Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > What is love?

Forum Quick Jump

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

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

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/21/2005 3:00 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid

The responce were not meant to be anything definitve, but simply an attempt to actualy adress the questions you have posed. As to agape, I was using the the definition that had been stated earlier in this stream of discussion. My little training in Greek has taught me that much. Perhaps I should have identified the fact I was using common discussion of language instead of it acurate deffinition.
As to the "unsmootable" accounts of Christ, there is no answer. The Bible is not the systematic text book, it has rough parts that may cofuse and destroy us (the conquest?), me must let those part stand in tension. Tension is probably the best way to describe what life is for Christ and for us. He was God for man and man for God, he was the paradox of the infinite in the finite, etc., we are in but not of, sinful saints, prideful of our humility, always in a state of becoming what we are in Christ. Christ was not, and we are not without tension, but we must acknowledge those tensions, and seek to do our best to the overarching whole. I don't know, and I won't know until I am in the presence of Spirit, Son, and Father.
Jeff: You are correct we do all qualify. That does not make our qualifications right. They are failures. And as far as "legalism" (much like the term "heretic," which many of us on this discussion board may receive in our life) the term means I don't like what you are saying for the most part. If a believer is constrained by the overflowing love of Christ to drive the speed limit, they are called a legalist. Simply because they make us uncomfortable, the make us feel our human tension. The same goes with giving to "all who ask."
Mr. I: The love within the Godhead is the love of like for like. In the equal communal perichoresis of the Son, Spirit, and Father, the love of God for God is given. However this love is an all encompassing love that spills over. This spill over creates the other for the Godhead to love. This overflowing love is the same self-sacrificing love that I spoke about earlier. This love is a condesention of the Godhead. This is the same love that Jesus demonstarted in taking the very form of a slave, and proving faithful upto death on a cross (there can be no understanding of Father or Spirit that does not have the suffering love of Christ that was demonstrated ont he cross and an intergral part of it). This sacrificial love desires to bring all humanity into the divine harmony. The divine love, Christ as our image of it (on the whole), sets itself out as not grasping to what is its own.
How do we avoid what is inherent in our Father, Son, and HOly Spirit. How do we reverce Jesus' antithesises: "You have hear it said, but..." and say "I know Christ said, but..."

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/21/2005 9:32 PM (GMT -6)

Merton: Jeff, You are correct we do all qualify. That does not make our qualifications right. They are failures. And as far as "legalism" (much like the term "heretic," which many of us on this discussion board may receive in our life) the term means I don't like what you are saying for the most part. If a believer is constrained by the overflowing love of Christ to drive the speed limit, they are called a legalist. Simply because they make us uncomfortable, the make us feel our human tension. The same goes with giving to "all who ask."

Jeff: I should have said that giving that doesn't benefit SEEMS like legalism TO ME. I can see how someone could see a benefit in driving the speed limit. But I don't see what benefit results from certain cases of giving. But I'm in full agreement that we are to give to ALL, even the evil of evils, WHEN the grounds for giving are appropriate. And appropriate grounds, IMO, has nothing to do with whether a person is evil or not. It has to do with whether we are furthering good, to the best of our knowledge.

James says that God, Himself, doesn't give unconditionally. So I don't see this as particularly problematic. Matthew and John, too, claim Christ spoke of God giving to those who ask "believing" and according to "God's will."

Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/21/2005 9:37:20 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 10/21/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6)

Merton didn't say that a Christian might stick to the speed limit because of its consequential benefit. He said "constrained by the overflowing love of Christ."

Some places do describe God's giving (or at least our obedient giving) as unconditional.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 10/21/2005 10:26:27 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 10/21/2005 10:31 PM (GMT -6)

Merton, am I correct in reading you to say that we can/should allow the overall message of the Bible to overrule any conflicting details? If so, how can I be expected to trust the overall if the details may be in error?

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/21/2005 11:01 PM (GMT -6)

Zach: Merton didn't say that a Christian might stick to the speed limit because of its consequential benefit. He said "constrained by the overflowing love of Christ."

Jeff: I feel constrained by Christ's love to act. But I have two sources of motivation to do so--natural conscience and scripture. I don't feel any obligation from my natural conscience to give unconditionally, and I don't know how to make sense of scripture taking the verse that way. But if he's saying that he would feel obligated to give unconditionally apart from scripture, I'm interested in why. If not, I'm interested, like you are, in how he reconciles all the verses.

Zach: Some places do describe God's giving (or at least our obedient giving) as unconditional.

Jeff: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I would think that God might have providential purposes for giving even IF He requires no conditions on the part of the "asker."

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/22/2005 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

Sahid

I may have overstated what I meant. My comments were directed to the discussion at hand. Our lives are human lives, the text is both a human and divine text. There will be tensions in each the text itself (or it would seem that we need to posit something like the Islamic view of the Koran) as will our interpretation of it. My statements were addressed at the concept of love, or as I believe we should use in light of the Triune God, self-sacrificing love, as it can be construed from the Godhead turned towrad us, Jesus the Messiah. When judging what a life's overall intent don't we usually look to the whole? Anyway, as far as "inacuracies" in scripture I tend to lean towards Karl Barth's view of inspiration and scripture. Sorry if that is no help. Like I said I may just be the least intellegent person in this stream of discussion.

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/22/2005 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

If I didn't say enough in the last post. No we do not override the difficulties. We let them stand and do our best in light of them. Again see Karl Barth.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/22/2005 12:44 PM (GMT -6)

Merton: We let them [difficult verses] stand and do our best in light of them.

Jeff: That's exactly what I'm doing. If we don't let them stand, I'm curious as to what would motivate our decision about which would fall other than our own predilections. If someone can provide me a truly objective criteria by which we can eliminate verses, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm believing plenty of verses that are significantly contrary to my own predilections.

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 10/22/2005 10:25 PM (GMT -6)

Merton said...
The same goes with giving to "all who ask."

What does Matthew 7:6 mean if we are to give to whomever and whatever they ask?

"Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you. “

Satan is at war with the Trinity. IMHO, I think it is a bad analogy to use Triune love as something that we can loosely toss around in a passive manner.

Thanks,

Mark

Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 10/22/2005 11:36 PM (GMT -6)

That's exactly the point. Merton didn't make up "Give to the one who asks." Neither did I. Jesus said it (according to Matthew). Jesus' words here, taken together with his words elsewhere, make no sense.

I say this as I'm starting to think my mind is changing. To my knowledge Jesus doesn't say to give when it hurts others. Still he does say "give to the one who asks" without qualification. Maybe he forgot to say "except when it hurts others." It looks like I'm left with a choice between believing Jesus spoke imprecisely (I guess I'm ok with that) orbelieving his teaching makes no sense (I'm definitely not ok with that). Still, I would like some sort of hermeneutic other than my best hunch to help determine when to put words in Jesus' mouth.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/23/2005 9:59 AM (GMT -6)

Zach: Still, I would like some sort of hermeneutic other than my best hunch to help determine when to put words in Jesus' mouth.

Jeff: Me, too. That's why I think seeing those statements as constrained by the contextual heading, "eye for an eye.....but I say RESIST NOT evil," gives our hermeneutic criteria. That way Christ is not saying you can't flee to save your life; and he's not saying you can't go 3 or 4 miles if asked to go 1 mile; etc. He's saying DON'T do evil, in acts of omission or commission (is that how that goes?), EVEN as a form of retaliation AGAINST evil. Or as Paul would say it, OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD, rather than retaliation.

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/23/2005 9:59 PM (GMT -6)

Perhaps we can approach the idea of love from another manner.

A series of questions should be addressed.
1. What does a believer do when one encoutners a homeless person who does not look like they are alcholics and that person requests money?

2. What does a believer do when they encounter a homeless person who they can not tell one way or another if they are an alcholic?

3. " " " " and they can tell the homeless person is an alcholic?

4. HOW DOES A BELIEVER DETERMINE IF ANOTHER PERSON IS AN ALCHOLIC?

other questions follow but only based upon the answers

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/23/2005 10:11 PM (GMT -6)

Judge not, lest ye be judged. Judgment is reserved for the Father, and when we take judgment upon ourselves, we are in effect usurping His authority, or at least trying to.

MrI.

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/23/2005 10:12 PM (GMT -6)

What?

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/23/2005 10:19 PM (GMT -6)

I answered your question Merton.

MrI.

TalkingBull
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 4

Posted 10/23/2005 10:22 PM (GMT -6)

MrIndifference said...
I answered your question Merton.

Yeah, buy him the booze and speed his liver disease.

"Natural selection"

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 10/23/2005 10:22 PM (GMT -6)

"Determine"? If we are determining what will be done with the money, it's impossible for us open theists (without a voice from heaven or something). The very best we can hope for is that we think they almost certainly will misuse the money. But if that's the best we can do, we'd better hope that righteousness depends on our intentions and not the consequences of our actions.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/23/2005 10:41 PM (GMT -6)

The human life is always a life of decisions (aka: judgements). The statement I was quoted is within its context a statement about judging in a manner we would like to be judged with. We make judgements every time we decide anything.

The statement about "determining" was to expose the vague nature of the problem. We can not determine. We can however treat said person as a human and approach them, talk to them, treat them like humans: that is the whole point of the beatitudes. We can not know. We often don't even know if our own love ones are alcholics.

We given because we have been given to. For me, and probably only for me, I prefer to take the "risk" to love, to believe that Jesus may be able to take our paltry actions, with our paltry understandings and "bless" those who we give to. Risk so central to existence (existentialsims main tenant), and to most of the theology in this room. We risk love because God risks love. OH well

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/23/2005 11:03 PM (GMT -6)

The context of the procession of the four questions seemed to be that of judgment. In that context, they don't ask what what we should do, but instead how do we judge them as a person. Does it actually matter whether they are or are not an alcoholic? They are loved by God, so we love them as God would love them. We, as part of the bride of Christ is not asked to judge each other, but instead to be obedient to christ, our Bridegroom, and to empower each other to live the lives that Christ has set for us and to become who we were created to be.

Basically, we are saying the same thing.

MrI.

Post Edited (MrIndifference) : 10/23/2005 11:27:11 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 10/24/2005 12:15 AM (GMT -6)

I agree with you Merton.

I just said the thing about intentions because others here seem to want to have it both ways.

Waco, huh. I suppose I'll let you have your secrets, but I've got a guess or two.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Post Edited (Sahid) : 10/24/2005 12:37:07 AM (GMT-5)

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/24/2005 3:11 PM (GMT -6)

Ok. As well you should.

Merton
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17

Posted 10/24/2005 3:16 PM (GMT -6)

Perhaps, since there seems to be an overarching deadlock in the theoretical nature of love, we should, as I tried to hint at with the questions, move on to how "love," whatever our definition of love may be, impacts those people and situations we encounter in life.

(again MRI, the desire is to see how the various ideas play out, and see how theoretical plays out in "more real" situations.

Simply a suggestion. It can be taken or left.

Peace to all

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/24/2005 10:41 PM (GMT -6)

As a starting point, let me throw out this statement...

Throughout the Bible, I believe that God reveals two sides to what love is through the Trinity. God reveals Himself as one in authority. Authoritative love is setting and revealing the standards for how to live in relationship. It is also protection, provision, guidance and correction. The Holy Spirit on the other Hand is the Empowerer. She helps us to live in love, empowers us to live up to Gods standards and do His will. Authority without power is legalism, while power withouth authority is chaos. They work together as one. If you think about it, the relationship between God and the Holy Spirit is what God made marriage to be. Biblically, Man was put into the place of Authority and provision whithin the marriage, while women were to be in an empowering role.

MrI.

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/24/2005 11:13 PM (GMT -6)

Back about six years ago, I was divorced. It was a messy situation and there was alot of unforgiveness and hatred towards my ex- at the time. One day, God asked me the question "If I asked you to witness to her, with the unforgiveness that you have toward her, could you?" Of course the answer was no. With my unforgiveness I wouldn't have been able to say "repeant or go to hell", let alone tell her about the saving grace of Jesus. I had to forgive her so I could start the process of regaining trust that is required so she would simply listen to what I had to say. This is still a work in progress, but I have seen God moving over the years. I believe that the way that I have impacted her life most wasn't through anything I've said, but instead by my relationship with God. I can't change her. That is something that God alone can do. My place is one of obedience to Him, and through my obedience He can shine into the darkness.

MrI.

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 10/25/2005 12:03 PM (GMT -6)

When you think about it, love must always be in the context of relationship. One thing the Catholic church seems to have on the protestant church is that sense of unity and family. It seems thet we have this concept that we are all on separate paths that lead to the same place. My path to knowing Christ may intecept your path on occasion, but only briefly, then off we go on our individual path. There may be truth to that in the sense that we as individuals must be the ones to live out our relationship with Christ, it seems we are missing something in the translation. The problem is this menatallity isolates. The church is the body of Christ, yet the nose being separated from the face is wondering why it can't smell correctly.

You are right, Merton. We have a good enough definition of what it is, but we still don't know how to live in it.

MrI.

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

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:31 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