Official Bible Interpretation Thread

As far as I know there is one definition for love in the bible. There is no other love but this. There is no other love but god's love. Romantic love is vanities' substitute for love. Familial roles and attachments are not love. "Who are my mother and brothers? Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and my sister, and my mother."
"There is no fear in love, and perfect love casts out fear."
God is love.
So I feel the distinction, agape, is meaningless in denoting a "type of love".

 

Definitely, because our logic and culture are human and can be wrong (or usually is.) The value of the guiding comforter is that it shows us things through our hearts, where we can instantly understand through feeling, and bypass the laborious and often futile attempts of the mind to get to the same understanding. Well, I don't mean to sound like a softie but the one thing Jesus was most concerned about, as far as I can tell, is feelings and matters of the heart. Of course, thoughts and action are also important, but these other things are supposed to flow from a pure heart - the furnace of creation within you which belongs to God through Jesus Christ. That's where the undeniable understanding that God is there waiting for you comes from. The power of the Bible is "understood" in the heart.

We are not meant to shape what's in our hearts with our intellect; we are meant to shape our thoughts with pure hearts or feelings. This outlook is made to look foolish, wishy washy and not serious, but I think (or feel rather) that this is part of what Jesus meant when he told us to be as children. It also explains why we are told that those who hear the call are usually not those that are greatly respected in their society, as well as the whole "least and greatest" talk Jesus gives his disciples.

When you think about it, most things in our current culture and way of life seem almost perfectly designed to lead us away from this understanding. Like it's something to grow out of and doesn't bring one much "success" (or in my case brings only borderline madness :banghead:.) Even science falls into this category. It seems like much of it is retrospective and it is a subliminally given presumption that "reality" is something we need to prove ourselves in and we tune in to it intellectually. This being the only way...
but "as above, so below" is one thing I feel the alchemists might have been right about. Science works because it gathers data retrospectively and then exerts that data back into creation (in the form of experiments and operations) to get predictable results. OKAY, but do we not see how all of this began in the heart?

Feelings are the only realm which grants us experience, and thus consciousness. Computers can also perform operations and do mind work, but are not conscious. Please note that I am not referring to the physical processes associated with feelings as these are often falsely identified as the sole "cause" when in fact it's a two way street. Meaning, sometimes an effect is misunderstood to be a cause and it wouldn't even seem contradictory in that intellectual belief system.

Science works and the way of the heart also works. Spirit affects physicality and physicality affects the spirit because they are actually one. The problem is in using the physicality of our existence retrospectively as evidence to deny the spirit and thus God. And we all do on some level or we wouldn't be here, needing to be saved.

We allow God into our lives through our hearts. When we give ourselves to Him we are allowing him to work through our hearts and, in a way, become slaves to His will. Now, we have this aversion to the word "slave" and "slavery." These words seem to create an unpleasant sentiment towards giving ourselves over to the Lord just by association. The reality is that it's quite awesome, because God wants us to be happy.

In this state though things are pretty much perfect and Satan has only one play and that is to make us feel like we don't deserve this beautiful existence because we haven't earned it. "You need to prove [justify] yourself" he'll say, creating some thirst for pride. But I believe that God would say that the only thing we need to do to "earn" his grace is to not fall for that trap. I think we're all here, because to some degree, are in that trap.

...I'm using the term "heart" somewhat metaphorically of course, as Jesus did. Although it is interesting to note that most of us really do feel in our hearts and that general area. Or I do anyway. When I feel guided in my reading of scripture I feel the joy of it in my heart. It may spread everywhere but I can feel it flowing from my heart space - literally. Don't ask me why.

 

God is the source of all love, but it can manifest in different ways for people. God would like us to love each other.

I can see what you mean and how this is often very true. But I do not believe that it is always the case. God can use people to show us his love for us. He can give us his love through others and spread his love to others through us. He can teach us with the love that we feel for others. Faithfulness, devotion, patience, forgiveness and inspiration for purity are all things that a beautiful romantic relationship can give us, and it can be made right in God's sight I have very little doubt of that. And no, it is not in competition with my love of God, for I feel that he is the source of it and am ever grateful and appreciative for giving me the joy and experience of the love I feel.

I feel this is true also.

edit: I feel there is only one kind of love, but it can be expressed differently with different people, depending on the relationship. The same ingredients in varying quantities you could say.

 

If we were to perceive the world as god created it, we would see in every instance the touch of gods love. All expressions of love are maximal, that is all are equal in their ability to extend light, the faintest spark can turn into a raging fire. It is said that the dark adjusted eye can detect a single photon.

There is a difference between sharing love and romantic devotion and I point this out in particular because romantic devotion is the normal cultural model of "what love is". As a practical matter we cannot be with everyone at once, so our time will be divided between individuals. We cannot be physically intimate with everyone but we can be intimate with everyone in mind and heart to the extent that they are comfortable being intimate with you. I will never face the dilemma of choosing between friends, they all have all of my love. I feel nothing but profound gratitude that the people I love would choose to share their most valuable commodity, time, with me, I am honored.

 

Isn't this perception limited to God himself? Not that I think your statement is wrong, I don't although I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean.

This may be true, but that doesn't make all expressions of love the same expression. They can be different and unique and this is part of the grace of God's gift to us.

Is there really? What specifically do you mean by romantic anyway? Sometimes there can be both and they can both be part of love. It being "romantic" or not is simply by virtue of the mix of the ingredients of love making it such. I don't view it as a separate energy. I feel I may be being less than optimally clear, because I agree with you perfectly if we are discussing the cultural model of romantic love, but that is not to say that there is no such thing as actual romantic love (i.e. a particular type of expression of love, not a different type of love.)

Yes, I suppose in the end that's the way it would be.

Very nice sentiments and understanding. Some people bring love out of me more than others though. The one I have a "romantic" interest in brings out my love the most and makes me more loving and better to everyone else as well, because I get to learn about my love and how to wield it through my relationship with her by the grace of God and the teaching of and faith in Christ. I see how even though my love for her is special to me, and unique to me, and I want to be devoted to her, that love is indeed one as I see all the shared characteristics I wasn't even aware of until I learned it through the relationship. What I learn can then be applied to everything and everyone else, but my feeling of uniqueness and devotion to the relationship remains in tact. This is represented by my faithfulness and God uses it to teach me about what it means to be faithful in general -- just as I am faithful to Him through Christ.

In the Kingdom of God I'm not sure how this would work. There may not be such a need for it anymore when everything is perfect. When we are intimate with everyone in heart will the specialness of those that helped get us there wither away? I kind of hope not. In the case of husband and wife, I believe that they become one in the eyes of God.

 

We being created in the likeness and image of god who is love, are also love.
The holy spirit will show you what you ask for in a temporal order, that is we see when we are ready. The light can cause some discomfort to the dark adjusted eye but there is no reason we cannot behold the world in the eye of love.

Our view of gods' world is obscured by our lesson in guilt, Knowledge of good and evil. When we have forgiven the world all of our judgments against it then gods world appears.

Yes god's love is expressed in many forms but it's content is the same.

Involving sexual love: involving or characteristic of a love affair or sexual love, when the relationship is idealized. characterized by impractical attitudes and expectations. Imaginary or fictitious in an extravagant or glamorizing way. My wife is not the most beautiful woman in the world, I think that because I am under the influence of brain chemicals that cause me to desire a mate. My affectionate state changes through the course of a day. The measure we give is the measure we get. The only love we ever experience is the love we give. Love is found in the loving heart. To be allowed to share your love with some one is great, but no one can "complete" another. We can allow each other to be complete.

I am talking about the cultural model. Cripes, kids are going steady at 9 years old.

I agree that we have central figures in our lives and that some may be more personally devoted to us and we to them. Again to the extent that we are comfortable with each other.

Familiarity and joy remains, friendship remains but there are no marriages in heaven. It looks from the outside that we may be asked to give something up, but that is not so. It is like being faced with jumping off a cliff and thinking you will die but discovering you can fly.

 

If you note you say god wants us to be happy. Our will and gods will are the same will. It has never been any other way.

 

Usually is? Quite a tight defense system you've built against any information that might challenge your beliefs. How much logic and culture have you encountered? Have you taken college courses on it? If you're human, could you also be wrong? And if we reject logic, is there a point in continuing these discussions? Seems to me, you'll just continue to assert your beliefs and dismiss any other ones that aren't just agreeing with you.

 

Seems a hasty assessment to me.
We know them by their fruit. The holy spirits answer is always some form of peace. We know that the answer must be consistent with the cause of peace and be able to be consistently applied to all things. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We know that our word formulas must be consistent. Honesty is consistency.

 

We're in here to give our interpretations of bible scripture, not to assert beliefs (necessarily). But we might as the two exercises can tend to feed into each other.

You've announced that your interpretations will be based on logic, and that's terrific as the more avenues of interpretation explored the livelier the discussion and the greater opportunity for discovery.

But, to set a rule for everyone to adhere to in their comprehensions of scripture seems contra-indicated to the purpose. The mentality of logic is a valid approach I agree, but there are philosophical, theosophical, intuitive, learned-belief, and even that which is called supernatural influences that can inform our thinking.

So, maybe allow for the free-flow of instinctual examination into the debate. We are, after all, dealing with religious material here.

As a champion of logic (and I presume, science) there's a pretty good chance you'll get frustrated at the direction of many posts, but all inputs are welcome. Or, at least that was my understanding from the original post.

 

Some current scholarship suggests that Luke/Acts is actually an editing of Marcion to make it more orthodox and to reclaim Paul as someone who submits to Peter and isn't against the faith's Jewish roots whereas Marcion is almost Lutheran in his response to the Jewish faith (that the "works based" faith is inherently evil)

About John, ditto for Hebrews and Revelation which are borderline Gnostic as well. Luke is beginning to be thought of as written well into the 2nd century by some.

Though I'd disagree about the nature and power of Apostolic succession, I do agree that the early centuries were chaotic, but that the orthodox groups (or proto-orthodox) won not because of popularity (Marcion was pretty darn popular) but through the power of God. Studying the early church scholarly I think has actually deepened my faith. Those who try to argue that saints and relics and the like are stolen from pagans should read Peter Brown who argues that Christians violated pretty well every social norm by the veneration and translation of saints and their relics.

 

Ordinarily, the term agape is used to distinguish altruistic love from eros.

 

So the term agape is only relevant in relation to the term eros? In English we would say altruistic and romantic I guess. I am saying there is only one love, and as wonderful as romantic affection can be it is generated by the need to reproduce.

 

Also, the desire for intimate companionship. Even the infertile seek romantic affiliation.

 

It's useful analytically to make a distinction. There's a tendency in popular culture to get confused; e.g., "Without Love, where would you be now?" wasn't referring to agape, or real love in any meaningful sense of the word. Sex can be nice or not nice, romance can be better, but altruism is better yet, and I think the agape theme in the Bible is referring strictly to the latter, which can sometimes include the other two as incidentals.

 

Just because one is infertile doesn't mean that their sex drive is not present. I would point out that intimacy is not confined to opposite sex relations. I have been in love and at one time was convinced that this represented the ultimate loving expression, but I learned that being "in love", and loving, are not the same animal.

We have a whole range of behaviors and feelings, that we might say fall in the range of animal instinct. They are induced by our chemical makeup and physical design.
Gen. 4:6,7 The Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well sin is couching at the door; it's desire is for you, but you must learn to master it."

 

But in understanding the Bible, it's important to understand the distinction between agape and intimacy. Intimacy has to do with affection getting our own needs for closeness and belonging met. Agape has to do with making everyone's needs our concern, regardless of whether or not they meet ours. We don't have to like somebody in order to love them in the agapic sense. Like has to do with sentiment. Our neighbor can be a mean, unfriendly jerk. We don't have to like that. I don't like Dick Cheney or Pat Robertson, and certainly have no desire for intimacy with either of them. But love requires that we be concerned about them as human beings. If their houses burned down, agape would require us to offer help--unless "tough love" could cure them of their evil ways.

 

I agree with you about the analytic distinction and that from a state of agape romance and sex can be incidental manifestations. That romance and sex are primary statements of love is antithetical to agape principle.
When you say "not real love in any meaningful sense of the word", that is what I mean by there is only one love.

 

A mind without anxiety is wholly kind. First principles precede the perception of need. "Blessed are those that hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be satisfied." "Seek first the kingdom of God and all things will be added." Even our most precious relationships on earth are transient.

Remember no one puts new wine in old wine skins, a generally unrecognized principle. That God's children are in need of anything is a fundamental misunderstanding. Do not worry what you shall wear, God knows you need these things. We cannot repair the world, but the holy spirit can heal our perceptions of it. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven.

 

If I print 'agape' in one inch letters on a piece of white paper and tape it to the floor, how many angels can dance on it?