Is love only unconditional?

[ozark]

We have been talking lately a lot about unconditional love, and that is a good thing, but is that all love is, merely unconditional? I remember reading somewhere about four aspects of love.

Unconditional Love: Love that simple is, no matter what.

Intimacy: Love that is intimately involved in our lives.

Discipline: Love that cares enough to kick us in the butt when we are going the wrong way. (Not necessarily a literal kick. :D) This is the aggressive side of love. It is unconditional, but it is also going to beat you, no matter what, and if it costs you, so be it. (This could also be seen as the masculine side of love, but maybe I shouldn't go there, LOL!)

Specialness: We are all loved unconditionally, but we are all special.

IMO, love needs to be all these things to remain balanced. If one area is missing or over-stressed, our lives can get out of balance. So, my question is if we view God's love as only unconditional, are we actually limiting it?

[Amie]

So, my question is if we view God's love as only unconditional, are we actually limiting it?

None of the things that you listed suggest that a person must behave a certain way or else love will be removed.

Like, "discipline" (aka "tough love"?) might mean a halt to the relationship, but it doesn't mean the utter removal of love. Certain of my family members are welcome at my home sober, but they just aren't. That's hard core in a lot of ways because I have kids that they would like to see. I'm not going to make it easy for them to kill themselves with their drugs though. My putting my foot down doesn't mean that I don't love them anymore, it actually (imo) means that I love them all the more.

I would think that the alternative to "unconditional love" is "conditional love" or IOW, "I will love you IF". To me that creates a boundary (limit) for love more so than the lack thereof being an boundary (limit). But, I'm listening and that was a VERY interesting question!!!

Amie

[ozark]

None of the things that you listed suggest that a person must behave a certain way or else love will be removed.

Like, "discipline" (aka "tough love"?) might mean a halt to the relationship, but it doesn't mean the utter removal of love. Certain of my family members are welcome at my home sober, but they just aren't. That's hard core in a lot of ways because I have kids that they would like to see. I'm not going to make it easy for them to kill themselves with their drugs though. My putting my foot down doesn't mean that I don't love them anymore, it actually (imo) means that I love them all the more.

I would think that the alternative to "unconditional love" is "conditional love" or IOW, "I will love you IF". To me that creates a boundary (limit) for love more so than the lack thereof being an boundary (limit). But, I'm listening and that was a VERY interesting question!!!

Amie

Good points. Tough love is not the removal of love. So, is God's "wrath" the removal of love? Embedded in ancient Hebrew thought was the idea that even when God destroys, it is only so he may deliver. Or if we look at things from a new covenant perspective, does God still wrestle with us even though he has already won?

[Amie]

Doug,

That reminds me of that study I did on "evil spirits". They weren't entities, they were what resulted when the spirit of God (love) left them. When a couple of prophets were questioned about the honesty of their prophecy, they even said "When did God leave us and go to you that we would lie?" For them to have a spirit of falsehood (or to lie), they believe that God will have left them.

I think that their beliefs will have left them feeling abandoned in Jerusalem to say the least. Yet, I think that the singular sin was missing love. I don't think that God's wrath was the removal of God's love from them, but it validated their belief that it was. It had to be in order to remove the delusion imo.

Isn't "Can God put limits on love" the same as "Can God make a rock that he can't move"? My answer to the latter question has been "If he wants to". Do you think that love would will to withhold itself?

Amie

[ozark]

Do you think that love would will to withhold itself?



No, I don't think love, by its very nature can withhold itself. However, love does not always look like we think. For example, when God took away Nebuchadnezzar's sanity, don't you think God was loving him? By dealing with the king's pride, God was opening the door for him to both receive and give love. This is what I mean when I say that love still wrestles with us. Only in our day humility is bowing to the fact that love won a long time ago.

[David Timm]

That reminds me of that study I did on "evil spirits". They weren't entities, they were what resulted when the spirit of God (love) left them. When a couple of prophets were questioned about the honesty of their prophecy, they even said "When did God leave us and go to you that we would lie?" For them to have a spirit of falsehood (or to lie), they believe that God will have left them.

Amie, I think you are correct about this but I don't think this perspective can account for all the biblical accounts of evil spirits. "Spirit" can mean the general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people or the state of a person's emotions. One example where I don't think this view can apply though is with the following example:

Mark 5:5-16 Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones. Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; and shouting with a loud voice, he said, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!" For He had been saying to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he said to Him, "My name is Legion; for we are many." And he began to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea. Their herdsmen ran away and reported it in the city and in the country. And the people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus and observed the man who had been demon-possessed sitting down, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the "legion"; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and all about the swine.

I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on this passage.


For example, when God took away Nebuchadnezzar's sanity, don't you think God was loving him? By dealing with the king's pride, God was opening the door for him to both receive and give love. This is what I mean when I say that love still wrestles with us. Only in our day humility is bowing to the fact that love won a long time ago.

Doug, I agree. Love doesn't always manifest itself in the way that people tend to understand it to be IMO.

[Amie]

David,

I did partially deal with that person in the presentation. If you go to bugsinheaven.com and click on "Inside the book", the article is titled "From Out of Darkness". I can't link to the page specifically yet (a glitch when we switched) or I would put it here.

How was the term "unclean" used in the old testament? You probably already know that when it was not used literally, like maybe a muddy person, it referred to religious defilement/foulness. Most often the legal rituals in Moses were for the point of making a person clean.

Imv, in the case that you are specifically referring to, the man had epilepsy and was probably experiencing severe mental anguish. The separation for Israelites resulting from them having been found "unclean" was literal. They were either stoned to death or sent to exhile. He will have been seen as unclean and exhiled.

The man may have believed that he was literally possessed by strange gods (evidenced by his seizures) and that will have cranked up his anguish. If you read my article, I have an example of a modern story of the very same. The 60lb woman had extrodinary strength as well.

I can only imagine how frightening a time that man lived in . If a person even touched an unclean thing/person, there were rituals that they had to go through to become clean because if God caught them unclean (or even found one of their possessions to be unclean), he would turn away from them too (Deut 23:14)


2Ch 23:19 And he stationed the keepers at the gates of the house of Jehovah; and the unclean could not in any way go in.

To actually believe in what people today call "evil spirits" it is the same as the ancient belief in gods outside of the protection of Israel imo. It is polytheism. That is how the so-called devil became just as omnipresent and omniscent as God himself in modern myth. This devil has the same powers and is only lesser in authority - so it is by God's authority that he torments human beings - sometimes possessing many people at one time.

He is actually the evolution of a human belief in Ba'al as "Lord" of all gods. The lesser gods will have existed outside of his protection.

Keeping in mind that as "spirit of kindness" is shown when one helps the helpless for example, it was prophesied that God would cause the "unclean spirits" to pass out of the land of Israel (Zech 13:2). An example of the spirit of uncleanliness being played out:


Ezr 9:10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments
Ezr 9:11 which You have commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, The land into which you go, to possess it, it is an unclean land with the impurity of the people of the lands, with their abominations with which they have filled it, from mouth to mouth with their uncleanness.
Ezr 9:13 And after all that has come on us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, since You our God have held back the rod on our iniquities, and have given us such an escape as this,
Ezr 9:14 shall we again turn back to break Your commandments and intermarry with the people of these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had finished us, until there is no remnant or escapee?
Ezr 9:15 O Jehovah the God of Israel, You are righteous. For we are left an escapee, as it is this day. Behold, we are before You in our guilt, for none is able to stand before You because of this.


Psa 106:39 And they were unclean with their works, and went whoring in their acts.


Isa 52:11 Turn! Turn! Go out from there! Touch not the unclean! Go out of her midst, purify yourselves, bearers of the vessels of Jehovah.


Isa 64:6 But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf, and like the wind our iniquities take us away.

This visits again imo, the belief that the yearly sin sacrifice made a person (or Israel) clean. It was only a temporary cleanness, not a permanent taking away of sin like the work of Jesus.

For a minute if you will, sit with your own questions but remove the magical thinking aspects. There are definitely things that are beyond explanation at times and I don't see the supernatural as an excluded possibility. At the same time, when weighing matters I think that it's important not to dismiss the rational which at times affords explanations that can aid in understanding of the biblical texts.

You've discovered that yourself in understanding that Jesus; "coming in the clouds" was not him cloud surfing at some point on the planet where everyone on this round world will magically see him.

In Hebrew "Spirit" ("ruach") is not a noun as we understand nouns ("person, place, or thing"). They saw nouns in terms of function and they thought concretely (something they could relate to with the senses). "Flaring nose" is rightly translated into our abstract and actionless "anger" for example. Consider "ruach" in their terms.

To me it doesn't mean that evil entities cannot exist, it just means that we've been calling them by the wrong name and leaving out some important messages in so doing. If you read my article, the spirit returning to God is an example of the resurrection of Israel and not of a ghost floating toward where ever God is.

Amie

[Amie]

No, I don't think love, by its very nature can withhold itself. However, love does not always look like we think. For example, when God took away Nebuchadnezzar's sanity, don't you think God was loving him? By dealing with the king's pride, God was opening the door for him to both receive and give love. This is what I mean when I say that love still wrestles with us. Only in our day humility is bowing to the fact that love won a long time ago.

YES!!! :clap2:

I think that the "broken sinew of Jacob" represents the defeat of a person "seeking his life". To me, the song "Hallelujah" nails it:


I heard there was a secret chord
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, the major lift, the baffled king composing Hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu----jah

Your faith was strong but you needed proof, you saw her bathing on the roof, her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair, she broke your throne, she cut your hair, and from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu----jah

Maybe I have been here before, I know this room; I have walked this floor, I used to live alone before I knew you
I've seen your flag on the marble arch, love is not a victory march, it's a cold and its a broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu----jah

There was a time you let me know whats really going on below, but now you never show it to me, do you? (and)
Remember when I moved in you; the holy dark was moving too, and every breath we drew was Hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu----jah

Maybe there's a God above, and all I ever learned from love was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you
And its not a cry you can hear at night, its not somebody who's seen the light, its a cold and its a broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu--jah

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelu---u---jah

The song could be talking about a shared physical intimacy. At times there is almost an ache for one another and after all of the excitement, a quiet, defeated, moment of rest. That's the kind of defeat that people seek. And in life, as in the King Neb, we don't always recognize our need.

I dunno, call me crazy :9_cool:

Amie

[Laren]

call me crazy :9_cool:

Amie

crazy


:)

[David Timm]

Amie, thanks for sharing :). I'll check out that article.

[Barry]

crazy


:)

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Amie]

crazy


:)


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

lol!! Thanks :cool:

Amie

[davidmc41]

Doug,

Your entry caused me to recall:

5 and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons, My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art reproved of him;
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed good to them; but he for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness.
(Hebrews 12:5—10)

[ozark]

Doug,

Your entry caused me to recall:

5 and ye have forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons, My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art reproved of him;
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed good to them; but he for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness.
(Hebrews 12:5—10)

Good passage. Hebrews has an emphasis upon the transition between covenants, but I think the Lord still chastises us, because it is still part of being a loving father.

[Amie]

Would one or both of you mind defining what you mean by "chastise"? You both being Southerners, you might be familiar with the application of the word in Southern culture. I don't know whether it's the same up North or not. I don't recall it being used that way out West when we lived there.

I've both seen and heard it used as a synonym for what would otherwise be understood as physical abuse. Examples are whipping until a child/children bleeds or swells up, starving a child/children, forcing a child/children into back breaking labor, etc. To "chastise" is to bring about severe suffering with the intent of teaching a lesson that will not have to be retaught.

I still hear folks today laugh about having to chastise children (and meaning it that way). The part they see the humor in is in the child/childrens' reaction when they are asked whether they want to 'try that again' or the like. It's the same kind of laughter I saw in racist adults (I was little) laughing at a depiction of a slave when asked whether they were questioning the 'master' and the slave responding with something like "no way massah, uh-uh, I woulnt queshion you, no way, no suh".

Those same people believe that God chastens cruely, whether by literal rod, by literal fire, or by putting inhumane suffering on people.

FYI, I don't think that is what y'all are meaning. I would love to hear more conversation about alternative meanings. Also, wouldn't "discipline" be a less archaic word for what we are talking about or do you see that as having different meaning?

Amie

[ozark]

Amie,

David quoted the KJV which uses the word "chastise" in this passage. Some other translations use the word "discipline, which as you said, might be a better word for our time." I think that is the connotation of this passage, not abuse, but loving correction.

[Me Again]

Discipline is from the word, disciple, which means "to teach" or train. God teaches us through circumstance. As my son-in-law says, whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Have you ever prayed for patience? Did you notice that after you did, all sorts of stuff began to happen that tested your patience? I think that's God "disciplining" his children.

[Laren]

disciplining, imo; is a form of judgment. Judgment must begin at the house of God. Fiery trial. to be partakers.

Since all is fulfilled; what purpose does judgment/discipline serve?? and since the bible makes it clear he disciplines Sons, and if not disciplined then one is a bastard;

are we disciplilned today the same way they were in the bible??

is God's "goal" even though all fulfilled; to see us become more godly??

to "teach/discipline" is for a purpose; which definitely has a context to the passing of the old world:

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;


teaching:
G3811
παιδεύω
paideuō
pahee-dyoo'-o
From G3816; to train up a child, that is, educate, or (by implication) discipline (by punishment): - chasten (-ise), instruct, learn, teach.



If now naked, and unashamed; why do we need disciplining??

[ozark]

So, is love passive? I don't think God's goal is to make us more godly but to lead us to see that we are godly. If we are living in a lie that we are not the righteousness of God, do you think God stands back and does nothing? What if we fight him about the issue? What if we are still acting naked and ashamed? I believe God has given himself to us as a gift, but sometimes we fight the gift. I certainly see what you are saying, but I think there is a balance to it. Love will wrestle with us, or maybe it is we who wrestle with it. Perhaps it just is, and it is we who kick against the goads.

Moreover, has God stopped being jealous over us? If we love something more than him or try to replace him, do you think he is OK about it? Perhaps he does let us go like the prodigal, but replacements for God end you up in the pig pen. We could be back to kicking against the goads. I would call that discipline.

[Laren]

So, is love passive? I don't think God's goal is to make us more godly but to lead us to see that we are godly. If we are living in a lie that we are not the righteousness of God, do you think God stands back and does nothing? What if we fight him about the issue? What if we are still acting naked and ashamed? I believe God has given himself to us as a gift, but sometimes we fight the gift. I certainly see what you are saying, but I think there is a balance to it. Love will wrestle with us, or maybe it is we who wrestle with it. Perhaps it just is, and it is we who kick against the goads.

Moreover, has God stopped being jealous over us? If we love something more than him or try to replace him, do you think he is OK about it? Perhaps he does let us go like the prodigal, but replacements for God end you up in the pig pen. We could be back to kicking against the goads. I would call that discipline.

sounds like maybe you buy into the "theory of, no pain no gain"; that Amie talked about on the Pearl thread. Seems like you are saying, God sees that "we see ourselves as "deficit"; so whips us into shape; but also all for HIS GLORY and so we get a change in perception. To see ourselves as "human" is not ok, but that we need to see ourselves as "righteous", afterall that's what we are;

If we love something/someone more than him or try to replace him, we get a good whipping. So at what point have u been "whipped" enough; when you finally love him most? when we physically die? (no longer be human?).

all of this is so crazy to me. It all seems like religion, even fulfilled grace. I'm tired of it all. Just when I start to buy into the idea; it's ok to be human; it seems we fall back toward; EXCEPT if that humaness sees yourself as something other than righteous, or if that human ness loves something more than God, then here comes some discipline.

If discipline is just "reap what you sow"; then i can accept that;

but discipline to me seems like such a Father/son role; and it seems to me; we are ONE with the Father, so to be disciplined by him, is to have him discipline himself.

just thinking.

L

[ozark]

If discipline is just "reap what you sow"; then i can accept that;


L

If what you say is true, what is the point of reap what you sow? Isn't it to get you to sow the right thing?

[Laren]

If what you say is true, what is the point of reap what you sow? Isn't it to get you to sow the right thing?

good point. it basically says, "deficit" and "get it right or pay".

[Paige]

So...Do we just have kids and leave them out in the wild to fend for themselves?

[Laren]

So...Do we just have kids and leave them out in the wild to fend for themselves? is this NEW WORLD one of no pain, no tears one of "wild where we fend for ourselves"? what are we having to fight in this world of Love?

[Laren]

seems to me the disciplining in the bible by the Father was to keep one from falling back into the world of "fending for yourself". the OLD AGE.

[Paige]

I don't know...gravity is still in effect. Falling off a tall building is going to hurt when contact with pavement is made. I'm not sure we interpret spiritual promises of "no tears" in a manner that says if someone cries, the whole thing is bunk. But that's just me...

[Paige]

AND maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

[Laren]

We probably are just misunderstanding each other Paige.

If God's discipline is sill in effect; to me; it then is still a story of "becoming". Becoming more aware of who we are. It's still a past projected to future; for some hopeful fulfillment. Hope that some day we will be fully aware of who we are. It's a never ending story, the rat still on the wheel; because at what point are we finally there?? When are we fully aware of our "righteousness" that God has declared through the literal story.

It's a story, that I might buy into still; that i've expressed here before. And that is the literal that happened; is just a metaphor for the "daily walk we all go through". A revealing (Revelation) of God's love through Christ on an inward basis. The fire still burns, just between my ears; but God still uses external events to burn it. (ie; tragedy, death, rape, beatings, earthquakes, gravity-plane crashes etc, people,).



It sounds like a story of "all is fulfilled; in theory; but not in your awareness; so God still "needs" you to become more aware, afterall; he's a jealous God.

Naked and ashamed still?? only in our heads. Sounds a lot like Romans 12, we need a "renewing" of our minds.

[ozark]

Just because God accepts us the way we are does not mean we have to stay the way we are. Nor does it mean God wants us to stay the way we are. At the end of the book of Revelation we see the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations. There is still healing to be done. That healing flows from our acceptance. It is not God making us acceptable. I don't know about you, but I want all of those leaves I can get. I don't think it would be a very loving thing for God to withhold them and say, "That's all right, all the ignorance in your life is OK, because I have accepted you." Moreover, if I was refusing them, I would be pretty disappointed if God didn't wrestle with me on the issue.

God's acceptance changes us. It changes the way we relate to God, to each other, and ourselves. If we do not change, we have not grasped it. This is a message we see throughout the New Testament. To paraphrase John, "If you don't love, you don't get it." Why did Jesus preach the the Sermon on the Mount? Lots of things to do in there. Yet, they are a picture of the life connected to God. It is not something I have to be, but something I get to be because of God's love.

Love that does not change us is impotent. You want to be someone who does not have to change. I would say that is not the gospel. Christ gave his life so we wouldn't have to change? It makes all the wars, hatred, greed, rape, killing hunky dory? Come on, that isn't' love. Change is something I get to do, not something I have to do. I welcome it as I welcome love. Humantiy still has a lot of changing to do, but that change comes from God's gift.

[Laren]

Well, i think "healing of the nations" is a covenental term; and your view is an "inward" approach to apply it to perception change ("waking up to who we are") in this age (not that i necessarily disagree with though). but it does imply, "need" to "become" something other than we are. To become "healed" is different than recognizing "i am already healed".

Doug, do you see "acceptance" the same thing as discipline??

I don't disagree with we change, move etc; I just am questioning it if it through acceptance, or discipline. maybe they are one and the same.

it just seems we take a covenental term/action (discipline) which was for a very specific purpose; and then extrapolate that to our inward journey. I really have no problem with that; but it imo; is all "speculation".

[Paige]

I think inserting the word "need" in reference to God is where I'm differing. I think interacting with love changes people, just as interacting with people changes people. It has nothing to do with need on God's part, but just is. I guess I see that embodied in Jesus when he interacted with people, but never ran after them begging for them to change. He accepted them as they were, yet they were changed by their encounter. Even the rich man, who went away sorrowful, was changed by his encounter (sorrow was the result of how he chose to interact with what Jesus said to him). Hope I'm making sense.

My point about our own kids was that we raise them because we love them. We attend to their needs differently as they mature. When they turn 18, the age that society says they are adults, our love and care for them doesn't stop. I have continued to change and mature beyond the age of 18, as have you. So, I guess they way I see fulfillment is more on the level that humanity reached maturity (that's how I interpret Jesus coming in the fullness of time), Jesus finished the work, delivered humanity into the new creation, and the new creatures continue on in their journey of maturity. I hope that when I'm on my deathbed, my attitude is that I'm still teachable and have much more to learn.

AND in answer to the question this thread poses, I would say yes, agape is only unconditional.

[ozark]

Yes, how could humanity's journey possibly be over? We possess God, but God is infinite. Can we ever reach the end of knowing who he is? Can we reach the boundries of love? If we can't reach the end of love, how can we reach the end of knowing who we are?

[Laren]

Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Psa 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.

afflicted:

H6031
ענה
‛ânâh
aw-naw'
A primitive root (possibly rather identical with H6030 through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitively or intransitively (in various applications). (sing is by mistake for H6030.): - abase self, afflict (-ion, self), answer , chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing [by mistake for H6030], speak [by mistake for H6030], submit self, weaken, X in any wise.


Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be [B]no night there.

[ozark]

It might be interesting to get a little practical here. We may not all agree on the idea of discipline, but let's face it. Difficulties still happen to us. Are those things from God? Does he just allow them to happen? Paul talked about his "thorn in the flesh" in II Corinthians 12. Does God still give/allow thorns in the flesh? If so, why? If there is no discipline, has affliction lost its point?

[Laren]

It might be interesting to get a little practical here. We may not all agree on the idea of discipline, but let's face it. Difficulties still happen to us. Are those things from God? Does he just allow them to happen? Paul talked about his "thorn in the flesh" in II Corinthians 12. Does God still give/allow thorns in the flesh? If so, why? If there is no discipline, has affliction lost its point?

and if those difficulties bring us to an "end of ourselves" and "new life (change in perception) "; moment to moment; we might even say we are going through our own personal lake of fire, death of death (death being old way of thinking). We might even say that our self imposed "should and should not's" toward afflictions is our own "law" that leads us to Christ (new growth). Our tutor; the affliction of the world and our "judgments" of those events.

and basically, we now have been led back to "new age, buddhist, zen,. mystical christianity etc ideas" in that our "thots about what is" discipline us till the point we are ready to "throw away/release those judgments" and move into a higher level of consciousness.

Byron Katie says, God is "what is", because "what is" always wins; no matter what we think about it.

[Barry]

Just because God accepts us the way we are does not mean we have to stay the way we are. Nor does it mean God wants us to stay the way we are. At the end of the book of Revelation we see the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations. There is still healing to be done. That healing flows from our acceptance. It is not God making us acceptable. I don't know about you, but I want all of those leaves I can get. I don't think it would be a very loving thing for God to withhold them and say, "That's all right, all the ignorance in your life is OK, because I have accepted you." Moreover, if I was refusing them, I would be pretty disappointed if God didn't wrestle with me on the issue.

God's acceptance changes us. It changes the way we relate to God, to each other, and ourselves. If we do not change, we have not grasped it. This is a message we see throughout the New Testament. To paraphrase John, "If you don't love, you don't get it." Why did Jesus preach the the Sermon on the Mount? Lots of things to do in there. Yet, they are a picture of the life connected to God. It is not something I have to be, but something I get to be because of God's love.

Love that does not change us is impotent. You want to be someone who does not have to change. I would say that is not the gospel. Christ gave his life so we wouldn't have to change? It makes all the wars, hatred, greed, rape, killing hunky dory? Come on, that isn't' love. Change is something I get to do, not something I have to do. I welcome it as I welcome love. Humantiy still has a lot of changing to do, but that change comes from God's gift.

Just some thoughts.
Imo the 2 trees of life in the end of Revelation are the Jewish and Gentile missions while the NJ is coming down. The healing of the nations was from the law that was still valid from that vantage point of healing.
The 2 trees of life would parallel with the two witnesses and two olive trees earlier in Revelation. Both of which imo speak to the Jew and Gentile missions. Why else have to trees if not "Jew and Gentile" in scope?

Love is something that will continue to evolve us imo. However the issues of soteriological transformation are all handled with the transition and in the end of the age.
In this way Love could continue to evolve a person that was a "firstfruit" within the transition but would have nothing to do with the issue of soteriology that is confined to the issue of overcoming that world. The firstfuits did not have to halt whatever continued growth that they would continue to gain through life and living while alive. But soteriologically they were already perfected. That world had gone and had been overcome. Healing had occurred. For Christ died for the redemption of the transgression that were committed under the first covenant.

So we are on a trajectory that is within the scope of the continued legacy of Christ. We cannot however be healed from the law or from Adam's legacy. We can be healed from false perceptions. But that healing is not from within the scope of Adam's legacy.
Such a healing is more like a continued evolution because a healing took place.

The point of that healing was the sufficiency of love. So that love does not need anything added to it or taken from it. It does not need any creeds or obedience to rules. This is the legacy of Christ.
It is not the potential of love to change us that changes us. It is the treasure of love that changes our mind about needing to add anything to it which things were previously treasured. This is why "right and wrong" does not work. It becomes it's own treasure.
In this way Love is not a vehicle to change as much as it is the meaning of life. Where one treasure is left behind and another is taken up people will pursue the new found treasure. And this is why humanity still has a long way to go in the implementation of the Unity that we possess. The level of ignorance is still very high.
The trajectory is however set. As the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ. Relationship is our treasure. We are each other's treasure. We are the treasure. We are still learning this truth. We are still implementing the outworking of this truth.

Just a thought.

[Amie]

Beautifully said Barry.

I'm really enjoying this entire thread, the conversation is fantastic.

Laren, per "fulfilled grace" and your mention of being fed up with it or along those lines.. If you believe that all prophecy is fulfilled, then you are just as much a mouthpiece as anyone else. There is no doctrine that any person buys into, I think that after realizing fulfilled prophecy, a conversation gets going and just doesn't end. Maybe that's because there seems to be a certain freedom to be wrong, I don't know. I just wanted to put that out there though.

Amie

[Laren]

Beautifully said Barry.

I'm really enjoying this entire thread, the conversation is fantastic.

Laren, per "fulfilled grace" and your mention of being fed up with it or along those lines.. If you believe that all prophecy is fulfilled, then you are just as much a mouthpiece as anyone else. There is no doctrine that any person buys into, I think that after realizing fulfilled prophecy, a conversation gets going and just doesn't end. Maybe that's because there seems to be a certain freedom to be wrong, I don't know. I just wanted to put that out there though.

Amie

not fully sure what your saying, but i think my response is "yes".

Me being fed up, is the part of me, wanting a solid answer, permanence; and me being fed up with others is my projection.

[Laren]

and, interestingly; i speak as if i know some truth, which I don't; and then find myself wanting to be right about something i know nothing about. insanity.

[Amie]

Laren,

See, what I am trying to say is that your answers are no less authoritative than anyone else's. I know that there are certain people who claim to be the answer people (who aren't members here), but that ain't the case in my book.

Amie

[Paige]

I just wanted to add that I too, am enjoying the discussion. Thanks Barry (and everyone). Laren, I really identify strongly with what you said here:


and if those difficulties bring us to an "end of ourselves" and "new life (change in perception) "; moment to moment; we might even say we are going through our own personal lake of fire, death of death (death being old way of thinking). We might even say that our self imposed "should and should not's" toward afflictions is our own "law" that leads us to Christ (new growth). Our tutor; the affliction of the world and our "judgments" of those events.

and basically, we now have been led back to "new age, buddhist, zen,. mystical christianity etc ideas" in that our "thots about what is" discipline us till the point we are ready to "throw away/release those judgments" and move into a higher level of consciousness.

Byron Katie says, God is "what is", because "what is" always wins; no matter what we think about it.

I think that this truly does occur, at least it seems so with me. However, the happening of it doesn't lessen my belief that it (eschatology, etc.) is all fulfilled. Maybe I'm inconsistent, idk? So far, I'm not threatened by seeing things done on a collective level, but still in process on a personal level.

Paige

[Amie]

Hmmm, it looks like everyone agrees that we are still evolving? Does learning from love mean the same thing as love disciplining us?

Amie

[ozark]

and if those difficulties bring us to an "end of ourselves" and "new life (change in perception) "; moment to moment; we might even say we are going through our own personal lake of fire, death of death (death being old way of thinking). We might even say that our self imposed "should and should not's" toward afflictions is our own "law" that leads us to Christ (new growth). Our tutor; the affliction of the world and our "judgments" of those events.

and basically, we now have been led back to "new age, buddhist, zen,. mystical christianity etc ideas" in that our "thots about what is" discipline us till the point we are ready to "throw away/release those judgments" and move into a higher level of consciousness.

Byron Katie says, God is "what is", because "what is" always wins; no matter what we think about it.

Life certainly seems to work that way. Maybe our discipline is in some ways self-inflicted.


Hmmm, it looks like everyone agrees that we are still evolving? Does learning from love mean the same thing as love disciplining us?

Amie

Some of those lessons are hard lessons, are they not? But, where would we be without them?

[Amie]

Walking along and not kicking goads? LOL! I'm just bein' silly!

...speaking of archaic words, bringing back "goads" might be fun. "Pricks" is taken, and we kick against them all the time, lol!! Sometimes I'm the "prick", LOLOL!! Omg I'm having too much fun..

Amie

[Amie]

I just want to add that I do not think that "ongoing efficacy" equates "ongoing fulfillment". I am glad that as we talk around here, we begin to figure out how to articulate the differences.

Amie

[Amie]

Y'all still haven't solved the issue for me (lol!)..

If bucking against reality is painful, and if love is reality, does that make love conditional?

Amie

[Barry]

I just want to add that I do not think that "ongoing efficacy" equates "ongoing fulfillment". I am glad that as we talk around here, we begin to figure out how to articulate the differences.

Amie
Fulfillment involves the moment from types to substance.
That is ultimately framed in a "revelation" in human history.

Perpetual efficacy is the ongoing effect that such a revelation in human history both "triggers" and "contributes" to.

This revelation of love means:
1) God's possibility is seen to be married to human potential through the firstfruits "what God has joined together" bride application. We are thus in Christ's legacy.
2) That the sufficiency of the simplicity of love replaces written rules. Seen in the fulfillment and passing away of the "law".

So then imo we have the fulfillment of the revelation which ties it to human history, and then we have the implementation of the Unity on an ongoing outworking efficacy bases which Unity has already been revealed to be our "relationship".

The revelation itself in human history is tied to the evolving of our consciousness. It was not just a revelation of love that is, but an outworking of that revelation through levels of consciousness that were applied to human growth.
This having been fulfilled, now continues in the "marriage" of God's possibility to human potential. This can be summed up in the love of God in which one of the attributes is "sharing". So God desires to "share" with his offspring.
This is the "driving force" for the ongoing aspect of development. The desire of love to share often supersedes other considerations, when and how other considerations may otherwise may have seen more important.
In this way it is not simply a case of making a "utopia" for your loved offspring. Rather the intense desire to share enters into the equation. So we add to this equation the issues of "experience", "history", "suffering", "chaos", and all that the offspring need to continue the trajectory of participation in divine "things" like creation, unity, oneness and so on.
We are being set up for doing "god" things. We need the experience to make it possible. Experience and development. But such a development that coincides with our side of things "here".
Hence the printing press, steam power, microchip and so on.

So that we can inhabit the stars, plant life, create solar systems and perhaps at some point link the here with the there if such a link is possible. So then it quickly becomes "guess work" as to the possibilities that will in time pan out. Personally I have no idea how far or to what extent such will go.
But it is the simplicity of the sufficiency of love that frames the whole of the matter imho.
Just a thought.

[Amie]

So well said imo Barry!! :clap2:

I think too that just because arguing with reality/love can be painful, doesn't make it conditional. It is present regardless of us and I couldn't have said better how we grow in that than you have.

Amie