E
EndTimes
Guest
Not so… GOD IS LOVE…Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.
LOVE IS A QUALITY - AN ACTUALITY
_
_
Last edited:
Not so… GOD IS LOVE…Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.
I have no idea what you are responding to.goout:![]()
Not so… GOD IS LOVE…Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.
LOVE IS A QUALITY - AN ACTUALITY
_
_
I’m responding to your statement…Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.
“Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.”
_
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85
254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91
Before there were created human beings to think about definitions of love, God is love. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.IV. THE DIVINE WORKS AND THE TRINITARIAN MISSIONS
257 "O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!"93 God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the “plan of his loving kindness”, conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: “He destined us in love to be his sons” and “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, through “the spirit of sonship”.94 This plan is a "grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately from Trinitarian love.95 It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.96
Of course God IS LOVE …Before there were created human beings to think about definitions of love, God is love. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
You need to take this up with a pastor or a theologian. Your disagreement is not with me it’s with the catechism.goout:![]()
Of course God IS LOVE …Before there were created human beings to think about definitions of love, God is love. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
AND LOVE AS GOD - does not need anything other than ITSELF
_
ok, as I’ve noted, we are starting from completely different premises so the discussion is not really going to come together.goout:![]()
I don’t think so. I believe love is a state of being.Love is meaningless without a lover and a beloved, so it is between persons.
Human intuition tells us that love without a beloved is perverse.I love me truly, truly dear,
Life with it’s sorrow, life with it’s tear,
Fades into dreams when I feel myself near,
For I love me truly,
Truly dear!
YesDo you agree we have a lover, a beloved, and the love exchanged between them?
No, love is bound up with the persons, not a vague quality disconnected from them. Love doesn’t make sense without lover and beloved.Do you also agree that the love exchanged between them is not the lover itself nor the beloved itself?
Well, my friend, you are appealing to common sense language usage, while using a very individualistic definition of love…goout:![]()
Would you agree that scripture says that mans ways are not Gods? Why would you make mans intuition and Gods condition comparable? You’ve got it completely backwards…a lover without love is perverse because the lover is defined by love. You cannot make a meaningful statement such as “Love without a lover is perverse.” Simply because the two are not in the same classification. That would be like word yellow without having the color yellow. The color gives meaning to the word, the word doesn’t give meaning to the color. You cant make the word meaningful if nothing exists that it defines. You can have a color exist however in spite of there being no word which is given meaning by it. We see a color then create a word for it, we don’t see a word then create a color for it.Human intuition tells us that love without a beloved is perverse.
I’ve no disagreement with the CCCYour disagreement is not with me it’s with the catechism.
I’m glad you said, “discussion” - rather than “debate”Why have you all abandoned this discussion? There is so much here to discover and contemplate.
Of course - but, not, necessarily always a “yes” from WisdomI believe the wisdom God gives us through prayer does not exclude a continued search for true knowledge about a subject.
Of course - but, not, necessarily always a “yes” from WisdomI am not sure what you mean in relation to the quote as concerns this yes from wisdom. Could you elaborate?