A Higher Love

[Vouthon]

Since it's off-topic, I won't go into detail now, but the moral teachings of Christianity depend on the idea that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason.

It is rather off-topic, so I won't labour the point, however I've explained to you before that this is not quite the case.

Yes, historically the Western Christian tradition has set a high bar upon reason and I don't view this as a negative thing.

However, in it's doctrine on conscience, the church teaches that moral intuitions - or conscience, founded upon unreasoning, consciously inaccessible 'empathy' with others - come first and are born of emotional activation, before ratio or any operations of the rational, logical mind using controlled thought come into play.

As explained by one scholar, Lyons (2009): “conscience is the whole internal conscious process by which first principles of moral right and wrong, learnt intuitively by synderesis [a functional intuitive capacity], are applied to some action now contemplated in order to produce a moral verdict on that action, known as conscientia." (p.479)).

Using your church just as an example, I can accept the idea that conscience might well be the Voice of God but if that's true then the Church is not a moral authority. It should not be offering moral advice that -- when it conflicts with the Voice of God (conscience), it misleads.

Again, as I have noted in our past discussions about this, my church believes doctrinally in the "primacy of conscience":

"...No one ought to act against his own conscience and he should follow his conscience rather than the judgement of the church when he is certain...one ought to suffer any evil rather than sin against conscience..."

- Pope Innocent III's (1198-1216)​

But because our understanding of conscience differs from your own in being two-dimensional - generalized intuition subsequently applied in specific situations with the aid of reason - the role of the Magisterium comes in at that stage in the process.

But we are under no illusions that conscience is the Voice of God and thus the individual's ultimate guide, since we believe in natural law.

 

[MNoBody]

higher implies lower, and that makes sense, given the spiritualist idea of higher and lower natures.
however, the concept of Love as a singular word without the added descriptive terms of higher or lower covers the concept well enough.
there is Love and its opposite typically termed Hate
researching the greek meanings of the word love show it to have far more dimension than the typical english dictionary provides
small wonder tina turner sang what's love got to do with it [ which reflects more of the lower base instinctual 'love' than the 'higher love' whitney was singing about.]

 

[joe1776]

It is rather off-topic, so I won't labour the point, however I've explained to you before that this is not quite the case.

Yes, historically the Western Christian tradition has set a high bar upon reason and I don't view this as a negative thing.

However, in it's doctrine on conscience, the church teaches that moral intuitions - or conscience, founded upon unreasoning, consciously inaccessible 'empathy' with others - come first and are born of emotional activation, before ratio or any operations of the rational, logical mind using controlled thought come into play.

As explained by one scholar, Lyons (2009): “conscience is the whole internal conscious process by which first principles of moral right and wrong, learnt intuitively by synderesis [a functional intuitive capacity], are applied to some action now contemplated in order to produce a moral verdict on that action, known as conscientia." (p.479)).




Again, as I have noted in our past discussions about this, my church believes doctrinally in the "primacy of conscience":

"...No one ought to act against his own conscience and he should follow his conscience rather than the judgement of the church when he is certain...one ought to suffer any evil rather than sin against conscience..."

- Pope Innocent III's (1198-1216)​

But because our understanding of conscience differs from your own in being two-dimensional - generalized intuition subsequently applied in specific situations with the aid of reason - the role of the Magisterium comes in at that stage in the process.

But we are under no illusions that conscience is the Voice of God and thus the individual's ultimate guide, since we believe in natural law.

I'll start another thread if you'd like to debate this topic with me.

 

[Vouthon]

I'll start another thread if you'd like to debate this topic with me.

I would be very happy to do so, although may not be able to contribute until tomorrow if that's OK

 

[joe1776]

I would be very happy to do so, although may not be able to contribute until tomorrow if that's OK

Sure, that's fine. I'll wait until tomorrow and try to make the OP useful.

 

[izzy88]

If a Creator exists, I'm betting it loves unconditionally. I don't know of a religion that teaches that.

Catholicism does.

God's love is unconditional, but we're still free to deny it. You don't get sent to hell for breaking God's rules, you send yourself to hell by rejecting his unconditional love.

Even love given unconditionally can be rejected by the person it's being given to.

 

[osgart]

To clarify, I said, "It's about acceptance, despite our flaws". It's not about acceptance of our flaws, but about the acceptance of another's personhood, despite their flaws. Unconditional love sees beyond a person's outward behaviors, and embraces the value of the person's being, regardless of their "worthiness" to us or not.

I already do this. However I don't think it's the higher love. It only tests the limits of love. Ideally everyone should be worthwhile.

You are talking about mercy. Mercy in the face of evil. I can accept an evil person's personhood. But I can't relent on punishment, and justice. If they get what they deserve it's best for them. Some forms of hate are deserved and not at all bad. I hate evil. I can be at peace with hating evil. I desire their repentance though at some point. That takes more then punishment. But if a person needs go out of the world, like a Dahmer, I'm fine with that.

But say everyone lives forever. I would want love to conquer the worst of souls for the good.

I totally believe everyone is responsible for their own actions.

 

[joe1776]

Catholicism does.

God's love is unconditional, but we're still free to deny it. You don't get sent to hell for breaking God's rules, you send yourself to hell by rejecting his unconditional love.

Even love given unconditionally can be rejected by the person it's being given to.

Sorry, Izzy. That doesn't make sense to me.

If it's conditioned upon acceptance, it's not unconditional. Moreover, sending someone to Hell and eternal torture simply because they chose the wrong religion would be absurdly unjust. Loving beings don't treat others that way.

 

[izzy88]

Sorry, Izzy. That doesn't make sense to me.

If it's conditioned upon acceptance, it's not unconditional. Moreover, sending someone to Hell and eternal torture simply because they chose the wrong religion would be absurdly unjust. Loving beings don't treat others that way.

Everything that you just said ignores what I originally said; it doesn't make sense to you because you are evidently disregarding the explanation.

If I tell you I will give you 5 dollars, no conditions, totally free, and you reject my offer, is that my fault or yours? You don't seem to understand what "unconditional" means - and you're implying that it means the person is forced to accept.

 

[joe1776]

Everything that you just said ignores what I originally said; it doesn't make sense to you because you are evidently disregarding the explanation.

If I tell you I will give you 5 dollars, no conditions, totally free, and you reject my offer, is that my fault or yours? You don't seem to understand what "unconditional" means - and you're implying that it means the person is forced to accept.

I love my wife, children and grandchildren unconditionally. It doesn't matter if they accept my love or not. Their acceptance is not a condition I put on my love for them. Moreover, I don't threaten to punish them if they don't accept my love.

 

[izzy88]

I love my wife, children and grandchildren unconditionally. It doesn't matter if they accept my love or not. Their acceptance is not a condition I put on my love for them. Moreover, I don't threaten to punish them if they don't accept my love.

Are you even reading what I'm saying to you?

God does not punish us; we suffer when we deny God's gift of unconditional love - of our own free will.

"The gates of hell are locked from the inside", as C.S. Lewis said.

 

[joe1776]

Are you even reading what I'm saying to you?

God does not punish us; we suffer when we deny God's gift of unconditional love - of our own free will.

"The gates of hell are locked from the inside", as C.S. Lewis said.

Your "spin" on the word unconditional makes an argument that comes under the heading of "preaching to the choir." It's the kind that is persuasive only to someone who already agrees with you..

 

[izzy88]

Your "spin" on the word unconditional makes an argument that comes under the heading of "preaching to the choir." It's the kind that is persuasive only to someone who already agrees with you..

It does not, and you never answered my question:

If I tell you that I will give you 5 dollars, unconditionally, totally for free, and you reject my offer, is that my fault? Does my unconditional offer suddenly become conditional if you reject it?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Love is higher love. Love me tender and pity my suffering. Compassion holds love open making it omnipresent freeing its happiness.

 

[joe1776]

It does not, and you never answered my question:

If I tell you that I will give you 5 dollars, unconditionally, totally for free, and you reject my offer, is that my fault? Does my unconditional offer suddenly become conditional if you reject it?

False analogy. Unlike love, the offer of money involves the transfer of something tangible. One who loves unconditionally transfers nothing. It's simply a feeling the lover can keep regardless of what the loved one does. That's the whole point.

 

[izzy88]

False analogy. Unlike love, the offer of money involves the transfer of something tangible. One who loves unconditionally transfers nothing. It's simply a feeling the lover can keep regardless of what the loved one does. That's the whole point.

What you're referring to with the term "love" is an entirely different concept than what I am referring to with the term.
Yours is a mere feeling, an emotion, something that exists only in the mind of the lover.

I am referring to an action, something that is done for someone else. As Thomas Aquinas says, to love is to will the good of the other. Think of something like a parent feeding their child. The parent is willing the good of the child, it is an act of love. The child is free to deny this love, though - they may refuse to eat. Most parents will do whatever they can to try to get the child to eat, but they typically won't force-feed the child against its will.
This is akin to God's relationship with us. He tries to get us to eat as an act of love, to will our good, because he knows what's best for us. And we often refuse, like children do. But like any good parent, God doesn't simply give up on us. He tries and tries every way that he can to convince us to eat voluntarily - to accept his love, of our own free will. But if we ultimately refuse, if we reject his love absolutely, then he gives us our way and allows us to starve to death.

 

[osgart]

What you're referring to with the term "love" is an entirely different concept than what I am referring to with the term.
Yours is a mere feeling, an emotion, something that exists only in the mind of the lover.

I am referring to an action, something that is done for someone else. As Thomas Aquinas says, to love is to will the good of the other. Think of something like a parent feeding their child who cannot feed itself. The parent is willing the good of the child, it is an act of love. The child is free to deny this love, though - they may refuse to eat. Most parents will do whatever they can to try to get the child to eat, but they typically won't force-feed the child against its will.
This is akin to God's relationship with us. He tries to get us to eat as an act of love, to will our good, because he knows what's best for us. And we often refuse, like children do. But like any good parent, God doesn't simply give up on us. He tries and tries every way that he can to convince us to eat voluntarily - to accept his love, of our own free will. But if we ultimately refuse, if we reject his love absolutely, then he gives us our way and allows us to starve to death.

Then what comes after starving to death?
Eternal doom?

I don't reject any love I perceive as good!

What if I fail to see God's love through the Bible?

 

[izzy88]

Then what comes after starving to death?
Eternal doom?

Yes, eternally starving to death is essentially what hell is - only we're not starved from food, but from God, from love.

I don't reject any love I perceive as good!

What if I fail to see God's love through the Bible?

If you're sincerely following what you believe to be good and true and beautiful, you're following God. Many of us have been given very inaccurate pictures of the Bible and what Christianity teaches, so when we reject it under false pretenses like that it's not our fault. That's something the Church has always recognized. You don't need to be a member of the institutional Church to be a member of the spiritual Church - it just really helps! But the whole "you'll go to hell if you aren't Christian/don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior" schtick isn't something that the Church has ever espoused, it's one of several extremely unfortunate and misguided "developments" that have resulted from the Protestant Reformation. All these new churches which formed outside of the one true Church have come up with all kinds of horrible ideas of their own, and because the modern western world is so largely influenced by Protestant/Reformed theology that's what most people believe Christianity to be.

I thought the same thing for most of my life; only relatively recently did I begin to correct my misconceptions about the Catholic Church, and I've been genuinely shocked at what I've learned - and how wrong I was.

 

[osgart]

Yes, eternally starving to death is essentially what hell is - only we're not starved from food, but from God, from love.



If you're sincerely following what you believe to be good and true and beautiful, you're following God. Many of us have been given very inaccurate pictures of the Bible and what Christianity teaches, so when we reject it under false pretenses like that it's not our fault. That's something the Church has always recognized. You don't need to be a member of the institutional Church to be a member of the spiritual Church - it just really helps! But the whole "you'll go to hell if you aren't Christian/don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior" schtick isn't something that the Church has ever espoused, it's one of several extremely unfortunate and misguided "developments" that have resulted from the Protestant Reformation. All these new churches which formed outside of the one true Church have come up with all kinds of horrible ideas of their own, and because the modern western world is so largely influenced by Protestant/Reformed theology that's what most people believe Christianity to be.

I thought the same thing for most of my life; only relatively recently did I begin to correct my misconceptions about the Catholic Church, and I've been genuinely shocked at what I've learned - and how wrong I was.

So should I throw out my Kjv 1611 for a better version?

My thing is I never reject an omnipotent God full of innocence and virtue. I only fail to see God's existence. And reading the Kjv 1611 literally tells me to expect doom for refusing the God of that Bible.

I know myself though! I have selfless love toward a lot of people. The kind of love you mentioned very well.

All I know is if I mean well, I will do well. If I am doing my best that should suffice.
I don't feel that I am a wicked sinner. Everything in me tells me I am at least someone who means well.

 

[izzy88]

So should I throw out my Kjv 1611 for a better version?

My thing is I never reject an omnipotent God full of innocence and virtue. I only fail to see God's existence. And reading the Kjv 1611 literally tells me to expect doom for refusing the God of that Bible.

I know myself though! I have selfless love toward a lot of people. The kind of love you mentioned very well.

All I know is if I mean well, I will do well. If I am doing my best that should suffice.
I don't feel that I am a wicked sinner. Everything in me tells me I am at least someone who means well.

I think the best you could do for a Bible is the Revised Standard Version published by Ignatius Press. As I understand it, the RSV was actually a joint venture between Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, using the most recent developments in biblical scholarship. The Ignatius Press version will be the Catholic edition, which just means it includes the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament that the Protestants removed from their Bibles. Ignatius Press also has a "study Bible" version for just the New Testament, which is great if you want more scholarly commentary.

I'd also highly recommend checking out Bishop Robert Barron, who has a YouTube channel with videos of him explaining various Catholic teachings. He's actually who brought me to Catholicism, I happened upon his videos and what he said in them just made so much sense to me. He also does a podcast called The Word on Fire, which you can find on YouTube or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.

But as you said, if you mean well and do your best, that should suffice - and it does. All you have to do is stay dedicated to truth and love, and God will do the rest. Many of us take long and winding journeys before we really feel like we've "found God", but the journey is always for a reason, it's to teach us things, to help us grow. As long as you're doing your best to always act out of love, you're certainly on the right path.