Chirstianity is where I found God in religion.

[buddhist]

I don't believe I am using the word Love in the sense you mean it. I am capitalizing it. I has more in common with compassion than it does with anything resembling attachment. In fact, it's the opposite of self seeking.

I was using the word love according to its commonly understood meaning.

 

[Windwalker]

I was using the word love according to its commonly understood meaning.

I was not. Problem solved.

 

[buddhist]

I was not. Problem solved.

Definitions are a problem when we wish to communicate effectively with others.

 

[Windwalker]

Definitions are a problem when we wish to communicate effectively with others.

I generally rely on context to gather what the person is getting at. It says so much more than dictionary definitions.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I was using the word love according to its commonly understood meaning.

The word "love" in English is defined in several different ways. It has 9 different meanings in Webster's dictionary. You need to be specific as to which you mean in order to effectively communicate.

 

[buddhist]

The word "love" in English is defined in several different ways. It has 9 different meanings in Webster's dictionary. You need to be specific as to which you mean in order to effectively communicate.

Not in my case, because every single one of those meanings involve attachment, the problem I was focusing on.

 

[Windwalker]

Not in my case, because every single one of those meanings involve attachment, the problem I was focusing on.

Why then when I speak of Love, divine Love, which means a self-emptying expression of being, you see attachment? Where is attachment there? Attachment to what?

 

[buddhist]

Why then when I speak of Love, divine Love, which means a self-emptying expression of being, you see attachment? Where is attachment there? Attachment to what?

I've never seen that definition of "love" before in a dictionary.

 

[Windwalker]

I've never seen that definition of "love" before in a dictionary.

Agape - Wikipedia

Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agápē) is "love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."[1] Not to be confused with philia – brotherly love – agape embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends, that serves regardless of circumstances.

This is why when I capitalize Love, it is divine, or agape (love), which does not have attachment inherent in it. It is not self-seeking. It is a condition of being which is self-less, or lacking self-focus.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Not in my case, because every single one of those meanings involve attachment, the problem I was focusing on.

You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you? No, you can't and won't.

 

[buddhist]

Agape - Wikipedia

Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agápē) is "love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."[1] Not to be confused with philia – brotherly love – agape embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends, that serves regardless of circumstances.

This is why when I capitalize Love, it is divine, or agape (love), which does not have attachment inherent in it. It is not self-seeking. It is a condition of being which is self-less, or lacking self-focus.

You're presenting a different definition here from the one you just gave prior: "a self-emptying expression of being" vs agape love. Agape love is still love (attachment) between two individuals, e.g. god & man, even if it's irrespective of circumstances.

 

[buddhist]

You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you? No, you can't and won't.

That's because I'm not wrong - you can't point out a definition that doesn't involve attachment, but rather descend to personal attacks.

 

[Windwalker]

You're presenting a different definition here from the one you just gave prior: "a self-emptying expression of being" vs agape love. Agape love is still love (attachment) between two individuals, e.g. god & man, even if it's irrespective of circumstances.

The nature of God's love is not attachment. It is not a different definition than "a self-emptying expression of being". It's is exactly that definition. Please explain how it is attachement. You can have love between two people that is not attachment. It's the nature of how they love, not the fact of love itself. Yours seems a rather unfortunate and cynical notion of love. To me, it is through non-attachment, that Love can be realized in its purest form. You seem to think getting rid of love is good?

 

[buddhist]

The nature of God's love is not attachment. It is not a different definition than "a self-emptying expression of being". It's is exactly that definition. Please explain how it is attachement. You can have love between two people that is not attachment. It's the nature of how they love, not the fact of love itself. Yours seems a rather unfortunate and cynical notion of love. To me, it is through non-attachment, that Love can be realized in its purest form.

I say that the fact that love requires an object is itself direct proof of attachment. If there is nothing to love, there is no attachment.

You seem to think getting rid of love is good?

Yes, in terms of the highest state involving non-attachment.

 

[Windwalker]

I say that the fact that love requires an object is itself direct proof of attachment. If there is nothing to love, there is no attachment.

This is where I see you are mistaken. Love does not require an object. Love just IS. If there is no object, Love still is. It is the nature of Being itself, of God. But as that nature is inherently creative, everything flows out from there, Life itself.

Yes, in terms of the highest state involving non-attachment.

Non-attachment gives you freedom from bondage. But as I asked before, "then what". To what end? Are you sure your seeking for non-attachment isn't itself attachment? The goal should be Freedom to simply BE, to be Love itself, not to escape your suffering, which has self as the focus, sneakily hiding there. I feel to seek Love for Love's sake is the goal, and when you do that, you will of necessity cease all self-seeking. Self-emptying all aspiration for self, including your own enlightenment.

 

[buddhist]

This is where I see you are mistaken. Love does not require an object. Love just IS. If there is no object, Love still is. It is the nature of Being itself, of God. But as that nature is inherently creative, everything flows out from there, Life itself.

What's it loving, if there is no object?

Non-attachment gives you freedom from bondage. But as I asked before, "then what". To what end? Are you sure your seeking for non-attachment isn't itself attachment? The goal should be Freedom to simply BE, to be Love itself, not to escape your suffering, which has self as the focus, sneakily hiding there. I feel to seek Love for Love's sake is the goal, and when you do that, you will of necessity cease all self-seeking. Self-emptying all aspiration for self, including your own enlightenment.

I don't confuse the word "love" with "being". You're redefining the word "love"; why not just use "being"?

 

[Windwalker]

What's it loving, if there is no object?

Multiple problems here. First, you assume God is an object, and not the Subject. Second, you assume Love doesn't exist without an object. Is water only wet if there is a swimmer to experience it, or is it wet without the experiencer?

I don't confuse the word "love" with "being". You're redefining the word "love"; why not just use "being"?

The state of Being, is the state of Love. I'm not confused about this. If you say you wish to move beyond attachments, you may wish to start with narrowly defining words and meaning via a dictionary. Try exploring the meaning of words through experience. That's how words evolve and point to more than just themselves.

 

[InChrist]

I think Love, agape Love, which is not self-seeking, nor self-focused (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) is a Love which then by necessity involves another. I believe this Love is eternally existent in the Godhead as revealed in the biblical scriptures. A Being composed of three Persons who are eternally existent and always expressing Love one for another. My perspective is that agape Love can only come from its Source. This is how I have become immersed in Love because, amazingly, God has given those who receive His Son Jesus as their personal Savior the ability to love as He eternally does, through the power and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Romans 5:5

 

[buddhist]

Multiple problems here. First, you assume God is an object, and not the Subject. Second, you assume Love doesn't exist without an object. Is water only wet if there is a swimmer to experience it, or is it wet without the experiencer?

The state of Being, is the state of Love. I'm not confused about this. If you say you wish to move beyond attachments, you may wish to start with narrowly defining words and meaning via a dictionary. Try exploring the meaning of words through experience. That's how words evolve and point to more than just themselves.

It seems to me you're trying to shoehorn the word "love" into something that it doesn't mean, perhaps because of your Christian background. Good luck with your redefinitions!

 

[Windwalker]

It seems to me you're trying to shoehorn the word "love" into something that it doesn't mean, perhaps because of your Christian background. Good luck with your redefinitions!

Actually, these definitions of love are very much part of the Christian tradition. Good luck with your seeking to find Enlightenment for yourself. That seems a bit of a self-annihilating loop, but best wishes on that path you seek for yourself.

BTW, one of the reasons the Christian path is effective when it is followed, not as a belief system, but as a path to realizing God, is precisely because of its emphasis on Agape Love. I could explain the difference and what that's about, and why it's valuable towards realizing Enlightenment, if you are able to let go of your need to reduce all language to the Dictionary as authority. I somewhat suspect though you believe you have the answers, and all else is error. Are you a former Christian by chance who thinks he's now found the true answers in another belief system as he once had them before in Christianity but found them coming up short of himself? Just curious why your approach to discussion seems like that to me. I could be wrong and there's another reason for this.