Saturday, June 1, 2013

Eros vs. Agape

The Greek word agape is often translated "love" in the New Testament. How is "agape love" different from other types of love? The essence of agape love is self-sacrifice. Unlike our English word “love,” agape is not used in the Bible to refer to romantic or sexual love. Nor does it refer to close friendship or brotherly love, for which the Greek word philia is used. Nor does agape mean “charity,” a term which the King James translators carried over from the Latin. Agape love is unique and is distinguished by its nature and character.

Agape is love which is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself. The apostle John affirms this in 1 John 4:8: “God is love.” God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love. But it is important to remember that God’s love is not a sappy, sentimental love such as we often hear portrayed. God loves because that is His nature and the expression of His being. He loves the unlovable and the unlovely (us!), not because we deserve to be loved, but because it is His nature to love us, and He must be true to His nature and character. God’s love is displayed most clearly at the cross, where Christ died for the unworthy creatures who were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), not because we did anything to deserve it, “but God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). The object of God’s agape love never does anything to merit His love. We are the undeserving recipients upon whom He lavishes that love. His love was demonstrated when He sent His Son into the world to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10) and to provide eternal life to those He sought and saved. He paid the ultimate sacrifice for those He loves.

In the same way, we are to love others sacrificially. Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of sacrifice for the sake of others, even for those who may care nothing at all for us, or even hate us, as the Jews did the Samaritans. Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own. But this type of love does not come naturally to humans. Because of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its true Source. This is the love which “has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us” when we became His children (Romans 5:5). Because that love is now in our hearts, we can obey Jesus who said, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another” (John 13:34). This new commandment involves loving one another as He loved us sacrificially, even to the point of death. But, again, it is clear that only God can generate within us the kind of self-sacrificing love which is the proof that we are His children. “By this we have known the love of God, because He laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers” (1 John 3:16). Because of God’s love toward us, we are now able to love one another.
- Source

It's telling that Zizek, on the other hand, defines agape as "political love", instead of a "love for G_d" as Christians define it. We've all heard the phrase "separation of Church and State". So how do we separate "politics" from State if one's politics is their religion? The purpose of "life" should not be "self-sacrifice for the State." The State, should not be our "body without organs." THAT is how we should perceive our actual "bodies." In other words, if we're to have "purpose", it is to be self-directed. If we are to practice self-sacrifice, let it be for causes that we personally would and ultimately DO choose to sacrifice ourselves for, and NOT some externally decided and defined "Master's" cause.

27 comments:

  1. If we are to practice self-sacrifice, let it be for causes that we personally would and ultimately DO choose to sacrifice ourselves for, and NOT some externally decided and defined "Master's" cause.

    If this were the case, how would our military function? And who are you referring to by "Master"?

    I've always enjoyed reading about the different kinds of love. Agape is the one that I can never quite grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would function as an "all volunteer" force. It would also function as an "oath per war" conditional enlistment.

    And the "Master" today is the University Discourse... for the "soveriegn" has been reduced by the "experts" to the realm of the discourse of the "hysteric".

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...and agape is SuperEgo love, the "love of the Big Other", not the love of the Ego. It is the "Death Drive"' Thanatos, not Eros of the "Pleasure Principle"

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's the "lamella" that wishes to live " after" life itself is over... the uncanny element of life itself that continues on, generation by generation, passed on... that is neither "subject" nor "object".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Read the section on "Why did Christ Die on the Cross" for a better idea of the Christian notion og agape if you get a chance... and contrast it to the video here.

    http://www.lacan.com/zizek-love.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also think of it this way. If you were a "dog", agape would represent the love that your owner would have for you, and your expectations of what would "please" him/her.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm unable to watch the video.

    Zizek misses the essence of agape love.

    ReplyDelete
  8. God knows us, and knew that the only act big enough (in our limited experience) to demonstrate His love for us, would be the sacrifice of a child. Zizek got that, but... in order for us to commune with Him, we need an intermediary, since WE are so limited. That is the Holy Spirit. None of this represents a limitation of God, but us. Remember that all three are one. No separation.

    When I say I can't grasp agape, it's because, in my opinion, we are not created to understand COMPLETELY God's nature.

    Essays and papers on the crucifixion seem misdirected. well-intentioned, but missing the point. It's a spiritual matter, requiring we admit our limitations. We are not the Smartest. He is. I think that's what it boils down to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree. he does miss what believers sense... but I think it important to understand how non-believers symbolically process their conception of the Big Other.... generally "religiously" and in the form of big Government.

    And I think that Zizek does "appreciate" Christianity... and the freedom/ liberty it has engendered in European culture. He is very critical of Buddism/Zhen and other "Eastern" religions in a way most non-believers miss... and he holds no illusions about the liberal "multi-cultural" project.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The real issue lies in how he approaches the "problem" of Antigone... in how the individual acts/reacts when given an "immoral" order by the State.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The "Christian" response is much different from the ancient Roman. One of the reason's that I love Shakespeare's play "Titus" so much... as it highlights/contrasts the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  13. His solution, like Antigone, like the Christian martyrs, is to sacrifice all that one loves... for "right". But the "real" difference, is that a Christian will sacrifice himself ONLY. He has not the faith of Abraham to sacrifice his son (Isaac). Nor the faith of Molech, who threw their children into the fires.

    No, the Christian sacrifices himself alone...

    ReplyDelete
  14. His solution 2... sorry, the piece I wanted to point to is at the start of this... not the end of the other... although the "other" does exemplify the "unlimited/unrestricted" nature of the "Roman" sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ...for the "Roman" sacrifices for "the Other's" cause/desire... for "Rome".

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's much easier to be an SS guard at an extermination camp when you are a "pagan".

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is the Zizek I'm pursuing today...

    ReplyDelete
  18. A better answer to your previous question, "Who is the Master?"... is "The subject who is supposed to Know."

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, you see it as more noble to sacrifice all for the state, as opposed to sacrificing oneself for God?

    I wish Titus was on netflix...

    ReplyDelete
  20. No. I see it it as more noble to sacrifice one's-self for no reason at all... except one that I choose to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In other words, I would choose to sacrifice myself for something I, myself, KNOW, and not for the sake of someone else "supposed to know".

    ie - WMD's in Iraq... no. Iraqi violations of Treaty obligations... yes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...in other words, it "can" be for the State, it "can" be for my G_d, but it won't be for either unless I KNOW and believe in my (common) cause.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm amazed that so many chose to fight our most recent wars.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not. There a reason that "young" men fight most wars. They still believe in what they are told and are willing to "take direction" from those who are "supposed to know" (ie - parents, teachers, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...it's only "later" that we discover just how "ignorant" those "others" actually were/are.

    ReplyDelete