Love

ThunderBug wrote:

Ironic, isn’t it?

I understand exactly what you mean when you say that these ideas sound “new age”, and yet, there is not one idea among them that is not directly taken from what Jesus taught 2,000 years ago. Even when I told you about the spiritual beings in Sodom, it was He Who taught that God is Spirit, that He must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, and that we are His children, made in His likeness.

But did Jesus teach us to build a guilded political empire and populate it with royalty, giving powerful men authority over weaker men? Did He command us to argue incessantly over piddly shit — whether we should dunk our heads under water or pour water over our heads? Did He carry signs and picket outside Levi’s house, declaring that God hates prostitutes?

Jesus taught that people who seek earthly authority and recognition have their reward already. They have what they yearn for, and when their spirit sees the Love they have rejected, it will blind their eyes and send them scurrying for cover, because love is not what they treasure.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who “gets it”. It is a simple thing, and Jesus even thanked His Father that His message is so simple that we must become like little children to understand it. If you read the Kahlil Gibran book I linked to above (the entire text is online), you’ll see that he gets it. And apparently, you’re getting it, too. :slight_smile:

Love is the carrier of goodness. C. S. Lewis (who I think essentially got it) once said that God values goodness so highly that, were there a being more good than He, He would worship it. I agree. Goodness is what God Himself treasures above all else.

To “get on his good side” by our own power, all we have to do is obey the moral imperative that Jesus declared: “Be perfect, therefore, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” There. What could be simpler? Just be perfect. Be perfect, and you will be one with God.

But then you ask about forgiveness. Praise God that He considers forgiveness to be good! :wink: While love is what carries goodness; forgiveness is what destroys evil. Believe in Him. Or believe in whatever it is that you call the Love Everlasting. By placing your trust in Him, you secure His forgiveness, just as you secure your boat when you drop your anchor into the water. By clinging to Him, you guarantee that He will cleanse you of all unrighteousness, because He has said that He will reject no one who comes to Him. By relying on Him, you assure your salvation from death — an eternity of isolation from His love.

Jesus did indeed love the Pharisees. Some of them heard His words and turned from their gnat straining and camel swallowing to embrace His teachings of love, including Nicodemus and others. And of course, Saul, who became Paul.

If you are holding onto it, then it is keeping you from dwelling with Him even now. Give up what you are holding onto, and hold onto Him instead.

God is perfect and holy, and will not be stained by our sins. Compared to Him, we are all filthy and despicable. Turn around and give freely that which you have received freely. If you cling to Him, then He has forgiven you. Be like Him.

other-wise, your questions aren’t clumsy, I think we just happen to be discussing a subject wherein the temptation to fall back on rather bland Uplift-o-Slogans ™ is strong. Anyway, I’ll do my best.

I find it difficult to explain exactly what each experience was like, I merely observed that I could not remember thinking about or concentrating on God, Jesus or “the Divine” in later episodes (although I also remember that a couple did involve such elements almost exclusively, even as my “ascribed probabilities” were gradually changing), and yet each experience was comparably powerful.
As I say, this is only the subject matter I can remember: I would imagine I would not be able to tell the difference were the sources different (ie. my own brain in one case, God in the other). Again, I still do not know what the source is, I am merely “happier” believing that they were all directly due to neural activity rather than all directly due to supernatural instigation. If it is possible that some were solely the former, then I think introducing a further source for others would fall foul of Ockham’s Razor, whereas merely going further and proposing that all such experiences are exclusively brain-manufactured would not.

Yes (of course I may yet be wrong).

I’m struggling a bit with this one. Could you be a bit more specific?

Drug trips were part of my later “brain experiments”, after the God-seeing, transcendental meditation, hypnosis and whatknot. They were every bit as powerful, spiritual and with equal chance of focussing on love. They reverberated, and changed me (positively) every bit as much.

[Bill Hicks]
Sorry.
[/Bill Hicks]

What’s lo-ove, but a second hand emotion?

Excellent question. I would suggest that, since love is perhaps the most powerful positive emotion that we can experience, it would make sense for any religion, movement or philosophy to attempt to associate love with itself. (You just felt overpowering love? Buddy, that’s cos God is love, and so you just met God.) This may sound overly cynical and harsh but, again, I would assure you that it is an explanation truly which gives me a greater sense of peace, inner contentment and positivity towards my life and my fellow planet co-habitees.

Libertarian - thanks for an excellent forum, sorry if we’ve slightly strayed off topic. May your God go with you also.

What a kind blessing!

Regarding the discussion that you’re having with Other-wise, it might be important to point out that there exist religions which do not identify God as love. And there exist spiritual experiences that are evil and torturous in nature, nothing like the epiphanic experiences that you and I possibly have shared.

Also, it is important, as men of reason, that we remain always vigilantly aware that the causal relation between spiritual experience and brain activity is forever outside the scope of science, since there can exist no materially falsifiable formulation regarding supernatural agency or design.

Finally, it must be understood that the emotion resulting from an experience of love is not the same as the love itself. You might be grateful that someone has comforted you when you were sick, but your gratitude and their charity are distinct phenominal entities. Likewise, you might have a good trip when you do some acid, but your exhiliration has not conveyed God’s goodness from one man to another.

And that’s the kind of love this thread is about — love as a conduit for goodness.

The feelings of incredible joy that I experienced upon my conversion were likely due simply to the stark, hundred-and-eighty degree difference between my worldview as a hard atheist and my sudden new worldview. Surely, anyone would be swept away by such an abrupt and spectacular change in how they see the world around them.

I am most certainly not always a happy man. And yet, I know God’s love in my heart even in my greatest depths of loneliness and depression. Love is not about shiney happy people always holding hands. It is about goodness being transfered from one entity to another.

There are many people who know the love of God in a quiet way that manifested in a simple, unassuming awareness or word of commitment once they decided to surrender to Him. Faith need be only a tiny flicker to burn eternally.

Other-wise

It occurs to me, after my post to Sentient, that perhaps what you need to let go of most is me. My experience. My moral journey. If what you are doing is attempting to grok my experience, then you are not on the path that will lead you to understanding. You must walk with God, and not with me. He dwells deep inside your innermost being — what I call your “heart”. Turn away from all distraction and seek Him where He resides. Open your heart so that He can pour out of you and overflow into the whole world. Whenever you share His goodness with someone else, there will be love. He will be there. Learn the destination of your own private moral journey, and take God with you to walk along the way.

The things I tell you, they are truth, and I have heard them from God. But truth is not law. Law will bind you, but truth will set you free. Learn what “God is Love” means in your own life, not in mine. When you have let go and then return, we will be brothers, but we will not be clones. And I am glad for that because I want to love you as you are, and not as I am.

ThunderBug

After my post to Other-wise, it occurs to me that I ought to tell you that forgiveness is a part of letting go. Forgive everyone who has ever harmed you and brought you grief. You cannot let go while holding on.

Your premise that love is a conduit for goodness seems false in the following scenarios:

  1. because a man loves a woman so much that he can not live without her he kidnaps her to keep her with him
  2. a woman kills her children to save them from torture as an act of love
    These are two tragic cases, most hopefully of rare occurance, though probably not statistically insignificant in the course of human history.
    How is the fact that love can cause tragedy or that acts of badness are produced by love reconciled with your base supposition?

AchimbaProphet

Maybe it would help if you read the whole thread. Laborious, I know. But your answers are there. :slight_smile:

SentientMeat, thank you for your answers (and the noticeable lack of Uplift-o-Slogans ™ :slight_smile: therein).

I do, of course, have a couple questions about your response:

A clarification: you’ve had experiences whose subject matter was “the Divine”, and you’ve had essentially the same experiences, not with a different subject matter, but sans any subject matter whatsoever. Is this correct?

Well, for one thing, you mentioned “I am the universe’s way of observing itself”. I’ve read this same sentiment in the works of V.S. Ramachandran and John Wheeler, and each had slightly different takes on the subject. What’s your take on the subject?

I’m familiar with the mechanics of drug trips and what they’re like (my wife’s a molecular biochemist, and I used to be a “troubled youth”). You’ve said that the drug experiences were “every bit as powerful, spiritual, etc”, but I’d like to know if they were essentially the same. And specifically, I’d like to know if the experiences (drug or non-drug) were similar to spiritual/ecstatic/peak/whatever experiences I’ve read about that have been described as realer than real. (For instance, in analogy, if I go to sleep and have vivid dreams, when I wake up I know instantly and unquestionably: “Oh. This is real. That was dreaming.” Or if I down a pint of Maker’s Mark, several hours later I know: “Ow. This is real. That was drunk.” But several of the most convincing/unnerving accounts I’ve read of intense spiritual experiences end with: “Oh. This is real. But that was realer”…apparently an instant, unquestionable and permanent conviction. Were your episodes experienced as “realer” than “normal” reality?)

When I say “subject matter” I am referring to the notions, thoughts or ideas which occurred to me during the hour (or whatever) “away” - love, flight, space, death, time, thought, I dunno, stuff. So yes, they were the same, but not subject-less (can any experience, whether subtle or overwhelming, be said to be devoid of subject matter?).

To be honest, I’ve probably only read the same books as you on the subject - I’m certainly no expert who is able to choose and defend any particular model. However, I believe that study of the relationship between the collapse of a wavefunction and the presence of a conscious observer might well be the route via which I finally receive my “satisfactory” explanation.

I’d say essentially the same, yes. There were additional sensory (eg. visual) effects with the “artificial” trips, perhaps a slightly more “awake” feeling to the natural ones and, of course, one drug-induced experience might be as different to another drug-induced experience as it was to a “natural” (or, who can say, “divine”) one.

If you’d never heard of acid and were secretly spiked just before a particularly Charismatic Christian meeting, my guess is you might well say the above about the experience. I believe my brain produced my experience of seeing God by itself and, while there obviously are differences between “natural” and “artificial” trips, my experience leads me not believe that there is any significant qualitative difference between them.

If all youths could experience pure, unconditional love and cry tears of joy at the beauty of each other and the universe, the only ones in trouble would be arms manufacturers, slave labour exploiters, and politicians who preached a message of fear, greed and judgementalism.

Incidentally, I say a hearty “Amen” to all that Libertarian has since said on the subject of Love (with the God bits stripped out, of course!).

Lib:

Enjoyable OP Libertarian.

Imo, it is sometimes a very useful(enlightening?) to believe the metaphor that love is a creature that exists all around/through us. Thinking we are nourishing some greater existence can be invigorating to our drive to love and be “good”. I know your construct is far more sophisticated than this blurb and so is mine though I’ve never really plotted it all down at once(Note to self: Start doing your vipassana!). For me it is a sense that turns on and off, in most cases voluntarily.
If I may be so bold as to tie up a couple of loose threads in the umm, thread :slight_smile: :

– The idea of love and hate having a mere fine line between them (as mentioned in smiling bandit’s Annie Lennox quote) comes from misinterpretting possessiveness for love or hate.

– I thought it should be mentioned with all the “to surrender” discussion that that this is of course the very definition of “Islam”.

Thanks, Carnal. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the thread.

While I appreciate your unique view on things, I knew there was some of that good old Christianity that I grew up with, practiced, preached and left behind in you! :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t believe in the sinful nature of man (or original sin) and the need to cling to anyone in hopes of forgiveness. I loathe Edwards “Sinners in the hand of an Angry God” stuff. If I’ve wronged someone, I appologize and try and make it right. I don’t buy into the need to be cleansed of unrighteousnes or the need for salvation through the actions of someone else. I am responsible for my own actions. No one else is responsible for them and I really wouldn’t want anyone else to seek out forgiveness for them but me. If I wrong God somehow, I would ask for forgiveness and try and make it right. How does one wrong a God whose only interaction with us is through other people? And like I’ve said, if I’ve wronged a person I make it right. That should make me and God square.

How can a being who loves perfectly isolate someone he loves eternally? Or destroy their being at some time in the future? Or depend on the words of the flawed creatures he himself created to lead us down a correct path? The verse that comes to mind is “All men are liars, no one is true but God”. Problem is, that was written by a man.

Who, IMHO, went on to make all kinds of rules and regulations that had nothing to do with the message of Jesus.

My story was to illustrate a point. While I don’t hold onto any ill feelings toward my aunt at this point, I don’t hold onto any good feelings as well. I am indifferent when it comes to her. I wouldn’t spit on her if I walked past her lying in the street, but I wouldn’t help her up either. There is no love, there is no hate, there is nothing. I would neither wrong her nor would I say something to brighten her day. Why would God fault me for that?

Again witht he staining and being filthy and despicable. I don’t see people that way. People make choices, people can correct choices made. If God sees people as filthy and dispicable until they believe the words of men that require groveling at His feet asking for forgiveness for actions that did not wrong God himself directly, then how can you call that “perfect love”?

Lib, I am (or was) attempting to grok the experience, but not necessarily your experience. Hence the 20 questions (ok, more like 60) to the graciously patient SentientMeat. It’s been a good 40 years since I indulged in anything resembling hero-worship or even trying to follow in someone’s footsteps.

I actively seek out your particular posts for two reasons. First, as I’ve said, I’ve developed a prodigious respect for you, both intellectually and personally. There are several other posters here at SDMB that I seek out for the same reason. Second, unlike the other posters, your posts bug me, and I’m trying to find out why.

You have not infrequently been admonished with accusations of being cryptic and obscure when referencing your spiritual beliefs and experiences; a sentiment I echo.

However.

Even in your most annoyingly cryptic posts, there’s… something… there. For me, it’s one of the main reasons they’re so damn annoying. There’s something there that I can’t quite put my finger on, much less articulate, but it’s an undercurrent that snags me, makes sense to me, in a inchoate, subterranean way.

I’ve had a similar sensation when reading complex journal articles from disciplines I know nothing about. In those cases, if I just keep cross-reading and re-reading, the latent, “unresolved” understanding will resolve itself.

But with your posts, there’s been increasing …reverberation… but no resolution.

(Ok, I’ve written myself into a corner here. I can’t think of a graceful way to segue from telling you that you irritate the crap out of me to the following heartfelt thank-you)

I’ve read dozens of times, in dozens of different texts, “God dwells within your heart”, and each time I’ve thought: “Lovely poetic metaphor. Ain’t that sweet.”, and promptly continued searching, inquiring, trying to find out if there was anything to this “God” business.

But that last post “…He dwells deep inside your innermost being — what I call your “heart”. Turn away from all distraction and seek Him where He resides…” made my brain skip a beat: “What the… ? Waitaminute. That’s not a metaphor. He’s being literal !”. Which, without warning, was immediately followed by: “Huh. That’s the last place I’d think to look.”

Hmmm.

You’ve given me a lot to ponder, Lib (I say “ponder” instead of “think about”, because I would have no clue how to think about this), so… thank you. I’ll keep you posted.

ThunderBug:

:smiley: Well, actually, as you will see, there is a twist to what appears to be Ol’ Timey Christianity. Although I might prefer to say a straightening. I’m so glad that you posted so we could clear up these matters.

Jesus spoke often of sin, forgiveness, and righteousness (rightness with God). So much so that ignoring it would collapse His whole Gospel of Love. How can this be? Fortunately, you asked the right questions in order to formulate an answer.

I know so very little of formal Christian theology. Poly knows more in his little finger than I will ever know. I know only the basics.

I know, for example, that some politicians came together in Rome sometime in the fourth century and declared that what they had put together was the way, the truth, and the life. I think they’re lying. Reading about that kind of stuff makes me nauseous, frankly. That’s the main reason I know so little.

I don’t know the whole thing about original sin. My weak understanding is that it had something to do with Adam somehow, something about his disobedience with respect to the forbidden fruit. Something along those lines. (And if you will kindly do me the favor, please do not correct me if I’m wrong. It’s the sort of thing, like how to rob a bank successfully, that I’d just as soon know nothing about.)

So, if any part of what I share with you coincides in some way with the doctrine of the body politic that calls itself the Church, please understand that although some of the words are the same, the meaning is as likely as not to be vastly different.

Yes, I believe that man is sinful. I trust Jesus when He says this. He says it repeatedly. And in fact, I turn on the news or click on CNN and I see this. Even men themselves, when they examine their hearts, know this is true. Not even one of us has the moral right to cast the first stone at someone else. Therefore, we all stand holding our stones — stones that represent our sins.

But what does sin mean? What is wickedness? And what is holiness? And why will God not be stained with sin?

The last question is easy: He would no longer be God. But the other questions need some explanation and illustration to sort of undo twisting that has been done to the simple message of Love over the years.

Traditionally, preachers and teachers and high holy pubahs have taught that sin is what you do. You know, as opposed to what they do. Their whole approach is designed, not to liberate you from sin, but to bind you to it. Why? Because it profits them! It leads you to believe that you must visit them periodically and drop money into their collection plates.

But sin is not what you do. It isn’t even what they do. Sin is not an action at all. It is a decision — a moral decision made by the spirit (as opposed to an amoral decision made by the brain). Sin is the decision to reject love. Whatever action might follow is a sinful one. Even if it appears to be “good”.

You cannot say, “Oh, look! He’s feeding a poor person,” and conclude that the man you see giving food is doing good. You cannot conclude this because you cannot see deep into his heart, where, if you could, you would hear his spirit muttering the decision it has made in wicked whispers, ‘I will feed this man and lure him into my home where I will rape him, cut off his head, and eat him.’

Nor can you say, “Oh, look! That rascal has just run off with my money,” and conclude that the thief is doing evil. You cannot conclude this because you cannot hear his heart crying out to God, ‘Give me just long enough to feed my child, and leave her at the hospital to find a suitable home, and then I will turn myself in and repay the man.’ He has done something ethically intolerable, but morally understandable.

There are also people who are retarded or mentally ill, whose brains are physically restricted from carrying out the will of their spirits. Their hearts might yearn for God’s goodness, and yet they do things that appear nasty or spiteful or mean. You cannot fault them because they cannot help themselves.

There are people who cloak themselves in the appearance of righteousness, but inside their hearts is desolation, where they plan to use their power to take advantage of others. And there are people who outwardly appear to be hopelessly filthy and uncouth, but who have hearts of gold inside.

Sin is not something you can see with your eyes. Like all things spiritual, sin is something you see with your heart. And hearts are connected to God through love, the conduit of goodness (the thing which God values most).

You can see then why merely making something right when you have sinned against someone does not make things right with God. Conduits have connections at both ends. What good is a conduit with only one end? Being forgiven by others is not enough. You must also forgive those who have sinned against you.

You do not want to be like the man who has accepted forgiveness from his creditor, but then turns around and demands payment from his debtor. You must love your neighbor as yourself. It is only fair that you are judged by the same measure you use to judge others.

If you refuse to forgive, why should you be forgiven? By refusing to forgive, you have already decided that forgiveness is worthless. What is worthless for you to give is worthless for you to receive.

Do not be misled. If you do not love, you have not forgiven. Forgiveness is the restoration of love when the conduit of goodness has been severed or rejected. A man who forgives has decided to conduct goodness, but a man who will not forgive has decided to leave goodness cut off.

Despite what your aunt has done to you, I beg you to forgive her completely. Even if she was entirely motivated by evil (a thing which you cannot prove true), you must return goodness for evil. You must love your enemy. Denying God’s goodness to another human being is the most wretched decision you can possibly make. It is tantamount to a decision that you will judge on His behalf.

Don’t just hold no ill feelings. Let good feelings flow from you to her. What is loving about stifling goodness? And if you cannot love her on account of one single sin that you have perceived, why do you deserve love from any man you have ever wronged? And if you will not love others, who are made in the image of God and in His likeness, how then will you love God Himself Who dwells within them?

Love does not keep a record of wrongs. When you look at your aunt, realize that the same God Who dwells in you dwells in her. If you reject the God that is in her, you reject the same God that is in you.

And when I say to trust in Christ, again do not be misled. I am not asking you to trust the Church or Christianity or Christians or even anything that Christians (including me) teach. I am asking you to trust the God Who dwells within you and goes by whatever name you call Him. If the sound “Christ” offends you, then discard it and substitute instead sounds that do not offend you. Buddha. Mohammed. Anything you want to call the Love Everlasting. It is not the word that matters, but the Word.

Men who say that God rejects us because of our sins have it the wrong way around. It is the very rejection of God by us that is sin. God does love us, but He does not require us to accept His love. It is as you say: people make choices.

Would He be more loving if He forced us to accept His love? A resounding NO! If He did that, I would not even BE me. I would be Him in a sock puppet. I would have no will of my own, no moral agency ablatively separate from His. And if we were ALL made that way, then God has created nothing. He’s only a nihilist loving Himself.

Other-wise

I’m glad to hear that you’ll be pondering rather than thinking! Deduction is good for going in circles, but pondering takes you places that the spirit longs to go. :slight_smile:

Thank you Lib, I’ve been trying to figure out your view on this for years! :stuck_out_tongue: So much of this makes sense, and not just in reference to your previous posts. It is certainly worth thinking about more.

For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen nor spoken to my aunt in almost 10 years. I don’t know where she live, I don’t even know if she’s alive. But if I did run into her at the store I’ll keep these words in mind and forgiveness will be first and foremost on my mind and heart.

You’ve made my day, ThunderBug, just telling me that! And for what it’s worth, you don’t have to wait until you see her. You may forgive her right here and now. The power of God’s love and forgiveness transcends space and time.

That fits perfectly here, DJ. Thank you!

And for the record, that’s the Countess of Rousillon in All’s Well That Ends Well, Act 1, Scene 1.

Lib, (On your last very long post to Thunderbug)

Thank you very much. I can’t tell you how much good you have just done. Your ability to place your intellect into the service of the Lord is a great gift.

Tris