Thread: Do you love Jesus? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020130
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Loving Jesus is crucial to a lot of Christians' spirituality. They are confident that they love Jesus.
I am not sure this is language I feel altogether comfortable with.
I suppose part of it is that I'm not sure what is meant by 'love' in this context. If it is 'love' in the sense of 'love thy neighbour as thyself', I'd feel uncomfortable saying I love Jesus for the same reason that I'd feel uncomfortable saying I love my neighbour; it seems to be an ideal that as a sinner one is duty bound to confess one falls short of.
If it's love in a sort of fuzzy emotional sense, then I'm not sure I do emotions, and also I don't think Christianity is about feelings.
On the other hand, Christians who say they love Jesus seem, on the whole, to be honest and well-balanced people.
Am I an emotionally stunted baboon? Or do other Shipmates feel the same?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
John 14:15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A15&version=NASB
That seems to me to be the acid-test.
It doesn't say anything about whoozy emotional feelings there, does it?
Loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves is hard work. Whishty-whishty woozy-oozy feelings don't necessarily come into that ...
Do I love Christ?
To what extent am I obeying his commands?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I don't think it's your spirituality that's stunted as much as our (corporate) language. Both inside and outside the church we do tend to use "love" in rather sloppy ways-- either overly romanticized/sexualized passion or sloppy puppy-dog affection.
In Scripture it seems like love is defined more by action than by emotion. When Jesus is asked to define "love your neighbor" he tells the story of the Good Samaritan-- a story that tells us a great deal about the Samaritan's actions, but not a word about his emotions. He might very well be grumpy at having his journey interrupted by this darn Jew, but he responds with love because he stopped, and helped.
Similarly, several passages tell us that we know what love is because Christ died for us.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And His commandments, the commandments of the kingdom, the kingdom of universal social justice, are?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In answer to the thread title, which one?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Indeed Mousethief. I also love ice cream, that coat you're wearing, and Friday nights. A better question is whether you want to follow the Jesus way, and try to act lovingly* in your life to others.
* lovingly is an awful word too - might be best said out more fully as "with kindness and charity, and even if you feel hate and indifference and want to poke their eyes out".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm a Lutheran of the Germanic heritage variety, and we don't do emotions (publicly--eh, unless we've had way too much beer). But as everybody else has pointed out already, the test of whether love exists or not is in the actions. Not that you have to be 100% perfect on those, but what's the general trend? Is it toward acting in ways that the object of your maybe-love would be happy with, or not? Do you have any skin in the game? Does it cost you anything to do what Jesus asks?
If this is true, even slightly, I think you're all right. The feelings are an afterthought. Some people let them all hang out, and others of us would come very close to greeting the risen Christ with a salute and "Good to see you looking more yourself, Sir."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If this is true, even slightly, I think you're all right. The feelings are an afterthought. Some people let them all hang out, and others of us would come very close to greeting the risen Christ with a salute and "Good to see you looking more yourself, Sir."
Which might make an interesting circus thread. My first thought was of skate boarders saying "hey Dude..."
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In answer to the thread title, which one?
Which love? or which Jesus?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
John 14:15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A15&version=NASB
That seems to me to be the acid-test.
It doesn't say anything about whoozy emotional feelings there, does it?
Loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves is hard work. Whishty-whishty woozy-oozy feelings don't necessarily come into that ...
Do I love Christ?
To what extent am I obeying his commands?
John 21:15-17 moves from feelings to actions.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In answer to the thread title, which one?
Which love? or which Jesus?
In the title, "love" is a verb, so "which love" makes no sense.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I understand about love being manifest in deeds rather than emotions. But if someone says 'I love Jesus', I don't think they are saying 'I act like the Good Samaritan acted', because that would be bragging.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Anybody who goes around saying that in public (!) is no doubt an extrovert (and you can tell by my punctuation that I'm not). And so yes, I agree, such a person is probably referring mainly to feelings, though there's probably some kind of actions in there too. But it's certainly not just actions.
But then, there are plenty of us who have feelings (at times, and the felt nature and intensity of them can vary enormously--just as they do for any other loved person). We just rarely talk about them. And sometimes the most we can come up with internally or externally is "Lord, are you bugging me again????" and burying our heads under a pillow to avoid him.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
'Fuzzy emotional' and 'sloppy affection' are both about the rush of oxytocin we get when cuddling/looking at/touching a loved one. It leads to acts of kindness and caring. It's the glue which holds families and society together.
Why does it get such a bad press?
Jesus? I like Jesus and his ways therefore I try to follow him. I hope the things I do due to following him are acts of love (kindness, caring, thoughtful)
I can't love him as I would my father/son/dog as I can't see him or hear him or know him personally.
[ 28. March 2017, 06:56: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I understand about love being manifest in deeds rather than emotions. But if someone says 'I love Jesus', I don't think they are saying 'I act like the Good Samaritan acted', because that would be bragging.
No, perhaps they aren't saying that. But Jesus was.
To me, this begs a few questions.
It's the thing from the First Epistle of John about love not being an issue of words but of action:
http://biblehub.com/1_john/3-18.htm
Does someone who is all bouncy and extrovert, proclaiming their love for Christ by wearing badges and going round telling everyone love Christ more than someone who is rather more reserved and starchy about the whole thing, but who is doing all sorts of things 'in secret' and not making a big song and dance about it?
Of course, we need both public proclamation and the inner-life or the 'show don't tell' approach - the old adage ascribed to St Francis of Assisi - 'Go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Use words if necessary.'
Sure, that can be misapplied and used as an excuse for not actually saying anything ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Like what?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Like 'God loves you and has an amazing plan for your life ...'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
For me, I think it comes down to a question of what the Incarnation is *for*. God is Love. Love requires more than one person, so God cannot be One only. God is besotted with His Son, so overflowing with Love for Him that He created all of us so that we could see how beautiful and lovable His Son is too.
So loving Jesus is what I was created to do.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
G. You trying to wind me up?
EM. I'm glad that works for you. There's no one I actually know that could possibly, meaningfully work for in any way, only against. Has it worked beyond you?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
G. You trying to wind me up?
EM. I'm glad that works for you. There's no one I actually know that could possibly, meaningfully work for in any way, only against. Has it worked beyond you?
St John Of the Cross did quite well on it... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Its the scatter-gun use of the word "love" that is at fault.
In the old testament the word lovingkindness is used more often, especially in the psalms, in the context of acting in a caring, compassionate and tender way towards someone.
Yes, the use of "love" in modern English (both kinds) usage has rather debased the word.
As for the bouncy-as-a-labrador type of person who comes out with the "I love Jesus" - sometimes adding a qualifier such as "as my Lord and Saviour" or "as my friend",etc - I have great difficulty in restraining the responses "Why?" or "As opposed to?".
There is also the variant, often posed as a question, "Do you know Jesus?", which also, IMO, cannot be answered in the affirmative.
So my gut response to the OP would be "No", because we cannot "love" (or "know") any historical personage we haven't met: we can admire reported deeds from a distance or, in the case of people nearer our own time, their writings, but we cannot know or love in the truest sense.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
G. You trying to wind me up?
EM. I'm glad that works for you. There's no one I actually know that could possibly, meaningfully work for in any way, only against. Has it worked beyond you?
St John Of the Cross did quite well on it...
He couldn't now.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You asked a sensible question Martin60 and I gave a silly answer ...
Actually, there was a serious point - which is that the Gospel can't be reduced to sound-bites and slogans.
There is, of course, a place for 'gossiping the Gospel' and 'witnessing' (I hate that term but I'm using it in a short-hand way) to our faith in Christ by discussing it with people and presenting it to them in some form ...
Ultimately too, of course, all our best efforts are inadequate and fail miserably yet despite all of that ...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
In Marriage Encounter there is a saying, "Love is a decision."
Moo
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
While I have no dispute with the posts so far, I think we have to accommodate and recognise in some way the spiritualities reflected in the quotations below:-
Jesus, lover of my soul,
let me to thy bosom fly....
Charles Wesley
Perfect submission, all is at rest,
I in my Savior am happy and blest;
Watching and waiting, looking above,
Filled with His goodness, lost in His love.
Fanny Cosby
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, and similar sentiments are present across the various Christian traditions, it's simply that they are expressed differently.
There's always going to be an issue when trying to express the inexpressible. We inevitably end up anthropomorphising or drawing parallels with physical experience.
Some of the imagery of the medieval Mystics and the 17th century Metaphysical Poets can bring a blush to the cheek at times ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
John 21:15-17 moves from feelings to actions. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Interesting, though, that Jesus and Peter are using different Greek words for love. At the very least it shows how limiting the English language is having but one word for love. The interplay of agape v philio here may be simply stylistic, but it sounds to me more like Peter and Jesus are struggling a bit to get on the same page with what it means for a fallible human being (as Peter now knows himself to be) to dare to say he "loves Jesus".
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Maybe it's OK to want to want to love Jesus.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
If love is just action why does 1 Corinthians talk about giving all your money to the poor, sacrificing yourself as well and this having no value if done without love?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe it's OK to want to want to love Jesus.
Yes, I think that's a good point-- and probably the point of the John 21 passage. The way Jesus shifts at the end to using Peter's word for love seems to suggest he may be affirming and acknowledging Peter's more modest statement as an act of humble truth-telling-- "I love you as much as I can".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Some of the imagery of the medieval Mystics and the 17th century Metaphysical Poets can bring a blush to the cheek at times ...
So might this well known work.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its the scatter-gun use of the word "love" that is at fault.
In the old testament the word lovingkindness is used more often, especially in the psalms, in the context of acting in a caring, compassionate and tender way towards someone.
Yes, the use of "love" in modern English (both kinds) usage has rather debased the word.
As for the bouncy-as-a-labrador type of person who comes out with the "I love Jesus" - sometimes adding a qualifier such as "as my Lord and Saviour" or "as my friend",etc - I have great difficulty in restraining the responses "Why?" or "As opposed to?".
There is also the variant, often posed as a question, "Do you know Jesus?", which also, IMO, cannot be answered in the affirmative.
So my gut response to the OP would be "No", because we cannot "love" (or "know") any historical personage we haven't met: we can admire reported deeds from a distance or, in the case of people nearer our own time, their writings, but we cannot know or love in the truest sense.
I love Jesus and I know Jesus, and Jesus tells us that we can do both through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The rich history of Catholic mysticism since the very early days of the Church affirms this, and mystics tend not to be bouncy Labrador type people.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
[from the corner where I'm hiding ]
Yes, I love him too, in both senses, though I can't say as I'm very good at it. My fault, not his.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You asked a sensible question Martin60 and I gave a silly answer ...
Actually, there was a serious point - which is that the Gospel can't be reduced to sound-bites and slogans.
There is, of course, a place for 'gossiping the Gospel' and 'witnessing' (I hate that term but I'm using it in a short-hand way) to our faith in Christ by discussing it with people and presenting it to them in some form ...
Ultimately too, of course, all our best efforts are inadequate and fail miserably yet despite all of that ...
Hey G, you KNOW we cool. I was responding in kind. Just taking it to the next level.
You unintendedly caught me in your serious point. I'm always giving one line responses here.
You'd be ay-mazed and vastly amused at when I give an answer according to faith the most and only in fact. No one else ever asks. Ever. And I put myself about a bit. 1%
@Kwesi. When it's 'dark' and physicalism stares back, I LOVE to say, 'Nought be all else to me save that thou art.'.
@cliffdweller. Does Aramaic have the same play? Peter never declares agape - unconditional love - in the Greek. And it's Jesus who comes 'down' to Peter's use of brotherly love, as you note.
@leo. I want. I want to love like Him. I want to love Him like Him. I want to love my 86 going on 2 year old mother whom I'm RSM to, like He would. I haven't the faintest idea how, it's not in me. He moves me immensely. But not in my Mum.
@Green Mario. Aye. See my failure above. Oh and feeling love whilst doing nowt when you could is no better.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Martin, Aramaic is beyond my pay grade. I'll let some less linguistically challenged shipmate answer that
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Maybe we love Jesus via loving other people.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe we love Jesus via loving other people.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(I seem to be agreeing with Leo a lot lately.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If that's based on how I feel, then I don't love Jesus through at least one person. Never will. Nothing I can do about it. The Holy Spirit neither.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is also the variant, often posed as a question, "Do you know Jesus?", which also, IMO, cannot be answered in the affirmative.
So my gut response to the OP would be "No", because we cannot "love" (or "know") any historical personage we haven't met: we can admire reported deeds from a distance or, in the case of people nearer our own time, their writings, but we cannot know or love in the truest sense.
That would be true of a historical person we haven't met, yes-- particularly if those historical persons are now dead. Those of us who do answer in the affirmative do not believe Jesus is dead, and since we answer the "do you 'know' Jesus" in the affirmative we are suggesting that we have, in fact, met him. So I believe we can know and love him in the truest sense-- which, as noted above, does not necessarily mean the sappy emo kind of love.
ymmv
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In Marriage Encounter there is a saying, "Love is a decision."
We are so used to our emotional understanding of love and also forgiveness, which is such an important aspect of the love we show to our fellow creatures, that we often miss the point that love is an act of will. So too forgiveness. It's the will to good towards all who come into our orbit. The Hebrew chesed, often translated as lovingkindness in English bibles, is the unbreakable flow of God's love to all his creatures. It's tempered by justice, but always results in mercy.
Where our love of Jesus is concerned we need to remember that he says "If you love me keep my commandments" and that his greatest commandment is "Love one another as I have loved you." So it's only in the love we show to others that our love for Jesus can be made real. But it still isn't an emotion, but to always flow outward in good will to others rather than inward to self-gratification. Of course we all make a pretty poor job of this because we're weak sinners. So we need, as much as possible to keep our lives directed Godward, always confessing our mistakes and seeking renewal in Him.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Read Team of Rivals last year. I always admired Lincoln. Now I unconditionally love him. Wept with and for him. More so than Dr. King I fear!
This guy.
There are people round here who can do no wrong. That's on the way. First step anyway.
Loving awesome people's easy.
If you don't love Jesus, you don't know Him. It's not your fault. And how we know Him depends on what we bring to the party.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I want to love Jesus because he first loved me.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I love my Jesus but I hate your's. And my Jesus can beat up your Jesus, and he's going to do it. (Did I just summarize a couple of thousand years of history?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In a Bible study in my previous parish, I asked "Who is Jesus to you?"
The response I got was "Jesus is everything"
Okay, what exactly do you mean by that?
Which is what I reply to the question and I'm finding the problem with some Christians, as in they throw out these trite sentimental sayings which is utterly meaningless in the concrete.
Do you love Jesus? What exactly does that mean? If it means going gaga over a picture of a blonde blue eyed man in the painting, that's rather pointless.
Or more the question, do you love Jesus as he comes as a drug addict on the street? Or Jesus as he comes as the homeless refugee fleeing from Syria, or Jesus as he comes as the person you dislike?
Because according to Matthew 25, if you don't love Jesus as he comes in those people, then you don't love Jesus at all.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is also the variant, often posed as a question, "Do you know Jesus?", which also, IMO, cannot be answered in the affirmative.
So my gut response to the OP would be "No", because we cannot "love" (or "know") any historical personage we haven't met: we can admire reported deeds from a distance or, in the case of people nearer our own time, their writings, but we cannot know or love in the truest sense.
That would be true of a historical person we haven't met, yes-- particularly if those historical persons are now dead. Those of us who do answer in the affirmative do not believe Jesus is dead, and since we answer the "do you 'know' Jesus" in the affirmative we are suggesting that we have, in fact, met him. So I believe we can know and love him in the truest sense-- which, as noted above, does not necessarily mean the sappy emo kind of love.
ymmv
I agree with this.
The trouble is that it's almost impossible to find words for the ... communication, communion? that can and does exist between Christ and his people in spite of the lack of five-senses stuff like vision and hearing. It's real, but I haven't got the vocabulary for it. Which might be why some people go hunting in the language of romantic or erotic love trying to find expression--it isn't exactly that, but in terms of strength and commitment it comes closer than simple admiration.
And it doesn't imply absence at all--doesn't abide absence in the sense of being cut off entirely, as I am, say, from Abraham Lincoln. If I try to talk about him behind his back (as it were), as if he were not present--it just feels wrong, like getting a shirt on backwards...
And of course this is all enormously more complicated by the fact that God deals differently with different souls, and even differently with the same soul at different times, and so one person may have a much more emotionally-toned interaction with the Lord than another (or than the same person at a different time).
Bleah, vocabulary.
[ 29. March 2017, 05:17: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And the next question - at least in Sydney Anglican, and other equally as fundamentalist, surroundings - is "Have you accepted Him as your personal saviour? I say that I have not, He is the saviour of all mankind. That sends them away very quickly.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I love my Jesus but I hate your's. And my Jesus can beat up your Jesus, and he's going to do it. (Did I just summarize a couple of thousand years of history?
Yes ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@Lamb Chopped. Interaction?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Two way?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I want to love Jesus because he first loved me.
How?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Two way?
Two way interaction between us and Jesus?
No. I used to think so but have come to the conclusion that it was my feelings/conscience/hope/imagination at play - not Jesus.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Two way?
Yes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
In what way? How?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In what way? How?
The same way as every two way interaction: I talk, he listens. He talks, I listen. Interspersed with times we sit together without needing to say anything.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Must be a girl thing.
My wife reckons her intuition is Him talking back.
I can nearly buy that for a dollar.
I know Jesus says tell Our Dad everything, so I do, in intense burst transmissions usually. Most coherently in the shower. Thank you at night and in the morning. Walking in the park. I spare Him nothing. I have to remember to reach out from my pits of intrusive self condemnation, ravening lust or whatever else is afflicting me (dread one way or another and my utter unfeeling heartlessness) and invite Him and Jesus in just as I disgustingly am.
The doing of it is always in His presence even when I'm overwhelmed by the perfect completeness of physicality otherwise: that there is no need for God whatsoever to explain anything. Apart from Jesus.
I'm invoking Him. Even when I have no rational basis for believing in Him. I feel His helplessly mute presence in the cave blackness. Close but ... remote. I could feel it JUST then.
The way the unknown genius who wrote The Cloud of Unknowing perhaps did. And poor Mother Theresa lost.
I make Him up, imagine Him and there He is. And it's as if He's really there. And He really is because of Jesus. And hopefully there is some overlap.
Or is that actually Him zenning at me?
I'm astounded that I still believe and that all will be well in the face of my ghastly limitations, my fear, horror, decline. That there are no answers, there is no magic wand.
But there is headspace. And a sense of incoming goodwill from an otherwise unbridgeable abyss. Regardless of how bad it gets and how much worse it's going to get. Before it gets transcendentally better.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Must be a girl thing.
I've got the flu and will restrain myself except to note that the above is damned offensive.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm sure it is in form, and so in substance. Like the OP.
[ 30. March 2017, 18:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Must be a girl thing.
I've got the flu and will restrain myself except to note that the above is damned offensive.
I don't find it offensive - but it is plain wrong
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's more like it. No bloke here ever admits to it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I want to love Jesus because he first loved me.
How?
How did he first love me? Well, he was there with me at the beginning, will be there at the end, and at all points in between.... I could mention the atonement too, but I suspect it's not a popular theology here.
Or do you mean how do I want to love him? I'd like to love him in the way I live my life, in how I treat others, in my commitment to the spiritual path that he set, in developing the faith that he urged upon his followers.
Note that I was careful to say that I want to love him. That doesn't mean I'm any good at actually doing it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A fine answer according to faith.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, if you're back at your habit of evaluating other people's answers rather than engaging, I'm out of here.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I love Jesus as the Christ, the second person of the Trinity. God is love, and invites us to participate in the loving mystery of the Trinity. Therefore, to be in relationship with God is to love the second person of the Trinity.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Strange question this as I thought loving Jesus is a prerequisite for the Christian, (maybe it's directed at those who do not identify as Christian).
Loving each other is the thing that historically has been the eternal bug bear for Christian brothers and sisters. Something that must make the whole thing, with plenty of justification, appear as a pile of hypocritical nonsense to the outside observer.
On a personal level I also find the question slightly invasive, a feeling like disciple Peter may have had when the Lord asked him 3 times 'Do you love me....?'
Loving Jesus Christ as a pseudo Zen Concept is the nearest I can get to to feeling any real spiritual benefit. As much as I've tried, the narrative in the Bible leaves me cold a lot of the time.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Martin, if you're back at your habit of evaluating other people's answers rather than engaging, I'm out of here.
This is what we do LC. We'll work it out. It's a pond thing too. Ever met a guy who just loves houmous and camomile tea? Me neither. Ever seen a guy or his pretty abdomen in an advert for constipation remedies including yoghurts for 'digestive transit' and 'bloat'?
I've only ever encountered women who have full two way conversations with God, like a Sooty and Sweep squeak conversation mediated through Mr. Corbett or Bob Devereux translating Skippy's tuts or Elizabeth Taylor's understanding of Lassie's barks, growls, whines and woofs, which are ones feelings in response to ones questions. A way of being in touch with oneself, accessing, externalizing, formalizing, differentiating ones thinking from compressed feeling. I've had changes in perception, in mood, in realisation in prayer, in God's provision, ineffably, unknowingly by, in the cloud of the Spirit too.
It's all the same.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I love Jesus as the Christ, the second person of the Trinity. God is love, and invites us to participate in the loving mystery of the Trinity. Therefore, to be in relationship with God is to love the second person of the Trinity.
I'm glad that has meaning for you. It cannot transfer.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Two way?
Two way interaction between us and Jesus?
No. I used to think so but have come to the conclusion that it was my feelings/conscience/hope/imagination at play - not Jesus.
Karl Rahner wrote an essay where he described St Francis of Assisi's vision of the Nativity which led him to develop the creche as a Christmas crib. If I could remember Rahner's writing correctly, he wrote to the effect that he didn't believe that Francis literally transported back in time and saw the historical Nativity of Jesus, rather Francis imagined and dreamed the story and it provided him spiritual benefit.
Rahner goes on to write that God was working through his imagination, that grace was operative even through his dreams and creativity. A very problematic stance I find is to assert that if it comes from imagination, it must not come from God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I find it problematic to be both to the point of meaninglessness. It's not problematic at all if it's just us, if it was just Francis. It's most problematic if it were God. But not as meaningless. Just wrong.
[ 31. March 2017, 17:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I love Jesus as the Christ, the second person of the Trinity. God is love, and invites us to participate in the loving mystery of the Trinity. Therefore, to be in relationship with God is to love the second person of the Trinity.
I'm glad that has meaning for you. It cannot transfer.
It was very difficult to try and put into words a position I have come through over a long period. I don't see myself moving from it, but who knows? The centre of it is that love comes from God and love creates us and holds us in being. Therefore I love God because I am because He, love is, and I love Jesus as part of loving God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, I haven't a clue what you're talking about, except that you seem to be doubling down on your assertion that only girls experience this sort of thing. Which can be taken as an insult to either gender, depending on your viewpoint.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Martin, I haven't a clue what you're talking about, except that you seem to be doubling down on your assertion that only girls experience this sort of thing. Which can be taken as an insult to either gender, depending on your viewpoint.
I can't work it out. I've never thought of you as being generally homophobic, Martin - is there something about men loving Jesus that has a particular negative resonance for you? Is he the only man I'm still not allowed to love?
I completely disregard, and dismiss, any such prohibition, but remain interested in the answer.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What the Hell? I mean, what the HELL? And am I specifically homophobic then?
I'll let you in to a little secret shall I, I'm extremely hetero. But not 100%. Know what I mean?
Never in my WILDEST hypnagogic dreams has it occurred to me that Jesus might be a sex object. By anyone mildly sane. A straight woman, a gay guy. Anyone in between.
I mean, I know eros covers a lot more than sexual desire - longing, loss - and will be involved in all of our desire for Jesus, but physical?
No.
I just know He wouldn't have been my type.
No.
Even though ecstatics deceive themselves.
No.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Martin, I haven't a clue what you're talking about, except that you seem to be doubling down on your assertion that only girls experience this sort of thing. Which can be taken as an insult to either gender, depending on your viewpoint.
Fwiw and to lambs point it is very much mr Cliffdweller of the two of us who is more apt to hear Jesus speaking to him on a regular basis
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What the Hell? I mean, what the HELL? And am I specifically homophobic then?
I'll let you in to a little secret shall I, I'm extremely hetero. But not 100%. Know what I mean?
Never in my WILDEST hypnagogic dreams has it occurred to me that Jesus might be a sex object. By anyone mildly sane. A straight woman, a gay guy. Anyone in between.
I mean, I know eros covers a lot more than sexual desire - longing, loss - and will be involved in all of our desire for Jesus, but physical?
No.
I just know He wouldn't have been my type.
No.
Even though ecstatics deceive themselves.
No.
I apologise: the reason for my post was honestly a desire to tease out which part of this was creating your discomfort. Is it the idea of an emotional attachment to a deity, and therefore to a non-being, who was also a being through the Incarnation, to which I know we share a devotion (hence, in large part, my confusion).
I don't believe that ecstatics are deceiving themselves; they're (and, on certain occasions, I have concluded, this includes me) simply having a very particular experience of God. One of the things I believe with particular fervour is that God was perfectly aware of what God was doing when we were created in infinite diversity. Every person, who is the unique object of God's love, relates to God differently.
Some have the relationship you have described as ecstatic, and which certainly sits outside your sense of rightness. Others don't - have you ever?
Apologies for making this about you, but I hope you will see why the persistent questioning. I have at least (in my own estimation) made a similar level of self-disclosure.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thank you ThunderBunk. All good. We're all finding a way forward together here. I've had my moments and now put them all down to entirely personal psychology with no transpersonal aspect. I yearn for the Spirit nonetheless, for the ultimate conversation, but would rather the dark glass remained occluded than deceive me and will have to wait for the face to face.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I've had my moments and now put them all down to entirely personal psychology with no transpersonal aspect. I yearn for the Spirit nonetheless, for the ultimate conversation, but would rather the dark glass remained occluded than deceive me and will have to wait for the face to face.
My feelings exactly.
I had many 'mountaintop' experiences which I totally and completely believed in. Not any more - I wasn't aware of it but I was deceiving myself.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
A very short while ago I would have agreed with Gamaliel but I did not count on the almighty.
Now I want to bring in the discussion the Radio 4 series Unforgetable. Please note these are 'conversations' between a living person and the recordings of a dead person's words. It is an imaginative exercise but if it is to work the recordings used have to do more than echo the living person's words, they have to contribute something different. Therefore the conversation is not so much what is aired but the long hours spent dealing with the archive and deciding what goes into the aired piece. Now, of course, what comes out may not be what they would have said if alive but it should reflect their character.
Now, this is closer to what it is like to have a conversation with God than much of the simpler readings for me. There are two texts that I pay specific attention to. One is, unsurprisingly for a Christian, the Bible and the second is creation which Calvin refers to as God's theater. The Bible requires not simple recitation but an attempt to dive deeply into the text. To try to garner as much as you can about it. Creation requires an awareness, not just of the natural order but of the human realm as well. The times when I suspect I am hearing most accurately are not those when the Bible and creation confirm my predilections but the times when I am surprised by what I gain. I must admit the surprises can be pleasant as well as critical.
I must admit, I enjoy engaging in philosophical theology. I like to see how far I can push conceptual ideas and see what they may reveal of the divine. However, I also see this as fun and not to be put on an equal footing with the struggle to try and discern the revelation that comes through taking the works of God seriously.
In a sense, I have fallen for the character that has chosen to be revealed by this process. It is nearly alway the characters move towards me that unsettles and draws me towards it. It is totally unsettling to believe in to accept some on so fundamental for existence itself actually desires intimacy with me. It is not what I see in human society, where the powerful have little regard for the individuality of those less powerful than they. Yet I cannot shake my sense that it is so with God.
However, love is a two-way relationship and you cannot command someone to love you. How do I love this character back? Simply in the way Gamaliel suggests, by trying to obey his commands as I discern them and trying, to be honest to the integrity of his revelations. I do it not over the desire for Heaven or from my fear of Hell but for the fact that I accept God loves me.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not, Jengie Jon, not that it matters one way or t'other ...
Other than the finding of common ground, of course.
As it happens, I find myself agreeing with your post and I'm not sure how it's at variance with anything I might have posted on this subject hitherto.
Yes, of course scripture is there to be engaged with and it's not all about simple recitation or repetition - and scripture, of course, points us to the Word made flesh who dwelt among us, full of grace and truth ...
And yes, Calvin was right to identify the physical world as 'God's theatre' where the divine economy is worked out and portrayed / acted out as it were ...
Yes, it's also true that love is a two-way thing. We love God because he first loved us ... and there's more to that than simply 'common grace' and the blessings and mercies we all of us see and experience - whether we are believers or otherwise.
As the Orthodox Liturgy puts it, God is good 'and a friend of man' - or 'mankind' / humanity (if they were to adopt less gender-specific language).
I'm not denying the place of the 'affective' sentiments if you like - the 'religious affections' as Jonathan Edwards called them.
Far from it.
There should be a warmth about our Christianity.
It's not anti-cerebral or anything of the kind ... but neither is it slushy and sentimental.
We should love the Lord our God with all our hearts, all our mind, all our soul and all our strength ... it's holistic.
Our total-being should be engaged and involved.
Obviously we aren't always (if ever) aware of that - and that's just as well - otherwise we'd get puffed up with pietistic pride - what the Russians call 'prelest' I think ...
But there should be something there ...
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Even though I often think Christianity might be based on a peculiar happy deception I am still content to lend an ear to it, if not pursuing as vigorously as in the past, and yes, Loving a deity is part of that. I don't think we should be embarrassed by that.
It is the *accepting* I am loved by God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, (or whatever the whole kit an caboodle actually is), that I sometimes struggle with, or resist? I don't know. However, if a mountain-top moment does happen along once in a while I inwardly say 'Thank You Lord!' as I do still believe these things come from an External Source.
Deception? Some may think this to be the case, others fervently believe it not to be so. I am straddled between the two, usually wondering --'Does it really matter that much?'
Sorry if my views/musings cause offence to anyone. None is intended.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Now I want to bring in the discussion the Radio 4 series Unforgetable. Please note these are 'conversations' between a living person and the recordings of a dead person's words. It is an imaginative exercise but if it is to work the recordings used have to do more than echo the living person's words, they have to contribute something different. Therefore the conversation is not so much what is aired but the long hours spent dealing with the archive and deciding what goes into the aired piece. Now, of course, what comes out may not be what they would have said if alive but it should reflect their character.
Now, this is closer to what it is like to have a conversation with God than much of the simpler readings for me.
The thing with the "Unforgettable" approach is, while it's perfectly valid and useful in many ways it's NOT a relationship with the person or a real conversation with them. Similarly, asking my own questions of the Bible and picking the most relevant answers provided therein - while perfectly valid and useful in itself - isn't the relationship or conversation with God/Jesus that's being referred to by some in this thread.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Marvin
Please read for comprehension, not caricature. If you read the bible like you read my posts then I am not surprised you have no relationship with the text.
I do not choose the most relevant bit. A relationship to a text is a relationship, just ask about a third of the researchers at your university. It takes time and an acknowledgement of the integrity of the creators. Anyone can take a text and make it mean what they want. To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
Jengie
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
That's as maybe, but it's still not a relationship with the author.
I can, very occasionally, for maybe an hour or so on one of my better days, accept that God loves me. But even then I find it very difficult to conceive of a reason why I should love Him back*. Follow, worship, obey, serve - these I can do, albeit imperfectly and frequently resentfully. But love? I can't do it - it just doesn't compute. So yes, I read the Bible to find answers rather than to "have a relationship" with it. More like a textbook than a love letter, if you will.
.
*= and no, that He loves me isn't a reason to love Him back, any more than some random person coming up to me on the street and telling me they loved me would be a reason to jump into a relationship with them.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@rolyn. How could anyone possibly?
@Marvin the Martian. Excellent. Do you not find yourself moved?
Many passages move me, Oh & enN Tee. Weakly and ignorantly human in response to the divine though they be. And beautifully divine in the human.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Marvin the Martian. Excellent. Do you not find yourself moved?
No, not really.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Fascinating. Would you say that your faith is logos and ethos based, flavoured (80) much more than pathos (20) as that is the way you're wired? Which looks like I'm asking if you're a psycho!
[ 05. April 2017, 17:40: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Marvin
Please read for comprehension, not caricature. If you read the bible like you read my posts then I am not surprised you have no relationship with the text.
I do not choose the most relevant bit. A relationship to a text is a relationship, just ask about a third of the researchers at your university. It takes time and an acknowledgement of the integrity of the creators. Anyone can take a text and make it mean what they want. To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
Jengie
This looks like very careless language to me. Is it theological pornography?
By this I mean something that doesn't answer back, doesn't interact except in one's own mind. Imagined responses and meaning, not actual. That creates excitement, interest, arousal.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't see how Marvin not having much of a relationship with the entity that is above the evolving 'inspired' 600 years of authors' understanding of Him is in any way connected with having a relationship, whatever that is, with their evolving text.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
That's as maybe, but it's still not a relationship with the author.
Authors.
66 or so books, how many authors with very different ideas and motivations for their writing?
No wonder it's an art and a work of great patience. God can inspire us as we read, I would think. Maybe God inspired the original authors 'tho some are inspired to violence. But surely the inspiration now is in us, not the original writers.
Great sermons come from great understanding and interpretation imo. They could craft an equally good sermon from Shakespeare. If the preacher were say, Sikh, the stories would be different but the message very much the same, I think.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fascinating. Would you say that your faith is logos and ethos based, flavoured (80) much more than pathos (20) as that is the way you're wired?
Er, maybe? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Which looks like I'm asking if you're a psycho!
I'm not a psycho, I'm a nutter.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
That's as maybe, but it's still not a relationship with the author.
Authors.
When discussing "a text" in the abstract, as we were, it's more grammatically correct to refer to "the author".
I'm well aware that the specific text we call The Bible had multiple authors.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
To sit and get to know a text so it starts to shape your thinking is an art and a work of great patience.
That's as maybe, but it's still not a relationship with the author.
Authors.
When discussing "a text" in the abstract, as we were, it's more grammatically correct to refer to "the author".
I'm well aware that the specific text we call The Bible had multiple authors.
I know.
I was pointing to the idea that God was 'the author' and that we have a relationship with him through reading God's book.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Me too Marvin, me too. But the only thing that works for me is how it feels. How the Jesus story feels. In its logic and fairness. It feels transcendent.
And I understood you on text and author.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@rolyn. How could anyone possibly?
@Marvin the Martian. Excellent. Do you not find yourself moved?
Many passages move me, Oh & enN Tee. Weakly and ignorantly human in response to the divine though they be. And beautifully divine in the human.
There are actually bits in OT that move me. The bits that aren't to do with putting someone's eye out or God banging the drum of vengeance and war. Maybe I find the NT to be a little Full on.
Guessing you may have picked me up on the 'embarrassed' Martin. Dunno could be a bloke thing.
I love Jesus can sound a bit soppy for a fellow if said out aloud. I know we are not talking about that kind of love but the kind you eloquently decribed in an earlier post
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
IMHO it sounds soppy for a woman too. Which is why I avoid the words, particularly in speech. Doesn't mean though that they aren't true. Just .
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
...longing, loss - and will be involved in all of our desire for Jesus,
That was the line I liked, Thunderbunk also described love of/for Jesus very powerfully too. As of course have others on this thread.
I have to fall back on the line from Psalms -- "More than words are able to express".
Don't think I am capable of describing love without going into a painful ramble, which could mean I am trying to describe emotional dependence.
A Telly-evangelist once described the Love of God/Jesus as being like the beam of a giant search light. We are free to move into the beam or out of it, so one might suppose the action of love on our part is necessary when consciously stepping into that Light.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@rolyn. How could anyone possibly?
@Marvin the Martian. Excellent. Do you not find yourself moved?
Many passages move me, Oh & enN Tee. Weakly and ignorantly human in response to the divine though they be. And beautifully divine in the human.
There are actually bits in OT that move me. The bits that aren't to do with putting someone's eye out or God banging the drum of vengeance and war. Maybe I find the NT to be a little Full on.
Guessing you may have picked me up on the 'embarrassed' Martin. Dunno could be a bloke thing.
I love Jesus can sound a bit soppy for a fellow if said out aloud. I know we are not talking about that kind of love but the kind you eloquently decribed in an earlier post
Dear me rolyn, no I'm not picking you up on the 'embarrassed' or anything else: My 'How could anyone possibly?' was in response to your 'Sorry if my views/musings cause offence to anyone.'.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sigh. '... be offended' or 'How could they possibly?' might have been a tad more semantic of me.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Ah right, I see. Forgive me for guessing wrong.
Yes the disclaimer makeweight tacked onto the end of my post re 'Happy deceptions'. H'mmm
Confrontation avoidance maybe. Unseemly squabbles can occur between Christians on the matter of loving Jesus, which is always a grotesque irony.
The question Do you love Jesus? obviously wasn't seeking yes or no answers, so was probably guarding against myself treading on a stimulating debate.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The apology is entirely mine rolyn.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0