[
Replying to theophile in post #85]
I understand. Perhaps our debate would be better focused around the question: is living according to love the same as living under grace?
It is in terms of the law, if indeed the law was originally designed to teach humans how to love.
Given that the 10 became the 613 - and historical Jesus entering the scene where {I assume] the 613 were in operation as religious inserts biblical Jesus fosters a type of hostility for religious practices based upon those inserts...as if humans have interpreted the 10 with their own faulty reasoning.
Biblical Jesus sets the record straight - by saying not only are the 613 off the mark regarding an individuals relationship with The Father, but the 10 which triggered the invention of the 613 need to be reduced to the 3,2,1.
Which is strongly suggestive of we having to see things the other way - and it is by grace that this is accomplished...because grace lifts the otherwise impossible burden which religiosity has imposed upon the individual seeking sustained connection/communion with The Creator.
I do think Jesus uses love to open the law up to grace. To deconstruct it almost, or to open it up to its true intention.
I agree.
Also, you could have stopped me in my tracks with Paul's ode to love in 1 Corinthians 13: "If I give all I possess to the poor...but have not love, I gain nothing."
Does Paul's saying 'stop you in your tracks?'
Can Paul's saying be seen in the practice of modern day Philanthropy? Or would he have a problem with the rich NOT giving away every cent and becoming poor.
Is it possible that genuine giving while keeping oneself rich enough in money to be able to continue the practice throughout ones lifetime, is in keeping with grace and love?
Is such a person practicing this kind of giving because they are not under the law which would command every last cent must be handed over?
This has completely left interpretation behind and entered the realm of fabrication
Any scriptures to back it up?
Such a question as you have asked, is a sign that one is still under the law. "The Law" in this case, is the religiosity invoking the belief that all scripture must be taken literally [in this case - what biblical Jesus said to one individual] and forcing through the law - that all people are expected to do the same, because "Jesus commanded it" of one person - or 12 people - or thousands of people at the beginning of the movement.
I see that my interpretation is not 'under the law' in regard to that argument you present but that does not mean I am incorrect.
Scripture itself isn't about law but grace. In that, it inspires those under grace to renounce religiosity in order to experience a genuine relationship with The Father.
A genuine relationship with The Creator, is worth so much more than a relationship with a religious artifact, wouldn't you agree?
I tend to think that there is a far more subversive and radical 'economy' at play in the Kingdom than you lay out here (which I take to be some sort of beneficent capitalism). One that requires a radical trust in the world (/God) to provide.
I see no trust in this view.
My tendency is to see the potential for human beings to build the Kingdom of God on the planet, using what devices we have in order to do so.
My preference is to see this potential become a reality rather than have to witness Jesus' return 'in all his glory' and get about commanding humans to build said Kingdom [or however he would go about it] because - even given it may be better than letting human beings become extinct at their own hand - it would clearly show that humanity failed to realize its own potential and didn't mature enough to be able to do it for themselves.
Meantime, since Jesus hasn't returned yet, there is work to do for those who want to do it. Not trusting that view, means the work won't get done by those not trusting that view.
Balancing out the options available [even if they are in recognition of human potential] seems the wiser move, under the current circumstances.
Importantly - invest in the doing now rather than the faith in later - better to be caught investing in The Kingdom here on Earth if/when Jesus returns, than to be under the law which prevents one from doing.
Isn't that part of your complaint? There is not enough 'doing' going on?
So why point to the scriptures and imply that the scriptures themselves do not condone any actual doing of the sort of doing I am shining a light on?
So are we to allow ourselves to remain 'naturally selfish' in regard to 'strangers' or do what is humanly possible by rising above that mundane aspect of nature?
The question was what is hard about love, not whether we should pursue it nonetheless. Again, just because I personally fall short, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
That is encouraging to read. For a moment there I was under the impression that you felt that since it was in your too hard basket, that it must have to be the same for everyone.
Even so, I would encourage you to meditate upon the idea that what is being asked of us all, is not as complex and out of reach as you appear to believe.
260
The Wholeness Navigator
Is Love that hard to know?
A riddle wrapped up in an enigma
[SOURCE]