Love is acceptance.
Love is putting your partners needs before your own. That is easy right?
How do you love someone you do not know how do you put them first? 0887
Well, Lib., I’m going to try once again to get some response from you, especially since this thread ,maybe, has more to do with what I want to say than the Libertaria/environment one. (I would communicate by email but your profile doesn’t include an address.)
The problem apparently started in another thread, when you made a comment to the effect that “God doesn’t go where he isn’t wanted”, implying, IMO, that if some of us have searched for God with no success it’s because we want it that way. I replied in some anger, but I also tried to explain why your comment had upset me, and to give a brief view of some of my (painful, in several senses of the word) search for belief.
You didn’t reply to me in any spirit of Christian love that I could see, nor even as one human being to another. All you said was “So take a pill”.
I could have resented your attitude and replied in kind, but I saw that I had been impolite in the way I had addressed you, so my next post was an apology, and a promise not to use personal insults in the future.
I have kept that promise.
I disagree, sometimes strongly, with some of the ideas you have about Libertarianism. I also am disturbed by what I see as your habit of attributing exaggerated and ridiculous statements to people who don’t agree with you. I found your (several) mentions of “the one about the man who owned all the water in the world” especially offensive, since no one had mentioned anything of the sort in any of the threads I have seen. I posted a message saying so. I didn’t insult you, I called you no names, I made no comments about your character, your intelligence, or your moral values.
In your answer, you reprinted my apology, and called me a liar.
The next time you addressed me, it was to accuse me of " “crash(ing) a debate with the rhetorical equivalent of bug-eyed arm-flailing”, and to make a number of less than flattering comments on my character and intelligence.
.Then you said, to Xenophon: " I don’t care what Mapache thinks… When a man says that I am a fool and a liar who is not allowed to suppose while he supposes to a fare-thee-well, I don’t care what he thinks."
So now I want to ask if you see no contradiction between the thoughts on Christian love you have expressed on this thread, and , and the way you addressed me in the other.
Would you contrast “Why should God go where he isn’t wanted?” and your answer to my protest “So take a pill” with " Denying God’s goodness to another human being is the most wretched decision you can possibly make. It is tantamount to a decision that you will judge on His behalf." To me, you seemed to be saying that God’s goodness was denied to me, and to others that had tried to believe and failed, because we wanted it that way.
Do you see no contradiction between calling me ““pitifully stupid”
“profoundly Neanderthal”, “embarrasingly ridiculous”, an “intellectual cripple” a “mental nimrod” and a “liar” (which I have always held to be about the worst insult one can hurl at an opponent) and " Don’t just hold no ill feelings. Let good feelings flow from you”?
Do you believe that telling a third party (Xeno) that I had called you a fool and a liar, and so forth, when I had not done so, is not “bearing false witness”? I know, I’m not your neighbor, but I had thought that Jesus dealt with that objection in the parable about the Samaritan.
It’s not my place, obviously, to lecture Christians about the words of Christ; but I have read the Bible rather carefully. Jesus didn’t often use harsh words in his messages, but in the verses about motes and beams he did say “Thou hypocrite!” which seems to me to express a certain amount of displeasure. I didn’t make false statements about you; you did make false statements about me. I didn’t call you any insulting names; you did use the words I mentioned above about me. I will admit to plenty of motes in my eyes, and maybe a few beams as well. How do your eyes feel?
I didn’t ask for an apology, although when I felt that I had been rude to you I offered one without being asked. I asked only that you withdraw the false statements you had made about me. I asked you twice. I even said “Please”. You haven’t replied. So I’m asking again. If you choose to ignore my request, I’ll leave it to the other posters on the SDMB to decide whether your version of Christian love is real, or nothing but words.
Made it to the end of the thread as you suggested, Lib. Very worthwhile reading.
What if I feed the hungry, minister to the sick, and visit those in prison, all without any love in my spirit? Am I actually conducting goodness? I’m NOT talking about evil motives like killing and eating the person I’m luring with food, but rather a blind following of the law, motivited by mere obedience. I don’t love this person, I don’t give a shit about this person, but I’m feeding him because I follow Christ, and Christ told me to feed him. What hope is there for me? How do I learn to love? Is the desire to love, love itself?
Is agape only an action, or is it only a feeling, or is it necessarily both?
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
In English, it’s not at all clear to me that the corollary of “God is Love” is true. There are lots of things we humans call “love” that are definitely not God. But is the corollary true in the Greek, in your view, Lib, speaking specifically of agape? Is it true to say “Agape esti Theos”? (Please forgive my grammar, if need be.)
(Mapache, do you have a link to the thread you’re talking about?)
We’re none of us perfect, that’s for sure. How does God deal with us when we’re erring? Does God “love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin”? I would hear more from Lib on “sin” - as Barney Fife said, “Mah favorite topic.” 
I am very conscious of my sin. (Or at least, shall I put it, I’m very conscious of the ones that I’m very conscious of.) It’s horrifyingly deliberate. I recover myself, but not for long. Just what, exactly, does Perfect Love make of this? Is it possible to die not in a state of grace, as it were?
Lib, I’d email you rather than posting, if you’d list an address. There’s more I would say privately if I had the opportunity. May I suggest getting a nice anonymous Hotmail addy and listing it here, and ignoring people you know to be jerks? Of course, you’ve probably been down this road and have very good reasons for doing what you’re doing.
This is a definate hijack of the thread, but a reference to God and His sock puppets always makes me think of the webcomic Sinfest.
Lib, I don’t feel you are being entirely frank with me, and I wont simply dismiss it, because you are an interesting and intelligent person I want to learn more about and from.
The problem is that you make statements like this:
—I’m afraid not. Before brains ever were, this Love is.—
This is an intellectual claim, not one founded purely on an experience of love. The problem I have is that I too have experiences of love: but I don’t feel pressed to make the same sorts of intellectual claims. It’s all well and good to say that the intellect is unimportant and love is all that matters. Okay, we both experience a great, unsurpassed feeling of love: yet regardless, aside from that, you still do make intellectual claims, they still seem to matter to you enough to “correct” people who think differently, and in many cases do it by presuming a worldview based on your intellectual ideas, often without acknowledging the fact that they are your own interpretation, not a decided truth about what love is.
or this:
—It is impossible to love and not believe. The brain might believe a lie, but the spirit will not.—
The problem is, this seems to make a useless priori definition about “the spirit” not ever believing a lie. If something that someone has a heartfelt belief in is a lie, will you then conclude that it wasn’t REALLY believed “in the spirit?” In my mind, people’s spirits are as prone to factual error as their intellect: the only place they are infaliable is in the expression of their own feelings.
First, to Mapache
The purpose of my moral journey is to learn how to love. It’s easy to love people who are sympathetic with me, but hard to love people who are not. I am as full of sin as anyone. I love insufficiently.
But I know what it’s like to be on your end of this. I’m presently in communication with someone who I believe hates me. He is surprised that I think that, but my hope is that I can explain to him why that is my perception so we can repair our relationship. You’re basically doing the same thing. “Here’s how I see it,” you’re telling me, “so what do you think of that?”
I think you’re hurt. I didn’t think so before, but I do now. You keep knocking on this door and waiting for me to answer. You keep seeking a resolution to this. You’re persistently dogging me, insisting that I hear you.
And I’m telling you that your ship has come in. Jesus said that all who seek will find. All who ask will receive. And to all who keep knocking, the door will be opened.
I should never have been dismissive with you. You are my neighbor no matter whether you believe in God or not. I have no moral standing above you and therefore no jusification to look down on you. And that is what I have done. I have treated you like an enemy when all you have asked for is consideration and fairness.
I should not have held on to something as trivial as a slogan or paraphrase when it offended you. I should have let go of a minor point rather than making it into a wall between us. I shouldn’t have fashioned your protest into an accusation of lying. I shouldn’t have presumed a righteousness over you.
I used forgiveness as a tool for assuaging my own conscience, not as a means for restoring love. I forgave you for sins you did not even commit in the way that a pompous king forgives someone whose head accidentally pops up higher than his.
I behaved like a Pharisee, holding you to standards and putting weight upon your shoulders that I myself was not willing to bear — all the while knowing that my Lord places light burdens, not heavy ones.
I became a respecter of person, unlike my God, saying that I didn’t care what you think but did care what someone else thought. I put myself in a position of moral authority over you, thereby usurping the very authority of God Himself.
I apologize for all these things and ask you for your forgiveness. I ask you to lie down now while I bathe you in oil and perfume to soothe the hurt I’ve caused you and heal the wounds I’ve inflicted upon you.
Whether you believe in God or not, you are, in my belief, His child and equal to me. His spirit resides in you and, if you have not yet found Him, it is at least partly because of people like me who have presented to you a god who is not love.
Don’t be disheartened. Jesus said that the first shall be last and the last first. In His kingdom, those like me who have injured people like you will be your servants and you will be our masters.
As you pursue your moral journey, do not look to people like me for your answers. I can plant some seeds with my words, but you must weed out your own heart and discern the thistles from the flowers.
Look within yourself because that is where God resides. You don’t need me to validate you. God Himself is your champion, and if I sin against you, it is His Word that I dishonor. My words are worthless.
Jesus said that the peacemakers are blessed and are children of God. You have made peace now between us. You therefore have all the rights and priviledges of any heir. Claim the kingdom that is yours.
God go with you, Mapache.
Masonite wrote:
If there is no goodness in a man’s heart to conduct, then how can it be conducted?
If he is feeding a man simply because he feels compelled to obey a law, then a robot programmed to obey feeding laws would do just as well in his place. If he is feeding a man to get a reward, then he has his reward already because what he seeks is recognition for his deed.
The goodness is not in moving a spoon from a plate to someone’s mouth. The goodness is in the desire that they not starve. The man who is eating will know whether you love him. He will know whether there is goodness flowing from you to him, or whether you are just going through motions.
Love leaves in its wake glad hearts among those who receive it. Good deeds, whether done in love or not, can feed a man’s body, but love feeds his spirit. Goodness pours out of you, and if he accepts your love, flows into him.
You cannot expect that, even if you act out of love, your love will always be received. Not everyone values goodness at all times. Our hearts are where our treasure is.
You learn to love by valuing goodness above all else. And then everything you do will be an act of love.
It is neither an action nor a feeling. You’ve already seen how an action might be loving or might not. And feelings are products of the brain, not the heart.
Love is not a feeling; it is the means by which goodness is expressed, and that can be an action, a facial expression, a thought, or no action at all. We might love when we are in the bowels of depression or when we are at the height of exhiliration. A loving nun who has dedicated her life to helping the poor will surely feel empathy for them. She will not be smiley and happy while she lives among those who suffer. But she will love nonetheless.
Your grammar is fine. And yes, that is the Love that God is. He is the very Origin of goodness and its first Facilitator.
Apos wrote:
I promise you that I am being as frank as I am capable.
It’s both, Apos. As I’ve been saying, these things have both an intellectual and a spiritual interpretation.
Jesus said, “Before Abraham ever was, I am.” And I have seen those words from both points of view. When I saw them intellectually, I was at first confused because I was conducting a translation exercise and there appeared to be a mistake. As I resolved the statement intellectually, I began to have an understanding that He was making the claim that His existence is eternal.
But it was not until I let my intellect go that the spiritual interpretation of the statement overwhelmed me. And I do not mean in an emotional sense. Yes, there were intense emotions that accompanied my epiphany, but these were the product of an excited brain. The intellectual understanding came from my brain, just like the feelings, but the spiritual understanding came from God.
You might ask me to exposit the spiritual understanding, but I can do so only with metaphor. And that might likely leave you unsatisfied. The spiritual understanding, for example, gives me peace. But without a common frame of reference, you might mistake that for an emotional sense of well-being.
Sometimes, an intellectual understanding can lead to a spiritual understanding so long as the heart is as open as the mind. If I bother to correct or tweak what you say, it is with the intention of helping to clarify so that you might get a broader view that will lead you to open your heart.
Even now, you could persist with the dichotomy and say that I am implying that your heart is closed whereas mine is open. It is like you want me to say that there is no difference between us when there clearly is: I believe in God and you do not. If I were to say that I am deluded, but you see clearly, would you then be satisfied? What is it that you will allow as a demarcation between how we view the world?
There is no heartfelt belief in a lie. If a person believes in a god of wrath, then a god of wrath is what he holds in his heart. Spiritual things are not true or false in the sense of A or Not A. Spiritual things are true or false in the sense of I Accept or I Reject.
Libertarian, I realise that I may be becoming just another car you can play philosophical Frogger with, but you have still not rebutted Apos’s assertion that the spirit may be misled (beyond merely defining the spirit to be something unmisleadable).
Is it possible for the spirit to accept something which is not actually the case? If not, you are again merely defining the spirit, on your own terms, and we may as well all do the same. I may as well define the spirit as an imaginary, fictitious and fantastical by-product of the sentience of these pieces of offal in our cranial cavities.
I put it to you that this statement may be false.
Are you saying it need not be anything to do with the “Agape lover” , and can solely be defined in terms of the experience of the “Agape lovee”?
I echo the sentiments of all those who have remarked that it is obvious that all your responses are given in Love - your God bless you, Libertarian. Please do not cover me in oil and perfume.
Thank you, Lib. I have to get to work right now, so I can’t reply at length as I ought to. I’ll read your post over again when I can and get back to you. But for now, Thank you.
Mapache
May your work be fruitful and fulfilling!
Sentient
The spirit that you accept is the spirit that you will know. You will not know the spirit that you reject. How you define it is entirely up to you.
Jesus spoke of spirit in the manner I describe, and I trust His understanding. It’s just my choice to believe Him, and does not render your choice invalid.
He taught that we may accept or reject even Him and His Father, and that He would not impose His existence on those who reject Him. Nor will He or His Father judge anyone’s choice.
Like a private Schrodinger’s cat for each of us, there is no actual case until the spirit has decided. If you accept that there is no God, then there is in reality no God for you. No other resolution would be morally fair.
Thanks for your blessings. Love happens when goodness overflows. Men know with their hearts what they might not know with their brains. Sometimes the greatest kindness is to do nothing, as in not bathing you in oil and perfume.
sometimes I doubt the love of God because of external experiences.
Can you give me some verses which show that He is All-loving?
Vanilla
As I see it, every verse that is true shows that He is all-loving! 
But here is one that might speak directly to you:
“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” — John 3:34
I respectfully suggest that your understanding of the nature of love is woefully incomplete.
I further suggest that you attempt to gain an understanding of what love isn’t.
Thanks for the suggestions, Vorlon. “Love” is a word with many meanings. If you prefer some other word that means “conduit of goodness”, I won’t begrudge your using it.
I feel I really must add the definition of ‘love’ as used by most psychologists:
Love is that state of emotional affairs where one’s own happiness is dependent upon the happiness of someone else.
Not much high-flown rhetoric like the posts above but, if you think about it, you’ll see that this definition subsumes the others without necessarily detracting from them.
Thanks for that contribution, Satyagrahi. Even though this thread is intended to deal only with [symbol]agape[/symbol], it is interesting to see some of the many meanings of the word “love”.
Libertarian, I’m late coming to this thread and I apologize. I had no idea what I was missing. There are a few specific things I’d like to address first.
I can’t speak for others, but my particular empathy won’t merely make two of us, I hope. With any luck, it will give me the tools to help him and see past his desire to commit suicide and to enable him to survive. It’s not an easy job, by any stretch of the imagination, but empathy does not have to be limited to mirroring another’s emotions alone.
Yes, love is definitely voluntary. Some time back in grade school I realized that if I was mean to the kids who were being mean to me, that would only continue the cycle of bullying. Instead, I made a conscious decision not to be mean or a bully. Love is a conscious and sometimes difficult decision. Hatred or indifference to those who wrong you is much easier.
I also love the two quotes you posted, by the way. To this particular Christian, He is obviously something more. To me, he is proof that God or whatever name you want to hang on the universe as a whole actually cares enough about us silly human beings that He chose to have firsthand experience of it and give us proof (not atheist-proof proof, but proof) that our sins are forgiven and that it’s OK to be less than perfect, even though I believe we are supposed to strive for perfection.
To me love is not related to liking a person. Instead, what I believe “love your neighbor as yourself” means is you must respect all people for what they are. I am not allowed to show cruelty or dismiss an entire group of people based on one aspect. Instead, I am required to take each person as he or she is. Even if I decide that person is someone I want nothing to do with, and there have been a few, I must still show them basic respect and courtesy. In other words, I can hide the silver, but I’d better not let them catch me! 
I’ll also add that, given my notoriously low self-esteem, I’ve been known to ask God to help me love my neighbor a little (or a lot) better than I love myself. However, friends have not been allowing me that particular copout of late.
It is easy to say, “Well, I’m better than X or Y.” I’ll even admit that’s one appeal I’m sure Christianity has for some. The love I adhere to does not allow that. I’m different, certainly, but different equals neither better nor worse.
By the way, please don’t get the impression from what I’ve written that I’m either a pacifist or a pushover. I’m almost as great a devotee of common sense and practicality as I am Christianity. What that means is while I will treat you as I would any other person, if you decide to harm me or anyone I’m responsible for, you’d better believe I’ll do everything I can to prevent that harm from happening, including harming you. Accept people as they are, but be aware that what some people are can be dangerous.
Thank you everyone who contributed. other-wise, I’m looking forward to reading more by you, in particular, although there are so many people here who are new to me.
Oh, that reminds me. mapache, I wish I could answer you properly. I have a friend who’s been searching for a tangible experience of God, and according to a mutual friend he’s had some experiences which the mutual friend would think would qualify, but they haven’t. Unlike Libertarian, I’ve never had a road-to-Damascus type experience, but then again, as I noted above, I sort of got an early start on things. I don’t know. I wish I did. I am, however, sure that it is not a form of punishment.
CJ
Your understanding of good and evil could use some improvement as well.
Well, understanding is a three-edged sword. Cut Libertarian some slack.