Unconditional love of God?

[Eric_Hyom]

clem456;
What does it mean to be created human, by God?

Challenge your mind to find a greatest good purpose for creation; by searching for answers to three questions.

What greatest thing can God create?
God could create all the stars and planets of the universe; he then becomes God the builder.
God could create a whole variety of life with almost no intelligence like plants; he now becomes God the gardener’ God could create life with more intelligence but if the knowledge is limited he has now created the animal kingdom. He now becomes God the farmer. God could create life in his own image, a life that could understand him. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image, does he now become God the Father, and we pray to God our Father. Does the greatest thing that God creates, depend on the relationship that he can have with them?

What greatest purpose can God have to create children in his own image?

Could love be the greatest reason for God to create children?
Could the ultimate God be a God who loves in the greatest way?

God the Father willingly loves all of mankind as he loves HIMSELF.

Can there be any greater reason to create children, even for God; can God love us more than he loves himself? In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he sent his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God loves himself more than us, because he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us. We can never have the wisdom to understand the fullness of God’s love during our lifetime, but to dare to think that God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself is indeed a profound thought. When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because they are greatest for God also?

To find a greatest purpose for all God’s children.

What greatest purpose could God set for humanity? Would it be for everyone to turn to His kind of religion and pray the way that he stipulates, or would it be to banish poverty, gain intellectual superiority, conquer sickness and death, and subdue the universe or is there more?

If the greatest reason God could have to create mankind, is to love us, as he loves himself, then God could create mankind, with the freedom to return God’s love

All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love God the creator unconditionally, are we given the greatest commandment as a guide for this very purpose?

God willingly loves everyone as he loves himself; do we also need this same freedom to love everyone in the same way, so that the truth can be complete for God and mankind.

All of mankind, to be created with the freedom to love their neighbour; as they love themselves unconditionally; are we given the second greatest commandment as a guide?
Is this how God wants his children to be one? He wants us to love each other as we love ourselves.

Could the greatest commandments be a Greatest and Ultimate Truth?

John 15 – As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

If our greatest purpose for creation is to live by the greatest commandments, then this freedom to love also gives us the choice to do both good and evil. Are the greatest commandments powerful enough, to compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the costs involved?

We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words.

 

[glendab]

Hello Matt. Thank you for your reply.

Dear friend,

First of all, let me say that I agree with the general sense of a particular point you are making. We must choose to obey God. After all, Jesus made the point that, “If you love me, you will obey my commands,” along with the context (John 13-17) that He commands us to love. So, agreed, we can’t say we love God and purposely disobey Him.

This however brings me to the importance of what you (very helpfully!) identified as question 5. I have been a part of many conversations on philosophical, theological, and scientific questions, and there is an ineffable principle that cannot be ignored if there is to be a productive discussion: definition of terms at the beginning is absolutely necessary. You said that the dictionary is sufficient for this thread. If that is the case, which dictionary definition do you use? There are at least 9 according to merriam-webster online. All of which would have very different connotations in relation to God (especially the one about tennis - I don’t know where that would go.) If you mean mere affection (definition 1), I would have to say that God does not experience affection in anything like the way we understand it. God is not passive at all, and so he does not react. Affection is a passive reaction. Love must be defined. We only have one word in English for MANY different meanings. The ancient Greeks had at least 4.

On the point of defining terms, I would also ask what you mean by “unconditional.” Perhaps this is a little clearer term, but just to make sure, I think you should be specific about what exactly you mean.

The definition of terms is, most often, the most boring and tedious part of a discussion, but it also the most necessary. I have found that 90% of disagreements are cleared up in that process alone.

As for the question about God having forgotten those in Hell, if He has forgotten them, then there is a contradiction. God is omniscient (i.e. He know everything). If God has forgotten those in Hell, then there is something He does not know. “God knows everything and there is something God does not know” is a contradiction.

A contradiction is also created from the standpoint of existence and creation. Nothing exists without God. Nothing can continue to exist apart from God. But if God is not in Hell, it cannot continue to exist.

This thread is old and the terms of it were already laid out. It is too late to attempt an argument based upon definitions. Several have been proposed for the sake of argument already one being God is love. This is a fact. I haven’t disputed it and even said I love God (which was ignored and denied) however, several of the folks replying have said that since I don’t accept and agree with and **believe in **an UNCONDITIONAL love of God for me that I don’t understand the nature of God nor am I as Catholic as I say I am because this notion of UNCONDITIONALITY attributed to God’s love is part of Church teaching which I said before is false.

It has also been suggested that since I refuse to agree with the UNCONDITIONAL love of God for me that I don’t understand the very nature of God Who is love. If I understood the love of God, I’d agree. And it went back and forth like that for several pages. It was implied that the very nature of God contained the attribute of UNCONDITIONALITY and that saying God is love implies this and everyone who agrees God is love HAS TO AGREE that this means it is unconditional because God is Infinite and Eternal and so it follows His love for us is also without conditions. I responded by showing varying conditions placed upon us by God that are irrefutable and part of authentic Church teaching. And I also mentioned a Biblical passage that admits of God’s hatred and that was to show that God indeed can stop loving someone therefore His love as they meant it, unending no matter what a person does, was limited in man’s response to that love. And that brought us to the discussion of Hell and I said it is a fact that God doesn’t love those in Hell and that got denied by others and then Hell’s parameters got discussed and we kinda got off topic a little there but I moved on beyond it.

These arguments have gone back and forth and have gotten heated enough that the Moderator wanted to end the thread. If you feel defining words for this argument is worth the trouble at this late stage, perhaps you could begin your own thread on the same subject. I might reply then. I suggest you actually take the time to read through the entire thread to see what has actually been said.

Thanks again for your reply.

Glenda

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Again Glenda

I must say, I continue to enjoy this thread. You defend your position well, I like your approach in terms of “this is my choice”. Yes, choices are involved much more than people are often willing to admit.

I decided to jump in again on this reply to Usagi.

Hello Usagi. Thanks for the reply.

I really feel no need to acknowledge anything. You state that “one can believe that God loves them unconditionally…” to which I reply that is fine, but I don’t. I agree that one can believe one is loved by God unconditionally. I choose not to. It isn’t a part of Catholic teaching and this is where I think the trouble comes from.

Why can God not just love me? Why is it so important for me to accept and believe in His **unconditional **love? Isn’t God’s love sufficient? Does the qualifier “unconditional” have to be a part of the equation? THAT is where the discussion went. No one has answered those questions yet even when I asked more than once.

I love this question. My answer: maybe not. Here, I think, are perhaps more important questions:

Do I love God unconditionally? Do I love God regardless of what He throws on my lap today?

Do I love others unconditionally? (My answer: practically impossible) When I feel resentment toward others, do I choose to forgive, am I committed to loving others unconditionally?

Do I love myself unconditionally? (again, practically impossible) When my actions or thoughts or anything else about me trigger resentment toward myself, do I forgive, do I work through these issues?

Do I love parts of myself unconditionally? Do I see the beauty of my nature, the capacities and compulsions, the drives and motivations? This is the part of the practice of forgiving our “shadow”.

My thinking is that these questions are very important, but if by “importance” a person reads them as “If I do not do these, I am somehow less of a good person” or something like that, then the point I am making has been missed. Do you agree, Glenda, that these are more important questions, be they an invitation to encourage people to something more, something holier? Whadya think?

There are those who feel God’s love must be believed in** unconditionally **and assert this is authentic Catholic teaching. I say that is wrong and that is where we’ve deviated. And if this is so, then that says it isn’t just a sentiment or adverb we’re discussing anymore but an actual belief. It isn’t found in the Creed nor the Precepts nor the Bible nor the Articles nor can I find anywhere any Church Fathers expostulating on the UNCONDITIONAL love of God. Why is that? Because it isn’t Church teaching.

Yes, there is plenty of teaching on God’s love. I know that. But that teaching is misrepresented if they expect it includes the belief in an unconditional love of God.

I am going to propose something here: To me, the Gospel itself has some ambiguity on the issue. I propose that the ambiguity is inspired. The ambiguity leaves room for the differences in peoples’ journeys.

We all have our individual relationships with God. To me, each and every one of us has only one set of eyes from which to see the universe. I can try to see things from someone else’ standpoint, but it is still me doing that trying. It is the fascinating thing about panentheism, the mystery of autonomy in the context of God-in-all. For some, this raises the “relativism!” red flag, but our individual relationships are the reality of the situation. Anything I read in the Gospel or the CCC is going to read through the eyes of my own experiences, my relationship with myself, others, and God. There is room for all the approaches here in arms of our loving Church.

 

[clem456]

Hi Again Glenda

I must say, I continue to enjoy this thread. You defend your position well, I like your approach in terms of “this is my choice”. Yes, choices are involved much more than people are often willing to admit.

I decided to jump in again on this reply to Usagi.

I love this question. My answer: maybe not. Here, I think, are perhaps more important questions:

Do I love God unconditionally? Do I love God regardless of what He throws on my lap today?

Do I love others unconditionally? (My answer: practically impossible) When I feel resentment toward others, do I choose to forgive, am I committed to loving others unconditionally?

Do I love myself unconditionally? (again, practically impossible) When my actions or thoughts or anything else about me trigger resentment toward myself, do I forgive, do I work through these issues?

Do I love parts of myself unconditionally? Do I see the beauty of my nature, the capacities and compulsions, the drives and motivations? This is the part of the practice of forgiving our “shadow”.

My thinking is that these questions are very important, but if by “importance” a person reads them as “If I do not do these, I am somehow less of a good person” or something like that, then the point I am making has been missed. Do you agree, Glenda, that these are more important questions, be they an invitation to encourage people to something more, something holier? Whadya think?

I am going to propose something here: To me, the Gospel itself has some ambiguity on the issue. I propose that the ambiguity is inspired. The ambiguity leaves room for the differences in peoples’ journeys.

We all have our individual relationships with God. To me, each and every one of us has only one set of eyes from which to see the universe. I can try to see things from someone else’ standpoint, but it is still me doing that trying. It is the fascinating thing about panentheism, the mystery of autonomy in the context of God-in-all. For some, this raises the “relativism!” red flag, but our individual relationships are the reality of the situation. Anything I read in the Gospel or the CCC is going to read through the eyes of my own experiences, my relationship with myself, others, and God. There is room for all the approaches here in arms of our loving Church.

You propose the challenges that human beings face in loving…loving God, others, ourselves, accepting the challenges God gives us. We live our lives in diverse ways, with diverse ways of expressing spirituality, because God made us unique. I respect that diversity. People have different ways of expressing themselves and use words in different ways. No problem.

The “invitation to something more” you speak of is just that, it is an invitation to participate in the Trinitarian life of God, who is love. The human effort to love leaves us with daunting tasks, forgiving, accepting, living a virtuous live, obeying the commandments. Our participation in the life of God can be tepid. The message of the Church needs to be heard, that in Christ, it is possible to overcome our tepid and sinful ways. All these good things are possible in Christ. His ways are not our ways. Our spiritual diversity is a reality, but all are one in Christ. The Church proclaims to us who this Christ is, who God is, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That proclamation needs to be respected.

I would propose another question…
How can humanity even begin to love, if we don’t recognize and proclaim who God is, with the Church? (if we are not believers, that’s a whole different story, but we are on CAF and talking about the Catholic point of view)
We are only able to love, because we are loved first, by God. God loves us even while we are sinners. We don’t love because we follow the commandments well, we love because God…who is love… loves us first. Love is of God, we didn’t create it. We follow the commandments because God who is love, loves us, and we wish to return that love.

I disagree with you that the Gospel is ambiguous on this question. In fact there is no question.
God, while were still sinners (failing to satisfy conditions), sent his son to die for our sins. There is no ambiguity in the Gospels, or the catechism, or the teaching of the Church. The Church has never said, cannot say, that “God only loves us when we satisfy conditions or fully live out our personal spirituality”. That’s an absurdity in Christianity.

We respect the personal journeys all of us have, but we should not attempt to define who God is by our personal journeys. The personal relationships with God you speak of do not change who God is. It is us who can be changed, because of who God is. We worship him, not our own capacities and abilities.

The Church unambiguously proclaims this. And while we can debate the semantics of the word “unconditional” all day long (when did words cease to actually have meaning?), we should respect all that the Church wishes to be proclaimed.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Putting a “condition” on an attribute is one thing but putting a “condition” on a Being is quite another, especially when that Being Is God.

Does anyone out there believe that God wants us to be “better” than God?

 

[OneSheep]

The “invitation to something more” you speak of is just that, it is an invitation to participate in the Trinitarian life of God, who is love. The human effort to love leaves us with daunting tasks, forgiving, accepting, living a virtuous live, obeying the commandments. Our participation in the life of God can be tepid. The message of the Church needs to be heard, that in Christ, it is possible to overcome our tepid and sinful ways. All these good things are possible in Christ. His ways are not our ways. Our spiritual diversity is a reality, but all are one in Christ. The Church proclaims to us who this Christ is, who God is, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That proclamation needs to be respected.

I would propose another question…
How can humanity even begin to love, if we don’t recognize and proclaim who God is, with the Church? (if we are not believers, that’s a whole different story, but we are on CAF and talking about the Catholic point of view)
We are only able to love, because we are loved first, by God. God loves us even while we are sinners. We don’t love because we follow the commandments well, we love because God…who is love… loves us first. Love is of God, we didn’t create it. We follow the commandments because God who is love, loves us, and we wish to return that love.

Very good point about recognizing that God loves us first, and that is the starting point. When I was younger, God as I knew Him loved me, but He was willing to cast me into an eternity away from Him if I misbehaved or did not have the correct belief configuration. This is not just a religious phenomenon, it is a psychological phenomenon.

Once upon a time, a teammate at a retreat gave a talk, and he closed by saying “God loves us unconditionally, but if you do not follow Jesus, you will not know whether or not you will go to heaven.”

For years, I was rather averse to the “untruth” this communicated. (What! God loves, but is willing to cast us away? I want the people I love unconditionally to know that there would never be a cause for such separation.) But when I think about it now, his opinion has plenty of backing, and it was based on his own relationship.

When I was younger, who was God? God was the voice of my conscience, and our consciences normally love us or hate us depending on our behaviors and thoughts. It took a lot of prayer, experience, and awareness to find the underlying God who loves and forgives unconditionally.

I disagree with you that the Gospel is ambiguous on this question. In fact there is no question.
God, while were still sinners (failing to satisfy conditions), sent his son to die for our sins. There is no ambiguity in the Gospels, or the catechism, or the teaching of the Church. The Church has never said, cannot say, that “God only loves us when we satisfy conditions or fully live out our personal spirituality”. That’s an absurdity in Christianity.

Glenda has supplied plenty of evidence concerning the ambiguity. I agree with you, Clem, God loves unconditionally. But when I was younger, the God I knew did not, and that was part of a normal spiritual journey. So, I am saying that it is a developmental issue. Did you, Clem always know that God loved you unconditionally? Or was God ever really condemning of you, casting you out? Have you ever felt negatively about yourself? Most children would have a lot of trouble separating how God feels about them from how they feel about themselves.

Glenda, if you are reading this, please understand that I am not saying that you are behind, or something like that. Awareness is multidimensional, and all of us have room to grow.

We respect the personal journeys all of us have, but we should not attempt to define who God is by our personal journeys. The personal relationships with God you speak of do not change who God is. It is us who can be changed, because of who God is. We worship him, not our own capacities and abilities.

The Church unambiguously proclaims this. And while we can debate the semantics of the word “unconditional” all day long (when did words cease to actually have meaning?), we should respect all that the Church wishes to be proclaimed.

Everyone, anytime, has been only able to attempt to define God based on their own journeys though. Revelation itself is filtered by personal experiences. But I am going to continue to say it: God loves us unconditionally, and since forgiveness is an act of love, He forgives us unconditionally too.

I guess the bottom line here is that I don’t think I can very much influence people on the issue by use of assertion. Regardless of the doctrinal backing, it is a non-starter. Instead, I think that I can extend a hand to people, invite them to a different way of looking at things, and such invitation is much more likely to be considered if I am not pointing at someone’s image of God and telling them that they are incorrect. Do you see what I am saying? This is what “respect” means to me, and it may be different to you. That’s okay.

We are agreeing on doctrine, for the most part I think. We have slightly different approaches. I love your depth of knowledge on the issue. I must say that I am not “married” to my approach. I am very open-minded about different approaches. Are you hearing my tone?

 

[clem456]

That’s a good pastoral approach that I will take to heart.
Thanks

 

[glendab]

Hello Onesheep.

Hi Again Glenda…I love this question. My answer: maybe not. Here, I think, are perhaps more important questions:

Do I love God unconditionally? Do I love God regardless of what He throws on my lap today?

Do I love others unconditionally? (My answer: practically impossible) When I feel resentment toward others, do I choose to forgive, am I committed to loving others unconditionally?

Do I love myself unconditionally? (again, practically impossible) When my actions or thoughts or anything else about me trigger resentment toward myself, do I forgive, do I work through these issues?

Do I love parts of myself unconditionally? Do I see the beauty of my nature, the capacities and compulsions, the drives and motivations? This is the part of the practice of forgiving our “shadow”.

Do you agree, Glenda, that these are more important questions, be they an invitation to encourage people to something more, something holier? Whadya think?

We all have our individual relationships with God. To me, each and every one of us has only one set of eyes from which to see the universe. I can try to see things from someone else’ standpoint, but it is still me doing that trying. It is the fascinating thing about panentheism, the mystery of autonomy in the context of God-in-all. For some, this raises the “relativism!” red flag, but our individual relationships are the reality of the situation. Anything I read in the Gospel or the CCC is going to read through the eyes of my own experiences, my relationship with myself, others, and God. There is room for all the approaches here in arms of our loving Church.

Obviously you feel that it is necessary to have the word UNCONDITIONAL a part of the equation. Your explanations of what that means to you are helpful. I’ll try to answer your questions.

1 - I don’t withdraw my love for God because He “threw in my lap” something I didn’t care for - I am disabled and have been for quite a few years. If I chose to stop loving God because He is crippling me with disease I’d be a very shallow person. Loving God isn’t a daily decision for me. I would go to the Cross itself for my God.​

2 - I forgive all the time. It comes automatic. I am Christian.​

3 - Loving myself and my neighbor is a Commandment of God. I do try to love myself better each day because it is something I didn’t do correctly before becoming Catholic. I cannot love my neighbor correctly if I don’t love myself correctly and ultimately if my love is dysfunctional I need to address that in order to love God as He should be loved.​

4 - I know nothing about forgiving one’s shadow. Perhaps you could explain that. Your association with love that is unconditional and forgiveness helps me to understand your thought process regarding the issue. Correct me if I’m wrong but you see an association between God loving unconditionally and His forgiveness of you. Am I wrong?​

5 - No, I don’t think I could get one bit holier if I accepted the notion of an unconditional love of God for me. I prefer a spirituality that says God loves me so He gave me the Law and rules to follow so I could show Him my love for Him. I cannot get to Heaven without the Law.​

Can I direct your thoughts to last Sunday’s reading and those following this past week? The love of the Law is discussed: Sirach 15: 15 to 20 15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. 16 Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand. 17 Before everyone are life and death, whichever they choose will be given them. 18 Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; mighty in power, he sees all things. 19 The eyes of God behold his works, and he understands every human deed. 20 He never commands anyone to sin, nor shows leniency toward deceivers.

I think this is very timely for this discussion as have been several of the readings these past few weeks. Much about the Law and it’s benefits and our need for it.

As for your personal philosophy of seeing with only your eyes, that is fine. It works for you. I choose another path. That may seem wrong to you, but I understand. As the reading from Sirach says, God sees all things and that is why I don’t fear to disagree with strange teaching. I fear Him and not people.

I’ll repeat this caution again: I’ve had one too many Protestants explain to me the notion of an unconditional love of God for them that saves them. God loves them and won’t send them to Hell because He loves them. Et cetera ad nauseum. I’ve even had fallen away Catholics explain this same thing to me. I don’t believe it.

I’ve also said the word “unconditional” can be used as an expression of emotion to make a point in a sentence to elaborate on a feeling, to wane sentimental. That is fine too. But to insist **it must be believed **is not good. Going from an emotion to a belief is different. When a person insists that it is to be believed instead of it simply being an adjectival elaboration, then they are distorting the faith we hold as Catholics. All that is left to say is that it really is a false teaching incorporated by some into their spiritual makeup that needs justification by them.

Maybe I’m too cautious in what ways I allow my spirit to be nourished for some, but that is also my choice. I tend to think black and whitely; legalistically. I will continue to think for myself that the notion of an unconditional love of God that must be believed in is a false notion. It isn’t necessary at all and is a slippery slope that leads to presumption and sin and can ruin one’s faith completely. But that is simply my opinion and I’m no expert on anything but pancakes when I get back from Church today cause I’m worth it.

Glenda

 

[Eric_Hyom]

glendab;

I prefer a spirituality that says God loves me so He gave me the Law and rules to follow so I could show Him my love for Him. I cannot get to Heaven without the Law.

We know that all the law of God hangs and depends on the greatest commandments.

Todays readings ask us to love and pray for our enemies; Are there any conditions; that I should not love and pray for my enemies?

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Onesheep.

Obviously you feel that it is necessary to have the word UNCONDITIONAL a part of the equation. Your explanations of what that means to you are helpful. I’ll try to answer your questions.

I’m not really hung up on words, Glenda. “unlimited” is fine too.

1 - I don’t withdraw my love for God because He “threw in my lap” something I didn’t care for - I am disabled and have been for quite a few years. If I chose to stop loving God because He is crippling me with disease I’d be a very shallow person. Loving God isn’t a daily decision for me. I would go to the Cross itself for my God.​

2 - I forgive all the time. It comes automatic. I am Christian.​

3 - Loving myself and my neighbor is a Commandment of God. I do try to love myself better each day because it is something I didn’t do correctly before becoming Catholic. I cannot love my neighbor correctly if I don’t love myself correctly and ultimately if my love is dysfunctional I need to address that in order to love God as He should be loved.​

I hope you weren’t getting the impression that I was requesting that you answer those questions here. I thank you for your answers, but really my focus was on the premise that these questions were perhaps more important.

4 - I know nothing about forgiving one’s shadow. Perhaps you could explain that. Your association with love that is unconditional and forgiveness helps me to understand your thought process regarding the issue. Correct me if I’m wrong but you see an association between God loving unconditionally and His forgiveness of you. Am I wrong?​

Well, sort of. It depends on what is seen as causative. When I followed the call to forgive everyone I held something against, including myself, then I realized that it is the conditions, my own criteria for condemnation of self and others, that are the roadblocks to inclusionary love.
Once I was able to understand what I condemned, then the roadblocks were lifted. When my own roadblocks were lifted, I could do nothing but see that God does not have such roadblocks in the first place. This is the universe according to me.

I loved this last Sunday Gospel:

Matthew 5:44-48

New International Version (NIV)

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, perfection is presented as the ability to love who we do not under ordinarily circumstances. When do I hate? Who are my enemies? These are all of those who violate what I think is right, what I think is good and just. I think that Jesus’ contemporaries agreed that the word “Romans” was practically synonymous with “enemy”. Jesus said to love them anyway. When my wife and I were married, I pledged to love her unconditionally (without limit). In my mind, I went through all the possible “conditions” (criteria) for which I would not love her. I dedicated, promised myself, to love her no matter what. Yes, no matter what she did, I would love her.

I used “forgiving the parts of ourselves that we condemn” until I read Fr. Richard Rohr’s writing about “forgiving our shadow” which brings in the Jungian aspect, and I like that approach. To me, forgiving my shadow means forgiving my own capacities for wanting control, popularity, sex, material stuff, etc., the parts of ourselves that we appropriately condemn in the “first half of life” in order to stay in control of our behaviors.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

Glenda’s quote:

5 - No, I don’t think I could get one bit holier if I accepted the notion of an unconditional love of God for me. I prefer a spirituality that says God loves me so He gave me the Law and rules to follow so I could show Him my love for Him. I cannot get to Heaven without the Law.​

I understand, and respect, your views on the matter.

Can I direct your thoughts to last Sunday’s reading and those following this past week? The love of the Law is discussed: Sirach 15: 15 to 20 15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God. 16 Set before you are fire and water; to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand. 17 Before everyone are life and death, whichever they choose will be given them. 18 Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; mighty in power, he sees all things. 19 The eyes of God behold his works, and he understands every human deed. 20 He never commands anyone to sin, nor shows leniency toward deceivers.

I think this is very timely for this discussion as have been several of the readings these past few weeks. Much about the Law and it’s benefits and our need for it.

As was taught to me, sin has its own consequence. If I drink to much, I am going to get sick. God as I know Him loves the deceivers, not for their acts, but for their being human. He forgives them, and repentance is what He wants. It is for our own good that we repent. One cannot live a life of deception and live a fulfilling life.

I’ll repeat this caution again: I’ve had one too many Protestants explain to me the notion of an unconditional love of God for them that saves them. God loves them and won’t send them to Hell because He loves them. Et cetera ad nauseum. I’ve even had fallen away Catholics explain this same thing to me. I don’t believe it.

I’ve also said the word “unconditional” can be used as an expression of emotion to make a point in a sentence to elaborate on a feeling, to wane sentimental. That is fine too. But to insist **it must be believed **is not good. Going from an emotion to a belief is different. When a person insists that it is to be believed instead of it simply being an adjectival elaboration, then they are distorting the faith we hold as Catholics. All that is left to say is that it really is a false teaching incorporated by some into their spiritual makeup that needs justification by them.

Maybe I’m too cautious in what ways I allow my spirit to be nourished for some, but that is also my choice. I tend to think black and whitely; legalistically. I will continue to think for myself that the notion of an unconditional love of God that must be believed in is a false notion. It isn’t necessary at all and is a slippery slope that leads to presumption and sin and can ruin one’s faith completely. But that is simply my opinion and I’m no expert on anything but pancakes when I get back from Church today cause I’m worth it.

Glenda

Sounds good. You are worth it. I am saying that with my own eyes, projecting worth onto you. I am not seeing this with someone else’ eyes. I had the pleasure of blessing the eyes of 45 wonderful people yesterday, and the experience is still with me.

I am with you on the “must believe” part too.

There was something about what those “Protestants” said that gave the impression that God does not care about misbehavior, and it appears that the suggestion triggered a lot of understandable aversion to the word “unconditional”. If I were in your shoes, I can see having the same aversion. There has to be order. People have to control their behaviors.

 

[simpleas]

From post 317

Do you agree, Glenda, that these are more important questions, be they an invitation to encourage people to something more, something holier? Whadya think?

The question of something holier. The priest covering our P.P at the weekend touched on the word holiness. He described it as meaning wholeness.

He used the three readings as example : the first telling us to be holy as the Lord is holy, the second, to realise that we are the temple of Gods spirit, the third love your ememies, and be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.

Holiness is not standing with your hands in prayer and your head tilted and lighting candles etc, its finding that wholeness within you… Thats what he said, I thought it was very good, different from what I usually hear in a homily.

Just thought I’d share!

 

[glendab]

Hello Simple.

From post 317

Do you agree, Glenda, that these are more important questions, be they an invitation to encourage people to something more, something holier? Whadya think?

The question of something holier. The priest covering our P.P at the weekend touched on the word holiness. He described it as meaning wholeness.

He used the three readings as example : the first telling us to be holy as the Lord is holy, the second, to realise that we are the temple of Gods spirit, the third love your ememies, and be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.

Holiness is not standing with your hands in prayer and your head tilted and lighting candles etc, its finding that wholeness within you… Thats what he said, I thought it was very good, different from what I usually hear in a homily.

Just thought I’d share!

I already answered this question. I think I’ll keep what I have. God’s love for me is perfect and needs no other qualifiers. He loves me. That is sufficient. In describing that love, I use words too, but none of them are “unconditionally.”

As for actual holiness, it is a gift from God that He alone gives; we are to continually make ourselves ready to receive it. That takes work, real work on ourselves and prayer and keeping all the Commandments and doing and believing all the Church teaches and believes. It also helps greatly if you keep clear of pollution of a spiritual nature, i.e. any kind of Protestant or false teaching of other kinds. That is the exact thing I’ve been trying to point out here in bringing this subject to the fore. It isn’t our teaching. It wasn’t our teaching long ago and it snuck in. You can’t be holy if you are adulterating your spiritual development with outside influences. Oh well. I’ve said my peace. Hope you get it.

Glenda

 

[simpleas]

Hello Simple.

I already answered this question. I think I’ll keep what I have. God’s love for me is perfect and needs no other qualifiers. He loves me. That is sufficient. In describing that love, I use words too, but none of them are “unconditionally.”

As for actual holiness, it is a gift from God that He alone gives; we are to continually make ourselves ready to receive it. That takes work, real work on ourselves and prayer and keeping all the Commandments and doing and believing all the Church teaches and believes. It also helps greatly if you keep clear of pollution of a spiritual nature, i.e. any kind of Protestant or false teaching of other kinds. That is the exact thing I’ve been trying to point out here in bringing this subject to the fore. It isn’t our teaching. It wasn’t our teaching long ago and it snuck in. You can’t be holy if you are adulterating your spiritual development with outside influences. Oh well. I’ve said my peace. Hope you get it.

Glenda

I knew you had answered the question

I was just sharing what the priest had said, not word for word mind, but saying we are the temple of the spirit to begin with and we must seek a wholeness of ourselves in order to project the love of God on to others.
Are you saying the priest was preaching like a protestant? (i’ve never heard a protestant ministers sermon)
I’m not sure what you mean by “I hope you get it”?

 

[glendab]

Hello Simple.

I knew you had answered the question

I was just sharing what the priest had said, not word for word mind, but saying we are the temple of the spirit to begin with and we must seek a wholeness of ourselves in order to project the love of God on to others.
Are you saying the priest was preaching like a protestant? (i’ve never heard a protestant ministers sermon)
I’m not sure what you mean by “I hope you get it”?

Thanks for sharing what a priest said. To be frank, I’ve heard the phrase “unconditional love of God” spoken by more than one person, including priests. I’ve heard it spoken by a sister once. I’ve seen it in print too! I’ve heard both Catholics and Protestants use the phrase. That means little to me. I still don’t believe it. I’ve done some research into the notion and found it false and part of OSAS theology. If Catholics actually use it, that may be because they are unaware of its origins and how seriously those who are Protestant take it. Or they may simply be parroting what they hear. Or they may actually BELIEVE in an unconditional love of God for them. They may also be using the phrase as a sentiment.

But as for me, I know too much about it to use it. I shared what I’ve found out with others here so perhaps they could** think a little **about what they are implying when the remove all conditions from God’s love for us and perhaps may re-think the way they try to speak about the love of God for us.

There are honest attributes of God that are listed as a Traditional teaching of the Church, and “unconditional love” isn’t one of them. So there you have it.

And as I’ve said before I’m no expert on these things but do know how to turn an omelet. Yummy!

Glenda

 

[glendab]

P.S. Simple, I’ve heard more than one serious error come from the mouth of a priest. It doesn’t shock me anymore, but still causes some distress. Just because a priest says something, doesn’t make it true and something I can place my faith in. Human nature being what it is, I think before I take it to heart these days. Too much heresy around!

 

[clem456]

P.S. Simple, I’ve heard more than one serious error come from the mouth of a priest. It doesn’t shock me anymore, but still causes some distress. Just because a priest says something, doesn’t make it true and something I can place my faith in. Human nature being what it is, I think before I take it to heart these days. Too much heresy around!

What there is too much of is, throwing around of a word that very few are qualified to use, and so is used less than truthfully, and thus uncharitably since it is not used in any truthful context, since not used in any authoritative way by laity.

Consult canon law for the proper used of the word heresy , and who is qualified to throw it around.

 

[simpleas]

P.S. Simple, I’ve heard more than one serious error come from the mouth of a priest. It doesn’t shock me anymore, but still causes some distress. Just because a priest says something, doesn’t make it true and something I can place my faith in. Human nature being what it is, I think before I take it to heart these days. Too much heresy around!

Thanks.
I too think about what I hear before I take it to heart But when we think about faith, we have been told about it by other people first anyway.

I can think about something by myself, not hearing what this domination or that domination has said and find my thought is similiar to another domination. Doesn’t mean that I think that I now need to join another church or anything, as humans we all share God’s life.

What I don’t understand is if people think something that is not 100% catholic, then they must be siding with another church?

 

[glendab]

Thanks.
I too think about what I hear before I take it to heart But when we think about faith, we have been told about it by other people first anyway.

I can think about something by myself, not hearing what this domination or that domination has said and find my thought is similiar to another domination. Doesn’t mean that I think that I now need to join another church or anything, as humans we all share God’s life.
**
What I don’t understand is if people think something that is not 100% catholic, then they must be siding with another church?**

How about all those songs about **Yaweh **we never hear much of anymore? Was that a heresy too? No, Simple, if I smell a skunk in the room and mention the smell to others I’m not siding with another church. I’m just a little more sensitive in the nose then some folks who may think that because Sister seems to light up every time she hears a song about Yaweh and is very enthusiastic about using that name that is it okay for me to use it too and makes me sound like I know Hebrew so well that I can share God’s secret (agnostic kinda kinky thing) name from ancient times…blah blah blah…see what I mean?

No I prefer to stick close to home for my spiritual nourishment. I’m a much better cook then some who think they’re Galloping Gormets!

But don’t take my word for it. I’m not expert on anything but Jerk Chicken tonight and easy cheesy zucchini bake and nice warm Italian bread with kalamita olives in it and REAL butter. I’ve been inspired cause I live next door to a really nice restaurant. Yummmmmmmmmy.

Glenda

P.S. My Dad (God rest his poor soul) knew Hebrew as well as a few other languages and he knew the Yaweh stuff was phoney without being Catholic. I’m not gifted with languages I have to work at it.

 

[Thorns]

If Gods love wasnt unconditional, we’d all have only one chance at Heaven and if we blew it and sinned even once, it would be Hell for us and that would be that. Confession would not exist. Do you believe in the Sacrament of Confession, Glenda?

Unconditional doesnt mean he lets us slide and and that we’re worthy of Heaven regardless of the state we’re in: sin or grace. Unconditional means He’s ready to welcome us back in each and every time, and He does that. Therefore, Gods love IS unconditional.