As above so below

That's because it is quite simple. In English there is only one word for Love, whereas in Greek there is four different words for love.

You asked:
Do you love me personally waterbrother?

And in reply I said:
As I pointed out I don't know you personally but as I said, I have love for all, thus I have love for you.

Meaning simply, that I can't love you personally, because I don't know you personally. That would be phi·le′o: “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)

But then you asked me:
Describe your love for all.

To which I said Agape.

A·ga′pe carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness.

 

It may seem that way but God has determined that an end will come to such things.

 

As I tried to explain to waterbrother, I'm not out to win points, my sincere desire is to convey meaning. I don't think waterbrother is helpless or hopeless. With patience waterbrother and I have come together several times. There is solution where we are attended by love. Further, I have found him to be very gracious in hanging in there with me.

 

Hope you guys figure out the world~

 

I would say there is no love but God's love. So what you are telling me is that you love me theoretically.
I love you as myself waterbrother. When you are with joy I am happy. The first time I heard you speak with joy is when you were talking to jmt about fussball and germany. I thought wow, there he is! I smiled broadly.

 

The world doesn't need figuring out, but we could find our way out of confusion.

 

I find it interesting that you somehow feel the need to seemingly "defend to the death" obvious misstatements, rather than just saying you made a mistake, correcting it and just moving on.

English, please.

I thought that you believed the Bible to be just a book and can take no actions of it's own or have you changed your mind on the subject?

You're the one that brought up that it was authorized; I merely asked, authorized by who? Now that you brought it up; you're telling be that it's unimportant, then why did you bring it up?

 

I love you with a principled love and there is nothing theoretical about it.

Nice to know.

I too rejoice with people who rejoice; weep with people who weep.

I always speak with joy, perhaps you don't always hear it.

 

God has already done that for us, we just need to believe it.

 

I don't know what obvious misstatement you think I made. Is it that in using the phrase conversationally, I desire mercy not sacrifice, that some how I have misquoted something? I said what I intended to say. There is no act, no sacrifice you can make, that will redeem you. Mercy redeems us, forgiveness redeems us, love redeems us.

I wouldn't call cherishing my bible above all possession to be minimizing anything.

Like I said, my first lesson came from a song, Jesus loves the little children.

Because you think it is important.

 

Here are some words from the thesaurus under principle:
rule, theory, notion, tenet (formal), dogma, assumption, law

I see that you are generally upbeat. What I heard in regards to your own experience had a different quality than the usual restrained by belief and subsequently "verified by scripture". It was full of knowing rather than belief.

 

"Agape was the highest level of love,a love that was passionately committed to the well-being of the other."
C.S. Lewis

If we have agape for our brother, then we truly love our brother as ourselves

 

Well for one, there was your misuse of the word conjugation. when I pointed it out, just so you could be better understood, that your use of the word was not applicable, you spent a great deal of time trying to prove that you were using it correctly, when in fact whether you were using it correctly or not did not have much to do with what we were talking about.

Now the example at hand is that you said "Go and learn what this means" is a command and when I said it wasn't, you instead of just saying; oh I meant to say that it is a command from Jesus to go learn what it means. You are now spending a lot of time digressing to try and prove that is what you actually said.

Here I believe that I said, not that you were misquoting but taking out of context and thus using it in a way that it may never have been meant to be used.

Not always.

And Jesus' sacrifice?

It means very little to have to have love for your Bible, one needs to love what it says and that is what I sometimes question about you.

Didn't answer the question but okay.

I think it's important? We were talking about what the Bible says, when seemingly out of no where, you state that The King James version was the only (authorized) English Bible available for 200 years, an obvious aside. When I asked who authorized it, you said you don't care. If you don't care, why in the world did you bring it up in the first place? Not because it is important to me, because I wasn't the one who brought it up.

 

You realize that a thesaurus does not give the definition of a word but can only sometimes help with the connotation or give you a word to exchange for word that may or may not be applicable.

Well, a conversation about fussball or soccer does not carry with it possible consequences to others lives and so can be spoken of with less restraint, less responsibility.

 

Thanks, that is a very good way of putting it.

 

No, I did not say I meant to say something I did not mean to say. Whether or not, I desire mercy not sacrifice, is a command or not, is irrelevant to the point I was making. Again my comment was strictly in regards to "litmus" tests. Because you think I am misquoting something you do not comprehend what I said. Again, I did not use the phrase as a commandment, but as measure against litmus tests. Are you getting this?

According to who exactly?

No not always.
In this case yes.

What sacrifice was that? No one takes this body from me, I give it of my own accord.

Sorry, loving what the bible says is not required for redemption.

You would do good to listen for the answer I give instead of looking for the answer you want to hear.

Just thought it might make you comfortable for a moment to talk about something you knew about.

 

Tanasi is very easy, he is not trying to "defend his belief". Tanasi's answer does not explain what you mean. You talk about, what was it 4 different kinds of love. The one that is relevant is love of God and the love of a brother as oneself, this is love of God or God's love.

 

Yes I do.

What I am trying to get you to do is speak more responsibly, with less restraint, to speak with your own voice. When I asked if you loved me, you could have simply said yes if it was true, but you did not. Like I say, it appears your understandings are theological, not ontological.

 

Did you learn what it means, I desire mercy not sacrifice? If so , could you explain what you have learned?

 

That's a good stance. And yes, I suppose if I was a lower form of life without such things as an ego, morals, a conscious, etc. I wouldn't question my perception or existence whatsoever. I can never be sure, but I'm pretty certain these or qualities strictly of a human beings mind.