Is God particularly fierce?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Still_Waters,

Yes, that is essentially the principle. I am reminded of the verse...."No greater love is this, than one would lay down his life for another". Literally(and correctly) this means physical death for another's sake. Metaphorically it can mean the surrender and/or suspension of one's ego. We must give up the control even temporarily that the ego has on us. By the way this surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love. In this earth we always revert to the pull of the ego. But this surrender/suspension is like any other thing we are attempting to achieve or excel at. It takes practice and with repetition it becomes more frequent and represents more opportunity to give ourselves to God/the Divine.

' By the way this surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love. '


So you cannot genuinely love another unless you surrender the ego?

Originally Posted by sky123

So you cannot genuinely love another unless you surrender the ego?

'Truth' and understanding are nearly always subjective......i.e. subject to one's point of view. There is no consensus(even on these forums) of the definition of love. Therefore, any observation on my part would probably only result in pointless disagreements satisfying no one and augmenting little.

Originally Posted by Molearner

'Truth' and understanding are nearly always subjective......i.e. subject to one's point of view. There is no consensus(even on these forums) of the definition of love. Therefore, any observation on my part would probably only result in pointless disagreements satisfying no one and augmenting little.

What? You don't want to fight about words?

“What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”
― G.K. Chesterton

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

'Truth' and understanding are nearly always subjective......i.e. subject to one's point of view. There is no consensus(even on these forums) of the definition of love. Therefore, any observation on my part would probably only result in pointless disagreements satisfying no one and augmenting little.

A healthy, flexible ego is important in giving genuine love to others....

[sky]

Originally Posted by ketzer

What? You don't want to fight about words?

“What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”
― G.K. Chesterton

I wasn't expecting or wanting an fight but I am curious how Morph comes to the idea that
surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love.

If you Post something you can normally explain what you Post, unless of course its a ' Copy & Paste '

Originally Posted by ketzer

What? You don't want to fight about words?

“What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”
― G.K. Chesterton

ketzer,

As much as I like Chesterton(I quote him frequently) I will use these words as words of caution. Words are fine if they are used in intellectual discussion. With the proper audience they can lead to a progression of discourse. In the absence of these guidelines they can lead to an elevation of hate and anger. This is to the benefit of no one. Current politics are a good example. I tell my wife no political signs in my front yard. It is guaranteed to gain the ire and disdain of 50% of those who view them. Suddenly you have neighbors that will no longer speak to you....:) My grandmother frequently quoted from Proverbs...."A soft word turneth away wrath". She had 9 children and peace in the family was of value to her...:)

Originally Posted by sky123

I wasn't expecting or wanting an fight but I am curious how Morph comes to the idea that
surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love.

If you Post something you can normally explain what you Post, unless of course its a ' Copy & Paste '

sky123,

I can explain anything that I post......I do not copy and paste....and, oh yeah, I am not Morph. I noticed earlier 2 successive postings of yours. The first posting said that everyone was spiritual...….it was followed immediately by a posting that said we are only human. This seemed contradictory and the 2 were viewed as inconsistent. I grant anyone the freedom to be contrarian but I do look for consistency. I simply believed that you could not be accepting of the viewpoints of others. POV is a given in these forums.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by sky123

I wasn't expecting or wanting an fight but I am curious how Morph comes to the idea that
surrender of the ego is a characteristic of any genuine act of love.

If you Post something you can normally explain what you Post, unless of course its a ' Copy & Paste '

its the love that comes first then the surrendor sky :)

Originally Posted by Molearner

davidmartin,

First of all, I apologize for referencing just one sentence of your posting. But mentioning 'perfect' caught my attention. How does a Christian define 'perfect'? As a student of scripture I am drawn to the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:48.....Jesus says..."Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". This seems difficult, if not impossible, to understand. How can one possibly be perfect?

IMO, the answer is found in the parallel verse in Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount. After almost identical preceding verses in both books Luke 6:36 has Jesus saying this...."Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful". Being merciful, IMO, is much easier to understand than 'being perfect'. Mercy, in its strictest sense, is what a judge gives you despite your acknowledged or proven guilt. Mercy implies understanding, love and forgiveness. Mercy is an act that we can both understand and practice.

IDK, I see what you are saying, but I think I still prefer perfect here. It seems to me that the whole sermon on the mound is a lesson on how to perfect the spirit. About brining the will of the soul in alignment with the will of God. While mercy is certainly in line with goodness, and a good start, I think this is more about the perfection of love. Where there is perfect unconditional love, there is no need for the thought of mercy, there are no conditions to be violated, no will to punish in the first place. Although I do agree perfect unconditional love is not something at present my soul can fully comprehend, I still seem to feel that perfection of love was what is being conveyed here. It seems to me that I fight a battle on the inside, my will to do what I want, vs my desire to come closer to knowing God. Through the perfection of love within my soul, my will becomes identical with the will of God and the separation is removed..... or something like that??

“Govinda said: "But what you call thing, is it something real, something intrinsic? Is it not only the illusion of Maya, only image and appearance? Your stone, your tree, are they real?"
"This also does not trouble me much," said Siddhartha. "If they are illusion, then I also am illusion, and so they are always of the same nature as myself. It is that which makes them so lovable and venerable. That is why I can Love them. And here is a doctrine at which you will laugh. It seems to me, Govinda, that love is the most important thing in the world. It may be important to great thinkers to examine the world, to explain and despise it. But I think it is only important to love the world, not to despise it, not for us to hate each other, but to be able to regard the world and ourselves and all beings with love, admiration and respect.”
― Herman Hesse

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being
suckled are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
The Gospel of Thomas

[sky]

Originally Posted by Molearner

sky123,

I can explain anything that I post......I do not copy and paste....and, oh yeah, I am not Morph. I noticed earlier 2 successive postings of yours. The first posting said that everyone was spiritual...….it was followed immediately by a posting that said we are only human. This seemed contradictory and the 2 were viewed as inconsistent. I grant anyone the freedom to be contrarian but I do look for consistency. I simply believed that you could not be accepting of the viewpoints of others. POV is a given in these forums.

Sorry, wrong name. I don't know what your referring to about inconsistent Post's.
If you think I cannot accept viewpoints of others, that's OK We are all free to think what we think.