Comments on: Four Degrees Of Love http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=four-degrees-of-love Business Development & Communications Tue, 15 May 2012 08:11:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Philosophertim http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-3601 Philosophertim Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:35:00 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-3601 In Bernard's "On the Necessity of Loving God," the emphasis of the 4th degree of love is that it is love of self ONLY for God's sake. While this does imply that love of God includes love of self, it is clearly intended as a limiting of the love of self. Bernard actually says that this level of love is beyond his capacity, and fully enjoyed only in the resurrection.nnSo I think he would agree that genuine self-care is important, but stress that until glory we will always need to deal with self (false self, if you will) opposing its interests to God's. I think the latter would be his greater concern. In Bernard’s “On the Necessity of Loving God,” the emphasis of the 4th degree of love is that it is love of self ONLY for God’s sake. While this does imply that love of God includes love of self, it is clearly intended as a limiting of the love of self. Bernard actually says that this level of love is beyond his capacity, and fully enjoyed only in the resurrection.nnSo I think he would agree that genuine self-care is important, but stress that until glory we will always need to deal with self (false self, if you will) opposing its interests to God’s. I think the latter would be his greater concern.

]]> By: Jonathan Brink http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-1955 Jonathan Brink Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:06:00 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-1955 Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It's a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.nnThe idea of loving the self for God's sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God. nnAnother way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God's sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle. Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It’s a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.nnThe idea of loving the self for God’s sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God. nnAnother way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God’s sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle.

]]> By: Jonathan Brink http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-310 Jonathan Brink Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:06:47 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-310 Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It's a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.<br><br>The idea of loving the self for God's sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God. <br><br>Another way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God's sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle. Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It's a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.

The idea of loving the self for God's sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God.

Another way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God's sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle.

]]> By: Jonathan Brink http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-1216 Jonathan Brink Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:06:47 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-1216 Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It's a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.<br><br>The idea of loving the self for God's sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God. <br><br>Another way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God's sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle. Jazz, thanks for replying back and clarifying. I now see where we are crossing paths. The four degrees of love are not in opposition or exclusion to each other. There is no either/or. It's a both/and perspective. They are inclusive of each other, building on the previous.

The idea of loving the self for God's sake is the highest order because it is completely inclusive of loving God. Loving the self is only possible when we are first loved by God.

Another way to put it is like a puzzle. Each piece adds to the entire picture. Loving the self for God's sake is the last piece to the puzzle, because loving the self is the hardest part of the puzzle.

]]> By: Anonymous http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-1956 Anonymous Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:20:00 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-1956 --Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.rnrnAnd I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that "love of self" is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write "At the highest order is loving the self for Godu2019s sake", which means it's higher than loving God in any way.rnrnWhich is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus' words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong.rnrn –Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.rnrnAnd I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that “love of self” is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write “At the highest order is loving the self for Godu2019s sake”, which means it’s higher than loving God in any way.rnrnWhich is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus’ words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong.rnrn

]]> By: jazzact13 http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-309 jazzact13 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:20:13 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-309 --Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.<br><br>And I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that "love of self" is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write "At the highest order is loving the self for God’s sake", which means it's higher than loving God in any way.<br><br>Which is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus' words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong. –Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.

And I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that “love of self” is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write “At the highest order is loving the self for God’s sake”, which means it's higher than loving God in any way.

Which is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus' words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong.

]]> By: jazzact13 http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-1215 jazzact13 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:20:13 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-1215 --Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.<br><br>And I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that "love of self" is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write "At the highest order is loving the self for God’s sake", which means it's higher than loving God in any way.<br><br>Which is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus' words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong. –Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.

And I know what it means. Any mean any, and I understand you and Clairvaux and Wilt as saying that “love of self” is highest, even higher then love of God. I see that being said in the degrees listed in your post. Even you yourself write “At the highest order is loving the self for God’s sake”, which means it's higher than loving God in any way.

Which is absolute nonsense, and you cannot (repeat: cannot) use Jesus' words about loving neighbor as self to justify such an obvious falsehood. Jesus said that the first command was to love God with all we are and have. To go from that saying that any love of self is higher than love of God is wrong.

]]> By: Julie http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-311 Julie Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:49:00 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-311 I love this video. The church needs to hear this! I need to hear this. I love this video. The church needs to hear this! I need to hear this.

]]> By: Julie http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-1212 Julie Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:49:00 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-1212 I love this video. The church needs to hear this! I need to hear this. I love this video. The church needs to hear this! I need to hear this.

]]> By: Jonathan Brink http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/23/four-degrees-of-love/#comment-308 Jonathan Brink Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:14 +0000 http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=30#comment-308 Jazz, any form is your words, not mine. <br><br>The context of the post is understand the second commandment and how it plays out. We can only love if we are first loved. That's why the first commandment is to love God, because it is here that we find love. But they highest expression of that love is found in loving the self for God's sake, meaning it is the highest expression of participating with God. It's participating in mission with God.<br><br>The second commandment does not use God as the standard. It uses the self. And the reason is because the self is the indicator. If we did not love the self, which revealed we had accepted God's love (the first commandment), it was all bunk. Jazz, any form is your words, not mine.

The context of the post is understand the second commandment and how it plays out. We can only love if we are first loved. That's why the first commandment is to love God, because it is here that we find love. But they highest expression of that love is found in loving the self for God's sake, meaning it is the highest expression of participating with God. It's participating in mission with God.

The second commandment does not use God as the standard. It uses the self. And the reason is because the self is the indicator. If we did not love the self, which revealed we had accepted God's love (the first commandment), it was all bunk.

]]>