Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[PRmerger]

I’ve written over 700 posts by doing this though so surely you can write 1, explaining what agape is.

Ok. You want me to explain what agape means. Why didn’t you say so?

Simple definition: love grounded in and shaped by faith.

Profound, sublime, magnificent definition, found here.

 

[atheistgirl]

Ok. You want me to explain what agape means. Why didn’t you say so?

Simple definition: love grounded in and shaped by faith.

That’s not a definition.

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI even says at the very begining of the letter you quote, it is his own speculation

That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected. The first part is more speculative…

It’s a Greek word, and it just means unconditional love. Faith doesn’t come in to it.

But hey, if Christians want to look at a table, and call it a big chair, what the heck. It’s still a table.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not a definition.

Of course it is.

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI even says at the very begining of the letter you quote, it is his own speculation

Yep, it surely is.

 

[atheistgirl]

Of course it is.

Nope.

Just his own speculative thoughts on the matter.

Nothing more.

And as he is not speaking ex cathedra, and not defining matters relating to doctrines concerning faith and morals, it can safely be treated as such.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Everyone who accepts the principle that the noblest thing we can do is to risk our life, suffer torture and be killed because we are helping others has faith in the example and teaching of Jesus whether or not we profess to be Christians.

Agreed.
In other words it’s the truth that counts.

Until some Christians try to make quite outlandish claims that only a Christian can act out of Agape for their fellow man.

No definition of the word that I’ve seen has the word Christian in it, nor is it implied it is only applicable to Christians. As I said I particularly like Oord’s. Lewis says it’s ‘‘the love that brings forth caring regardless of the circumstance’’, which pretty much sums up MSF and others.

What’s in a name or a word? It’s the reality that counts - and the belief in that reality - and the origin of that belief…

[/QUOTE]

 

[atheistgirl]

In other words it’s the truth that counts.

I agreed with you it was how you lived your life was what mattered, not, as you said, what you believe or don’t believe.

I don’t know what you’re refering to when you say ‘‘truth’’, when you just said belief and unbelief don’t matter.

What’s in a name or a word?

Quite a lot.

It’s the reality that counts

Absolutely.

and the belief in that reality

Well, belief doesn’t come in to it does it if it’s reality?

Reality is what it is, and doesn’t require ‘‘belief’’. Gravity is still gravity, whether you believe in it or not. It can be tested repeatedly and demonstrated.

If gravity required people to believe in it, to be affected by it, what an interesting world we would live in

and the origin of that belief…

Reality - testable, repeatable, verifiable

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

In other words it’s the truth that counts.

Our true beliefs are evident not in what we claim to believe but in what we do.

What’s in a name or a word?

Quite a lot.

What counts are not names or words but actions and attitudes.

It’s the reality that counts

Absolutely.

and the belief in that reality

Well, belief doesn’t come in to it does it if it’s reality?

Reality is what it is, and doesn’t require ‘‘belief’’. Gravity is still gravity, whether you believe in it or not. It can be tested repeatedly and demonstrated.

If gravity required people to believe in it, to be affected by it, what an interesting world we would live in

Beliefs and values are implicit in our actions. Your daughter may not be able to express what she believes and values in words but what she does reveals the beliefs and values she has received from others, notably her parents. Even adults cannot always formulate their beliefs and values because many people don’t think about them.

and the origin of that belief…

Reality - testable, repeatable, verifiable

The origin of beliefs and values is not testable or repeatable, but it is verifiable! We live in a largely post-Christian society but our modern civilization is based on the teaching of Christ.

 

[inocente]

Of course it is

Nope.

Allow me to adjudicate.

Agape = in a state of wonder or amazement, as with the mouth wide open.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

When you get the gift of experiencing agape love, then all people and things become precious. Suddenly, nobody is “more important” than others. The slobbering drunk and the security guards removing her, are equally precious and loved and valuable. Everything seems like a gift; lagniappe.

Agape love is as “rose-colored” glasses. You see the same reality, the same people, the same struggles and even wars, but suddenly it is all as a beautiful garden that has some mischievous imps (how precious they are) playing rough at times. Doesn’t mean that destruction and killing and sneaking raisins into the cookies are suddenly all OK things to do; just that they don’t cause anxiety for the agape observer.

I hope this gives a starting place. I think when you experience true “agape love” then you know you are entering “the kingdom” in the Jesus paradigm; other religions and non-religions have their own words for this state of mind.

My dad made this crossover at age 70, when his heart stopped. He happened to be in a cardiac center receiving his weekly IV when it happened, so he was brought back around. For the rest of his six more years, he looked at everyone and everything as a total gift; he’d worked hard all his life and now he could just enjoy being happy.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Nope.

Just his own speculative thoughts on the matter.

Yep. Just like that definition by that guy that Tony proffered that you like so much.

Why is Oord’s a definition but Pope B16’s is not?

And as he is not speaking ex cathedra, and not defining matters relating to doctrines concerning faith and morals, it can safely be treated as such.

Sarah x

Right.

 

[PRmerger]

Agape = in a state of wonder or amazement, as with the mouth wide open.

Heh.

As in,

PR sat at the computer with her mouth agape after reading inocente’s proposal that he just happens to believe that some of the Scriptures are inspired, but that some of them aren’t. And the way he knows that is “well, I just get a funny feeling in my stomach when I read John 15:13, but when I read John 6:52, not so much.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yep. Just like that definition by that guy that Tony proffered that you like so much.

Why is Oord’s a definition but Pope B16’s is not?

I’ll share my unsolicited opinion here. Let’s pull that definition back up.

Ok. You want me to explain what agape means. Why didn’t you say so?

Simple definition: love grounded in and shaped by faith.

Personally I find the definition that Tony provided to be less ambiguous. In the Pope B16 definition the reliance on the word “faith” makes it ambiguous. It’s not that I don’t know what the word “Faith” means. On the contrary, I know it to be used to mean many different things. Often times there are sentences that may be used by people of different denominations that are interpreted differently by each denomination.

Perhaps among those with which you have a common understanding of what is meant by “Faith” here that definition may be sufficient. But the reliance on the word “faith” in this definition makes it a bit esoteric.

The definition that Tony has provided doesn’t seem to include words whose meaning varies by denomination and religion.

…] “an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being”…]

It’s easily understood. I think even those that have various or no religious background could understand it and there’s little room for ambiguity.

 

[atheistgirl]

Allow me to adjudicate.

Agape = in a state of wonder or amazement, as with the mouth wide open.

Works for me

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Yep. Just like that definition by that guy that Tony proffered that you like so much.

Why is Oord’s a definition but Pope B16’s is not?

Oord sets out in his paper to review the definitions of Agape that exist and highlight why they are insufficient or the problems that exist with some of them and why they are inadaquate.

He then sets out clearly what the criteria any definition should meet. He works on all the angles before settling on a definition.

He also highlights some interesting issues with any definition of Agape that includes self-sacrificing love, predominantly an element of the Church’s definition.

Some definitions of agape are inadequate because they equate this love
form with self-sacrifice or altruism. In fact, this is the most common use
of agape in love-and-science research. There are a host of problems with
this equivalence. First, if two persons tried always to act self-sacrificially
toward one another, neither could act self-sacrificially. “In a completely
self-sacrificing community,” argues Vacek, “we would want to give to and
not receive from persons who would want to give to and not receive from
us” (1993, 184).

Neil Cooper illustrates this problem by imagining two altruists in the
desert who find a cup of water. The two pass the cup back and forth, each
insisting that the other drink first, until the water evaporates and both die
of thirst (1981, 274). Love sometimes eschews altruism. Just as we want
others to satisfy themselves by receiving our gifts, so we ought also to receive
gifts given to us. If the satisfaction that comes from such give-andtake
relations is thwarted because all parties insist on acting altruistically,
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s retort seems appropriate: “too much altruism is a
bore” (1953, 96).

Second, equating agape with self-sacrifice or altruism denies what seems
obvious—that sometimes we must not sacrifice ourselves so that in the
long run we can provide more benefits to others. Love sometimes requires
self-realization, a form of self-affirmation. In addition, feminists in many
disciplines have brought to our awareness the fact that love sometimes
demands that the individual eschew self-sacrifice and instead act in selfauthenticating
ways for the good of the individual and the whole.13 Becoming
a doormat on whom others can walk, for instance, is an enabling
act that fails to promote well-being.

Third, the idea that a loving person always engages in self-sacrifice may
actually keep those at the margins or bottom of society from experiencing
justice. If the poor and oppressed were always to act self-sacrificially, they
would likely remain in their impoverished state of existence. To think that
all people, even the poorest of the poor, ought always to be acting selfsacrificially
is to fall victim to what Arthur McGill calls “the illusion of
perpetual affluence” (1987, 89). If agape is a form of love, it must be an
action that promotes rather than prevents the attainment of well-being.
While I believe that self-sacrificial, self-subordinating, or altruistic actions
can be and often are expressions of love, these actions can also be actions
that generate overall ill-being. Agape, if it is to be understood as a form of
love, does not generate overall ill-being.

The Pope’s Letter made it clear from the outset, he was not setting out to definine Agape, rather he was speculating on the different forms of love.

Obviously he then went on to include a faith element in his understanding of Agape, because he is a Christian, and the faith he is refering to is not just faith, but his faith. In God and Jesus.

So straight away, if he was defining Agape, he has excluded every other understanding of it that does not involve faith in Jesus and God.

That’s not a definition.

That’s just personal interpretation and speculation.

And he says so from the beginning.

Oord set out to construct an acceptable definition, in a logical and scientific manner, that includes the original meaning of the greek word before it was hijacked by other organizations and systems, and include how this is understood in different times and different cultures.

He did an awesome job

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Heh.

As in,

PR sat at the computer with her mouth agape after reading inocente’s proposal that he just happens to believe that some of the Scriptures are inspired, but that some of them aren’t. And the way he knows that is “well, I just get a funny feeling in my stomach when I read John 15:13, but when I read John 6:52, not so much.”

I talk of being guided by the Holy Spirit and you turn that to a funny feeling in the stomach.

Whatever.

As you keep trying to revive something from 18 months ago, why not tell me why you think it’s so difficult to know whether something is inspired. To take a concrete example, do you think Numbers 31 (kill all the men, boys and women but keep the remaining 32,000 virgins as plunder, all in the name of the Lord) is inspired by an unchanging Almighty God, and how do you know, what super-duper surefire process do you use?

The LORD said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites.” …] So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the LORD’s vengeance on them. …] They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. …] They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. …] Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. …] “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." …] The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

 

[PRmerger]

I talk of being guided by the Holy Spirit and you turn that to a funny feeling in the stomach.

Yeah. It’s not unlike the Mormons’ “burning in the bosom”.

And, I’m curious, whether it’s NOT a feeling you get, but some other method you use to discern that the Spirit has told you something is *theopneustos *, does it have to occur each and every time you read the verse, or is the Spirit talking to you, once, on each verse sufficient?

And, if you didn’t hear the Spirit talking to you the first 10 times you read, say Numbers 31, but then on June 14, 2012 you read it and suddenly the Spirit tells you that it is inspired, you can believe that it is inspired on that day, but it wasn’t on June 13, 2012?

How does that work?

 

[atheistgirl]

And, if you didn’t hear the Spirit talking to you the first 10 times you read, say Numbers 31, but then on June 14, 2012 you read it and suddenly the Spirit tells you that it is inspired, you can believe that it is inspired on that day, but it wasn’t on June 13, 2012?

How does that work?

How many times do you think the Church Cardinals read the books of the Bible, over hundreds of years of Church Synods and Councils, before deciding what books were inspired and what books weren’t?

And since there was no split between the Catholic and Orthodox Church in those early days of the Councils, how did the Catholic Bible end up with 73 inspired books but the Orthodox Bible ended up with 81 inspired Books?

Why did it take the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before finally allowing the Cardinals to close the canon?

Was the Spirit talking to them on some days, but not others? Were there gaps of decades and centuries where He wasn’t talking to them?

How come the Catholic cardinals didn’t declare one book inspired in 170 AD but said it was definately inspired in 360 AD?

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Personally I find the definition that Tony provided to be less ambiguous. In the Pope B16 definition the reliance on the word “faith” makes it ambiguous.

That’s why I included the whole lavish encyclical. Check it out. Then tell me if you think it’s ambiguous.

And if you still do, then read the Scriptures in their entirety, and then read the Catechism, and read the encyclicals and apostolic exhortations, and listen to some priests give a homily on a Sunday or two…

and then come back and tell me if you think it’s ambiguous.

Why should you have to do that in order to understand agape?

Because, like all of Christian theology, while it’s simple enough for an uneducated peasant to grasp: agape is love grounded in and shaped by faith…

it’s also a profound, sublime and, I daresay, madness to attempt to apprehend the Numinous.

One of my favorite examples of the profound simplicity of Christianity is of a young man with Down syndrome in my parish who receives the Eucharist. He receives the Eucharist with such reverence and theological wisdom that it chokes me up each and every time he goes up to receive Him. Clearly, he gets it, better than most of us, probably.

Simple enough for a child to grasp. Profound enough that even theological giants such as Aquinas and Ratzinger can write tomes and tomes and never apprehend the Reality.

Love so Amazing!

 

[PRmerger]

The Pope’s Letter made it clear from the outset, he was not setting out to definine Agape, rather he was speculating on the different forms of love.

Semantics, Sarah. Semantics.

I’m pretty sure that when he says that love has different meanings in our culture today, and that he wants to present these meanings, well, that means he seeks to define them.

He says he’s going to define them: (“or are we merely using the same word to designate totally different realities?”)

And then he defines them (see about 2/3 of the encyclical)

So…

Obviously he then went on to include a faith element in his understanding of Agape, because he is a Christian, and the faith he is refering to is not just faith, but his faith. In God and Jesus.

So straight away, if he was defining Agape, he has excluded every other understanding of it that does not involve faith in Jesus and God.

Well, atheists are certainly free to make their own definition of agape. I have no problem with that.

And that’s probably what you’d need to do to find an atheist who is the equivalent of Kolbe–you’d have to re-define agape.

It would look something like this: of course there’s an atheist who’s capable of agape, PR! We’ve just defined agape to mean, “Someone who has created zero garbage in a year. Now that’s agape!”

And there you’d have it.

 

[PRmerger]

As you keep trying to revive something from 18 months ago, why not tell me why you think it’s so difficult to know whether something is inspired.

Huh? I have absolutely NO DIFFICULTY whatsoever discerning whether something is inspired.

I take the Word of God in its entirety, inocente.

Not just the passages that tickle my fancy. Not just the ones that give me a burning in me bosom.

Otherwise, what you have done is create a god in your own image, no?

You take the parts that make you feel good: God is love. (That’s nice. I like that verse, too. It gives me warm fuzzies. )
And reject the parts that make you feel icky: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
And you decide that God just happens to have created a theology that completely agrees with everything you just happen to believe. How conveeeeeeenienttt, eh?