Just asking for some thoughts

[Mojoforyeshua]

I’m responding to this:
You know, I may be pretty drunk right now, but it seems you kids have latched onto these greek concepts of love and thought to yourselves “Agape just seems better and more Divine than the others. The others must not have much value by comp…(tharr be more)arison.” I just don’t think that is what they had in mind. I think God is Love refers to all types of love. Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storgos (sp?)… as well as any other fancy names for love you want to throw in from other languages. Brotherly love is no less valid, valuable, and divine than “charity love”. Some might even call it pity love, but I don’t know if I’d go there with it. And Eros doesn’t just mean the love of sex. I’ll admit that sex is awesome, but Eros goes a bit deeper than that. And this, too, can be divine. This is why I think the old Rabbis used to say you shouldn’t try to learn this stuff until you were at least 40 years old and married. Get out there and experience the various kinds of love God has to offer, and you’ll understand none are higher or more divine than the others. It’s something you have to find out for yourself, though, and not read in a book. If a mere book could teach us the meaning of the divine, we’d all know by now. The fact remains that few people can agree on what <exactly!> is the nature of the divine. Even those among the same doctrines and dogmas of an outdated faith system called the church can’t necessarily agree on the fundamental nature of the Divine. It falls upon us to seek out and discover for ourselves our own personal truths- that we may find a small fragment in this life of the divine that is uniquely our own, and not wrong in any way just because it differs from what our neighbors might recite as their own divine truths. All love is divine, in my book. No matter the prefix of Agape, Eros, Philia or that other one I can’t remember how to spell. The love we have of our mothers, basically.

If you lock yourself into just one kind of love, could you become a demon, as Stute was suggesting? Maybe… But maybe you’re just missing out on some really cool aspects of the Divine that God put forth for our enjoyment and benefit? Who knows? I think we are better off and more complete knowing as much love in as many varieties as possible.

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

This is my response:

We are not saying that Eros, Philia and Storge don’t have any value because you are right, their value comes from God…He desires us, He is closer to us than a brother and He is our Father but Agape is all encompassing and holds them all. It is unconditional and does not change, that is why we call that the “God kind of Love” Because His love remains the same because it is infinite. All of the loves truly are valid and wonderful and for us to experience but they find their fulfillment in Agape because brotherly love, familial love, desirous love waxes and wanes but when you add agape it becomes permanent and endless and transcends emotion. After all, emotions are fleeting but Agape is forever, undefeatable and unchangeable .(1 Cor 13:8)

Just as an exegetical statement the phrase “God is Love” comes from the New Testament in the 1st Epistle of John 4:8 and the word in greek for used for “Love” is indeed Agape.

I actually don’t necessarily think it was the Rabbis that said that. I do know that for many years people were told to wait until they were 40 or 50 to study Metaphysics and that was in the middle ages but that is unimportant. I think that we are having a bit of a language barrier here. “Charity” is not just giving to the poor and needy but is a self-giving. Charity in the first sense, if done out of pity which in this case seems to be used the same as guilt, is not the same as giving out of love. Giving to the poor is a good thing but giving to eliminate that uncomfortable feeling that it gives you, is ultimately selfish. Charity is giving out of Love for the person in knowing that they are a person with intrinsic human value. Agape extends outside the self for the sake of the other, not inward so that we might feel good. What I have seen over and over again is that people who seek after “love” are more and more often seeking after themselves and to have that feeling of love. “Loving” for the pleasure of loving is no more partaking in Divine Lovemaking, if I may be so reverent, than masturbation is taking part in the marital act of sex. Masturbating cannot produce life, no matter how pleasurable it may be. Just as Loving for the sake of self cannot produce the divine life in you. And with out divine life, we will ultimately die in ourselves and that truly is hell. Not that I am saying this is what you are doing Cale, don’t get me wrong I am not directing this at you and I think you are a good guy.

I think there is a bit of a break in the logic of the idea that “People have different views on things, therefore none of them is right and we can’t know” It really is a non sequiter. Sort of like the idea of atheism vs. a belief in God, one is right and the other is wrong. I’m also not interested in “my truth” I’m interested in what is actually true, which is why I study this stuff so much because there is no thing of higher importance than to know the One Who created. And the Catholic Church is quite unanimous with what it believes about the Nature of God, what we can know anyway. Just read the first couple chapters of the newest Catechism to start to get it or read The Summa Theologica to get an idea on that. Its nice to have an infallible teaching authority with the longevity (as no human organization has lasted as long as the church I find it reliable), miracles, apostolic succession, steadfast teachings and foundation (Jesus) to back it up. Not saying you have to buy it per say but I really think that the Christian case at length has a better one than any other out there.

As far as this idea of “outdated” faith system, I just find that ridiculous and insulting. Suppose you buy a large property and find a structure in a large clearing in the woods and you have no idea what it is for or how important it may or may not be, should you not first find out what it is for? Maybe it keeps the killer flying bear cavalry out? Or maybe it was just a tool shed? Either way, the prudent thing to do would be to find out what that building is for rather than just tear it down because it doesn’t suit your own personal tastes or is not the same architecture that we have today. Tradition is the same, you shouldn’t tear it down just because you don’t like it or that it doesn’t fit in with the moral zeitgeist of this day, find out where it comes from and why it is there. This idea of “outdated” is also very elitist, that those of us who have the fortune of still living should have the only say. Tradition, on the other hand, is much more democratic. We say in the United States that all people, no matter who they are by accident of birth, have the right to have a say. Just as in tradition that those who happen to have fallen to that accident of death have the right to have a say in our lives. We don’t put down a good man’s word simply because he is lower class just as we do not put down a good man’s word just because he is our father. Tradition is the democracy of the dead and the wisdom of our ancestors.

Christianity is a rational religion; it makes sense and seeks out truth independent about how we feel about it. It isn’t baseless or mindless or unintellectual. When I started looking into Catholicism, I never found “believe this because we say so” I found “Believe this because it is true and here is how we know it is true. Here, figure it out for yourself and we’ll be here to help.” And it is endless, I could spend 100 lifetimes studying what there is to know about this Faith and never come to the end of it and that pales in comparison to God. In fact, St. Augustine had a dream of a boy who had dug a hole and was going to the ocean and taking out a bit of water with a thimble and dumping in the hole and God said to him, “Don’t you understand that he will empty the ocean before you exhaust what there is to be written about me.”

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

Obviously, this is not exhaustive and not really that important but I want to make sure it’s not insulting and at least makes some sense.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I think you should not spend too much effort responding to somebody who admits that he’s “pretty drunk right now.”

 

[FightingFat]

I think you should not spend too much effort responding to somebody who admits that he’s “pretty drunk right now.”

LOL!

I think sometimes, these things present opportunities for you to work through your own thinking and put it down. When you do that, you often find it makes a lot more sense! Good for you OP!

 

[Big_Dummy]

I’m responding to this:
You know, I may be pretty drunk right now, but it seems you kids have latched onto these greek concepts of love and thought to yourselves “Agape just seems better and more Divine than the others. The others must not have much value by comp…(tharr be more)arison.” I just don’t think that is what they had in mind. I think God is Love refers to all types of love. Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storgos (sp?)… as well as any other fancy names for love you want to throw in from other languages. Brotherly love is no less valid, valuable, and divine than “charity love”. Some might even call it pity love, but I don’t know if I’d go there with it. And Eros doesn’t just mean the love of sex. I’ll admit that sex is awesome, but Eros goes a bit deeper than that. And this, too, can be divine. This is why I think the old Rabbis used to say you shouldn’t try to learn this stuff until you were at least 40 years old and married. Get out there and experience the various kinds of love God has to offer, and you’ll understand none are higher or more divine than the others. It’s something you have to find out for yourself, though, and not read in a book. If a mere book could teach us the meaning of the divine, we’d all know by now. The fact remains that few people can agree on what <exactly!> is the nature of the divine. Even those among the same doctrines and dogmas of an outdated faith system called the church can’t necessarily agree on the fundamental nature of the Divine. It falls upon us to seek out and discover for ourselves our own personal truths- that we may find a small fragment in this life of the divine that is uniquely our own, and not wrong in any way just because it differs from what our neighbors might recite as their own divine truths. All love is divine, in my book. No matter the prefix of Agape, Eros, Philia or that other one I can’t remember how to spell. The love we have of our mothers, basically.

If you lock yourself into just one kind of love, could you become a demon, as Stute was suggesting? Maybe… But maybe you’re just missing out on some really cool aspects of the Divine that God put forth for our enjoyment and benefit? Who knows? I think we are better off and more complete knowing as much love in as many varieties as possible.

I would say, You are right you are drunk and you are using “stinky thinking”

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (New International Version,

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

And, yes the other forms of love are vaild in their correct contexts. Eros out of context is Lust which is a sin.

 

[Warrenton]

And Eros doesn’t just mean the love of sex. I’ll admit that sex is awesome, but Eros goes a bit deeper than that. And this, too, can be divine…

Well, perhaps it can awesome, but it can also be routine, dull or needy, fruitfull or fruitless, even pointless.

How much deeper can you get?

But “divine” eros? That is a bit too Venus de Milo.

Of course, you personally may be “divine,” especially after a few drinks!

 

[utunumsint]

From your terminology, it seems like you have read C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves. If you have, then I would have to say I don’t think Lewis poopoos the other three loves. He only says that Agape completes them, lifts them up to a new level, enhanses them, turns them into something beautiful. Anyway, if you haven’t read The Four Loves, I highly recommend it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

Ah, interesting. I think you guy’s misread the post. The first post was an objection a friend of mine had to something I said. The second post is what I said in response. Yeah, I know he was drunk but I wanted to do it for my own benefit too. I have read about the first chapter of the Four Loves and so far, it is the only Lewis Book I haven’t been able to get into. I know what the different loves are and I know God and I’m not bad at philosophy but I was just making sure I got things right in this one. Why? I’m not sure…I really don’t know why I was asking for opinions on this.

Thanks for looking!

 

[utunumsint]

Ah, interesting. I think you guy’s misread the post. The first post was an objection a friend of mine had to something I said. The second post is what I said in response. Yeah, I know he was drunk but I wanted to do it for my own benefit too. I have read about the first chapter of the Four Loves and so far, it is the only Lewis Book I haven’t been able to get into. I know what the different loves are and I know God and I’m not bad at philosophy but I was just making sure I got things right in this one. Why? I’m not sure…I really don’t know why I was asking for opinions on this.

Thanks for looking!

I totally missed that! Sorry.

I actually downloaded it from Audible. The original CS Lewis recording. Nice.

God bless,
Ut