• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Loving God?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Sunstone said:
Is it possible to love God conditionally? Or must God be love unconditionally? Or are conditional and unconditional love here entwined in an eternal embrace almost as tight as I embrace my Acme Latex Love Doll in moments of passion?

What are the spiritual and psychological consequences of loving God conditionally? Of loving God unconditionally? Of loving God both conditionally and unconditionally?

To help clarify what is meant here by conditional and unconditional, allow me to quote a poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning, which was recently sent to me by an especially astute friend. In the poem, Browning is obviously talking about love for another human, but it should not take much stretch of the imagination to apply what she says about loving another human to loving God:

If thou must love me, let it be for nought
Except for love's sake only. Do not say
'I love her for her smile - her look - her way
Of speaking gently, - for a trick of thought
That falls in well with mine, and certes brought
A sense of pleasant ease on such a day' -
For these things in themselves, Beloved, may
Be changed, or change for thee, - and love, so wrought,
May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
Thine own dear pity's wiping my cheeks dry, -
A creature might forget to weep, who bore
Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
But love me for love's sake, that evermore
Thou mayst love on, through love's eternity.


Do you think most religious people love God conditionally or unconditionally or both?

If we are in our right minds, it is possible for us to only hate God. If God is who they say that He is, then He who has all Power allows for all of the wickedness, injustice, and strife in the world. Being the UberMensch, that is - the superhuman - the one endowed with all the power that we mortals could never achieve, God allows little children to be raped, murdered, and sold as slaves; God allows famine and suffering and wars. After all this, God condemns people to hell at whim. How can such a God be loved?

IMHO, God can only be loved as He wills us to love Him. He gives us the courage to love whoever he is, and to those whom he chooses.

IMHO, we should live as if there is no God and hope that there is One who is gracious.
 

EnhancedSpirit

High Priestess
Sunstone said:
That's nice, EnhancedSpirit, but what does it have to do with the OP in your opinion?
original post said:
I think that "conditional love" is an oxymoron. I think that the term "uncoditional love" is a redundancy. Love is unconditional. Therefore, if we truly love God, we love unconditionally. God is pure and so defines love as pure.

I am attempting to define love, so those who say they have never experienced it will know what they are looking for. :D
 

gnostic

The Lost One
sojourner said:
God doesn't turn God's back on us. Ever.
Examples of God turning his back on people who no longer worship him are plentyful.

Look at the Book of Judges. He let the enemies of Israelites to overcome them, repeatedly, until they began worshipping and praying to him again. Perhaps they deserve the punishments for losing faith in him, but he didn't just punish those guilty of worshipping idols, he punished the innocents as well as the guilty. That's not what I call unconditional love from a God.

Look at the various kings who fallen from grace because they started worshipping idols. They also probably deserve the punishment, but God made the whole kingdom suffer because of the sins of their kings. Do you seriously expect me to believe that everyone in either Judah or Israel stopped worshipping God, when their kings do so?

It doesn't seem to be love that make the Israelites worship him, but fear. The fear of punishments.

The church have done the same thing. Convert or else you will burn in hell. That doesn't inspire love, but it does inspire fear.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
You can never love God directly.

You can love him by loving his children.

I John 4:19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. NIV
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Why do you say we can never love God directly? I've met plenty of Christians who claim they do exactly this. Have you got evidence that loving God directly is impossible?
 

Opethian

Active Member
I love people because I have experienced love from outside myself, and am comeplled to return that love outside myself. Be assured: If it's selfish, it's not love -- it's something else. If it's selfless, then it is love.

You say you are compelled to return that love, so in definition it is not selfless, since you are returning the love because you feel the need to do so, because otherwise you would feel guilty, and because giving that love makes you feel good. There is no completely selfless love.

As to your aprt of the post I've highlighted in red: Why should we want to give up the romantic aspects of life? Love, selflessness, beauty -- these are the things we live for. Romatic ideas and experiences are some of the most sublime a human being can have. Ouor lives are more than a bleak collage of bare facts and analysis.

It's not giving up these things, it's just realising what exactly they are and what the reasons for them are. For a lot of people this would be giving up the magic. But the fact remains that everything can be analysed in a physical way.

There are a few humans who have reached this level. Mother Teresa is one that comes to mind.

Not really. I'm pretty sure that Mother Teresa too had her reasons for helping those people. Probably the feeling of satisfaction she got back in return, and the idea that she's being a very good person. Do you think she'd still do it if she didn't get any satisfaction from it?

Pretty sure, it doesn't make me feel one way or the other...
So you're denying that loving someone or helping them makes you feel good?

Hate has made me feel good before, however that does not mean I continue to hate.
Hate fades
So your selfish?
Yes, just like every other human on the planet. There's just people who get their satisfaction out of more subtle acts of selfishness and people who get it out of more obvious ways. For example, one person could get satisfaction out of getting someone to pay him/her for his work, while another gets satisfaction out of the good feeling he gets by helping that person. This doesn't mean that the first person is more selfish than the second, it only means that they hold a different value for what satisfies them.
So anyone who disagrees with you about the source of an action is either dishonest or ignorant?
Just the persons who refuse to accept the fact that every action is in essence selfish, and that really want to think they did something for no reason at all.
Ahhh, no freewill then?
No, organisms don't really have free will (that includes humans).

 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
[offtopic]

I know this is off topic, but considering that you believe that Humans don't have free will, how can judge people for refusing to accept the fact that every action is in essence selfish? After all, it's not their viewpoint if they have no choice about it. They can't help having that opinion.

[/offtopic]
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Tiberius said:
Why do you say we can never love God directly? I've met plenty of Christians who claim they do exactly this. Have you got evidence that loving God directly is impossible?
Jesus intimated this very thing to Peter after his resurrection.

John 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agape) me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."


16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love (agape) me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love (agape) me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love (agape) me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo) you."
18 Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!" NIV

Peter was a broken man here. He had proclaimed earlier that he would follow Jesus, even to death and then denied him three times. His brashness was replaced with a new found humility... a humility where Peter KNEW that he could not out Agape God. All he could hope for was to phileo his best friend. The former is an unconditional love that never waivers. The latter is far, far less: the love you feel for a brother. I think it telling that every time Peter responded with phileo, Jesus told him to take care of someone.

Let's take a look at one of my favorite passages:

Matthew 25:37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' NIV

Too often we relegate "love" to being just a feeling... like it was indigestion or something. Love is a decision to put someone else's needs ABOVE YOUR OWN. Love is ACTION first and feelings come in a distant second. If you want to love God, go and love your brothers and your sisters. If you have a hard time figuring out who they are, study the scriptures for who Jesus' brothers and sisters are.
 

Opethian

Active Member
I know this is off topic, but considering that you believe that Humans don't have free will, how can judge people for refusing to accept the fact that every action is in essence selfish? After all, it's not their viewpoint if they have no choice about it. They can't help having that opinion.

I don't judge them, I'm trying to get them to see the truth, because I believe it might help them. I won't judge anyone here, I don't even judge child molesters. They can't help having that opinion, but I can help them having a different one.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Opethian said:
Not really. I'm pretty sure that Mother Teresa too had her reasons for helping those people. Probably the feeling of satisfaction she got back in return, and the idea that she's being a very good person. Do you think she'd still do it if she didn't get any satisfaction from it?
Please tell us... what satisfaction does a parent feel after changing a child's diapers? Godly or True Love means putting the needs of others ABOVE your own needs. It is a decision that does not expect a reward or good feelings afterwards. If you can't relate to this, possibly you have never loved someone this deeply. It is appalling that ANYONE would assign motivations to Mother Theresa in absentia that are anything but altruistic in nature. But of course, this selfish world has a hard relating to anything that does not entail instant gratification. Not everyone has to have your motivations. Really.
 

Opethian

Active Member
Please tell us... what satisfaction does a parent feel after changing a child's diapers?
I'm just saying that every action has a reason, and a selfish one. In this case, the reason of the changing of the diapers is needed to keep your child healthy, and you do it because you are attached to your child, and neglecting it would make you feel guilty and/or unhappy, or make your child cry.

Godly or True Love means putting the needs of others ABOVE your own needs. It is a decision that does not expect a reward or good feelings afterwards.
Yes it does. It may not seem that obvious, but if you analyse your own feelings when you do something like this, you will realise this. I used to think like you, until I thought about this kind of thing honestly and deeply. When you love someone, you do it because it gives you a good feeling. When you help someone without expecting something material in return, you do it for the good feeling you get from helping others. Denying this is self-deceit.

If you can't relate to this, possibly you have never loved someone this deeply.
Yes I have. If you can't relate to what I'm saying, you're either not being honest to yourself or you've just not thought about it enough.
It is appalling that ANYONE would assign motivations to Mother Theresa in absentia that are anything but altruistic in nature.
No it's not, because I realise that all actions are selfish, that there is no free will, and that everything is just cause and effect. It may not be very romantic and goody goody to think that Mother Theresa isn't any "better" than a murderer, but it's the truth. Some of us are just lucky with our genetic information and life experiences, and some aren't, yet all of us only do something when our body has decided from the available input and experience that the action will be beneficial to us.

But of course, this selfish world has a hard relating to anything that does not entail instant gratification. Not everyone has to have your motivations. Really.

Yes they do, I'm sorry to say so, but I know they do.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
NetDoc said:
Peter was a broken man here. He had proclaimed earlier that he would follow Jesus, even to death and then denied him three times. His brashness was replaced with a new found humility... a humility where Peter KNEW that he could not out Agape God. All he could hope for was to phileo his best friend. The former is an unconditional love that never waivers. The latter is far, far less: the love you feel for a brother. I think it telling that every time Peter responded with phileo, Jesus told him to take care of someone.

Sorry, newbie, but when you say Agape and Phileo, I honestly have no idea what you mean.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Tiberius said:
Sorry, newbie, but when you say Agape and Phileo, I honestly have no idea what you mean.
They are defined in the quote you so aptly provided. Here are some more definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

There is more than one word in NT Greek that can be translated into love>

Agape': Godly or True Love. This is sacrificial in nature

Phileo: Brotherly Love. This is familial affection, which is still very strong.

Eros: Which is the love between a man and a woman.

I hope this helps.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Opethian said:
I'm just saying that every action has a reason, and a selfish one. -snip- Yes they do, I'm sorry to say so, but I know they do.
Just because YOU are selfish, does not mean all of us are selfish. Just because YOU can't love others without recompense, does not mean that all of us are so afflicted. This is a logical fallacy and you can't simply judge others by your motives. We do things for different reasons.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Netdoc, after reading the definitions and again reading the Bible verses you quoted, I'm still a bit confused.

You say that "Peter KNEW that he could not out Agape God." What exactly do you mean by out AGAPing God? Do you mean he couldn't love god more than Jesus loved God?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Tiberius said:
Sorry, newbie, but when you say Agape and Phileo, I honestly have no idea what you mean.

Am I reading you correctly? Calling NetDoc a "newbie" is a miserable failure to judge his character responsibly, it's off-topic, and infantile.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
NetDoc said:
They are defined in the quote you so aptly provided. Here are some more definitions:

Eros: Which is the love between a man and a woman.

I hope this helps.

It's better to define this as sexual or erotic love. It's used of pederasty by Plato, Socrates, and others as they discuss how to love boys in the Symposium.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
NetDoc said:
Just because YOU are selfish, does not mean all of us are selfish. Just because YOU can't love others without recompense, does not mean that all of us are so afflicted. This is a logical fallacy and you can't simply judge others by your motives. We do things for different reasons.

There is a debate among philosophers and ethicists who ponder this question:

"Is there truly an altruistic act?"

At least half of those who participate in the disscussion agree that there is no purely self-less action, and if there is - it's very rare.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Am I reading you correctly? Calling NetDoc a "newbie" is a miserable failure to judge his character responsibly, it's off-topic, and infantile.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant it to indicate that I was a newbie and unfamiliar with the terminology he used.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Tiberius said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant it to indicate that I was a newbie and unfamiliar with the terminology he used.

Ah, no problem. I thought that I had misread you.:)
 
Top