Hezo Kittie

God is Love

The above title is simple enough. We've all heard it a million times before, along with such other common sense phrases like "Treat others the way you want to be treated" or "Birds of a feather flock together". But not only is common sense commonly an oxymoron, such as when there are two phrases which contradict, but the phrases leave no explanation. Once I replaced the word God with the word love in my reading and conversations, it suddenly made perfect sense.

I don't know who or what God is, and equally I cannot define love at all. But I have complete trust that all things come from it. All other virtues, such as temperance, justice, and integrity, are virtuous not in and of themselves but because they are aligned with love. I have faith in love.

And the list continues.

1.) I can love
2.) Love is unconditional

When my interactions with my friends or family became taxing and tiresome, I would think, "How much better would my life be if I didn't have to deal with people who occasionally pissed me off?"

Kinda defeats the institution of friendship altogether if I felt that. Patience is a virtue and true friendship is unconditional.

Covey's belief system probably had some kind of influence on me, because he is a hardcore Mormon but stresses that his book is not based on any specific religion.

Anyway, here's yet another snippet from his best seller:

"Remember that quick fix is a mirage. Building and repairing relationships takes time. If you become impatient with his [your child's] apparent lack of response or his seeming ingratitude, you may make huge withdrawals and undo all the good you've done. 'After all we've done for you, the sacrifices we've made, how can you be so ungrateful? We try to be nice and you act like this. I can't believe it!'"

This parallels the argument that I commonly use when I talk to Christians who are trying to get me to join their fellowship or whatever:

"Here's a hypothetical situation: so say some guy lived an amazing life and supported his family and went out into the world and saved thousands of lives and did lots of really helpful things, but he never went to church and had never read the Bible and had no idea who Jesus or God or anything was. He won't get to live forever?"
Note: Heaven and Hell in the everyday, traditional conversation use, are not explicitly referred to in the Bible. At least, not the way we normally think of either of them. Heaven's equivalent in the Bible is 'eternal life' and Hell is just death.

And the Christian missionary will respond, "Well... no... they won't live forever."

I always thought that was pretty bullshit. But now I have a deeper understanding of the situation and I believe in it.

In the first situation, the parent is saying, "I will only love you and be proud of you and respect you if you reach this bar of success that I have laid out for you. Here's all the tools to achieve it, now do it. You better be good enough to be my son or daughter, or else."

When it's laid out like that, the answer makes a lot more sense. The parent put conditions on the love he or she were to give to the child. "You may be living differently than I'd choose for you, but I love you no matter what. Don't worry, I'm here to listen and help, not judge." That seems to be a more appropriate way of seeing things.

In the second situation, I'm saying, "Hey Mr. God man, this recently deceased dude right here did so much awesome and good shit for the world, yet you're denying him? I can't believe you, he's totally overqualified for Heaven."

And in reality I missed the point. There is no conditions for eternal life, no prereqs, no minimum number of lives saved. The Christian would say, "Did you live your life as Jesus' disciple and follow in his word and teachings?" I couldn't really care less about that, but I think a better question is, "So you did a lot of good things. That's great. What was your motive for doing all this? What was the reason you did anything in life?"

I believe God and Jesus are characterizations of concepts that are impossibly difficult to understand. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and the Bible have a ton of parallels, in my opinion, but the Bible is like a million times easier to read. But as they say, "Nothing is worth having that isn't earned." It's like a Christian telling a pagan, "Hey, being a Christian is easy, here's the Ten Commandments, now follow them." It's as if the Christian put rails, or bumpers like bumper bowling, on the pagan's life, and the pagan aimlessly went down the track without ever believing it. If he truly believed, and if the Christian truly taught what it meant to be Christian, there would be no struggle between the pagan's life and the rails on the track. The rails are unnecessary because the path is clear.

Emerson and Thoreau and Kant could be Christian, because I've seen so many parallels with all of them. The foundation is essential.

Maybe the Bible is outdated, I don't know. But at least it tells me more about love than stupid Christian missionaries do. The answer: We don't know what the motive of the hypothetical do-gooder pagan man was, but if it was love, then never once would he even have to think about whether or not he'd 'get into heaven' or was 'good enough'. Love comes first; good things, in various quantity and quality, are a result.

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." 1 John 4:7-12