Tom: But my questions are, "Did the Father and the Son live in loving relationality sans creation? And did that loving relationality entail suffering? I say "yes" and "no," respectively.

Heather: As to the second question & answer, what does it really mean to ‘suffer’?

Tom: I thought I knew until I started debating Chaz!

Heather: Is it just enduring ‘pain’ such as that of an abusive person? Or... does it mean ‘surrendering’/’self-sacrifice’? If the loving relationality entails THAT kind of suffering, then I'd disagree with your ‘no’.

Tom: I don’t think loving ‘surrender’ to another beloved person is inherently ‘painful’, so while ‘deferring to’, ‘giving way to’, ‘making room for’, ‘surrendering to’, and ‘giving one’s self to’ another  are helpful ways of describing love essentially, I don’t think any of them necessarily involve ‘pain’ or ‘displeasure’ of any kind. In fact, I know they don’t necessarily involve such pain or displeasure because I’ve experienced, at times, the painless offering of myself to another. In fact, it was exhilarating and joyful. If experience is what others are appealing to for the claim that pain/displeasure must accompany any act of love, then what about the experience of those who love painlessly? Or do we doubt their experience?

We need to think very carefully about what constitutes the essence, the necessary aseity, of the trinitarian, infinitely loving God. If you think carefully...you'll agree with ME!

And also, make the difference between suffering/pain that a fallen world inflicts on us (like suffering an abusive relationship, getting crucified, burnt at the stake, etc., and we'll throw in natural evil too) and the suffering which our own fallen constitutions generate on their own as we submit our bodies to the disciplines and rigors of godly becoming, traversing the distance between who we ARE and who we SHALL be. Neither of these (outward suffering inflicted on us by the world and inward suffering infliected on us by the struggle of our own fallen selves) applies to God’s experience of Godself trinitarianly. None of the divine persons has evil intensions for the other, none abuses the other, etc., NOR is there any distance between who God IS and who God SHALL be, that is, no distance of ‘becoming’ to traverse.

So (a) I agree that 'surrendering' or 'giving one's self' to another is a definitive trinitarian act. But (b) I don't think such surrender involves pain or displeasure. Pain and displeasure accompany finite becoming towards loving relationality, but only because we're NOT there yet. And we can’t get from the sort of finite creatures we are TO being the sort of loving person God is without traversing the distance between “not being” and “being” loving and fully realized, and THAT means pain and suffering. But God does not ‘become’ in this sense.

Heather: 1) The Father and Christ experience loving relationality sans creation (assuming there is such a SOFA as sans creation)

Tom: Anita is hunting for a new home while I’m over here. We have this great antique sofa of he mother’s. You may remember it. When we move into the new place, I’m christening that sofa the “Sans Creation Sofa.”

Heather: 2) That experience does not entail suffering.

Tom: Right.

Heather: 3) We are to imitate THAT kind of love.

Tom: Right.

Heather: 4)THEREFORE, the loving relationality we are to experience NEED NOT entail suffering (indeed, it won't at some point in the future)

Tom: Love doesn’t ‘metaphysically’ entail suffering, right. God is an example. But the metaphysical constraints of finite becoming (which is the only road we have to being/becoming fully realized loving persons) is just going to involve, as a matter of fact, suffering and pain.

Heather: I'd disagree with #2 (given what I just stated, ie suffering (here) = surrendering/self-sacrifice). Therefore, the loving relationality.... NEEDS to entail suffering (self-sacrifice). (...I think... )

Tom: How can I disagree with Heather? She’s too sweet and kind. I can’t. Does Alan ever disagree with you? How’s he do it!

Well, I hope my comments on #2 helped!

Peace,

Tom

Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 3/4/2008 3:01:40 AM (GMT-6)

Of course we experience loving relationality. But our experience of receiving and giving love isn't yet consummate; we’re not yet the fully realized, consummate, solidified lovers we shall become. So though my loving others is sometimes a joy accompanied by no pain whatsoever, I didn’t say it’s always that.

All it takes to disprove the claim “All X are y” is one instance of an X that isn’t y. Likewise, it doesn’t take much to disprove the claim that “All love involves suffering and pain.” I don’t have to prove that love NEVER involves pain and suffering (it obviously does). All I have to show is that SOME love doesn’t involve pain and suffering. And that’s easy. And I think it's simple (to my mind) to understand WHY loving is often times painful for us for WHY we shouldn't suppose an analogous suffering of pain and displeasure as definitive of God essentially if it's the case that God is essentially love (triunely).

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/7/2008 8:31:39 AM (GMT-6)