Bold mine. If you go on to read the rest of it, it uses the word "love" almost exclusively and interchangeably with the real love. It is very misleading. It also sounds preposterous to me. Sounds typical of woo-ists who redefine well established words to suit their needs. Agape is not anything like love.So wait a minute, giving precise and clear definitions makes this webpage "misleading"?
I am either doing a terrible job expressing my meaning or you are typing before thinking about what I wrote.
It was not precise or clear. The first thing it said was agape is not love like we know love. It is not romantic love, it is not brotherly love, it is not familial love, it is not the kind of love you have for your cat or for your car. It is not good will or charitable feelings. It says, "Agape love is unique and is distinguished by its nature and character.
" Which tells me nothing other than it is not love in any way I can relate to.
In fact, it explicitly says it is not love that naturally occurs in any human being.
But this type of love does not come naturally to humans.
So agape does not equal love. Agape is something else, some other emotion that we do not actually have a word for, except "agape". Yet it goes on to use the two words interchangeably throughout the article. It is like saying I have this fruit that I will call an "orange" but there is nothing orange-like about it. It is not orange in color, it contains no citric acid, and it is not technically a fruit (but it is a food, I think). And it is shaped like a tetrahedron. But I'll still refer to it as an orange anyway.
My point was not aimed at you so much as it was the sneaky way "love" was substituted in where "agape" should have been used. It was a rhetorical sleight of hand and I dislike it.
I actually think that the page you linked to is very clear and lucid. As for whether agape is love, the naswer is yes. Just look up "love" in a good English dictionary and you'll see several definitions, one of which is pretty close to the definition that you're unhappy with. What's your complaint?
The complaint is the essay - which you agree with - went through great pains to explain how agape is not love and yet the article - and you - then use the two terms interchangeably.
So how again is love defined as "self sacrifice" consistent with killing the other man? It sounds to me that if jesus H felt agape the way you think it works, he would have nailed a couple other Jews and a Roman or two to the cross instead of sacrificing himself. Your agape sounds more like Rambo-agape.The life of a soldier reuiqres great self-sacrifice.
Now you're not even trying.
If you agape
a person, friend or foe, my interpretation of the sacrificial nature of it would be sacrifice for that person
. That is what self sacrifice is, right? If jesus H agaped mankind, then his sacrifice was for the benefit of mankind. Similarly, while military service can be self-sacrificial, I would say that sacrifice is generally only for the benefit of the soldier's own side. How is it your sacrifice if you are killing the other guy?