Is Love Really the Greatest?

[spockrates]

Imagine a world of faith without love. Everybody believes to the core that God is God and Jesus is Jesus, and the law is the law, etc. etc.
Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not covet etc would potentially all be followed to the tee, but only really by rote. You wouldn't abuse the people in your life, but otherwise your relation to people would be like the relationship between a lizard and her egg. It would be like two computers kissing. Love without faith on the other hand, would still be love, even if the grounds for loving would be obscure. Even those who do not have faith in God, have a backdoor into the Godhead, because God is love.
You wouldn't abuse those you love not because of the law, but because you love them, and whatsoever you did to them you do to yourself. Such is the ways of compassion and empathy.

I suppose a world without hope, but with love, would be two lovers huddled together in hell. It is not the greatest scenario to be sure, being pitchforked and all for eternity, but it does mitigate hell nevertheless.
I am not sure what the world of hope without love might look like... maybe a single's bar?

I believe such a world - having no emotion and all behavior based on logical wisdom - would be one in which Spock would feel at home.

For even though Love would be absent, so would Hate, Lust and Greed. People would do what is wise and avoid what is unwise - not because it feels good to do so, but because it's the logical thing to do, and doing what is illogical would be unthinkable.

Would sin exist in such a world and in such a people?

 

[spockrates]

We will have no need for faith in heaven, seeing how we will not hope for anything. Love abides forever.

I think perhaps we have differing ideas of what Faith and Hope are. I'm thinking that when it comes to believing, Faith is logical trust (making an inference that God is trustworthy), and Hope is the emotion of expectation (feeling expectation that God will do some good thing), which is the opposite of the feeling of despair.

While I agree we likely won't feel expectation for what we have received in heaven, and we probably won't make an inference that we will receive it after it's ours, I don't yet see how we won't continue to think God is trustworthy, which is faith in Him.

But maybe you and I have a different idea of what Faith is? Please tell me your definition of it, without quoting the verse you and I agree we don't yet understand.

 

[spockrates]

This might help , God willing:

... ... ...
"Let us remember again that we are dealing here not with promises but with facts. The promises of God are revealed to us by His Spirit that we may lay hold of them; but facts are facts and they remain facts whether we believe them or not. If we do not believe the facts of the Cross they still remain as real as ever, but they are valueless to us. It does not need faith to make these things real in themselves, but faith can ‘substantiate’ them and make them real in our experience.

Even if something is a very real fact to our senses, if it contradicts the truth of God’s Word, we must regard it as the Devil’s lie, not because it is not a fact but because God has stated a greater fact before which the other must ultimately yield. A skillful liar lies not only in word but in gesture and deed; he can as easily pass a bad coin as tell an untruth. The Devil is a skillful liar, and we cannot expect him to stop at words in his lying. He will resort to lying signs and feelings and experiences in his attempts to shake us from our faith in God’s Word. Let me make it clear that I do not deny the reality of the ‘flesh.’ Indeed we shall have a good deal more to say about this further on. But I am speaking here of our being moved from a revealed position in Christ. As soon as we have accepted our death with Christ as a fact, Satan will do his best to demonstrate convincingly by the evidence of our day-to-day experience that we are not dead at all but very much alive. So we must choose. Will we believe Satan’s lie or God’s truth? Are we going to be governed by appearances or by what God says?

So, whether I feel it or not, I am dead with Christ. How can I be sure? Because Christ has died; and since “one died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5:14). Whether my experience proves it or seems to disprove it, the fact remains unchanged. While I stand upon that fact Satan cannot prevail against me. Remember that his attack is always upon our assurance. If he can get us to doubt God’s Word, then his object is secured and he has us in his power; but if we rest unshaken in the assurance of God’s stated fact, assured that He cannot do injustice to His work or His Word, then it does not matter what tactics Satan adopts. We walk by faith, not by appearance” (2 Cor. 5:7, mg). " ... ...

From a study on Faith and/or Hebrews.

According to your advice, I shouldn't consider your interpretation of scripture, for your interpretation is what you say. So I'll take your advice, unless of course you've changed your mind.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But if I shouldn't trust anything you say, then why do you say anything?

GOOD! (again!)

Why did the followers of JESUS say anything in SCRIPTURE ?
Even
the woman at the well, (best example maybe) --- WHY did she go tell all the townspeole about JESUS and what JESUS did / told her ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

According to your advise, I shouldn't consider your interpretation of scripture, for your interpretation is what you say. So I'll take your advice, unless of course you've changed your mind.

If you DEFINE interpretation as what you say, that fails. That is not what interpretation is. God says in His Word that His Word is not open to interpretation. He also says , repeatedly, to seek HIM, and HE will grant understanding. He never fails, He never disappoints anyone who puts their trust in Him and relies on Him.

As I have often posted, I don't interpret Scripture, nor should you, nor should anyone.
If you accept anyone's interpretation, you will find yourself in a false place, or sinning, as multitudes already have ever since the Garden of Eden when Satan first interpretted God's Word to Havah (Eve).

Who is putting doubt in your mind the last few days? Trust God, trust God's Word, and test everything as God says. Don't trust flesh(man), as God curses those who trust flesh(men), as He says.

 

[spockrates]

I think you are blessed for not having doubts. I even doubted God's love at one time in my life. Like the prodigal son, he was foolish and doubted his Father loved him, and thought he might have to beg to be his father's servant. But his father loved him all along, even when the son thought maybe he didn't.

Yes, the Bible says God is love, not faith and not hope.

Also, "Perfect love casteth out fear."

God's love for us is perfect, no selfishness in it, as well as being complete. Perfect in both senses. Never failing, always forgiving.

It is love for us that caused Him to come and die for us.

Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I think what I am clumsily getting at here is this: God has no faith or hope in us. But He loves us with an all consuming, unconditional, perfect love.

Love is greater, because God is love.

We have hope and faith, and our love is a mere reflection of His own. Like our love is moonshine while His love is sunshine.

So, since God has no faith or hope, but does have love- love is greater. Grace is a variation on the word love, we are saved by His grace, His unmerited favor, through our paltry faith.

I don't know if this makes sense or not.

Yeah, yeah! Makes sense, in part, and part is still a mystery. But I have faith we're on the right track and hopeful the end will be my finding wisdom about why Love is greater.

I don't doubt John's assertion that God is love. I do doubt what those three words mean to him, because he doesn't explain them. Let me explain:

If love is my feeling, I don't see how it can exist without me. "I think, therefore I am," reasoned Descartes. "If I am not, therefore my thoughts and emotions are not," is the logical inference to me. So I don't see how my own love can have a mind it its own. It has no existence apart from my feeling it.

So what about Love? Did John mean this Love is God, and so (unlike my own love) it lives apart from any person who thinks it?

I mean, I suppose this might be true, if there's one God in three persons (God is one what in three whos). The What of God might be a living Love that thinks and decides and acts, that has a life of its own, apart from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But then I think I've been watching too much science fiction! For I may not doubt God's love, but I certainly have no confidence in my ability to comprehend it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If love is my feeling, I don't see how it can exist without me.

But then I think I've been watching too much science fiction! For I may not doubt God's love, but I certainly have no confidence in my ability to comprehend it.

God's Word says you cannot comprehend it. Thus, faith is required.

Love is much much more a choice than a feeling - feelings will come and go momentarily, daily, weekly, and so on.

God's Word says if anyone loves Him, he does what God says. (i.e. at least choosing without hesitation, trusting God, to obey is part of love, maybe not all of love, as it is truthfully incomprehensible)

 

[spockrates]

Thank you, I believe she is.

 

[Galatea]

Yeah, yeah! Makes sense, in part, and part is still a mystery. But I have faith we're on the right track and hopeful the end will be my finding wisdom about why Love is greater.

I don't doubt John's assertion that God is love. I do doubt what those three words mean to him, because he doesn't explain them. Let me explain:

If love is my feeling, I don't see how it can exist without me. "I think, therefore I am," reasoned Descartes. "If I am not, therefore my thoughts and emotions are not," is the logical inference to me. So I don't see how my own love can have a mind it its own. It has no existence apart from my feeling it.

So what about Love? Did John mean this Love is God, and so (unlike my own love) it lives apart from any person who thinks it?

I mean, I suppose this might be true, if there's one God in three persons (God is one what in three whos). The What of God might be a living Love that thinks and decides and acts, that has a life of its own, apart from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But then I think I've been watching too much science fiction! For I may not doubt God's love, but I certainly have no confidence in my ability to comprehend it.

Well, love is not God, but God is love. Since God existed forever, there was never a time without Him- there was never a time without love. But there was a time without faith and hope. God knows everything, so He has no hope. He is not surprised or expecting anything.

He knows all, so has no faith. He certainly can't put any faith in us. We are weak things. If God had to have faith in us, it would be like a Father having to have faith in his toddler to make wise choices, which is absurd.

Love has always been and always will be.

I don't think it is a separate entity, but has always existed- like all the attributes of God. Mercy, Love, Goodness, Holiness, Compassion, all these have always been because God has always been.

I agree with you on this point, it is absolutely incomprehensible, this love that God has for us.

 

[spockrates]

God's Word says you cannot comprehend it. Thus, faith is required.

Love is much much more a choice than a feeling - feelings will come and go momentarily, daily, weekly, and so on.

God's Word says if anyone loves Him, he does what God says. (i.e. at least choosing without hesitation, trusting God, to obey is part of love, maybe not all of love, as it is truthfully incomprehensible)

Why should I believe what you say God's word says, since you said I shouldn't believe anything you say? Then again, why should I believe I shouldn't believe anything you say, since it was you who said I shouldn't believe you? Seems we're stuck in a loop of self-contradiction!

Shouldn't you instead say I should believe what you say, or say nothing at all and only quote scripture without any explanation?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why should I believe what you say God's word says, since you said I shouldn't believe anything you say?

Ah, sorry if that's what I said or what you got out of it - the point always was and is do not trust me or any man(flesh) as God says that and even repeated in the NT just like the apostles say do not trust them, except as far as what they say agrees with God's Word --- no matter who says anything,
if it opposes or is contrary to God's Word, reject the message.

IF it is in agreement, in harmony , with God's Word, believe it then because it is God's Word. This is true of pastors today and always also - test everything BEFORE believing it is true - VERIFY it is in line with God's Word .

 

[spockrates]

Well, love is not God, but God is love. Since God existed forever, there was never a time without Him- there was never a time without love. But there was a time without faith and hope. God knows everything, so He has no hope. He is not surprised or expecting anything.

He knows all, so has no faith. He certainly can't put any faith in us. We are weak things. If God had to have faith in us, it would be like a Father having to have faith in his toddler to make wise choices, which is absurd.

Love has always been and always will be.

I don't think it is a separate entity, but has always existed- like all the attributes of God. Mercy, Love, Goodness, Holiness, Compassion, all these have always been because God has always been.

I agree with you on this point, it is absolutely incomprehensible, this love that God has for us.

Yeah, no. I mean, if I said, "Tomatoes are fruits," that means, "Some fruits are tomatoes, but not all fruits are."

So when we say, "God is [literally] Love," doesn't that mean, "Some love is God, but not all love is"?

Therefore, yes, I agree some love isn't God, but if God literally is Love, then some love must be God. Doesn't it?

But there is an alternative...

 

[Galatea]

Yeah, no. I mean, if I said, "Tomatoes are fruits," that means, "Some fruits are tomatoes, but not all fruits are."

So when we say, "God is [literally] Love," doesn't that mean, "Some love is God, but not all love is"?

Therefore, yes, I agree some love isn't God, but if God literally is Love, then some love must be God. Doesn't it?

But there is an alternative...

I mean we are not to worship Love, so Love is not God- but God is Love. We are to worship Him in His totality.

What is the alternative?

 

[spockrates]

The other alternative is this: What John meant was, "God is [figuratively] love."

Jesus said:

"I am the light of the world," but did he mean he was the sun or the moon?

"I am the good shepherd," but did he mean we are sheep, not people?

"I am the bread of life," but did he mean we can literally eat him?

John the Baptist said he was the lamb of God who takes away the son of the world, but does that mean he wasn't human?

But if all these are figures of speech John recorded in his gospel, then is it wrong to ask if he also used a figure of speech when he wrote, "God is love"?

 

[SolomonVII]

....
I believe such a world - having no emotion and all behavior based on logical wisdom - would be one in which Spock would feel at home.

For even though Love would be absent, so would Hate, Lust and Greed. People would do what is wise and avoid what is unwise - not because it feels good to do so, but because it's the logical thing to do, and doing what is illogical would be unthinkable.

Would sin exist in such a world and in such a people?

Such a a world would also be a world without pain, for without emotion, pain is just an injury to meat. It is a world where morality itself is meaningless, so sin would be meaningless too, by extension.
Like two computers kissing each other, it is kind of hard to imagine why such a world would even exist on its own at any rate. It was the existence of evil worlds that gave Spock a reason to exist in the first place.

 

[spockrates]

Such a a world would also be a world without pain, for without emotion, pain is just an injury to meat. It is a world where morality itself is meaningless, so sin would be meaningless too, by extension.
Like two computers kissing each other, it is kind of hard to imagine why such a world would even exist on its own at any rate. It was the existence of evil worlds that gave Spock a reason to exist in the first place.

Is wisdom meaningless?

 

[spockrates]

I mean we are not to worship Love, so Love is not God- but God is Love. We are to worship Him in His totality.

What is the alternative?

See my recent post.

 

[spockrates]

Ah, sorry if that's what I said or what you got out of it - the point always was and is do not trust me or any man(flesh) as God says that and even repeated in the NT just like the apostles say do not trust them, except as far as what they say agrees with God's Word --- no matter who says anything,
if it opposes or is contrary to God's Word, reject the message.

IF it is in agreement, in harmony , with God's Word, believe it then because it is God's Word. This is true of pastors today and always also - test everything BEFORE believing it is true - VERIFY it is in line with God's Word .

You mean this?

1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

 

[SolomonVII]

Is wisdom meaningless?

Without love, what would be the purpose of wisdom. A rock doesn't care if it exists or not, nor should it. The wisdom of that silicon chip finds its purpose only in serving the will of sentient beings.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Would sin exist in such a world and in such a people?

It would be all sinful.