 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Get onboard! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/2/2005 1:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Corey:
But don't you think there might be another category of love which is only possible by the work of Christ in and through us? Something that non-christians are not capable of? In a word, trinitarian-type love, the kind of love that fulfills the greatest and second-greatest command. This is what I have in mind when I think of "true love".
and...
I'm just trying to work this out in my own thinking to affirm both the capacity for love that Selah described and also the kind of love that I believe is only possible through the holy spirit. Maybe I'd call one a natural love, and the other a supernatural love.
also from Selah...
Here's the distinction. Greg's natural love always exists for his children, wife, etc., but the kind of love he's talking about in this sermon (the intense kind that comes and goes) seems to be SUPER-natural.
Hmmm...my thoughts. I honestly don't believe that there is a distinction between natural love and supernatural love...in the same way I don't believe in an "interventionist" type of cosmological worldview. There are just different degrees/dimensions of the same reality. Because God IS fully agape-style, unconditional, self-sacrificing, universal love, all true agape-style, unconditional, self-sacrificing, universal love for all beings is of God in some way. A more complete degree of love is that agape-style, unconditional, self-sacrificing, universal love which understands it's ultimate source and full consummation in the Divine. The most complete degree of love (and most unique to Christian identity) is that degree of love which is agape-style unconditional, self-sacrificing, universal love which sees itself become UNIFIED with and PARTAKING of divine life of God by way of union with Christ. These understanding are not merely academic. Remember, biblically speaking, it is ONLY by the power of the Holy Spirit that any person can truly believe and live out that most complete degree of love. The love ITSELF is not supernatural...but the dimension of love experienced is only made possible by supernatural means. I think this is a healthy distinction to be made.
If you recall Doc's sermon (and other times he's spoken), he ties the catalyst for the love zone DIRECTLY to being more fully focused on one's identity in Christ. I don't believe that this is merely incidental, but crucial to the understanding of HOW the love that Christians can experience and give out is distinct from all other dimensions of authentic love.
My 2c
"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 | | |
 |
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 5/2/2005 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Meph,
Well, the wordsmith's in the house! Gee, you're good.
I'm ok with the simplicity of Corey's terms "natural" and "supernatural," but I'm just as ok saying "incomplete" and "complete." (The reason I like the term "natural" love is because that is what science is beginning to prove. The capacity to love is really innate/natural and universal.) "Complete" and "Incomplete" as you use them speak of dimensions of the same love... which, the more I think about it, the more I think is probably better.
At the end of the day what do we have? we have "incomplete" love because the means by which it is attained and shared is "natural"...and we have "complete" love because the means by which it is attained and shared is "supernatural."
~cool.
Meph
If you recall Doc's sermon (and other times he's spoken), he ties the catalyst for the love zone DIRECTLY to being more fully focused on one's identity in Christ. I don't believe that this is merely incidental, but crucial to the understanding of HOW the love that Christians can experience and give out is distinct from all other dimensions of authentic love.
selah
amen. Mephi, you know how to lay it out!!
I do think our "in Christ-ness" is vital to this discussion. Yep. Now we're talkin. See, this makes MUCH more sense to me than just saying that all religions built on the incomplete/natural dimension of love will lead everyone to universal salvation. I want to say instead that the incomplete dimension of love CAN lead to the complete dimension of love (and to salvation)...but only through the means of encountering Christ/Christ's distinct love (as suggested in John 17 "so that they will know" ). If you agree with me, then I guess it's a wrap ;-)
Tom, where art thou?
faith, hope, and love,
selah
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/2/2005 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
At the end of the day what do we have? we have "incomplete" love because the means by which it is attained and shared is "natural"...and we have "complete" love because the means by which it is attained and shared is "supernatural."
~cool.
From the perspective of a Christian, it sounds cool to me. I like this WAY better than saying that unbelievers cannot genuinely love, by definition of not being Christian...or something like that. Cool.
*******************************
Selah:
I do think our "in Christ-ness" is vital to this discussion. Yep. Now we're talkin. See, this makes MUCH more sense to me than just saying that all religions built on the incomplete/natural dimension of love will lead everyone to universal salvation. I want to say instead that the incomplete dimension of love CAN lead to the complete dimension of love (and to salvation)...but only through the means of encountering Christ/Christ's distinct love (as suggested in John 17 "so that they will know" ). If you agree with me, then I guess it's a wrap ;-)
Getting more specific. Living authentic lives of agape-style, universal love place people on the path to complete union with God, regardless of their formal theologies. This is not to say that it immediately PLACES THEM in union with God. But it does bring them closer to that central reality. See, I believe in post-mortem evangelism because I believe in libertarian free will. I believe that the higher a sentient beings "love dimension development" is (ie moving from incomplete to more complete), the LESS a sentient being will resist being acknowledged by the true God of love in Jesus. I genuinely think that for some people, post-mortem evangelism will be little more than putting a name and concrete reality to something that they have intuited about reality all along. And that's cool.
I suppose THIS is why I am more concerned with evangelism that deals with God's magnicifent love shown in Christ...than I am with proseltyzing and making sure people know all the right shibolleths of Christianity. If God can use me to bring people closer to loving THEMSELVES and all others unconditionally and living in that love as much as possible, I'm happy. Because I know that, if they are doing this, they are on the right road.. Being brutally honest, I'd have MUCH more worry/concern for a person who's been a "Christian" for 30 years and bitter and "worldly" as hell...than I would for a Buddhist who truly exists in "mindfulness", and loves people outrageously as a result.
"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 | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 5/3/2005 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Corey asked me to pipe in here by drawing SK's Work's of Love into the conversation:
One of the main insights in the book is the threefold nature of love. True love involves the "lover", the "beloved" and "God as the middle term". This could get turned around in various ways, but the threefold nature of it persisted.
The love a mother has for a child could be only twofold: ie. herself, and the child. But a relation like this is ultimately unstable (not rooted in the absolute/infinite love of God). It lacks the true source of love. She might really be loving herself and using the child as an extension/expression of herself. Or on the other hand, she might really lose herself in idolizing the child. Even if she avoids these tendencies, she still falls prey to the preference that confounds truly infinte love. But, if true love requires God as the middle term, the love for the child would include the selfless sacrificial way of relating to the child that God demonstrates for us in Christ. Then it is in fact God who is the middle term and the mother keeps God firmly in the relation with/between (or as the Lutherans say, "in, with and under") herself and the child. The mother in this last case would live in love and have the relation to the child in this context: the love of God. And the love would not be limited to the child. It would surely be expressed there, but it would also manifest in the next encounter with a neighbor as well.
Does this idea ("threefold nature of love, God as the middle term") mean that self-sacrificial love cannot exist outside of explicit knowledge of the sacrifice of Christ? My guess is that this is what Meph wants to avoid. And since God does in fact exist, and exists for all who have breath, it makes sense to say that there must be ways to love, tapping into the source of Love without explicit knowledge of that source. Indeed, even when we can name this Source, we fail to comprehend it.
However, we could never know this one way or the other. We can only know, by examining ourselves, whether Christ (God as love manifest) is at the center of our own relation to others or not. Heroic acts of self-sacrifice can be motivated by any number of things. We trust that Mother Teresa did what she did because of Love, and we should, but it is possible that she was motivated by a desire for spiritual status, sainthood, or a fear of hell.
Barring the judgment we could get lost in (about what motivates others), Meph wants to say that the love of God, just as the power of God (if these are actually distinguishable), is intended to be a "natural" aspect of what it is to exist in this creation. He'll resist anything that sounds contrary to the design God has for the creation in general.
It seems he agrees that the fullest expressions of love are reserved for those with the most explicit and most profound relations to the source of love. He just wants to avoid two kinds of love, one natural, the other supernatural.
Right D?
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 5/4/2005 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | meph
NPD
A legitimate, dianosable condition where egocentricity really is a
TRAP precipitated by things that happened to a person in their childhood.
It would seem to me that this disorder (and Narcissism, as discussed in the DSM-IV) would cut at the heart of what we believe about a person's ability to be loving and altruistic.
selah
Yep. I think so. It seems to me that this DISorder would cut at the heart of what we believe about a person's ability to be loving and altruistic. But don't all disorders affect a person's normal functioning to some degree? I guess I wouldn't have a problem saying that someone diagnosed with NPD would have an impared capability to express love through altruistic acts.
meph
Can you imagine what kind of condemnation a well-meaning preacher could bring to bear upon someone who suffers from this malady?
selah
Well, if someone truly suffers from NPD I'm not sure they would notice the well meaning preacher's remarks about altruism anymore than they do the rest of the stuff the preacher addresses. Condemnation comes with the territory because the person's entire perspective is altered.
Know what I mean? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/4/2005 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: Tom, where art thou?
Tom: Duh, eh, I...he, just wanna say that, eh...
I LOVE YOU ALL! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/4/2005 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes-
I follow you. Good point. Can't we suppose that the divine image in unregenerate persons is enough to account for whatever measures of love, freedom, responsibility, true joy, etc., they experience? That's how I've looked at this. If the unregenerate bear the divine image (even if it's marred, whatever) then they'd have to be able to mannifest this image. Loving another, truly loving (if even loving less than perfectly, but still 'truly') another is what it means to bear that image. It shows us and the world that we're special, we're different, we're not just animals. So those who believe the unregenerate still bear God's image should have no problem believing that can truly love at some genuine level, even if loving at some level doesn't require regeneration by the Spirit. All it means is that there's a dimension (motivation? orientation? fullness? I don't know) of love that's openned up only to the regenerate by virtue of their consciously embracing and being related to that third relation/person SK talked about: God.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/4/2005 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes of Thought said...
It seems he agrees that the fullest expressions of love are reserved for those with the most explicit and most profound relations to the source of love. He just wants to avoid two kinds of love, one natural, the other supernatural.
Hello y'all,
Two loves? Natural and Supernatural?
CS Lewis' work "The Four Loves" expounds the four New Testament Greek "love" words - storge (natural affection), philia (friendship, love), eros (attraction, sexual love), and agape (love, charity).
The long and short of "The Four Loves" is this. The three NATRUAL "loves" (storge, philia, and eros) are stemmed from the SUPER NATRUAL agape (God's perfect love). Each natural love is fractured and flawed since the Fall. Underlying all that we do, in both good and not so good, are these shades of loves. All are a fragment of and a divagation from the SUPER NATURAL origin ,the agape. Our forms of love have fallen short and are in need of mending. Only God's love mends.
I think it would be helpful if we differentiated between the natural loves and agape love. All three of the natural loves ("storge" (affection, especially within families), "philia" (friendship), and "eros" (love between sexes) are all secondary loves that can become a form of idolatry and dangerous when elevated to an equal ranking of agape love. The natural loves are often subject to perversion, for instance self-centeredness. Agape elevates the natural loves (or need loves) above their self-centeredness that can be associated with costs of particular attachments, including beauty. In the case of romancing a beautiful looking woman, we would be talking about the complicated natural love of eros. Eros has been historically mistaken as a form of god like transcendence or erotic transcendentalism. Eros can be mistaken for an overwhelming life force. Don’t be deceived, the voice of eros is not the voice of God Himself. It is through our imagination, dreams and longing of the heart that we find eros so often attaching its self, a longing of the heart that ultimately can only be filled by our unity with the Godhead. To preserve natural loves from going sour, we need to stay rooted and grounded in agape love. It is the Triune love of the Godhead that encompasses all other loves.
Blessings,
Mark
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 5/4/2005 3:03:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 5/7/2005 10:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
Modes of Thought said...
Corey asked me to pipe in here by drawing SK's Work's of Love into the conversation
(Sorry for the delayed response... I've been pretty tied up this week)
Anyway... THANK YOU for bringing this perspective! I really appreciate it.
What I'm still chewing on is to understand how a person could relate to others with God as the middle term while not being a Christian themselves. I think I understand and accept this idea that since we all were made in God's image that therefore we all have this capacity to love. But it still seems to me that a person outside of a personal faith relationship with God would not be able to draw upon God as the middle term. In other words, his/her love would be based on the object themselves, not on God as the intermediary. This is the sort of love that one has for his friends, but can't have for his enemies. To love one's enemies requires God as the middle term, and it still seems to me at this point in time that this is impossible otherwise.
Post Edited (Corey) : 5/7/2005 11:01:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/8/2005 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | You know, as discussions like this one expound, what seems to be the concensus (not of the posters but of the outcome) is that people are just not as estranged from God, with some qualification, as tradtional and classical theology tends to teach. We bear the image of God; we are not in total depravity; we all express this image; we all love. We all ("Christian and non-"Christian" do and live alike in many ways.
For years I stumbled over the idea that just because I'm a Christian, I will show this by simply loving others..."They will know we are Christians by our love...by our love...they will know-ow we are Christians by our love"...as the song goes. Well, this needs qualification, because it simply is not true that "they will know we are Christians by our love" AND, thus, will know that non-Christians are NOT Christians by their love; as if there's two different kinds of love. There's not; there's only one kind of love: love that comes from God and is either kept or not kept in this context. So, what does it mean "They shall know we are Christians by our love"? Why not also say, "They will know we are Christians by our lifestyle...by our marriages...by our cars and money we spend and anything else we do"? After all, this is what a lot of the church teaches: that we are so different, so removed from the old ("Old things had passed away, behold all things have become new" that it should be obvious that we are...different than the non-Christian. I don't think this was what Jesus had in mind, and I don't think it is what "Old things have passed away..." means.
The Christian is a human being. He doesn't cease to be human because he becomes a Christian. There isn't some ontological change in himself once he believes, as if we could look at the soul of the non-believer, see all the muck and mire and then, upon conversion, watch it change in all ways possible to something completely different than what it was before. This is why I think Romans 5 needs tremendous consideration when discussing hamartiology: Paul does not teach that Christians became ontologically "dirty." And in Romans 6-8 he does not teach that this "dirty" soul gets all cleaned up, puts on a happy face and a brand new creation when conversation takes place. Rather, it is placement of spheres of spiritual existence that is at the heart—translated out of darkness and placed into a new creation. It is not we who have changed; it is where we once spiritually existed that has changed...our location, if you will.
When Christians love, they are neither doing something different than non-Christians nor something that non-Christians can't do. It is only the CONTEXT of loving that is different; when the Christian loves, she is saying something about the reason and purpose she loves, about the new context in which and for which she loves. Now THAT is different, but the act of loving is not different. For that matter, the many acts Christians do are not different than anyone else's.
The caveat: be careful to not allow the new CONTEXT to liquidate, to become blended in with the world's context, which truly is a different context than the Christian's. In acts of love, the world cannot proclaim in love that it represents Christ. It can be moving closer to a connection to God through Christ, but it cannot proclaim that it's act of love and context of love are sufficient for the connection. This leads us to ask, "Well, what, then, is the Christian's connection to God that the world does not have?" The Christian has come to know that God is, has appeared to men, and has done so, in this world's context, to say something about its insuffiency; the very thing the world either refuses to believe or just doesn't know. The Christian says, "Hey, when I love, I'm doing so because love has a Source, an eternal Source that makes loving eternally and not just temporally meaningful."
With the rise of the emergent church, the growth of theological liberalism (not Jesus Seminar stuff, but the stuff we work out here) and pluralism having taken on the meaning of multiplicity of acceptable views, it is very easy to water down the Christian context for love. After all, everyone's loving, aren't they?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/8/2005 9:31 PM (GMT -6) | | If I understand you, Corey, you're asking how a non-Christian can love his enemy? Is that correct?
What is it to love? What is it to love an enemy? Can only a Christian love his enemy?
In the context of "the world," anyone can forgive, and anyone can love an enemy. The stuff of love is not precluded by conditions or requisits which must first be active. Love is there to be exercised by all. I think we become hesitant when we think of "enemy" as someone like Hitler instead of someone who just wants our job promotion. If non-Christians can forgive and love someone who wants his/her job promotion, the non-Christian can forgive and love a Hitler. They may not have reason to do so, but that doesn't mean they cannot. The stuff is already there for everyone to do so.
The context of biblical love, however, is nothing more or less than an expression of the same stuff that a non-Christian can display but within a different context: to love as one who has removed himself from being in position of judging in the capacity that only God can judge. (Note: we are to judge, but not in an attempt to do so in the capacity as only He can do.) Removing one's self from this position is to have acknowledged that one is not God and that one is on an equal playing field with everyone else. A two-fold acknowledgement: we are not God, and we are among equals.
We do not love differently but in a different context. We are telling the world that our love testifies to God, the source of all love. Further, we are also testifying that in view of God as the source of love, there is no person who we are not to love, save, perhaps, Satan. This love, then, is not necessarily affectionate, friendly or erotic love; it is love that respects and acknowledges others. It is love that comes from the understanding of a biblical worldview that knows God has created all of us, and none of us is above the other, and, therefore, none of us is given the right to mistreat or disrespect others. Finally, it is love that says, "Hey, come with us, and find the Source of love."
Again, anyone can love, but no one can do so in this knowledgeable redemptive context except the Christian. No world religion except Christianity has the exclusive, if you will, on what it means to love within a redemptive context. Nevertheless, all are able to love. That's simply part of having been made in the image of God.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 5/9/2005 2:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I think one can have a genuine humanistic love for their "enemy" simply because they are human. Affirming human dignity/worth etc seems to be enough reason to love. What I don't get is how THAT love is the same as someone who is ingrafted in to the source of love itself. I'm with you on that one Corey - I still don't get it! How can we compare one person's human tendency to love that comes from recognizing the value of another's existence to the love that flows from actually participating IN the divine nature of Love.
The Love that flows to us, in us, and through us SEEMS to have a quality to it that supersedes the quality of love any human can produce for another. This is what's confusing. It's not so much about the explicit knowledge of God (as Modes suggests) as it is about the reality of our location in Him. I guess I want to believe that all love is fundamentally the same (and I AM convinced that there is only one Source of love) however, I just can't understand how its the same to have God as the "middle term" between two unbelievers (say those that outright reject God) and God as the "middle term" between those that are located In Christ.
Blessings,
selah
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.Post Edited (Selah) : 5/9/2005 6:44:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/9/2005 11:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
What I don't get is how THAT love is the same as someone who is ingrafted in to the source of love itself. I'm with you on that one Corey - I still don't get it! How can we compare one person's human tendency to love that comes from recognizing the value of another's existence to the love that flows from actually participating IN the divine nature of Love.
The Love that flows to us, in us, and through us SEEMS to have a quality to it that supersedes the quality of love any human can produce for another. This is what's confusing. It's not so much about the explicit knowledge of God (as Modes suggests) as it is about the reality of our location in Him [emphasis Starkman's]. I'm thinking of this from an ontological perspective. If we could see love...I mean, as a stuff, would we see one type of love in the Christian and another type in the non-Christian? No, I don't think so. Love is love, and, as you noted, Selah, it all comes from God.
What is visibly different (from God's perspective, at least) is what I've put in bold from your post: "it is about the reality of our location in Him." Love is the transitory vehicle that either takes one into relationship with others, or does something greater than this: takes one into redemptive relationship with God. You ("you" as in all the world) neither need nor receive a new and different love in order to come into redemptive relationship with God; you simply need to have the direction of your love expanded in regard to its purpose.
I mean, think about it. What happens when one comes into a redemptive relationship with God? The person's mind is opened to understand something about God and then to understand something about loving God, which naturally leads to a greater understanding about loving one another. That person is now connected directly to the source of love and can allow its true purpose and work to florish without running dry or without loosing connection to its source.
You also said, Selah, "I think one can have a genuine humanistic love for their "enemy" simply because they are human." That's exactly it: because we are all human. To become a Christian doesn't add or subtract from this, as far as what love is or what love means. It simply means that you are free to love fully, unhindered from a lack of connection to the Source.
Got to run...
For loving more and more fully,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/9/2005 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
Love is love, and, as you noted, Selah, it all comes from God.
Stark,
It seems to me, if what you’re saying is true, then your source of love is irrelevant as long as that source is God. We are all capable of loving, if we just tap into the power of divine love from the central locality of God. The question is, does one particular god have a monopoly as the central source of divine love?
Check it out:
"The Yoga of Divine Love is unlike any other Yoga in that it proceeds directly to the heart of the Divine. It aims at a Union brought about solely through the power of love. And as you learn to access the power of love within and to pour it out freely, you will begin to radiate and to experience love, joy, happiness and an abundance of all good things. This procedure is faithfully aligned with Divine Principle, for in the radiating is the 'giving' and in the experiencing is the 'receiving'."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/9/2005 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey Spark...
Spark: It seems to me, if what you’re saying is true, then your source of love is irrelevant as long as that source is God.
Starkman: No, not at all. Love, no matter who expresses it, is not irrelevant.
Spark: We are all capable of loving, if we just tap into the power of divine love from the central locality of God.
Starkman: There isn't a "tap into" God's love. In that God is the source of love, and we all love because of this truth, a Christian, then, is not tapping into God's love; he is acknowledging God's redemptive purposes of love, something that adds a greater meaning to love. Anyone can love, but only the Christian can love in the context of redemption. The love the Christian expresses, then, is not just love as the world understands it (nothing wrong at all with people loving each other), it is love as God has expressed it: in Christ's life, resurrection and offer of salvation to all in view of that Christ event. This puts "loving" it's broader eternal context rather than keeping it in the world's limited temporal context.
Spark: The question is, does one particular god have a monopoly as the central source of divine love?
Check it out:
"The Yoga of Divine Love is unlike any other Yoga in that it proceeds directly to the heart of the Divine. It aims at a Union brought about solely through the power of love. And as you learn to access the power of love within and to pour it out freely, you will begin to radiate and to experience love, joy, happiness and an abundance of all good things. This procedure is faithfully aligned with Divine Principle, for in the radiating is the 'giving' and in the experiencing is the 'receiving'."
Starkman: Two things: first, there is only one God; therefore, there is only one true source of love. Second, notice the locus of this this love. It is concentrated toward a telos of the divine, but originates from the non-divine. Ain't gonna work! One never reaches the divine on human terms! One reaches the divine on the Divine's terms. And that is the difference that distinguishes general humanitarian love from God's redemptive love.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:30 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 |
|
|