SPLIT: Defining what "God is Love" means

[JDaniel]

You asked “If God is Love, is it possible that manking must exist?”

My answer to that is an absolute NO.
In God (the divine nature) are 3 distinct persons in a UNION of LOVE (ie - Community). God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever having created ANYTHING … God is completely happy and does not need ANYTHING as if anything were lacking.

But you are on the right track - it was absolutely because God is Love that God created the Universe. But I would not go so far as to say that God’s LOVE necessitated God to create the Universe. God did not need to create us and it was His will (that is completely free) that chose to do so. God did not “have to”.

That was my experience of Grace.

So, He didn’t have to, but, He did. And, the creation of mankind was what . . . whim? Why would He put Himself through this with us?

Knowing that many of His children would win and many would fail, and, therefore, be damned, yet creating this existence anyway, this expresses love unconditionally? Does it not, at the very least, appear to you that “love” might just have its own flaws? But, how can that be - if God IS Love and it is herewith expressed, then, it cannot be flawed?

jd

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[N80]

So, He didn’t have to, but, He did. And, the creation of mankind was what . . . whim? Why would He put Himself through this with us?

Obviously not on a whim. A whim is a thoughtless act…which is pretty much impossible for God.

He created us so he could love us, and we in turn, could love and adore him.

Knowing that many of His children would win and many would fail, and, therefore, be damned, yet creating this existence anyway, this expresses love unconditionally?

Unconditional love is not a perfectly biblical concept. There was a forbidden tree, right? There was a command. And we can chose to reject God and to those, his love is not unconditional. For those who he choses, his love is then unconditional…but these are theological concerns which can be parsed to no end…and have little to do with the philisophical proofs of His existence.

But the fact that some are lost is a part of the ‘problem of evil’ argument. Plantinga solves this, in part, with ‘alternate worlds’ concepts which, though strange, are widely acceptable philosophical arguments. In a more practical sense, this question can be resolved by understanding that man has fallen and some men will chose not to accept God’s salvation. With that being the case, it could be that God’s plan is to acheive the most possible good as reflected in the greatest number of saved souls. I’ve heard it said, but can’t confirm that there are more people alive on earth today than have ever been alive throughout all of human history. And Christianity has now spread, or at least has been heard in virtually every corner of the earth. This means that as time goes by a greater portion of mankind can be saved.

Such a concept has obvious eschatological implications.

Does it not, at the very least, appear to you that “love” might just have its own flaws? But, how can that be - if God IS Love and it is herewith expressed, then, it cannot be flawed?

jd

Exactly. God is perfect. If he were imperfect then ‘god’ would not be what he was. And if he is perfect, then his love is perfect. Our understanding of love is what is flawed.

 

[JDaniel]

Obviously not on a whim. A whim is a thoughtless act…which is pretty much impossible for God.

Unfortunately, this thread is a spinoff of another. In that other thread, I started out by suggesting the case that God is Love. And, because He is Love, humanity was necessary. Humanity had to be created.

The argument came back that God is a tiune and as such that was all He needed for all eternity. We, humans, were unnecessary. Now, I realize that God is omnipotent, but, there are certain “restrictions”, if you will, that cannot be merely explained away by His omnipotence. For example, He cannot will Himself not to exist. He is Existence, too. Thus, being Existence precludes His will from that act.

Likewise, Love, as an attribute - and, as (and is) a quality that demands expression, or else it is, quite possibly, merely a mental fiction, a delusion - must be expressed. So, the Creation was ordered and mankind was (and is) the pinnacle and purpose of that act.

He created us so he could love us, and we in turn, could love and adore him.

Unconditional love is not a perfectly biblical concept. There was a forbidden tree, right? There was a command. And we can chose to reject God and to those, his love is not unconditional. For those who he choses, his love is then unconditional…but these are theological concerns which can be parsed to no end…and have little to do with the philisophical proofs of His existence.

However, He knew that would happen before He created us. He knew He would be inexorably disappointed by the very creatures that were made to be the recipients of His “expression” of Love. Perhaps it is, in some way, wrong to consider it in this way, but, when I attach my human affectations to the act, I cannot imagine wanting to be so utterly disappointed (by my end creation), knowing it beforehand, yet doing it anyway. That is why it seems to be “whim”. If not “whim” then a necessitated emanation of Love.

And, it doesn’t come down to the numbers either. “God so Loved each of us that . . .” goes the bibilical quote.

Snipped

Exactly. God is perfect. If he were imperfect then ‘god’ would not be what he was. And if he is perfect, then his love is perfect. Our understanding of love is what is flawed.

How is our concept of love flawed?

jd

 

[N80]

However, He knew that would happen before He created us. He knew He would be inexorably disappointed by the very creatures that were made to be the recipients of His “expression” of Love. Perhaps it is, in some way, wrong to consider it in this way, but, when I attach my human affectations to the act, I cannot imagine wanting to be so utterly disappointed (by my end creation), knowing it beforehand, yet doing it anyway. That is why it seems to be “whim”. If not “whim” then a necessitated emanation of Love.

Attaching our human affectations to God’s will is fraught with problems. It assumes, in a way, that our reasoning and logic is on par with his. For us to assume that about the creator of all things is not reasonable in itself.

But, God used the Fall of mankind to accomplish the most significant act of love and the most significant event in all of time, space on not only a spiritual but cosmological scale in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So knowing beforehand that man would disappoint him was insignificant compared to the act of love, mercy and grace by which he would correct it.

And, it doesn’t come down to the numbers either. “God so Loved each of us that . . .” goes the bibilical quote.

Which verse is that? Regardless, he also so loved each of us that he gave us the ability to deny him. Without that ability we would be without the ability to choose to love him as well.

How is our concept of love flawed?

jd

If our concept of love is not flawed then it is perfect. If I can show you one example of how human love is not perfect then it is flawed. Can you think of any way in which your concept of love might be flawed? I know that my concept of love is both flawed and lacking…my actions are proof. How about yours?

George

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

You know the most profoud thing I’ve ever heard is Gods name as he revealed it to Moses which translation I like is - I am who am.
This is really something. God gives us a name that tells us who he is. Over the millenia God reveals more and more about himself until he comes and lives among us and we learn to understand God by seeing him as a man like ourselves. Here we can get the best understanding of who God is. By looking at Christ- his hidden life, his public life with all his teaching and actions. It’s all a revelation of who and what God is for us.
Through it we learn that God is love and we can best understand the love of God when we study Jesus. We can have very erroneous ideas about who or what God is and what love really is but when we look at Christ we see God and it is the God of love.

 

[N80]

You know the most profoud thing I’ve ever heard is Gods name as he revealed it to Moses which translation I like is - I am who am.

The “I Am” of that statement is huge. Not only do we have a name, but we have the assurance of existence, an existence outside of ourselves. In this simple claim of existence lies all the profound answers about who God is.

 

[JDaniel]

continued . . .

Obviously not on a whim. A whim is a thoughtless act…which is pretty much impossible for God.

Not really. “Whim” means an act that is seemingly thoughtless. Seemingly to us, perhaps?

Unconditional love is not a perfectly biblical concept. There was a forbidden tree, right? There was a command. And we can chose to reject God and to those, his love is not unconditional. For those who he choses, his love is then unconditional…but these are theological concerns which can be parsed to no end…and have little to do with the philisophical proofs of His existence.

But, did Adam and Eve “freely” choose? Did they have all of the necessary information they needed to make a correct decision? Eve was conned. How is that possible if she actually had full knowledge of the consequences of her act, aand was, at that time, pure? Was she, in some way(s), honestly ignorant?

But the fact that some are lost is a part of the ‘problem of evil’ argument. Plantinga solves this, in part, with ‘alternate worlds’ concepts which, though strange, are widely acceptable philosophical arguments. In a more practical sense, this question can be resolved by understanding that man has fallen and some men will chose not to accept God’s salvation. With that being the case, it could be that God’s plan is to acheive the most possible good as reflected in the greatest number of saved souls. I’ve heard it said, but can’t confirm that there are more people alive on earth today than have ever been alive throughout all of human history. And Christianity has now spread, or at least has been heard in virtually every corner of the earth. This means that as time goes by a greater portion of mankind can be saved.

But, see, the “problem” might not be a problem of evility. It may be a problem of “stupidity”, used in its broadest sense.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Attaching our human affectations to God’s will is fraught with problems. It assumes, in a way, that our reasoning and logic is on par with his. For us to assume that about the creator of all things is not reasonable in itself.

The problem with this is that God has revealed Himself to US. He wants US to get to know Him. Logic is logic. It is perfect. It is another trail of clues left behind by God, indicating that truth in fact exists and, what is more, persists.

But, God used the Fall of mankind to accomplish the most significant act of love and the most significant event in all of time, space on not only a spiritual but cosmological scale in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So knowing beforehand that man would disappoint him was insignificant compared to the act of love, mercy and grace by which he would correct it.

“Correct it”?

. . . he also so loved each of us that he gave us the ability to deny him. Without that ability we would be without the ability to choose to love him as well.

If our concept of love is not flawed then it is perfect. If I can show you one example of how human love is not perfect then it is flawed. Can you think of any way in which your concept of love might be flawed? I know that my concept of love is both flawed and lacking…my actions are proof. How about yours?

I think that I might have errantly used that phrase, “concept of love.” The phrase might be misleading. I should have said, “our application of that exigency which we call ‘love’.” Even that isn’t precisely what I mean, but, you get the point.

My argument was not that our application(s) of Love are flawed (even our conceptions of Love are indeed flawed) but, that God’s could not be. You indicated that God sent Jesus to “correct” that mistake. If that be the case, that further proves that the Creation was necessary.

jd

 

[N80]

Not really. “Whim” means an act that is seemingly thoughtless. Seemingly to us, perhaps?

I’m not sure I concur with that definition, but no matter, I think that you hit the nail on the head. God’s actions might seem like whims to us. That does not make them whims though and says more about our limited understanding than it does about God’s will.

But, did Adam and Eve “freely” choose? Did they have all of the necessary information they needed to make a correct decision?

Yes. They had all relevant information. The only information they lacked was the knowledge of evil, which could only be acquired through sin and is part of death…God warned them of this beforehand.

Eve was conned. How is that possible if she actually had full knowledge of the consequences of her act, aand was, at that time, pure? Was she, in some way(s), honestly ignorant?

Eve was deceived. But her desire was to do evil. She WAS told of the consequences of her actions, she even recited them back to the serpent. Did she lack details? Maybe, but if she was willing to face death to eat of the fruit, then how could details, which would have been abstract to her, have made a difference.

But, see, the “problem” might not be a problem of evility. It may be a problem of “stupidity”, used in its broadest sense.

Nope. She had all the relevant facts. There was no consequence worse than death. And her provisions were already perfect. She had no need. She had only to choose the obvious, wide, perfect, illuminated way or the dark fearful path toward death. She exercised her free will in the wrong direction. As did Adam.

George

 

[N80]

The problem with this is that God has revealed Himself to US. He wants US to get to know Him. Logic is logic. It is perfect. It is another trail of clues left behind by God, indicating that truth in fact exists and, what is more, persists.

Whose logic is perfect? As a concept? Sure. But that’s like saying that what is true is true.

In any case, sure, he reveals himself to us and it is clear that we are to use our minds t the fullest extent to enjoy, love and know him. But that in no way implies that we will know or understand or love or enjoy him perfectly while here on earth. Just the opposite is true and we are told this very specifically by Paul:

1Cor. 13:12 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.

(Emphasis mine.)

“Correct it”?

Yes, as in fix, repair, renew. Maybe a bit informal, but the fall of man caused the fall of nature. Through Christ God corrected this.

The verb “correct” is defined as: to put right.

My argument was not that our application(s) of Love are flawed (even our conceptions of Love are indeed flawed) but, that God’s could not be. You indicated that God sent Jesus to “correct” that mistake. If that be the case, that further proves that the Creation was necessary.

jd

I have not weighed in on the argument about whether or not creation was necessary. I’m as interested in philosophical and theological discussions as anyone but arguing the necessity of creation seem fairly pointless to me. I can’t see how it would affect my beliefs one way or the other because in the end the concept of “necessity” would always seem artificial to me when applied to an all good, all powerful God.

George