And I've avoided Spinoza's definition because of the attachment to an external cause required by it - defining it that way does not fit in with the Christian picture where God = Love. — Agustino

I can't agree with this. In the "Christian picture" love cannot equal God, because love is something that we as human beings can possess, or do. And although loving might brings us closer to God it cannot make us God.

Love in this way cannot have an external cause, because there is nothing external to love to begin with. — Agustino

And this statement is very confusing as well. If you are using "love" in the normal way, as something which human beings possess, or do, then love is internal to us. But you say this right after you equate love with God, therefore you put God within human beings. But we cannot have God being solely within human beings, or else God would just be a fiction made up by the human mind. Therefore God must be something more than just Love.

In the "Christian picture" love cannot equal God, — Metaphysician Undercover

'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8

In the "Christian picture" love cannot equal God, because love is something that we as human beings can possess, or do. — Metaphysician Undercover

'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8 — Wayfarer

This.

There is often a tendency amongst philosophers to confuse the Christian God of Abraham with the Neoplatonist God of the Philosophers.

It is just that joy is commonly understood to be a "higher" kind of pleasure; possibly an ethical or intellectual pleasure, as opposed to the lower sensual pleasures. — John

Well okay, but I think joy is different than the feeling you have from - say - helping an old lady cross the street. That is pleasure (whether "higher" or "lower"), but what I mean by joy is different than that. Joy is experiencing your life as inherently meaningful - worthwhile. Joy is unconcerned with pain or pleasure - it's something that has to do with a deeper attitude of gratitude, and, as Spinoza would say, perceiving yourself however dimly sub specie aeternitatis. Feeling "at home" in the world, instead of "alien". Not sure exactly how best to describe what I'm trying to convey by it. But as an experience, it's different from pleasure and pain.

In any case it seems as though you are rejecting Spinoza's definition of love, which is fine; I would probably tend to agree about that as well. I only cited it because the exchange between you and MU reminded me of it and its pertinence. — John

Ah yes, of course! It's strange but when I first wrote the answer to MU, the first thing that crossed my mind was Spinoza's definition of love too. I developed the distinction I tried to make between pleasure/joy out of that.

But you are right - from the Christian point of view, one would have to reject Spinoza's definition.

I think joy is different than the feeling you have from - say - helping an old lady cross the street. That is pleasure (whether "higher" or "lower"), but what I mean by joy is different than that. Joy is experiencing your life as inherently meaningful - worthwhile. Joy is unconcerned with pain or pleasure -

Perhaps pleasure and pain are somatic intensities and joy is the cognitive assignment of these feelings under the united concept of joy.

My understanding of joy is that it's one of many default states we can find ourselves in. That, when nothing is happening, one is content, or comfortable, in themselves (though not, I would say, with themselves...)

I suppose that for me, I gauge whether or not I'm living a joyous life when I lay in bed at night, wherein that moment it's just me and the dark (and my snoring dog.) At present, I'm usually very conflicted, frustrated, and often times emotionally twinged. Were I to be joyous, I think I'd be able to have a calmed mind, to be able to embrace a kind of silence and stillness that, perhaps as the Christian mystics would say, is me moving more toward God. So, pleasure has nothing to do with joy.

Perhaps pleasure and pain are somatic intensities and joy is the cognitive assignment of these feelings under the united concept of joy. — Cavacava

I can agree with that I think :P

My understanding of joy is that it's one of many default states we can find ourselves in. That, when nothing is happening, one is content, or comfortable, in themselves (though not, I would say, with themselves...)

I suppose that for me, I gauge whether or not I'm living a joyous life when I lay in bed at night, wherein that moment it's just me and the dark (and my snoring dog.) At present, I'm usually very conflicted, frustrated, and often times emotionally twinged. Were I to be joyous, I think I'd be able to have a calmed mind, to be able to embrace a kind of silence and stillness that, perhaps as the Christian mystics would say, is me moving more toward God. So, pleasure has nothing to do with joy. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, agreed :D Peace and serenity - a certain confidence in life - silence and stillness of the mind - are parts of joy for certain.

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view — Bitter Crank

Well, since he was executed at the ''ripe old age'' of 33 I don't think he got to the point where he could impart his core teachings.

That said I think the fourth word from the cross (''eloi, eloi lama sabachthani'') says it all. At the bitter end he was ALONE - God didn't save him from his enemies. I find it ironic and sad that Jesus died alone, abandoned by God who he loved and believed in while so many after him died in relative peace by believing in him.

There is often a tendency amongst philosophers to confuse the Christian God of Abraham with the Neoplatonist God of the Philosophers. — Agustino

However, a lot of Platonism was absorbed into Christian theology, through many of the Greek-speaking Church Fathers, not least Origen and Clement and even Augustine. That's not to say that there aren't great differences between the various ancient schools, but I think there's a lot of neoplatonism in mainstream Christian theology to this day.

I find it ironic and sad that Jesus died alone, abandoned by God who he loved and believed in while so many after him died in relative peace by believing in him. — TheMadFool

In that case, you're entirely missing the point. The 'abandonment' turned out to be temporary, as he was resurrected. The point was that at that moment Jesus absolutely didn't know his fate and felt totally abandoned, so was in the situation of all humanity who feels exiled from God.

Joy is unconcerned with pain or pleasure - it's something that has to do with a deeper attitude of gratitude, and, as Spinoza would say, perceiving yourself however dimly sub specie aeternitatis. Feeling "at home" in the world, instead of "alien". — Agustino

I think it pays to remember that 'emotion' words are polysemous and cover ranges of emotional phenomena. So, I can certainly understand the kind of more restricted meaning you want to apply to 'joy'. In your usage, joy seems to be more akin to peace or love in the Christian sense, already referred to, of "God is Love". I get what you are driving at when you say that pain is irrelevant to joy, but consider this question; does it seem right to think that Christ experienced joy on the cross?

For myself, I would say that possibly the greatest joys I have experienced were when making love. That kind of joy seems to be a mixture of the greatest sensual pleasure with a profound love. Perhaps love is the greatest purely emotional and intellectual pleasure, and I don't think it would seem wrong to say that Christ might have experienced that when He was crucified. In any case I think all these 'emotion' words are nuanced in complex ways. It seems to me that only one-sidedness or confusion will result if we fall into hypostatizing words as kinds of absolute essences.

I think the idea that God is Love is also an interesting one to consider. Does it mean that God experiences love, or that God emanates or bestows love? If God loves, then He is not Spinoza's God, but a Person, since it seems to be universally accepted in all common usages that only persons (in the broadest sense where the higher animals are also thought as being in some senses persons) can love.

For me, it is certainly true that only when we love do we feel "at home" in the world; we go out of ourselves, released from narrow self-concern, and then we can truly be in the world. I also think it is true that there is no self-pain in love, although we may certainly feel the pain of others; which is a very different thing; this is where love becomes compassion.

I believe that you can quote scriptures to support just about anything. But we can know quite clearly, that according to Christian doctrine, God cannot be equated with love. God is known as a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can say God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit, but unless you can demonstrate that one of these, such as Holy Spirit, is equivalent to Love, we cannot say God is Love.

So defining Love with respect to something external is a grave mistake according to the Christian - much like something external cannot be used to define Substance. — Agustino

Contrary to this, I believe it is a mistake to remove the relationship of an external object from "love". To do this, as you proclaim, will necessarily remove the thing being loved, leaving only the possibility of self-love. Love always has related external objects, other beings. There must be something loved, or you have a meaningless "love". You might call the being which is being loved, a subject, but nevertheless that subject is external, so your categorization of such emotions, with respect to external and internal, is misguided. You cannot remove emotions from their relations with the external without producing fictitious representations of those emotions.

Instead, I suggest that we can categorize these emotions according to their temporal relation to the external. Emotions such as desire and love precede human acts, the human actions themselves being the expression of good in the external world. Emotions such as pleasure and joy follow the good act. So it is more appropriate to class love with desire, as an emotion which causes good in the external world, and to class joy with pleasure, as emotions which are caused by good in the external world. There is no point in trying to describe certain emotions as isolated from the external world.

In relation to God, the good act is the creation of the external world. The reason why God created is Love. The act of creation was carried out for no purpose other than that God apprehended it as good. So it is an act of pure love, because it was carried out for no reason, or purpose, except that it was good. Human beings may act in a very similar way. They can carry out actions for no purpose other than that the acts are apprehended as good, and these are acts of love. Carrying out such actions produce pleasure and joy within the human being.

There is often a tendency amongst philosophers to confuse the Christian God of Abraham with the Neoplatonist God of the Philosophers. — Agustino

There is but one God. And I'm sure you recognize that the only truly Neo-Platonist conception of God is the one put forth by the Christian St. Augustine. So this claimed distinction between a Christian God and a Neo-Platonist God is completely unjustified.

At the bitter end he was ALONE - God didn't save him from his enemies. I find it ironic and sad that Jesus died alone, abandoned by God who he loved and believed in while so many after him died in relative peace by believing in him. — TheMadFool

If I remember the storyline correctly, Jesus only exclaimed "Why hast Thou forsaken me?" when he was given water to drink instead of the prescribed vinegar.

I believe that you can quote scriptures to support just about anything. But we can know quite clearly, that according to Christian doctrine, God cannot be equated with love — Metaphysician Undercover

Come off it, MU. That 'God is love' is a central plank of Christianity. If you're going to argue about that, there's no point in discussing it, because you're talking about something else altogether. Unless you want to petition the various denominations to re-write the Bible.

I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken

The quote provided is perfectly unequivocal, and is accepted by all the Christian churches.

'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8

So, if you've read 'a large stack of Christian theology' without getting that, you'd better keep reading :-)

Perhaps you mean "God Loves us"? But this is very distinct from "God is Love". The former places God as external to us, and the latter places God as internal to the person who has love.

I only quoted it. So 'what I mean' is not particularly relevant. There is a page of commentaries on the verse here. I am taken aback that this is regarded as a controversial idea, I really thought it was like Christianity 101.

I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken — Metaphysician Undercover

The Trinity isn't found in the Gospels. Yes, it may say "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is likely a back-reading of current liturgical practice. At any rate, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated 2 or 3 generations after the Resurrection. Right?

"Love" isn't the personification of any one person in the Trinity. Neither is Wisdom. Neither is Mercy. Right?

Love is manifested by God. God loved the world so much, He sacrificed his Son for the salvation of the world. Love is the reason for keeping God's commandments. John 14:15 -- If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Love is the beginning and end of the story. Right?

A large stack of theology is a good thing, but it isn't scripture.

Here's Cantus, a hometown choir, singing Thomas Tallis's wonderful 16th century setting of the the verse. It's only 2 minutes long.

Contrary to this, I believe it is a mistake to remove the relationship of an external object from "love". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because I think you're considering love from the human point of view. But from God's perspective, God loved before there was any external world to love.

There must be something loved, or you have a meaningless "love". — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, but remember the commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself"? That presupposes that you first love yourself. So I don't think love necessarily entails an external, especially from the divine point of view. The essence of the Triune God of Christianity is Love, and was so even before there was any external creation.

They can carry out actions for no purpose other than that the acts are apprehended as good, and these are acts of love. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so how do we go about apprehending what is and what isn't good then? If you don't have a loving heart, you may apprehend domination over your fellow men as a good. Does that mean that it's loving to dominate your fellow men because it is apprehended as good? Clearly apprehension of good and evil isn't a straightforward matter.

So this claimed distinction between a Christian God and a Neo-Platonist God is completely unjustified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Year of grace 1654, Monday 23 November, feast of St. Clement . . . from about half past ten at night to about half an hour after midnight, FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars. Certitude, heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ. God of Jesus Christ. "My God and your God." . . . Joy, Joy, Joy, tears of joy. . . Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. May I never be separated from him. — Blaise Pascal

So I'm not so sure that the Neo-Platonic God set up by St. Augustine is the most faithful representation of God as found in the Scriptures.

I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken — Metaphysician Undercover

The equivalence between Love and God is essential to Christianity. It's almost the very heart of Christian revelation. Kierkegaard for example discusses this at length in Works of Love.

But regardless, I suggest you look at what Christianity teaches - NOT the philosophers.

but I think there's a lot of neoplatonism in mainstream Christian theology to this day. — Wayfarer

Yes but is this a good thing?

does it seem right to think that Christ experienced joy on the cross? — John

I think it does. I don't know about you for example, but I've had moments when I gladly did something painful, and undertook suffering, knowing that it was the right thing to do. So beyond the pain and suffering, there was a sense of joy at what I'm doing. Obviously all this pales in comparison to the suffering that Jesus had to take on, but I think the principle still holds.

The same can be said of Socrates. Can we say Socrates would have been more joyous had he chosen to escape than if he chose to stay and be forced to drink the hemlock? I think he took some joy out of doing the right thing, a joy that would have been replaced by despair had he chosen the opposite.

For myself, I would say that possibly the greatest joys I have experienced were when making love. — John

I find it hard to say what my greatest joys were. Two come to mind. Achieving something that others thought was impossible and seeing other people inspired by it. And a time when I was 16-17 watching my girlfriend playing in the dust while I sat on a bench next to her. Very close to those two came listening to a great classical music concert, praying, attending a service on Mt. Athos, working in the field building houses for handicapped people (I used to dig ditches), other moments with my girlfriend and some similar experiences. Making love itself would rank after all these for me. It's intense (perhaps more intense than the other experiences), but, for me at least, followed by sadness, exactly as described by Spinoza. This is interesting. It feels similar to getting something you don't deserve, and then losing it.

In any case I think all these 'emotion' words are nuanced in complex ways. It seems to me that only one-sidedness or confusion will result if we fall into hypostatizing words as kinds of absolute essences. — John

I agree.

Does it mean that God experiences love, or that God emanates or bestows love? — John

It could be that way, and it definitely is that way in Christianity, however, just from the fact that God is Love it doesn't follow that God is a person in the same way you and me are persons, or that God experiences love.

For me, it is certainly true that only when we love do we feel "at home" in the world; we go out of ourselves, released from narrow self-concern, and then we can truly be in the world. I also think it is true that there is no self-pain in love, although we may certainly feel the pain of others; which is a very different thing; this is where love becomes compassion. — John

Yes I agree.

but I think there's a lot of neoplatonism in mainstream Christian theology to this day.
— Wayfarer
Yes but is this a good thing? — Agustino

Essay question! 'Comment on the attraction of Plotinus to the early Greek-speaking theologians, and the ways that they agreed with, and differentiated, themselves from him, in the formation of orthodox theology in the early period of the Church'.

You have 10,000 words. Get cracking! (Only kidding.)

Do you know about the writings of 'pseudo-Dionysius', and how important they were in the formation of Christian theology in the early to medieval period?

I think we have mentioned that book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Lossky, previously. I haven't read it although have read passages from it, and am familiar with the general drift. But, as you have affinities with Orthodoxy, I'm sure you would find some discussion in there of the part played by various Platonist and neo-Platonist ideas in the work of the Church Fathers, especially of course the Greek-speaking fathers.

I think one of the cardinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, is that the former is more Platonist, the latter more Aristotelean. Actually I did run this past an Orthodox Father one day, and he emphatically agreed.

I think the 'nominalists', contrarily, are far less compatible with Platonist thinking, and, therefore, much more inclined towards fundamentalism. That is why, I think, we have this strongly dichotomising tendency between 'religion and science', 'mind and matter', and all the other debilitating dualities of current Western thinking. If Platonism had retained greater influence, it might have all worked out radically differently to that. But all of this is highly speculative, of course.

A note from Eckhardt.

HE who has found this way of love, seeks no other. He who turns on this pivot is on that account a prisoner, in that his foot and hand and mouth and eyes and heart, and all his human faculties, belong to God. And, therefore, you can overcome the flesh in no better way, so that it may not shame you, than by love. This is why it is written, Love is as strong as death, as hard as hell. Death separates the soul from the body, but love separates all things from the soul. She suffers nought to come near her, that is not God nor God-like. Happy is he who is thus imprisoned; the more you are a prisoner, the more will you be freed. That we may be so imprisoned, and so freed, may He help us, Who Himself is Love. — Meister Eckhardt

The Trinity isn't found in the Gospels. — Bitter Crank

There is sometimes a big difference between what is taught by the Church, and what is found in the Gospels. The Gospels need to be interpreted. For instance, you will not find within the Gospels, Jesus claiming to be Son of God, he claims to be Son of Man. yet in many Churches it is taught that he is Son of God.

Love is manifested by God. God loved the world so much, He sacrificed his Son for the salvation of the world. Love is the reason for keeping God's commandments. John 14:15 -- If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Love is the beginning and end of the story. Right? — Bitter Crank

I agree about the importance of love, I just do not agree with equating love with God, for the reason stated. It puts God internal to the human beings who have love. That Love is not equated with any person of the Trinity is evidence that God is not equated with Love.

The equivalence between Love and God is essential to Christianity. It's almost the very heart of Christian revelation. Kierkegaard for example discusses this at length in Works of Love. — Agustino

You and wayfarer seem to believe this, but I haven't seen any support for this other than an out of context quote from wayfarer. I strongly believe that love is extremely important to Christianity, and that it is central to the teachings of Jesus. But I do not believe that the equivalence of God and Love is essential to Christianity. You are denying that I can call myself Christian, because I think that God is the Trinity rather than God is Love, and that's completely ridiculous.

But regardless, I suggest you look at what Christianity teaches - NOT the philosophers. — Agustino

I don't see how you can make such a distinction. The teachings of Christianity are derived from philosophy. Even if Christians draw their teachings directly from the Gospels, the passages need to be interpreted, and they are interpreted by means of philosophy. So in the case of religion, you cannot distinguish between what Christianity teaches, and what the philosophers teach, because it is all the teachings of philosophers. It is however the case, that some philosophers teach a different thing than others.

@Bitter Crank@Thorongil @Agustino@Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that the core of religious experiences may have changed over time to suit the needs of people and communities. Where peacefulness in community and "unity" with natural settings might have been obtained through the tribal experience, with religion being either a) another source of the unity feeling, or b) a way to calm survival anxieties about birth, death, and sustaining (through various spirits and rituals), it became elevated to survival of crops, tribes, and city-states in post-agricultural societies... Then around what used to be called the "Axial Age" of about 600BCE, religion became a much more personal thing, whereby one can try to achieve calm with oneself and one's society either through a strict set of social rules, a strict set of self-disciplined ascetic practices, or both..

So to summarize- what was communal anxiety over survival becomes calm tranquility with oneself and one's community. Whether this be mediated through a godhead or through more impersonal means, this is the root of religion since the 600's BCE. Perhaps the calmness with self and society is a roundabout way of going back to the original understanding of peacefulness and unity with community and natural settings that was the original role of religious experience..

Mind you, this is all speculative but it's not a bad theory, right? Oh, and please don't just quote this last part..

I think the 'nominalists', contrarily, are far less compatible with Platonist thinking, and, therefore, much more inclined towards fundamentalism — Wayfarer

I don't understand this claim. William of Ockham and others like him were not fundamentalists. In fact, William anticipated many features of liberalism.

Mind you, this is all speculative but it's not a bad theory, right? — schopenhauer1

What you say actually sounds similar to Durkheim's concept of collective effervescence, which is interesting as far as it goes.

That Love is not equated with any person of the Trinity is evidence that God is not equated with Love. — Metaphysician Undercover

Love is usually equated with the interaction between the members of the Trinity, rather than to the individual persons, so I think you're correct.

I think one of the cardinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, is that the former is more Platonist, the latter more Aristotelean — Wayfarer

Maybe. This book apparently shows that many Orthodox theologians had a great appreciation for Thomas.

Consider also that the Platonist Augustine is referenced in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church far more than Aquinas. And recall that the relatively recent, as far as Church history goes, dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated against the wishes of the Dominicans, who knew that Aquinas opposed the doctrine. The Franciscans, who tend to be more Platonistic, won.

William of Ockham and others like him were not fundamentalists. In fact, William anticipated many features of liberalism. — Thorongil

Fundamentalism in the sense that it was accompanied by the dissolution of the understanding of the 'great chain of being' and the 'intelligible nature' of the Cosmos which was found in earlier theological philosophies, to be replaced by a God who was essentially unknowable and sovereign even over reason. It's a deep and complicated argument however.

Have a look at What's Wrong with Ockham. A similar argument is elaborated in more detail in The Theological Origins of Modernity by Michael Gillespie. Also another book mentioned in the first article, Ideas have Consequences (apparently very popular amongst US conservatives.)

Essay question! 'Comment on the attraction of Plotinus to the early Greek-speaking theologians, and the ways that they agreed with, and differentiated, themselves from him, in the formation of orthodox theology in the early period of the Church'.

You have 10,000 words. Get cracking! (Only kidding.)

Do you know about the writings of 'pseudo-Dionysius', and how important they were in the formation of Christian theology in the early to medieval period?

I think we have mentioned that book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Lossky, previously. I haven't read it although have read passages from it, and am familiar with the general drift. But, as you have affinities with Orthodoxy, I'm sure you would find some discussion in there of the part played by various Platonist and neo-Platonist ideas in the work of the Church Fathers, especially of course the Greek-speaking fathers.

I think one of the cardinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, is that the former is more Platonist, the latter more Aristotelean. Actually I did run this past an Orthodox Father one day, and he emphatically agreed.

I think the 'nominalists', contrarily, are far less compatible with Platonist thinking, and, therefore, much more inclined towards fundamentalism. That is why, I think, we have this strongly dichotomising tendency between 'religion and science', 'mind and matter', and all the other debilitating dualities of current Western thinking. If Platonism had retained greater influence, it might have all worked out radically differently to that. But all of this is highly speculative, of course.

A note from Eckhardt. — Wayfarer

Yes I've read quite a bit on it as well, but I'm primarily interested in what you personally think here.

I'm well aware that Greek Orthodoxy is heavily Platonist, but I don't necessarily view that as a good thing, and neither does a priest I've spoken to about it. In certain regards it moves far far away from the simplicity of the Gospels.

So I'll ask again. What's your personal opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing and why do you think so? What does Platonism add to the Gospels if anything?

But I do not believe that the equivalence of God and Love is essential to Christianity. You are denying that I can call myself Christian, because I think that God is the Trinity rather than God is Love, and that's completely ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the Scriptures state unequivocally that God is Love and you do not believe it? What kind of other evidence would you want that Christianity holds that God is Love?

Even if Christians draw their teachings directly from the Gospels, the passages need to be interpreted, and they are interpreted by means of philosophy. So in the case of religion, you cannot distinguish between what Christianity teaches, and what the philosophers teach, because it is all the teachings of philosophers. It is however the case, that some philosophers teach a different thing than others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay but the passages certainly don't require references to Platonic Forms and the like to be explained, right? The Bible can be taken and understood on its own terms.