 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 8/20/2002 6:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | I used to get irritated when Mephi asked about presuppositions. But since then I have come to realize how powerful and important our presuppositions are in shaping our thought. Once we are more self-conscious of our presuppositions, we can be more self-critical and deliberate about what shape they take. I think I’ve nailed down the presuppositions about love I’ve been assuming so far in this discussion.
1) Love is dialectical.
2) Love is both command and gift.
3) Love is the most intense expression of both command and gift.
As command:
we come to know love as beyond our reach, yet we are held responsible;
we learn our limits;
we pray, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”;
we turn to Psalm 22;
and,
as gift:
we come to know ourselves as within love’s reach, and we rest as we are held;
we learn God’s power;
we pray, “my cup runneth over”;
we turn to Psalm 23.
These have been my presuppositions about love thus far. I welcome any critique. Most of all, I’m interested in this question: Does love = command + gift? Or, is love as command relativized or perhaps superceded by love as gift? Here’s another question I’m interested in: What are your presuppositions about love?
Thanks,
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/20/2002 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
Would you say that this could be formulated as a Hegelian synthesis?
Love
^^^^^^
sublation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
law/command---grace/gift
If so, what is the "yes" and "no" with regard to the two composite opposites that make up the lowest line?
If it is not a Hegelian dialectic, but a Kierkegaardian one, in what sense is law/command retained in love once perfection comes?
LoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLove
law/command--tension retained--grace/gift
LoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLoveLove
I see law and gospel (gospel stepping in for your "grace/gift") as mutually exclusive ways to relate to God. But both are real relations. You either relate to God on the basis of the law--and are thereby condemned (God relates to you objectively as Holy to sinner), or you relate to God through Christ (God relates to us and we to God through Christ who reconciles us), and are thereby saved. It is our identification with Christ, our abiding in him that frees us from the law. We are dead to sin and the laws that correspond to it. Romans 7:1-13. We are indeed dead to the law. Our relationship with God is no longer predicated on that but rather on the forgiveness of sins accomplished through Christ.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 08/20/2002 11:38:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2002 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra-
Looks like presuppositions about the exercise/operation of love, not about LOVE. I've been unable to follow several threads, so maybe this has been answered...
What IS love?
A friend of mine replied: "Love is the accurate estimate and adequate supply of another person's need."
If the discussion has move beyond the question I've asked, don't worry about it. I'll catch up later!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/21/2002 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
I love this topic and your take on it.
If you'll permit me jumping on one of my hobby horses, your answer does seem to be a philosophical one. I appreciate the attempt to ground the philosophy in the real world (or at least the textualized world of the bible).
I mention this because, in part, love is also obviously a word. It is not just an abstract entity that one philosophizes about. As part of our language, it gets filled with meanings from its rampant use. Commericals say "I love pizza." That boy band, The BackSyncDegrees sings "I love the way you love me baby [oooh oooh]" One of the things I always think about "love" is that in English the only three rhymes it has is "glove" and "dove" and "above"; thus pop songs are filled with those cliches. Don't you think all these things color our presuppositions, however much we might try to think about love as C.S. Lewis wrote about it, or the bible describes it?
Also, when you write that love is dialectical, do you mean in a hegelian sense? Because if you're referring to Bakhtin, that is extremely cool. Love is dialogic, rather than dialectical. This I think is a fruitful avenue of discussion!
Assuming you meant Hegel, are <command> and <gift> the poles of the dialectic? Does the tension resolve into a new dialectic tension? (ah, philosophy!)
quote:
I’m interested in this question: Does love = command + gift? Or, is love as command relativized or perhaps superceded by love as gift? Here’s another question I’m interested in: What are your presuppositions about love?
You're probably aware that balancing an equation that starts "love =" requires a whole lot on the other side of the "=". So I'd have a hard time saying "yes, you have captured all that love is in this simply sentence".
To extend on your statement: How do we reconcile the idea that God is love with the idea that it's a command and a gift? Does God command Godself? Does God gift Godself? Or are we back to 'different kinds of love', one type that is God's and another type for us?
What do you think about the Forest Gump explanation: Love is as Love does? That seems to be Paul's take in Corinthians and elsewhere. That is, love is purely behaving towards others in a godly way. I guess that would make it a command, in your terminology?
Finally, is love itself a gift, or the cause of other gifts? Does God give love, or does God's love inspire other blessings that we can actually perceive. Assuming you think that God actually gives love, are humans equipped to sense love? I guess what I'm getting at is, anytime we feel the presence or power of God, do we interpret that warm/awestruck feeling as "love" or are we actually feeling love?
Terry
Long P.S.
As usual, I think Rich Mullin's take on the topic is pretty compelling.
"There's a wideness in God's mercy
I cannot find in my own
And He keeps His fire burning
To melt this heart of stone
Keeps me aching with a yearning
Keeps me glad to have been caught
In the reckless raging fury
That they call the love of God"
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 08/21/2002 11:15:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/21/2002 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Love = The beginning, process, means, and fulfillment of "unified diversity" in which many entities "resolve" into a state of oneness, where distinctions remain unconditionally, yet where the differences those distinctions make ARE conditional and may be negligible. This may particularly include the resolution of living, sentient entities via life-affirming paradigms towards each themselves, each other, and towards the Seat of Life itself.
Unearthly example = Perichoretic action of the Trinity.
One Earthy example in action = Kingdom of God as illustrated in the Body of Christ.
Simple enough. Now of course to UNPACK the statement above could take a while 
Holla,
PS: This definition is UNASHAMEDLY philosophical, but carefully constructed in such a way that it's origin is grounded in what is EXPERIENCED in reality.
PSS: I bet this succinct [read:"reductionistic"] definition is chapping Al and Terry's hides riiiiiight about now...LOL 
"In love the paradox occurs that two beings become one and yet remain two."
--Erich Fromm
"Where there is love there is life."
--Mahatma Gandhi
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/21/2002 2:05:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/21/2002 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Good to interact with you Meph, as always.
FIrst, to clarify, my questions were serious extensions of Electra's thought. I wasn't just being polemical. Nor flippant.
quote:
PSS: I bet this succinct [read:"reductionistic"] definition is chapping Al and Terry's hides riiiiiight about now...LOL
Boy would you lose that bet. (Well, I can't speak for Al, but I am entirely unchapped by the definition.)
I didn't think it was reductionistic. I did, however, think it was jargon-filled and basically a wordy restatement of the quote from Fromm. By the way, I think Fromm's 'definiton' rings true, except for calling it a paradox. I would probably also restate it as "two beings enter a relationship of oneness" rather than "become one".
quote:
[...] where distinctions remain unconditionally, yet where the differences those distinctions make ARE conditional and may be negligible
That's pretty cool.
Tying this in to another thread (which you abandoned?) I'm wondering how you can hold to this defintion of love, and still hold to your notion that God persuades but doesn't coerce us. If we are, in effect, one with Him, that must have serious ramifications for the idea that "I" have "a will" that God as a separate entity entirely removed from that will must interact with and leave sacrosanct, riiiiight?
Notice how close your statement is to what I posited in that still-dangling thread
quote:
Like God, humans are primarily being-in-relationship. Our souls are more or less fluid as different influences affect us (room for your chaos theory?) We are always-already God-in-us and that influence is always coercive in the sense that it is always MAKING us and fundamentally ALTERING who we are. It does at times dominate and compel us to do certain things—the very antithesis of “free will”. But we were never free (nor is God, in Doc’s sense) because we and He were always in relationship (and before us, there were 3 persons in the Trinity where the Father’s love for the Son was constraining, etc.). But because there is still a part of the whole that is “me” and a part that is the sum total of all influences, God’s making can be unmade. And, even when God decrees something to happen, it usually isn’t him creating ex nihilo a new reality but Him working in relationship.
But you also write this:
quote:
[...]resolution of living, sentient entities via life-affirming paradigms towards each themselves
My first reaction is to label this foolybear. But perhaps there's something here I can't grasp yet. If you're so inclined, I'd appreciate an unpacking of how a person resolves herself toward herself. Perhaps this simply means "becoming more life affirming" which I think could be a useful part of a definition of love.
One more serious question: is this really your PRESUPPOSITION about love, Mephi, or something you developed after some research and thought and crafting of a purposely philosophical-sounding statement? I "get" Electra's explanation of her presuppositions and resonate with the feeling that there's a tension to be resolved in a term even while using it AS IF it only had one signified. Yours reads rather. . . differently. (I tried for several minutes to describe how it reads to me, but couldn't come up with a way that didn't sound dismissive. Since I didn't want to engender defensiveness I left that section out.)
Terry
P.S. Check it: Mullins' 'definition' of love that I quoted was probably more reductionist than yours. It also contains elements I think are part of my presupposition set: wide mercy, an uncomfortable uncontrollable heart-melting, something that 'catches us' in a reckless fury...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/21/2002 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Cool stuff.
Terry:
quote:
Boy would you lose that bet. (Well, I can't speak for Al, but I am entirely unchapped by the definition.)
Cool.
*********************************
Terry:
quote:
FIrst, to clarify, my questions were serious extensions of Electra's thought. I wasn't just being polemical. Nor flippant.
I never thought that you were doing that here...meaning being polemical. Actually, when I wrote that last statement, I was thinking MUCH MORE of POT (wherever he is) and my buddy, Al. (wink, wink ) I know how they feel about "abstraction" and such. Thanks for the clarification though.
*********************************
Terry:
quote:
One more serious question: is this really your PRESUPPOSITION about love, Mephi, or something you developed after some research and thought and crafting of a purposely philosophical-sounding statement? I "get" Electra's explanation of her presuppositions and resonate with the feeling that there's a tension to be resolved in a term even while using it AS IF it only had one signified. Yours reads rather. . . differently. (I tried for several minutes to describe how it reads to me, but couldn't come up with a way that didn't sound dismissive. Since I didn't want to engender defensiveness I left that section out.).
and...
quote:
I didn't think it was reductionistic. I did, however, think it was jargon-filled and basically a wordy restatement of the quote from Fromm. By the way, I think Fromm's 'definiton' rings true, except for calling it a paradox. I would probably also restate it as "two beings enter a relationship of oneness" rather than "become one".
1) I didn't really answer Electra's question. Nor did I mean to. I never said this was my presupposition about love. If I were dealing with presuppositions, I'd probably have many more than one. And they wouldn't be in any type of definition format. What you said was the case: my statement was my understanding of what love IS (I get what love DOES from this general context) from my research and thought. I figured this was pretty obvious. As far as crafting it to be intentionally "philosophically-sounding", I can't see why I would want to do that...except to try to impress others. And I really wouldn't care too much about that.
and...
2) I just crafted it with the "jargon" that corresponds to my thought processes about the subject. And because of that, and what I know GOES INTO the words I chose, I wouldn't call it a restatement. Like you said, a lot of things went into my definition...including some metaphysical considerations. Fromm wouldn't think about this as he was primarily a psychologist. Moreover, I would consider Fromm's defiinition paradoxical when applied to the THEOLOGICAL conversation that went on in "Simple Questions" thread, speaking about the potential ways of conceptuatizing our eventual unification with God.
*******************************************
Terry:
quote:
Tying this in to another thread (which you abandoned?) I'm wondering how you can hold to this defintion of love, and still hold to your notion that God persuades but doesn't coerce us. If we are, in effect, one with Him, that must have serious ramifications for the idea that "I" have "a will" that God as a separate entity entirely removed from that will must interact with and leave sacrosanct, riiiiight?
It depends on how this sense of "oneness" may occur metaphysically, I believe. Actually, my ideas about this very subject are what helped me construct my "definition" 
And I'll try to go ahead and get back to that thread, yo.
******************************************
Terry:
quote:
But perhaps there's something here I can't grasp yet. If you're so inclined, I'd appreciate an unpacking of how a person resolves herself toward herself. Perhaps this simply means "becoming more life affirming" which I think could be a useful part of a definition of love.
This idea was taking into account the reality of anxiety in persons, regarding integrity. The feeling of not being integrated with oneself. I thought that this feeling is ubiquitous in many human cultures and is the subjects of psychologists and philosophers alike. I feel that the completion of love occurs when reconcilation takes place on ALL levels: self/self, self/world/, self/God. Does this help?
Cool stuff, Terry. And don't ever worry about sounding dismissive with me. Just spit what you want. It's all love, baby.
PS: I keep forgetting that you have a PhD in Rhetoric. Nice!
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/21/2002 4:58:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/21/2002 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | "Al2Si2H4O9" is the chemical formula for porcelain. But Meph knew that.
Looked OK to me, Meph. But especially since today was the first day of classes with my special ed. kids, I sacked out on the couch after school. Middle age. (A few days older than Doc, but not as much runner's energy.) I wasnt' drawn to think about it; but felt badly becasue of that. I think that something by a mystic "might" perk my attetion -- or maybe only Coffee would perk that.
So, I'm sorry. But I'm glad that you got good responses.
I'll sign off for the night with a short quote that I think should be a topic thread on Bonhoeffer. Quoted in Yannaras' Freedom of Morality:
"Virtue exists for truth; but Truth does not exist for virtue."
(St. Maximus the Confessor)
So . . . is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/21/2002 9:25:06 PM
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/16/2006 9:11:21 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Al,
PORCELAIN! Dang! No, I didn't know that. Dude, you don't how HOW much I'd been trying to figure that out. I looked and thought and looked and thought...but couldn't get it. Oh well. lol
And you question is cool!
quote:
Is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
I'd say both. For real.
Mad love,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And you question is cool!
quote:
Is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
I'd say both. For real.
Mad love,
Me too. Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
"Al2Si2H4O9" is the chemical formula for porcelain. But Meph knew that.
I'll sign off for the night with a short quote that I think should be a topic therad on Bonhoeffer. Quoted in Yannaras' Freedom of Morality, by Maximus the Confessor: "Virtue exists for truth; but Truth does not exist for virtue."
So, for the purpose of your Thought-on-Table ("ToT"), is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
very cool post.
Couple of things:
1. I did NOT know the formula for porcelain. Now I got that covered. Thanks. Some day I just might catch up with Meph, but I'm not holding my breath.
2. I would say that love is a virtue. My guess is that doc and some others would want to say that love is THE Truth. I could be wrong, but I could see them making the claim.
I had actually thought about laying out some presupps on love and Al anticipated one of them with that quote. Love is not equivolent with ultimate reality, though ultimate reality is loving (so we are told in Scripture).
So presupp#1 for me is love is a virtue (is that a presupp? i really am not a philosopher and certainly not a "rhetoritician(??)" Terry, how do you correctly identify one who "does" rhetoric?
Anyway, I would start with some things like:
A. reality is relational. Best broken down into events or occasions, rather than substances or objects. The latter refer to the continuity of centers of willing, knowing, relating rather than to actual unchangable "things".
B. all relations have a certain degree of instability/flexibility/pliability which is affected by the disposition(s) of the two (considered most simply) in relation.
C. Love is the ideal we use to describe an optimal relation that is mutually beneficial and involves total transparency between the ones involved in the relation. Our faith in "love" tells us that this is good for the "whole" as well, not just the immediate relation being considered.
D. Sin is the violation of relations rather than the faithful sustaining of them. Not considering the good (as assessed by who?) of the other, and not being transparent to the other are immediately obvious ways of sinning that come to mind.
It is easier to identify brokenness in relations than perfection. So it is easier to see sin than love. (Because this is true we sometimes see a lesser form of sin and call it "love.") The Bible offers many illustrations and analogies of love, but I would maintain that this falls short of "demonstrating" or finally capturing all that love is. Especially since love cannot be read in a book but must be experienced in relationship with another. The closer we align love with the very essence of God, the further we drive love from our ability to know and do it. To deny this is to say that there is very little about God that we do not know fully (in addition to claiming the same sort of knowledge of love). This seems presumptuous and absurd to me. So, I think that we do well to recognize, because the Bible teaches, that God is love, but that this is not ALL that God is. God is also Spirit, Just, Jealous, etc. This is in no way to demote love, but only to recognize that love, like all these other words, is a socially constructed concept that only aproximates a reality that it seeks to describe, and it does so differently in different languages. I get nervous when we we assume we know so much about what true love would "really" look like in a given situation. Particularly nervous if we ALSO claim that knowing this is equivolent to knowing the mind of God, which does seem to be the case when we say that "God is love" unequivocally. These are some of the reasons I have pointed in the direction of obedience in faith. That seems more concrete to me.
Just some ramblings. Feel free to tear to shreds.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
And you question is cool!
quote:
Is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
I'd say both. For real.
Mad love,
Me too. Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~
What about love being a truth, a virtue, and...a person?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/22/2002 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Wow, we all posted within a very small window of time!
I agree with Tom that "love" can be said to be a virtue, truth, and a person. But I think we need to be careful about unpacking those terms. Anyway, more later.....
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/22/2002 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph LOVES him some Modes. Kick that knowledge. You go, brah.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2002 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I saw the verse from 2 Corinthians 3:17 written "auf Deutsch" today, at school in a graphic design book. Struck me immediately that I'd like to see it 'side-by-side' with the Maximus quote.
"Now the Lord is the Spirit,
and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom."
(2 Corinthians 3:17)
How does that relate to:
"Virtue exists for truth;
but Truth does not exist for virtue."
St. Maximus the Confessor
(born 580 & martyred 662)
How does "freedom" relate to truth?
I'm guessing, off the cuff, that "virtue" does not provide "freedom" the way "truth" does. So that is why the verse struck me. Its like a syllogism begging to be shouted: "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is 'truth.'"
Al2+P+Si2(o)H4+W+O9
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/22/2002 5:31:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/23/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi,
quote:
I never thought that you were doing that here...meaning being polemical.
Hehe. I bet we could spend a lot of time explaining how we weren’t trying to step on the other’s toes. Let’s make a deal: we’ll just be ourselves, and if that causes offense at any point, we’ll voice it (and promise to forgive each other!).
I mostly meant that I didn’t want Electra to construe my post as a criticism, but as an extension. I’m not sure who she viewed it (if at all ). Your post seemed to insinuate that mine was attacking her ideas merely for being philosophical, and then defending philosophy “unashamedly”. While I may joke about philosophy, I take the ideas and people on this board seriously.
Lots of people find value in philosophy. But then, lots of people are RedWings fans. De Gustabus Non Disputatem.
quote:
I just crafted it with the "jargon" that corresponds to my thought processes about the subject.
Yeah. It’s hard to read about and think about a subject academically and then try to express yourself without using that terminology. I mean, that’s why the terminology developed, eh? Because it expresses complex ideas so efficiently. I was just concerned that the terminology was getting in the way of the ideas, at least for me. Perhaps it was just the unpacking that you said needed to occur hadn’t occurred and, being a good American consumer, I WANT IT NOW!
quote:
[Fromm wasn't] speaking about the potential ways of conceptuatizing our eventual unification with God.[…] It depends on how this sense of "oneness" may occur metaphysically
I’m pretty ill informed in this area, so anything you have to offer on the topic would be appreciated (perhaps on that other thread).
quote:
This idea was taking into account the reality of anxiety in persons, regarding integrity. The feeling of not being integrated with oneself.[…] Does this help?
It helps a lot. We are miiiiiiles apart on that issue, I suspect. There’s much thread-fodder in your paragraph on anxiety and intra-personal integrity.
Maybe one day, when I’m in an enemy-making mood, I’ll start threads on Christian counseling, seminaries teaching philosophy courses, why thoughtful Christians should study rhetoric, and what I really think of the Vikings’ playoff chances. But not today.
Terry
"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/23/2002 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
Good to (virtually) hang with you again.
Modes: So presupp#1 for me is love is a virtue (is that a presupp? i really am not a philosopher and certainly not a "rhetoritician(??)" Terry, how do you correctly identify one who "does" rhetoric?
Terry: Yep, rhetorician is someone who theorizes about rhetoric. Rhetor is someone who uses rhetoric, roughly synonymous with 'speaker' or 'arguer'. And never feel bad that you're "not really" a philospher! I salute you!
Modes: reality is relational...
Terry: Neat, neat, neat stuff there. I was with you up to the sin part, which I need to chew on a bit more. Actually, I'm not even sure about the 'mutually beneficial' part. I'm probably leaning more towards the God IS love notion. Whatever makes me/the world more godly is love, although the benefit may be 'only the glory of God'. In a sense that benefits me, but...
Joh 9:2-3 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
So God lovingly made him blind so that Jesus would be glorified? Ok. too heavy a thought for a Friday.
Modes: It is easier to identify brokenness in relations than perfection. So it is easier to see sin than love.
Terry: This makes good sense to me. What do you think about my musings about God "giving" love? I'm not sure that love is a thing to be given, but a cause for more tangible things to be given.
Modes: The closer we align love with the very essence of God, the further we drive love from our ability to know and do it.
Terry: Hmmm. Maybe. Although we are called to be conformed to the image of Christ, to become more like God, so I'm not sure this is a damning criticism of the idea.
But I do appreciate that when we make an love into metaphyscial Being, trying to make sense of us Becoming it is harder. That's why, I think, Paul explained how love acts. The acts themselves are nothing (a noisy gong) unless the motive force is love.
So we're back to Electra's command and gift. How do we make sense of doing something when it's something we're given or something that makes us and can only come from God? And I think the Being is expressed in Becoming in us. I doubt the same can be said of God though.
Except that most OV'ers would say that God isn't "pure Being" and that God "becomes" too. That He authentically participates in relationship and changes states from before the relationship began.
I think I need to return to the idea that the Father LOVES the Son and try to make sense of that in a way that subsumes the love I have for others, God has for me, etc.
Terry "the sleep deprived and thus rambling new father" Baxter
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/16/2006 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | Rather than start a new thread about this, lets just have a repeat of a quote that got a lot of attention:
"Virtue exists for truth; but Truth does not exist for virtue."
(St. Maximus the Confessor)
So the question is: Is Love a "truth" or a "virtue?"
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/16/2006 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 2/4/2006 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Stark, I think you're right: "I just can't see love being categorized in this fashion."
Does the question, "Is Love a 'truth' or a 'virtue?'" bring up a categorical error?
My answer to POW's question:
As a noun, "love" is a truth. As a verb, "to love" is a virtue. But Truth, when practiced, is a virtue... (and maybe I can add this: ) and as an adjective, "being loving" describes a perfect state of affairs. (???  ???)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:39 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|