Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

57 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/1/2003 8:38 PM (GMT -6)

A Thought Project About Love

This was the definition of love that many here agreed upon in times past.

Love: Ascribing infinite worth to another by deference, in which there may be cost to oneself.

But the more that I’ve been thinking about it lately, I feel that this definition is inadequate for a lot of reasons that I won’t go into right now. With some significant help from Soren Kierkegaard’s “Works of Love” and biblical testimony, I would like to posit the following inferred working “description” of what love is…

Love is when a person A acknowledges another person B’s unique existence, and ON THAT BASIS ALONE,

1) attributes positive worth to B’s individual, unique existence,

2) shares some part of themselves with B and,

3) seeks, whenever possible, to empower the other person B to have the ability to become more of a person before God and him/herself in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.

Let’s deal with each section of this.

“Love is when a person A acknowledges another person B’s unique existence,…”

First, we must understand love as dealing with PERSONS acknowledging other PERSONS in their distinctive existences. Love always occurs between subjects, and therefore the process cannot be one of objectification. The “love of humanity” isn’t LOVE at all. It is the abstract affirmation of an IDEA. Love only takes place in the ENCOUNTER of subjects. When you ENCOUNTER the neighbor. When you ENCOUNTER God. After the encounter, you acknowledge that other’s distinct existence.

“…and ON THAT BASIS ALONE,…”

Second, we understand love as being completely unilateral and unconditioned. This occurs in that only the other’s encountered and acknowledged EXISTENCE is necessary to ground the motivation for loving. Love seeks to be expressed. To the extent that any other reason is the ultimate ground for the motivation for loving, the “love” involved is NOT truly Godlike love, but an imperfect facsimile thereof.

“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.

“2) shares some part of themselves with B and…”

This is where I believe Doc’s intuitions are quite correct. Love cannot be love without some type of sharing occuring. Some form of INVESTMENT that is recognizable by the investor. Without this “deference” that may lead to costing oneself something, the “love” still lies clearly in the abstract and is little more than sentimentality.

“3) seeks, whenever possible,…”

This is extremely important. This is a conditioning statement that means that #3 is NOT always applicable in all cases. This becomes obvious when one attempts to think about the definition as a whole in the context of the relationality between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

“…to empower the other person B to have the ability to become more of a person before God and him/herself…”

Love seeks to provide the other with the ability and the space to “become”. This is the fundamental affirmation of the SUBJECT. The provision of this ability and space, by whatever means, is empowerment of the individual. The personhood that this individual actualizes is truly his/her own, but love realizes that this only truly occurs in a context and it does all that it can to provide that context.

“…in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.”

Anyone who knows what “codependency” is will know what I’m talking about here. SK basically says that love aids a person in such a way that it is almost imperceptible to them that they have been helped. Even though this is not always possible, it must be the ideal to which we strive. In this, the person’s distinctiveness and independence is preserved to the full. Love seeks empowers another to the extent where it the empowering person may be at their most vulnerable and the empowered person in the best position to hurt their benefactor. This is the risk. But to do otherwise is to compromise the “becoming”
The empowerment should not provoke dysfunctional NEED in the empowered.

****************************

So, there you have it. My thought project about love. It is my growing conviction that THIS is unconditional love. That THIS is the love the persons of the Godhead exhibit to one another. That THIS is the love that God loves all created sentient beings with. That THIS is the love that God commands us to love both God and our neighbors with.

What do you guys think? Does it work? If so, why? If not, why not? Please be specific, thoughtful, and thorough as this will help me to cull what needs to be culled and hone what needs to be honed.

Let’s do this… Wink

"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

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/1/2003 8:55 PM (GMT -6)

This is also important.

Love has a HOPE!

This hope is not a expectation, condition, or a need. (Therefore, this hope doesn’t mutate unconditional love to conditional) It is a desire. And that desire is to see the reciprocation of the unconditional love by the distinct “other”

Nuff said.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 8/1/2003 11:33 PM (GMT -6)

Nuff said. If you say so...but I thought people usually posted for responses... Big Smile

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/2/2003 2:26 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the thought project Meph! I have some comments/questions that I will try to post as I have time. First of all…

quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal

This is also important.

Love has a HOPE!

This hope is not a expectation, condition, or a need. (Therefore, this hope doesn’t mutate unconditional love to conditional) It is a desire. And that desire is to see the reciprocation of the unconditional love by the distinct “other”

Nuff said.

Yes, I think this hope sheds important light on your second point: “Second, we understand love as being completely unilateral and unconditioned.” Love is initiated unilaterally and unconditionally, with a will toward reciprocation, not only between person A and person B, but also beyond. This will is not a condition, because love will be initiated and sustained regardless of whether or not reciprocation ever happens.

My biggest question has to do with...

quote:
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.

With Doc, Bonhoeffer, and SK, I want to say that Christ is the one who sets us free to love our neighbor in all her distinctiveness. I think this “derivative” love is the only possible love. I’ll have to work on fleshing out my rationale on this a bit...this is just a heads up.

quote:
“…in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.”
Anyone who knows what “codependency” is will know what I’m talking about here. SK basically says that love aids a person in such a way that it is almost imperceptible to them that they have been helped. Even though this is not always possible, it must be the ideal to which we strive. In this, the person’s distinctiveness and independence is preserved to the full. Love seeks empowers another to the extent where it the empowering person may be at their most vulnerable and the empowered person in the best position to hurt their benefactor. This is the risk. But to do otherwise is to compromise the “becoming”
The empowerment should not provoke dysfunctional NEED in the empowered.

I like SK on this point: “Love does not seek its own; it rather gives in such a way that the gift looks as if it were the recipient’s property.” Love empowers the other in all her distinctiveness to become what she was meant to be. Love does not require recognition of its efforts. 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?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 5:04 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
With Doc, Bonhoeffer, and SK, I want to say that Christ is the one who sets us free to love our neighbor in all her distinctiveness. I think this “derivative” love is the only possible love. I’ll have to work on fleshing out my rationale on this a bit...this is just a heads up.

Some things:

First of all, I think that you are talking about Christ freeing us from the LAW by being the fulfillment of that Law. If love is the fulfillment of the law as Scripture states, and we can’t do that, we would have no way to love, right? Big problem! But by Christ’s fulfilling the law completely, we now CAN love our neighbor in the truest sense because now the Law doesn’t hold us back. This IS what you are talking about, right? Smile

If so, then cool. I’d agree with this. But this is not what Doc necessarily deals with with his “derivative” type of worth ascription. Actually, I doubt very much that it has to deal with your concern at all. I believe that Doc wants to say this:

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. Whereas the ascription of infinite worth between the persons of the Trinity is based in the NATURE of who God is, the ascription of infinite worth to creatures is based in an INFERENCE from what God does for those creatures.

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?

Moreover, let’s look at something else. Let’s say that you do attribute infinite worth to ALL human beings because of our inference of God’s attribution of worth. How does this not lend itself to the gross type of abstraction that SK talks about? Your default thinking becomes such...

ALL people have infinite worth because of what God think about them.

This actually leads one to be able to “love” humanity by aggregation. One can believe the statement above without actually HAVING to encounter the neighbor. This is distinct from the full implications of loving the neighbor. Why? Because the ascription of worth doesn’t even TAKE PLACE until the encounter has occurred. Remember, the neighbor is the person that you SEE, right? And the ascription of positive worth is based upon your subjective perception of that neighbor’s EXISTENCE, not on anyone’s impression of that neighbor beforehand.

PROBLEM! PROBLEM! PROBLEM!

There are more problems that I could mention, but I think these are enough, don’t you? Big Smile

******************************

Electra (emphasis mine):

quote:
I like SK on this point: “Love does not seek its own; it rather gives in such a way that the gift looks as if it were the recipient’s property.” Love empowers the other in all her distinctiveness to become what she was meant to be. Love does not require recognition of its efforts. 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?

Preach, girl, PREACH! That’s exactly right! In him, we live…we move…and we…HAVE…OUR…BEING! How many people really take this thought seriously? Now think about it. Is there ANY SENTIENT BEING that God doesn’t empower in this way? Is there any sentient being that stands outside of the sustaining, empowering grace of God…EVEN SATAN?? Could even the Prince of Darkness continue to exist without God’s sustaining grace??? Let the proof-texting begin! Wink

Rom 11:33-36
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.

Col 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Heb 1:1-3
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word.

Hmmm…

Evil

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6)

One cannot truly ascribe infinite worth to anyone but God. By definition, all other loves are defined by, and relative to, God.

This definition that many on this board hold to, while it may sound warm and fuzzy, is absolutely impossible to truly actuate. It simply doesn't work. If you love one person besides God "infinitely" or "unsurpassably," then by definition you have placed all others in a secondary position of your love. If God is secondarily loved, you have put other gods before Him. It is both humanly impossible as well as logical impossible.

I would really love to see anyone show in practical terms how Meph's definition or Doc's is able to be applied to real life.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/2/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6)

MephEternal

This was the definition of love that many here agreed upon in times past.

Love: Ascribing infinite worth to another by deference, in which there may be cost to oneself.

Iconoclast

Nice articulation of what love means Meph.

I don't recall however us defining it the way you characterize here. I specifically don't recall using the word "infinite" or "by deference". I recall the phrase:

"Ascribing unsurpassable worth to another at a cost to oneself."

To me this entails what you have so well articulated but perhaps that is because I understand this phrase within the context of what Christopher Alexander had to say:

These two things are true of every living center:

1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.

"The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life" - Christopher Alexander

I agree that if we are not actually "enlivening" the other by creating dysfunctional dependence then we are actually NOT loving but seeking to pull the other into supporting ourselves as the larger center. My understanding is that this is exactly what the fall entails - that we are trying to have life on our own by getting others to support ourselves as the larger center. And that this is what judgement is - placing ourselves above the other in an attempt to subjugate them to ourselves.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 9:36 AM (GMT -6)

John said:

quote:
One cannot truly ascribe infinite worth to anyone but God. By definition, all other loves are defined by, and relative to, God.
This definition that many on this board hold to, while it may sound warm and fuzzy, is absolutely impossible to truly actuate. It simply doesn't work. If you love one person besides God "infinitely" or "unsurpassably," then by definition you have placed all others in a secondary position of your love. If God is secondarily loved, you have put other gods before Him. It is both humanly impossible as well as logical impossible.

I would agree with you here. The term “infinite” AND “unsurpassably” seem to be superlative. Meaning they would only apply to ONE being, not many. This is ONE of the problems that I have with the definition that I didn’t mention. Cool.

****************************

John:

quote:
I would really love to see anyone show in practical terms how Meph's definition or Doc's is able to be applied to real life.

Mine’s pretty easy and hard simulataneously. You see a person, whoever they may be, and on the basis of your encounter with that person, say that this person has positive worth and will be a subject that you will love.

The HARD part is negotiating the realm of ETHICS. Our alliances, whether familial, friendship, occupational, etc. Seeing everyone truly EQUALLY before God…and trying to work that out in an existence with binding ties of partiality everywhere. This deals with the distinction between love and ethics.

Practical question: What if you really did make up your mind to unconditionally love all people the same? What if you really did relativize your friendship love or erotic love to the command of unconditional love? How would your friends feel? How would your spouse feel? How would your family feel?

****************************

Iconoclast:

quote:
I don't recall however us defining it the way you characterize here. I specifically don't recall using the word "infinite" or "by deference". I recall the phrase:
"Ascribing unsurpassable worth to another at a cost to oneself."

1) Doc has used both infinite worth and unsurpassable worth interchangeably in the past on this board.

2) Doc ended up using the word “deference” when I basically pointed out to him (in a past thread) that the intertrinitarian love would not OCCUR “at cost” to any of the persons of the Godhead. None of the persons would be losing or sacrificing anything…even in the giving of love. Doc acknowledged this and reframed the definition.

Evil

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Practical question: What if you really did make up your mind to unconditionally love all people the same? What if you really did relativize your friendship love or erotic love to the command of unconditional love? How would your friends feel? How would your spouse feel? How would your family feel?

As I mentioned on the other thread with regard to God loving Satan, I think the best way to resolve this issue is to understand agape as benevolence/charity. In practical terms, this means you have a disposition to bless others and be a blessing to the world as much as possible (and reasonable).

For instance, I would argue that to sell all you have and give to the poor would not apply to all Christians as a moral obligation of benevolent love. In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus was trying to expose the true idolatry in the man's heart, not give a moral command applicable to all individuals in all situations. Jesus also said seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things (material things like food and clothing, etc.) shall be added unto you.

If I were to sell all I had and give to the poor, I would be violating the scriptural obligation to provide for my own family. And so at the very real risk of relativizing my moral obligation to everyone, it seems to me that to have godly love for others is about a disposition to bless and do good (that is, benevolence).

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 11:42 AM (GMT -6)

John:

quote:
As I mentioned on the other thread with regard to God loving Satan, I think the best way to resolve this issue is to understand agape as benevolence/charity. In practical terms, this means you have a disposition to bless others and be a blessing to the world as much as possible (and reasonable).

For instance, I would argue that to sell all you have and give to the poor would not apply to all Christians as a moral obligation of benevolent love. In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus was trying to expose the true idolatry in the man's heart, not give a moral command applicable to all individuals in all situations. Jesus also said seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things (material things like food and clothing, etc.) shall be added unto you.

If I were to sell all I had and give to the poor, I would be violating the scriptural obligation to provide for my own family. And so at the risk of relativizing my moral obligation to everyone, it seems to me that keeping in mind that agape is about a disposition to bless and do good.

Reasonable according to what criteria? Whose criteria? This is where the distinction between love and ethics really gets heightened. Let’s not forget all of the ways that Jesus basically RELATIVIZED familial ties in the Gospels. Moreover, let’s not underestimate the deep ability for us to SELF DECEIVE. Many people use “reasonable” reasons to get out of truly loving unconditionally. Surely, you know this.

Love and obedience to God OUTRUN moral obligation and justifiability. Yes, they make meet at certain points, but they are not the same thingsl

Evil

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 8/2/2003 2:06 PM (GMT -6)

I would also bring up that the notion of love here would probably have some radical implications for politics, since as chronicled by the Christian Pollster, Barna, most "evangelical" Christians vote in their own self-interest(perhaps rationalizing it by the abortion issue) and take little interest in politics.

If love entails giving power to the other then it would support the view that an active involvement in politics can be glorifying to God if done in an ethical manner that is not dogmatic and seeks to widen the range of interests that potentially can be served by the government.

I don't know, I think love hurts(It certainly would open up more occasions for divisions/conflicts among "evangelical" Christians for us to really try to take politics seriously!)... Ie, RD's passion may be for all the abused animals of this world and I may think that trying to partially capture the World Bank so as to realign its principals(fancy word for who calls the shots) so as to make it a more neutral honest broker in the conflicts that naturally tend to emerge between the MNCs of the developed world and the underdeveloped countries would be a better idea in that it could alleviate some of the growing tensions between the "North" and the "South" and reduce the extent of human-suffering, which is more important IMHO than reducing animal suffering(which isn't to say that the factory systems by which meat(and much more pollution) is produced in part by feeding animals animals isn't a system that shouldn't be discouraged.).

So we have conflict. Any form of political activism, particularly working under a rather conservative gov't structure has to pick its battles and there a wide range of options to choose from. As such, unity has to be worked out somehow, but that means some goals don't get pursued.

This is also what fragments third-party movements that conceivably would benefit if they formed an alliance.

Anyways, Love is not just about inter-personal relationships. It also impinges on how we reconsider the forms of governance whereby we regularly reconcile our ubiquitous conflicts.
dlw

Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes."

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 8/2/2003 2:28 PM (GMT -6)

As a pragmatist, I believe that all problems are at bottom problems of conduct, that all judgments are, implicitly, judgments of value, and that, as there can be ultimately no valid distinction of theoretical and practical, so there can be no final separation of questions of truth of any kind from questions of the justifiable ends of action.

taken from C.I. Lewis, "Collected Papers" (Palo Alto:Stanford University Press, 1970) p. 108. Taken from Cornel West's "Keeping Faith" p. 109, 1993, Routledge.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 8/2/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6)

I, personally, could not ascribe infinite worth to another person or to God, in that sense, because I am not infinite in and of myself. Only God can do things infinitely, or make something else infinite. Besides, I find your definition pompous. Nice to make one feel good, something wonderful to attribute to oneself, but with no practically in and of itself.
Can't be done by humans, only by God. Besides, I see nothing biblically that says I have to love everyone equally, just that I have to love them. To love everyone equally means I put everyone on the same platform as God and as my wife. For me to love a murderer, a stranger on the same level as my wife would be to shame my wife and the God who gave her to me.
"What if we make up our mind to do so..." some want to jump off a cliff and fly. Some want to be God. That does not mean they can...
Besides, it is impossible to love someone who you do not have a relationship with as much as someone you do...

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 8/2/2003 5:38 PM (GMT -6)

I don't believe love is giving power to another. Not in an imperfect world where it is so easily abused.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Reasonable according to what criteria? Whose criteria?

I was referring to reasonable when we take the entire New Testament teaching on stewardship into account. Since Paul says that those who do not provide for their family are worse than infidels, and have denied the faith, and that if any man would not work he should not eat, I take that God expects us to not be bums. That is all I meant by "reasonable." Sorry I was not more clear.

quote:
Love and obedience to God OUTRUN moral obligation and justifiability. Yes, they make meet at certain points, but they are not the same things

To my understanding, as Jesus and the rest of the NT speak clear that to love is to fulfill the LAW, I do not see the dichotomy between godly love and ethics so many try to make. To act in an unloving manner is by definition to violate the LAW for the NT Christian, which is the same thing as saying it is unethical.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

Absolutely amazing.

Ok. This is what I’m largely getting from a lot of the discussion here. For various reasons, including impossibility or impracticality, we are NOT to exhibit unconditional love. We can ONLY exist in phileo, storge, or eros love, because of our deep ties to alliances and moral obligations. We must be practical, after all.

If you want to say something like that, fine. But here’s where I’m having the problem. It seems that what people are trying to do is make it such that operating by gradations of love rather than unconditional agape love is what the two Great Commandments TRULY mean. In other words, it feels like we are trying to WATER DOWN the commandments just so that we can feel better about 1) not trying to strive for them and 2) not doing them.

That just plain sucks to me. Straight up. Bonhoeffer took his stand like a trooper. He believed that throwing in with the Hitler assassination plot was definitely the morally justifiable thing for him to do in the face of his context and admitted that he could do no other…but he NEVER tried to fool himself that it was loving the neighbor in an agape fashion! He KNEW that this was not loving the neighbor in the true sense, and actually felt the anxiety from that. He even confessed this before God. In other words, Bonhoeffer decided to be honest to himself and his moral convictions, but NOT at the expense of the ideal of the commandment of love.

I will use myself as an example. I am WAY far away from truly embodying unconditional love for the neighbor. I hold my familial ties very highly and, frankly, my ethical ties in some respect. I KNOW that I don't seek first the Kingdom. I KNOW that I don't love the neighbor like myself. I KNOW that I don't love like God wants me to love. But what am I going to do? Confess, repent, ask God for help, and keep striving! I refuse to bend the commandment anymore just so that I can feel justified or better about my decision making. I refuse to keep giving myself reasonable "outs", as it were. If God respects honesty and humility before God, then I know that God appreciates this.

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with people saying that, for whatever reason, they just can’t do it. That’s between them and God. What I don’t like is for us to lower the bar, so that we can feel better about it.

Bump that!

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 8/2/2003 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

"Plain sucks to me." Too bad. We are human. We should reach for the sky, but we should not expect to love as fully as God loves, nor should we expect to love in a way in which we were not designed.
I find that you are lowing the bar by raising it beyond what humans are designed. Plus, I find your attitude judgmental. People don't agree with your view of love or they critique and you have a cow. Wink

Oh well...love is nothing if it isn't practical.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6)

honorman:

quote:
Plain sucks to me." Too bad. We are human. We should reach for the sky, but we should not expect to love as fully as God loves, nor should we expect to love in a way in which we were not designed.
I find that you are lowing the bar by raising it beyond what humans are designed. Plus, I find your attitude judgmental. People don't agree with your view of love or they critique and you have a cow.

Hmmm…have a cow. Heh. hehe. Are we really going to talk about attitudes, honorman? I won’t go there… Look, sorry if you were offended. Truly. It wasn’t MEANT to be judgmental. What this was meant to do was show how I perceived what was going on. I didn’t see as much of a critique of my description of love as much as reasons why it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. And those reasons seemed mainly to deal with practicality.

It seems to me that I could make the same type of argument for not trying to eradicate all sin from my life. There are VERY practical reasons for allowing some sinful ideas, structures, and viewpoints to exist. But it would seem that God wants me to strive for this just the same.

Again, my intention is NOT to say that we HAVE to meet the ideal in embodying unconditional agape love at all times. Only Jesus did that and probably will be the only one to do it. But my intention is to genuinely LOCATE the ideal of love to which we should strive because EVERYTHING hinges on it. To the extent that things that we do are not based on love, they are NOTHING. If we don’t even know what it truly means to love, then we are really in a fix. And if we deceive ourselves into THINKING that we are really loving when we really arent’, then we’re in even worse shape.

Evil

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 7:49 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal

Absolutely amazing.

Ok. This is what I’m largely getting from a lot of the discussion here. For various reasons, including impossibility or impracticality, we are NOT to exhibit unconditional love. We can ONLY exist in phileo, storge, or eros love, because of our deep ties to alliances and moral obligations. We must be practical, after all.

Meph,

That is definitely NOT what I have been trying to say. I am sorry you have taken it that way. Yes we as Christians are to love unconditionally, but that love does not include shirking one's responsibility to one's family, especially if one is the primary breadwinner (such as in mine).

quote:
Bonhoeffer took his stand like a trooper. He believed that throwing in with the Hitler assassination plot was definitely the morally justifiable thing for him to do in the face of his context and admitted that he could do no other…but he NEVER tried to fool himself that it was loving the neighbor in an agape fashion! He KNEW that this was not loving the neighbor in the true sense, and actually felt the anxiety from that. He even confessed this before God. In other words, Bonhoeffer decided to be honest to himself and his moral convictions, but NOT at the expense of the ideal of the commandment of love.

To the contrary, I find what Bonhoeffer did was the MOST loving thing possible, given the situation he found himself in. To kill Hitler at that point would have meant to save the lives of countless others. It would have been the highest good.

quote:
I will use myself as an example. I am WAY far away from truly embodying unconditional love for the neighbor. I hold my familial ties very highly and, frankly, my ethical ties in some respect. I KNOW that I don't seek first the Kingdom. I KNOW that I don't love the neighbor like myself. I KNOW that I don't love like God wants me to love. But what am I going to do? Confess, repent, ask God for help, and keep striving! I refuse to bend the commandment anymore just so that I can feel justified or better about my decision making. I refuse to keep giving myself reasonable "outs", as it were. If God respects honesty and humility before God, then I know that God appreciates this.

I have nowhere tried to give myself "reasonable outs," as you call them. I have simply and only attempted to delineate precisely HOW one can truly love God and neighbor unconditionally (which is very different from unsurpassably or infinitely).

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 7:58 PM (GMT -6)

If we define loving one's neighbor as benevolence (unselfish good-will), then we are not left wondering precisely how to love them. If they need food, we feed them. If they need help, we help them. If we can do any good for them, we do so.

Far from what you accuse me of, that I am trying to give myself a reasonable out, I am simply taking the whole New Testament in its ethical/moral commands and attempting to synthesize them so that I may not be guilty of picking and choosing what I do and do not want to obey.

Loving my neighbor includes many possible loving actions, but only one principle - godly love.

This is definitely not making it easier, or looking for an "out," it is simply recognizing that every person has a different station in life, a different sphere of influence, and a different realm of responsibility. Do you think I would be guilty of not loving if I didn't personally go and feed all the homeless people in all the world until I have no more money left? What if I allowed my family to starve in the process of trying to feed the world? I would obviously be not obeying God's command to love my wife and daughter if I gave all our income away like that. (I should say that I certainly do give to benevolent ministries--I used to work full-time in one). That said, in some cases it is much more loving to help someone change their self-defeating lifestyle rather than just give them another handout.

The point, I think, is that we do whatever we do for the glory of God, in the name of Jesus, seeking to be channels of God's love to others. I don't see how unconditional love necessarily means we have no responsibility towards our family.

Even Mother Theresa did not save all the orphans in India. Did she fail? I don't think so.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 8:03 PM (GMT -6)

John:

quote:
That is definitely NOT what I have been trying to say. I am sorry you have taken it that way. Yes we as Christians are to love unconditionally, but that love does not include shirking one's responsibility to one's family, especially if one is the primary breadwinner (such as in mine).

Ok. Sorry, I supposed I lumped you in with some other people. I see your point. As for what you are saying, I would agree. Kierkegaard says that friendship love and erotic love are NOT bad things. It is NOT a bad thing to keep responsibility to one’s family. What is very much a threat is when anyone places something like this as HIGHER than the command to love unconditionally. 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.

**************************

John:

quote:
To the contrary, I find what Bonhoeffer did was the MOST loving thing possible, given the situation he found himself in. To kill Hitler at that point would have meant to save the lives of countless others. It would have been the highest good.

This is what I see is going to take some time to really get at. SK and Bonhoeffer seemed to understand the distinction between love and ethics. This is why Bonhoeffer had the angst that he had in his action. Seeking the highest good for all beings concerned (in a more utilitarian, greater good framework) is not the same thing as love for the neighbor. Not even close. But this is going to take MAD development to get to.

*****************************

John:

quote:
I have nowhere tried to give myself "reasonable outs," as you call them. I have simply and only attempted to delineate precisely HOW one can truly love God and neighbor unconditionally (which is very different from unsurpassably or infinitely).

My statement was not meant for you, but for me. I have given myself outs from this by rationalizing. I have done this. Advocating being reasonable over truly seeing myself as deficient in the face of the commandment. It seems that you took that thing too yourself when it didn’t need to go there. Wink

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 8:10 PM (GMT -6)

John:

quote:
If we define loving one's neighbor as benevolence (unselfish good-will), then we are not left wondering precisely how to love them. If they need food, we feed them. If they need help, we help them. If we can do any good for them, we do so.

Far from what you accuse me of, that I am trying to give myself a reasonable out, I am simply taking the whole New Testament in its ethical/moral commands and attempting to synthesize them so that I may not be guilty of picking and choosing what I do and do not want to obey.

Loving my neighbor includes many possible actions, but only one principle - godly love.

This is definitely not making it easier, or looking for an "out," it is simply recognizing that every person has a different station in life, a different sphere of influence, and a different realm of responsibility. Do you think I should feel very guilty if I don't personally go and feed all the homeless people in all the world until I have no more money left? (I should say that I certainly do give to benevolent ministries--I used to work full-time in one). That said, in some cases it is much more loving to help someone change their self-defeating lifestyle rather than just give them another handout. The point, I think, is that we do whatever we do for the glory of God, in the name of Jesus, seeking to be channels of God's love to others.

Even Mother Theresa did not save all the orphans in India. Did she fail? I don't think so.

WHOA, KEMOSABE! It looks like SOMEONE took something a little too personally! I used your word “reasonable” in describing my OWN self-justifying and rationalizing action…and you think that I’ve accused YOU of something. Man… For the record, again, I didn’t accuse you of anything. I was talking about MYSELF.

Second, you wouldn’t have to go any further for your point than Jesus. Jesus obviously didn’t heal everyone. Jesus did what God called him to do and what he did. I am not disagreeing with your idea of godly love. What I am saying is that I think the “love your neighbor” commandment may entail more than just a benevolent disposition and living that out in one's sphere of influence. That it may entail the relativization of all the other “loves” or alliances that we find in life. And that's a very big deal.

Evil

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 8:32 PM (GMT -6)

Meph's definition:

Love is when a person A acknowledges another person B’s unique existence, and ON THAT BASIS ALONE,

1) attributes positive worth to B’s individual, unique existence,

2) shares some part of themselves with B and,

3) seeks, whenever possible, to empower the other person B to have the ability to become more of a person before God and him/herself in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.

John's critique:

The more I think about it, the less I am really sure that "unconditional" is the right word to describe the Two Greatest Commandments as given by Jesus.

If we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind & strength, it seems to me that this love would differ (or, be conditionated) from person to person with regard to their individual qualities or heart, soul, mind and strength.

If we are to love our neighbor AS ourself, it seems we again have a condition - We are not told to love our neighbor MORE than ourself.

Chewing...

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/2/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6)

Meph,

I am definitely not upset or angry. The reason I assumed you were speaking of my posts was the following:

quote:

Absolutely amazing.

Ok. This is what I’m largely getting from a lot of the discussion here. For various reasons, including impossibility or impracticality, we are NOT to exhibit unconditional love. We can ONLY exist in phileo, storge, or eros love, because of our deep ties to alliances and moral obligations. We must be practical, after all.

If you want to say something like that, fine. But here’s where I’m having the problem. It seems that what people are trying to do is make it such that operating by gradations of love rather than unconditional agape love is what the two Great Commandments TRULY mean. In other words, it feels like we are trying to WATER DOWN the commandments just so that we can feel better about 1) not trying to strive for them and 2) not doing them.

That just plain sucks to me.

(Who else but honorman and me were saying anything similar to what you were in disagreement with in the above quote?)

quote:
Second, you wouldn’t have to go any further for your point than Jesus. Jesus obviously didn’t heal everyone. Jesus did what God called him to do and what he did. I am not disagreeing with your idea of godly love. What I am saying is that I think the “love your neighbor” commandment may entail more than just a benevolent disposition and living that out in one's sphere of influence. That it may entail the relativization of all the other “loves” or alliances that we find in life. And that's a very big deal.

Good points. I appreciate the stimulating discussion.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/2/2003 8:44 PM (GMT -6)

John:

quote:
John's critique:
The more I think about it, the less I am really sure that "unconditional" is the right word to describe the Two Greatest Commandments as given by Jesus.

If we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind & strength, it seems to me that this love would differ (or, be conditionated) from person to person with regard to their individual qualities or heart, soul, mind and strength.

If we are to love our neighbor AS ourself, it seems we again have a condition - We are not told to love our neighbor MORE than ourself.

I think you may be going the wrong way with “condition” there, John. Remember, when we are talking about unconditional love, we are just saying that there are no conditions upon which we BASE our REASONS for giving love to the neighbor. In other words, we aren’t supposed to say things like…

“I will give this person love…IF and/or WHEN such and such condition is met.”

Anything like this would be conditional love.

So we are not talking about conditions upon a PERSON who is giving the love. We are talking about conditions that may form the BASIS of WHY the love is given. See the difference?

Chewing with you,
Evil

PS:

quote:
(Who else but honorman and me were saying anything similar to what you were in disagreement with in the above quote?)

From my perspective, DLW on this thread, BobbyM on another.

57 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual