 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Meph Attempts to Describe "LOVE" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/3/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | | M: I wasn't upset. Actually, its kind of nice that you feel so strongly about the subject. I was just commenting, is all... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/3/2003 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph Man. LOVE IT! WAY COOL! Though I may have my queries about quote:
Mere existence of the unique individual grounds the worth…
and
quote:
All that I’m saying with this is that all the other “loves” MUST be relativized to the highest form of love that God calls us to: unconditional love, agape style.
A. You should see how Grenz gets around our uniqueness based on our mere existence idea in terms of abortion.
B. As you may remember, though I agree that there are distinctions between agape and the other loves, I wonder if agape “can survive” without these other loves. As I said on the other thread:quote:
…some theologians are questioning whether agape comprises the fullness of the meaning of Christian love and hence that agape determines completely the content of the biblical vision of the ethical life of love. That is, is there a comprehensive love ethic that encompasses more than may be ascribed solely through the equating of love with agape?”
Anyhoo, I would also recommend for reading, beside SK? Victor Furnish’s book: “The Love Command in the New Testament” Though I refer it to you, I highly recommend it especially to John and honorman.
I think, like you say, you are going to have to work on the distinction between love and ethics. That is not easily comprehendible. I think it really stands in the way of understanding what Christ meant by love. Also, a good definition of what “neighbour” means is VERY important. Faceless humanity is WAY TOO ABSTRACT.
Also, have a sidebar question for ya. Doesn’t saying, “ALL people have infinite worth because of what God thinks about them” have a Kantian flavor to it?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2003 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: In fact, check this out: “But if someone actually has become his own master through the other’s help, it is utterly impossible to see that it is through the other’s help, because if I see the other’s help, then I indeed see that the person helped has not become his own master.” Isn’t God—our creator and redeemer; the air we breathe and our daily bread; who is everywhere present yet invisible—the supreme exemplification of this love?
Afraid to identify myself!: Two things. No three.
First, this seems to make “gratitude” an impossible fruit of our becoming loving persons, or of our having "mastered ourselves." A true master of one’s self knows and is thankful for those that contributed to their becoming. Why think otherwise? I haven't become my own master if I admit to having required and benefited from the help of others? Why in the world think THAT?
Secondly, any of you actually live this FORWARD and not just backwards? I mean, does anybody actually believe they will become their own master WITHOUT the help of others? It seems to undermine a healthy doctrine of the Body to me (which might not be so surprising coming from SK? Ooops, I’m out on a limb now!). I don't know about you guys, but I know I need help and will always know I was helped. So I must be misunderstanding you. Granted, I don't think we're loving others if we intend to make them co-dependent on us. I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about acknowledging gratefully those who have contributed to making you what you are.
Thirdly, I don't think the Acts passage has anything to do with this, unless one wants to argue that the Athenians being addressed were "masters of themselves" in the sense you all mean. Does God love us anonymously? Really? What does Paul actually say here? Doesn't he say God loved the Athenians "so that" they would search for him, the one responsible for the goodness of life, and FIND him?
Totally afraid to post on this thread 'cause I'm outta my league!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/4/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | You know, besides the different aspects of the word "love" (horribly unprecise in English), what makes it so hard to "define" love, as is the case with evil, is that love isn't something you can pick up and say, "Wow, look: a piece of love." So what we end up doing is never truly defining love, but rather we define its actions as exhibited, at least agape love.
With regard to the Who Loves Satan question (what a question! I mean, like the Trident gum commercial "Who wants gum" ... "I do, I do!"), Does God love Satan with phileo love? No! Does He love Satan with erotic love? No. Does He love Satan with Agape love? Well, if God doesn't love Satan with those other kinds of "love", why must he do so with with agape love
Must God eternally love every sentient being He creates? Is it possible that a being can be created who thereafter may not possess the receptical to receive God's love--"agape love" being an action expressing worth or value based upon agape love, since we're not talking here about any other kind of love? In other words, can a sentient being loose the capacity to receive agape love? If so, is God still required (or would it be in His nature) to express love toward this being when said love will never penetrate? Further, is God still required (or would it in be His nature) to eternally love this being when it is eternally fruitless to do so?
What is the expression of agape love? It does not require feeling and emotion. It is something like justice: rendering to someone what they rightly deserve; whether one feels or does not feel like doing so is irrelevant. Agape love is a disposition, and it starts from a framework, not a vacuum or a situational ethic. Agape love is not its own ground or framework; it stems from someone--a person. God is always in the proper position relative to what He has created. He never changes in this regard, so His own grounding for expressing agape is unchanging. But ONLY the grounding, and not the demand to express agape, is unchanging.
Automotons or non-sentient beings neither need nor require agape love. They may require maintenance if they are to continue functioning--something that could be yet another kind of "love" ("I just love my car," therefore I take care of it). And neither would we insist that God must agape-love these creations. Sentient beings--at least those made in the same image as their creator--require and need agape love; they are created to know and experience the receiving and giving of worth and value, both for themselves others. Little more need be said about that.
But what of Satan, a sentient being now epitomized as one who no longer has capacity to recieve agape love? What is God's "position" on this matter? What is God's "way" of exhibiting Himself toward a sentient being who formerly was capable of receiving agape love? What is the unchangable grounding and framework that defines not love, but the One who epitomizes the meaning of agape love? What will God consistently do in this situation? To me, this is really the essence of "defining" agape love: understanding the unchangable framework in which God dwells.
Once Satan became the epitome of one who no longer has the capacity to recieve love, the question is two-fold: what will God exhibit toward this being and what will God not exhibit toward this being. Certianly we can say that God will not become vicious, spiteful, unjust, irrational and impure in any actions he does to Satan. So what, then, is left for God to do that God would always do? God both knows (in all aspects of knowing and understanding) what Satan was before he fell and what he has become since he fell. God will not change who He is as He deals with Satan, either before or after he banishes Satan for eternity. God is, and always will be, fair and just, NOT because others are worth it, but because it is not of the character of God to do otherwise--that is the unchanging grounding and framework. Satan is in no different of a position than anyone else when it comes to God exhibiting something about Himself. We change, God does not.
Finally, I think, then, that agape love is somewhat the right word but somewhat the wrong word to confine all of God's ways of dealing with defining love. Unless "agape love" is to include the meaning of God's unchangable character, and not just respecting someone's worth or value, then the definition of agape love falls short. If, however, we understand what drives agape love--the unchangableness of the one Who exhibits Himself--and bring that concept concommitantly with agape, we may find a fuller understanding of what it means to love another.
Wish I had time to edit this better, but I don't!
For the conversation, | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/5/2003 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph Man said,
quote:
Mere existence of the unique individual grounds the worth…
and
“1) attributes positive worth to B’s individual’s unique existence,…”
This is where my chosen definition differs sharply from Doc’s. With Doc’s definition, the infinite worth is only attributed to human beings in a DERIVATIVE fashion on many levels. We only have worth insofar as we infer that God believes that we have worth and we believe what God believes. I think this leads to problems down the road. With my def, worth is attributed to human beings in a PRIMARY sense. Mere existence of the unique individual grounds the worth, not any type of teleological INTENT for the unique individual.
and
Because God would go through so much to save us (the Incarnation and death of his Son, etc), he MUST think we are worth something. If God didn’t think that we were worth anything, he wouldn’t have done it. (Meph’s note: FLAW!!!! Misunderstanding of unconditional love!) So, we can infer that God attributes infinite worth to us, because he gave the price of infinite worth to save us.
and
But this ends up being problematic in more than a couple of ways. Let me deal with this by way of analogy. Let’s say that you have a married couple, Mary and Tom. Let’s say further that you are Mary’s really, really good friend, though you know both Tom and Mary fairly well. What if you said the following to Tom?
“Tom, I think you are a very worthy person SOLELY because you are considered a very worthy person by Mary, whom I like and trust.”
Would Tom be able to say that you really considered him a worthy person IN ALL OF HIS DISTINCTIVENESS? Or would Tom be able to gather that you only value him in DERIVATIVE fashion from Mary’s assessment of him? See the issue?
This is all I can do for now but here’s the way Grenz tackles this in the context of abortion. Wanna know what you think. According to Grenz if we see people as have intrinsic value merely because they exist, then they are arguing on the basis of the same individualistic worldview and accepting the same fundamental presupposition, the ultimacy of individual rights. With intrinsic uniqueness come intrinsic rights (natural rights/natural law). For Grenz this is derivative from the Enlightenment and there is nothing distinctly Christian about it. For Grenz, Christianity posits that God is Sovereign over all creation and this is where all value and meaning come from. Value and meaning are not intrinsic to any person or thing, but this does not mean that reality is devoid of these things. Whether one realizes it or not, God bestows value and meaning on his creatures as a gift in accordance with the coming reign of God which he says is the fundamental meaning and value of all reality. For Grenz, God calls society and each member of society to recognize the value and meaning, which God has given to each creature. Human life comes under the sovereignty of God in a special sense, for human beings have a special value—they are the objects of God’s salvific love and have a special place in God’s purposes as potential participants in God’s recreated, eschatological community. Life must be protected because it is life that will be transformed in the New Creation.
Because the cosmos is under God, as Christians we are not in the position to argue intrinsic rights. As Christians we can only speak of servanthood, love and self-sacrifice in an attempt to cooperate with God’s program of bringing potential participation in God’s new society into actual participation. Believe it or not (you political conservatives) it is ultimately irrelevant to speak of “when life begins” for every stage of fetal life is potential human life. Really think about that. Ultimately, a Christian’s concern must encompass or extend to all humanity regardless of stage in the process of life because all have potential participation in the coming community of God.
In the end, it would seem that your definition is thoroughly anthropocentric rather than theocentric and we can still think of individuals in all their distinctive on other grounds i.e. God’s intention (eschatological) for each person extends to the totality of his or her being.
I’ll have more to say about what you say about hope. Again, I think it is possible to misconstrue an anthropocentric view in terms of an “ethic of being.”
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/5/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
In the end, it would seem that your definition is thoroughly anthropocentric rather than theocentric and we can still think of individuals in all their distinctive on other grounds i.e. God’s intention (eschatological) for each person extends to the totality
Fraid not, pard. I would AGREE with this statement:
Christianity posits that God is Sovereign over all creation and this is where all value and meaning come from.
But disagree that this entails that value can ONLY be attributed derivatively to objects. How so? Because God upholds ALL THINGS in his gracious “governance”. This is not only loving action toward sentient beings, but also INHERENT WORTH ATTRIBUTION. We are worth something in and of ourselves because God upholds us by God’s Grace. It’s not like we are nothing UNTIL God tells us we are worth something. We are worth something BECAUSE we exist…BECAUSE God upholds our existence! I don’t need the eschatological view to ground my definition THEOCENTRICALLY.
Holla,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/6/2003 4:31 AM (GMT -6) | | The Meph Man said:
quote:
Fraid not, pard. I would AGREE with this statement:
Christianity posits that God is Sovereign over all creation and this is where all value and meaning come from.
But disagree that this entails that value can ONLY be attributed derivatively to objects. How so? Because God upholds ALL THINGS in his gracious “governance”. This is not only loving action toward sentient beings, but also INHERENT WORTH ATTRIBUTION. We are worth something in and of ourselves because God upholds us by God’s Grace. It’s not like we are nothing UNTIL God tells us we are worth something. We are worth something BECAUSE we exist…BECAUSE God upholds our existence! I don’t need the eschatological view to ground my definition THEOCENTRICALLY.
OK. Meph Man, here’s the thing. You don’t KNOW this (that you are of worth) from mere existence. There is nothing in existence that tells you this. You know this only because God has DECLARED it. If you were an isolated solitary unit, you would not know that you are of ANY significance. It seems to me that you are “riding off the coat tails” of an apriori theocentric view.
Second, on your view, why should I be considered anymore significant than a slug? For on your view it would be just as significant merely because it exists. However, according to the pre-modern view, reality was ordered. God is up there. The angelic beings are next. Then humans. Then the rest of creation. Though I am of more significance than an amoeba, I only know this because God has declared it to be so. Yes, all creation is worth something. God has created it. And God’s gracious “governance” upholds it as you say. God sustains you and me. And you agree that this is where all value and meaning come from. But this is a vantage point that we have.
Third, when I said that we could think of our distinctiveness on other grounds, such as from an eschatological standpoint, I was saying this as only one example, but there are others. One has already been stated—what God thinks of us. Another would be a Jesus example in his life and ministry (the apex being that we are the objects of God’s salvific love). But an eschatological category is important too. Here’s how I understand it. I don’t think there can be such thing as “mere existence.” If our existential origin is in God, then it encompasses purpose. This means that the meaning of our lives is not intrinsic to us but is derived from a reality beyond ourselves, for God bestows meaning on us. This bestowed meaning is related to the GOAL, PURPOSE or DESTINY that God intends for us. This will is not something that is ill defined. Rather it is specific and particular. As I’m sure you are aware of, the Westminster Catechism says:
”The chief end of man is to glorify and enjoy Him forever."
Though all creation will glorify the Creator, humans share in this wonderful privilege and respond to God consciously. While we can glorify God in the present, it also spills over into the future for it is directed toward “forever.” So, we are not merely “thrown into existence” where we create whatever meaning we can for ourselves or that we must devise our own essence through the choices we make. On the contrary, God has designed humankind with a purpose in view and God calls us to acknowledge, reflect and actualize in our lives.
Holla,
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/6/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Brandon,
quote:
OK. Meph Man, here’s the thing. You don’t KNOW this (that you are of worth) from mere existence. There is nothing in existence that tells you this. You know this only because God has DECLARED it. If you were an isolated solitary unit, you would not know that you are of ANY significance. It seems to me that you are “riding off the coat tails” of an apriori theocentric view.
Aaaah, I'd have to disagree with this statement. First, there's nothing wrong with using induction or a-priori to conclude something about one's existence, apart from metaphysical interjections. One doesn't have to be told by God that they are of worth--atheists believe they are of worth, and they believe so exactly because they exist.
Human existence entails self-evident metaphysical and epistemological assumptions--a-priori. One of those assumptions is worth; understood by the nature of one's existence. Whether one is in solitary confinement or otherwise, intrincally one knows that there is loss if one's existence teminates. That loss is an expression of worth.
Whether one wants to argue that it is God who has endowed us with these assumptions is another issue, but that we have these endowments is clear.
Me thinks, anyway!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/6/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
You don’t KNOW this (that you are of worth) from mere existence. There is nothing in existence that tells you this. You know this only because God has DECLARED it. If you were an isolated solitary unit, you would not know that you are of ANY significance. It seems to me that you are “riding off the coat tails” of an apriori theocentric view.
Yes, I do know this by mere existence. Why? Because I know my Creator. Think about it. If we are CREATED and CONTINUALLY SUSTAINED by God, the definer and originator of worth, by what stretch of the imagination can we be inherently worthless? Knowledge of my Creator NECESSARILY shows that my existence has worth.
*******************************
Brandon:
quote:
Second, on your view, why should I be considered anymore significant than a slug? For on your view it would be just as significant merely because it exists. However, according to the pre-modern view, reality was ordered. God is up there. The angelic beings are next. Then humans. Then the rest of creation. Though I am of more significance than an amoeba, I only know this because God has declared it to be so. Yes, all creation is worth something. God has created it. And God’s gracious “governance” upholds it as you say. God sustains you and me. And you agree that this is where all value and meaning come from. But this is a vantage point that we have.
Why do you SEEK to be considered anymore significant than a slug? What I mean is what is your ultimate purpose in doing so? [Digression: I suppose the ABORTION issue forces this. The attempt to show that human life is INHERENTLY worth more than other forms of life and should not be treated in the same manner. Sheesh…] If the main point of existence truly is to glorify and enjoy God forever, and ALL creation can do this to some extent, then what is the point of saying WHO’S more significant except to stress that God’s love and REQUIREMENTS apply even MORE poignantly to creatures who have sentience, given God’s design for Creation. To be sure, Jesus seemed this line of reasoning…
Luke 12:24
Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!
Matt. 12:9-12
He left that place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”
My point is not that we shouldn’t acknowledge that origins make us distinct from all other living beings, biblically speaking. For this distinction should clearly show our RESPONSIBILITIES to God and Creation. My point is that there seems to be something quite humanistic (in a negative sense) about trying to validate our very existences by HEIGHTENING that distinction. It is this type of thinking, Ibelieve, that drives us from a more ECOLOGICAL understanding of Creation to a grossly hegemonic idea with humans OVER and AGAINST everything else.
******************************
Brandon:
quote:
Third, when I said that we could think of our distinctiveness on other grounds, such as from an eschatological standpoint, I was saying this as only one example, but there are others. One has already been stated—what God thinks of us. Another would be a Jesus example in his life and ministry (the apex being that we are the objects of God’s salvific love). But an eschatological category is important too. Here’s how I understand it. I don’t think there can be such thing as “mere existence.” If our existential origin is in God, then it encompasses purpose. This means that the meaning of our lives is not intrinsic to us but is derived from a reality beyond ourselves, for God bestows meaning on us. This bestowed meaning is related to the GOAL, PURPOSE or DESTINY that God intends for us. This will is not something that is ill defined. Rather it is specific and particular. As I’m sure you are aware of, the Westminster Catechism says:
”The chief end of man is to glorify and enjoy Him forever."
Though all creation will glorify the Creator, humans share in this wonderful privilege and respond to God consciously. While we can glorify God in the present, it also spills over into the future for it is directed toward “forever.” So, we are not merely “thrown into existence” where we create whatever meaning we can for ourselves or that we must devise our own essence through the choices we make. On the contrary, God has designed humankind with a purpose in view and God calls us to acknowledge, reflect and actualize in our lives.
If you are saying that our created purpose is part of our worth, then I would agree. But that’s my point. I believe that ALL created things have a purpose to God...and that purpose is IN them. (This is distinct from saying that all events are divinely orchestrated events) Though our purpose may be “higher” than those of other created things, this does not negate the fact that worth is to be found IN US as CREATIONS OF GOD. Sure, we could rank worth by how creations’ purposes rank with respect to God’s ultimate goals…which would place sentient beings at the top of the heap. [Digression: I believe that THIS is what Grenz is doing and saying that God does this] But this doesn’t negate the fact that worth is truly to be found IN US in all of OUR distinctiveness as creatures created by God.
PS: If you really think about it, it would seem that Grenz’s argumentation breaks down depending on what view of the atonement you have. He says that humans have a special value for they are the objects of God’s SALVIFIC love. I would disagree on the grounds that biblical testimony states that ALL CREATIONS groans for the manifestation of the Sons of God. All creation is the object of God’s salvific love.
Rom. 8:19-23
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
This goes back to what I believe is a VALID thought from Doc with respect to the atonement. The salvific event is generally far too ANTROPOCENTRICALLY applied. Doc is right when he says that the Christ work is a COSMOLOGICAL renewing and recreation that has ANTHROPOLOGICAL ramifications. All of CREATION is God’s ultimate object of salvific love. God wants to make a NEW heaven and NEW earth. God wished to use HUMAN VICEROYS to keep the peace for all creation. They failed, so God became a HUMAN RENEWER in Christ so that ALL CREATION may be freed.
Again, if anyone wants to base our special value based on the DISTINCTIVENESS of our created natures (ie the image of God, however you conceive that) or on our special places as viceroys renewed in Christ, then fine. But let it be known that none of this negates my stated principle: There IS worth to truly be found IN US in all of OUR distinctiveness as creatures created by God.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/6/2003 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | The Meph Man said:
quote:
Yes, I do know this by mere existence. Why? Because I know my Creator. Think about it. If we are CREATED and CONTINUALLY SUSTAINED by God, the definer and originator of worth, by what stretch of the imagination can we be inherently worthless? Knowledge of my Creator NECESSARILY shows that my existence has worth.
Maybe I’m missing something here. I understand that your argument follows. Existentially speaking, IF God created and continually sustains us (and creation) we are worth something to God. That necessarily follows. No problem. However, even as the Starkman points out, you don’t have to have knowledge of God (or postulate IF we are created…) to know that you are worth something. The atheist believes that he is of significance simply because he exists. He believes that he is possibly the highest creature in the universe through chance random mutation over billions of years.
How would you know that you have this knowledge? Seems circular to me.
quote:
Why do you SEEK to be considered anymore significant than a slug? What I mean is what is your ultimate purpose in doing so? [Digression: I suppose the ABORTION issue forces this. The attempt to show that human life is INHERENTLY worth more than other forms of life and should not be treated in the same manner. Sheesh…] If the main point of existence truly is to glorify and enjoy God forever, and ALL creation can do this to some extent, then what is the point of saying WHO’S more significant except to stress that God’s love and REQUIREMENTS apply even MORE poignantly to creatures who have sentience, given God’s design for Creation. To be sure, Jesus seemed this line of reasoning…
Other than the reasons you put forth (God’s love and requirements apply even more to sentient creatures), I suppose I seek to be considered more significant than a slug because of the image of God. Yes, all my worth and distinctiveness is found in my being created by God, but this isn’t merely any creature. Like I said, I talked about human worth within the context of abortion merely stating Grenz. Regardless, the rest of creation is not made in the triune image but humanity is. Surely this says something of our significance, uniqueness and distinctiveness over against creation. After all, “How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?” (Not a exclamation but a question).
quote:
My point is not that we shouldn’t acknowledge that origins make us distinct from all other living beings, biblically speaking. For this distinction should clearly show our RESPONSIBILITIES to God and Creation. My point is that there seems to be something quite humanistic (in a negative sense) about trying to validate our very existences by HEIGHTENING that distinction. It is this type of thinking, Ibelieve, that drives us from a more ECOLOGICAL understanding of Creation to a grossly hegemonic idea with humans OVER and AGAINST everything else.
I like what you say here about validating our existence by highlighting our distinction, but it seems that the distinction is clearly there. While you may look at the negative sense, there are practical negative consequences of not highlighting the distinction i.e. abortion, racism, sexism, etc.
quote:
If you are saying that our created purpose is part of our worth, then I would agree. But that’s my point. I believe that ALL created things have a purpose to God...and that purpose is IN them. (This is distinct from saying that all events are divinely orchestrated events) Though our purpose may be “higher” than those of other created things, this does not negate the fact that worth is to be found IN US as CREATIONS OF GOD. Sure, we could rank worth by how creations’ purposes rank with respect to God’s ultimate goals…which would place sentient beings at the top of the heap. [Digression: I believe that THIS is what Grenz is doing and saying that God does this] But this doesn’t negate the fact that worth is truly to be found IN US in all of OUR distinctiveness as creatures created by God.
I agree that it is distinct from saying that all events are divinely orchestrated events. And I would agree with most of what you have here. I’m merely saying that we have “the book.” We “see” somewhat of the eschaton. We know God has a program for not only creation but for as relational persons.
quote:
PS: If you really think about it, it would seem that Grenz’s argumentation breaks down depending on what view of the atonement you have. He says that humans have a special value for they are the objects of God’s SALVIFIC love. I would disagree on the grounds that biblical testimony states that ALL CREATIONS groans for the manifestation of the Sons of God. All creation is the object of God’s salvific love.
Rom. 8:19-23
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
This goes back to what I believe is a VALID thought from Doc with respect to the atonement. The salvific event is generally far too ANTROPOCENTRICALLY applied. Doc is right when he says that the Christ work is a COSMOLOGICAL renewing and recreation that has ANTHROPOLOGICAL ramifications. All of CREATION is God’s ultimate object of salvific love. God wants to make a NEW heaven and NEW earth. God wished to use HUMAN VICEROYS to keep the peace for all creation. They failed, so God became a HUMAN RENEWER in Christ so that ALL CREATION may be freed.
Again, if anyone wants to base our special value based on the DISTINCTIVENESS of our created natures (ie the image of God, however you conceive that) or on our special places as viceroys renewed in Christ, then fine. But let it be known that none of this negates my stated principle: There IS worth to truly be found IN US in all of OUR distinctiveness as creatures created by God.
OK. This is REAL COOL. All of creation is the object of God’s salvific love. I agree with you and Greg that it is far too anthropocentrically driven. However, I think that you misunderstand Grenz here. In everything that I have read by him, he says, as I put above that “God is the source of value.” That is, we find our value in the fact that we find our origin in God. I suppose this is the same as saying we are creations of God and come under his Sovereignty. He does say that we are the objects of God’s salvific love in a special sense, where they “have a special place in God’s purposes as potential participants in God’s recreated, eschatological community.” And I think he means this in the way that you have describe:
quote:
Again, if anyone wants to base our special value based on the DISTINCTIVENESS of our created natures (ie the image of God, however you conceive that) or on our special places as viceroys renewed in Christ, then fine.
I suppose a question you could ask here is, how would our participation in the eschaton be any different (special) than the rest of creation?
Holla,
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/6/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
quote:
Maybe I’m missing something here. I understand that your argument follows. Existentially speaking, IF God created and continually sustains us (and creation) we are worth something to God. That necessarily follows. No problem. However, even as the Starkman points out, you don’t have to have knowledge of God (or postulate IF we are created…) to know that you are worth something. The atheist believes that he is of significance simply because he exists. He believes that he is possibly the highest creature in the universe through chance random mutation over billions of years.
How would you know that you have this knowledge? Seems circulr to me.
Actually, Paul in Romans 1 seems to assert that we DO have knowledge of God. Check it out. 
************************************
Brandon:
quote:
Other than the reasons you put forth (God’s love and requirements apply even more to sentient creatures), I suppose I seek to be considered more significant than a slug because of the image of God. Yes, all my worth and distinctiveness is found in my being created by God, but this isn’t merely any creature. Like I said, I talked about human worth within the context of abortion merely stating Grenz. Regardless, the rest of creation is not made in the triune image but humanity is. Surely this says something of our significance, uniqueness and distinctiveness over against creation. After all, “How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?” (Not a exclamation but a question).
The image of God in humanity and the “love and requirements” idea go together. Remember the “Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s” idea? Is God’s inscription on US? Yep. We bear God’s image. So the recognition of our nature automatically has practical implications as far as love and requirements. Just a note.
**********************************
Brandon:
quote:
I like what you say here about validating our existence by highlighting our distinction, but it seems that the distinction is clearly there. While you may look at the negative sense, there are practical negative consequences of not highlighting the distinction i.e. abortion, racism, sexism, etc.
This is what I LOVE about my description of love. If you think about it, it is never the honest recognition of distinctiveness that is the problem with respect to the “isms” It’s always the in the GETTING LIFE from those distinctions that is the problem. This is what I meant by “validating our existences” by the distinction. Honest recognition of the distinctions is a GOOD thing that leads to understand how important each thing is (whether individually or collectively) without sacrificing the possibility of a unified whole in operation. It shows us what our responsibilities are to God and ourselves.
I’m ALL about recognizing distinctiveness.
*********************************
Brandon:
quote:
I suppose a question you could ask here is, how would our participation in the eschaton be any different (special) than the rest of creation?
Hmmm…one could use Doc’s “triunification” idea. As far as we can surmise, we will be the only beings who will not just be UNDER Christ, but IN Christ. We will be ONE with God in a way that perhaps no other creatures CAN be. But I would argue that this is primarily because of 1) God’s unique identification and soliditarity with humanity via Christ and 2) the work of the Spirit in the whole process.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/7/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | The Meph Man said:
quote:
Actually, Paul in Romans 1 seems to assert that we DO have knowledge of God. Check it out.
Yer a dawg D. I know about the general revelation argument. And I agree with it. But I partly agree with it because it’s in the Bible. Which is special revelation to us. And I partly agree with it because of creation Ps 19:1 (not to mention that it is IN or ON us). And I agree with your argument that IF God created and continually sustains us (and the rest of creation) we are worth something to God. That necessarily follows. But it seems circular to me because you HAVE to postulate God’s existence first and then argue that you know this God by “mere existence.” I’m think’n that you can only say that you have this knowledge of God based on an a priori theocentric understanding of God, i.e. growing up in Sunday school, knowledge that the Bible tells you you have this knowledge, etc. I was think’n last night and the night before that it’s funny how you can say that we should acknowledge the myth of certainty, yet you KNOW God loves you. Anyhoo…I’ll let this one sit for a bit.
quote:
The image of God in humanity and the “love and requirements” idea go together. Remember the “Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s” idea? Is God’s inscription on US? Yep. We bear God’s image. So the recognition of our nature automatically has practical implications as far as love and requirements. Just a note.
Nicely done. I like how you link this together. If the imago dei is on us and God is love and has made requirements, then this has practical implications as far as love and requirements FOR us.
quote:
This is what I LOVE about my description of love. If you think about it, it is never the honest recognition of distinctiveness that is the problem with respect to the “isms” It’s always the in the GETTING LIFE from those distinctions that is the problem. This is what I meant by “validating our existences” by the distinction. Honest recognition of the distinctions is a GOOD thing that leads to understand how important each thing is (whether individually or collectively) without sacrificing the possibility of a unified whole in operation. It shows us what our responsibilities are to God and ourselves.
I’m ALL about recognizing distinctiveness.
Humble ‘em Jeeesus! Your description is just the greatest! Sheesh…...you know I’m just play’n wicha. I started think about this again though. Why can’t I say that I validate my existence by both?
A. I’m a creation of God (But, I am not merely “another one” of God’s creations for…)
B. I’m made in the image of God.
Now, I can agree that knowing that I’m created and sustained by God for a divine goal could possibly lessen heightening the distinction between myself and the rest of Creation, thereby lessening the “hegemonic idea of humans OVER and AGAINST everything else.”
[Digression: The possibility of humans over and against the rest of creation may have more to do with a distorted understanding of being human viceroys and the cultural mandate. Remember, we kill off our “own kind” too. I’ll say a little more below]
And I agree that I am worth something over against the “secularist” who tells me I’m no different than an amoeba. This is why Grenz says that “it is ultimately irrelevant to speak of “when life begins” in the abortion debate. Our origin is in God Acts 17:28. It is not so much a question of WHEN but WHO is creating the life? That is, God values all human life and so, we must as well. If one WANTS to get technical, in my estimation the person begins with bodily existence. We can now see the very beginning stages of bodily existence thanks to modern science.
But it doesn’t settle the distinction question. Why would I be anymore significant than a slug or a sparrow or a sheep? And yet, Jesus tells me I am so.
[Digression: You say, “My point is that there seems to be something quite humanistic (in a negative sense) about trying to validate our very existences by HEIGHTENING that distinction. It is this type of thinking, Ibelieve, that drives us from a more ECOLOGICAL understanding of Creation to a grossly hegemonic idea with humans OVER and AGAINST everything else.” I would say that the problem of humanity over against creation doesn’t have anything to do with heightening the distinction between both categories. Rather, I would contend that it is due directly to OPPOSITE of what you say—a lessening of that distinction. Think Darwin’s survival of the fittest].
This is where the imago dei comes in. Now think about this and READ SLOOOOWLY. The imago dei is connected to “God’s design” for humankind. God’s design BY NECESSITY involves PURPOSE. That is, God’s intentions, goals and desires for us to fulfill in creation. This DESCRIBES our identity as God’s SPECIAL creatures. That is, we are the image of God in that we have received, are presently fulfilling and one day will fully live according to the special calling God has given us. And this calling or this design is that we mirror for the sake of creation the nature of the Creator (something the rest of creation, not even the angels can do). In short we have:
A. Special standing
B. A future goal
C. A glorious fellowship in community.
I will only deal with the first one. Why do we have SPECIAL standing or status (over against creation)? First, because of God’s grace. God has graciously given us special standing or status. Our special standing entails that we are the recipients of God’s love in the highest sense. Of course God loves all of Creation, but it is the Father’s love FOR HUMANKIND to give the Son to be our Savior John 3:16. This means that God places special value on us. Hmmm…where is that scripture? Ummm…Matt 6:26, Luke 12: 24, 12:9-12.
With you, I agree that honest recognition of distinctions is a good thing, because it shows us what our responsibilities to God, ourselves (and I might add creation) are. How this works is like this.
Though all of Creation is fulfilling it’s responsibility of bringing honor to God Ps 19:1, there is something special about human response to the Creator that sets us apart from the rest of Creation. As the prohibition in the Garden indicates, God desires that we reciprocate divine love by obeying Him. This is a special privilege because we can do this WILLINGLY. Having the DESIRE to do this willingly endows us with great responsibility. This responsibility has to do with exercising “dominion” within creation. Dominion is often thought of against the backdrop of modern industrial society. That is, we think that the rest of creation exists SOLELY FOR OUR BENEFIT, therefore, we can exploit it as we choose. While we are to have dominion, it is totally in the opposite direction of modern industrial society. This is shown by how the ancients practiced it. A king would leave images of himself in cities or territories where he could not be present in person. These images served to represent power and majesty. In the same way, God placed humankind on earth to live as his representatives of the Creator. This means that God is the BIG KAHUNA (this word actually means witch doctor), not us. Basically, we are given the responsibility to manage which means:
A. We do not exploit.
B. We don’t manage for our own sakes, as if creation exists FOR US. We have a higher purpose. We are reps so that through us creation may experience what God is like.
As we care for creation, love one another, and worship God we reveal who God is. In doing this we function as “the imago dei” or the image of God. ALL of this speaks of significance to me.
Though you say you are all about recognizing distinctions, could it be that you have unwittingly trivialized OUR importance AS PERSONS by downplaying distinctions and saying that we are significant merely because we are created? Merely because we exist?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 8/7/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a question for you, Brandon.
What is the Image of God, in your view? Be specific.
Prospect: The innate capacity for ONENESS with God through the Spirit.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/8/2003 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/9/2003 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here's a question for you, Brandon.
What is the Image of God, in your view? Be specific.
Prospect: The innate capacity for ONENESS with God through the Spirit.
OK. So what would you like? The layperson version or the scholastic version? We’ll go with the first. I like “The Prospect.” Pinnock talks about this in “Flame of Love.” Seems Eastern Orthodox to me as well as in line with the “openness to the world.” An idea that some theologians have been talking about. That is, they link the concept of image of God to the future destiny of humankind. I’ll mention more of this below. But the idea that we are to CONFORM (contra “oneness”) to the likeness of Christ may have been stressed too much to the exclusion of oneness with God. At the same time, this speaks to me of destiny and this is but one aspect of the nature of the image of God. I think the word “community” is apropos here. I think POW could really pipe in on this.
Let me start off by saying this though. Some theologians have found it interesting that the TERM “image of God” is far less central in the Bible than in the history of Christian thought. Despite this though, it is an important biblical concept.
As you are more than aware of, many throughout the history of the church (probably the longest held view) have viewed the image of God in terms of a formal constitutional structure of the human person. This is aptly known as the “Structural View.” We “possess” the image of God. Because of this, we still retain the image even in the fallen state. Specifically, it says our human capabilities are bound up in the image of God. But there are several problems with this view as you are probably aware of. For example, what if a person doesn’t have one of these capabilities i.e. rationality (this is usually deemed THE hallmark characteristic)?
[Digression: If that were the case, several of us here on these boards would definitely not be in the image of God. ]
More importantly, we have been affected by the fall. How does the fall affect our status as image bearers? How can we be both fallen and yet in possession of this hallmark of what constitutes our humanness? Well, there have been attempts to get around this by appealing to a distinction between “image” and “likeness.” Still, I don’t’ think it gets very far.
Generally speaking, I see the nature of the image of God as being more complex and it has to do with those three points I posted above.
First, in the Genesis narrative Gen 1-26-28, the “image of God” separates man from other creatures. By way of the prohibition, it entails an accountability that humans have to God that the rest of Creation does not share. You could also say that we have a TASK in being image bearers as well Gen 2:15. This undermines the structuralist understanding in that it does not denote a MERE ASPECT OF OUR BEING (i.e. rationality). Therefore we can say that the image of God points more to our purpose rather than to the nature of our being. Teleology vs ontology.
Second the image of God involves a social dimension contra an individualistic one Gen 1:26-27. This suggests that humans-in-relationship reflect the divine image in a way that a solitary individual cannot (i.e. me and my son chill’n together, we had tons of fun too, especially at the Chinese restaurant). But we should remember also, that this image of God includes not only a plurality of persons but also a PLURALITY OF SEXES.
[Digression: I remember reading one time where you wondered why we highlighted the Genesis creation narratives above the other creation narratives. From my understanding it has to do with how PRONOUNCED THEY ARE compared to the others. Regardless, the plurality of sexes has implications for sexuality in general and the homosexual debate that we have had on these boards in particular. For starters the woman was created specifically to deliver man from his isolation; they had offspring, which eventually gave rise to societies. This is why government is NOT an evil man made institution as Greg one time suggested. It helps in the maintaining of civil society which in turn is the sustenance of God’s ideal of community.]
But the fact that God is triune tells us why God’s image can be expressed as human community. Because God is triune (and therefore community) we can only be in the image of God when we enjoy the community of others outside of our isolated selves.
Third, the image of God is also Christological 2 Cor 4:4-6. This includes believers 2 Cor 3:18. Even now we can experience the image of God Col 3:9-10. Of course, I don’t see this taking place within a vacuum. Ethics is always done in relation to one another (this is also distinctly Christian).
Lastly, it is a future goal. If you think about it, if God has “designed” for a purpose, He hopes to complete that purpose. Again, this involves responsibility/accountability. Though Christ is the image of God, it entails that we “look like Christ,” it also entails the future of goal of community, not only of humans amongst themselves but with Christ who is the our Head.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Someone here, I think DLW, said that love does not require feeling or emotion - that's all well and good, but then what is to distinguish between someone "going through the ropes" for the sake of obedience versus someone who "really" is a Christian? That's been one of my problems with this "love is chosen" thing. Someone who does not "feel" it at all, but for whatever reason, out of obligation, or fear, or duty, or what have you, does all the right things. Is that person following God then? Or is this elusive "feeling" required? It seems to me that since I've been raised an evangelical all my life, it's always been about more than just someone's duty. It has to do with a real love relationship, both with God and with your neighbor., If you're just going through the actions, is that enough?
And that brings me to what I posted here a few weeks ago- if you don't "feel" it, you can't do anything about that! You can't control your feelings OR your beliefs. You CAN control your actions, however. You can go through the rote actions, you can certainly do everything Mother Teresa did and then some, and never once actually FEEL any love for humanity. This is a tenuous thing.
So that's why I've said, if you make the choice, given all the variables that enter into your decision, to act in love, even though you do not really feel that emotion, is that really love then? | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/12/2003 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I would still like to hear from ya Electra on this, specially your take on the "ONENESS" thing you brought up. In the mean time, in response to RD. I think there is a difference between emotionalism and compassion. The way I understand it, compassion is a verb. Though it is a disposition which means "a state of being," this does not necessarily mean emotionalism. Compassion WILL ACT. The Hebrew (hamal, rachuwm) and Greek (splanchnisomai) words sometimes translated as "compassion," bear a broader meaning such as "to show pity, " "to love, " and "to show mercy." Other near synonyms for compassion in English are "to be loved by, " "to show concern for, " "to be tenderhearted, " and "to act kindly." This is not necessarily emotionalism though some might reflect emotions.
So what are we to do about the "going through the motions" idea? Here's the way I see it. Everybody does not have the same calling by the Spirit to the same ministry. I think if you find your niche, you won't have a problem with this. That is, for example, one may show compassion as a secretary working in a missions office though they may never go out on the field. Some people are not made to work in a homeless shelter. I mean it's not their bag to feed poor, stinky, yellow teethless homeless people.  Does that mean they don't have compassion for the lost? I don't think so. I'm not worried about it. God will have someone else to do that part. Maybe a person's ministry will be to the wealthy WHO ARE JUST AS LOST AND STINKY AND IN NEED OF COMPASSION. Talk to me. 
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/12/2003 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey RD,
You know, I am not one who "feels" much (agape) love, which, by definition, doesn't have to have feeling, unlike other forms of love. Anyway, I'm not one who is real sympathetic or empathetic. But that doesn't mean that I am never sympathetic or empathetic. Is there anyone who ALWAYS feels these in and under every circumstance where these two characteristic words apply? That poor person would be an emotional basket case. On the other hand (four fingers and a thumb, if you're Groucho Marx!), who feels absolutely none-zilch-of these two words? That person would be absolutely numb as a rock. Even the Nazi executioners felt something for their own friends and families; just not to the Jews.
We all, like dots on a window, are of different emotional makups. I no longer consider these differences "levels" as I do dots on a window; "levels" lead one to think of abundance and lack, but dots refer to simply to positioning. I, therefore, do not fault myself anymore for not being more like those Christians who have a lot of emotion. You know why? Because I wouldn't think twice about rushing into a burning barn to rescue anyone (except, perhaps, Hitler), regardless of whether I liked the person or not, at the risk of loosing my own life. That is love, and that is the greatest kind of love. Further, I stop and help the distressed as often as I am able, whether I "feel" it or not. I do a lot of things that tell me I do have the capacity and the wherewithal to express agape love, emotions or no emotions. And sometimes I even experience sympathy, empathy and emotions. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to really loving the way God has commanded us to love.
Romans 12:3-8 contains a list of gifts the members of the body of Christ possess. Some call for and are serviced in a context of emotion, and some are not. And Romans 12:9-18 takes the gifts and calling of God into the context in which all Christians must participate: to honor each other, to live in harmony with each other, to pursue hospitality with each other ... attitudes which neither call for nor are driven by emotion. Oh, wouldn't it be nice if the emotions were always there, but then there'd be no need of the command to show these qualities of the Christian life. That we are commanded to love like this is not to expose that fact that we lack emotion when doing so, but that we lack something else ...
What drives agape love is worth; the worth of others who are made in the image of God. Respect for others in view of their worth. To honor others above ourselves is not to feel emotion for them, it is to express something we know about them. To be eager for others' betterment is not to feel something for them, it is to respect the God who made them in His image, who made you and I in His image. To not feel emotion towards others is different than to not want to respect others. That I don't feel hospitable is one thing; that I do NOT want to be hospitable because I do NOT value another as I value myself is quite another thing. The real problem, then, is not my lack of feeling, it is my lack of respecting and valuing what God respects and values EQUALLY as He respects and values me. This is the heart of the Christ's message about agape love toward one another. Now mind you, I may not "want" to run into that burning barn to save another, but that "not wanting" is only because I do not want to be hurt; it isn't at all because I do not respect and value the worth of the person stuck inside the barn.
To close, it is our life-long goal to seek more of God's heart and mind in regard to the respect He has for all of us. This is the constant call of Scripture; to become like-minded, Christ-minded. This has little to do with feeling. It has all to do with respect for worth and value. And what does the soul do who thinks he/she has little, or no, respect for others? Well, that person would be hard-pressed to prove this under every circumstance. Somewhere in some circumstance value and worth for others reveals itself, but to have more of it will mean to cast ourselves--our heart as it is--before the One who is able to bring about those circumstances which will burn away the casing that obstructs the heart and mind of God we are to experience. Boy, that's happening to me, even as I write this, and I don't like going through it. And ... I feel like I've gotten little ahead in becoming more like Him (though, thankfully, others have seen the changes). But God has answered my prayer to do what it takes to bring about those circumstances to help me in this area.
When we recognize our lack, we are recognizing our fallen state in one of its the delicate issues of life: love. No one loves perfectly, and for those of us who have less emotional makeup than others, we can still love the way God has asked us to love. It will mean taking up our cross, if we are willing, in EVERY area He shows us, in all those intimate areas we are found wanting. It means really--and I mean really--being dying to self as he sets forth the daily cross in our lives ... the hardest activity a Christian will ever face. Finally, it will take a life-time. No less, but, thankfully, no more.
For loving as He loves,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps I'm getting off topic, but do you think then that action is the only thing that counts? Is the belief and feeling of the mind irrelevant? It seems that ANYONE can love their neighbor as themselves, if all that means is respecting them by acting civil, helping them out once in awhile, inviting them to church, etc. But if it means that you must have an inner belief, desire, and feeling of love, compassion and caring for that person, that's a different matter.
It seems that God's love toward us is both action AND feeling - in the sense of sacrificing his very life for us while we were yet sinners. That's more than respecting our worth and dignity.
If that is what is required of us, do you see my point about how one can't really "choose" to care about someone, have feelings of love and compassion for someone? You either do or you don't. If it is action only that is required, then, that's doable for most people.
As is often the case, the more I analyze something, the more I realize how little i actually know something. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/12/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Is the belief and feeling of the mind irrelevant?
Of course not.
It seems that ANYONE can love their neighbor as themselves, if all that means is respecting them by acting civil, helping them out once in awhile, inviting them to church, etc.
But is this how we love ourselves? Do we not love ourselves more than to just robotically act civil, help ourselves, etc? However, do we necessarily "feel" emotional love for ourselves? No, not that I'm aware of. (Okay, there's a few who are stuck on themselves, but you now what I mean!)
But if it means that you must have an inner belief, desire, and feeling of love, compassion and caring for that person, that's a different matter.
Depends on what you define as inner belief, desire, feeling of love, compassion and care. I think we must first distinguish and differentiate between emotions and feelings in the manner you are describing. The two often walk hand-in-hand, but they are not the same. Emotion is the stirring and exciting of the soul. Inner belief, desire and compassion, however, are something much more concrete and less fleeting than emotions; they are part of the "constant" that is built into the human being. It's part of who we are, not what we may feel emotionally. My emotions stir in many ways and for many reasons, and may even be found accompanying my inner beliefs, desires, feelings of agape love (since that is the kind of love I am talking about) and my compassions. The difference, however, is that I will always be compassionate to some consistency (I'm not compassionate in everything all the time, unfortunately); I will always have desires and inner beliefs. I will always love, even when it is not accompanied by those typical feelings. These aspects of feelings are, for the most part, permanent; emotions are temporary. So, when someone needs to be defended and protected from a purse-snatcher, rescued from a burning barn or needs a helping, those qualities in us that are always there emerge. I may not get to emotional about it all, but that's okay. So ...
It seems that God's love toward us is both action AND feeling - in the sense of sacrificing his very life for us while we were yet sinners.
Very true. God's love for us is quite emotional as well as that aspect of why we say God is love.
That's more than respecting our worth and dignity.
No, His feelings for us are in addition to and not the motivation for His Son's death; it isn't required of God to experience deep emotion toward us in order to have sent His Son to die for us, anymore than it does not require this same kind of emotion in me in order to rescue someone burning in a barn or save a person in distress from harm's way or anything like that. That God does demonstrate that He has emotions is only to explain why we also have them. These two aspects of feelings should walk hand-in-hand.
. . . do you see my point about how one can't really "choose" to care about someone, have feelings of love and compassion for someone? You either do or you don't. If it is action only that is required, then, that's doable for most people.
Here, then, is the heart of the matter, and I would say this. BOTH aspects of the feelings we are talking about are found in people as different dots found on the window occupying a different place from each other. Some folk are very emotional, others are not. Some have intense compassion (the specific call of Romans 12:3-8), others do not (the general call of Romans 12:9-19.). The ideal makeup, of course, would be to operate perfectly within the two, but this ain't an ideal world yet! (incidentally, Romans 12:9-19 does have it's emotional twist [viz., vs 15], but the call is the general call is to all Christians.)
So to an extent, it is true that one either has both aspects of these feelings or one doesn't. But I think it would be more accurate to say that one either has high or low intensities of these feelings and can do little to change the intensities. We are what we are. However, sometimes people's lives are so affected by something they experience that they do, in fact, change in one or more areas we are talking about. God can use all sorts of means to increase the intensities, or at least balance them. And this He will do.
For help from Him to feel,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 57 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:01 PM (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 |
|
|