New here.

[humanguy]

To me there are 2 types of faith, the faith that is the realization of things expected, the evidence of things not seen. And the faith that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I am of the former. The latter being based in fear and therefore flawed.

None of which makes a damn bit of sense. Glad to have you here, Ms. K!

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

[Kestrel]

None of which makes a damn bit of sense.

Fair enough. I understand.

Glad to have you here, Ms. K!

Thank you.
Mr. (for accuracy)

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

Love.

[StillSearching]

For me, a god who is not entirely in control and fully responsible for what it created within an environment that cannot prove that the god exists, is less, intolerably weak and not deserving of the name.
So in that we are "opposite".

I was being a bit facetious. Let's just say that I leave open a great many possibilities about the nature of God, including the possibility that He is not entirely in control, possibly of his own volition. So does that place you in Camp Calvin?

To me there are 2 types of faith, the faith that is the realization of things expected, the evidence of things not seen. And the faith that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I am of the former. The latter being based in fear and therefore flawed.

None of which makes a damn bit of sense. Glad to have you here, Ms. K!

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

Speaking as a lifelong Christian, I've got to say that you stumped me with this one too. Can you explain this in layman's terms?

[humanguy]

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

Love.

I very much doubt that we'd be able to find two people who agree on what love means. I don't know what it means.

What's your definition of love?

[Aaron]

I very much doubt that we'd be able to find two people who agree on what love means.

Haha, you may be right. But really it seems like something we should be able to figure out...

I was thinking about this as a definition the other day, but I can't decide if it more a list of the characteristics of love, rather than a definition. At any rate I think its a good shot.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a

[Dr Mundo]

I very much doubt that we'd be able to find two people who agree on what love means.

Haha, you may be right. But really it seems like something we should be able to figure out...

I was thinking about this as a definition the other day, but I can't decide if it more a list of the characteristics of love, rather than a definition. At any rate I think its a good shot.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a

I don't agree. I do agree with you that, that is more of attributes that some would bestow upon the concept of love. But that is not love. To me love is the definition of emotions we feel for each other, in particular the emotions that are attributed to positive feelings of; wanting to be compassionate, wanting to share time with, and wanting to do what would be best for that person, above and beyond what one would feel for a person outside of that special relationship.

[mitchellmckain]

I very much doubt that we'd be able to find two people who agree on what love means.

Haha, you may be right. But really it seems like something we should be able to figure out...

I was thinking about this as a definition the other day, but I can't decide if it more a list of the characteristics of love, rather than a definition. At any rate I think its a good shot.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a

I don't agree. I do agree with you that, that is more of attributes that some would bestow upon the concept of love. But that is not love. To me love is the definition of emotions we feel for each other, in particular the emotions that are attributed to positive feelings of; wanting to be compassionate, wanting to share time with, and wanting to do what would be best for that person, above and beyond what one would feel for a person outside of that special relationship.

I am not even sure what Dr. Mundo is disagreeing with. I don't see that either Aaron or Paul in 1 Cor was trying to define love. Paul in 1 Cor is circling around love with descriptions largely saying what it is not. I see far more to disagree with in Dr. Mundo's attempt to define love than in that, because Dr. defines it as an emotion, which would make anything/anyone incapable of emotion also incapable of love and I am dubious about this. I remember a few science fiction stories where aliens and beings incapable of emotion as we know it nevertheless find something very much like love in themselves. Thus for one such, love was defined as "nodal involvement" and for another it was all about the allocation of computational resources in order to pay attention to that person.

As for myself, I find it helpful to remember that love is used for many other things than another person. People say that they love football, or science or some kind of food. Thus people use the word "love" for all kinds of things that they are passionate about and to which they devote a considerable amount of time and attention to. That also certainly seems to apply in the case when it is a person who is loved. Even when we talk about the will to make sacrifices for what one loves, this is not exclusive to the case when what one loves is person. People will often make sacrifices and fight for all kinds of things and not just people, such as an idea or something that they have devoted much of their life to building. They do indeed want what is best for whoever or whatever it is that they love.

In any case, there is another aspect of Dr. Mundo's "definition" that I disagree with. And that is that exclusivity is requisite for something to be love -- as if we must love one of our children more than the others before we can say that we love any of them. Yes I imagine that Dr. Mundo is talking about a particular kind of love relationship where there are expectations of exclusivity. But that is about meeting a commitment to such expectations because that is what a particular relationship or person requires, but I don't think that means that this is an absolute requirement of love itself. People may not have such an expectation of exclusivity in all kinds of relationships and I don't think that means that they are incapable of love.

As for what Paul says in 1 Cor, I can also say that love is not necessarily any of these things because love can be twisted and distorted in many ways. So what we have here is general guidelines for understanding what love is like when it is good and true. The first two things listed are not absolute. While love is patient and kind for the most part, that is not always what people need, and so I can imagine situations where love requires something else.

[Kestrel]

So does that place you in Camp Calvin?

No. I do believe in 'predestination", in the idea that down to the individual, all mankind is predestined by design to live and all are delivered.
Within mankind as a whole there are those of us who are the elect, the difference being ones who are given faith.

To me there are 2 types of faith, the faith that is the realization of things expected, the evidence of things not seen. And the faith that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I am of the former. The latter being based in fear and therefore flawed.

None of which makes a damn bit of sense. Glad to have you here, Ms. K!

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

Speaking as a lifelong Christian, I've got to say that you stumped me with this one too. Can you explain this in layman's terms?

To hope is to wish or desire a positive outcome while acknowledging a negative possibility. The other side of that coin is to doubt. There is no confidence in hope which means there is an element of fear involved.
To expect a thing is to express confidence. No fear.

[Kestrel]

If fear is what makes the second belief flawed, what is the first belief based upon that makes it not flawed?

Love.

I very much doubt that we'd be able to find two people who agree on what love means. I don't know what it means.

What's your definition of love?

Unequivocal selflessness.

Aaron rightly notes Paul's declaration of what loves actions are.
This threads discussion witness' the difference and confusion between carnal love and spiritual love.

Marriage jokes aside, I would deem it past exceedingly rare,the spouse that feels unrestrained joy at the news their partner has found someone else that makes them happy.
In that situation the carnal love feels slighted by the ego we all share.
From, "How can you do this to me?" to "After all I've done for you." to "You told me you would always love me." "I'll fu#@*ing kill you!' Me, I me, me, I.
Even if one is the type to quietly let the person go with, "If that's what you want, then I won't keep you." The very real feeling of pain, betrayal and/or confusion, that the one left behind experiences is the product of carnal love.

Love in the spiritual sense removes, "ME" completely. There is no place for it. Instead the spouse being left would feel genuine joy that the other has found happiness and never even feels the slightest pang of loss.

There is currently another thread which asks if love equals sacrifice.
Carnally, sure it can.
Spiritually it cannot. Spiritual love feels no loss and accounts no cost at all.
The difference between fear and love.

For the believer;
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. (NKJV)

[humanguy]

Love in the spiritual sense removes, "ME" completely.

You seem pretty certain that there is such a thing as love and that there's such a thing as a spiritual sense, no? You also seem pretty certain that there's such a thing as "ME", and that, as far a love in the spiritual sense is concerned, "ME" is a bad thing.

Can you provide an example of where love in the spiritual sense has removed "ME" completely? Let's make it a non-Biblical example, if you don't mind.

[Kestrel]

Can you provide an example of where love in the spiritual sense has removed "ME" completely? Let's make it a non-Biblical example, if you don't mind.

I can speak to possibilities, such as the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. Yet without knowing the mind of the soldier,I cannot speak to their motivation.
Since speculation isn't what you asked for then, no.
I cannot.

EDIT

Hang on.
Perhaps you could look to yourself.
If you have ever sincerely forgiven another person, asking nothing in the form of recompense and ever after gave no thought to what the original offense was, that would qualify to a degree.

[humanguy]

Can you provide an example of where love in the spiritual sense has removed "ME" completely? Let's make it a non-Biblical example, if you don't mind.

I can speak to possibilities, such as the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. Yet without knowing the mind of the soldier,I cannot speak to their motivation.
Since speculation isn't what you asked for then, no.
I cannot.

So it's only speculation on your part when you say:

Love in the spiritual sense removes, "ME" completely.

Is that correct?

[Kestrel]

So it's only speculation on your part when you say:

Love in the spiritual sense removes, "ME" completely.

Is that correct?

No.
I fully expect this to be the case as dictated by the understanding of my beliefs.

[humanguy]

So it's only speculation on your part when you say:

Love in the spiritual sense removes, "ME" completely.

Is that correct?

No.
I fully expect this to be the case as dictated by the understanding of my beliefs.

Can you explain what you mean by "the understanding of my beliefs"?

[Kestrel]

The information provided by my scriptural source, the bible, tested against my personal experiences.