“LOVE” – ENGLISH
The English word of “love” alone covers sexual love
Even the English word for “love” is fundamentally and overwhelmingly sexually structured:
Jesus wants everyone to be “in love” with “one another,” but that’s just too sexual for today’s church.
Jesus wants everyone to “fall in love” with “one another,” but that’s just too sexual for today’s church.
“Love letter” = sexual love. Jesus wants us to mail them to everyone / one another, but today’s church would rather we not. Jesus wants everyone to be a sweetheart to one another.
“Love for sale”: why would someone pay for sexual love but not for the love from everyone in a church today? Jesus orders are for everyone in a church to love that someone, but they don’t seem to really want or need it. Love in churches is really phony love, and is just big talk with little results.
Jesus doesn’t want us to have a “loved one”: he wants us to love everyone in the same sense.
Jesus doesn’t want us to have one “lover”: he wants us to have many lovers.
Jesus wants us to have “good lovin’” with “one another.”
Jesus wants every street to be a “lovers’ lane”… so no one will be “lovesick.”
A “lover’s leap” is “a cliff or high point from which disappointed and despairing lovers plunge to death.” (How wonderful the desire for one can be.)
When I key in “looking for love” at Google Search, I get a bunch of dating or porn sites (no churches).
“Free love” is sexual love that is non-conditional (like what the church says Jesus is all about).
A hippie “love-in”? Sounds like an orgy to me.
A religious “love feast”? Sounds like an orgy to me.
A “love nest” is a place of intimate lovemaking (sex)(or, maybe you already know that).
A “love lass” is a female sweetheart.
“Our little love cottage” sounds like a place just for a couple.
A “love match” is a sexually based relationship where compatibility matches.
A “love-hate relationship” is what a lot of marriages are.
If you’re a “victim of love” (Eagles, 1976), then “I see a broken heart” and “You got your stories to tell.”
A “love seat” is just for two, to get “lovey-dovey.” Two guys sitting in a love seat would look rather gay.
“Love at first sight” or being “love struck” are both sexually based.
“Love play” is sexually based flirtation.
One will take a “love potion” when one seeks sexual love; or, get a “love charm.”
“Love stories” and “love songs” are sexually based.
The “love scene” in a movie is the romantic / sexual part.
You know, these kinds of goings-on:
How’s your “love life”?:
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 1988, p. 866, “love life, love lives”:
“Lovebird | lovebug”:
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1997, p. 690, “lovebird | lovebug”:
So there’s some bug that’s enjoying life more than practically all humans.
A “love broker” is “a person who for pay, acts as agent between lovers, or as a go-between in a sexual intrigue.”
Jesus wanted us to do this kind of “love” with “one another.” And, it’s in simple English, until someone “just tells” you otherwise.
A Dictionary of Euphemisms, Holder, 1995, p. 49, “buy love”:
“Love” sounds pretty sexual there.
Jesus doesn’t think there is enough love in the world, so he’s asking us all to “make love” whenever possible with “one another.” “Love making” is the act in which one would “make” or “create” or “spread” more love. Giving away free money would be great also, but is not called “making love.” If I walk into a church today and ask them all to “make love” to me, they wouldn’t give me their money, they’d probably just kick me out. I’ll try it sometime and explain how I’m just wanting them to submit to Jesus’ “commandment.” (Personally, I’ll take the money instead of the sex. Thank you!)
If Jesus wanted the sex out of His definition of love, then He should have said it; and He didn’t! Only the modern day church says it, and we all “just” believe them.
The “love act” is sexual intercourse.
“Wanna whole lotta love” –Led Zeppelin, 1969. Well, praise the Lord: someone is workin’ Jesus’ instruction. It sure ain’t the Pope.
“Any man of mine, better walk the line” –Shania Twain, 1995. No, I don’t think Jesus meant it to be this way. This doesn’t sound like agape love to me. But, that’s the way it is today. – And, that’s even according to secular law and the church.
When someone “loves” a son, sibling or a parent (not sexually), that just means that they love them with the same intensity as one loves another sexually (like a spouse). So, how could we all “love” adults outside our family, if it’s not sexual? Sure, you can tell a good friend that you love them, but you’d better first be at a funeral or something very emotional, otherwise others and the good friend will thing you want them sexually.
There’s “a reason” the latter church has made sexual love obscene. It’s not because of the Bible, it’s to motivate all to work more for less, to help the rich get richer, accountable by the hundreds of years of pagan persecutions.
(A “love wave” is “a seismic disturbance consisting of horizontal transverse vibrations of the earth’s crust propagated near the surface.” Is that like God having an orgasm? Ho, ho, ho – a bit of humor there.)
But this is not a funny matter:
Any “love” between unrelated adults seems to rest with just sexual love. Concerning John 13:34, we are taught that Jesus’ commandment of “love” between unrelated adults (disciples, etc.) is not the kind of love between unrelated adults, which is the sexual (or bi-sexual) kind. And, we all certainly do “just” believe it; because, we are all very, very smart. But, what if everyone was like me and not very smart?
Today’s “Christian” leaders would say that Christ wouldn’t tell his disciples to “make love” to one another, or to be “lovers,” because that’s not “love.” But, even in the English, it is:
The English word of “love” comprises much about sex:
As you can see, the base English word for love has a great deal of sexual love in its definition:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000, p. 1036, “love”:
Therefore, if you just read the Bible and an English dictionary, you’ll see that “love” also, very much so, includes the act of having sexual intercourse, or the romance or passion leading to it. The reason we believe contrary is simply because of the corrupt verbal add-ins by mainstream pastors, etc. who “just say” Jesus’ love has nothing to do with sex. Since the human mind is very easily duped, it will believe the dishonest cleric 100%.
I think it would be interesting to see what the interpretation of our Bible written in Chinese would be – like the ones we smuggle into China. If the translated Chinese word for love is the same definition as our English word, then a Chinese would read how Jesus told his disciples to have sex with one another. They’d think that that must be the reason for all the homo- / bi-sexuality in America. They’d read how you’re supposed to “have sex” with your enemy. They’d probably think how that might lessen anger; thinking that Jesus must have been pretty smart. Unless, of course, the Chinese man or woman had the luck to be personally / verbally instructed by one of our fabulous risk taking missionaries.
You see, in reality, to “love” someone without sex is not a thing you can tell / instruct a person to do. They just either love that person or they don’t (or, any degree in-between). Therefore, in higher intelligence, when Jesus instructed people to “love one another” he had to have meant the act of love; which is sexual. Giving gifts is another great act of love; however, it’s not as personal or as powerful as the tangible touch, because you can be told to give gifts, like during Christmas, but still hate the person, especially in a family, for business, for employees, etc.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Home & Office Edition, 1998, p. 308, “love”:
New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language: Modern Desk Edition, 1976, p. 301, “love”:
Even way back when:
A Dictionary of the English Language: Academic Edition, Noah Webster, 1867, p. 257, “Love”:
Linguae Britannicae Vera Pronunciatio: Or, a New English Dictionary, James Buchanan, 1757, (no page numbers):
Translated: Love, (S.) 1. A tender friendship for a person of a different sex. …
A Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson, 1755, no page numbers, “To LOVE”:
Translated from Elizabethan English:
1. To regard with passionate affection, as that of one sex to the other.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: College Edition, 1968, p. 793, “love”:
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged), 1987, p. 1139, “love”:
Random House Word Menu, 1992, p. 734, “Character and Behavior | Sex, Love, and Romance | love”:
The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 1975, p. 504, “love”:
Sounds pretty bi-sexual to me, looking from a China man’s perspective (who just reads the Bible alone).
Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (paperback), 2002, p. 523, “love”:
English “love” is like all you can possible do for another. Therefore, when Jesus is specifying unrelated grown men, it sure correlates with bi-sexuality. Even today, one trucker doesn’t tell the other trucker he “loves” him on the CB, or all the other truckers listening will think they’re gay. Yet, Jesus orders them to do so. I’m mainly trying to make you see how you don’t trust the Bible and the dictionary, you trust the lie you’ve been taught by our “trustworthy” clergies. Yes, it’s really, really, really that pathetic. And, what’s even more pathetic, people still won’t believe it after they’ve read this page. And, everybody used to call me “stupid.”
Encarta World English Dictionary, 1999, p. 1067, “WORD KEY: SYNONYMS | love”:
So, you all think Jesus missed this “especially” part?
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, 1993, pp. 457-458, “love”:
Again, Jesus called love to action; and, the action form of love is to make love or to have full sexual intercourse. Again, today’s church’s love between members is phony love, nothing near the intensity and relevance of sexual love. Sexual love is the only kind of love that “can” be “fully” achieved between non-related adults; again, like the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and the entire Christian following; including the non-Jews. Therefore, it applies to everyone in the entire world. “Hey stranger walking down the street. Guess what I am instructed to do with you?” Phony love can never be fully realized. Well, it certainly hasn’t yet. Especially between “Christian” nations like the United States versus England versus Germany versus France versus etc. And, if phony love hasn’t worked by now, I’d say there must be something different that Jesus was really talking about. Maybe it’s something there is the full definition right in front of our faces, but taken away by those we fully trust on a very, very important subject.
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 1988, p. 865, “love”:
The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 1897, pp. 3527-3528, “Love” (v.):
Larousse Illustrated International Encyclopedia and Dictionary, 1972, Part 2: Dictionary, p. 5213, “love”:
Dictionary of World Philosophy, Iannone, 2001, pp. 323-324, “love”:
Freud: Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, 1950, pp. 107-108:
I should be able to work with something that powerful. Sexual love is the highest that “manifests itself,” which “fits” exactly how Jesus describes it in John 13:35 [NKJV]: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” To “know” for certain means to see it with one’s own eyes. I mean, seeing Christians giving gifts is very limited in understanding, as it could be anything from selling something to repaying a loan. People exchange things all day in the business world. The full essence of a gift cannot be fully seen / manifested near as much as the sexual touch, which was as much obscure in the Roman public then, as it is today; therefore, would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Again, this kind of love is something “all” people could / “will” easily “know” / see. Paul actually instructed all Christians to greet one another with a kiss in public to display this sexual touch (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14), like today when a husband first sees his wife after getting home from work, or when he meets her out for dinner. Paul did not say to do this only in hiding, not did he limit it to married couples. In fact, 1 Thes 5:26 fully specifies “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.” Which sounds pretty bi-sexual to me.
The New Dictionary of Existentialism, Nauman, 1971, p. 124, “love”:
Do I have to explain how “pleas[ure]” is really everyone’s goal? You all want God to give us the correct advice, don’t you? But yet, you don’t think it’s from God, simply because you’ve all been (verbally) “taught” otherwise. Yeah, for real!
Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Expanded Edition, 1988, pp. 307-308, “lov…”:
Here’s an actual example of the corruption process at work:
How Catholics Live: Section 4: Virtues and Vices (free booklet I picked up 8-16-09 at the Catholic booth at the Missouri State Fair), Catholic Information Services, Knights of Columbus Supreme Council, 2001, pp. 11-12, “13. Love”:
I’m guessing there’s a decision in there. But I know that if everyone cared as much for everyone as men do for women, it’d be a much better world.
Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins, Ayto, 1990, p. 329, “love”:
“Libido” is the sexual desire. If your “libido” is down, you don’t feel like doin’ it. If your “libido” is up, you’re in the mood. “Libidinous” is synonymous with sexual, lascivious, erotic, etc.
“And he bowed his head to Jesus. And he stood for Uncle Sam. And he only loved one woman. (He) was always proud of what he had. … Of a Small Town Southern Man.” –Alan Jackson, 2008.
That “he only loved one woman” conflicts with Jesus’ “love one another” in John 13:34-35.
You can’t really love someone you don’t know. There are three kinds of love: (1) Love for someone or something for who / what they are: your brother, your friend, your son, your rock star, your comedian, your car, etc. (which is a bias kind of love that can cause many problems and favoritisms in judgments; same as coveting); (2) Sexual love: the desire to look and touch another’s physical body (this is the best one as it can be manifested with anyone at almost anytime, and places a “value” on the other person’s body, which is by far the best weapon against war, hatred and prejudice, when desired in diversity); (3) The kind of sentimental love that grows with time (it’s sad when a fellow worker you’ve liked and was close to gets transferred to another city; anyone you’ve enjoyed lots of time with: a wife, a son, a parent, a neighbor, etc. This kind of love doesn’t exist before or when you first meet someone). The sexual love is something that you can have when you first meet someone. And, the (1) “for who / what they are” kind of love is dependent on a particular quality or condition. Therefore, sexual love is the best kind of love to pursue (which is now controlled only in the [1] “for who / what they are” / covetous category). Sexual love just has a “history” of creating a financial burden for a mother, that can be eliminated today, held back by the many people who are unable to think outside the box: the Pope, Bill O’Reilly, etc.