Unconditional love of God?

[glendab]

And here’ a fly in the ointment for all to consider who dislike the word conditions:

On a metaphysical level, a condition-less universe wouldn’t exist for very long. It would be utter chaos!

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Clem. I’m not confused at all. It is very clear to me that God’s love isn’t the "unconditional kind that the Protestant’s believe exists.

You are still confusing two different things.

We know that God loved Adam and Eve at the start, and still does, and always will.
The proof is His very own life, given on the Cross.
What is it about His sacrifice on the cross that is not acceptable? How is He deficient? Was he not God? Or was he not holy?, Did he not really die? Did he not really become human and suffer everything that humans suffer? What is it?

I would ask you re-read the earlier posts in this thread and see what it is you disagree with in Catholic Church teaching.

Here’s another relevant passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a pretty good guide for these questions:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

For some reason you’ve confused the ends with the means. God died upon the Cross so that some might be saved. He sent His Son to accomplish this. His salvific work continues till the end of time and the final judgment. That is a fact. His death is the cost of sin. Without it there would be no salvation for anyone. These are all facts. But to claim that His love is “unconditional” lies outside of these statements. It is an additional qualifier. What is wrong with God loving me, period end of sentence? Why must the word “unconditional” be added to the sentence? Is God’s love for me somehow deficient that it must be qualified by your addition of the word “unconditional?”

Clem, I’ve answered you on several occasions here in this thread and you’ve continued to ignore some of the questions I’ve posed to you. Your silence on these matters is telling. You have no answer other than to repeat a few things hoping that by repeating yourself, I’ll somehow see things differently.

Clem the church doesn’t teach God’s love is unconditional. It is doctrine. Find it if you can and show us all here where it does. It doesn’t. It is a Protestant teaching that they use very proficiently to negate certain necessaries in our, Catholic lives. this is exactly where you are confused.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

For help in understanding what I mean by conditions and to help broaden the conversation so that reason may be clearer and more clearly stated for the purpose this thread and subsequent conversations it might help you’ll to read this: plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

It is a short piece about the philosophical aspects of conditions. There’s much more to the word then what one expects in ordinary conversations.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hey there everyone! Turns out this is more of a philosophical question that you thought huh?

Here’s some more food for the thoughts: John Dewey’s voluminous writings provide a rich source of different senses for the words ‘condition’ and ‘consequence’. Except where explicitly noted, all references to Dewey are by volume number and page in the Southern Illinois UP critical edition. It would be useful to catalogue the various senses Dewey attaches to ‘condition’ and ‘consequence’ the way that A.O. Lovejoy famously catalogued senses of ‘pragmatism’. In several passages, Dewey links a sense of ‘condition’ with a corresponding sense of ‘consequence’ just as senses of these words were linked above. Two corresponding usages occur repeatedly in his writings and, it should be said, in most writings concerned with human activity including government and technology. In one, condition/consequence is somewhat analogous to means/end. In fact, Dewey sometimes uses the words ‘condition’ and ‘means’ almost interchangeably as in his famous pronouncement: “Every intelligent act involves selection of certain things as means to other things as their consequences”.[6]

This is from good ole Wikipedia at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condition_(philosophy But I recommend you read some Dewey. He’s very good at being clear and understandable.

God is love. He loves me. Conditionally. I love Him and I choose to show my love for Him by keeping His conditions. It really works for me. I love Him better that way when I do. Maybe I’m getting older and that is why I can see things this way.

Glenda

 

[clem456]

Hello Clem. I’m not confused at all. It is very clear to me that God’s love isn’t the "unconditional kind that the Protestant’s believe exists.

Glenda

Hello Glenda.
Well, unfortunately you are. There’s not only confusion, but now we imply that orthodox Catholic teaching and those who believe it are somehow “protestant”.
God’s love cannot be earned by satisfying any conditions. It simply is. God is love.
It’s a basic truth of Christianity that God does not stop loving us, ever. This is not subject to opinion, at least for believing Christians.

Lest posters be accused of “protestant” viewpoints let’s review what our Pope says:

1. There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter. I realize of course that joy is not expressed the same way at all times in life, especially at moments of great difficulty. Joy adapts and changes, but it always endures, even as a flicker of light born of our personal certainty that, when everything is said and done, **we are infinitely loved. **I understand the grief of people who have to endure great suffering, yet slowly but surely we all have to let the joy of faith slowly revive as a quiet yet firm trust, even amid the greatest distress: “My soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is… But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning. Great is your faithfulness… It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the Lord” (Lam 3:17, 21-23, 26).

1. Sometimes we are tempted to find excuses and complain, acting as if we could only be happy if a thousand conditions were met. To some extent this is because our “technological society has succeeded in multiplying occasions of pleasure, yet has found it very difficult to engender joy”.[2] I can say that the most beautiful and natural expressions of joy which I have seen in my life were in poor people who had little to hold on to. I also think of the real joy shown by others who, even amid pressing professional obligations, were able to preserve, in detachment and simplicity, a heart full of faith. In their own way, all these instances of joy flow from the infinite love of God, who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ. I never tire of repeating those words of Benedict XVI which take us to the very heart of the Gospel: “Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction”.[3]

1. Thanks solely to this encounter – or renewed encounter – with God’s love, which blossoms into an enriching friendship, we are liberated from our narrowness and self-absorption. We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being. Here we find the source and inspiration of all our efforts at evangelization. For if we have received the love which restores meaning to our lives, how can we fail to share that love with others?

Hey there everyone! Turns out this is more of a philosophical question that you thought huh?

No not really…
Please, could I respectfully ask that you not call Catholic viewpoints and teaching “Protestant”. If you disagree, just say what it is you specifically want to refute.

 

[hope19]

Hey there everyone! Turns out this is more of a philosophical question that you thought huh?

Here’s some more food for the thoughts: John Dewey’s voluminous writings provide a rich source of different senses for the words ‘condition’ and ‘consequence’. Except where explicitly noted, all references to Dewey are by volume number and page in the Southern Illinois UP critical edition. It would be useful to catalogue the various senses Dewey attaches to ‘condition’ and ‘consequence’ the way that A.O. Lovejoy famously catalogued senses of ‘pragmatism’. In several passages, Dewey links a sense of ‘condition’ with a corresponding sense of ‘consequence’ just as senses of these words were linked above. Two corresponding usages occur repeatedly in his writings and, it should be said, in most writings concerned with human activity including government and technology. In one, condition/consequence is somewhat analogous to means/end. In fact, Dewey sometimes uses the words ‘condition’ and ‘means’ almost interchangeably as in his famous pronouncement: “Every intelligent act involves selection of certain things as means to other things as their consequences”.[6]

This is from good ole Wikipedia at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condition_(philosophy But I recommend you read some Dewey. He’s very good at being clear and understandable.

God is love. He loves me. Conditionally. I love Him and I choose to show my love for Him by keeping His conditions. It really works for me. I love Him better that way when I do. Maybe I’m getting older and that is why I can see things this way.

Glenda

Even if you are rejecting me, I decided to continue to talk about that in this thread.

It is not a philosophical question. God is LOVE. So, we don’t have to reespect any conditions to be loved from Him. It is what Church is teaching and like I said before, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

Hello Granny.

Very good questions. You’re thinking.

In particular I’ll draw your attention to your admission that “submission (obedience) to God is a condition for maintaining humanity’s relationship with Divinity. If a person wants to remain in the state of Sanctifying Grace, then there has to be obedience (submission) to God.” Very good. Adam and Eve’s fall is the demonstration of how serious a sin disobedience actually is. It had consequences that to this day effect mankind. There wouldn’t have been any fall if God hadn’t placed the conditions He did on them in Eden.

Odd coincidence.

In a roundabout way, while exploring the idea that not only does man have the freedom to disobey, the right to disobey is inherent, I went back to Adam’s relationship condition of freely being obedient to God. And here you appear with – “There wouldn’t have been any fall if God hadn’t placed the conditions He did on them in Eden.”

According to Catholic teaching, “Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” (CCC, 404) If there were no Fall, Adam and Eve, of their own accord, would still need to seek a relationship with their Creator.(CCC, 1730) This opinion is based on your correct statements in post 114.
“Remember this basic fact: Eden isn’t Heaven. It wasn’t when Adam and Eve were there either. God’s will for us IS Heaven, not another Eden.”

Since “freedom” is an essential part of human nature, Adam and/or Eve could legitimately choose to disobey God. Adam and Eve would still be subject to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (CCC, 396; CCC, 1732) In my humble opinion, this is a reasonable scenario. Nonetheless, I will not continue it further because that would be pure speculation.

Please let me know if you see something similar. If we consider obedience to God a necessary condition, both pre-Fall and post-Fall, (CCC, 396) then we cannot blame it for Adam’s free choice to disobey. Nor can we blame Satan. “The power of Satan is not infinite.” (CCC, 395) Adam could have trusted God. He did not have to abuse his freedom. CCC, 397 has an important message. “All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in His goodness.”

 

[clem456]

Concerning Adam and Eve’s choice to reject God’s love, and God’s eternal disposition and desire to reconcile then as well as all of us:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
(this is a Catholic source, in case anyone is wondering…)

II. GRACE

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

1999 The grace of Christ is the **gratuitous gift **that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain **our collaboration **in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has **gone before us **so that we may be healed, and **follows us **so that once healed, we may be given life; it **goes before us **so that we may be called, and **follows us **so that we may be glorified; it **goes before us **so that we may live devoutly, and **follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God’s free initiative **demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

 

[glendab]

Oh dear Clem,

The passages you are quoting are from our Holy Father’s address to persons with disabilities, one of which I am. I’d gotten it in my e-mail the day it was made.

Hello Glenda.
Well, unfortunately you are. There’s not only confusion, but now we imply that orthodox Catholic teaching and those who believe it are somehow “protestant”.
God’s love cannot be earned by satisfying any conditions. It simply is. God is love.
It’s a basic truth of Christianity that God does not stop loving us, ever. This is not subject to opinion, at least for believing Christians.

Lest posters be accused of “protestant” viewpoints let’s review what our Pope says:

No not really…
Please, could I respectfully ask that you not call Catholic viewpoints and teaching “Protestant”. If you disagree, just say what it is you specifically want to refute.

IT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE!!! IT IS AN ADDRESS and he is stating that God’s love is infinite because some of us who suffer with disabilities some times succumb to despair and he wants us to know when we are suffering that it isn’t a punishment from God! These are words of encouragement NOT DOCTRINE!!! Do you know the difference?

His words about the conditions that must be met that come from us are things like, “Yeah I’ll go to Church this Sunday IF they plow the roads clear of the snow” or “I’ll do what God wills for me IF He makes it smooth and easy”, etc… rejecting the Cross that is laid on us who are disabled. I don’t. His words to me tell others that the joy I have found in laying myself upon the Cross in my suffering as a disabled person cannot be found any other way. My suffering is transformed by love into joy. This has nothing to do with unconditionalities. If anything my disability gives me greater conditions to live with.

If you insist that accepting the “unconditional love” of God is necessary for salvation, then I’m afraid you ARE using it in much the same way the Protestants do. The shoes fit, wear them.

If you can find the word “unconditional” attached to the word love somewhere in a sentence that makes sense, remember it is hyperbole, sentiment, superlative, adjective NOT DOCTRINE. Please stop insisting it is Catholic teaching. That is incorrect. The Bible says: Deus caritas est NOT non sine conditionis. If you insist it IS DOCTRINE, then you’ve crossed the line away from Church teaching.

Glenda

 

[vames]

Why must the word “unconditional” be added to the sentence? Is God’s love for me somehow deficient that it must be qualified by your addition of the word “unconditional?”

Because people despair very easily and say “since I am such a great sinner, God doesn’t love me anymore, doesn’t care about me, my prayers aren’t listened anymore, I am lost”.
Because people get pharisaical very easily and say “God doesn’t love all people - only we deserve to be loved and listened to, because we are righteous”.
Because people get confused very easily and say “since we have such a miserable life, it must be a punishment from a God who hates us and can’t be appeased or satisfied by anything that we could do”.
That’s why it’s important to understand that God’s love is unconditional.

Since you’ve brought up the example of parents and children, does anyone know a good parent who loves his child only as long as the child obeys him? Now the child commits an act of disobedience - the parent stops loving him - now the child repents and obeys again - the parent starts loving him again, like an on/off switch? A good parent doesn’t impose conditions for his love; in this sense his love is unconditional. Can God be less loving than a human parent?

A good parent suffers and is upset when the child disobeys, he can choose to punish the child, but it doesn’t mean that his love is diminished or annihilated by anything that the child does. Any rule or condition enounced by a good parent to his child is part of the pedagogy of this unconditional love: if a parent doesn’t love enough his child, he doesn’t bother to educate the child by telling him that some things are not allowed and that only by doing some (other) things the child will grow up harmoniously. Unconditional love doesn’t mean spoiling the child. Unconditional love means that it doesn’t cease, no matter what the child does. Love is not a reward for good behavior.

 

[grannymh]

Because people despair very easily and say “since I am such a great sinner, God doesn’t love me anymore, doesn’t care about me, my prayers aren’t listened anymore, I am lost”.
Because people get pharisaical very easily and say “God doesn’t love all people - only we deserve to be loved and listened to, because we are righteous”.
Because people get confused very easily and say “since we have such a miserable life, it must be a punishment from a God who hates us and can’t be appeased or satisfied by anything that we could do”.
That’s why it’s important to understand that God’s love is unconditional.

Since you’ve brought up the example of parents and children, does anyone know a good parent who loves his child only as long as the child obeys him? Now the child commits an act of disobedience - the parent stops loving him - now the child repents and obeys again - the parent starts loving him again, like an on/off switch? A good parent doesn’t impose conditions for his love; in this sense his love is unconditional. Can God be less loving than a human parent?

A good parent suffers and is upset when the child disobeys, he can choose to punish the child, but it doesn’t mean that his love is diminished or annihilated by anything that the child does. Any rule or condition enounced by a good parent to his child is part of the pedagogy of this unconditional love: if a parent doesn’t love enough his child, he doesn’t bother to educate the child by telling him that some things are not allowed and that only by doing some (other) things the child will grow up harmoniously. Unconditional love doesn’t mean spoiling the child. Unconditional love means that it doesn’t cease, no matter what the child does. Love is not a reward for good behavior.

:thumbsup:

 

[glendab]

Because people despair very easily and say “since I am such a great sinner, God doesn’t love me anymore, doesn’t care about me, my prayers aren’t listened anymore, I am lost”.
Because people get pharisaical very easily and say “God doesn’t love all people - only we deserve to be loved and listened to, because we are righteous”.
Because people get confused very easily and say “since we have such a miserable life, it must be a punishment from a God who hates us and can’t be appeased or satisfied by anything that we could do”.
That’s why it’s important to understand that God’s love is unconditional.

Since you’ve brought up the example of parents and children, does anyone know a good parent who loves his child only as long as the child obeys him? Now the child commits an act of disobedience - the parent stops loving him - now the child repents and obeys again - the parent starts loving him again, like an on/off switch? A good parent doesn’t impose conditions for his love; in this sense his love is unconditional. Can God be less loving than a human parent?

A good parent suffers and is upset when the child disobeys, he can choose to punish the child, but it doesn’t mean that his love is diminished or annihilated by anything that the child does. Any rule or condition enounced by a good parent to his child is part of the pedagogy of this unconditional love: if a parent doesn’t love enough his child, he doesn’t bother to educate the child by telling him that some things are not allowed and that only by doing some (other) things the child will grow up harmoniously. Unconditional love doesn’t mean spoiling the child. Unconditional love means that it doesn’t cease, no matter what the child does. Love is not a reward for good behavior.

Who ever said the love of God was a reward for good behavior? And is this how you truly feel about the heroic virtues of the Saints? Is all their good behavior dismissed so easily by cynicism such as this? A good parent disciplines his child. Like the Father we have in Heaven, they lay down the law. Children of permissive parents suffer. That is a fact.

Why all this defensiveness about an adverb? Am I wrong in stating God loves me. PERIOD. Why can’t He just love me? Why all the insistence that it be qualified with “unconditional?” He never said “I love you unconditionally Israel, do anything you want and I’ll still love you so don’t you worry. You’re saved anyway!!!” Gobble-dee-gook. Why isn’t God’s love good enough?

The answer is that some folks won’t accept God’s love unless it means it gets them off the hook and adding the term “unconditional” to His love gives them exactly that - no expectations on God’s part, just kick back and love and your good to go!

Glenda

 

[glendab]

And why hasn’t anyone commented yet on the Scripture from Malachi?

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals; If Edom says, ‘we have been crushed but we will rebuild the ruins,’ Thus says the Lord of hosts: They indeed may rebuild, but I will tear down, And they shall be called the land of guilt; the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.”

Malachi, Chapter 1 verses 3 & 4 complete.

NOT a happy picture. God’s hatred lasts as it says “forever.” It is possible for God to hate not just one person, but a whole people.

Glenda

 

[davidv]

Who ever said the love of God was a reward for good behavior?

I believe you did, either expressly, or indirectly by claiming God’s love is not unconditional.

And is this how you truly feel about the heroic virtues of the Saints? Is all their good behavior dismissed so easily by cynicism such as this? A good parent disciplines his child. Like the Father we have in Heaven, they law down the law. Children of permissive parents suffer. That is a fact.

Why all this defensiveness about an adverb? Am I wrong in stating God loves me. PERIOD. Why can’t He just love me? Why all the insistence that it be qualified with “unconditional?”

Because there are those who might insist that there are conditions.

He never said “I love you unconditionally Israel, do anything you want and I’ll still love you so don’t you worry. You’re saved anyway!!!” Gobble-dee-gook. Why isn’t God’s love good enough?

The answer is that some folks won’t accept God’s love unless it means it gets them off the hook and adding the term “unconditional” to His love gives them exactly that - no expectations on God’s part, just kick back and love and your good to go!

Glenda

Unfortunately for your argument, any expectations on God’s part are not conditions of His love of us. These expectations are the criteria by which our response is judged for its adequacy.

 

[glendab]

Hello David -
What do you suppose the Ten Commandments are? Suggestions? Options? They are conditions. Adam and Eve were given conditions to live by in Eden. Rules. Laws. Conditions. It is obvious to me that to remove conditions, you remove the Law. Unconditional = unlawful in the subconscious. It means more than just magnanimous or providential or beneficial or generous.

To me to reject the Law is to reject God. Remember this God’s Law is Eternal. It cannot change. That is why the Church stands guard over some things that we believe. To keep subtleties from sneaking in that would change the way people understand things.

God loves me. That is good enough for me. Wow. Why isn’t that good enough for you? Why does He have to do so “unconditionally?”

Glenda

 

[grannymh]

And why hasn’t anyone commented yet on the Scripture from Malachi?

“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals; If Edom says, ‘we have been crushed but we will rebuild the ruins,’ Thus says the Lord of hosts: They indeed may rebuild, but I will tear down, And they shall be called the land of guilt; the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.”

Malachi, Chapter 1 verses 3 & 4 complete.

NOT a happy picture. God’s hatred lasts as it says “forever.” It is possible for God to hate not just one person, but a whole people.

Glenda

The language used would be considered anthropomorphic or humanization.

 

[grannymh]

God loves me. That is good enough for me. Wow. Why isn’t that good enough for you? Why does He have to do so “unconditionally?”

Glenda

When the word “unconditionally” is applied to God’s love, it refers to the infinite power of God, Himself. “Unconditionally” signifies that God’s actions are not restricted or limited in any way. Saying that God loves us is also correct, because by definition God is infinite without limit.

Interesting notes from the dictionary. Unconditional is absolute, unqualified. Absolute is perfect.

 

[fhansen]

Hello F Hansen. Thank you replying.

I answer your first question with a question: Is the any love in Hell?

I don’t see this as an answer. Those in hell are those who’ve themselves opted to stay away from home, to reject God’s love.

As for your second question, original sin wasn’t defined by Adams abilities nor lack of abilities, therefore your question isn’t valid, so recognizing God’s love isn’t the way back you’d hoped it is. Jesus Christ is the Way back.

Jesus is the love of God, Who is love, personified. He loves us first but we accept or reject Him, His grace, His love: salvation is not universal IOW. Seems to me you’re grasping at straws-I’m not sure why.

 

[grannymh]

God’s infinite love does not destroy God’s infinite justice.

God’s unconditional love does not destroy personal responsibility.

 

[fhansen]

God’s infinite love does not destroy God’s infinite justice.

God’s unconditional love does not destroy personal responsibility.

Agreed