-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Law of Reciprocity and Love
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
How can anyone love by command. Love or else what?
Love who? And why?
What kind of love? Mercy, or endearment, or perhaps virtuous love.
Define love.
Is mercy a virtue? Is love a law?
No one can command love. Love is in the heart, not in the mind. No one can love by law. Love is inspired of right or wrong things. Not all love is true. Not all love is worthy, or the same love.
Love who? And why?
What kind of love? Mercy, or endearment, or perhaps virtuous love.
Define love.
Is mercy a virtue? Is love a law?
No one can command love. Love is in the heart, not in the mind. No one can love by law. Love is inspired of right or wrong things. Not all love is true. Not all love is worthy, or the same love.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
So loving murderers as well as innocent people is unconditional.
siti
Well-Known Member
I think in this case, the scripture defines it by having Jesus say "as I have loved you"...i.e. the same kind of love that Jesus reportedly had and showed for his disciples...
The Greek word used here is agapáō ("to love") which seems to indicate a more socially or morally motivated "love" or attachment that holds and displays "goodwill" and "esteem" towards the "beloved" as a matter of principled preference. In that sense, I suppose such love can be "commanded" and, indeed expressed, regardless of one's personal (heartfelt?) feelings towards "one another". It may be hard to think of that as "love", but that is probably more a deficiency in the English language and usage of the word "love" than anything wrong with Jesus' injunction.
This is different from the kind of natural affection between family members or close friends for which there are different Greek words used in the New Testament.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
So I can show good will to a murderer somehow as a matter of principle over anything heartfelt is what I gather you are saying. An act of mercy though I feel no such thing.
siti
Well-Known Member
Well yes, but it wouldn't be just any old murderer...it would have to be a murderer to whom you owed principled goodwill (for example by virtue of being socially connected to that person). I'm just telling you what I think it says...not saying I subscribe to the idea.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea either. I have my own ideas about it. I might show forbearance to a murderer in order to have mercy if they were ever repentant. However I would not let them escape punishment. Then again, I might not be so kind with such. Mercy is probably something that very little is known about it and how it could work.
I can't imagine that hardened criminals would ever become people of good character in any sudden transformation. It's very easy to think that most of these types are not ever going to repent in any meaningful way. Perfect judgment isn't exactly going to be easy, nor is it something humans will ever have an easy time with. Every individual is a unique case.
This area is something that humanity is short on knowledge of. I for one see that this world has no perfection in it, it's far from it. If I can live my short life with peace in my heart til death then that will be the best I can do. Joy and happiness are a bonus although no amount of joy and happiness will ever be complete or without suffering, pain and sadness.
you can love someone and still see their shortcomings. we are more than our greatest achievement and worse act. parents love their children even having committed crimes. the prisons are full of them.
doesn't mean they can't repent, or be rehabilitated, or saved.
i've seen it with animals.
friendship is the ideal. being friendly. setting aside one's wants for someone in need.
if anyone is in a relationship that isn't friendly, then they are at risk of being neglected or abused. doesn't matter what that relationship is.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - but love between friends would be phileó and that is not the word Jesus (reportedly) used in John 13:34-35 ("new commandment") or in Matthew 22:39 - "love thy neighbour as thyself".
I don't think you can really show friendship to someone you don't like, but you can "love" them in a principled, moral way of wanting and seeking their good despite your natural inclinations to the contrary. Jesus did not command his disciples to be friends, but they did have to love one another by their mutual support and by doing what was in one another's best interests - regardless of any negative feelings they might have had among themselves.
Personally, I think this is just about the most important, credible and rational part of Jesus' (reported) teachings...to seek to do what is good for the "other" (love one another) just because it is the right thing to do (commandment), not because you happen to like the person...that is "love" in the agape sense of Jesus' "new commandment" and the commandment to "love thy neighbour as thyself".
one can be friendly to a stranger as much as to a friend. jesus at the end of his teachings called his disciples friend. there is no love in all the world greater than that of a friend who will lay down his wants for another in need.
in revelation there is nothing held against the church of Philadelphia
agape
G25 - agapaō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
G25 - ἀγαπάω agapáō, ag-ap-ah'-o; perhaps from ἄγαν ágan (much) (or compare ); to love (in a social or moral sense):—(be-)love(-ed). Compare .
comes from the root word.......
G5368 - phileō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
G5368 - φιλέω philéō, fil-eh'-o; from ; to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of...
which comes from the primitive word
G5384 - philos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
G5384 - φίλος phílos, fee'-los; properly, dear, i.e. a friend; actively, fond, i.e. friendly (still as a noun, an associate, neighbor, etc.):—friend.
but when someone does what is not loving, those who know what love is are not neglectful, should rebuke and chasten those that are neglectful and/or abusive.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Of course, but acting in a friendly manner towards a stranger doesn't guarantee that a friendship will develop...e.g. was Judas Iscariot a friend of Jesus? I still think philéō is qualitatively different from agape. Philéō involves the emotions whilst agape is a matter of principle and reason.
That there is an important distinction can be seen by a careful consideration of the passage in John 21:15-17 where Jesus three times asks Peter "do you love me more than these?". In vs. 15 and 16 Jesus uses the word agape twice but Peter answers both times using philo. Obviously, Jesus already knew that Peter was his friend (philo), what he wanted to hear Peter say was that he would uphold his principled love (agape) of Jesus' and his moral teachings and principles come what may, but Peter responded emotionally - in the end, Jesus relented and the third time asked Peter do you love me (as a friend) - philo - and Peter (apparently) was upset because he thought he had already answered that question twice.
As far as I can see, there are are only three sensible interpretations of this passage,
1. Jesus was feeling a bit insecure and in need of affirmation
2. Jesus was being unnecessarily and perhaps mischievously irritating to his friend
3. Jesus was making a deliberate distinction between agape and philo.
I'm going for number 3.
NOTE: You have to read the passage in a Greek interlinear translation - in English it just uses the word "love" throughout so the point is missed.
Anyway, I reckon philo has more to do with how you feel towards another and agape is more about how you deal with others as a matter of deliberate moral choice.
to be friendly, compassionate doesn't require a long-term friendship. the idea is to be friendly in a social way. you're not trying to gain something for self by being loving, friendly. the act itself of loving is in itself enough. it isn't a quid pro quo sort of action. its being loving for love's sake. not self gain
it's the idea of being friendly in any and all relationships, whether lasting 1 minute or 20 years.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Yes, God is love. Creation was a pure act of love, not necessity.
but the question, does that Spirit reside within self and thus to know one's self is to know god?
John 14:20
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
2 Corinthians 4:6
Last edited:
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
In so much as we are the image and likeness of God, yes.
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
acts 17:28
psalms 1:3
jeremiah 17:8
revelation 22:2
Does it count if you chose to act loving, but aren't able to muster the love internally?
28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
sometimes an act is simply for the greater good and not so much for the individual. i'm sure the parent of a murdered child who has forgiven the murderer doesn't feel closer to the murderer. but recognizes that hate isn't going to fix the situation. it's already horrible enough. would want to do to others horrible things as they did to one's beloved? now whether the murderer learns anything from their selfish action is another thing.
forgiveness is relieving oneself of that baggage of hatred that could eventually crush self.
self cannot server to masters. love or hate but the two don't mix. we know that everyone wants to be loved but not everyone recognizes that they aren't loving