God is (Is God) Love. (?)

[Spirit of Light]

A reply I saw earlier raised some good points.

To those who believe that God could be correctly described as simply love, what do you mean? Can God be a property? What does that mean? I will give my personal beliefs on the matter.
I believe God is Love, is love, is love.
I believe the only way it is possible for God to be manifested in the temporal world is through Love. As God, in His totality, is incomprehensible to the temporal mind, no religious text can hope to fully elucidate on what God is. I have found that all of the sacred texts I have read have this common, connecting message; God is love. As followers of God, we are tasked with manifesting God in the temporal realm. If God is love, then we are tasked with being literal manifestations of love while we are spending our time on this earth. When someone acts out of love, and reaches out to somebody else with that love, in effect, the person at the receiving end is experiencing God incarnate. In order to spread God’s message, we must simply act with love. In order to establish God’s temporal presence, we must act with love. In absence of any sacred text, God would still be knowable through this method of cognition. The purpose of sacred texts are to make this message abundantly clear. God is love.
I’m being a bit abstract I’m sorry but this is an abstract concept and I’m not educated. Chime in y’all help me out
I will use Zoroastrianism as an example. I have begun studying the Gathas, which are Zoroastrian hymns which are attributed directly to the founding prophet, Zoroaster. When he established Zoroastrianism, this is what he did. He founded a Monotheistic religion in a culture of polytheism, first of all. The existing religions of the time was focused on ceremony and sacrifices. Zoroaster’s message throughout the Gathas is that what this singular deity requires is Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. To be a practicing Zoroastrian, in theory, you must commit yourself to do these three things at every opportunity.
Zoroastrian theology says that these loving actions will help serve in establishing literal Heaven on earth. The good God and the bad god are in a cosmic battle for control of the universe, and our loving actions (or lack of) has a bearing on this battle. In order for God to be established on this literal, temporal, earth, He needs humanity’s love. If humans do not act out of love, God’s kingdom will not be established. In this theology, God can be clearly described as literal love, I think. God requires humans to act out of love in order for God to bring peace on earth. God is literally in their loving actions, while His opposition is in every hateful action. On a metaphysical sense, God is the positive energy and so is love.
Essentially what I’m saying is that if humans aren’t loving there will never be a rapture type event and no Heaven on earth, ever. Collective Human love is a prerequisite to these things. I think that shows what it means that God is Love.
Is God love? How do you explain that

As one of those who believe God is pure love, I believe that to receive the love as the purest love we can experience, we have to become pure love too. as long we are in human form we have to be love to gain love.
But to reach this level of love, it has to become unconditional love (that no matter what happens, we do not ask to be loved back or expect that others have to love us unconditionally)

Edit: Love is a state of being.

 

[DNB]

Of course, there are alternative worldviews whereby love is perfectly capable of existing in the absence of a God figure; in universes created from stardust and protoplasm.

The alternative worldviews are too hypothetical. Nature does not demand love, survival of the fittest would be sufficient to sustain all life on earth. Disease, famine, earthquakes, natural disasters, and even chaos could persist, and life will go on with no requirement of love. Love is only introduced when one has a heart to both recognize it and appreciate its virtue, ...let alone even fathom it (image of God). Love is too abstract otherwise, it's not part of the material world and cannot be legislated or quantified, it only exists in the spiritual realm - as does evil.

 

[Meow Mix]

The alternative worldviews are too hypothetical. Nature does not demand love, survival of the fittest would be sufficient to sustain all life on earth. Disease, famine, earthquakes, natural disasters, and even chaos could persist, and life will go on with no requirement of love. Love is only introduced when one has a heart (image of God) to both recognize it and appreciate its virtue, ...let alone even fathom it. Love is too abstract otherwise, it's not part of the material world and cannot be legislated or quantified, it only exists in the spiritual realm - as does evil.

Altruism is a trait that's selectable in natural selection; we see it in social organisms, even down to rats. It's not a stretch of the imagination to note that this basic altruism would be built upon, abstracted, and expanded by organisms capable of abstract thinking and planning like humans.

Even chimpanzees have concepts like justice and unfairness.

Things like this are probably a matter of quantity rather than quality between humans and other closely related animals.

 

[Truthseeker]

But to reach this level of love, it has to become unconditional love (that no matter what happens, we do not ask to be loved back or expect that others have to love us unconditionally)

Krishna said something similar. We should act without being attached to the fruits of our actions.

 

[an anarchist]

Altruism is a trait that's selectable in natural selection; we see it

Altruism is a trait that's selectable in natural selection; we see it in social organisms, even down to rats. It's not a stretch of the imagination to note that this basic altruism would be built upon, abstracted, and expanded by organisms capable of abstract thinking and planning like humans.

Even chimpanzees have concepts like justice and unfairness.

Things like this are probably a matter of quantity rather than quality between humans and other closely related animals.

I know my dog and cats love me. Is this the same kind of Love that a human experiences? I don’t think so.
I don’t think man are smart monkeys
Suppose it were possible to take the conscious power of all of other species, and combine it into a single, new organism. I think this organism still wouldn’t come even close to the conscious self awareness that humans have. The belief is that we are not more evolved animals, rather, God-like creatures.
I think our self awareness is intrinsic in what love is.

 

[DNB]

Altruism is a trait that's selectable in natural selection; we see it in social organisms, even down to rats. It's not a stretch of the imagination to note that this basic altruism would be built upon, abstracted, and expanded by organisms capable of abstract thinking and planning like humans.

Even chimpanzees have concepts like justice and unfairness.

Things like this are probably a matter of quantity rather than quality between humans and other closely related animals.

I don't know if the comparison is only one of quantity as opposed to quality. For, whatever empirical evidence has been offered to make the determination of quantity, I would challenge its consistency and its versatility - Monkeys are neither altruistic nor just in all situations the way that humans can be.
In other words, I would contend that the interpretation of the evidence was wrong pertaining to animals. We've all owned them, we've all watched them in the wild, and seen them on National Geographic. Given the same situation, an animal will 99% of time behave ruthlessly, selfishly, apathetically and extremely cruelly. That is, that same monkey that was assessed as to have a trait of justice or equality, will still fight, steal or kill indiscriminately without losing any sleep whatsoever. The analysis was wrong, characteristics are innate and predominant, not circumstantial.

 

[stvdv]

A reply I saw earlier raised some good points.
To those who believe that God could be correctly described as simply love, what do you mean? Can God be a property? What does that mean? I will give my personal beliefs on the matter.
I believe God is Love, is love, is love.

Is God love? How do you explain that

Better to say "Love = God" or "Love = Divine"

 

[rational experiences]

A human says my love is extended as man themed theism to a human female.

Remember all stories are said just by humans.

We looked at each other. We have sex. Father mother human memories. Babies born are loved.

Human memory first parents human.life relationships with babies to adults. First advice ever.

Human consciousness uses memory.

Teaching gods O heavens records all life visionary...voice....sounds.

Is heard in feedback. Seen. Why we knew. Recorded by God. Love is ours.

So gods heavens the recorder owns loving human memory in its origins. Before scientific irradiation removed its expressive human owned natural reality.

Now animals love also.

Consciousness just human related their recorded advice animal loving as lesser being.

Recordings therefore communicate information. Why we are psyche affected by status memories.

Now if humans taught humans the nature of the science of God is not love it was because of his recording by gods heavens it tricked your mind.

Why we were taught God in the heavens loved you love and honour your origin of two human parents.

Which most of you seem to ignore as your owned human advice.

God in science destroys you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Some combinations of words, in any language, are so simple, so clear, and so profound, that they don’t require an explanation, nor do they respond to analysis. Better just to hold them in the heart for a while.

 

[Clara Tea]

A reply I saw earlier raised some good points.

To those who believe that God could be correctly described as simply love, what do you mean? Can God be a property? What does that mean? I will give my personal beliefs on the matter.
I believe God is Love, is love, is love.
I believe the only way it is possible for God to be manifested in the temporal world is through Love. As God, in His totality, is incomprehensible to the temporal mind, no religious text can hope to fully elucidate on what God is. I have found that all of the sacred texts I have read have this common, connecting message; God is love. As followers of God, we are tasked with manifesting God in the temporal realm. If God is love, then we are tasked with being literal manifestations of love while we are spending our time on this earth. When someone acts out of love, and reaches out to somebody else with that love, in effect, the person at the receiving end is experiencing God incarnate. In order to spread God’s message, we must simply act with love. In order to establish God’s temporal presence, we must act with love. In absence of any sacred text, God would still be knowable through this method of cognition. The purpose of sacred texts are to make this message abundantly clear. God is love.
I’m being a bit abstract I’m sorry but this is an abstract concept and I’m not educated. Chime in y’all help me out
I will use Zoroastrianism as an example. I have begun studying the Gathas, which are Zoroastrian hymns which are attributed directly to the founding prophet, Zoroaster. When he established Zoroastrianism, this is what he did. He founded a Monotheistic religion in a culture of polytheism, first of all. The existing religions of the time was focused on ceremony and sacrifices. Zoroaster’s message throughout the Gathas is that what this singular deity requires is Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. To be a practicing Zoroastrian, in theory, you must commit yourself to do these three things at every opportunity.
Zoroastrian theology says that these loving actions will help serve in establishing literal Heaven on earth. The good God and the bad god are in a cosmic battle for control of the universe, and our loving actions (or lack of) has a bearing on this battle. In order for God to be established on this literal, temporal, earth, He needs humanity’s love. If humans do not act out of love, God’s kingdom will not be established. In this theology, God can be clearly described as literal love, I think. God requires humans to act out of love in order for God to bring peace on earth. God is literally in their loving actions, while His opposition is in every hateful action. On a metaphysical sense, God is the positive energy and so is love.
Essentially what I’m saying is that if humans aren’t loving there will never be a rapture type event and no Heaven on earth, ever. Collective Human love is a prerequisite to these things. I think that shows what it means that God is Love.
Is God love? How do you explain that

God created all. If we don't worship God we go to hell (I presume God's creation). The God of love will torture us for all eternity if we fail to worship him.

Maybe if we appease God and constantly do exactly what he says, he will do something nice for us?

Or, maybe Adam and Eve sinned, and though we are not Adam nor Eve, we are being punished for their sins all these years later?

God made a world of animals eating animals (often while still alive....painfully). Is God still the God of love?

 

[Clara Tea]

God in science destroys you.

Ahhh....the good ol' days of torturing scientists to death (in the name of God, of course).

Science brought us cures (eventually) for COVID. What did religion do (other than create COVID by Revelation 15)?

 

[SalixIncendium]

"pure" consciousness, nirguna brahman is love. nataraja is love

I've stopped using "Nirguna Brahman" and "God" interchangeably. Nirguna Brahman is not a deity, and calling it "God" only leads to confusion in my experience. Also, as I see it, Nirguna Brahman is not Nataraja. Nataraja is an appearance in Nirguna Brahman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A reply I saw earlier raised some good points.

To those who believe that God could be correctly described as simply love, what do you mean? Can God be a property? What does that mean? I will give my personal beliefs on the matter.
I believe God is Love, is love, is love.
I believe the only way it is possible for God to be manifested in the temporal world is through Love. As God, in His totality, is incomprehensible to the temporal mind, no religious text can hope to fully elucidate on what God is. I have found that all of the sacred texts I have read have this common, connecting message; God is love. As followers of God, we are tasked with manifesting God in the temporal realm. If God is love, then we are tasked with being literal manifestations of love while we are spending our time on this earth. When someone acts out of love, and reaches out to somebody else with that love, in effect, the person at the receiving end is experiencing God incarnate. In order to spread God’s message, we must simply act with love. In order to establish God’s temporal presence, we must act with love. In absence of any sacred text, God would still be knowable through this method of cognition. The purpose of sacred texts are to make this message abundantly clear. God is love.
I’m being a bit abstract I’m sorry but this is an abstract concept and I’m not educated. Chime in y’all help me out
I will use Zoroastrianism as an example. I have begun studying the Gathas, which are Zoroastrian hymns which are attributed directly to the founding prophet, Zoroaster. When he established Zoroastrianism, this is what he did. He founded a Monotheistic religion in a culture of polytheism, first of all. The existing religions of the time was focused on ceremony and sacrifices. Zoroaster’s message throughout the Gathas is that what this singular deity requires is Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. To be a practicing Zoroastrian, in theory, you must commit yourself to do these three things at every opportunity.
Zoroastrian theology says that these loving actions will help serve in establishing literal Heaven on earth. The good God and the bad god are in a cosmic battle for control of the universe, and our loving actions (or lack of) has a bearing on this battle. In order for God to be established on this literal, temporal, earth, He needs humanity’s love. If humans do not act out of love, God’s kingdom will not be established. In this theology, God can be clearly described as literal love, I think. God requires humans to act out of love in order for God to bring peace on earth. God is literally in their loving actions, while His opposition is in every hateful action. On a metaphysical sense, God is the positive energy and so is love.
Essentially what I’m saying is that if humans aren’t loving there will never be a rapture type event and no Heaven on earth, ever. Collective Human love is a prerequisite to these things. I think that shows what it means that God is Love.
Is God love? How do you explain that

I can't make sense of a literal interpretation of "God is love" either.

I have to take it as something like "God is the most loving being" or "God is the ultimate source of love" to even parse the sentence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

god is a verb, an action, and self is a mirror, image of that reflection


exodus 3:14, to be is a verb

God that.



I mean, it seems obvious to me that "God" is not a verb.

(And "I AM THAT I AM" isn't a verb either. Neither is just "I AM." They're both phrases with verbs in them. Not verbs)

 

[firedragon]

Nirguna Brahman is not a deity, and calling it "God" only leads to confusion in my experience.

I found that a little point to ponder. Do you mean that some people dont understand Upadhi? Or are you saying Nirguna Brahman is no deity at all? If you can explain I will be grateful.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I found that a little point to ponder. Do you mean that some people dont understand Upadhi? Or are you saying Nirguna Brahman is no deity at all? If you can explain I will be grateful.

I’m saying Nirguna Brahman is the substrate upon on which deities (and everything else perceived from transactional reality) exist.

 

[firedragon]

I’m saying Nirguna Brahman is the substrate upon on which deities (and everything else perceived from transactional reality) exist.

In principle, what you just did was Upadhi isn't it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

In principle, what you just did was Upadhi isn't it?

No.

 

[firedragon]

No.

Lol. Alright. Thanks.

 

[Zerilos]

A reply I saw earlier raised some good points.
I believe the only way it is possible for God to be manifested in the temporal world is through Love.

You say this, but don't go on to say why you think this is necessarily true. I'm not even sure how to disagree with you, outside of say that I don't think a God could only manifest itself through love.