Why Is God Love?

[romansh]

 

I would, respectfully, disagree. Our notions for who Christ is or what a Christ is are rooted in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint of someone annointed by God for a specific purpose. And, to me, I just don't see what I would call Christ-like character in each and every person I meet or hear about. Whoever killed the little girl in my neighborhood this week, I don't believe them to be "a living Christ" or "one with God."

 

Now, if we want to move our definitions of Christ beyond the Judeo-Christian viewpoint and make Christ mean anything we like, then (tongue-firmly-in-cheek), yes, I suppose that anyone is and can be Christ, from the murderer in my town to my cat to a cockroach in the breakroom where I work. But, for me, I just don't think the language or idea works that way. For better or worse, the notion of Messiah was a human being (not a deity) that was annointed by God to act as God's agent on earth in order to accomplish his will. I just don't find this child's murderer or my cat to meet that standard.

 

Just my 2c.

 

PS - Jesus himself is reported to have said that many would claim to be the Christ, but they should not be believed.

 

No problem disagreeing Bill

 

We can play the definition game if you want Bill. My definition of Christ is something like this ... Christ is a mythical character that is likely loosely based on a historical person (Jesus) who was crucified.

 

You don't see Christ like actions in us ... eg throwing hissy fits when a fig tree needs cursing, sending demons into pigs, and throwing merchants out of synagogues? Curious? It is the acceptance (I would use the "understanding") of these things in ourselves that is important.

 

Interpretations of Christianity, take on various shades ... from the completely literal to completely metaphorical.

 

And regarding your PS, what did Jesus say about people who claim everyone was Christ? Not the Christ. Jesus is supposed to have been crucified for saying he is one with god.

Edited July 5, 2013 by romansh

[BillM]

People have different points-of-view, especially on religious matters. Myself, I believe Jesus was crucified for *not* taking on the role of the Jewish messiah in claiming the throne in Jerusalem for God. I think when he failed to literally fulfill the scriptures predicting messiah to rule, the crowd turned on him and demanded his death as a false messiah. My view.

 

But I see deeper meanings in some of the "unChristlike" events in the gospels than just Jesus getting pissed-off for his own selfish reasons or because he was mentally disturbed. So I wouldn't put these events in the same category as killing a little girl. On the other hand, the book of Revelation does tend to portray this kind of messiah, doesn't it?

 

I believe that everyone is a child of God, but I don't believe that everyone equally reflects God's image or is Christ-like.

 

I don't buy into the dualistic notion that everyone is slated for either heaven or hell and that God has unchanging criteria by which he might make these determinations. But neither do I buy into the liberal stance that says, "I'm okay, you're okay. I'm God, you're God. I'm Christ. You're Christ." I don't think the solution is to put everyone into the same box. Rather, I think we can be more godly or less godly. Or more Christlike, or less Christlike. That's how I see it.

[BillM]

There is, IMO, a balance to be found in words. As Joseph and others have said, God (and reality) cannot be contained in words, for words, as wonderful as they are, are finite. Nevertheless, because we cannot absorb one another’s experiences through osmosis, words are the best tools we have for conveying our ideas to one another. And like all tools, they can be used for good or used for evil; they can be used to heal or used to harm.

It is not that I am into “word games” or “definition games.” I just realize that words are like baskets that help us carry our ideas around. Given this metaphor, if I have a basket labeled “apples,” then it would be reasonable to find apples in it, would it not? But if you peered into my basket and found oranges there, you might think that something was amiss, right? The label “apples” is not the apples themselves, but it does (or should) point to the reality of the apples. If what is really in the basket is oranges or snakes, then it would be wise on my part to change the label on my basket.

One of the blessings to me of liberal religion is seeing how all-encompassing or all-inclusive we can make our labels and ideas. This is, to me, a fun and challenging thing to do. What/who is God? What/who is Christ? What reality did these labels point to in the past? What reality do they point to now, or may they point to in the future? And I think it is rewarding to consider something like how the word “Christ” originally meant “anointed” and how/if that idea is still valid today. How far can we stretch a word from its original meaning and still maintain its ties with the past but be relevant today? As I said, this may be a fun, challenging, and rewording thing to do.

But I’m not convinced, speaking only for myself, that, when dealing with words, we are being responsible with them if we take either extreme of saying that 1) they mean nothing or 2) they can mean anything we want them to. If they mean nothing or point to nothing, then we are left unable to have meaningful conversation. And if we can infuse them with any meaning we like, regardless of their history or cultural meanings, then we can distort them to where they are unrelated to the past or even nonsensical to the present.

It seems to me that many conservative Christians worship words. They value literal translations of the Bible and will argue endlessly over the meaning of certain words in the scriptures (like “homosexual”). I don’t find that very profitable. Words shouldn’t be worshipped because they are only pointers. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be thrown out as meaningless or recast into ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with their roots. It is always challenging to honor the past while not letting it bind us. And this is the approach, IMO, I think works best for our religious words. What did the words “God” and “Christ” mean to the ancient Jews and the early church? Are these meanings still relevant today? Why or why not? If not, should we let the irrelevant words go or should we re-infuse them with new meanings, calling oranges “apples” and everyone as “Christs”?

These are just questions I’m asking.

[romansh]

 

People have different points-of-view, especially on religious matters. Myself, I believe Jesus was crucified for *not* taking on the role of the Jewish messiah in claiming the throne in Jerusalem for God. I think when he failed to literally fulfill the scriptures predicting messiah to rule, the crowd turned on him and demanded his death as a false messiah. My view.

 

Fair enough Bill. But I don't want devolve into some relativistic post modern point of view where everyone can be right.

Some interpretations of the Bible have to be more accurate than others. Certain ones like the Earth is six thousand years old, and closer to home Jesus was literally the son of god and was resurrected are tough to believe with the evidence that is available to us today.

 

 

But I see deeper meanings in some of the "unChristlike" events in the gospels than just Jesus getting pissed-off for his own selfish reasons or because he was mentally disturbed. So I wouldn't put these events in the same category as killing a little girl. On the other hand, the book of Revelation does tend to portray this kind of messiah, doesn't it?

 

Again fair enough ... but I never said it was unChrist like. I suspect that some people have an idealised view of Jesus/Christ.

 

Events like killing a little girl. They are sad and I think we should try and stop them. Having said that, passing judgement on these such as the killing children is evil we should avoid.

 

 

I believe that everyone is a child of God, but I don't believe that everyone equally reflects God's image or is Christ-like.

 

I believe this is a reflection of your belief in a traditional dualistic Christian God.

 

 

I don't buy into the dualistic notion that everyone is slated for either heaven or hell and that God has unchanging criteria by which he might make these determinations. But neither do I buy into the liberal stance that says, "I'm okay, you're okay. I'm God, you're God. I'm Christ. You're Christ." I don't think the solution is to put everyone into the same box. Rather, I think we can be more godly or less godly. Or more Christlike, or less Christlike. That's how I see it.

 

I personally don't believe in a literal heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are here and now! And we can avoid them if we can "unlearn" the concepts of good and evil that we have learnt from tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

 

 

[BillM]

BTW, Roman, I’m a Douglas Adams fan also! He was a very gifted and funny writer who could get us to seriously consider much of our human nonsense through wit, humor, and sarcasm.

I’m not into relativism either (as best as I understand it). I think some things and ideas to come closer to the truth and reality than others. Is this Socratic? But I’m not a pantheist that believes everything is God or that God is everything. I am more of a panentheist. Of course, these are still human concepts of God, so I don’t know for certain who/what/if God is. I just believe that because there is something rather than nothing, and because we didn’t make it, it seems reasonable to believe in a Creator. Does this mean, as you have said, that I have some left over Christian beliefs? Yes, it certainly does. And that’s okay with me. I hope not to shove them down the throats of others (that wouldn’t be nice), but I do enjoy good conversations like we have here. Thanks for your part in this one.

[SteveS55]

There are a few Christian authors, and perhaps a “fringe” element within Christianity who believe that “Christ” is not Jesus, nor is Jesus the second person of the Trinity.

 

Some would prefer to make reference to the “Logos”, as the divine animating principle in the universe. To some Christians the “Incarnation” is more reasonably explained as the Logos creating its own human nature, which is then united to the divine nature. The term “Christ” then, becomes the union of the Logos’ human nature with the divine nature.

 

Jesus was representative of this union, something Christians attempt to strive for. So, if one were to refer to the “divine” within us that would be “Christ” (union of two natures) within us.

 

This is just something to ponder. I think this type of explanation would likely blow most Christians completely out of their cherished beliefs.

 

This doesn’t have much to do with the original thread topic, but it seems to be where some people are headed. And, it might say something about why God is said to be "love", or at least "loving".

 

Peace.

Steve

[romansh]

 

BTW, Roman, I’m a Douglas Adams fan also! He was a very gifted and funny writer who could get us to seriously consider much of our human nonsense through wit, humor, and sarcasm.

I do like DNA, his writing pushed me from a vague deism to a devout agnosticism.

 

I find myself revisiting Adams' thoughts while searching for whatever. Incidently it's Romans (my middle name, prounounced almost like romance) or rom for short.

 

 

 

But I’m not a pantheist that believes everything is God or that God is everything. I am more of a panentheist. Of course, these are still human concepts of God, so I don’t know for certain who/what/if God is. I just believe that because there is something rather than nothing, and because we didn’t make it, it seems reasonable to believe in a Creator.

 

While I would not describe myself as a pantheist, I suspect my position would be difficult to tease apart from pantheism.

Panentheism ... hmmn? For me an enlightened form of deism but still a dualistic view. I can't help thinking this is a hangover from our traditional Christian beliefs (as you suggest below).

 

Simon Blackburn asked an interesting question in one his books ... why do we assume nothing as the default state? ie requiring a first cause?

 

 

Does this mean, as you have said, that I have some left over Christian beliefs? Yes, it certainly does. And that’s okay with me. Iope not to shove them down the throats of others (that wouldn’t be nice), but I do enjoy good conversations like we have here. Thanks for your part in this one.

 

Well now that I understand your position is more deistic rather than theistic (at least by my nomenclature) I might be able to avoid that faux pas. But you are right we cannot help but be influenced by our experiences.

Edited July 5, 2013 by romansh

[soma]

What the mythology in the Bible means to me is in Reality the
infinite is undivided. It is one, but it has the ability to be infinite and
finite. The infinite would be God the Father and the Son; who is the Christ
consciousness in the finite (in-finite) that brings us back to life in God the
Father. In the first phase of evolution, God the Father’s pure consciousness
manifests itself in creation. God the Son starts the second phase of evolution
by intentionally becoming subject to the limits of space and time so the Son's
distinction from the Father starts the second phase of evolution. We can call
this phase involution because by going into the infinite (in the finite)
the Self reveals its union with the Father. I feel everyone has this potential Christian
or not because all is made from God out of God.

 

In the beginning of the Gospel of St. John it says,

 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and
the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him and without him was not anything made
that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it
not."

 

The Word is the offspring of God from which everything is born. It is qualified consciousness
where pure consciousness takes on more and more vibrations or qualities. The Word is the
seed in which all vibrations are contained because it is the source of
everything in creation and is spoken in the silence of God’s pure
consciousness. It is God the Father revealing himself as the ‘pure I' feeling.
From this Word or vibration all things are born and without ‘pure I' feeling
nothing can exist without this feeling of existence. Each one of us is also a
Word within the One Word. We all came from the first vibration and we are
children of God and are the sons of God. There is one collective ‘pure I'
feeling and there are individual ‘pure I' feelings in each one of us. The
collective ‘pure I' feeling is the personal concept of God that we usually call
the Father. The ‘individual I' feelings are our own intimate relationship with
that Father.

 

Jesus is Christ because he knows and he said, “I and the Father
are one.” His role suggests that the essential function of his life is not to
develop the ego through hero worship of him or others, but to develop an
awareness of one's own strengths and weaknesses. This awakening of 'God’s pure
I' helps in the hard tasks that life confronts, the mind within our experiences
grows, develops and discovers. In the mature phase of life the hero myth of
Jesus loses its relevance because Christ consciousness gets assimilated in our
being.

 

We are made in the image and likeness of God, which is realized in
the soul. A stained photograph is an image of a person, but it is disfigured or
not clear only because it has not been cared for, I feel this would be the
example of the people who are inhuman. When the mind works through the layers
of the mind and becomes conscious of God and has a spiritual understanding of
the soul, the image in the picture is perfected in accord with the image and
likeness of God. A distorted photograph can have an image and not a likeness,
but if the picture is not overexposed the image can have a likeness. Christ
comes to our consciousness to remove all obstacles to peace that blur the image
and likeness of God. When our vision of God is developed and realized, our
image can be modeled with God’s likeness. Jesus is the man and Christ is the
experience of Oneness. This is only my
interpretation of the story of Genesis.

[The Rhino]

Love is the most painful and joyful emotion. It can be an umbrella for all other emotions. When in love you can feel happy, sad, joy, anger, jealousy, even hate. It is paradoxical an all encompassing, yet it still exists, it is indescribable but simple to understand when you feel it. That seems like the God most people describe, the two seem to click don't you think?

 

When I get overly philosophical, I realise that I am trying to reduce Gods plan to an equation of sorts, until a little voice reminds me: you can't figure out God anymore than you can figure out love, but you can experience them all the same.

 

God bless

R

Edited July 5, 2013 by The Rhino

[soma]

Rhino I like what you said and agree. I figured out the photo album of the marriage is important because in the tough times one can reflect back to the joy, purpose of love and the marriage act. I think philosophical, theological, mythological discussions do the same thing. We can never describe or figure it out, but we can continue through the clouds and fog to the summit.

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

Do you have a view then whether God is love or is not love?

 

Cheers

Paul

Yes, I do. It was made clear some time ago. I'll go through it again, if you like.

[minsocal]

Love is the most painful and joyful emotion. It can be an umbrella for all other emotions. When in love you can feel happy, sad, joy, anger, jealousy, even hate. It is paradoxical an all encompassing, yet it still exists, it is indescribable but simple to understand when you feel it. That seems like the God most people describe, the two seem to click don't you think?

 

When I get overly philosophical, I realise that I am trying to reduce Gods plan to an equation of sorts, until a little voice reminds me: you can't figure out God anymore than you can figure out love, but you can experience them all the same.

 

God bless

R

There you have it ... to get "overly philosophical". The problem that some earlier Progressive Christians railed against.

[minsocal]

As C. G. Jung put it, there is no proper or prescribed objective notion of how anyone can or could access the transcendental. He followed Kant on this point, as well as Spinoza. You must find it within ... and what you find is OK.

[PaulS]

 

If god is transcendent (ie beyond all catergories of thought) then anything I manage to put into words is not god. If god is not transcendent then you are quite right to question my statement. Does this rule/logic work for you Paul?

edit to add quote

Yes

[BillM]

Related good-natured question:

 

If we all agree that God or god is transcendent (beyond all categories of thought or description), then why are we even discussing God at all? Why discuss what can't be known? Isn't that an exercise in futility, a waste of time? Isn't it, perhaps, like discussing "dark matter"?

[BillM]

SteveS55, I appreciate your input on this. I'm not a Trinitarian, so what you said resonates with me. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think we are "in God" and can experience and live out of a "oneness" with God, but that doesn't make any of us God. Another analogy that we sometimes hear on this forum for panentheism is that of a fish living in the ocean. The fish is in the water. There is water in the fish. But the fish is not the water nor is the water a fish.

 

Perhaps unlike others here, I don't value the gospel of John very highly. Modern biblical scholarship holds that it is the least historical of the gospels and that, more than likely, nothing said by "Jesus" in John's gospel actually goes back to the historical Jewish Jesus of Nazareth who would have considered it sacrilege to think of himself as Yahweh. For some people, this doesn't matter. But for me it does as it is my belief (yes, bias) that Christianity should get as close to the historical Jesus as possible, not the mythical "Christ" who is the Jewish Yeshua deified into a God-man in order to make him palatable to the Greek world. To me, the gospel of John compared to the synoptic gospels is like the myth of Santa Claus compared to the real Saint Nicholas. This doesn't mean that I don't find John and his take on Jesus interesting, but I don't think it really has much to do with the person or teachings of the mystic from Nazareth.

 

Interestingly, much of Christianity is centered in the gospel of John. Perhaps this is why it is called "Christianity" instead of "Jesusism"? Most new Christians are told to go read the gospel of John first and then, usually, the book of Romans. If memory serves, many biblical scholars think that the gospel of John was written by a follower of Paul who, of course, never knew the historical Jesus.

 

All of this gets very interesting when (IMO) our main notions about God being love come from the gospel and epistles of John. And seeing as John seems to think that the main way we know that God is love is because Jesus died as a human sacrifice in order to allow God to forgive our sins and take us to heaven someday...well...that simply is not a theology or theory of atonement that I hold to. So I am much more convinced that our Creator is love (good will towards us) because of the good we see around us and my own experiences of "God" than by proof-texting the Bible. But that is me. I never tell people that God loves them because Jesus died for them. I would rather simply love them and share, if asked, my own experiences of God's love. Other's mileage may vary.

Edited July 6, 2013 by BillM

[romansh]

Related good-natured question:

 

If we all agree that God or god is transcendent (beyond all categories of thought or description), then why are we even discussing God at all? Why discuss what can't be known? Isn't that an exercise in futility, a waste of time? Isn't it, perhaps, like discussing "dark matter"?

 

 

I was wondering if anyone would ask this question?

There is a philosophy" called ignosticism as opposed to agnosticism that sort of asks the same question.

 

If god is transcendent ... we end up saying what god isn't and that is everything we can think of?

 

Interesting

[romansh]

Bill

 

But for me it does as it is my belief (yes, bias) that Christianity should get as close to the historical Jesus as possible, not the mythical "Christ" who is the Jewish Yeshua deified into a God-man in order to make him palatable to the Greek world. To me, the gospel of John compared to the synoptic gospels is like the myth of Santa Claus compared to the real Saint Nicholas.

 

A few years back I was leaning the same way ... Now I take a more Campbellian view toward myth

 

Here is an excerpt as to what (Rex Wyler thinks) can be attributed to Jesus. from The Jesus Sayings

Edited July 6, 2013 by romansh

[BillM]

Rom,

 

I enjoyed your page. I also noticed that the "Jesus Sayings" didn't really talk much about the common themes of Christianity (such as how we are born sinners, need our sins forgiven through blood sacrifice, and have a destination of either heaven or hell). And, what, Jesus never talked about homosexuality? I will have to look into the Campbellian approach.

 

There is a correlation in this for me concerning our "God discussion". Conservative, fundamentalists (bless their believing hearts) will tell us that the gospels (all four) portray Jesus exactly as he really was with little to no human interpretation or embellishment. They can't help this because their hermeneutical approach is the every word in the Bible comes directly from God. But modern "Jesus scholars" (Borg, Crossan, Funk, etc.) tell us that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get to the "historical Jesus." We can't even be absolutely sure he existed. But most insist that we can have confidence in the "kinds" of things Jesus said and did. Our faith does not require "the letter of the law." We simply make our best guesses. That is the best we can do unless we want to shelve the whole thing.

 

Similarly (and again my opinion), it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get to the "real God." We can't even be absolutely sure God exists (by scientific proof, anyway). There is too much human subjectivity involved. Nevertheless, I think we can have confidence in the "kind" of God that exists from majority input of the best of our religions i.e. that God can be related to on some level and that God is behind the Golden Rule rather than the Darwinian approach of CYA. My faith in God (and it is faith) does not require "letter of the law" explanations or definitions. I make my best guess as to what I believe God is really like and try to live according to that guess. And, yes, my conservative brothers and sisters would (and have) disfellowshipped from me for not insisting that I agree with *their* explanations and definitions. But I have to live according to the light I have. When I know better, I will try to do better.

[romansh]

Bill

 

I enjoyed your page. I also noticed that the "Jesus Sayings" didn't really talk much about the common themes of Christianity (such as how we are born sinners, need our sins forgiven through blood sacrifice, and have a destination of either heaven or hell). And, what, Jesus never talked about homosexuality? I will have to look into the Campbellian approach.

 

 

Apparently Jesus did not say much about God either ... except to be wary of those that claimed to speak for God. There is an irony here regarding the Bible. Regarding Campbell, I would recommend the Power of Myth it is a transcript of an interview with Bill Moyers and Joseph C. Available in DVD too. I preferred the coffee table version of the book myself. Myths of Light was good too and Pathways to Bliss.

 

 

Similarly (and again my opinion), it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get to the "real God." We can't even be absolutely sure God exists (by scientific proof, anyway).

 

 

As a scientist I am sensitive to having proof associated with science. Either the evidence corroborates the scientific theory or it does not. In the latter case the theory needs modification or we go back to the drawing board.

 

 

There is too much human subjectivity involved. Nevertheless, I think we can have confidence in the "kind" of God that exists from majority input of the best of our religions i.e. that God can be related to on some level and that God is behind the Golden Rule rather than the Darwinian approach of CYA. My faith in God (and it is faith) does not require "letter of the law" explanations or definitions. I make my best guess as to what I believe God is really like and try to live according to that guess. And, yes, my conservative brothers and sisters would (and have) disfellowshipped from me for not insisting that I agree with *their* explanations and definitions. But I have to live according to the light I have. When I know better, I will try to do better.

 

As a devout agnostic I do understand the need to make a best guess and moving forward. Funnily enough god or God is not one of those things I need to make a guess about to move forward. I seem to move forward anyway. I see no need to come to a general conclusion about the existence of god.

 

Or to use Laplace's words I have no need of such a hypothesis

Edited July 6, 2013 by romansh

[BillM]

Rom,

 

I have to admit that if God really is as much of the Bible says he is or as conservative Christianity says he is, I would be agnostic or atheist also. I'm not at all saying that this is why *you* are agnostic, I'm only speaking for myself. I don't care for the God found in much of the Bible and much of Christianity. I don't find him, to me, to be very believable or worthy of worship.

 

But neither do I hold to a material, secular view that only things provable through the scientific method exist or are real. I appreciate the scientific method and the Newtonian way of looking at the universe. Nevertheless, I think there is more going on the what materialism can account for, much as astronomers say there is more "matter" to the universe than what we can currently measure, but we call it "dark matter" because it doesn't seem to conform to the normal laws of matter and how we know of its existence and influence.

 

This is where, for me, "unprovable" notions like love and compassion and understanding and joy and patience (etc.) come into play. These things are, IMO, real, but they are not directly measureable. We can only experience their influence. Therefore, again for me, if we could take notions like love and compassion and connection magnify them as being the "biggest" or most important things we know (Love, Compassion, Connection), then these things, for me, become God to me. As to whether this is a conscious Being with a will, I don't know. I can only speculate and guess. But there seems to be, IMO, a More to life and existence that pure materialism cannot account for. It is this More that I call God, but it is sometimes like the God found in the Bible and Christianity, but often not.

[JosephM]

I would share that understanding. Well said Bill,

Joseph

[soma]

While God waits for His Temple to be built of love,
Men bring stones.

 

What is not eternal is eternally out-of-date. —C. S. Lewis

 

[PerpetualSeeker]

Bill,

 

I have arrived at a similar conclusion...we cannot arrive at an intellectual answer to God or Jesus. I am glad that I have stopped trying. Now I can spend my time pursuing useful things and enjoying what I can see of God. This one time in band camp I tried to attend a fundie university as I wanted to "learn scripture in depth" and liberal faiths sort of gloss over stuff. They would not let me in because I would not sign 100 percent agreement with their doctrine. Looks like I was down the wrong path anyway.

 

Thanks for sharing,

 

Bob

Edited July 7, 2013 by PerpetualSeeker

[The Rhino]

Related good-natured question: If we all agree that God or god is transcendent (beyond all categories of thought or description), then why are we even discussing God at all? Why discuss what can't be known? Isn't that an exercise in futility, a waste of time? Isn't it, perhaps, like discussing "dark matter"?

I don't see discussing Love, God or dark matter as a futile exercise. My love for philosophy does not exist because I think it will lead me to concrete answers. That's why I love science, but one cannot live on bread alone. Mystery, hope, faith, are all important experiences that could not exist if all the answers were available through reason.

 

However, we can catch glimpses of the Divine, no more or less than we should through the median of human reason; for if the Divine could be understood through reason alone it would put the smartest among us at an unfair advantage in knowing God.

 

God bless

 

R