When we have only love

Originally posted by josephw
God is Love.

Hello, Joseph! Hope you and yours are all well. I haven’t revisited my old Christic roots for some time (even in the context of my nondualism), and thought I would—

In my experience, including years of thoughtful discussions and debates on here, very few Christians actually believe that God is love [ho theos agape estin: “the/this god love is”, with both theos and agape in the nominative case, which I once read in a Greek grammar implies an identity*.] Rather, they seem to believe that God has the characteristic of being loving—but also has other, often countervailing, characteristics such as being just, righteous, holy, etc. Sometimes, one of these countervailing characteristics is proffered as taking precedence over God’s lovingness. In other words, being loving is just one of a bundle of attributes that God has.

But (to use another example of the “nominative of identity” ), that is a bit like saying that the dictum “God is spirit” [pneuma ho theos: “spirit the/this god” ], really just means that God has the characteristic of “spiritedness”, but . . . also has other, sometimes countervailing, characteristics. I have never heard anyone maintain that (the incarnation notwithstanding).

If one recognizes the nominative of identity, and that John is saying something akin to “God is spirit”—that is, that he is saying that love is of God’s very essence, rather than simply one among a bundle of attributes—then there can be no countervailing attribute; there can be no such attribute that in any way diminishes the ontological essence (even if that essence is multi-faceted: love, spirit, logos). That makes as little sense as saying: “Josephw is a human—but, he’s also tall.” Your tallness/shortness (or your vengefulness/forgivingness, or whatever) cannot be taken as as exception to your humanness. But that is exactly what happens when someone says, "God is love, but . . .".

People sometimes complain about “picking and choosing” in scriptural exegesis, but one cannot simply treat all texts as equal without falling into incoherency. At the very least, there is text and context—the contextualized text needs to be understood in terms of the contextualizing text; and sometimes, the contextualizing text can be a single verse, in terms of which whole larger narrative sections must be understood. In this case, whatever particular attributes or behaviors are assigned to God, in whatever particular situations, must be “contextualized” by statements of God’s essence—and, if they conflict, then it is the ascription of that particular that falls under question.

Further, to simply say that any/all of these terms are so mysterious as applied to God that we really cannot understand them then, is to say that nothing meaningful (intelligible) can be said, so that all God-talk becomes incoherent. After all, the letters l-o-v-e, and the syllable they produce, are not magic; and if we say that the word they produce cannot be understood in a given context, then we might as well substitute any other letters—and say that God is goopsha.

So really, there are three choices:

1. Treat lovingness as just another divine attribute among a bundle of such attributes (and to deny that “God is love”—and any other such statements—are statements of God’s essence).

2. Interpret (and reinterpret as necessary) the understanding of any attributes/behaviors so that they conform to God’s essence as love, even if they take on a symbolic or allegorical definition.**

—This was the choice of my former spiritual counselor, an Episcopal priest and pastor.

3. Lapse into unintelligibility.

As a final note, I will offer 1st John 4:16 as a small defense of taking love as being God’s essence, rather than simply one attribute among others—

NRS 1 John 4:16 . . . God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.

Note the clear order: it is not just those that abide in God that abide in [God’s] love. Rather, it is those who abide in love in whom God abides—because, simply by abiding in love, they do abide in God. Because, by abiding in love, they abide in God’s very essence. Whatever other understanding one has of those words.

_____________________________________ ______________

* One might also note that, in the Greek, agape is not really separable from eros (and the terms are sometimes at least near synonyms, a fact that the Greek Orthodox Christians , for example, have never lost sight of); agape at least includes eros.

** Or simply reject those statements as in error, perhaps in the face of “progressive revelation”; I realize that this option violates certain Biblicist doctrines among some, especially Protestant, groups.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Someone saying God is love is mean spirited?
Kelly

Hi Kelly, all the best to you and yours!

John verbalized thoughts and processes about which he was consciously aware, therefore, 4:16 too, it cannot be automatic and executed outside of his conscious awareness because then it would be unlikely to be included in his verbal protocols, whilst his nonverbal knowledge could not be reported. My Torah; because: How and by what means did he came to know? (an answer like “G-d influenced him” or something similar and so on, must be discarded because it is not falsifiable).

Since there is no falsifiable answer, I think “John” / the scribe merely overestimated his knowledge and processes he used under the task conditions of writing down his verses. His need to verbalize his dogma encouraged him to strategically use unjustified thoughts and processes that they do not hold. This false procedure interfered with his abilities to use knowledge and processes that they could be falsifiable. And his desire to appear as a soldier of G-d affected his verbal reports. Furthermore, the pragmatics and the social rules associated with his perception of “Jesus/ G-d’s essence, thoughts and will” and the communication of this product of his mind to his audience, lead to overestimates of “knowledge and processes” typically used back then as regards this matter –amongst else, it is not surprising that many still see all that jazz as heresy.

How is it possible to know if John’s verse really provides a complete picture of specific knowledge and processes normally used to perform the task of getting to know what G-d really is? To attribute even the slightest thing to the transcendental epistemic object that is called “G-d”, it means that the entity is not transcendental. Since no single research technique provides a complete picture of “G-d”, I attribute nothing to this epistemic object. Since the use of multiple measures for assessing the same hypotheses and for assessing various aspects of this task performance is the sole way that it can provide the most complete picture of “G-d” possible, even to think for a second: “G-d is love”, is in my opinion heresy (but even to come to this point does not hold, since the existence of the epistemic object known as G-d cannot be validated).
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Hi Kelly, all the best to you and yours!

John verbalized thoughts and processes about which he was consciously aware, therefore, 4:16 too, it cannot be automatic and executed outside of his conscious awareness because then it would be unlikely to be included in his verbal protocols, whilst his nonverbal knowledge could not be reported. My Torah; beca ...[text shortened]... oes not hold, since the existence of the epistemic object known as G-d cannot be validated).
😵

I wasn't questioning if God is love, I was asking if just saying that and that alone
is really, mean spirited? I could go along with a statement like, "your mama" being
a little mean spirited or something else directed at anything held dear to another,
but simply making that statement alone didn't seem too disagreeable to me. I was
wondering if love truly was the theme than anyone expressing anything not in
ill will should have or could have been accepted without the backlash.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wasn't questioning if God is love, I was asking if just saying that and that alone
is really, mean spirited? I could go along with a statement like, "your mama" being
a little mean spirited or something else directed at anything held dear to another,
but simply making that statement alone didn't seem too disagreeable to me. I was
wondering if love tru ...[text shortened]... ything not in
ill will should have or could have been accepted without the backlash.
Kelly

I know you are a Christian and I assumed that you accept 4:16, and in addition your question gave me the chance to evaluate our vistesd's point of view from another angle (I agree in full with him).

Back to your question: Specific theist hold that any kind of statement as regards the nature/ essence of G-d is heresy (either mean spirited or triggered by ignorance etc). To this atheist, this and similar statements are nonsensical at two levels: not only the existence of G-d cannot be validated, but also, as I explained earlier, when one attributes even the slightest thing to the transcendental epistemic object that is called “G-d”, one cannot keep up claiming anymore that "G-d" is transcendental;
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wasn't questioning if God is love, I was asking if just saying that and that alone
is really, mean spirited? I could go along with a statement like, "your mama" being
a little mean spirited or something else directed at anything held dear to another,
but simply making that statement alone didn't seem too disagreeable to me. I was
wondering if love tru ...[text shortened]... ything not in
ill will should have or could have been accepted without the backlash.
Kelly

I guess I'll try and explain where I was coming from. The song is a simple but beautiful one about human love, its pain, and its potential power. There was little apparent attempt to listen or enter into the meanings of the song as it was.

It was not mean-spirited to say "God is Love" but rather, as with the other God-talk responses there was no attempt to enter the simple sharing from other human beings, one being me, the other the singer, in any significant way that shows human heart It's like trying to give you a warm new year hug and you shove your bible in my face. There was no mention of God at all in my post.

Does human love, just as it is, stand for anything? Can you enter into just that without turning everything into a partisan religious discussion?
Do you or they see anything that is appreciated in the song or my simple sharing?.

Sometimes we need to encounter openly, not preach and argue, pushing common human love out the window. Try and lower the 'wall' of God talk and enter into something like sincerely encountering and loving other human beings and the music of their hearts, just as they are.

Is there a problem with that, Kelly Jay? There shouldn't be.

Does anyone else experience this "wall" ? I'd expect all the posters, including you are good humans with good hearts, just let us see something of it, without the preachin' eh?

"When we have only love.."

Originally posted by Taoman
I guess I'll try and explain where I was coming from. The song is a simple but beautiful one about human love, its pain, and its potential power. There was little apparent attempt to listen or enter into the meanings of the song as it was.

It was not mean-spirited to say "God is Love" but rather, as with the other God-talk responses there was no attempt t ...[text shortened]... us see something of it, without the preachin' eh?

"When we have only love.."

This wall is real and empty; cultivate an all-embracing mind of love so that love is beyond hatred and enmity -and the wall becomes an illusion. Pursue this awareness constantly -and the wall ceases to exist even as an illusion. Experiencing/ non experiencing the wall is the same, grounded on the evaluation of the mind; hold no more to walls of any kind -and you are free amongst else to enjoy the song and share it, if you want

(but you were free to enjoy and share it from the beginning, mind you -if Your wall was not really real to You)



Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I know you are a Christian and I assumed that you accept 4:16, and in addition your question gave me the chance to evaluate our vistesd's point of view from another angle (I agree in full with him).

Back to your question: Specific theist hold that any kind of statement as regards the nature/ essence of G-d is heresy (either mean spirited or triggere ...[text shortened]... that is called “G-d”, one cannot keep up claiming anymore that "G-d" is transcendental;
😵

Angles and angles, levels and levels! Yes. Every attempt to define the ontological essence of the ineffable, to conceptually circumscribe the transcendent, runs the risk of heresy. Even to use words like “transcendent” and “ineffable” . . . Even to say ein sof . . .

But to deny the particulars (the forms, the angles), even those imagined by our consciousness, is also to dualize—just as much as to deny the ground. There is no escape, except perhaps in Rav Kook’s “subtle awareness” (from an old favorite, that I post once again below)—

____________________________________________________________

“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...

“The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...

“The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”

—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine)


“The primary preoccupation of biblical teaching is not the existence of God, theism as contrasted with atheism, but the fight against idolatry. In all theism there is the danger of idolatry. All theism is idolatry, since expression signifies it, thereby freezing it; except if, somehow, its discourse refutes itself and so becomes atheistic. In other words, the paradoxes of language and its meanings are such that the only discourse possible about God which is not idolatrous is an atheistic discourse. Or: in any discourse the only God that is not an idol is a God who is not ‘God’.”

—H. Atlan, quoted by rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin in his The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud.

Ouaknin adds: “All the masters of Jewish thought, from the prophets to the contemporary masters, have understood that….”

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You beat me to it. My sentiments exactly. All other roads are a mirage....🙂

Zeus.

Originally posted by vistesd
Angles and angles, levels and levels! Yes. Every attempt to define the ontological essence of the ineffable, to conceptually circumscribe the transcendent, runs the risk of heresy. Even to use words like “transcendent” and “ineffable” . . . Even to say ein sof . . .

But to deny the particulars (the forms, the angles), even those imagined by our ...[text shortened]... asters of Jewish thought, from the prophets to the contemporary masters, have understood that….”

I bow😵


I is empty, a cloud in the sky -when big no sun, when small the sun shines; may you always keep the sky clear so that the clear light can melt selfishness and cultivate metta for all living beings without exception, weak and strong, big, huge and middle-sized, short, minute and bulky, visible or invisible, living far or near, born and those that seeking birth.
May All Beings Be Happy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I bow😵


I is empty, a cloud in the sky -when big no sun, when small the sun shines; may you always keep the sky clear so that the clear light can melt selfishness and cultivate metta for all living beings without exception, weak and strong, big, huge and middle-sized, short, minute and bulky, visible or invisible, living far or near, born and those that seeking birth.
May All Beings Be Happy😵

Hey, my Hellenic friend! A side question:

Never mind. 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
I know you are a Christian and I assumed that you accept 4:16, and in addition your question gave me the chance to evaluate our vistesd's point of view from another angle (I agree in full with him).

Back to your question: Specific theist hold that any kind of statement as regards the nature/ essence of G-d is heresy (either mean spirited or triggere ...[text shortened]... that is called “G-d”, one cannot keep up claiming anymore that "G-d" is transcendental;
😵

So in his opinion love is only expressed when speaking with like minded people?
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
This wall is real and empty; cultivate an all-embracing mind of love so that love is beyond hatred and enmity -and the wall becomes an illusion. Pursue this awareness constantly -and the wall ceases to exist even as an illusion. Experiencing/ non experiencing the wall is the same, grounded on the evaluation of the mind; hold no more to walls of any kind ...[text shortened]... it from the beginning, mind you -if Your wall was not really real to You)



Nothing Holy😵

Thank you bb. One talks of walls with those who build walls. Love and no love are contingencies. The phenomenon of love and its experience, in its many manifestations, agape, compassion, human encountering, I share with as the phenomenon those presenting in the conditional view (including myself) as a current reference point.

Speaking Inuit to Hawaiians is fruitless, as it is sometimes even to other Inuits. I emote with pain recently. Soon I will meditate. Thus it is. or isn't, depending on the view. Everything ever depending unto emptiness.

Just bought: FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA . I await it with eagerness.

I share with you a nice presentation of The Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudhra by the Third Karmapa.
http://www.rinpoche.com/vow.html
Deep bow EB. All Complete.

Originally posted by Taoman
I guess I'll try and explain where I was coming from. The song is a simple but beautiful one about human love, its pain, and its potential power. There was little apparent attempt to listen or enter into the meanings of the song as it was.

It was not mean-spirited to say "God is Love" but rather, as with the other God-talk responses there was no attempt t ...[text shortened]... us see something of it, without the preachin' eh?

"When we have only love.."

So as I pointed out to you, when I say I love everyone, I'm doing so knowning
that they are what they are...okay. It sounds like when you say love everyone
it is only within the limits of what you like. Human love towards each other if it
cannot accept what the other human are at the momet well...it is less than.

I care a great deal about many people on this site I've been talking to for years,
I've had a friend die I've never met on another chess site that just killed me when
I heard the news. I don't have to agree with these guys to care about them, I do
not have to always like what is said, but if my caring about them can be cast
aside by something so simple as a single satement or one disagreement I really
never cared for them.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
Hey, my Hellenic friend! A side question:

Never mind. 🙂

OK😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you bb. One talks of walls with those who build walls. Love and no love are contingencies. The phenomenon of love and its experience, in its many manifestations, agape, compassion, human encountering, I share with as the phenomenon those presenting in the conditional view (including myself) as a current reference point.

Speaking Inuit to Hawaiians is ...[text shortened]... Mahamudhra by the Third Karmapa.
http://www.rinpoche.com/vow.html
Deep bow EB. All Complete.

I thank you too;
Don't take too much emptiness;

I bow😵