Biblical Love for Serena?

I harbour both secular-romantic and Biblical love for Serena.

Hey RevJohn;

How many threads is that on wondercafe now that have been dedicated to me?  That is some form of love too is it not?    

  Always nice to have a fan club.

This is easy because GOD loves. He loves you Serena, HE loves Rev. John and HE loves me. I don't know why that would be in doubt (I haven't read the other thread). I have always loved the fact that the Greeks had many words for different kinds of love. Agape. Ludos. Mania. Pragma. Eros. Philos. I'm sure I'm missing some. Love comes in so many varieties and fashions there should be many words for it.

Our minister often uses the word " agape". Does anyone have a good definition?

Hi Serena,

Clearly.

Not necessarily.  It is a love of other and love needs no reason other than its own desire.

Agreed.  Yet, just because my wife thinks that her boss is being a jerk it doesn't follow that I must automatically think the same way.  Until I see evidence of jerkiness it may just be a personality clash and not genuine jerkiness.

True.  I would likely also intervene if I saw another child other than my own being bullied.

Not true.  I would intervene.  I know how far I can go in a reasonable defence before I cross the line into assault.  Apart from a barroom brawl I would intervene in other altercations and I would only use physical means if I believed it to be absolutely necessary.

If it is a domestic dispute I'm not getting within reach of either party.

Interestingly, you claim that this kind of action towards loved ones constitutes loving action.  How does my beating up someone for assaulting my wife become loving action?  It is about reciprocity, fairness, right?  He hits her so he should be hit himself.  That is the crudest approach to justice there is.

I'm surprised you don't see the connection.

Agreed.  That would be neither loving nor appropriate.  Should I treat my child as bully the same way I would treat the child who bullies my child?  Should I treat one friend bullying another friend differently than if it were the other way around?

How you respond reflects on your concept of justice.

Fair enough.  That illustrates why the concept is so difficult for you to accept.

Turn the tables.  What if it is my loved one who is doing the hurting?  Do I just pretend I didn't see anything?  Justice is not vengeance (which is how you appear to be framing your understanding).  Justice is fairness.

I have.  I think that there is a semantic gap at play in the discussion.  Can you define love, grace, justice and truth for me?

There is no need to be defensive Serena I creditted you with nothing.  I asked a question.

The problem was not that I was not acting in a Biblically loving manner.  The problem is that your understanding of what constitutes Biblically loving is stunted.  I suspect it is your creeping fundamentalism again.

I did not side with my buddies.  I sided with the victim of your attack.  That others also sided with the victim of your attack does not mean we all hang out waiting to jump on your back.  You were being a bully.  I stepped in.  So, apparently did others who also believed that you were being a bully.

I'm sure that this kind of rationalization helps you to avoid dealing with the larger issue and that is your own behaviour.  Sure you admit that you were nasty.  Admitting to nasty behaviour and changing it are two completely different achievements.

Even the language you are using now in defence of yourself shows your reversion.  A few threads over you were complaining that you were a liberal now and not a fundy and yet to take a swipe at me what do you reach for?  "Liberal."

If you start out by bludgeoning others then you should expect to get batted yourself.  Those who live by the sword are said to die by it as well.

In that you have missed the target by some margin.  The real dispute is about how we interpret the scriptures and I have presented my interpretation on the Dispute thread so you are free to offer your critique of my understanding.

You do not believe my actions to have a basis in Biblical instruction, fair enough.  Show me Biblically were I have fallen short in that regard.

Grace and peace to you.

John

You are building your case on a false premiss, RevJon, the "misconception" is yours.

I know very few grown-ups with the infantile  "misconceptions" of  love that you  describe.

I have never had any friend  demand that I be an enemy to their enemies. How many sane people go around thinking they have "enemies" in the first place?  

Maybe in your world, Rev,  but not in the real world..

Hi lyh,

That is a very real possibility.  I have no reason to think that I am in error on this point.  The whole concept of "tough" love seems to speak directly to the notion that there is a tendency to consider love as only capable of being "soft" hence the need to add the adjectival modifier.

Which  proves only that you know very few grown-ups with the infantile "misconceptions" of love that I describe.  It does not prove that you do not know any grown-ups with such infantile "misconceptions."

It certainly doesn't prove that grown-ups you don't know do not hold such infantile conceptions.

Nationalism routinely traffics in such misconceptions.  A love of nation so strong that it will brook no criticism does not rightly deserve to be called love for it knows nothing of truth, grace or justice and yet, it exists.  The whole Bush/Cheney Presidency waded in it for two terms.

Which proves only that none of your friends have and not that others friends will.

President George W Bush is allegedly sane.  He said publicly to the world, "You are either for us or against us." and if you watch the news you saw the "freedom fry" fall-out.

Fair enough.  All my examples are the history of a non-existent world.  I'm so glad the world you live in doesn't have to deal with such nonsense.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Oh, you are too glib, John. I expected that answer. Yes, of course I speak only for myself.   I don't claim to know what other poeple are thinking.

How many people do YOU actually know who put such conditions on friendship ? How many people did you ask about the love they feel for friends, lovers, parents, brothers?  Common sense tells me that most people do not have the "misconceptions" that you so confidently discredit them with.

What makes YOU an authority on other people's misconceptions?

 Have you done any research?  Do you have numbers?

As for your reference to George Bush, aren't you actually agreeing with me that people who put "common enemy" clauses on frienships are not sane?  Think about it.

Hi lyh,

I'm sorry that I did not fail to deliver for you then.

That is what you imply when you suggest I have invented the misconceptions and they have no part in the "real" world.

Personally,  I know several.  We are no longer that close primarily because I wouldn't abide by those conditions.  So that is my several plus your few.

I have not run a quantitative survey on the matter.

Common Sense is a ship of fools.  Mike Harris' revolution included.

I claim no authority on the matter.  I have simply stated what can be shown readily by observing contemporary culture.  Contemporary notions of love, do not readily fit with the notion of love advanced through scripture.

Interestingly we probably wouldn't fit the "friendships" category and here you are trying to get me to agree with you that an individual is insane.

If I agree do the rest of the points I have raised suddenly make more sense?

I think it only fair to point out, since you require me to have authority to make statements, that I hold no medical or psychological degrees so my ability to diagnose the sanity of the past President is only meritorious when it comes to heaving rhetoric about.

I trust that you have the necessary skill set to make such a diagnoses.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

You sound pretty authoritative here.

Whose contemporary notions of love?

You just know, you needn't  do any study or  survey, you are omniscient.

Okay, RevJon, while you are thinking of ways to break my last post into itsy bitsy pieces to address separately, rendering exchanges with you  a little bit wonky, I will comment on  your "Biblical love for Serena" as expressed on the "I'm Married and Gay--where is God?" thread. I think it is appropiate because it is the reason you began this thread.

To summarize:

After fifteen years of marriage and 3 children,  "Zamboni" could no longer deny his gay longings, and was broken-hearted about the pain he was about to cause the wife and children he loved so dearly. "Help me my heart is breaking", he wrote

Needless to say there was an immediate outpouring of love and support from Wondercafe "family", until one of them wondered why "evangelicals" never responded to cries of pain like this.

Feeling this remark was addressed to her, Serena replied that she hadn't said anything because she didn't have anything to say, but having been provoked into responding to Zamboni's cry for help, she noted that if he were leaving the family for another woman, the family would hurt just as much.  I myself thought this was a perfectly logical comparison, but some one almost immediately called her  comments "bullshit" to which Serena who is not easily intimidated responded and  things escalated till Serena apologized after RevJohn  blessed her with his version of  biblical love,  which included addressing her as "Hypocrite!" (when the it seems she got into trouble because she was NOT hypocritical) and informing her  that she had "started in the gutter", and proceeded to go downward.

I see no "grace, truth, or justice"  in such cruel and unjust  charges. Her only "sin" was  in not agreeing with the Wondercafe "family's" assessment of how one should respond to Zamboni's plea for help.--this is exactly the misconception of love that you ascribed to others at the begining of this thread. When Serena  finally apologized, and her apology was  magnaminously accepted  by someone in the WC "family", I commented that it was Serena who needed an apology. The reaction was swift. I was asked if I was really someone else--some one who it seems had been ousted from WC , another thought  I was a " troll"; I was taunted when I could not immediately locate some quotes that I made; Rev Matt said that I was one of the "nasty ones".

So yes, RevJohn, there are people with misconceptions of love, exactly as you described them, and they are you and your friends. 

I have nothing more to add.

If your wife came home every night about the idiot things her boss said to her you would not be playing golf with him Sunday afternoon and making fun of her with him.  THAT is my point.

You are assigning motive again.  I am only saying you would do what is necessary to protect.  Part of love is protection.  Depending on the size of the guy all that may be needed is a restraint hold from you and maybe there is no hitting at all.

Yes different relationships require different treatments.  You have no authority to ground another child if the other child is the bully and if the bully was your child you would have authority to do more.  It would be the same with a friend although you cannot ground a friend you would have the right to speak more into their life than you would a stranger.

No you do not pretend that you did not see anything.   You intervene but the motivations are different for the same action.  You have empathy and compassion for the victim so you help them.  A bully hurts others because they are hurting themselves so once you stop the bullying then you help the bully stop hurting.  That is the only way you can stop bullying because if you just bring a bigger stick the bully will just continue to bully when you are not around and get better at it.  

What makes you think that is a swipe?

Hi Serena,

Fair point.  Would I still play golf with her boss?  I don't golf but that is beside the point.  If I have a relationship with her boss and I must if we are socializing together because I don't hang out with my wife's professional colleagues nor she mine, then that relationship though subordinate to the relationship I have with my wife still deserves its own due.

Is the motivation different.  I love my child.  I love my neighbour.  It would appear that the love is of the same kind if not the same quality.

I was not assigning motive?  I was clarifying.  You did say I would beat the guy up which is different from protecting.

You think that would be fair then?

To a degree that is true.  What is okay for one should also be okay for the other.  Because of the relationship dimension I have differing recourses for dealing with the same behaviour.  That doesn't mean that I place different levels on the behaviour.

True.  Again different level of relationship is given.  Does that correspond with differing perceptions of right and wrong?

And as per above when you used the example of my wife I would do what was necessary to protect the one being injured or would I not?

And how long would that process take?  Do I protect other victims while engaged in that process or once it has begun do I allow the bully to behave as they see fit?

That is a possible outcome.  I do not think it is a given outcome.  Nor do I think that all bullies operate out of some inner pain and fear though I recognize that can be found.  For some it is a dominance thing.  They just like the control and the power over others.

Fair enough.  The second section belongs to Eros (also translated into the English as love).  Eros, if memory serves, does not appear in the Greek New Testament at all.  It plays a strong component in Process Theology due to the basic metaphysic of Process Theology.  Panentheism can explain more about that if you ask.

That is a shared definition. Did I show anyone in that thread favour?  How did they merit it?

You argue that I treated you unfairly.  Above you have outlined how different relationships often need different treatment.  You and I have been a part of WonderCafe since it opened up.  Do you percieve that my treatment of you in the thread in question was out of character for me from previous public or private correspondance?

Would you say it is out of character from private or public correspondance since that encounter?

None of that applies does it?

Essentially, yes.  I tell anyone who is addicted to anything that addictions are hard to break but they are easy to switch.  Which is why recovering alcholoics are often chain smokers.  They are beating a certain addiction and yet, in the meantime they embrace another.  They will never not be addicts.  Every day is new and everyday they face the same temptation.

Liberal is one of your derogative terms for those who disagree with you.  I have never known you to use it as a compliment.

Fair enough.  Are you saying that you have never bullied?

This statement is at odds with your statement near the beginning of the post where you suggest that protection of the victim is acceptable.  Do I routinely hunt you down in threads to harrass you?

And your position is that I have never tried to help you in that regard?

I failed in the humanity department because it is inhumane to go protect a victim?  Is that what you intended to say?

Perhaps.  How long do we let the bully continue to beat up on a victim?  Is the bully the first priority for assistance?

That assessment probably looks more accurate from a purely public perspective.  You and I have the benefit of a longstanding private correspondance.  Is it your contention that I have only bullied you privately also?

You have claimed that all bullies are victims.  You appear now to be admitting that you were being a bully so I spoke truthfully then when I applied that lable to you.  By claiming that you are a bully you are now free to claim bullied status and by labelling me as your bully you place me on the victim shelf right alongside you and your victim.

Now there is an never-ending cycle of victimization going on.  I think that is simply rationalization for your own behaviour.

If that is true how many more have you made?  Why is that not an equal or valid concern?

You have just said I was a bully and now you are saying I am not.

At any rate is it your conviction that I have only bullied you?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pilgrims Progress:

Paul in his Letters advised his far flung flock that their love should be true Agape. (Appearantly, Paul wasn't very comfortable with the sexual aspect of Eros :-)

The ancient Greeks had eight types of love, but Agape and Eros were the diametrically opposed forms. Agape was indirect, objective love, the idea and ideal of love, love in the abstract, if you will.

Eros, on the other hand, was direct, subjective, physical and palpable love, hands-on love, if you will. Sexual Eros was just a part of Eros; the perfect example of Eros was the love with which a mother loves her infant.

I think either love alone is incomplete. I favour a full complement between the objective love of Agape and the subjective love of Eros.

Arminius,

Re your " I think either love is incomplete."

I'd agree with that comment, but  when I was younger the subjective love of Eros seemed far more exciting. 

These days, I'm finally seeing the value of agape. (So that's why our hormones decrease with age?? I knew there had to be a reason!) 

revjohn, Serena,

Re Arminius's comment. What is it between you two - eros or agape?

Hi Pilgrim's Progress

It isn't eros.

It would seem that whether or not is agape is up for grabs.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So if he is professionally mistreating your wife you would still hang out with him socially?  I would think that love for your wife would make you dislike him if he is going out of his way to be nasty to your wife.  I know a lot of guys who behind their wive's back do socialize with people who are mean to their wives and the pair of them laugh about it.

I did say that but one can beat the other guy up in self defense.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Is it up to you to protect the other victims?  Are you the teacher/principal in the schoolyard?  Are you Admin?  It seems if my behaviour was so deplorable admin would have stepped in and at least reprimanded me?

While it may be somewhere between possible and given the percentage is high.  Very few bullies like the dominance thing they operate out of inner pain.

Yes.  The person you accused me of bullying.  They did not merit an favour.

It was rarely publically that you ever came down on me so hard though it has happened.  Privately yes you do come down hard on me quite frequently.

You have been very nice to me since that time so yes it would be out of character.

The definition of grace does but that is about all.

I called myself a liberal a while ago.  It was not meant as a compliment nor as a derogative term.  It simply is.

No I am not saying that.

No you do not but others here have done so.

What about being so mean to me on that thread was helping?

No.  I meant that you became a bully in that thread.  The end does not justify the means.

In real life we have police, teachers, principals, etc, they are the ones with the authority to stop the bully.

No.

No.  I do not admit that I was a bully.

No.  That is where you put me when you assigned the label of bully.

One can never be sure how many bullies are made in this process.  It is of equal or valid concern except that you told me to lift up how you missed the mark Biblically not me.

I am saying that you do not believe you are a bully.

No.

Arminius and Pilgrim's Progress,

 I appreciated your good-humoured comments here, and am more than a little embarrassed at my own.  I could edit mine, but will leave it there to remind me the next time I'm tempted to give vent to long-winded grievances.

I admire Serena's fighting spirit.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote that Love is when the well-being of another is important to yours. Best definition I ever encountered.

Some things in life are wildly over analyzed and over interpreted.

lyh,

Conflict makes me uneasy - my old pal humour springs to my aid.

I agree that revjohns's habit of quoting "itsy bitsy pieces to address separately" is annoying and not very productive. (So nice to agree with someone!) 

SLJudds,

I like Heinlein's definition of love.

Here's another definition that appeals to me. Love is a verb, not a noun.

lyh,

Conflict makes me uneasy - my old pal humour springs to my aid.

I agree that revjohns's habit of quoting "itsy bitsy pieces to address separately" is annoying and not very productive. (So nice to agree with someone!) 

SLJudds,

I like Heinlein's definition of love.

Here's another definition that appeals to me. Love is a verb, not a noun.

Oops, double post!

lyn and Pilgrim's Progress, I have to agree with you. it is annoying to see this parsing .IMO, it takes some things out of context. So sometimes, I go Ho Hum and scoot to the bottom of the post.

Hi Pilgrims Progress:

When we get old, and the fire of Eros gets dimmer, Agape gets stronger.

Seriously, now. When we complement the two, one makes the other greater. One enhances the other; one enriches the other; each renders the other more beautiful and profound: A Whole and Holy Love.

Thank you both  for defining "Love" with gentle and loving humour!

Hi lyh:

When the medieval troubadours sang about love, it sounded as if they were singing about profane love, but the profane love was a metaphor for divine love. More than that, by mixing the two, profane love was rendered profound.

By complementing Eros and Agape, we are rendering profane love responsible and godly and, at the same time, bringing godly love down to an earthly and earthy level. We are learning to handle our sexual and egocentric love urges in a godly and responsible manner.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error, and upon me proved,

I never wrote, nor no man ever loved.

-Shakespeare

Thank you, Master Shakespeare, for rosy lips and cheeks!

Ah, beautiful!

Be gone, all misconceptions of love!

I apologize if I am being a tedious nag, but it seems very wrong that this thread, dedicated to Serena by RevJohn, should end without some kind of healing closure.

In the "I'm married and gay" thread, RevJohn  publicly and unjustly accused Serena of being a hyprocrite, and claimed (also publicly) that she had begun in the "gutter" and proceeded downward.

Neither statement is remotely true, and Serena is owed a public retraction and an apology.

Even if an  apology is not forthcoming, I hope Serena will forgive and move on, since it is clear that those wounding words were spoken by someone  with  serious "misconceptions" about love. 

For the record, I liked Serena's tough-love reply to Zamboni's cry:

"I'm gay, and [I'm] married. Help Me, My heart is breaking. Where is God?"

Serena's answer (after being prodded into replying) was that God  was probably weeping for Zamboni's  wife and children, to which I could only add "Amen!"

But it seems that to Rev John and his friends this was tantamount to saying God was against Zamboni.

Zamboni replied that he was glad he was not married to Serena, which I thought was pretty hilarious, since his plea for help was all about  his unhappiness over being married to a woman whom he claimed to love dearly.

In short, Serena was one of the very few who responded  to Zamboni with genuine respect in that she expected him to behave like a responsible adult.

I sincerely hope that Reverend John will understand the deep hurt he has caused a good and kind Christian woman.

I write this with love and friendship to Serena, and with blessings to all,

Lois

deleted--double post