> for example, many people love their car. They certainly would put the car's needs above their own - -they wouldn't go without eating just to buy the car some wax, for example. . . yet it is a love of sort. . . .

That's a different kind of love, and one that I personally would consider a slang usage of the word. (It's about as much "love" as the casual comment "Oooo, I'm gonna kill him!" actually means impending death.) I will defend this definition of "love" to my dying day. It has been useful in almost every aspect of my life, making things clear where the nebulous pop definition (dependent upon feelings) clouds them up. It is conducive to an active and responsible lifestyle (YOU make the decision to love someone, you *decide* to make the commitment, and you're *responsible* for it -- as opposed to the "oh no, I've fallen out of love, or maybe it's indigestion, but screw the vows, let's split" attitude of today that I find so selfish, spineless, and hurtful to all). And it provides a solidarity to relationships that would otherwise be subject to the whims of mood.

It also just makes *sense*.

On top of that, it's the biblical definition. When God said "Love thine enemies," he didn't mean "feel all gooshy inside about your enemies," he meant to place their needs above your own -- which is a goal that's actually attainable when your heart is where God wants it to be.

Another frequently confused definition I will defend to my dying day, though not *quite* so fervently, is the one for "freedom." Many call "freedom" the ability to do what we please. I call it the right to do what we ought. There again is a common word's interpretation whose appropriateness does not become readily apparent until serious thought is given and real-world situations in which it applies crop up.