Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | EdB | 128197 | ||
Everyone knows love is an emotion, an attitude a motivator. However without action love is meaningless. A husband or wife can tell their spouse they love them, but until they put action to the love it is nothing more than lip service. While love may motivate us we still have to get up and do something about it. This is same junk John Lennon learned and picked up from his guru. And you seem to want to parrot John Lennon's humanistic message he conveyed by song "All you need is Love." It was falsehood then and it is a falsehood now. God does demand love but He also demands faith, obedience, service, action. In love EdB |
||||||
2 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | Stultis the Fool | 128210 | ||
You wrote: "This is same junk John Lennon learned and picked up from his guru." The only verse in question is Romans 13:8-10. You are saying that our command to love is "junk." Perhaps what you mean to reply with is 1 John 3:18 "Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." According to your train of thought ("love is an emotion, an attitude a motivator"), what wicked deed will a man who loves his neighbor just as Christ loves each of us be motivated to perpetrate? You wrote: "God does demand love but He also demands faith, obedience, service, action." I ask you to please provide scripture supporting this thought. Additionally, I challenge you to demonstrate an act of faith/obedience/service/action that a CHRISTIAN would perform that IS NOT motivated by love. Finally, if you feel as you do, disprove this statement from the above verses [Romans 13:8-10]: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law," and demonstrate the evil a loving person will perpetrate upon another whom he loves. I can find no such verse qualifying faith/obedience/service/action in the same capacity. |
||||||
3 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | EdB | 128215 | ||
I never denied love was an essential to a Christians walk and for you to imply I said other wise is borders on behavior that ought not be found among Christians. Yes Love is a important but unless put action to love it is nothing more that just a word. If you do not know where God demands faith, service, action and obedience then I think this discussion is has ran it course. I gave you each in verse quotes in this thread. To me you show your character trying to twist what I say. Personally that is not someone I want to communicate with on the forum. EdB |
||||||
4 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128230 | ||
Hi EdB. I stumbled on this thread and read through it. I haven't twisted any of your words, so I hope you will communicate with me. Based on the posts, I was hoping you could clear an issue up for me. Giving some weight to what you have had to say, would I be accurate in saying that if love, by definition, is an emotion and not an action, then "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might [Deut 6:4-6]" means that we should be emotionally and affectionately "in love with" God, so to speak? I'm trying to understand your position so I can give it its proper and due consideration. Thank you for your time, Xerxes |
||||||
5 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | EdB | 128234 | ||
Xerxes 1 John 3:18 "Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." Love is a motivator, an attitude, an emotion. The love of Christ along with our desire to love our brothers should be the driving force behind our actions. Yes we should be in love with God both emotionally and affectionately. He is our Heavenly Father that is a relationship we must realize. But love without action is dead. Just as faith without works is dead. This is what 1 John 3:18 is saying. However the point is this a statement was made if we have love we have all we need or something to that effect. I have been saying that while love is important there is much more needed. First is faith and then belief in Jesus Christ. We can have all the love in the world and not be saved. John Lennon in his song "all we need is Love" tried to sell the idea that all we need is love to solve all the world’s problems. This came from his training at the hands of eastern guru's. This is essential thrust of the humanists. If we have enough love we can overshadow all else. That is what has been implied by others on this forum. That is simply not true. While love is essential, belief in God and Christ is the first and most important needs in our lives. I hope this clarifies my position that others have worked so hard to distort. EdB |
||||||
6 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128238 | ||
Hi EdB. Thanks for writing back. Okay, listen, I am NOT trying to be difficult, but I'm still not understanding clearly what you're saying. So if you're okay with this, I'd like to ask a few more questions to more clearly grasp what you're saying. I'm certain that it is my failing, not yours, so please bear with me. 1. Are you saying love is an emotion? 2. Are you saying that love is NOT an action? 3. Are you saying love is a command that motivates a secondary command? 4. Are you saying that love is not enough to fulfill the law? 5. Are you saying that because John Lennon preached "love is all you need," the same concept can only be proper as a humanist concept and has no application to the Christian lifestyle AFTER believing in Christ?? Again, I am not trying to trap you into anything as you believe another is attempting to do. I am genuinely trying to get a better understanding of your position. Thanks in advance for your patience and willingness to help. All my best, Xerxes |
||||||
7 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | EdB | 128241 | ||
Xerxes I'll play 1. Are you saying love is an emotion? Yes 2. Are you saying that love is NOT an action? I'm saying love without action is nothing more than a word. 3. Are you saying love is a command that motivates a secondary command? Yes, Love prevents us from killing, bearing false witness, coveting, having other Gods, making graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, committing adultery and from stealing. It causes us to honor our parents and remeber the Sabbath which Jesus fulfilled. 4. Are you saying that love is not enough to fulfill the law? I'm saying if we love and allow it to dicate our actions then the law will be fulfilled. 5. Are you saying that because John Lennon preached "love is all you need," the same concept can only be proper as a humanist concept and has no application to the Christian lifestyle AFTER believing in Christ?? No I'm saying when you say all you need is love and do not mention all the other attributes joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; along with faith, belief in Christ, obedience and holiness you are talking as John Lennon did. EdB |
||||||
8 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128254 | ||
Hey EdB. I'm really sorry that you feel the need to guard your words. I am genuinely sympathetic that you have come to such a pass that my sincere questions make you feel like I'm playing a game with you. I'm truly trying to understand your point of view for the sake of my own edification, and while I can glean and assume your position in your guarded statements, that's really as much as I can do without straightforward answers. When you say, "I'm saying love without action is nothing more than a word," in response to, "Are you saying that love is NOT an action?" I am understanding that as, "Love is not an action. Love and action are two separate things." Is this a correct assessment of what you are answering? When you say, "I'm saying if we love and allow it to dicate our actions then the law will be fulfilled," in response to, "Are you saying that love is not enough to fulfill the law?" I am understanding that as, "Love does not fulfill the law. Our actions fulfill the law. Love is an emotion that dictates our actions, but not an action in and of itself." Is this a correct assessment of your answer? In regard to question 5, I have a new question. Do the attributes joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control fall within the bounds of behavior indicative of love? In other words: If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be joyful and inspire joy in others? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be patient with others that otherwise vex you? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be kind to both friends and strangers that are in need? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you do those things that are good or righteous? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be faithful, both to God and to others, in the things you've promised or know that you ought to do because it is the right thing? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be gentle in your doings and behavior towards others? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you exercise self-control or temperence in moments of anger, distress, or temptations that would otherwise inspire you to behave in a way contrary to God's expectations? IF the answer to these is "yes," then they aren't actually additional attributes external of love, but are attributes of love itself. Do you agree with this assessment? I hope you will be good enough to answer them so that we may be of one mind. I know it is tedious, but specifics help us come to conclusions, and again ... I wish to fully understand your position. Finally, we are all agreed, even Stultis I'm sure, that faith and belief in Christ is absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary to continue bringing that up except as reference. We aren't even Christians if we don't believe in Christ and have faith in him. From here on, it should be moot, because that is not an issue. So any further talk by other parties along the lines of, "Love is enough," should be viewed not in a humanistic, heathen perspective, but as one within the bounds of faithful Christianity, and an attempt to understand how best we ought to please God. Is this agreeable to you? Now, I would be curious to understand what "holiness" means to you. I myself have read various passages, and that particular word seems to imply a specific thing to me. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Xerxes |
||||||
9 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | EdB | 128258 | ||
Xerxes I have no interest in being inquisitioned here by you or anyone else. My words speak for themselves. If you can't figure them out I'm afraid I don't possess the ability to express them in a manner you could. However I find it hard to imagine you and the one or two others find them so un-comprehension-able while I have so little of a problem explaining myself with others in all my other posts on this forum. As for your other questions perhaps since I’m unable to make myself clear to you it would be better to explain how you see “Love” do you see it as emotion or action? To you see it being motivator to good works or do you see it as completion in and of itself? If you say you love your father, what does that really mean? Does it motivate any action in you, does it establish any standard of performance in you? How do you interpret 1 John 3:18 “My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” ? To you does this imply that we need to do more than just have the emotion of loving? I hope you will answer these questions since I unable to effectively convey my thinking to you perhaps your able to convey your thinking to me. EdB |
||||||
10 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128292 | ||
You know Ed, I want to answer these questions for you, but seeing your post, I'm inclined instead to first ask: What in the world is your problem!? Was this really necessary: "I have no interest in being inquisitioned here by you or anyone else."? Darn near every one of your responses has some sort of snide, sarcastic, condescending, or contemptuous comment in it. I seem unable to get the sweet from you without the sour. Again, what is your problem? I haven't done you any wrong. I haven't challenged your Christianity. I haven't called you names. I haven't insulted anything you've posted. All I've done is ask you for a more clear understanding on your perspective so I could meet you at your level and be of one mind in discussing the issue. Furthermore, the questions I asked were simple ones, asked in order to gain information and understanding, and instead of answering them with clear and concise answers so we could continue, you instead treat this whole thing like I'm playing some kind of game with you and mask your answers as though you're trying to avoid the simple yes or no that would have sufficed. I'm not playing a game. I think, however, that you need to decide if you are, because your defenses make conversation with you extremely difficult. What can I say that will not offend you or fetch some sort of rude comment? That said, I'm going to answer the questions as I promised I would: 1) Love is an emotion AND an action. Love, in its typical English rendering, is a noun. This would be the reckoning you are understanding. An emotion that is just there. A "person, place, or thing." The word "agapao," used in all the commands to "love," is a verb, and that means that love is not an emotion Biblically speaking. Love, in and of itself, is an action. [A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament]: agapao: love (primarily of Christian love); show or prove one’s love; long for, desire, place first in one’s affections. [An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon]: agapao, f. eso: pf. egapeka: Ep. aor. 1 agapesa: (agape): I. of persons, to treat with affection, to caress, love, be fond of, c. acc., Att. for agapazo, Plato, etc.:—Pass. to be beloved, Id., Demosthenes. 2. in N.T. to regard with brotherly love, v. agape. II. of things, to be well pleased or contented at or with a thing, c. dat., Demosthenes, etc.:—also c. acc. rei, Id.:—absol. to be content, Lucian:—ag. oti. ., ei. ., ean. ., to be well pleased that. . Thucydides, etc. [NASB Hebrew and Greek Dictionary]: agapao: of unc. or.; to love. Agape is the emotion. Agapao is the action. You feel agape. You do Agapao. A new commandment I give you, that you agapao one another as I have agapao you. By this standard, to "Agapao your neighbor as yourself," is identical in context to, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." This is not an emotion, but an action. So when Paul says that agapao is the fulfillment of the law, and that there is no commandment we have that is not summed up by "Agapao your neighbor as yourself," it is not a motivator, it is an action that is the completion in and of itself. If you say you agape your father, that means you have feelings for him, and it establishes the motivation to agapao. Since agape is defined in 1 Cor. 13:4-8, I would have to say that it does, in fact, establish a standard of performance in us. We should agapao according to the standards of agape in 1 Cor. 1 John 3:18 "My little children, let us not agapao in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth." He is saying that we should not say we are performing the action, but actually do it. This does, in fact, not only imply but say, that we should agapao, and not simply sit back and agape. Your thoughts? Xerxes |
||||||
11 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | EdB | 128295 | ||
Xerxes I agree I have been a little defensive but it was your approach to me that put me in that position. If it was unintentional on your part then I apologize. Back to what your saying your definition of Agapao "A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament]: agapao: love (primarily of Christian love); show or prove one’s love; long for, desire, place first in one’s affections. [An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon]: agapao, f. eso: pf. egapeka: Ep. aor. 1 agapesa: (agape): I. of persons, to treat with affection, to caress, love, be fond of, c. acc., Att. for agapazo, Plato, etc.:—Pass. to be beloved, Id., Demosthenes. 2. in N.T. to regard with brotherly love, v. agape. II. of things, to be well pleased or contented at or with a thing, c. dat., Demosthenes, etc.:—also c. acc. rei, Id.:—absol. to be content, Lucian:—ag. oti. ., ei. ., ean. ., to be well pleased that. . Thucydides, etc." Notice in both of these they use the words like 'show', 'prove', 'treat', 'caress', contented', 'well pleased' to express the meaning of Agapao. These are actions or verbs if you will and I believe make my point. To me in the deepest sense of the word, love is still the motivator behind the action. I can say I love chocolate and I do :-) However nothing happens, nothing is accomplished. It is more or less a statement of fact nothign more nothing less. However if I let my love for chocolate make me reach into the bag and take one out then my love for chocolate becomes the motivator of my action. Something took place. One of the problems of Christianity today is we want to keep it in a philosophical discussion. Mince words and debate ideas and theology. Christianity is action. If we love Jesus we will tell the world about Him. If we love our neighbor we will share our coat with him. Once again I come back to 1 John 3:18 EdB |
||||||
12 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128320 | ||
EdB, Hey, I'm sure it was unintentional on both sides. If you can apologize, so can I. I have a propensity for being harsh now and again without meaning to. I have four boys 6-10, so ... In any case, it would seem to me that we are in agreement to an extent. Use your chocolate example. You can tell someone you love chocolate, but if you never eat it, they may have reason to doubt it after a while, just as we can claim to be Christians, but if they don't see the love that Jesus said would identify us as his disciples, sooner or later they will doubt us and view us as liars or hypocrites. If, on the other hand, you tell no one that you love chocolate, but everyone you know sees you eating chocolate constantly, they will eventually believe that you love chocolate whether you tell them or not. This is the same as Christianity again, because if we love each other in deed, we need not tell anyone how much we love. They will see it and know it to be so without us having to say a word. Now, taking it to the next level, I'm not so sure I see it as a philosophy. If we are actively loving in deed, meaning that we are actively practicing the virtue of being kind, temperate, charitable, patient, joyful, exhortant, forgiving, humble, hating evil, loving righteousness, etc., then we will be unable to do those things that are contrary to God. For example, how can we kill someone we are trying to love? We wouldn't want someone to do that to us, so to actively love our neighbor as ourselves, we won't kill them. Nor will we steal from them, lay with their spouse, etc. I believe you covered these in one of your posts already. But on an even more obscure level, consider not rendering evil for evil, but good for evil. To actively practive love is to be forgiving, so we offer the other cheek instead of striking back. If someone sues us for our cloak, we exercise the active attitude of love in giving to them as they have need. If someone asks you to go with them a mile, go with them two, because they wouldn't have asked the one if they didn't need help ... so to go with them beyond what they requested is a loving attitude in practical application. This, I believe, is what Stultis was getting at. As stated in Romans 13, love (the active practice of doing those things that are indicative of a loving attitude) is the fulfillment of the law, does no harm to another, and all the commandments are summed up by it. So to answer his question in truth, what commands do we have that have nothing to do with love? I would have to say, "none." Every command I see, whether going to church or giving tithes, humbling yourself or being forgiving ... they are all products of an active loving attitude. To quote John, "If a man loves his brother he walks in the light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him." I would even go so far as to say that if you are actively practicing love, I really can't see any reason why we should ever stumble, fall, or sin. Your thoughts? Xerxes |
||||||