07-09-09: One small step in word meaning; one giant leap for sexytime

Subject: One small step in word meaning; one giant leap for sexytime

Of course I’m talking about the word “agape.”

7-09-09

Originally agape love was a Greek word for sexual love, identifying the characteristics of both Aphrodite and Eros in one word. Later, many people would also use the word to express the same level of intensity in sexual / romantic love for things they like a whole lot that weren’t sexual, like for a brother, a son, money, etc. Jesus used the word very much as the kind of love we are to do with or have for “one another,” e.g., John 13:34-35. Therefore, agape love has come to be known as “Christian love.” The English word for “love” is pretty much the same today as what is was when it was used by Jesus in the Greek agape, which both equally cover all kinds of love, including sexual. However, since logic dictates that a word that includes any kind of sex in its definition allows sex to be part of the act which Jesus commanded, in the last century or so, there has been much pressure to take the sexual / erotic / Eros part out of the English agape definition:

Human Sexuality, Masters / Johnson / Kolodny, 1992, p. 9, “Historical Perspectives on Sexuality | Early Times”:

The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, 1995, p. 32, “agape”:

As a result, we have:

http://www.answers.com/topic/agape, “agape”:

Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1964, p. 25, “ăg'-a-pē”:

“Opp.” stands for opposite.

However, an earlier Oxford dictionary published this:

A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Souter, Oxford, 1916 (reprinted 1917), pp. 2-3, “αγάπη” (the Greek text for apape):

Well, what the heck does “LXX” refer to? Simply put, it’s the Old Testament that was translated into Greek before the Christian era, better known as the “Septuagint,” and was used predominantly by Jesus and Paul, as many of their quotes from the Old Testament reflect the various phrasing differences between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew. See here and here for my Septuagint agape research findings, which tells that agape definitely included sexual love (e.g., it’s Song of Solomon love), and in no better source than the Bible used by Jesus, Paul and the other Greek writers of the New Testament. Therefore, this is conclusive proof that Jesus ordered sexual love as part of the act which He actually commanded we do with “one another,” therefore promiscuously and bi-sexually. (Now we’re getting to the good part:) The ONLY reason why you don’t believe that, is simply because you’ve been imbeddedly verbally “taught” otherwise; your master is not the actual facts and reading of the Bible, but only what you “trust” from today’s corrupt religious leaders.

By the way, the standard large volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, under “agape” 2, and under “Eros” 1:b, both tell that these non-sexual changes are more recent, and not of the original definition.

I tell ya’, it’s easier to visit the moon than to get religious leaders to be honest, or to get media leaders to understand something valid.

Early Christianity also supported the sexual love attributes of Eros, as Eros / Cupid (the Roman equivalent) actually became an icon for the cherubic angel in much church art; therefore, supporting the Christian word for “love” in this manner (Eros is a direct form of “erotic”):

Eros: The God of Love in Legend and Art, Irene Korn, 1999, p. 121, “Cupids”:

The Paintings of the ‘New’ Catacomb of the Via Latina and the Struggle of Christianity against Paganism, Bargebuhr, 1991, p. 88, “‘Decorative’ Features”:

Eros and Cupid were even pagan deities, and still became symbols in the Church (which is rare).

Myths and Legends of the World, Wickersham, 2000, Vol. 2, “Eros”:

Examples:

First of all, here’s Eros / Cupid in early pagan art:

There he is with his mother (and Pan):

http://web.uvic.ca/grs/bowman/myth/images/03.jpg (via http://web.uvic.ca/grs/bowman/myth/gods/aphrodite_i.html) (Univ. of Victoria), Aphrodite:

Aphrodite, Eros, and Pan … Delos, ca 100 BC.

There he is with mom and dad (Aphrodite is Venus in Roman mythology):

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Free/000Ares/source/7.html, Ares Album 7/9:

7120: Mars and Venus. Pompei, casa dell'Amore punito.

Eros: The God of Love in Legend and Art, Irene Korn, 1999, p. 117, “Scene from Dionysiac Mystery Cult | before first century | Villa of the Mysteries, Pompeii” (prior to 79 AD):

Now, here he is in various era’s of Christian art:

Die Katakombe „Santi Marcellino e Pietro“: Repertorium der Malereien (The Catacomb “Saints Marcellino and Peter”: Repertory of the Paintings), Deckers, 1987, Vol. 2, tafel (plate page) 53, “a) Nr.(number) 71 … Amorino” (c. 200-300 AD):

Seeing Salvation: Images of Christ in Art, MacGregor, 2000, p. 196, plate 61, “Till Kingdom Come”:

He’s even still naked while everyone else has clothes on.

Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma, Pietrangeli, 1988, p. 308 (c. Renaissance):

Today:

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Catholic), 416 W. 12^th Street, Kansas City, MO:

http://www.kcgolddome.org/cathedral/history.htm (Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception):

In 1912, stained glass windows were installed. The windows were made by local artists at the Kansas City Stained Glass Works Company. Obviously, the “local artists’” conception was derived by other / past Christian art provided; which did emanate from the earliest Christian art (AD 200s / 300s); and, likely before the 1912 artists knew what the love gods really represented.

The use of Cupids in churches have various meanings to what represent:

“none other than Adam and Eve themselves”

“the spiritual power of union between man and wife” (And, Jesus said to have this “union” with “one another.”)

“peace and spirituality, or love and joy, or guidance and protection”

“the fulcrum about which the Ego comes to know the Soul”

I’m just reading the first Google Search results page, from “Cherub” and “represent.”

“the soul of the person or just a general wishing of good luck and good tidings in heaven for the person”

“Cupids are cherubs and they represent love.” There, someone got it right.

There, that shows no one really knows why they’re there; but, they must have been abundant in the earliest of Christian art to have emanated to what we have today.

Also, God did command to not eat meat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_foods, Kosher foods, “Blood and fat”:

One of the main biblical food laws is the forbidding of eating blood on account of the life [being] in the blood; this ban and reason are listed in the Noahide Laws^[12], and twice in Leviticus^[13][14], as well as by Deuteronomy^[15]

You know, that’s true: God wrote that we should not eat anything that has blood going thought it (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 17:11), as that’s the best way to describe an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet.

The classical rabbis argued that, in a number of cases, the prohibition against consuming blood was impractical, and there should be exceptions; they claimed that consuming the blood which remained on the inside of meat (as opposed to the blood on the surface of it, dripping from it, or housed within the veins), would be permitted, and that the blood of fish and locusts could also be consumed.^{[17][18][19][20]}

Well, that makes sense since Jews are sinners.

To comply with this prohibition, a number of preparation techniques became practiced within traditional Judaism. The main technique, known as melihah, involves the meat being soaked in water for about half an hour, which opens pores;^[21] after this, the meat is placed on a slanted board or in a wicker basket, and is thickly covered with salt on each side, and left for between twenty minutes and one hour.^[22] The salt covering draws blood from the meat by osmosis, and so the salt must be subsequently removed from the meat (usually by trying to shake most of it off, and then washing the meat twice ^[23]) in order to complete the extraction of the blood.

You know, the Protestants have refined this to allow one to just do whatever he wants.

Genesis 9:3-4 [NKJV]:

³Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. ⁴But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

I know this has been spun out of the original Hebrew and is therefore contradicting (the “shall be” is really “has been” or “is”); but, doesn’t that even pretty much openly explain what Eve was not supposed to eat in the Garden of Eden? I.e.: any “flesh” elaborated as anything that has “blood.” (Compare Genesis 2:29 and 2:9,16-17; 3:2-6.)

Okay, you say how about the radical spin I “just” said about “shall be” really meaning “has been”? Why does it always have to be me that uncovers thousands of years of corruption?:

The Complete Word Study Old Testament, Zodhiates, AMG Publishers, p. 25, “Noahic Covenant” (Genesis 9:3-4):

(The “1961” is the Strong number.)

P. 2282, “Grammatical Notations | 95. The Qal Imperfect (qmf)”:

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home and Office Edition, 1998, p. 260, “imperfect”:

http://www.answers.com/imperfective, “imperfective”:

Of, related to, or being the aspect that expresses the action denoted by the verb without regard to its beginning or completion.

Either way, it’s not in the future tense, making it sound like God is allowing or commanding it. God is just saying that it’s the state of being, beginning from an unspecified time in the past.

http://www.answers.com/topic/imperfective-aspect-1, “Imperfective aspect”:

The imperfective aspect is a grammatical aspect. It refers to an action that is viewed from a particular viewpoint as ongoing, habitual, repeated, or generally containing internal structure.

Other examples of the Hebrew Qal imperfect:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ng6zLq_w6VIC&dq=%22in+the+beginnings%22+dill&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=N55_9ERjL4&sig=kp6U0hyWWLcip1uArYKGklzWVNA&hl=en&ei=wFZOSuuyC4u4lAegyOmTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1, In the Beginnings (Google Book Result), by Steven E. Dill, 2007, p. 347, “Chapter Twelve: The Meaning of HAYAH (which is the pertinent Strong #1961)| Qal Imperfect”:

P. 348 (continuation):

That “Gen 2:5” example is the same “qmf1961” as Gen. 9:3 above (both the same Hebrew characters of יהיה), but translates as “was”:

The Complete Word Study Old Testament, Zodhiates, AMG Publishers, p. 6, “Adam and Eve in the Garden” (Genesis 2:5):

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip046/2003015640.html, Table of contents for Hebrew for biblical interpretation / by Arthur Walker-Jones:

Chapter 6-Qal Imperfect, Part I .

Qal Stem .

Imperfect Conjugation .

Use for Past Narration .

http://hebrew.wisc.edu/103syll.Fall2007.kirk.pdf, Hebrew 103/303: Biblical Hebrew, First Semester, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Fall 2007:

Our Hebrew text is the same as the example they use above (יהיה):

The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan Publishing House, 1987, p. 20, “Genesis 9:2-12”:

(Hebrew is read from right to left then down)

Notice how the sequence of words in verse 4 really more says “but meat with life’s blood you must not eat,” which has lots more vegetarian command than “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood [NKJV]”, which sounds more like it’s okay to eat meat if you drain the blood. You see, God just defined exactly what “meat” / flesh is, by elaborating that it’s anything moving where blood flows. Therefore, this includes fish; and, allows the eating of eggs and milk. Also, Hebrew “life” (or “living”) is not defined as plants: the word doesn’t start until God made the animals and moving things in Genesis 1:20, and defines it as such. Apparently, like lots of words, the base word got extended to later include plants, like it can also be extended today to include cars, your computer, your phone, etc., as opposed to “dead.”

Another source:

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, Jay P. Green Sr., Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985, p. 7, “GENESIS | CHAPTER 9”:

In translation, Google returns just “Be” not “Shall be”:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en#iw|en|%D7%99%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94, Google translate: Hebrew > English, “יהיה”:

… indicating a current state.

See how the form of the word can make a world of difference? And, how just rearranging words to the more correct sequence can give a different / correct meaning (in verse 4)? I mean, it doesn’t make any sense why God would allow or command us to eat meat, then say to not in the next verse. Nor does it make any sense why God would want us to eat meat, but no blood; especially with there really being no way to get rid of all the blood fluid and cells.

Boy, that was a close one. You really though you had me there, didn’t you?

What do you bet I’m the only vegetarian advocate that has this? And, it’s a big one.

Here’s another’s best explanation:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/hgc_print.htm (The Christian Vegetarian Association), Honoring God’s Creation: How is vegetarianism good stewardship?:

Why did God give Noah permission to eat meat (Gen. 9:2–4)?

Virtually all plants were destroyed by the Flood. Alternatively, God allowed Noah limited freedom to express human violence, since unrestrained violence responsible for the Flood itself (Gen. 6:11-13). Importantly, this passage does not command meat-eating nor indicate that the practice is God’s ideal. Indeed, eating meat came with a curse – animals would no longer be humanity’s friends: “The fear and the dread of you shall rest on every animal…” (Gen. 9:2) While eating meat is not prohibited, it represents a complete break from God’s ideal of animals and humans living peacefully together, as depicted in Eden and by the prophets.

Pitiful.

Leviticus 11:

This chapter is the “Lord” overruling “God” in Genesis 9:3-4 by allowing the Jews to eat certain kinds of animals, defining the animals to not eat as “unclean.” Thank “God” for the New Testament: In Acts 10:10-15, Peter has a dream where Jesus is telling him that it’s also okay to eat animals (as “God has cleansed”). First of all, why would Jesus need to instruct Paul to eat meat if it’s already in Leviticus 11 (which He “cleansed” then); in which Peter contradictorily stated was not to be eaten? Secondly, it’s a “dream,” and I personally have had characters in my dreams lie to me. But, Peter made a firm indication that Jesus (the one in the dream) was overruling the real, living Jesus, that Peter once walked with. So, who are we supposed to believe today, the “one” real, walking Jesus, or every dream we have that overrules it? I think God was behind in to bypass the wants of Dark Age church corruption, to allow the New Testament to be followed, as He would know that someone in the future would be able to logically explain the situation, which I just did above.

Actually, Leviticus 11 seems to contradict itself over the kinds of animals one may eat, to the result that no animals or fish are allowed to be eaten. Example:

Leviticus 11:

⁹‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. ¹⁰But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.¹¹They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.

Is seems the orange overrules the yellow. Kind of like a trick question. (Again, they didn’t have punctuation when this was written.)

²⁴‘By these you shall become unclean; whoever touches the carcass of any of them shall be unclean until evening;

Doesn’t that just overrule all that’s previously mentioned? I mean, if you can’t touch it how can you realistically eat it. I mean, can’t your mouth touch things?

³⁹‘And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. ⁴⁰He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

In other words, any animal that’s dead cannot be eaten, which have been allowed. So you can only eat it alive? What if it dies while you’re eating it? Then you’d better spit it out, I guess.

⁴¹‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten. ⁴² Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination.

I think that covers just about everything, doesn’t it? Doesn’t all land animals “crawl” or “creep” at some point during their life?

And, where’s any kind of logic or reason why God would say some animals are okay to eat and some aren’t. Like when God said to not steal, we can all understand the logic; but, where’s real criteria basis for Leviticus 11?

I think it is a trick to see who remains a vegetarian after they think God allows the eating of animals, for God to easily see who is really His, and who doesn’t really care if they are cruel. The gift of Afterlife is not based on those who just go by the rules, it’s for those who have a good heart down deep. You see, the perfect utopia doesn’t have limiting laws and rules, and therefore police, jails, or discipline; it just has to make sure it only lets those with kind hearts in. Otherwise, having people there who only follow the punishable rules in a place that works best without any punishments, will corrupt or even destroy the place. That place is supposed to be here on earth in the future. How will future “people” know who to bring back to life if they can’t easily “see” who has a worthy heart and who doesn’t? Well, if you’ve chosen to be a vegetarian in today’s anything goes world for ethical reasons, then you might just meet the criteria.

Men’s Health, (rec’d in mail 3-03 to entice me to subscribe to mag.), p. 10, “Add 20 Years to Your Life!”:

Miscellaneous:

UNDERSTAND:

You do NOT get to touch her:

Instead, you get to die for the war effort:

That’s the rules. (Cavuto says that he has no desire to “touch” her. Cavuto thinks that those who want to touch her are just sick.)

Mr. Perfectionist:

Would renaming myself Mr. Perfectionist cause more acceptance or understanding of my insults and approaches? As people tend to expect more insults from a perfectionist; when everyone else is more “just ignore the goofs” or “sweep the mistakes under the carpet” or “Animal House party time”? Well, actually Animal House once in a while may fit into perfection as it may be a good way to escape from all the daily tedious perfection. People need a balance of some kind every now and then. Too bad everyone else can’t balance all their “dumb” with some “smart.”

It’s like if you’re a perfectionist and notice something that’s in need of correction, you desire to try to correct it. But, most regular people will not try to correct something that will cause resentment to their superiors (like the boss, your [attractive] wife, the a-holes in the bar looking for a fight, or the Pope). Resenting someone who explains how dumb you really are, is a standard selfish animalistic emotion, intended to “just ignore the goofs” or “sweep the mistakes under the carpet” etc. for the types who are far from a perfectionist, which I’ve found pretty much includes everyone – unless you want to call a perfectionist someone who only wants it perfect for themselves, like any newborn baby wants.

Or, I should just sing “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind in the right measure.” Well, I guess the most perfect “measure” is at the top of the “non-bootlick.” So, scroll back up to the Gettysburg photo; and, reread places that explain “why” you’re so dumb. “Cruel to be kind it’s a very good sign. Cruel to be kind means that I love you.” So there!

American people so gullible – Borat do it again:

I always knew Borat just wanted to come out of closet. So, now back again as gay man. Do you think good sexytime?

Economic sanctions against North Korea:

We’re building another Hitler.

Another dumb reason to build a Sprint Center in a downtown congested area:

When you’re waiting in line to park in a garage before a game or concert, if you get stuck in an intersection when the light turns red, there’s a cop there to force you to have get out of the line, to allow normal traffic to cross, making you have to go around several blocks again, just to restart at the back of the line. This is supposed to be a better place to have concerts, than the large outdoor amphitheater they used to use just out in the country, where the sound didn’t cause a continuous echo, and where you didn’t have to spend a half an hour inhaling nothing but other cars poisonous exhaust fumes to get out of the parking garage line after the concert. It’s just another thing where they should have called me before they built the place. Again, I’m apparently the only guy in the world that can figure out better things now-a-days.

If they just want to “class up” the area, then they can tell the government to give out a basic-needs allotment to everyone.

Can anyone help me deduce the most anti-sex Christian era:

I know it’s basically between 692 AD (Trullo council) to 1960, but when was it the worst? The Renaissance, the 1700s / early 1800s, the early 1900s? If anyone has a good answer let me know.

The moral reason for war:

Except for the kinds who invaded places just for the gold, etc., moral based reasons for wars was probably the historic majority, and is what we’re dealing with today with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, WWII, etc. And, what each side seems to be in the total dark about is that each side will keep punishing the other, with angry words, sanctions, drawing lines in the sandbox (like we did prior to the Iraq war), terrorism, etc. by each side actually thinking the other side will give in to each punishment, while each punisher is actually thinking that their punishment is another outreach for peace. But, what always ends up happening is that each escalating punishment makes the other side more angry, instead of being intimidated, actually thinking that that’s more proof they don’t want peace, thereby escalating to eventual war. All I’m saying is that to avoid war, one of the sides has to be the stronger and smarter and quit the dumb added punishments. In North Korea, and probably all recent disputes, the U.S. always just punishes the other side mainly because we have the superior military; where the other sides must have much more of an legitimate unfairness gripe, or they wouldn’t be trying to take on the big dog. With a big dog around that just starts an escalation of a dispute over the slightest negative reaction to our demands, these kinds of escalations to wars will never end; and, more and more countries will be trying to develop nuclear deterrents to defend themselves against these ultimate unfairnesses. No, the majority of people in this country don’t have the slightest clue that the U.S. has ever done anything unfair, and those who do hear about something now and then, prove how they’re part of the real evil by just ignoring it. Again, to us, everything is really a game, to our adversaries, everything is really a legitimate gripe. Israel’s invasion of Palestine is a great example of the worst kind of people on earth today, including those who support it.

Imbecile hour:

You know, when I get to various stopping points and hit the TV on button at random times in the afternoon, to get the latest Fox News, it’s like playing craps as I can either get something like Bret Baier or Shepard Smith with the latest news reporting, or I can end up getting what should be called: “Imbecile hour of partisan spin with Glenn Beck.” I’m just saying it’d be nice to have intelligence available that works around my jumbled schedule, instead of having to plan everything around the holes. Maybe Fox News could have a sister channel called “The Imbecile Channel,” and put Glenn Beck and Hannity there.

Sarah Palin royally can’t take the heat anymore:

Sarah Palin was fighting and taking the heat pretty good… until Mr. Critical made her realize (over the Letterman issue) how dumb she really is, and ethically how she shouldn’t be in charge of anything more than a PTA meeting. President Romney is surely thinking that life can be sweet. Well… he isn’t President yet, but he will be after Obama makes a Bush-like major goof, bringing to an end all liberal hope; likely because he’s listening to top Washington warmongers advising economic sanctions, which aren’t working, and usually don’t, instead of my treat the people fair advice. Obama is obviously just another sucker for the majority of influence around him. Well, when one deals with existing data very well and in top verbal superiority, and therefore really can’t think outside the box on their own, then it can’t really be any other way. But, Sarah Palin is at least smart enough to know when she lacks in certain areas. You see, the job of a leader is to be able to think outside the box in superior aptitude, while being supported / advised by those who work best with existing data and facts (inside the box). Otherwise, we end up with what we’ve always had; where technology is the only thing that makes things better. Very rare, but every now and then, a leader is able to think outside the box, or we wouldn’t have things like Freedom of Speech, slavery abolished, and equal rights, but exists “one” person who can accomplish all of the future’s ethical improvements.

“Now we see everything is going wrong with the world and those who lead it. We just feel like we don’t have the means to rise above and beat it. So, we keep waitin’ (waitin’), waitin’ on the world to change.” –John Mayer, 2006. No one in the future is going to have a better answer than mine.

Mr. Critical – It’s not that I would be the only one they’d burn at the stake 500 years ago, it’s that I’d be the one they’d enjoy watching the most burn at the stake 500 years ago.

TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):

http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/