Going through hell before we get to heaven

[luecy7]

Ah, but the benefits of love to the lover are not questioned, right, Luecy?

I'd say the definition and nature of love should be questioned by both the giver and receiver. People go to war against others claiming it is a sacrifice for love of their family or country at home. What does the receiver of that hellish deed think? How warm and fuzzy is the battlefield? How warm and loving are the people there? How warm and fuzzy is it to end up on the cross, even betrayed by those closest to you?

Love may not conquer all, but it would seem to be an emulation of the L-rd, and since the L-rd is, indeed, architect of the universe, it is a good chance that (unless the L-rd loses) love is inevitably a blessing.

Your love shack sounds like a casino where you claim the casino owner is responsible for the odds. Whereas you have the ability to take responsibility for your actions: Are you loving, or not? What motive is behind your love? Whom have you loved today?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Let me try your theory: "That's the beauty of walking in and living through money. Not only are those who know and have money blessed, they inevitably become a blessing to others also." All I did was a word substitute. The word 'sin' fits even better. Have you heard the term, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" You get to judge what 'love' and 'beauty' are. You spoke of someone forcing their will upon another person, but you deny your own responsibility and willful choice as you use the word 'inevitable'.

If you call extending and sharing my blessings with others as forcing my will on them, then I'm not sure what to say. Some people will reject anything coming from some people. Even so, random acts of charity and kindness go a long way to those who appreciate these acts. That's the thing, love is about taking action. It could be as simple as a word of encouragement, a hug, or even helping a person get back on their feet. The parable of the good Samaritan comes to mind. Sometimes love can hurt, but is you ask me, it's worth going the extra mile. Jesus displayed his love even for those who hung him on the cross. Would I be so generous? I very seriously doubt it. This is what makes Jesus so special if you ask me. He was willing to forgive, even those who would put him through such torment. If he were to ever falter in God's will, it would have been then.

Somehow I do not think it was warm and fuzzy up on the cross.

I think only an absolute idiot would think it was warm and fuzzy on the cross. What Jesus did do is love them despite what they put him through. It showed in his actions ... "Forgive them father for they know not what they do." I can only imagine what a life without love would entail. Love is my comfort, just as it comforts many others. In love rests my hopes. I truly believe it's all that is required from those who desire to enter and maintain the kingdom. Those who don't desire the kingdom will get what they want. They will not be accepted, hence being reborn on this earth again to face a second death. I don't make the rules, I only convey them as I understand them. You don't like my views? That's your choice. I make no apologies for what I believe.

 

[luecy7]

If you call extending and sharing my blessings with others as forcing my will on them, then I'm not sure what to say.

No: You stated that it was inevitable that you will become loving, provided that you are being loved. From my viewpoint, that is not owning up to your responsibility for deciding when and where to be loving, unconditional of whether or not you are being loved. Your statement was sort of like saying, "If I am cooked enough good food, then it is inevitable that I will become a good cook." Well that sort of denies my responsibility in the matter with many required choices.

I dare say though that I find it a better tune than, "If I am cooked enough bad food, or if I cook enough bad food (in hell), then it is inevitable that I will become a good cook. (to enter heaven)"

Love is my comfort, just as it comforts many others.

You continue to speak of being loved, rather than of being loving. Some people become attracted to drugs, or emotions, and call it love for someone to give them the drug. If Jesus were here, would he give them the drug? Give them their warm fuzzy?

I truly believe it's all that is required from those who desire to enter and maintain the kingdom.

Perhaps you should ask God what is required of you. Seems to me, it is his kingdom. Should I knock on your door to enter your house?

I make no apologies for what I believe.

I do. I have believed something, looked long and hard, discovered myself to be in error, and apologized seeking amends. Some people call it a confession.

 

[Gatekeeper]

No: You stated that it was inevitable that you will become loving, provided that you are being loved.

No. I stated if a person knows love they will inevitably become a blessing to others. All sorts of people who are loved disregard that love in favor of something else. Knowing love involves walking in it daily. Can a person love perfectly? Probably not in this world, but what a person can do is know love well enough to know that others need it above other worldly things.

From my viewpoint, that is not owning up to your responsibility for deciding when and where to be loving, unconditional of whether or not you are being loved. Your statement was sort of like saying, "If I am cooked enough good food, then it is inevitable that I will become a good cook." Well that sort of denies my responsibility in the matter with many required choices.

like cooking, learning to lean on love is a process. You can't expect a person who is not accustomed to loving others to begin to do so over night. You plant a seed and it grows. Love is the same way. It starts off small and it grows as it is further nurtured.

I dare say though that I find it a better tune than, "If I am cooked enough bad food, or if I cook enough bad food (in hell), then it is inevitable that I will become a good cook. (to enter heaven)"

I think God is in control, so yes ... the bad food leads many to desire the good. Our actions have consequences, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. A wise man will learn from their mistakes and decrease making them in the future.

You continue to speak of being loved, rather than of being loving. Some people become attracted to drugs, or emotions, and call it love for someone to give them the drug. If Jesus were here, would he give them the drug? Give them their warm fuzzy?

Being loving is not the same as handing out drugs to addicts. Would you call that love ... to enable a person who has a problem with addiction? No you would not. Being loving in this case would be to help them beat the addiction. Whether you offer a safe environment, a place to detox, or help encourage them to enter rehab. Also, I don't know that it's your business what I do in regard to loving others. If you knew me, this would be obvious.

Perhaps you should ask God what is required of you. Seems to me, it is his kingdom. Should I knock on your door to enter your house?

I know what God requires from me. Am I perfect? Not quite, but I am learning just as a person is required to do. Do I have all the answers? No. I do however know what Jesus said about loving our neighbors and God above all things. If a person desires to enter the kingdom, then yes a good knock on the door would be helpful.

In other words, a person needs to have direction and at least desire God's righteousness. We knock with our desires. If we desire righteousness, then we will pursue righteousness, becoming faithful to what God expects from us. Love is what God expects. It is a requirement and/or a prerequisite that a person learns to live through when their desires have been properly adjusted.

I do. I have believed something, looked long and hard, discovered myself to be in error, and apologized seeking amends. Some people call it a confession.

Meh, no one is without error, which is why it is important to keep learning, growing, developing, and advancing as individuals. I can't help but wonder if you threw the baby out with the bath water. Who did you apologize to and why? Do you think an individual is required to know perfectly? If not, then why apologize for being unlearned. I think it much better to realize that each of us remain unlearned, then to continue seeking understanding, and to become faithful to what each of us learn is right, and good, and of good report.

 

[luecy7]

No. I stated if a person knows love they will inevitably become a blessing to others. All sorts of people who are loved disregard that love in favor of something else. Knowing love involves walking in it daily. Can a person love perfectly? Probably not in this world, but what a person can do is know love well enough to know that others need it above other worldly things.

The use of the word 'inevitable' was unmistakable. In my relationships, love is not 'inevitable', it is a choice. Love is not a knowledge, it is an action. Love is not a walk as if it were a solo exercise, it is an action between willful entities.

like cooking, learning to lean on love is a process. You can't expect a person who is not accustomed to loving others to begin to do so over night. You plant a seed and it grows. Love is the same way. It starts off small and it grows as it is further nurtured.

I better tailor the metaphor: the loving cook is cooking for others.

I think God is in control, so yes ... the bad food leads many to desire the good.

I find many desire the good. Who desires to be the good?

Our actions have consequences, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. A wise man will learn from their mistakes and decrease making them in the future.

Sounds like the consequence of not forgiving others, for where there is forgiveness the consequences are dropped. Lets review the consequence of be-ing love-ing.

Being loving is not the same as handing out drugs to addicts. Would you call that love ... to enable a person who has a problem with addiction? No you would not. Being loving in this case would be to help them beat the addiction. Whether you offer a safe environment, a place to detox, or help encourage them to enter rehab. Also, I don't know that it's your business what I do in regard to loving others. If you knew me, this would be obvious.

Fair enough. The loved are the judge of love, and how tormenting it is when someone prefers their drug. I think we are closer here to the point I was trying to make: whether the reign of God comes from hell... or from God.

I know what God requires from me. Am I perfect? Not quite, but I am learning just as a person is required to do. Do I have all the answers? No. I do however know what Jesus said about loving our neighbors and God above all things. If a person desires to enter the kingdom, then yes a good knock on the door would be helpful.

I know what Jesus said about loving an enemy. A knock in-deed.

In other words, a person needs to have direction and at least desire God's righteousness. We knock with our desires. If we desire righteousness, then we will pursue righteousness, becoming faithful to what God expects from us. Love is what God expects. It is a requirement and/or a prerequisite that a person learns to live through when their desires have been properly adjusted.

Desire? The desire of righteousness and love is exceedingly common. The desire to be, is like the desire to be nailed to a cross.

Meh, no one is without error, which is why it is important to keep learning, growing, developing, and advancing as individuals. I can't help but wonder if you threw the baby out with the bath water. Who did you apologize to and why? Do you think an individual is required to know perfectly? If not, then why apologize for being unlearned. I think it much better to realize that each of us remain unlearned, then to continue seeking understanding, and to become faithful to what each of us learn is right, and good, and of good report.

Why confess and why seek ammends? Why see guilt where you say there was none? To take responsibility for my behavior. To take responsibility for having not taken responsibility. To Be Love-ing. To right a wrong. To conduct an experiment. To knock on that door. To help cause a change. To stop being a hypocrite.

 

[radarmark]

GK, metinks I differ from the definition of love being sold by Luecy. Loving is something we choose to do (the act of Redemption between one soul and the world). One does not express love (as implied by Luecy) in war (for kith or kind). By loving one shares oneself with the world. It is nice to be loved (by something other than the unconditional love of the D-vine), but one need not be loved to love.

 

[luecy7]

One does not express love (as implied by Luecy) in war (for kith or kind).

I did not imply that love is expressed in war. I said, "People go to war against others claiming it is a sacrifice for love of their family or country at home." I am not a person that makes that claim.

 

[radarmark]

You do not cite a source. Sorry, I never have heard anything like that in combat. Love of country or family is a very poor reason for war.

 

[Gatekeeper]

The use of the word 'inevitable' was unmistakable. In my relationships, love is not 'inevitable', it is a choice. Love is not a knowledge, it is an action. Love is not a walk as if it were a solo exercise, it is an action between willful entities.

I better tailor the metaphor: the loving cook is cooking for others.

I find many desire the good. Who desires to be the good?

Sounds like the consequence of not forgiving others, for where there is forgiveness the consequences are dropped. Lets review the consequence of be-ing love-ing.

Fair enough. The loved are the judge of love, and how tormenting it is when someone prefers their drug. I think we are closer here to the point I was trying to make: whether the reign of God comes from hell... or from God.

I know what Jesus said about loving an enemy. A knock in-deed.

Desire? The desire of righteousness and love is exceedingly common. The desire to be, is like the desire to be nailed to a cross.

Why confess and why seek ammends? Why see guilt where you say there was none? To take responsibility for my behavior. To take responsibility for having not taken responsibility. To Be Love-ing. To right a wrong. To conduct an experiment. To knock on that door. To help cause a change. To stop being a hypocrite.

Love (verb) is a learned behavior. A person can love another emotionally, but acting on that love can often take a back seat to other worldly things. We simply learn to love (verb). Love is a learned behavior. You are correct, however, love is an exchange also. It takes a giver and a receiver. Even so, the receiver is not always receptive, but the giver can choose to love them anyway.

Also, you act like not knowing a thing is something to be shameful of. Ignorance is not a crime, but rejecting knowledge and understanding after the fact may very well be. You suggest that the desire to be righteous is comparable to the desire to be nailed to a cross. I'm not sure I understand your sentiments.

Is it so painful to want to become a better person? An individual doesn't become better person over night. It's a slow and gradual process, but a process that is worth the disappointment in self when we fall short. For some people it is a dance of sorts ... two steps forward, and one step back.

 

[Gatekeeper]

You do not cite a source. Sorry, I never have heard anything like that in combat. Love of country or family is a very poor reason for war.

Unless of course one is defending their friends and/or family. I abhor war and violence, but I'm not above fighting to defend my loved ones from being physically harmed. It's an ugly thing, and maybe I'm wrong for having the mindset, but I would likely kill a man in defense to preserve the lives of those I love if it came down to it.

I don't want to, but if I may quote Edmund Burke - "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". This is an ugly and hard to absorb truth, but a mindset I have come to adopt over the years. As I stated ... I abhor war and violence, but I'm not so self righteous that my so called piety would allow another to inflict harm on those I love if I can prevent it.

 

[Gatekeeper]

@ Radar - My above post has disturbed me since I wrote it. I can't seem to break free from my desire to preserve myself and those I love. It might be said that I am still attached to my skin. I feel a bit foolish for implying that I stand on the good side of the coin also.

Truth be told, in my mind I desire to preserve, but when it comes to taking such severe action, I'm not so confident that I would meet my desires. I'm not sure if this has to do with fear of action, or love of enemy. It takes a lot to shake me to the point that I am ready to fight.

Being a good shepherd and protecting one's own is a thing I view to be admirable. I suggested that I would likely, but that likely is more like a possibility, given I have the courage to stand against the wolves.

I obviously struggle when it comes to any type of violence. However, I think there are times when measures need to be taken to protect and defend those we love. The prospect is far from ideal, but I truly believe that there are times that severe action is required to preserve and protect.

 

[radarmark]

'Tis a conundrum. I agree. The discussion of war and violence is really off point (IMHO)... the conversation is about the role of love and how "love conquers all". Or at least that is what my focus is.

Both Daly and Butler (both Marine Corps multiple medal of honor recipients) were "Independent Quakers" perhaps the two greatest warriors in America's history. But were they right? Was I right in SEA? Would I now use violence to protect my bride? These are difficult and personal choices.

 

[luecy7]

Unless of course one is defending their friends and/or family. I abhor war and violence, but I'm not above fighting to defend my loved ones from being physically harmed. It's an ugly thing, and maybe I'm wrong for having the mindset, but I would likely kill a man in defense to preserve the lives of those I love if it came down to it.

I don't want to, but if I may quote Edmund Burke - "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". This is an ugly and hard to absorb truth, but a mindset I have come to adopt over the years. As I stated ... I abhor war and violence, but I'm not so self righteous that my so called piety would allow another to inflict harm on those I love if I can prevent it.

If you wish to NOT be self righteous, then perhaps you should seek the agreement of every member of your family, as to whether or not they want you to kill a man to defend them. Otherwise, you make the decision yourself: self righteous.

 

[radarmark]

I do not understand you at all Luecy. If you make your own decisions it is self-righteous. But it is incumbent for a government (or family) to get a total consensus. Is that right?

 

[Gatekeeper]

'Tis a conundrum. I agree. The discussion of war and violence is really off point (IMHO)... the conversation is about the role of love and how "love conquers all". Or at least that is what my focus is.

Both Daly and Butler (both Marine Corps multiple medal of honor recipients) were "Independent Quakers" perhaps the two greatest warriors in America's history. But were they right? Was I right in SEA? Would I now use violence to protect my bride? These are difficult and personal choices.

I think love can conquer all, but I don't think all will submit themselves to love. For some, I fear the ways of the world are too appealing. I dunno, radar ... I myself sometimes find myself waist deep in the muck and mire. Maybe love is easy for some, but for me it takes work and a lot of it.

 

[Gatekeeper]

If you wish to NOT be self righteous, then perhaps you should seek the agreement of every member of your family, as to whether or not they want you to kill a man to defend them. Otherwise, you make the decision yourself: self righteous.

Actually, I wouldn't call any kind of violence righteous. Violence is an ugly thing, and that's the point. It's an unrighteous act ... no matter the reason a person turns to it.

 

[radarmark]

Lots of work, continuous, ever-present effort. Yes. I think that (like rationality or the industrial revolution or the information revolution) there will come a tipping point so we all are more like Kazantzakis than Nietzsche. We move from self to family to tribe to country to species to world to Kosmos. That is an articulation of my faith.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Gatekeeper and Radarmark, do you believe that there is an actual answer to the question of violence for the protection of others. I can't see it. I'm actually looking to join the army and even go on international missions, I don't know what is the right decision and that is part of the reason I want to go. I have to experience things I might regret to learn more about myself and people in general, I think. It is a pandoras box, of course, but isn't that life, isn't that growing up? It is how I see it now and all things change, I will just have to do what I think is right in this moment.

 

[radarmark]

It is beyond me. Would I protect my bride from being killed, yes, by violence, yes. But that would not be a rational reaction. I found a family, a code, in the service. Take a look at "Blackhawk Down". Listen carefully to Hoot (Eric Bana) at the end. Watch him and Sanderson (William Frichtner? sp) and how they operate vis a vis the Rangers. It is bout teamwork and friendship and belonging and the guy in the fox-hole next to you.

If you get misted over when Gordon and Shughart (the two operators who fight to the death to protect the copper pilot, and who know full well the odds against them), you understand the true warrior mindset.

Read Moreshei Ueshiba and watch "Apocalypse Now" if you can understand the motivation of each, and can accept the weight, do it.

If you think that right and wrong apply everywhere and everywhen in accordance with some book or roadmap (other than your own character), take a pass. There are already too many of G-d's warriors in at least the US military.

 

[luecy7]

I do not understand you at all Luecy. If you make your own decisions it is self-righteous. But it is incumbent for a government (or family) to get a total consensus. Is that right?

I was using the term 'self-righteous' to mean the 'wrong' thing to do. To me, war and violence are an absolute example of self-righteousness no matter how many people there are to approve and order it. When faced with someone who flips that and says that it is self-righteous to NOT resort to war and violence to protect someone that they cherish, I tried to flip it back on them. If that person has not obtained the approval and order of the people that he/she is claiming to serve, then they are in fact behaving self-righteously.

I am not sanctioning war and violence. The act of obtaining the approval of others is good, and the more people that a person goes to get the approval of the better chance that cooler heads will prevail, and that a better path is found. If the family, neighborhood, state, or country wants a thing and it is evil, I'd say it is better to die with the approval of God than it is to live without it.