word go, I have merely contested your "definition" of agape love.

It's waste. For fuck's sake.

A waste indeed for the defination I repersented is not my own but the consensus from these lexicons: Strong's, Thayer's, Bullingers, and the BDag.

[Epimethean]

You love to tout your lexicon and yet you discredit other lexicons. Interesting bias. Agenda?

Not the best written refutation, but gets to the root of the matter:

John 21:15-17 (NKJV):
15So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love [agap-] Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love [phil-] You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love [agap-] Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love [phil-] You.” He said to him, “Tend My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love [phil-] Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love [phil-] Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love [phil-] You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.

Interlinear text available in the link.

http://www.the-goldenrule.name/Agape-Eros_Phil.htm

[Drich]

Drich, you serve weak sauce. You probably have no understanding of the connections between Attic, Koine, Katharevousa and Demotic Greek. Typical fundie.

From the Agape defination you and Shell B posted:
The concept is expanded on in the Judaic-Christian tradition of loving God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving “thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). The love of God requires absolute devotion.

Which denotes a condition or term for said love. Which supports my position, and undermines your own.
You like the poster above should take the time to read the source material you quote. For you both quoted this material but did not take the time to consider the implications of the context in which the word was being used.

---

You love to tout your lexicon and yet you discredit other lexicons. Interesting bias. Agenda?

Which lexicon was discredited? I staqrted out with one and have added every other one mention to my list. I have four now.

[Epimethean]

Read and respond to the citation and link just posted, please, dear heart.