Problem with "God is Love"

[OneSheep]

Logical, but not very helpful and not true, or doesn’t demonstrate anything as the term “God” loses any significant meaning in a discussion.

True, but if an atheist, again, is unencumbered by prejudices then the logic makes sense.

IF A then B, and If B then C, so if A then C.

“God is OneSheep”, though, serves no purpose. OTOH, “God is Love” is not only what we claim as truth, but if atheists, for example, could accept “God is Love” without attaching other concepts, then we have a bridge.

The Spirit builds bridges, right?

I guess what I am saying is:

A logical argument is worth upholding if it has good purpose
The argument presented by Mike has good purpose
The argument presented by Mike is worth upholding

 

[fhansen]

I was wondering about what Love is in the phrase “God is Love”. The phrase does not carry any information if Love is God otherwise Love is something different than God which this is against simplicity of God.

I doubt John meant to be exhaustive with that description. We need to understand that John, through Christ, experienced something very deep, very profound. He knew God, for the first time really, in an intimate way; he had seen & met Him. And that experience, that taste, remains and continues to impact the person. God is love. God exudes love, by His mere presence. It’s not an everyday kind of occurrence to “see” this truth, to see Him.

 

[Gabika50]

In____erest__g!!!

 

[STT]

You need to know what Love is. Do you know?

 

[OneSheep]

You need to know what Love is. Do you know?

Yes. Generally speaking, it is what people are referring to when they use the word “love”.

Now, why does one need to define it as more than that to support the statement “I think that the love that we experience is different from Love therefore Love cannot be connected to what we experience.”

Things can be different, yet connected, right?

So, if you don’t mind, let’s turn it around. How do you define love (experienced) and Love such that they cannot be connected?

 

[STT]

Love (with small l) is an feeling and it is something subjective. Love (with capital l) is something that I don’t know what it is but it has to be objective. I don’t have an example objective thing which is related to a subjective thing. Do you?

 

[Usagi]

I don’t believe the “God is love” phrasing requires a capital L, or that it is supposed to mean something fundamentally different from the love we experience.

Note, however, that caritas, the theological virtue of love, isn’t referring to subjective feelings, but to an act or habit of the will. You can love someone in the Christian sense without feeling affection for them — hence the command “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” Will their ultimate good, not have nice feelings about them. God qua God, of course, does not have subjective feelings, but does have a will permanently and necessarily oriented toward love.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

First premise: True, by asserted definition
Second premise: True, by experience
Conclusion is logical

Am I missing something?

Demeter is love
Love exists
Therefore, Demeter exists.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I agree that’s a bad assertion and I hope Catholics won’t use it.

 

[Rubee]

True, but if an atheist, again, is unencumbered by prejudices then the logic makes sense.

IF A then B, and If B then C, so if A then C.

“God is OneSheep”, though, serves no purpose. OTOH, “God is Love” is not only what we claim as truth, but if atheists, for example, could accept “God is Love” without attaching other concepts, then we have a bridge.

No, it is actually a very bad argument and that has nothing to do with the prejudices of an atheist.

Deductions always depend on the premises being true. And no, “by definition” is not saying much. You must actually establish that A is true in the first place, for → B → C to follow. I’d never respect someone who tried to convince me with such an “argument” because it’s just a roundabout way of saying “accept it because I said it”, rather than “accept it because I’ve reasonably shown you it’s true.”

You can’t just make an arbitrary definition based on your own pre-existing beliefs (That God = Love ) then use that to build a whole argument without having bothered to show that that definition is true because it’s true: Not because you have said it’s true. It’d be a house built on air, otherwise, because you’re making yourself, the definer, the unquestioned authority on the matter. Why should any reasonable person just accept what you say?

This argument would only work with someone who already accepts that God = Love, only. But I doubt such a person would need the argument in the first place!

 

[Rubee]

So to me, I see nothing “bad” in the argument. The unencumbered atheist can say “Okay, if God is love, I believe in God. I don’t believe in some entity that created all that is, but I do believe that love exists in all people (creatures, etc). If you say God is love, then I believe in God.”

Is that problematic?

The scenario you’ve described is not problematic but what does it accomplish?

The atheist there is not saying he believes that God exists. He is still only saying he believes love exists and accommodates whatever arbitrary word you want to attach to that love: God, Flying Sphaghetti Monster, a steel plant etc.

If your aim is merely to get him to use the word “God” in a meaningless way, then you’d have accomplished that, but if it’s to get him to entertain the existence of God in a meaningful way, you’d not have accomplished much.

 

[OneSheep]

Demeter is love
Love exists
Therefore, Demeter exists.

I’m saying the structure is logical. Of course, if you actually believed that Demeter is love, I can choose to either accept or deny the premise. If “Demeter is love” is of importance to you, I could totally accept it as valid (for you) even if I don’t personally share the conviction.

For example, then, if I say God is Love (by definition) can you accept that “God exists” in my view even if you don’t share the conviction?

 

[goout]

OneSheep:

True, but if an atheist, again, is unencumbered by prejudices then the logic makes sense.

IF A then B, and If B then C, so if A then C.

“God is OneSheep”, though, serves no purpose. OTOH, “God is Love” is not only what we claim as truth, but if atheists, for example, could accept “God is Love” without attaching other concepts, then we have a bridge.

No, it is actually a very bad argument and that has nothing to do with the prejudices of an atheist.

Deductions always depend on the premises being true. And no, “by definition” is not saying much. You must actually establish that A is true in the first place, for → B → C to follow. I’d never respect someone who tried to convince me with such an “argument” because it’s just a roundabout way of saying “accept it because I said it”, rather than “accept it because I’ve reasonably shown you it’s true.”

You can’t just make an arbitrary definition based on your own pre-existing beliefs (That God = Love ) then use that to build a whole argument without having bothered to show that that definition is true because it’s true: Not because you have said it’s true. It’d be a house built on air, otherwise, because you’re making yourself, the definer, the unquestioned authority on the matter. Why should any reasonable person just accept what you say?

This argument would only work with someone who already accepts that God = Love, only. But I doubt such a person would need the argument in the first place!

God is love is an article of revelation for a believer, but is pretty much useless for a non-believer.
But God is love is also descriptive of what is seen in natural , natural law etc… Anyone can see it.
The list of analogies are endless how love is an outpouring of one thing (or being) to another.

The claim that God is love requires a person to accept:
1 I did not create myself. This is a very tough sell oddly enough, although it is insanity to assume otherwise. It is hard for otherwise rational people to admit they didn’t create themselves, because the implications directly challenge some assumptions they have.

2 If I didn’t create myself, something other did. What is “other”? Atheists will assign “other” to “accident”. My creation is an accident of molecular processes or some such thing. That might satisfy a scientific inquiry, but it’s devoid of meaning, purpose, identity, destiny.
And look around…those things matter to everyone, even those who would deny it.

3 If “other” gives me being I should acknowledge “other” as a being, otherwise how would I have being if the other didn’t have it to give?

Demonstrating commons sense natural examples of how love works as an outpouring from one to another, coupled with a sense of our own dependency on it, should cause just about anyone to think, rather than reflexively cry “I am an accident”.
Accidentalism answers no meaningful questions, yet human beings are searching hard for meaning, purpose, identity, destiny.

 

[OneSheep]

Love (with small l) is an feeling and it is something subjective.

But feeling occur and in that sense, exist, correct? They have an objective energy, they can be somewhat measured in human physiology.

Love (with capital l) is something that I don’t know what it is but it has to be objective.

But every objective phenomenon, when observed by a human, has a subjective quality. Each of us sees things a little bit differently because our own experiences are infinitely diverse.

I don’t have an example objective thing which is related to a subjective thing. Do you?

Frankly, I’m hard-pressed to think of anything that does not have a subjective quality when one considers that every objective phenomenon is observed by individual humans. Sure, when we agree on some parameters, 1+2=3, but 1+2 could also equal 2.8.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Rubee,

I’m thinking that perhaps what you are leaving out of your analysis of my viewpoint is that I am starting with “IF A”, with a very important emphasis on “IF”.

And rather than trying to assert some truth, reasonable people can look at one another’s “IFs” and, if they are expressed with sincerity, we can accept them as the other’s view of truth. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with asserting what we each think is true, but in the long run the acceptance, in the moment, of another’s truth is going to go a lot further in building bridges than proclaiming brute facts.

…but if it’s to get him to entertain the existence of God in a meaningful way…

I think that if a person actually had that objective, then accepting the person’s views is a great starting point. Then, if he is enticed by such acceptance, that’s a step in the direction of building bridges. If, OTOH, he is not enticed but at least gets the sense that I am not judging his position, then perhaps I have already communicated who God is anyway. Either way, I have upheld that God loves us no matter what.

But see, I’m not talking about strategy for the sake of evangelizing. I’m talking about being merciful and understanding for the sake of respect for the dignity of the other person.

You must actually establish that A is true in the first place, for -> B -> C to follow. I’d never respect someone who tried to convince me with such an “argument” because it’s just a roundabout way of saying “accept it because I said it”, rather than “accept it because I’ve reasonably shown you it’s true.”

I think we may be using the word “accept” differently. For example, can you accept that a Jewish person, for example, does not believe that Jesus is God incarnate? Can you accept that someone believes that Global warming is, or is not, happening?

God is love is an article of revelation for a believer, but is pretty much useless for a non-believer.

I disagree. I think that all “non-believers” have an experience of love (not just the romantic sense) and can probably agree that IF God is defined as love, then God exists, as long as all the other attributes that are assigned to God are left undefined.

 

[steve-b]

Judaism avoids this statement since, as wonderful as love is, even love is too restrictive a way to define Gd.

metzerboy2,

Re: Judaism,

You’re talking about the Jews who didn’t accept Jesus and remain so to this day.

Yet there was a section of Judaism that followed Jesus, who is 100% God, who took on humanity as a Jew, lived a perfect life here as a Jew, suffered, died, and resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day, all according to the scriptures.

Jesus talked about love… Plenty , and so did His disciples and the writers of the NT. These followers were called Christians, and the Church (Acts 9:31) was called the Kataholos ekklesia (Catholic) Church.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, I am talking about the way Jews portray Gd in that they do not depict Him as Gd is Love since Gd is many other things besides love, including justice, truth, perfection, universal, sovereign, spirit rather than flesh, and one. To limit Gd by this statement is contrary to Jewish thinking and theology. In fact, Jews prefer to describe Gd by what He is NOT rather than what He is. Your comment is touching on another interesting issue, namely, who is and is not considered to be a Jew.

 

[goout]

goout:

God is love is an article of revelation for a believer, but is pretty much useless for a non-believer.

I disagree. I think that all “non-believers” have an experience of love (not just the romantic sense) and can probably agree that IF God is defined as love, then God exists, as long as all the other attributes that are assigned to God are left undefined.

’

Yes. Which is why I said this right after that.

But God is love is also descriptive of what is seen in natural , natural law etc… Anyone can see it.
The list of analogies are endless how love is an outpouring of one thing (or being) to another.

 

[goout]

meltzerboy2:

Judaism avoids this statement since, as wonderful as love is, even love is too restrictive a way to define Gd.

metzerboy2,

Re: Judaism,

You’re talking about the Jews who didn’t accept Jesus and remain so to this day.

Yet there was a section of Judaism that followed Jesus, who is 100% God, who took on humanity as a Jew, lived a perfect life here as a Jew, suffered, died, and resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day, all according to the scriptures.

Jesus talked about love… Plenty , and so did His disciples and the writers of the NT. These followers were called Christians, and the Church (Acts 9:31) was called the Kataholos ekklesia (Catholic) Church.

Good points, and in the Christian philosophical/theological Tradition love, properly understood, is the antithesis of restriction. Rather perfect love exists in perfect and complete freedom. It is the total and perfect outpouring for the good of another. So love is THE completeness of God, not a restriction on God.

 

[Wesrock]

steve-b:

meltzerboy2:

Judaism avoids this statement since, as wonderful as love is, even love is too restrictive a way to define Gd.

metzerboy2,

Re: Judaism,

You’re talking about the Jews who didn’t accept Jesus and remain so to this day.

Yet there was a section of Judaism that followed Jesus, who is 100% God, who took on humanity as a Jew, lived a perfect life here as a Jew, suffered, died, and resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day, all according to the scriptures.

Jesus talked about love… Plenty , and so did His disciples and the writers of the NT. These followers were called Christians, and the Church (Acts 9:31) was called the Kataholos ekklesia (Catholic) Church.

Good points, and in the Christian philosophical/theological Tradition love, properly understood, is the antithesis of restriction. Rather perfect love exists in perfect and complete freedom. It is the total and perfect outpouring for the good of another. So love is THE completeness of God, not a restriction on God.

I think the use of analogous terminology, when the analogy of being is properly understood, is appropriate for speaking of God. And I agree, God is love. However, and I don’t mean to put words in metzerboy2’s mouth, there are other traditions that disagree that there is any possible analogy between God and creation, and so restrict what they say to apophatic (negative) theology excepting explicit cases that scripture is clear on. Furthermore, some only see terms as being either univocal or equivocal. So saying “God is love” applies a creaturely term to the transcendant God, and that, to apophatic theologians, can’t be anything but restricting.