God/Love

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who was on a cross for three days? Who are you talking about?

Christ.

I was responding to the assumption that Christ could not contain his temper yet he was flogged and beaten and then nailed to a cross for 3 days without once loosing his temper. In fact, he did not so much as utter a word of protest. However, it is assumed that perhas Christ lost his temper in the temple with a whip when he drove out the money changers. It just does not add up.

I tend to agree with Sake that love transcends duality—but then, I am a non-dualist...

With that said, however, I’ll try a stab (abbreviating some of what I’ve written before):

(1) Love is a passionate caring and concern for the other (as well as oneself). That is still in the realm of duality, though I would say that even here it represents an expansion of oneself toward the other, rather than a diminishment of oneself vis-à-vis the other.

(2) Intimate love is a mutual sharing of the above in which, consensually, the I-Thou “ego-boundaries” are allowed to collapse in the formation of a We that is larger. Again, it is an expansion, not a diminishment.

If that second one sounds like a lame attempt at a clinical-sounding formulation of a “mystical” state, so be it: As Sake points out, it really cannot be described, except perhaps poetically, metaphorically. It is in the domain of the ineffable.

Originally posted by vistesd
I tend to agree with Sake that love transcends duality—but then, I am a non-dualist...

With that said, however, I’ll try a stab (abbreviating some of what I’ve written before):

(1) Love is a passionate caring and concern for the other (as well as oneself). That is still in the realm of duality, though I would say that even here it represents a ...[text shortened]... be described, except perhaps poetically, metaphorically. It is in the domain of the ineffable.

I don't disagree entirely and, in fact, I don't think ones needs to be a non-dualist to come to similar conclusions. For example, how does one define God who is described as love if he exists as a soveriegn being such as myself? Do words not fail us? As I recall, he told Moses to say that his name is "I am that I am". Also, how do we create an image of him? In fact, was it not forbidden in Mosaic law to create an image of God even though they were not non-dualists?

Originally posted by whodey
I don't disagree entirely and, in fact, I don't think ones needs to be a non-dualist to come to similar conclusions. For example, how does one define God who is described as love if he exists as a soveriegn being such as myself? Do words not fail us? As I recall, he told Moses to say that his name is "I am that I am". Also, how do we create an image of hi ...[text shortened]... ot forbidden in Mosaic law to create an image of God even though they were not non-dualists?

I don't disagree entirely and, in fact, I don't think ones needs to be a non-dualist to come to similar conclusions.

No, I don’t think one needs to be a non-dualist either, to come to similar conclusions.

I just read this quote and thought I would share, "The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love." - Henry Scougal.

So what is our worth? Is it not based upon our love we share or do not share?