Love cannot be sinful

pghguy

Well-Known Member
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God is love and nothing done truly in love can be sinful - period. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to post examples.

Love has many opposites as well beyond the obvious one of hate.

Some include:

Prideful selfishness
Greed
Jealousy
 
If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to post examples.

Hitler loved his "aryan" race so much, he wanted to destroy all "impurities" to "protect" it.


God is love and nothing done truly in love can be sinful - period.
Which "God" are u talkin about?

Sounds more like hare krishna or some hippie thing from the 60s.
 
From my perspective, I can't totally speak to this as it is written. First, I don't believe in "sin" in the conventional Christian sense. I don't see most things as black and white, right and wrong. Rather, I ask- what is the best possible choice?

There are situations in which none of the options is sinful (in the Christian way of thinking about it), but there is a clearly best, most harmonious choice that is most conducive to spiritual development. Conversely, there are actions considered by monotheist traditions to be sin that I think aren't sins at all.

All that said, love is trickier than it seems. Real love stems from a sense of connection to and service in the Divine, the liberation of thought and emotion this produces, and wisdom of knowing oneself and others. Only when we are really connected to the greater whole, the Mystery of which we are all a part, and only when we are free from our egoic assumptions/needs/identities/etc. can we be free to understand ourselves and others for what they are... to really know them. The deepest, most real kind of love is borne out of this knowing, this wisdom of understanding ourselves and other beings.

When we love in this way, then our actions inherently are in service to the Divine and we are able to be harmonious with all-else-that-is. And so, in that wholeness, there is no sin.

But...

My general feeling is that this takes dedication and cultivation at a level few humans seem to be willing to engage. And thus, what most people think of as love isn't love at all. It's a grasping, needy, selfish feeling... it's the desire to shore up our egoic identity through forging bonds of solidarity with some and use this to dismiss others. It's self-serving and disconnected from harmony.

So it isn't surprising that there is also, then, a preoccupation with sin in the sense of categories of right and wrong actions. We can feel good about ourselves without much critical self-reflection or commitment to transformation through adhering to rote categories of actions we should and should not do. This is in opposition to the process of actually learning who we are, becoming self-aware, and choosing to tackle the vast world of "grey" through cultivating our capacity to be spiritually connected, dedicated to serving others, and setting our sights on what is *best* (not what is *right*).

People do horrific things all the time, believing they are doing it out of love. Learning to really love is difficult.
 
God is love and nothing done truly in love can be sinful - period. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to post examples.

Love has many opposites as well beyond the obvious one of hate.

Some include:

Prideful selfishness
Greed
Jealousy

I think that the word "sin" has had too many ideas attached to it over the millenia for it to be very useful in common discussion any longer.

Really there is no "sin".

People either "remember" who they are or they do not, so perhaps "lost" may be a better word.

If you are not lost then you will act in a loving manner, if you are lost you will most likely be selfish, this is why the religions which offer "salvation" only appeal to the lost who do not remember who they are as it holds out a possible benefit for the "self", thus appealing to one's inborn selfish nature.
 
Hitler loved his "aryan" race so much, he wanted to destroy all "impurities" to "protect" it.


Which "God" are u talkin about?

Sounds more like hare krishna or some hippie thing from the 60s.

This is not love. This was selfishness and prejudice. There was no love involved.
 
From my perspective, I can't totally speak to this as it is written. First, I don't believe in "sin" in the conventional Christian sense. I don't see most things as black and white, right and wrong. Rather, I ask- what is the best possible choice?

There are situations in which none of the options is sinful (in the Christian way of thinking about it), but there is a clearly best, most harmonious choice that is most conducive to spiritual development. Conversely, there are actions considered by monotheist traditions to be sin that I think aren't sins at all.

All that said, love is trickier than it seems. Real love stems from a sense of connection to and service in the Divine, the liberation of thought and emotion this produces, and wisdom of knowing oneself and others. Only when we are really connected to the greater whole, the Mystery of which we are all a part, and only when we are free from our egoic assumptions/needs/identities/etc. can we be free to understand ourselves and others for what they are... to really know them. The deepest, most real kind of love is borne out of this knowing, this wisdom of understanding ourselves and other beings.

When we love in this way, then our actions inherently are in service to the Divine and we are able to be harmonious with all-else-that-is. And so, in that wholeness, there is no sin.

But...

My general feeling is that this takes dedication and cultivation at a level few humans seem to be willing to engage. And thus, what most people think of as love isn't love at all. It's a grasping, needy, selfish feeling... it's the desire to shore up our egoic identity through forging bonds of solidarity with some and use this to dismiss others. It's self-serving and disconnected from harmony.

So it isn't surprising that there is also, then, a preoccupation with sin in the sense of categories of right and wrong actions. We can feel good about ourselves without much critical self-reflection or commitment to transformation through adhering to rote categories of actions we should and should not do. This is in opposition to the process of actually learning who we are, becoming self-aware, and choosing to tackle the vast world of "grey" through cultivating our capacity to be spiritually connected, dedicated to serving others, and setting our sights on what is *best* (not what is *right*).

People do horrific things all the time, believing they are doing it out of love. Learning to really love is difficult.

You're dead on my friend.
 
This is not love. This was selfishness and prejudice. There was no love involved.

You have no authority to make such a judgment.
Hitler believed it was love. That's all that matters.

Your thesis is incomplete, at best.

Love ≠ Good
Hate ≠ Evil

You are talking about human emotions
but trying to connect it to God and morality.

It doesn't work like that.
 
You have no authority to make such a judgment.
Hitler believed it was love. That's all that matters.

Your thesis is incomplete, at best.

Love ≠ Good
Hate ≠ Evil

You are talking about human emotions
but trying to connect it to God and morality.

It doesn't work like that.

Did Hitler love the Jews/blacks/homosexuals... - no! Therefore, his actions where not in love. You presume to know that Hitler believed what he was doing was out of love. Only Hitler can know that.

You can believe what you want. But I KNOW what I know.
 
Did Hitler love the Jews/blacks/homosexuals... - no! Therefore, his actions where not in love. You presume to know that Hitler believed what he was doing was out of love. Only Hitler can know that.

You can believe what you want. But I KNOW what I know.

Love far surpasses the concept of emotion.
 
You have no authority to make such a judgment.
Hitler believed it was love. That's all that matters.

Your thesis is incomplete, at best.

Love ≠ Good
Hate ≠ Evil

You are talking about human emotions
but trying to connect it to God and morality.

It doesn't work like that.

This is good. This kind of conflict can lead both you and PGH to a better understanding. Thing is, can you both pull it off? We'll see ;)
 
This is good. This kind of conflict can lead both you and PGH to a better understanding. Thing is, can you both pull it off? We'll see ;)

I know that love is the key. But, breaking down exactly what love is can be a little more difficult and requires more searching.
 
Hitler loved his "aryan" race so much, he wanted to destroy all "impurities" to "protect" it.


Which "God" are u talkin about?

Sounds more like hare krishna or some hippie thing from the 60s.
Code, Hitler didn't even love himself, nor his wife, let alone the "aryan race". Hitler wasn't even German, though he was head of the German state.

Hitler was the master of manipulating peoples' personal bigotry. A master magician, who could make people look one way, while the truth was in another direction.

That isn't love. That is greed for power.
 
God is love and nothing done truly in love can be sinful - period. If you feel this is wrong, please feel free to post examples.

Love has many opposites as well beyond the obvious one of hate.

Some include:

Prideful selfishness
Greed
Jealousy

The love of the world is caused by jealousy, greed, pride, lust, envy, gluttony, and even laziness. The love of God will destroy the love we know in this world.
 
.


@ pghguy + Paladin + Q

Did Hitler love the Jews/blacks/homosexuals... - no!

More to the point, do you dispute that the entire concept of love is based on exclusion?

This is good. This kind of conflict can lead both you and PGH to a better understanding. Thing is, can you both pull it off? We'll see

Not if he sticks with the attitude of: "I KNOW what I know"
Doesn't look like he is prepared for an actual dialogue or opposition.

That is greed for power.

Let's play a little game. Take the word "greed" in that sentence and replace it with "love"
Then tell me: would this actually change the meaning of the sentence, in any functional way?
 
.


@ pghguy + Paladin + Q



More to the point, do you dispute that the entire concept of love is based on exclusion?



Not if he sticks with the attitude of: "I KNOW what I know"
Doesn't look like he is prepared for an actual dialogue or opposition.



Let's play a little game. Take the word "greed" in that sentence and replace it with "love"
Then tell me: would this actually change the meaning of the sentence, in any functional way?

Exclusion is not love.

Give me an example of what you mean in terms of replaing greed with love. Chances are, it's going to produce an oximoron of some sort.
 
Exclusion is not love.

oh really? So if you're GF/Wife asks you: "hey pghguy, do you love me?"
Would you be prepared to say: "sure babe, but just as much as anyone else"

??

Give me an example of what you mean in terms of replaing greed with love. Chances are, it's going to produce an oximoron of some sort.
Q's sentence was the example. Clearly, you didn't get it.
 
Maybe you could describe what a rose is like to someone who cannot see and has no sense of smell. Love is like that because we cannot experience it as they have just as if we were blind and could not smell. They may never understand love like me . Likewise I may never understand love that they have. We may be able to imagine it and assume we understand. This still does not allow or enable us to describe that in words.

This is what Shakespeare alluded to in the "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet" line. As a master of language he understood it's limitations as well.
 
The love of God is knowledge. Fear is caused by the lack of God's knowledge, which is also truth and love. So God's love has no fear in it.
 
Back
Top