.

Dear diver dan,

.

You ask :

« Quite frankly, it is hard to find two Christians agreeing on the same interpretation of the meaning of love, in a Christian sense … What think you ? »

I think it’s no secret that what is commonly termed “the scriptures” – the Christian Bible, [ i.e., Old Testament (Jewish Torah) and New Testament ], and the Muslim Koran – are all rife with contradictions. Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians are all ingenious and highly skilled intellectual acrobats. They are second to none in interpreting “the scriptures” to fit their purpose. They pick and choose and make them say what they want.

But not many choose this example of Divine love :

« And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! … It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God » (Mark 10:23,25).

I’m not rich, by anybody’s standards. I don’t own anything apart from my clothes and a little old second-hand car – but what Mark reports Jesus as having said certainly doesn’t sound very charitable to me !

There are probably many other examples in a similar vein if you care to go to the trouble of digging them out.

Here are some definitions of love according to “the scriptures” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Religious_views

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

.

Banjo Paterson.

And among all your links, here is the closest representation of the word love, in the Christian sense, from Buddhists, who's view on love, is even more encompassing than the Christian view.

“…The Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism involves the complete renunciation of oneself in order to take on the burden of a suffering world. The strongest motivation one has in order to take the path of the Bodhisattva is the idea of salvation within unselfish, altruistic love for all sentient beings…”

Moving the comma behind “salvation” adds more sense:

… of salvation, …“within unselfish altruistic love for all sentient beings…”

Would John Calvin cringe? He held some controversial views on Gods love.

Basically, Christians are Jews, separated by the return of a prophet.
And since the early Christians left behind scant written evidence of their beliefs and existence, ( I suspect, since it was a religion of the poor and illiterate), the memory code faded, until its resurrection by the Romans, who breathed into it a sophistication of the literate.

And really, it makes sense, in the rebranding process of Christianity at that time, expunging the unsuitable for the Church of State it was to become, who knows what the truth is?

Best to rely on the Jewish interpretation of love. I'll go with that one!

Yuyutsu,

Since Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion, and you are the exposed expert on Hebrew, ( and as a consequence similar on Jewishness?). Do you admit a confusion in the use of the word “love” between the two?

Dear Dan,

Yes, I wish language could be more precise, with a clear one-to-one mapping between word and meaning, but this is not the way languages evolve.

English distinguishes between LIKE and LOVE, but despite this distinction, many tend to mix the two. This particular distinction only entered the Hebrew language at a later stage (perhaps around 300-400 B.C.), so the word "like" (or "fond of") does not appear in the old testament, not even in the Song of Songs, thus "love" ('ahavah') and its many derivatives is used to describe quite a few different emotions which ought not be related.

In an attempt to sort this out, the scholars of the Hebrew Mishnah distinguished between two types of love - quoting "Ethics of the Fathers", chapter 5, teaching #16:

"Any love that is dependent on something—when the thing ceases, the love also ceases. But a love that is not dependent on anything never ceases. What is [an example of] a love that is dependent on something? The love of Amnon for Tamar. And one that is not dependent on anything? The love of David and Jonathan."

(this was written in the 2nd century and both examples are biblical, from the book of Samuel)

- http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682520/jewish/English-Text.htm

.

Dear diver dan,

.

You advised :

« Best to rely on the Jewish interpretation of love. I'll go with that one ! »

In your post on the bottom of page 5 of this thread, you indicated the Jewish interpretation of love as follows :

« There are three basic letters in the Hebrew “Ahava”. Meaning love. Broken into two parts gives the modified (by the first letter of the three characters), as meaning “I give therefore I love”.

That interpretation is ticked-off by my able Hebrew teacher this morning, as correct »
.

I think you will recall that I indicated on page 4 of this thread :

« Perhaps it is a vestige of my Christian education, but I cannot conceive of "love" without some form of personal engagement, the "giving of oneself", an element of self-sacrifice »

A good illustration of the importance of not just giving but of "giving of oneself, an element of self-sacrifice”, is the manner in which my ex-son-in-law assumes his role as the father of my two little granddaughters.

He turned out to be a swindler, a con-man and a crook. My daughter divorced him and has been paying off the mountain of debt he left her ever since. The divorce judge condemned him to pay € 12,000 (Aust. $ 18,500) a year alimony for the two children – which he has never paid. He runs his own companies but nothing is in his name. He doesn’t have a bank account, drives a Mercedes and lives a life of luxury. He doesn’t even have a fixed address. He’s a very smart, professional crook. Officially, he has no job and no income and lives off the dole – and has all the papers to prove it. He doesn’t have social security and has no taxable income.

In addition, the children complained that he had been sexually caressing and fondling them on several occasions, at times when they were alone with him.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

My daughter and granddaughters have not seen him for the past few years, but he delivers the latest laptop computers, smart phones and other extravagant gifts to their apartment for the children for their birthdays, Christmas and Easter, each time with a sealed envelope containing a brief note and the equivalent of about Aust.$ 90 for each of the two girls.

Need I add that none of his gifts are ever in their original presentation boxes or packaging. There are never any instruction manuals with them. He probably buys them on the black market or knows somebody who can supply him with stolen goods.

To arrive at this point, my daughter went through ten years of court cases. Her ex-husband did everything he could to be awarded the custody of the girls. He still considers that they are his property and that he has the right to do what he likes with them because he is their father.

I am sure he would agree with the Jewish interpretation of love that you indicate, diver dan : “I give therefore I love”.

As a matter of fact, he said to me one day, long before all this blew up, that he suffered a lot during his childhood from the strict upbringing of his mother who was a fervent Catholic. He saw little of his father who was an engineer who spent months on end on different construction sites all around the country.

I am willing to believe that he thinks he loves his children, but I am afraid he doesn't know what love is. He seems to think that love means possession. That was his attitude to my daughter. He had difficulty accepting the divorce because he thought he owned both her and the children.

He spent ten years in and out of court claiming full respect of his rights, never acknowledging that he might possibly have some duties.

Mind you, perhaps he does love the girls if we accept the Jewish definition of love.

.

It's totally obvious that "god" exists. A large proportion of Nobel prize winning scientists concluded that there is a "supernatural" being or thing behind the universe. Not to mention Newton, who spent most of his time looking for a hidden meaning in the bible. Atheism is utterly unscientific. If there is no "god", then there would be no order. Things would just be random. Since things are far from random, there must be a god. The "natural" world tends to chaos, not order. Everything around us is the supernatural. Love is god. And as Dostoyevsky concluded in The Brothers Karamazov, the more you help others, the more you know that you're immortal. To dust we may return, but we came from dust, and so there is no reason for us not to be again