"True Love is Not Contingent on Reciprocity."
B.R.: well I'd say true love as it lives in an individual is not contingent on reciprocity. True love as it lives between two or more people IS, however. No?
Me: In my opinion, love cannot have contingencies or provisos, otherwise it isn't love.
D.G.: Agape, Philia, Storge, or Eros?
B.R.: I totally agree, when it comes to love as it resides within the individual. You can have pure love without rules inside your heart, regardless of any conditions or changes internally or externally. The thing you love can change, ignore, hurt, disappear, and it doesn't matter, the pure love can still exist unharmed within the person who loves. However, love that exists as a connection or relationship between two or more entities can be changed based on each individual's free will. For that multi-entity love to be considered "true love", in my opinion, there must be reciprocity.
Me: Storge is a good example in that the object of love frequently is unable or unwilling to return the love. Like an infant, an infirm/dying spouse, a prodigal child, etc.. Agape and Eros are beyond the scope of my post. Did you mean Phileo?
Me: Love is independent of relationship. Relationship is not required to love. Relationship is a vehicle for the expression of love, not love itself.
B.R.: I agree with each of your statements. And additionally, there are many forms of love. One is the love that exists inside an individual. Another is the love that exists between multiple individuals. Relationship is the vehicle for this latter kind of love.
Me: By extension, things like compassion, mercy, and empathy are expressions of love, though they are not love themselves. Love is the internal status while the expressions are the external.
B.R.: By your definitions, I agree with your original post. However, in my view, an expression of love is synonymous with love, undifferentiated, and it's largely unnecessary to distinguish a difference.
Me: Being vs. doing...
B.R.: Both valid forms of love...
P.H.: When we acknowledge the source of pure undefiled love, and let His spirit rule our lives, we can love without reason or reciprocity, and we won't stop loving for any reason. All forms of love will flow with healthy abandon if it's rooted in the Father!
Me: Which is kinda why I was avoiding Agape, which is the love you're talking about, Paul. I don't think Agape love is even possible or available without having the Holy Spirit.
B.R.: I have Agape love without having the Holy Spirit - unless the Holy Spirit is acting anonymously in my life.
Me: Agape is a Greek word found in the New Testament. It uniquely applies to a particular kind of love that proceeds from God. The Holy Spirit may indeed be acting in your life, who am I to say?
Here's link that will provide context:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+5%3A5%3Bromans+5%3A8%3Bromans+8%3A35www.biblestudytools.com
B.R.: It doesn't just apply to God, but it's definitely used in that way. Agape is perhaps the primary form of love in my life. It's a good descriptor for my love of humanity, the earth, the cosmos, and the supreme mystery of existence. And your original post definitely applies to me here: my love of any or all of these things does not depend on them loving me back. And I agree that it's hard to find in many Churches. I find it instead in my close community; many of my friends certainly display a fine breadth of Agape love in their lives, and in their cases it's not tied to a God or religion.
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but definitionally it must be tied to God. So if Agape manifests in your life, it is God's work in you. He is no respecter of persons, so it doesn't matter who you are. You don't have to be part of the club for God to be affecting your life. But it certainly means that you should carefully consider what God is planning for you and saying to you.
B.R.: I take no disrespect. However, the word "agape", and the kind of love that it refers to, does not originate in The New Testament, and does not belong to a monotheistic system, or any one system for that matter. The term has been used since Plato's day, and has retained virtually the same meaning to this day. Agape is no more tied to the concept of God than "salvation", "grace", and "spirit" are.
That said, I agree that my life's manifestation of Agape is God's work in me, at least by my own definition of God. My love of my fellow human being is quite inseparable from my love of God, and vice versa. And I agree that God's love (by my terms) affects all lives regardless of their belief or reciprocation. And believe me, I do carefully consider what God is planning and saying - we're on frequent speaking terms.
Me: Every word in the N.T. originated from somewhere else. It uses a real language, Greek, to communicate concepts. Those concepts, in their context and environment, mean something specific. There are no made up words in the N.T.
Of course Plato used the word, he was Greek. What relevance is that?
B.R.: TL;DR: Agape love is not definitionally tied to God, but I agree with most of what you're saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment