If you could ban one word from the English language, which one would it be?
I would ban the word "love."
People say it to express that they like potato chips.
People say it to mean, they desire to fondle someone.
When in fact you need plumbing, refrigeration, protein, and air, as well as water and sunlight, the Beatles claimed that "All you need is love."
People still sing that song as if it has a clear meaning.
There is an experience of love: which means the " " til you part in death thing, that comes with families. But we need a new word, or set of words, to replace the L. word.
The word is all stretched out. The most suspicious things are done with that word, and it justifies almost anything. "But we were in love." With that one word, the private triumphs over the public. It allows anyone to do almost anything.
If I could ban one word in order to improve the world, I would ban the word "Love."
43 comments:
I love you Kirby! Hugs?
We're short-shrifted in English with our one word.
That's why churches often talk about "agape" instead of "eros" or "philos."
Silly Greeks with their more useful vocabulary. . .
Kirby—
1 John 4:8: Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is Love.
I'm confused. You're pretty much a literalist, and therefore it seems to me that you have to accept the "God is Love" equation of 1st John. So this must mean that you're denying God.
Здравствулте!, камрад
but of course that Greek is "agape" -- we need more words for "love."
M
I amended the post and then noticed that there are these four comments. Do your comments still hold?
Stu, how exactly does the Greek in your phrase translate? Is it GM's agape?
How do you translate agape? Do we have a word that's similar to that one?
Kirby—
Yes, my earlier comment still applies.
Здравствулте!, камрад
That's not Greek, Kirby. It's Russian: "Greetings, Comrade." There are a few layers of intended irony there :-).
I'll follow up in a bit...
GM notes that Greek has several words that are sometimes conflated in English into "love." But they don't need to be.
Eros (ἔρως) -- we usually take this to mean "desire" in the sexual sense. BDAG suggests "ardor," or "fondness."
Philos (φίλος) -- this is closer to "brotherhood," as in "Philadelphia," the "city of brotherly love." Sporting events excepted, of course. BDAG suggest "pertaining to having a special interest in someone," or "substantially, one who is on intimate terms o rin close association with one," e.g., "friend."
Agape (ἀγάπη) -- this is selfless love, the kind of love we associate with God, and which we try to emulate ourselves sometimes. The BDAG entry is gigantic, as this is a pretty broad term in Greek, and includes as secondary meanings concepts like patriotism (love of homeland).
unfortunately, we conflate all of them.
Kirby's a bit right -- "love" is fast approaching meaninglessness other than "intensity"
GM notes that 1 John uses "agape," presumably to try to give Kirby some room to defend himself from my criticism that denying love (and of course he's not really doing that) is equivalent to denying God.
I don't believe that GM's defense actually works here.
Which sense of love (eros, philos, agape) do you believe John Lennon intended in "All You Need Is Love"? Lennon was a complicated character, and I don't intend to dig deeply into those complications, but he certainly had a spiritual side. He was raised an Anglican, and certainly would have known "God is Love." With minimal textual engineering, you can turn "All You Need Is Love" into something very much like a Psalm, and I don't believe this is accidental. By Love, Lennon meant agape. Put the message up against Jesus's summation of the law, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself," and the parallels are striking.
I don't think the problem is with the song, which it seems to me is perfectly clear (and perfectly acceptable to a Christian, given the "God is Love" equivalence).
If people don't have a sense of God's love, or even of the kind of selfless love that dominates in successful marriages, how can they understand what love really is? They're really in a quandry, because they know that they need this thing called love, and they mistakenly identify (kudos to GM here) any feelings of strong attraction for love. And, of course, there are those who learn that the word has power, and they can use it to get things that they want (sex, money, power) from insecure people who need love.
But I don't think that the solution is to throw out the word "love," the solution is to name these other ideas that masquerade as love. Naming them properly encourages recognition, and robs these imposters of their power.
I think that Luther argued that we are not really capable of agape.
Eros, yes.
Philos, to a degree.
Are there any other languages with interesting nuances wrt the feelings formerly known as "love"?
But Lennon was a monster: drunk and promiscuous, generally with at least two women going alongside Yoko. That's why Chapman shot him. He thought Lennon was all about the pure love. When he found out otherwise, he went berserk.
I'm not saying that Lennon should have been shot.
Lenin, maybe.
Kirby—
But Lennon was a monster: drunk and promiscuous, generally with at least two women going alongside Yoko.
It seems peculiar to me, that in the comments to a posting of yours decrying the cheapening of language, you describe a person as a "monster" based on specifications no more exceptional than drunkenness and fornication.
Lenin, definitely.
Lenin, definitely.
No argument there.
I love you, means I wish for you the very best (even if I'm not fully capable of knowing exactly what that is). That's agape. Luther was silly, if he thought no one could love like that. And you are silly, too, Kirby, if you believe people, created in God's image, aren't capable of wishing each other well. (And I am silly, too, because I continue to read your nonsensical posts.) I love you, Kirby. May you see a little bit of light.
Kirby:
For you, Kirby, I deem esteem possible. . . . Srecno, or good luck!
I am beginning to think that Luther didn't believe in eternal life.
The whole reason Jesus tells us not to worry about things (and to LOVE -- even if it's a better word -- agape) is because we're going to live forever.
Trudgery and drudgery are for those who think they're going to die.
GM—
I am beginning to think that Luther didn't believe in eternal life.
You should pretty much ignore Luther quotes taken out of context, let alone imprecise recollections that Luther might have said this or that. Luther was notoriously hyperbolic in writing, which means that he'd say a lot of things in argument that he'd deny as isolated statements. [Indeed, I think he'd often get up in the morning and argue the Reformed side against the Catholics, and then turn around in the afternoon and order the Catholic side against the Reformed. You have to understand that Luther liked to argue. A lot.]
You can get a clearer sense of where Luther actually stood (without the rhetorical distractions) by reading the confessions. This is from the Augsburg Confession:
------
Article XVII: Of Christ's Return to Judgment.
Also they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment, and will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.
------
Admittedly, Luther wasn't personally present at Augsburg, but he kept up an active correspondence with Melanchthon through the process, and he didn't deny this after the fact.
And I'll admit to being a bit bemused by the last paragraph. It's good to see that my forebearers had the good sense to rightly condemn the Jenkins-LaHaye books almost five centuries before they were written.
what would luther have said regarding mother theresa of calcutta
if we're not responding to god's overabundant genrosity of love then we're merely responding to an idea
there is an undercurrent in catholic theology that is best summed up and understood as "divine eros"
c s lewis the 4 loves is a good primer
what's love got ta do got ta do with it
love's just
a second hand emotion (tina turner)
in a culture that more or less forces the concept of individuality love cannot resist becoming a narcissistic value
the opposite value to love is not hate but indifference
sacrifice
j
what would luther have said regarding mother theresa of calcutta
This is not an easy question. Let me research it a bit, and respond on my blog...
Boy,
They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
Looks like he gets to be wrong again.
Why do you guys like Luther?
GM—
Ah... The Church of the Brethren fits within the Anabaptist tradition. So this fits under the heading of a doctrinal difference between our churches. Fortunately, these are now occasions for debate. In Luther's time, they were occasions for warfare.
And some people think that things were better back in the day.
The Anabaptists went wild under Thomas Munster and started slaughtering everybody, I believe. Luther didn't think that would be good, because Civil War would weaken Germany, and make them more vulnerable to papal attack.
That's a whole story in itself. The Anabaptists started out as monsters, and only later become angels in human form.
I'm pretty sure my Anabaptists were a direct rejection of those Moonster folk.
Geez, it'd be nice if people read their bibles before they did stuff -- live by the sword, die by the sword and what-not.
But the idea that suffering and condemnation are eternal is less-than-logical, unless, of course, you don't believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
"My Kingdom is NOT of this world."
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's."
Deus Absconditus.
People put a different emphasis on different passages in the Bible. That's why there 1200 denominations in America alone, and myriad sects elsewhere.
Even the Branch Dravidians called themselves Christians.
I imagine that even Charlie Manson thought of himself as the Second Coming.
Christian leaders are legion.
Anyone can set themselves up as a Christian denomination, pluck out a few Bible verses, and start collecting donations. That's why the Catholics believe that it should be limited to them alone.
Luther did start it all with his scripture alone. But the problem is that everyone reads it and interprets it, and weights it differently.
Stu's branch of the Lutherans put a huge emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount, and on the stretchy word "Love."
Our branch puts a lot more emphasis on the Ten Commandments.
Stu's branch has basically outlawed Leviticus, and say that it no longer matters -- that Christ freed us from the doctrines of the OT.
Our branch says all the laws are still in force.
But nevertheless we no longer stone people as it says in Leviticus that we must do.
People pick and choose. It's like a buffet, and it depends on what you can stomach, what you like, what you think is healthy.
You guys do that foot washing jazz.
Some groups speak in tongues.
Paul was against the tongues bit.
I think speaking in tongues would lead to people thinking they are special. Paul did, too.
But other people think it's cool --
Communists generally believe in the Sermon on the Mount jazz. The hippies liked it, too, and wanted to look like Jesus freaks.
I think "love" is gross, when it comes to "love" everybody in the sense that the hippies meant. It just means all kinds of ooky diseases, and disappointment.
But people do interpret the words differently.
But nevertheless we no longer stone people as it says in Leviticus that we must do.
Although I must say can give a leper a pretty mean cleansing, following the course of rites detailed in Leviticus.
Kirby—
Luther did start it all with his scripture alone.
No. Lutherans do not and have never accepted sola scriptura, although some Protestant denominations do. Luther believed in the ancient authority of the church, and often cited earlier fathers (most often Augustine, but others as well) against the Catholics of his day.
Stu's branch of the Lutherans put a huge emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount, and on the stretchy word "Love."
Also no. Like most Lutherans, we place our emphasis on the first three ecumenical creeds (although less on the Athenasian than in former times), on the Augsburg Confession, on the Bible (including both testaments, with the Old Testament read as a witness to the New Testament), etc. Yes, we encounter the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain, if you're reading Luke) as a regular part of the liturgical calendar, but so do you.
The differences between the ELCA and LCMS are not as you characterize them. The principle differences, in my experience, is that the ELCA understands the Bible as "inspired," but not as "dictated," whereas the LCMS regards it as being both. The ELCA is generally more liberal on social issues, although I would not characterize it as a particularly liberal by the standards of American Christianity (our recent milquetoast "stand" on inclusiveness notwithstanding).
Stu's branch has basically outlawed Leviticus, and say that it no longer matters -- that Christ freed us from the doctrines of the OT.
Our branch says all the laws are still in force.
This is surely wrong. The Petrine revelation of Acts 10:9-16 trumps the levitical dietary laws for pretty much all of Christendom. A good piece of the Pauline ministry involved the notion that you don't need to be Jew in order to be a Christian—you can be a Gentile too. (cf, pretty much any random passage in 1st Corinthians or Galatians) Therefore most (but not all) Christian churches have held laws that are specific to the Judiasm are not binding on Christians, whereas laws given in the Old Testament that are intended to apply to all nations (e.g., the Ten Commandments) are.
There are, of course, disagreements as to which laws belong to which categories. But if you're eager to follow all the laws, I can see about sending a Mohel over for a house call.
Some groups speak in tongues.
Paul was against the tongues bit.
Uh, no. 1 Cor 14:18, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you."
How ironic. I just got back from vaca....backpacking in the Sierras, where I was rained out. So I headed to Vegas to dry out and saw the new show: LOVE-The Beatles. Good musical!
Anyway, maybe the dumbing down of the word LOVE is more simply a matter of a lack of an extensive English vocabulary. Do schools teach vocabulary anymore? Too many ESL courses are starting to dilute the language. Or perhaps no one cares anymore. I guess one would have to love language to try to utilize precise words.
Ciao!
WW
oh --
if I could ban one word it would be "deserve"
which really should be the target of Kirby's ire anyway
as in
"we love each other so we deserve to get married"
The thing I really love about English literature is that it's NOT theology. I checked out Tillich's wikibio and got a little confused. It said he lived in a little village called Schoenfliess from the age of 4 until he was 12, and then went to a boarding school in Koenigsberg for the next two years. It wasn't really clear to me if that meant the city or the town. The city is about three or four hundred miles north and east on the Baltic Sea between Latvia and Lithuania and is currently Russia's westernmost port. The town is a little less than ten miles west of the village where Tillich grew up. I know because the village where my great great grandparents lived when they emigrated was less than ten miles southwest of the town that's now called Chojna in Polish.
I know. Let's replace love with schnurrbart, the German word for moustache, literally, nosebeard.
Hey Kirby and all--
Check out Michelle Malkin's site to see what the valorous knights of the Democratic party are up to! Another fake "hate"-crime.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/25/fake-hate-crime-alert-leftists-vandalize-denver-democrat-hq-dems-smeared-obamacare-foes/
The problem is the Overuse of the word, not the word itself.
So instead of taking the negative approach and saying Stop using love, we should focus on Starting to use the appropriate terms that we lazily ignore so we can say 'love,' just less often, so that it has more meaning.
It might be ok if we put a limit on the number of times in a life we were allowed to use the word.
I would say maybe three times the word could be used by each person. that way you'd really have to weight what you meant by the word, and probably few would throw it away on potato chips.
You could use it once when you propose, once at your marriage, and once at a funeral, for example.
You could purchase further usages from a government office somewhere, for $100,000 with the money donated to the poor of Calcutta.
For Deadmule, I just think that Luther didn't think we could ever live without in some way living selfishly. We could say we cared about another so much we could forget ourselves, but we couldn't sustain that.
It's wrong perhaps to think that one cannot wish the best for another, but really, our own self-regard will sneak back into the picture.
If that did not happen with Mother Theresa (Hitchens claimed it did), then perhaps she deserves the title of saint.
I don't think people are monsters, but they are also not saints. I don't believe in saints.
People can be pretty nice, some of the time, even most of the time, especially when it doesn't cost them anything.
That's interesting Jacques! It's a shame that anyone has to stoop to these levels and I agree with your condemnation of this ridiculous stunt. I wish you would apply your intellect in examining the excess of the right-wing as well.
Tom:
If you read Malkin's whole article, I believe you'll be linked to many other such leftist "hate" crime hoaxes. I'm aware of just two over the last yr from anti-left hoaxers and the murder of the late-term abortionist in Kansas. You got lots more there?
Add to this the case of the Duke U 88 (of whom only one to my knowledge has apologised, not to include the two chicken-brains the U of Washington sent to Duke U), the hoaxes contemptible race-hustling, ever-agitating shake-down operators like the Revs Jesse Jackson (whose personal life represents what stu was decrying in Repubs) and the odious Al Sharpton, whose agitations have resulted in mob-inspired random murders. The major media and even compliant and intimidated police routinely hide the sins and crimes of Demos (nearly all the Kennedys, from the gangster Joseph to JFK and Robert[who started out well working for Sen Joseph McCarthy and then went sour], to Edward, to Edward's utter scapegrace-bum of a congressman-son, Patrick, not to mention the cowardly skunk John Edwards, all the while yelling any Repub personal scandals or even hints of such from the rooftops). Got some of stu's false equivalences for us on these?
JA
Before I reply to Emmy, I want to share with you why deep down inside I hate the dems, I'm registered Green, and why it's utterly laughable that some here think they are "Marxists." They can be purchased for the right price, just like the Conservatives.
Remember the Liberals have to scrape up enough funds to run a campaign as well; where do you think they get this money and do you think it's free?
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/17/the-secret-life-of-tom-daschle-moonlighting-for-the-inurance-indutry/
Oops this link was supposed to be there and I replied to the wrong thread... need more coffee...
Tom, I thought you were with Ralph Nader's group, which is not the Green Party (it was in 2000, but not now, his party is separate). Do you vote Green Party strictly right down the line, or do you go for Nader's party?
I like a lot of what Ralph Nader and the Greens say, in general. I don't like their foreign policy, but domestically, it was what I would have voted for 15 or 20 years ago.
The problem as I see it is that there are only two parties that can win, and they are the Demos and the Repos.
So although there are extremist factions on both sides, they don't really matter. It's very hard to evaluate fairly the Demos. Although I liked anarchists in general in college and later in Seattle, I always hated Marxists.
They are far too totalitarian for me. And the Democrats have become increasingly of interest to the Marxists, just as our erstwhile contributor -- Mad Max -- used to argue that the extreme southern right -- found the Republican party of interest to their own consortium.
Las tnight Glenn Beck was on O'Reilly talking about a farleft lunatic in Obama's panoply of new offices including a magistrate of green issues, or whatever he was called -- his name was Van Johnson or something. Beck was saying that this individual has said that he is a far-left violent revolutionary Marxist, and that he wants a total takeover of government.
This is Beck translating Van whatever, so it's something I'll have to check, since Beck likes to whip people into a frenzy, even more than Hannity does. But there is often a germ of truth at the bottom of the froth that Beck whips up.
He also mentioned a few other people in Obama's administration who are self-confessed Marxists. He named about three of them. I've been extremely tired of late, so although I did jot down their names, I forgot to bring them with me to the office.
Perhaps the Democrats do not see Marxists as being as bad as I hope the Republicans would see neo-Nazis. If someone was an actual member of the CPA, I would see it as being just as bad as if they were neo-Nazis.
But I think the Democrats generally don't fret about the CPA. We are probably largely still united against Nazism, but I see the CPA as being every bit as bad, if not worse, since they are more insidious, and are generally not as aware of the horrible things that have been done in the name of Communism, or perhaps are willing to look the other way, and think, but it was in a good cause.
That Stu was totally against Lenin the other day was a good sign for me. It made me happy. That he was for Lennon, on the other hand, gave me pause. They seem to me to be two sides of the same coin.
I see Lenin as the truth of Lennon, just as I see Altamont as the true face of Woodstock.
That Stu was totally against Lenin the other day was a good sign for me. It made me happy. That he was for Lennon, on the other hand, gave me pause. They seem to me to be two sides of the same coin.
All I did was argue that "All You Need is Love" has a Psalmic quality, especially if you accept the "God is Love" equation, and to argue that referring to Lennon as a "monster" on the basis of mere drunkeness and fornication is excessive. I did not offer a blanket approval of Lennon or his oeuvre. So saying that I'm "for Lennon" grossly overstates the case. "Not all bad" isn't the same as "All good."
Here's the Beck bit, on what is supposedly a black conservative's blog. There's no photo, but that's how he describes himself:
http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=glenn+jones&id=898bf11f42870a7bc05010a0574e4638
It's about one of Obama's 17 Czars -- ministers of different things that don't report to anybody at all. This one was a Black Panther, and a violent Marxist.
Post a Comment