Well I hope that I do not disappoint.
I don’t know if I can give an example of how “logic” hinders but perhaps I can give an example, only very crudely you understand, of how a “given set of parameters” hinders.
…Describe the color blue to a person blind from birth…The parameters associated with color mean that any normal way of describing it will be meaningless and what descriptors you might be able to use will have to appeal to other senses and really only hint at the true nature of the color blue.
Describing the colors blue and red to a deaf, dumb and blind kid: Put an ice cube in one hand, then sign the letters B-L-U-E in her other hand. Remove the ice cube and put a hot potato (not too hot, mind you!) in her hand. When she drops it, sign the letters R-E-D in her other hand. Will she understand what the experience of seeing the colors blue and red with her eyes is? No. Will she have a better understanding of what comes to mind when someone not blind sees a blue sky and a red flame? Yes, I believe so.
In a similar way “knowledge” is limited without experience. You might be able to describe a Sunset viewed from a mountain top…but such descriptions will always fall short of the actual experience.
Agreed. As Saint Paul the Apostle writes:
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13)
So, yes, I understand that now I shall never see the full truth about love. But I have to ask: Should this blindness of mine prevent me from trying to see as much as I’m able? Should my deafness keep me from trying to hear what God is telling me about himself? Should my dumbness hold me back from trying to put in words what the words God is love might really mean? In short, should I be content with remaining deaf, dumb and blind?
Preconceptions can also play a part. For example if I show you a painting of a horse in a field and ask you what you see, what is your likely response…“I see a horse in a field”…when in fact you DON’T see a horse in a field. What you see is dried chemicals covering a piece of stretched cloth and organized in a way that represents a horse in a field.
So - you see - there are a number of different ways in which “parameters” (and expectations) can limit the ability to “see” and to understand something.
as I say - the above are crude…Please don’t take me to task on the particulars
Yes, but if I am making a horse’s arse out of myself by thinking the thing that looks like a horse is a horse when it is not, would I be wrong to ask you whether you thought the thing I think is a horse really is a horse, and why you thought so. This is what I’m doing with love, even now. Please let me explain. When John writes,
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
(1 John 4:8)
I suspect that he means this:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is [perfectly loving].
(1 John 4:8)
It’s like when Simon and Garfunkel sang, “I am a rock; I am an island.” They did not mean their skin was made of marble and their toes were sandy beaches. They were using figures of speech to create a beautiful picture of their states of being. So I wonder if this is what Saint John the Apostle is doing. You see?
Actually no I don’t agree. Your assumption that some are subcategories of others incorrectly interprets my intent. Each needs to be embraced both on it’s own and in conjunction equally with the others. No hierarchy…
True, it’s not a hierarchy. But isn’t it a broad description with several more specific examples? I’m thinking
- that which creates
- that which builds up
- that which promotes
- that which embraces
are all examples of “that which seeks the good of the other”. They are all defined as “that which seeks the good of the other”. Creating, building up, promoting and embracing are all ways of seeking the good of the other. Don’t you now see? Moreover, these four are in no way complete. For you might seek my good by
- being kind
- being gentle
- being patient
- forgiving me
and by countless other ways. Yet every way is defined one way: Seeking my good. Can you think of any way of loving that is not defined as seeking the good of another?
Sometimes it depends on the word…what it is trying to describe - how important the experiential and emotional factors are etc…
I have given you what I consider to be a very precise definition of Agape Love as I understand it. You consider it vague. Why do you think we have the disconnect?
What is unclear to me is what you mean by the words
the other. Is this love of which you speak that which is given to all, to many, or to a select few. Is it wrong for me to ask?
Good quote…So tell me - how does one “precisely define” that which surpasses all knowledge?
As precisely as God allows!
You do have a point that I’ll never know the God of love as fully as I’d like until I see him face-to-face. But I think he’d hope that I not give up trying to know him as well as I am able. Or maybe I should be content with being deaf, dumb and blind and take up pinball?
