Can God be Love?

Myth Wrecker · Post by **Myth Wrecker** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:39 pm

I just posted an article on Triond, and it got accepted. I wanted to share it with you all. It is entitled, "New Definition: Love is God?"

http://relijournal.com/christianity/a-n ... ve-is-god/

(PS: I don't know why it got posted into Christanity... Weird...)

I've got three related questions:

1. Is it right or wrong to assume love to be the highest driving force in our lives?

2. Is it right or wrong to assume that really any person who loves others, is himself a God?

3. Would life be better if we considered love to be the ultimate power, instead of an all-powerful sentient being?

I know I'm changing the definition of God from something supernatural to just an emotion, but my question is whether this kind of definition will be accepted by both sides of the line. Debate.

TheParticlePerson · Post by **TheParticlePerson** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:32 pm

Polygamist wrote:
Ladonna wrote: Why is it so much more special than other emotions, when they are all products of body chemistry ?
Love is just a chemical? hmph.

Even if love was a chemical I would not restrict it to just that since it has much more impact on our lives than just a chemical in the brain. I'd also include how it leads us to feel, think, and act, although some already do define love as not only being a feeling but also an action. I'm sure when someone asks you if you love them, you don't take that to mean perform EEG or an MRI test to determine that.

The only things that lead you to feel, think, or act at all are reactions occurring in your brain. These are usually reactions to external stimuli, yes, but love is not in that category. Love is not a supernatural element, it's just the basic sex drive, romanticized beyond recognition.

Polygamist · Post by **Polygamist** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:08 pm

TheParticlePerson wrote:
Polygamist wrote:
Ladonna wrote: Why is it so much more special than other emotions, when they are all products of body chemistry ?
Love is just a chemical? hmph.

Even if love was a chemical I would not restrict it to just that since it has much more impact on our lives than just a chemical in the brain. I'd also include how it leads us to feel, think, and act, although some already do define love as not only being a feeling but also an action. I'm sure when someone asks you if you love them, you don't take that to mean perform EEG or an MRI test to determine that.
The only things that lead you to feel, think, or act at all are reactions occurring in your brain. These are usually reactions to external stimuli, yes, but love is not in that category. Love is not a supernatural element, it's just the basic sex drive, romanticized beyond recognition.

My point was to not define love in terms of just its cause but also its effects, which includes behavior rather than just chemical activity in the brain.

TheParticlePerson · Post by **TheParticlePerson** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:24 pm

Polygamist wrote:
TheParticlePerson wrote:
Polygamist wrote:
Ladonna wrote: Why is it so much more special than other emotions, when they are all products of body chemistry ?
Love is just a chemical? hmph.

Even if love was a chemical I would not restrict it to just that since it has much more impact on our lives than just a chemical in the brain. I'd also include how it leads us to feel, think, and act, although some already do define love as not only being a feeling but also an action. I'm sure when someone asks you if you love them, you don't take that to mean perform EEG or an MRI test to determine that.
The only things that lead you to feel, think, or act at all are reactions occurring in your brain. These are usually reactions to external stimuli, yes, but love is not in that category. Love is not a supernatural element, it's just the basic sex drive, romanticized beyond recognition.
My point was to not define love in terms of just its cause but also its effects, which includes behavior rather than just chemical activity in the brain.

I understand, but all behavior is a result of some neurological action. I supposed I'm just nitpicking now; I completely agree that love is one of the most powerful forces influencing humans, and any other animal really, albeit in a more basic way.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:08 pm

I think it would be an understatement to say love is a lot of things. It can be a verb, noun and almost any other thing. Do you mean affection, bonding or feeling?
It is more of a metaphor when used as an attribute of God.
I love my kids and I love a hot shower.
The feelings which are a result of chemicals are also the result of bonds and memories.
We have a tendency to be reductionist but even the love I express and feel for my children can hardly be summed up as love and capture all it means and feels.

When someone reads in the "Bible God is love" they might shake their heads in agreement or disagreement.
But it is praise or feeling for a god and what they perceive as being given to them and not some absolute attribute of God anymore then what I do is all that I am.
But a Bible Believer will read the passage and insist God is love because it says so. Even if they might not experience God as love they insist Go dis love because someone wrote God is love in a writing that was selected for an anthology picked by the orthodox Christians as legit and outlawing all others.
Love or agape love is a borrowed word related to the relationship and duties between a lord and their vassal. If you love you keep God's commandments and obey God.
Fell all you like but this is what love requires and what is identified as love not affection.
Even Paul in his reinterpretation is best understood as faithfulness then feeling.

Love as Feelings or emotions are more then just chemical reactions they are reactions to bonds and relationships.

ExApostolic · Post by **ExApostolic** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:47 pm

Love is just a chemical? hmph.