greg@zinfandel.UUCP (05/28/84)
#N:zinfandel:22500006:000:1556 zinfandel!greg May 24 17:48:00 1984 Please forgive me for posting a religious note in this group. I will try to keep it at the experiential level. There has been some concern about love here lately, especially "loving the unlovable" kids. Some say forget it; others say by definition no kids are unlovable. I think that we are talking about different kinds of love here. To my mind, there are at least three kinds of love: sexual love (I), affectionate/friendship love (II), and serving love (III). Emotions can change or run dry. You may be unable to emotionally love your kids. Some kids just will not accept your affections. These kids can be called unlovable (II). BUT, you can still look out for their best interests and give of yourself to help them. Thus, they are still lovable (III). Note that this third kind of love requires commitment. If you only serve someone when *you* feel like it, you're only serving yourself. Before I became a Christian, I could not manage this kind of commitment. But now, whenever I become frustrated with my wife (this always seems to happen when I am expecting her to serve *me*), I can pray for God to give me *his* love for her. It works. If I don't do it, my failure becomes a source of pain for us. If I do, the affection invariably follows the commitment. I'm not saying all this to condemn anyone for feeling unable to love someone else; I'm saying it to offer an alternative. You *want* to love your kids and your spouse, don't you? If you can't do it on your own, ask for help. Greg Boyd ...zehntel!zinfandel!greg
mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/29/84)
I like the 3 kinds of love distinction. I find religon to be totally
useless for me in achieving love(III) (I have my own pragmatic methods),
but if it works for someone else, with no bad side-effects, and
children are thereby helped, that is good.
--
Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!markpc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (05/29/84)
I will certainly add my "amen!" to the idea that children
need to be loved with a heartfelt commitment (Don't we all?). The
traditional Christian compartmentalization of types of love makes
it easy for most people to understand. ("Love," the way you love your
lover ("sex" is not an essential component here), "love," the way
you love those you feel a common "bond" with, and "love," the way
one (ideally) feels about "humanity.") Let's not make the mistake
of substituting agape or filial love for the kind of love essential
to a person's feelings of self-worth and emotional connection. I
would postulate that a human being who experiences ONLY the same kind
of "love" that is due any other human being is going to be shortchanged
and emotionally crippled. [Of course, this person would be in much
better emotional shape than the person who had grown up without even
a sense of agape.]
I believe that what each person needs from some other person
(not necessarily a parent) is to be loved in an emotional, compassionate,
intimate way. Because such feelings can't be faked (or if they are, the
child ends up with a contradictory self-image), a parent who finds s/he
can't truly love the child has a few choices: (1) seek help in finding
ways to access that love; (2) find someone who has lots of love to give
to the child; and/or (3) substitute whatever kind of "love" s/he CAN feel
for the child.
Patricia Collins
hplabs
PS- Of course, none of this needs to have anything to do with one's
religious convictions, but as another netter said, "whatever works!"emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (05/31/84)
Recognizing the existence of different forms, or types, of love is not merely a Christian compartmentalization; it is Greek, and in fact is embedded in that language. So there is certainly no need whatever to assign any religious significance to the division! One further note is that dividing types of love into three compartments is a typically Greek approach, dividing a whole into a set number of parts. This is also a typical characteristic of highly technical people (like the majority of people on the net). It is probably more productive to recognize the existence of different forms of love, and not try so hard to categorize one's emotions too much. -Joe P.
greg@zinfandel.UUCP (06/05/84)
#R:zinfandel:22500006:zinfandel:22500007:000:853 zinfandel!greg Jun 1 09:22:00 1984 Sorry, Joe, but you completely missed my point. Please reread the base note. Agape love is *not* an emotion. Emotions change. God doesn't. His love for us doesn't. Read the definition of agape love given in I Corinthians 13. If you can produce this *kind* of love on your own, then I commend you. My point was that I have no love more powerful than emotional love except when God gives me His love. My love isn't enough. My wife and daughter need more. God uses me (when I let Him) to meet their need by giving me His love for them. And He offers His love to all who need it. If you think you don't need His love, then don't ask for it. But please don't condemn me for asking. I need it. If you'd like to continue this discussion, I recommend we either do it by mail or move it to net.religion. Greg Boyd ...zehntel!zinfandel!greg
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Real Programmers Eat Quiche) (06/14/84)
Re: More About Love____________________________________________________________
When discussing things like _agape_ love in a religious context, please
remember that _agape_ is a term that the greeks (Aristotle perhaps?) came up
with before the Church adopted it.
One may believe that _agape_ love is possible only through God but I
think we should all bear in mind that the Church's definition of it is the re-
vised definition. When some of us talk about _agape_ love, we mean the origi-
nal meaning.
So when someone uses _agape_ differently, they aren't wrong; they're
just using a different definition.
<_Jym_>
._________________________________________________________.
.__! Jym Dyer <> Software Craftsworker for DEC <> Nashua, NH !__.
.__! Arpanet: dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net: VAXUUM::DYER !__.
__! Usenet: ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Statements expressed here are my own, not necessarily those of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|.
`-`-`-`-'-'-'-'