God is love...?

[JDaniel]

However, if a meaning is to be ascribed to the phrase, I suppose “God is love” could be intended to mean that god possesses an infinite amount of love. That statement at least has a meaning, although, I don’t think the statement can be sustained by any reasoned argument because it ascribes human qualities to a spiritual entity, endows the deity with a human personality, and, in any case, there is no evidence by which the proposition can be rationally argued.

Will:

It stands to reason that I disagree. Your assertion that a human quality is being ascribed to God doesn’t hold water either. Yes, there are those that think it is human love that is ascribed to Him, but, that is not what should be ascribed. What should be ascribed is “Perfect Love.” God would not have just some ordinary sort of love now would He? God’s determinants are the exemplars of all such attributes. What God would possess would be the maximum, and thus the cause, of all other species of love in the genus of Love. (Just as Aquinas shows in his Fourth Way.)

Humans get an inkling of that love when they come to realize that no human will ever have Perfect Love so long as they are here and now on this planet. We get wisps of a possibility of perfect Love, which is intelligible to us, but always just out of our grasps. It is something that nearly all of us crave all of our lives, in every situation, and with every partner. It would be more than absurd to identify mundane human love with God.

In fact, the fact that we cannot achieve such pinnacle Love, in our lives, on this planet, is another proof that God, i.e., Perfect Love, exists.

God bless,
jd

 

[FurtherSuntime]

There is no evidence relative to this world, which would support a God who comprehends disorder, only evidence of disorder being an obstruction to God.

Therefore, if above is fair and reasonable, we may assume God knows only in his available sharing… in a recognizable association. This has come to aid in understanding many mystery’s for myself,. It is the only comprehension which makes sense to my mind. An association with disorder, would imply a comprehensible consideration for it, in order to
identify. This would seem logical.

 

[JDaniel]

There is no evidence relative to this world, which would support a God who comprehends disorder, only evidence of disorder being an obstruction to God.

FS:

No question.

Therefore, if above is fair and reasonable, we may assume God knows only in his available sharing… in a recognizable association. This has come to aid in understanding many mystery’s for myself,. It is the only comprehension which makes sense to my mind.

And I agree - in other words, in a meticulous relationship of all things to each other, through “love,” the result is this excellent order which we experience. (Did I miss your meaning by much?)

God bless,
jd

 

[FurtherSuntime]

FS:

No question.

And I agree - in other words, in a meticulous relationship of all things to each other, through “love,” the result is this excellent order which we experience. (Did I miss your meaning by much?)

God bless,
jd

Ok Im understanding and fully agreeing with above. If my first sentence is fair and reasonable, we cannot understand Gods active association in the operating mind within a bundy-stalin crime, to be in place.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

This idea above helps eliminate the question of interference in atrocity’s, such as the rape of a toddler. God would be with the available cry for order in the victim and apart from the absence of it… within the assailant including the representation aspect of disorder in the act. This has helped me greatly, rational as far as I can see, and psychologically a necessity…

To know me is to know the father…I need God All Innocent in every way possible, and in keeping with order out of infinity,

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstonian:

It’s pretty simple, I think. Either Love is real (ontologically existent), or it is not. But, everyone agrees that it is real. If so, then it is either caused (has an exterior agent source) or, it is an emergent property of already existing things, i.e., men and women. If the latter, then we know that upon closer examination, its ultimate cause must be configurations of invisible continuous space and dimensionless point particles. But, continuous space and dimensionless points particles cannot be seen to cause anything by themselves. Therefore, Love’s cause must be an exterior a priori agency, which we Christians call “God”.

To take it a little further: all motions seek fulfillment, i.e., an end. Some motions aspire toward negative ends, while most motions aspire toward positive ends. An examination of one’s own self will show that there is no more effective mechanism by which a human being can achieve positive fulfillment than through Love. Therefore, since God is the Cause of all things, and since human beings appear to achieve their ends best with Love in the mix, it must be God who is supplying it, as the continuous space that is the substance of all real things.

God bless,
jd

Thank you for your answer - more valuable than people telling me to read this, that or the other book in the bible.

However, your explanation applies equally to the phrase, “God is Hate,” “God is envy,” or “God is fear.” Simply because one might choose “love” as the “most effective mechanism by which a human being can achieve positive fulfillment,” that doesn’t mean that “love” is the only, or even the most appopriate, emotion to associate with God.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s history from other threads. To be fair, though, this particular thread doesn’t have the same overwhelming “troll” flavor as a lot of his other posts in the past.

I’m not a troll, I just disagree with the arguments that I’ve seen put forward for the existence and properties of God, and I exercise my right to express my disagreement. Apologies if your delicate sensibilities can’t cope with a robust challenge.

 

[Qoeleth]

I’m always reading/hearing believers assert that “God is love.” To me this is a pretty wishy-washy statement, and I’ve never seen a good explanation of what it means.

I understand that it’s a philosophical statement rather than straight word substitution or empirical hypothesis, so I don’t expect anybody to be able to demonstrate that it’s true (although given that it’s so often used when defending a truth claim, it should be).

But in precisely what sense is God = Love? And what is the “logic” behind the assertion?

Of course, it is a metaophoric (or, if you like, analogic) statement. Techincally, it seems to be a category error. Also there is an ambiguity between whether “God is love” means also that “Love is God.”

It’s a beautiful sentence, and a pathway to meditation. It is probably taking it out of context to throw it into logical theological discourse, although I often do that myself.

 

[exoflare]

Apologies if your delicate sensibilities can’t cope with a robust challenge.

mee-yow

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I’m not a troll, I just disagree with the arguments that I’ve seen put forward for the existence and properties of God, and I exercise my right to express my disagreement. Apologies if your delicate sensibilities can’t cope with a robust challenge.

What would your definition of God be ?. In order to ask about it, there must of been consideration which compelled the idea in the thread

 

[reconman]

But in precisely what sense is God = Love? And what is the “logic” behind the assertion?

There is none. I must agree with you. If God’s love is part of the horrendous suffering going on all around us, than I admit I’m perplexed by the meaning of “love” as well.

 

[reconman]

To follow up, here is an example from this very forum. How can this possibly be an act of love?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m always reading/hearing believers assert that “God is love.” To me this is a pretty wishy-washy statement, and I’ve never seen a good explanation of what it means.

I understand that it’s a philosophical statement rather than straight word substitution or empirical hypothesis, so I don’t expect anybody to be able to demonstrate that it’s true (although given that it’s so often used when defending a truth claim, it should be).

But in precisely what sense is God = Love? And what is the “logic” behind the assertion?

I agree with you. I remember an old pastor of considerable intellect responding to my query regarding this phrase with “I sometimes wonder if it’s true (that “God is love”). He seems to write people off pretty easily.”

I suppose the statement is probably true in a philosophical sense, but I wonder what we mean when we talk about “divine love”. I haven’t seen a decent definition yet.

I have a query in that I’ve stated ad infinitum that my father appeared in my room the night he died. During the proceedings he stated at one stage “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!”

I argued back (and I was an atheist at that time) saying “That can’t be right!”

To which he responded “Oh, it’s right all right! You can see that from here!”

But later in the discussion he admitted “I was WILLING” (to act in the cruel stupid way that got him condemned).

At the end of the apparitional episode he gave this absolutely terrifying scream as he obviously could see something coming for him, and then just disappeared.

Now I have trouble reconciling the “I always was doomed!” with “God is love!” And I also think I could claim God’s been quite unfair in my own life on a number of occasions. Even my old pastor once said to me, “All He’s (God’s) done all your life is humiliate you! What have you done to deserve all this!!” So I don’t even like God much sometimes.

Even Christ, who died for us, is on record as saying “I do not pray for the world, but for those You have given me out of the world”. This seems like an exclusive statement regarding a lot of people.

John 17: 9-12 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours, and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them. And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

Here we have Christ himself saying He was not praying “for the world” but “for the ones you have given me …” And Judas is nominated as the “son of destruction” who was bound to be lost, “in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

So then … if God is love … what is love?

 

[englishredrose]

To follow up, here is an example from this very forum. How can this possibly be an act of love?

Because you haven’t yet understood God is love… God is love when we are in his presence. So simple and as my priest said, so simple yet so hard. I can having spent time with this priest as he talked about it.

God does not control us, he has designed us as free humans and not robots. Along with being designed to be free comes consequences of life and lots be very very hard for us to understand especially in terms of God. We are definately not meant to understand everything. These examples help us to come closer together to help us have compassion towards each other and work together and helping each other along the way. If God had made us into robots and made us all simply love him out of control, then we wouldn’t experience the joys of life. Along with joys of life come big sadnesses. The sadnesses help us to work together as a human race to feel humble to want to help. The Love of God is not what we automatically refer to God as I said in other posts. Gods love - love is the best word we have for the time with God being in his presence but not as the dictionary definition to love in every day life. You need to experience being in his presence just simply being to understand how Gods’ Love is different to the love we keep trying to compare it to.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with you. I remember an old pastor of considerable intellect responding to my query regarding this phrase with “I sometimes wonder if it’s true (that “God is love”). He seems to write people off pretty easily.”

I suppose the statement is probably true in a philosophical sense, but I wonder what we mean when we talk about “divine love”. I haven’t seen a decent definition yet.

I have a query in that I’ve stated ad infinitum that my father appeared in my room the night he died. During the proceedings he stated at one stage “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!”

I argued back (and I was an atheist at that time) saying “That can’t be right!”

To which he responded “Oh, it’s right all right! You can see that from here!”

But later in the discussion he admitted “I was WILLING” (to act in the cruel stupid way that got him condemned).

At the end of the apparitional episode he gave this absolutely terrifying scream as he obviously could see something coming for him, and then just disappeared.

Now I have trouble reconciling the “I always was doomed!” with “God is love!” And I also think I could claim God’s been quite unfair in my own life on a number of occasions. Even my old pastor once said to me, “All He’s (God’s) done all your life is humiliate you! What have you done to deserve all this!!” So I don’t even like God much sometimes.

Even Christ, who died for us, is on record as saying “I do not pray for the world, but for those You have given me out of the world”. This seems like an exclusive statement regarding a lot of people.

Here we have Christ himself saying He was not praying “for the world” but “for the ones you have given me …” And Judas is nominated as the “son of destruction” who was bound to be lost, “in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

So then … if God is love … what is love?

Bob,
These kinds of posts truly humble me…you have been through so much in coming to the Lord.
As you spoke above about trying to reconcile your dad’s comment about not having a choice - I implore you to recognize tow things…His statement that “From here you can see it” - how similar to the words of St Paul -
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. (1 Cor 13:12)
And then of course your father’s admission that He was willing -
Making sense of how all this works, God’s Plan and our response etc…we will never be able to work out on this side of the veil - but you have been truly blessed - truly blessed - to have had that vision.

Peace
James

 

[fred_conty]

In the O.T. God said to Moses, “I am who am”.
In the N.T. Jesus was charged with saying the same thing before the chief priest.

That means “he is”.
God does not have thoughts, love, justice, knowledge, etc.
If God had these, then there would be change in an unchangable being.
God is thought, is love, justice, knowledge, etc.

We have successive thoughts, one at a time.
God is one simple thought and encompases all potential things and actual things that ever could be or will be.
He is thought or is knowledge or all knowing in one act.

The same with love.
God is love of all potential beings and actual beings that every could be or ever will be in one act of love.
He is love itself unchanging.
We can only have love, with varying degrees, at different times.
If God were not unchanging in his love, then he would change which would be contrary to the nature of God which is to be unchangable.

Therefore God is love, will always be love, and cannot change from being all love.

We existed in his thought and love, from all eternity, before becoming actual.

He now sees us in thought and love, completely as we actually are.

That will never change in Him, because if it did, God would be different and not compatible with being God.

Only we can change our love because we perform acts of love, whereas God is one simple act of love.

This love explains Jesus, the hightpriest, sacrificing himself on the altar of the cross as the lamb victim so he might unite and love us for all eternity. The immense love that God is, expressed his love in the most complete way possible, to live and die for us.

Just a wonderful thought that we can be greatful for…that God is love.

 

[JDaniel]

Ok Im understanding and fully agreeing with above. If my first sentence is fair and reasonable, we cannot understand Gods active association in the operating mind within a bundy-stalin crime, to be in place.

FS:

That is correct, in my opinion. Such would be aberrations, anomalies, rare, but a violation of order in any event. For Catholicism, we admit that God controls everything - except sin. Bundy-Stalin crime(s) are sin(s). God controls the actions but not the impetuses.

All things on earth exist on a sliding scale of strength, some stronger and some weaker. The weak (and meek) are, it seems, always at a disadvantage. We must trust God to make what is obviously upside down, right side up again.

And, you are right, we cannot understand such a mentality.

By the way, in another thread, I called you “poetic,” i.e, a poet. I want you to know that I think poets and poetry are the highest forms of human expression. With you, it seems so natural. I enjoy your posts.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This idea above helps eliminate the question of interference in atrocity’s, such as the rape of a toddler. God would be with the available cry for order in the victim and apart from the absence of it…

Exactly.

within the assailant including the representation aspect of disorder in the act.

Yes, the assailant is not excluded. The disorder is part of God’s order.

This has helped me greatly, rational as far as I can see, and psychologically a necessity…

As it should. You’ve made me see again.

To know me is to know the father…I need God All Innocent in every way possible, and in keeping with order out of infinity,

You have figured out a way to do just that. Thank you for sharing it.

God bless,
jd

 

[reconman]

Because you haven’t yet understood God is love… God is love when we are in his presence. So simple and as my priest said, so simple yet so hard.

A convenient platitude that does not answer my question.

Suffering is not love. Especially for an innocent 7 yr old boy. It simply cannot be.

If God were just, I would be suffering instead.

God does not control us, he has designed us as free humans and not robots. Along with being designed to be free comes consequences of life and lots be very very hard for us to understand especially in terms of God.

Another platitude to try and explain the suffering of the innocent, which *cannot *be explained.

If God had made us into robots and made us all simply love him out of control, then we wouldn’t experience the joys of life.

What possible “joy” can this innocent soul be having?

The sadnesses help us to work together as a human race to feel humble to want to help.

Not for me. It just infuriates me and drives me further away from God.

You need to experience being in his presence just simply being to understand how Gods’ Love is different to the love we keep trying to compare it to.

You mean like the inhuman suffering of this innocent child and his parents?

Who could possibly understand their suffering?

Where is the “love?”

Be honest, 2+2=4 and God does not care who suffers or why.

Both are clearly evident. There is no way around it.

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you for your answer - more valuable than people telling me to read this, that or the other book in the bible.

However, your explanation applies equally to the phrase, “God is Hate,” “God is envy,” or “God is fear.” Simply because one might choose “love” as the “most effective mechanism by which a human being can achieve positive fulfillment,” that doesn’t mean that “love” is the only, or even the most appopriate, emotion to associate with God.

Wanstonian:

Thank you for your respectful and well thought out reply.

You see, we believe God Loves us - with Perfect Love. If we are correct, he would only want what is best for us - and only he knows what that best is, in my opinion.

The interesting thing about Love is that it is the only human power that has its own end of “positivity” within itself. (I read that somewhere.) “Hate” does not, “envy” does not, and “fear” does not. So, I don’t really think you can say that it is not the most effective mechanism by which a human being can achieve fulfillment.

I am trying to think of another, but, so far, to no avail.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure that is how the Church views it. It is the root and the trunk of the other Transcendentals, like a smart weight lifter who does his squats!

God bless,
jd