Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're right: that makes very little sense to me. Do you have any references (essays, articles, etc) that describe this taxonomy you mention? The taxonomies of 'love' that I have seen do not follow what you describe. Those I am familiar with make the distinction between 'interpersonal' love and 'impersonal' love, where the 'interpersonal' category is somewhat along the lines you describe for your 'personal' category; but where the 'impersonal' category is virtually nothing like how you describe it (or at least nothing like how I interpret your description of it). Further, your classification of 'impersonal' makes no sense on the face of it, since the 'I' portion in "I love you" refers to a person. Could you please clarify?
That may be a bit of an oversimplification.
This might not make a lot of sense to you, but the best-most-accurate way to describe love is to describe it by classifying it according to either personal love or impersonal love.
Personal love is what is employed when we 'fall in love,' and is wholly dependent upon the object. In "I love you, ...[text shortened]... e but to reward absolute righteousness to that person, as they have been clothed in royal robes.
At any rate, where does the engrossing self-love God has for Himself supposedly fit into your categories; and how does this category talk help to make sense of your position that it is oversimplification to infer that God is narcissistic from sonship's description? I don't really get it....
09 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI could probably find something which fleshes it out more, but the basic gist of it is as follows.
You're right: that makes very little sense to me. Do you have any references (essays, articles, etc) that describe this taxonomy you mention? The taxonomies of 'love' that I have seen do not follow what you describe. Those I am familiar with make the distinction between 'interpersonal' love and 'impersonal' love, where the 'interpersonal' category is s ...[text shortened]... ication to infer that God is narcissistic from sonship's description? I don't really get it....
I love you
If the action in the sentence is dependent upon the subject, nothing the object does can alter the action.
Example: a parent loves their child.
Nothing the child can do will make the parent cease loving the child... provided the parent is of a mindset considered normal, healthy.
The parent's love for their child is based upon the goodness within themselves directed toward the child, as opposed to dependent upon the child to perform for their love.
Same holds true in our professional courtesies we extend to colleagues and associates whose behavior is distasteful to us.
We do not refrain from acting offended as a result of our feelings toward the oaf; we refrain from exhibiting retaliatory action as a result of our personal professional standards.
Both of these examples demonstrate impersonal love.
I don't need the other to 'behave up' in order to secure my affection or professional composure; I do so out of my own personal integrity regardless of the other's performance.
I love you
If the action in the sentence is dependent upon the object, only when the object performs or behaves in such a manner consistent with the subject can/will the subject extend their love.
In the case of a family member, the parent only loves their child when the child behaves in a manner pleasing to the parent.
If the child fails to perform, the parent withdraws their love.
Personal love can only work successfully when the standards of the one are not only shared by the other, they must always be shared.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK, but I don't think I'll feed these taxonomical distinctions of yours, since I think they are probably misleading. Neither type you describe should be called 'impersonal' love because they both seem to be forms of interpersonal love. The former you describe is some sort of interpersonal love that is unconditional on the peformance of the object (or some such); whereas the latter is some form of interpersonal love that is conditional.
I could probably find something which fleshes it out more, but the basic gist of it is as follows.
[b]I love you
If the action in the sentence is dependent upon the subject, nothing the object does can alter the action.
Example: a parent loves their child.
Nothing the child can do will make the parent cease loving the child... provided the ...[text shortened]... en the standards of the one are not only shared by the other, they must always be shared.[/b]
At any rate, beyond this wordsmithing, what is the actual point here? How does this taxonomical distinction help to make your case?
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod has impersonal love toward all mankind--- love which is based upon His integrity and not dependent upon the behavior of the other.
OK, but I don't think I'll feed these taxonomical distinctions of yours, since I think they are probably misleading. Neither type you describe should be called 'impersonal' love because they both seem to be forms of interpersonal love. The former you describe is some sort of interpersonal love that is unconditional on the peformance of the object (or so ...[text shortened]... g, what is the actual point here? How does this taxonomical distinction help to make your case?
God also has personal love toward both Himself and any other being with equal qualities of righteousness.
If He did not love Himself, He would be wrong.
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't agree. And that certainly does not seem to square with sonship's description in the OP.
God has impersonal love toward all mankind--- love which is based upon His integrity and not dependent upon the behavior of the other.
God also has personal love toward both Himself and any other being with equal qualities of righteousness.
If He did not love Himself, He would be wrong.
Your "impersonal" love is actually some form of interpersonal love wherein A loves B in a way that is not conditional on B's behavior or some such (A not equal to B). But in sonship's description, it is not a case of God loving some other person; it is simply a case of God loving God. Sonship more or less clearly states that God rejects B to any extent where B does not equal God.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat the righteousness of God accepts, the justice of God demands reward or punishment.
I don't agree. And that certainly does not seem to square with sonship's description in the OP.
Your "impersonal" love is actually some form of interpersonal love wherein A loves B in a way that is not conditional on B's behavior or some such (A not equal to B). But in sonship's description, it is not a case of God loving some other person; it is sim ...[text shortened]... Sonship more or less clearly states that God rejects B to any extent where B does not equal God.
God is three Persons.
Each loves Himself; each loves the others--- all equally--- because each possesses perfect righteousness.
It is the standard of righteousness which justice acts upon, not any other God-like characteristic (knowledge, power, etc.), therefore God can love a creature with inferior aspects of their being, insofar as said creature maintains an acceptable standard of righteousness.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHcan you define 'love' in regards to one loving oneself?
God has impersonal love toward all mankind--- love which is based upon His integrity and not dependent upon the behavior of the other.
God also has personal love toward both Himself and any other being with equal qualities of righteousness.
If He did not love Himself, He would be wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNow you seem to be contradicting yourself. You stated this before:
What the righteousness of God accepts, the justice of God demands reward or punishment.
God is three Persons.
Each loves Himself; each loves the others--- all equally--- because each possesses perfect righteousness.
It is the standard of righteousness which justice acts upon, not any other God-like characteristic (knowledge, power, etc.), therefore God ...[text shortened]... ects of their being, insofar as said creature maintains an acceptable standard of righteousness.
God has impersonal love toward all mankind--- love which is based upon His integrity and not dependent upon the behavior of the other.
Now you say this:
God can love a creature with inferior aspects of their being, insofar as said creature maintains an acceptable standard of righteousness.
This all doesn't seem coherent. In the first breath you stated that God has "impersonal" love toward all mankind, which -- in the way you intend the term -- means love towards supposedly inferior creatures that does not depend on their behavior or their maintaining any acceptable standards of righteousness. Now, however, you claim that God can love inferior creatures but only insofar as these creatures maintain acceptable standards of righteousness. But, if your first statement is right, then God can love inferior creatures and NOT just only insofar as these creatures maintain acceptable standards of righteousness.
So, this is nothing more than you contradicting yourself as far as I can tell.
Originally posted by LemonJelloOne of the problems of typing out responses is the tendency to think you've already said something on the basis of thinking 'I have been typing for so long, surely I've already covered that?'
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. You stated this before:
God has impersonal love toward all mankind--- love which is based upon His integrity and not dependent upon the behavior of the other.
Now you say this:
[quote]God can love a creature with inferior aspects of their being, insofar as said creature maintains ...[text shortened]... ghteousness.
So, this is nothing more than you contradicting yourself as far as I can tell.
Personal love with God is only possible for an agent in possession of His righteousness.
• Pre-creation, only three people were in possession of perfect righteousness: the Godhead.
• Angelic creation (numbers unknown) all creatures plus God.
• Angelic conflict (numbers unknown - 1/3) plus God.
• Human creation, the man and the woman plus God.
• Human history, all believers plus God.
In those times of conflict--- and prior to a final judgement--- God's policy toward those without His perfect righteousness is impersonal love.
This is the love which is spoke of in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world..."
God is not a sentimental emotional lover; He is discriminate and judicious.
He can only love personally what agrees with His standard of righteousness.
13 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Everyone but me, apparently.
Another problem is that everyone can see when you contradict yourself.
As stated, I inadvertently omitted some key factors, namely when personal love is applied and when impersonal love becomes the default policy. The intention of my last response was to clarify those instances. If you're not able to look beyond the omission and to the clarification, perhaps it's best you stop here and troll another thread.
13 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not quite sure I understand. Since you seem to admit that you didn't clarify enough before, I guess we can agree that the two statements of yours that I highlighted are contradictory, at least prima facie on the face of it. So, with these further comments of yours, which of those statements are you retracting or amending? What would be the re-statement of those two that you would provide? Just want to make sure I understand your position here....
One of the problems of typing out responses is the tendency to think you've already said something on the basis of thinking 'I have been typing for so long, surely I've already covered that?'
Personal love with God is only possible for an agent in possession of His righteousness.
• Pre-creation, only three people were in possession of perfect righte ...[text shortened]... nate and judicious.
He can only love personally what agrees with His standard of righteousness.
13 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloNeither are retracted; I simply clarified the statements.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Since you seem to admit that you didn't clarify enough before, I guess we can agree that the two statements of yours that I highlighted are contradictory, at least prima facie on the face of it. So, with these further comments of yours, which of those statements are you retracting or amending? What would be the re-state ...[text shortened]... of those two that you would provide? Just want to make sure I understand your position here....
God's love toward those without His perfect righteousness (temporarily) is known as His impersonal love--- that which is based upon His character and integrity, without any dependence upon the creature otherwise.
A great example of this is the exile in the Garden.
Huh?
As hard to believe as it may be, God's suspension of judgement over the course of events which led to Adam and the woman's exile from the Garden is a picture perfect and dichotomous view of God's love, both personal and impersonal.
In the Garden before the Fall, God loved the woman and the man personally--- despite their inferior characteristics--- on account of their possession of His righteousness. They were without sin, created in His image, and therefore shared an affinity which enabled communion between Him and them.
He walked in the cool of the evening with them, teaching them all about Him.
After the Fall, that affinity was lost: they had exchanged their righteousness for the promise of better knowledge. But God did not judge the man. Judgement would have ended the human race, end of story.
Instead, God switched over to impersonal love, now dealing with him on the basis of His own character utilizing His differing policies of administration, each according to the times.
It wasn't until the Cross that judgement was rendered, and He placed it on the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Man avoided the judgement for sin.
All man.
No one EVER goes to hell for sin, personal or otherwise.
The only people who go to hell are those who refuse to make the exchange: their work for His.
The believer enjoys a personal love relationship with God--- just like the man and the woman--- on the basis of their possession of God's righteousness.