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?

Seems like this misses person-to-person love.  If I say I love my wife or son and I do some nice thing for them to make them happy, but I don’t have one iota of concern for the world, am I mistaken?

The well-being of love is God. Our actions of love shows how we are imitating God. It says in the Bible, “For God so loved the world” and “love your enemies.” This indicates that God is loving, it is hard for us to express any kind of compassion without having the Holy Spirit in ones heart. God cares for all, He wants everyone to have well-being for everybody.

I really resonate with the conditions that Dr. Oord’s definition of love promotes.  Love should be about the betterment of creation.  The world should be changed because Christians are in it.  Christians need to and must express the notion that God is Love and that he sent his son to die for the sins of the world because God loves the world.  Others will know God because of Christians’ love.  If all Christians would get on board with displaying love in action for the sole well being of all then God’s redemption will be an imminent reality instead of a hopeful anticipation.
I am wondering about the last paragraph when Dr Oord states that, “he” “Wants to encourage us to reserve “love” for those actions we think are intentionally done in the hope of doing good.”  I am questioning when are we to use the word love?  Only use the word love when we are in action of promoting well being or can we use the word as a promise to act intentionally for the well being of others.  Such as I say I love my wife meaning I will do everything I can to promote her over all well-being even though at the time of saying it I am not in the action of doing anything.
Hamish

I think that defining love is just one of those things that no matter how hard we try to define it not everyone will agree on one solid meaning,although Dr. Oord’s definition is a great way in describing love.  I feel that in able to love yes you must intentionally do good in order to promote “over all well-being” and yes it must be done over and over. When I think of love it is something that is completely overwhelming and complicated.  Love is something that I would never be able to put into words and wonder if human beings will ever be able to do so!

I found this definition of love fairly basic until the very end statement, that you “want to encourage us to reserve its use for those actions we think are intentionally done in the hope of doing good.” The word that stuck out to me the most in this statement was hope. Is it possible to be a Christian and follower of God if we do not have hope for much, let alone humanity? A colleague of yours, Dr. Brent Peterson, also a professor at NNU would more than likely say that without hope you are not fully human, I would be curious as to what your thoughts on this matter would be.

Everyone is going to have their own definitions of love or have similar ideas of what love means.  I liked what you said about love, “I want to encourage us to reserve its use for those actions we think are intentionally done in the hope of doing good.  We should follow the example of Jesus, who lovingly went around doing good.”  How does a person know exactly what actions are done in hope of doing good?  Some may differ in their minds what doing good is and may use love in their own aspects.  I agree that we should follow Jesus in doing good all around.

I see that previous students have commented on this blog post with the same thinking I had while considering Dr. Oord’s definition of love. Intentionality and the sense of “overall” well-being are very important to the definition of love (in my opinion). There are many people that promote the well being of others as a part of their career; there is no intention, and therefore, I think you cannot say they are being loving.
Also, “overall” does not mean “always” or “absolutely.” There are situations where in order to do the most loving thing for a person or a group, you might have to risk something (such as their safety or damaging them emotionally). But using “overall” allows for situations that might require inflicting little pain or heartache in order to achieve the highest loving expression.

We do use love in many different ways. I believe saying love promotes overall well-being as professor Oord explains, puts all of those ways we use the word “love” into a condensed concept. As professor Oord explained in the blog that love repays evil with good, and how other biblical authors use “peace”, or “blessing” to describe love it all does good. All in all “To love is intentionally to do something beneficial, positive, or helpful” (Oord).

The last line of this blog was challenging and a tad bit convicting.  It suggested we reserve the word love for intentional acts that promote well-being.  It made me think about all the people I “love.”  My roommates, my family, my fiancé, friends, relatives, etc.  But often my “love” for these people in my life is not intentional actions that promote their well-being, rather it is simply a warm-fuzzy feeling, an acknowledgement that I care about them.  It crossed my mind that I am sure glad that’s not all Jesus’ love for us was.  He set the ultimate example, on a day to day basis, of acting to promote the well being of others.  His words, his miracles, and ultimately his death.  I want the love I have for the people in my life to be a love that acts.  A love that intentionally promotes the well-being of others.

I really like the last paragraph. We need to reserve the word “Love” for the things that are truly good. I find myself throwing that word around in all sorts of places; not necessarily to people but to objects, memories, etc. Even still, this isn’t necessarily bad but I can get carried away with the word love. There are even times that I will use it towards a person I don’t know that well. At some point in time we crossed paths and something good happened but does that one good thing mean that I love them? I’ll say, I love _______, he/she is so funny! Do I love them because they make me laugh? Do I even show them Love in return? Where do we draw the line of saying we love someone/thing and just showing an act of Love?

One cannot help but think of love as one that is unconditional, and who better demonstrates it than Jesus in Sermon on the Mount. In that passage, he tells us that we should love our enemies as we love ourselves, yet what really comes to mind are the words that Paul tells us “ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).Those verses outline the way love ought to be as well as embody the idea of promoting the well-being in others.

In agreement with many of the previous posts, I think that the word “love” is used much too loosely in the English language. Being more mindful of our use important and that awareness can in turn help us to become more intentional in our love to God and others. Keeping the well-being of the person in mind gives a fuller meaning to “love”.

I truly appreciate the inclusion of promoting over all well-being in your definition of love. Love is incredibly hard to describe, if one has not felt it no description could give it justice to that person. However, I think promoting the well-being for those one loves should certainly part of the equation. I wish that pop culture would promote this type of love, the love of Christ, rather than the shallow type it seems to advocate. Love that does not promote well-being should not be called “love” at all!

I think there are so many definitions of love that it is hard to know which one is right. I like the definition given here because it says love is intentional and is done with the intent of blessing someone else. I also agree that we use the word love so often that it loses some of its meaning. In order to keep the integrity of the true meaning if love we need to stop using it for casual purposes and realize how powerful it is.

I agree the sentence where it says that we need to think again when we say that we love something/someone.  I know in this world, the word “love” means so many different things.  we sometimes use word love when we are trying to emphasize the meaning of liking something which does not really have to do anything with promoting overall well-being. 

Dr. Oord said that the definition of love is “To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.”  but I guess I am little confused on how to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others.

Love does seem to have many meanings in our modern day living.  Many people use the word “love” when they should use the word “like” for activities they participate in.  To love is to care and when you care you do focus on well being.  I believe that Dr. Oord’s definition covers the modern day definition of what love is and how it relates to our society today.

I think that Dr. Oord’s definition of love seems to be the closest definition I have heard to what I think love is.  It is so hard to define and to be put into words.  I do think to love you have to have the overall well-being of others in mind and be mostly unselfish.  I liked the end quote, “I want to encourage us to reserve its use for those actions we think are intentionally done in the hope of doing good.  We should follow the example of Jesus, who lovingly went around doing good.”  It really shows us how we need to follow the example Jesus made when he loved everyone no matter who they were.  I think that is what God really wants us to strive for.

Love in unexplainable and with every attempt to define it there will be people that disagree.  I really like Dr. Oord’s definition that love is to act intentionally and to promote overall well-being. I agree that love should promote overall well-being, and when loving i don’t see how it can be doing anything other than promoting it.  It wouldn’t be “love” if it were doing otherwise.

Love does good. God gave the law to his people so that they would obey it and therefore live (Deut 30:11-20). God’s word is truth and the light in darkness. Majority have rejected truth by perverting it. They say that we life in a different culture; what Paul wrote is not relevant to us anymore. Most churches do not preach biblical purity, separation from the world, and sanctification. “Love ‘hates evil and clings to that which is good’ (Rm. 13:9)”. If you hate something how can you have pleasure in it? If love hates evil then why do ‘Christians’ sit before TV and devour evil feeding their souls with violence and unrighteousness?
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thess 2:11-12).
“…there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Peter 2:1-2).  Disobedience to Lord is denial His lordship; denial of Him.

I like the idea of promoting overall well being. Whether or not this is for your self or others, I believe it is important. Overall well being is important for the self because we cannot fully be loving and supportive to other people if we are not cared for ourselves. Promoting overall well being seems to be the best option when considering how we should love. This includes everyone, regardless of how they may be or what they do.

I think that say that love has to promote overall well being actually eliminates self-love. I think that self love is very important to include, however I think some aspects can not only be helpful but only be for the benefit of yourself. I think this aspect neglects the overall well being. It almost seems like you have to do the act that promotes the most well being, which would rarely if ever be self-love.

I enjoyed what this blog had to say. However one issue that comes to my mind, and know that is fairly debatable, is the part about “God loves by doing good.” How do we use that in the context of God in the Old Testament when he punished the wicked of the time? It does not seem that God was acting in a loving the enemies.  I suppose maybe a deeper definition of “Good” is needed to clearify this point of conflict. Is the meaning of something good only in the present action or is it looking more at the long term effects of an action to constitute it being good or not.

Just like the word sin, the word love is difficult to describe or define to someone.  It makes it especially difficult when it it is in a foreign culture and so on.  I agree that love in ways can be “blessing” but I do not think they are synonyms.  I think love does have to promote overall well being even if that does include some type/form of self love as well.

Think about this viewpoint: In these definitions of love I believe some think that there is importance in specifying that good is being done for at least one recipient.  Or another way to say it is that that at least one recipient benefits towards another’s intentional act of love, (whatever that may be).  For example, if someone willingly takes a bullet for a friend, the original definition negates the fact that “good” is being done for the one who is affected by the act, the person who dies.  Is good really done for the over-all well being when there can be an impressionable negative outcome?

Promoting over-all well-being is an important part of every day life and the root of it is love.  For example (are supposed to) love ourselves and because of that we care for our own well-being by providing our body with food, water, and the proper nutrients, getting sleep, exercising, etcetera.  I think that may also be why it is a natural feeling to hurt when you see or hear of others suffering, our love for mankind wants well-being for everybody.

I definitely agree that the word “love” is one of the most thrown around and abused words. We use it in many different meanings. Promoting well-being is definitely a good definition of love. We should work toward the well-being of others, of ourselves, of our environment… everything God has blessed us with. God is always looking out for our well being, and God is love. So love is striving toward well-being. We should try our hardest to love like God himself does.

To promote overall well-being, I personally think that love needs to start with ourselves.  Love is very important to us, our friends and family, the world, and God.  I think if you lack just one of these, it can be very difficult to promote overall well-being.  Most love that we see today is intentional love.  I do not think you will ever see acts of unintentional love because acts of love are always weighed with what benefits will the outcome bring, or will we benefit from it at all.  I think Dr. Oord’s explanation of promoting overall well-being is very important to love and is not selfish at all.  We must love our ourselves like we love our neighbors.

A pivotal theme throughout all the definitions of Love is sacrifice. It seems to be the underlying theme or most reduced form of every characteristic used to describe love. Whether it be the sacrifice of yourself, of your time, or of possessions, etc. In my finite understanding, “sacrifice” is the only ample word to sum up love aside from the word “love” itself.

In the verse: “[do] not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing” (1 Pt. 3:9), I think it is clearly emphasized that sometimes is not always something we want to do. Love is always something we do intentionally, but our selfish and human nature man sometimes tempt us to do otherwise. For example, volunteering at a homeless shelter is at it’s very surface level not a fun activity to do. But many people do it because they feel compelled to love others, to help those less fortunate than them, and to promote overall well-being. Love is grander than the things that are strictly convenient and immediately satisfying. Love can be a sacrifice; Love can be a lot of work; Love could even take the form of the one thing we don’t want to do the most.

I agree with the definition of love presented in this blog. Well-being is a key component of love, and I think it can help us determine what actual love is.  For example, there are many things in life that people say they love such as food, clothes, electronics, etc.  However, this so-called love does not include doing intentional good.  I do not believe that many people would consider love for these things true-love, but with the term love so frequently thrown around, it is understandable how the definition of the term could become confusing. Therefore, I think defining love with the promotion of well-being helps us to really understand what love means.

I agree that the word Love does need to be well defined and is misused often in culture.  I like defining it as intentionally doing good and promoting overall well being. I think the word intentionally is very important.  Love need to be a choice.  If you do good on accident you are not accidentally loving.  I also think that we should use a different word for love when we talk about our favorite sports or meal.  Loving burgers does not fit the definition of intentionally doing good exactly, more likely just clogging arteries.

One of the things that has always saddened me about society today, is the way in which the word “love” and the phrase “I love you” is thrown around. I guess I was raised more along the lines that this blog lays out, in that I was taught that love is a powerful gift, and one that is meant to be shared, but not wasted. I also think that this blog is pointing more towards the actions that come out of the more selfless love that is described here. My main love language is gift-giving, and one thing that I have found that I have to watch for, is my attitude and thoughts when I am purchasing or making a gift. Usually I have stayed well way from the sense of entitlement that sometimes can go hand-in-hand with gift-giving, and that is something I think is being addressed in this blog.

I agree with Oord’s definition of love mostly. I really like how the definition describes how people and God interact. I also like the idea of promoting overall well-being.However; I’m not sure every act of love is successful in promoting overall well being. I also think some acts of love can promote overall well-being without intending to to do so. Despite this I still like that part of the definition because it expresses a wider range of love’s implications.

Unlike many of the other students comments I am ok with the word overall.  I say this because i feel as though by acting in a loving manner, which for me (and Mr. Larson) would involve a sacrifice of some sort.  That sacrifice will induce some amount of well being. It has been my experience that it will trickle down through out my life when somebody acts in a loving manner toward me.  I really like the rephrasing of your definition “loving actions are influenced by prior acts of God”.  I do believe that we are only able to love because God first loved us.  All things good come from God, and all actions that are good stem from God first acting on us.  If we were really created in the image of God then I believe it is that part of our creation that is reflected when we act in a loving manner.  That is to say that good inside of us is simply the God inside of us.  We allow God to act through us.

This reminds me of the first night in class when we were talking about what love is. Love is used in so many different ways in today’s society. I love TV. I love my family. I love God.  This idea of promoting the overall well-being of others gives us a definitive line as to what we love and what we do not love. I cannot promote the overall well-being of a TV therefore, I do not love TV. I can promote the overall well-being of my family therefore I can love my family. I take the challenge you give at the end Dr. Oord, I am going to try to reserve the word love for those things which I can actually promote the overall well-being of.

I also believe saying love promotes overall well-being is a good way to phrase it. Without love in our lives it kind of makes thing meaningless. I think it’s our godly duty to love God, ourselves, and for the love of others. God is always loving us and looking out for our well being and God is love.

When I think of well-being I think of Maslows Hierarchy of needs. It takes a triangle form where the bottom of the triangle is physiological needs (food, water, shelter, clothing ect), than security, than love and belonging than self esteem and lastly self actualization (which hardly anyone ever reaches). All of these things create well-being and you have to start with the most basic needs meet before you can go up a level.

I believe that defining love as a state of “well-being” is part of love. I believe that in order to have a good, fulfilling/abundant life, it is required that you have love and love someone else. I believe that love definitely promotes well-being in one’s life, but that it is not just a state of well-being. I believe that love is also a feeling that is almost indescribable and described differently by every individual. Love can be felt in many different ways and it can be displayed and received in many different ways. I am a big believer of the five love languages even though I dont think the theory does not apply to everyone. I also do not think it has to be completely intentional to be an act of love, I think that when we do what God asks of us and it turns out as an act of love, that although intentional it still counts as love.

I agree that a word that is used so frequently should be well understood. It is also important to define for oneself what well being truly means, because if we are to love others and promote their well-being, it is necessary to know what that is and how we can do so. Promoting well being is the best thing you can do to show Christ’s love. When a person’s needs are met, they are better able to hear Christ’s word.

“God is love”…that was my definition of love for most of my life – it worked and is still true but it doesn’t define who God is unless you know exactly what love is and vice-versa.  Over the past few years, I’ve been challenged by others and myself to dig deeper into the context, cultural background, language usage and history behind the scriptures.  I’m still unsure that a definition of love that encompasses all the aspects of what love is and can be will ever be possible, but I believe your (Dr. Oord) definition of love not only defines what love is (as much as it can) but also demonstrates the important actions involved in loving.  I think it’s important to acknowledge that love is not passive.  It always has a purpose, and it’s always active.

If a corporation cares about its workers and want to take care it’s worker well being, would that call loving? If the government takes care of retired – injured soldier, because they want to make sure they are well look after, would you call that loving?  Gov’t that create welfare and medical care for people who can’t afford it, would that call loving or is it a social contract? How far do you need to go from caring to come to loving?

I’ve always thought what Peter in the Bible says to Christians is very interesting and sometimes hard to follow. He says to not repay evil or abuse for abuse, but rather repay with a blessing (1Pt. 3:9).  This seems to contradict our countries judicial system referring the death penalty. If we are to reward those who do evil (murderers and rapists etc) then why do we often condemn those found guilty to the death penalty? I have always struggled with this passage and have never really come to understand it fully. I believe that this incorporates the act of forgiveness as well. If someone were to murder someone close to me, I know that God would want me to forgive them, but I don’t know If would be able to without a divine intervention from Him.

I really like the definition that Dr. Oord presents in this blog and also in the Theology of Love class. I know that love can mean a variety of things but I never thought about intentional love, for the well-being of others and also myself. I guess when I love my husband I know that I too am being rewarded from the love he gives me. Well-being is a word I learned a couple of semesters ago in my nursing class. It is not solely to promote physical health but just as Dr. Oord describes it, “enhancing physical and mental dimensions of life.” I think understanding the concept of “well-being” is important because it then allows one to think how it impacts the love one expresses and experiences. I agree with his definition and this statement to love is to “act intentionally, in a empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.”

I agree that love does good and promotes well-being. I am still not satsfied with how well-being is defined. You have given descriptions of how it sometimes works, but no strong definition. Your definition of love is inescapably tied to what well-being really means, and I cannot accept leaving that definition open as we have done in class.  Different people’s ideas of well-being are not homogenous and can be wildly different, especially among certain religions that make counterintuitive claims about what is good. Leaving the definition of well-being open ultimately means everyone decides for themselves what love is. I believe there is an objective, knowable standard for what is good, and this must inform exactly what we are promoting when we love.

Sometimes it is intimidating to think of all the good Jesus did and how we are suppose to model his love toward others. Jesus’ love was constant and his strength to do so was unsurmountable regardless of the cost. It is comforting to know that promoting well being can be done in many ways and at different levels. Because we are human, to be like Jesus as I mentioned, is extremely intimidating and at times seems impossible, especially when dealing with the enemy. In this case, it may be easier to start loving the enemy gradually, starting small yet remaining consistent. Our love for others has to start somewhere and if promoting well being can be as simple as lending time or providing food, then all these will help to lead to bigger things or at least add up and make it easier to love the enemy.

I tend to agree with your definition about what Love is, except for the well-being phrase. I don’t disagree that love should promote well-being, I just don’t know exactly what the definition of well-being is, and it seems that it will be just as hard to define that as it is to define love.