> > Actually, I don't think it is the biblical definition of love.
>
> It's how the Bible refers to love between human beings. Love between God and us does become problematical, as it's questionable if God has "needs." But God certainly has things he wants very much and intends to happen. Sacrificing his Son certainly wasn't one of them, but he did that anyway because he loved us. The principle still applies, even if the exact wording of the definition needs tweaking. This is serious nitpicking.
>
> I'll see what I can dig up in terms of verses to support my stance, but an understanding of Song of Solomon and much of the New Testament should make this quite clear. It's not like love is an obscure concept in the Bible.

Approaching this from a purely scholarly point of view, I'd have to say the confusion arises from using the term "love" to mean two different things; in this case, mortal love and the love of God.

In classical thought (Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, so forth), and in conservative modern thought (Barth, Tillich, and even, to an extent, Kant), one cannot compare the love of man to the love of God, because they are completely different things. God does not love man in the way that man loves man, because God is not human. Not only is God not *a* human, God is not human at all - He is wholly other. However, we, as men, can understand God only from the perspective of men - we cannot understand God as God, because only God can do that. Therfore, we tend to use human terms in talking about God - terms like love, father, and king - because they are the only terms we have. We have to refer to God from a human perspective because that is the perspective we use, and we cannot get outside it. To extend the love of God in human terms - to such things as sex and need - is to falsify the analogy, since God's love - being an other than human concept - cannot be extended per the human norm.

Barth in particular will tell you that God cannot be understood. God is other. There is no way for man to "understand" or "discover the truth" of God, because there is no path leading man to knowledge of God. All knowledge of God is a gift of God, and He bestows this gift as He chooses. But I don't really feel like getting too far into Barth right now, unless, of course, somebody really wants me to.

To close, speaking on the subject of frames of reference, to quote Wittgenstein: "A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our laguage, and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably." Take it as you list.