how are you defining “agape love”. Your premise is used to justify and cover a number of sins usually in the moral department. False teachers have used this “agape love” argument to convince others that immorality (sex outside of marriage) is ok because “it’s all love and love can’t be wrong” I think that is where you are going with this.
1 John 4:20
Marriage of the flesh is what you are disconnecting the idea of love in. Love is not truly expressed in the flesh alone, but in the spirit. Yet if lust is the driving action behind the marriage it remains fornication as the Spirit remains unwed or given to another. The highest marriage we are ALL called too, is with Christ. He who is all (what you do to the least…) wishes to selflessly love us until we recognize and trust in the HS to comfort and guide us through this storm we call life. Now when one is one in spirit with another they are married. It’s that simple. We are all wives to that whom/which we place our heart into
Sin is an expression of self love through blindness to all other lights but oneself. A person in sin is isolated and lost. Walking in the thorny fields of perdition yet blind to the direction as they do not understand what it is the Spirit needs. Which is selfless (in so far as it is no longer directed inwardly but outwardly through ‘‘treat others…’’) love with hope that all that One sows they will reap. All the pther things you stated are not deriving from too much love, rather too little, as the Spirit has the need to fill it with deception (feeding on the blindness of sin)
Your definitions are way out there. Sorry but this is sloppy agape run amuck.
:clapping: this is it in a nutshell
:curtsey: Thanks!
You could have explained what you meant in your first post. But you did not. All you left was a very vague message, that could have meant a number of things.
One flaw in your argument: People who label themselves as Catholics can disagree on many things. You can label yourself a Catholic and yet disagree with another person who label themselves as a Catholic. It’s not because they “need” to be labeled. It’s just how the world works. We label things because we want to identify things, and labels are things which we revolve our identity around.
I don’t think the poster meant that. Of course the poster didn’t mean that kind of sexual love. The poster meant a kind of love which is one’s relationship with God. Does that mean when one is in a relationship with God he or she can never sin?
So does that mean that a greedy businessmen who embezzles his employees; and who has love for Christ, understands that love for Christ, is a faithful follower of Christ, is saved from sin, even though he ruined thousands of lives?
Actually, that actually contradicts what you are claiming. It doesn’t say anything like that. The verse says that if you are lacking love you are a liar, not that you have no sin if you have love. Just making up your own interpretations will certainly lead you astray.