Love in the modern world in used in many different contexts. What comes to my mind after reading this blog is their might be two different types of love: individual and social (Gods love). “To promote the over all well-being”(Oord) consists of broader terms, including loving all those around us with encouragement and intentional acts of good character. Individual love encompasses the emotions of love as a whole and the act of being selfless towards personal feelings to better a certain individual surrounding you.

Beware of the Pie! At the risk of digging up a dead horse, I see a issue with intentionality, which is intimately connected to well being.  In economics, their is a concept called externalities. A example of is a positive or negative economic externalitie is the correlation between work environment and their Employee’s families well being.

I doubt a corporation has the capacity of love but it seems like they are.  A lot of things promote overall well being without the slightest hint of being loving. Love must cause a different, more spiritual promotion of well-being then normal well being.

I agree that it is very important that we begin to understand that our use of the term love as a “Blanket statement” needs to come to an end. When we describe our love for something trivial we in turn begin to trivialize such an important concept. The implications of “loving the poor” as much as we “love pizza” seem to make an act that benefits someone of lesser status seem insignificant. We as a community need to praise those who engage in supererogatory love, and strive for that in our own lives so we may exemplify a life lived in the light of the love of our God, By better defining love with both our words and actions we will be able to better discern opportunities for love and though it will not make the undertaking any easier, it will make the path that much clearer. With that clarity our actions can acquire more focus and thus be amplified by our urgency.

I love your word choice, because enhancing the well-being of others is something that I have always strove for in my interactions with those close to me. This is the definition that I want to be associated with my relationships.

What if you were to use the phrase abundant life? I guess the more I think about it, I think abundant life should be a Christian’s perspective on love. In other words to reflect God’s love to others. That they too may have an abundant life. I think we just need to have several different levels and words for love in order to solve our problem. So far I really do like Dr. Oord’s definition of love. Even though I agree with Lance that there should probably be something added in there that deals with intention.

My response: yup. I think you nailed it.

I cannot agree more we need to refocus on what we are actually saying when using the word love. I think that there needs to be some clarification on the need for an act of love. I am somewhat hesitant to say that love needs to be a physical action. Yes in most cases love needs to be an action. Overall I like this definition since many times love is reduced to emotional feelings that can change quickly.

One final thought would be how this definition would relate to God? If love entails is limited to promoting the well-being of others, then how does one reconcile suffering in the world?

I agree that love should promote well-being. If the action that is called ‘love’ does not promote anything good, then I don’t think it can be called ‘love.’ In fact, I think it might be pretty close to the opposite of love. I think that many times what a person would call love is in fact just a fleeting feeling that could be more self-centered than love should really be. Therefore, I also agree that the word love should be used carefully and the person using it should really think about what he/she means by it.

I like your use of the phrase “promoting overall well-being” to describe the action of love. I think that love is something that should actively work to build people up. I like that your definition seems to encompass actions that affect the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of people in a positive way.

Dr. Oord talks about how love is such a universal word in our world today.  I would have to totally agree everyone’s definition of love is totally different and very universal in their own way.  One thing that cannot be defined is that feeling you get inside of you over something that brings love to you. People get that feeling for many different things and it is all dependent on the person.  I like the definition that its a physical, emotional, and spiritual need for people in a very positive way.  It can affect us in different and various ways.

Over the reading, I was intrigued with the idea of love being the result, or maybe, the consequence that results as a way of “doing good.” Although I agree with this statement in many respects, I wonder whether love can also be measured as a result of actions that are not necessarily positive (and therefore may not be considered “good”). At the risk of using a cliché example, WWII Nazis were known to have made parents choose between two children: the consequence being one child allowed to live, and one to die. Because this action would not be lacking in love with regards to the parent’s choice, I wonder how the idea of “love doing good” would function in this instance, especially in regards to the child condemned to death. And more to the point, how would this action be the result of God’s “love doing good” in this instance?

I like the “love is promoting overall well-being”. I think to often we think love as a selfish thing, or that is how the world is showing us love to be.
To be truly loving you need to be selfless not selfish. Good post.

Just a thought: Why can’t we use the love word for other meanings-it’s part of our culture and culture can be good for our well-being. To say that it’s wrong to say “I love pizza” is absurd.  You should be able to express yourself. People know what you mean when you say “I love you” and “I love late night with Conan O Brian.” It’s not the word itself but the meaning behind the word that matters.

I have a hard time with the term ‘overall’.  It is if not often the case that an act is good to all people.  Simply by help someone you are allowing less time to help someone else.  Of course this is impossible to avoid, but my question is how do we decide when something is overall goodness or just a little good.  Can we justify shooting the terrorist as an act of love, because more people well have well-being?

Thank you for your in-depth look at the Bible specific to how you ended up with your definition of love being so closely tied with goodness.  I particularly liked the passage where God describes himself in Exodous 34:6 as “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” I had not realized, in previously hearing that passage spoken to me, that God was giving us a picture of himself there.

It often seems difficult to maintain mindset of promoting overall well being. We regularly tend to be self serving in an effort just to keep our own heads afloat while attending to the business of life. However, the ability to live out a life that promotes well being seems to start with some of the most insignificant acts of promoting well being, and can even become somewhat contagious when it becomes a part of ones daily life.

While I know that “promoting overall well-being” is a good start for thinking and talking about love, I wonder if it is too centered on the consequences of our actions. If I am unable to promote the overall well-being of somebody, or genuinely try, but fail, does this mean that I am not loving? Is love the fulfillment of our good intentions, or is it the spark that drives us to increase well-being in the first place?

I don’t think in order to love you have to do something that creates well being. I believe that God always loves us, all the time, no matter what one has done. Bad things happen all the time for no reason, like the earthquake in Haiti, but I don’t think these things happen because God stopped loving us. I think God is not doing anything; he is standing by letting horrible things happen. Even though he is standing by, I still think he is loving us. If you had to do some sort of act for something to be considered loving, then God must not love us all the time.

Worker Whose,visitor permanent trust cup evening allow drop next species indicate travel rapidly forget close lord beneath act fully health search item show director agreement river perhaps disappear street government town mine great revolution least fairly start apart long write front yet highly female strange division opinion say fix require place back stone blue identify terms stick sex bright like statement reduce milk impact wild regulation dark better unit high exercise catch close hard always desk people expert imagine as time after nuclear comparison fast surface suggestion shall

Sometimes love gets so complicated that we forget the simplicity in how it should actually be. People spend so much time trying to figure out what love is to them, or trying to find their “love”. Yet sometimes it seems so simple. As you put it, love is to act to promote overall well-being. Yet how can one act always promote overall well-being? I believe that is what it gets complicated, when we think too much about it.

I have a question to raise that i kept getting in my theology class.  Our teacher keeps saying that God is Love, which i don’t have a problem with that but how do we say that God is just love when bad things happen?  Such as the September 11th event that happened. If God is truly defined as love then how come he allowed these events to occur or how come he allows evil into our lives?