Love is Greater than God

I can understand how Love can exist without God.
My wife and I decided to cultivate a relationship together, and we love each other very much. There is no God within our relationship.
A half-arguement (one with no evidential basis) coud be put forth that God created us and therefore is present in our lives. But God did not create our relationship. My wife and I created our relationship, and it is the relationship where Love exists and God does not. Is there an area where God can exist without Love?
If God ever exists without Love... is He even still God? Is it worth calling an all-powerful being that has no Love "God", as far as any Abrahamic-related religion is concerned? (I am trying to have the word "God" refer to the being generally identified in a Western religious environment, not any general supernatural-being).If Love can exist without God, yet God cannot exist without Love. Doesn't that make Love greater than God?If we can have Love... understand Love and base our lives around Love... without God. Why do we need God?Isn't it better to focus our lives and efforts on Love rather than on God? That is, wouldn't any attention upon God be taking away attention from Love? If we are focusing on Love, isn't that what God's message is about anyway? Therefore, isn't God an additional factor that can be ignored in order to promote Love as a good guide for life?I would guess that Faith and Belief would be the best place for this topic.

I see, so calling it "Lust" instead of "Love" allows them to delude themselves into thinking the relationship between me and my spouse is "lesser" than the relationship between them and their spouse. Supposedly because they would include God, and I would not.So, what is it then that the inclusion of God adds to a relationship and increases it's value?Is it the same thing that God adds to a Christian Life that increases it's value over an atheistic life?
The same thing that cannot ever be described or substantiated in anyway?
The same thing that cannot be differentiated from "no difference at all"? It appears that this discussion may hinge on the existance (or lack?) of a difference between God-ful Love and God-less Love.
My claim would be that there is no difference, and therefore God-less Love is exactly the same as God-ful Love... it's all just "Love".Does anyone think they can actually define or substantiate an actual difference between the two?It's easy to say that one relationship includes God and the other doesn't. But how would anyone know that actually to be true? Is it possible to differentiate a God-ful Love from a God-less Love where the people involved just believe it is God-ful?For some possibly relevant background, those interested may want to peruse the following thread where different meanings of Spirituality... even atheistic spirituality... is discussed:
Message 1

Are you asking me or telling me?
How would the love I have for my wife be better if God were fully included? What would be different? Haven't seen any selfish-minded struggles yet. What if this trend continues? What if I never have any selfish-minded struggles in my relationship with my wife? Does that mean God actually approves of my relationship that does not conciously include Him in any way? Does it mean that God is actually helping me, even though I'm conciously ignorant of Him?If God allows my relationship to continue without any negatives at all and also allows me to receive all the positives while I keep Him out of the relationship... does this mean believing in God is non-consequential?

How would someone assisting me in dealing with my sin improve my relationship with my wife?
I take it you have someone (God) assisting you with your sin? And this has improved your relationship with your wife?
How did your relationship improve?
What is included in your relationship that is not included in mine? Not for any significant amount of time, no. If what I do experience is called a "struggle", than the struggle is over within micro-seconds. Does this mean God is already helping me deal with my issues even though I'm not conciously acknowledging His presence in the relationship?
If these "struggles" are not a problem in any sense, does that mean my relationship is already "better" without God? I certainly like to think it is
Don't we all?
Or are you striving for an every-day, average marriage? Are you able to voice any of these qualitative differences? Or must they remain obscure and secretive? Okay.
So I don't have the purpose from God.
How would getting the purpose from God make my relationship different/better?
Can you tell me what this purpose is?

Yes.
That certainly makes sense to me. Agreed.
Which is why I attempted to make the distinction that love can exist without God... therefore, God is not love, and therefore (as we stated before) Love is greater than God. Absolutely.
It is interesting, however, to learn about how others qualify love and relationships. Perhaps we will change our minds upon finding a real tidbit of reliable information. Or maybe not. But, at the least, it gives us perspective to judge our current standards.

Let me take a stab at this...You know that God is awesome. So you're saying that no matter where my relationship is at, it would be better if God was involved.
Upon requests of specifics, you're unable to give any because you're not exactly sure how it may get better, but you are sure that it would get better. Presumably because this is context/situationally dependant, and possibly because only God may know. I am not familiar with border collies. But I will take your word for it that this is true. I understand the concept you're attempting to convey, in any case.So, to summarize:-you don't personally know the difference between a God-less marriage and a God-ful marriage within the context of your own relationship
-you have no idea how my marriage may improve if I turned it from a God-less marriage into a God-ful marriage
-and yet you continually, adamantly claim to "know" that a God-ful marriage is better than a God-less marriage, in all cases
-you claim that there is a certain fire I am missing. However, I may not even be able to recognize that I'm missing the fire
-I cannot identify if I have the fire or not by looking at other relationships because it's a very personal subject, so the only thing that even indicates that I am missing a fire is because my relationship is God-less
-even if I attempted to make my relationship God-ful, I would have to really work at it in order to see this fire. That is, it may (or may not) happen in a day, a week, a month...
-in fact, it may be a life-long trial of living with God in order to see this fire I'm missingThis vague-ness isn't exactly instilling confidence.You keep asking about how long we've been married. I don't really see the relevance, but we've been together for 8 years, and married for 5 years now (living together for 6).I see the fire-less drag that so many people go through as they make their way through their current relationships (regardless of how long they have been going on for). Most tend to be in relationships just because they feel they should be... maybe because of social conditioning, family pressures, religious standards, or maybe even because of the situation they find themselves in.
I don't see anyone with the fire for their wife as I have for mine.I suppose it's possible that my relationship could be better in a way that I am not yet aware of. But isn't this the same for everyone?That is, isn't it also possible that your God-ful relationship could be better if you turned it into a God-less relationship? Better in some way you're just unable to fathom right now because your mind is so focused on God and unable to see what's right in front of you?I can certainly claim all the things that you are advising towards me:-I can claim that my relaitionship with my wife has never been God-ful, so I don't personally know what the difference may be.
-I can claim that I'm unable to specify exactly how your relationship would improve... just that it would... if you removed God
-I can claim that, like border collies in suburbia, you are not living in such a manner as to fully flourish in your relationship. You may be happy and content, but there is a much more complete fire that you're missing.
-I can claim that you cannot rely on judging your relationship against others you see, because it's not about being better than others, it's about increasing your own relationship's value from wherever it is
-I can claim that wherever you think you are with your relationship, it actually would be *better* if it were a God-less relationship
-I can claim that simply trying this for a day or week or month likely isn't going to give you the desired result, but it may... because it has worked quickly for some
-I can claim that this may end up being a life-long trial to attempt to remove God from your relationship before you see the fire you are unable to currently obtain.So, which of us is right?
How can your claims for a God-ful relationship being "the best" be differentiated by my claims for a God-less relationship being "the best"?I am not attempting to pit my claims against yours.
I am making the same claims as you do in order to show you how vague and useless and car-salesman-like your claims actually are.If the claims and pleas and advice cannot ever be tested... they appear exactly the same as any and all other claims and pleas and advice from those who have no idea of what they're actually speaking about.Maybe they don't know because they are simply naive, like the followers of cults. Or perhaps they know that they don't know... and yet persist, like scam artists.Regardless of why they don't know. It is apparent that they really don't what they're talking about and they have absolutely no basis to be claiming what they're actually claiming.Doesn't it bother you even slightly that your claims fall into this category precisely and exactly?

No, that's not the only counter. That is a real-life counter, but irrelevant. We can talk about an average "general" marriage instead of my personal marriage, if you prefer.
The counter I provided is exactly the same (just opposite) of the one you provided.You say that a God-ful relationship will help reduce sin (ie. selfishness) and therefore improve the marriage.
I say that a God-less relationship will help reduce selfishness (or anything else you'd like to label as "sin") and therefore improve the marriage.Which one of us is right? How can we tell the difference? Again, I ask the same question of you.
Do you not accept the possibility that there are things in life that you don't realise you are missing out on? Are you the only one who doesn't miss out on anything?And, again, which of us is correct? How can we tell the difference? I still don't see the relevancy of this information.
Are you saying I don't need God in my relationship until my wife's poo starts to smell? This is exactly what I'm asking you.
Our claims to each other are exactly the same.
You seem to be able to recognize that my claims to you are illogical when I don't specify what you need to do, or how things will actually improve.
However, when you don't specify what I need to do, or how things will actually improve for me... you expect me to take your word for it because you say so?How can we tell the difference between your claims with no explanation and my claims with no explanation? Your two principles:1. Sin tends towards selfishness and love towards selflessness.
2. God-in-your-life = an agency who works at reducing your sin > 0My two principles:1. Bad actions exist that tend towards selfishness; Actions of Love tend towards selflessness.
2. God-not-in-your-life will allow you time to reflect on your actions and how they affect others. This will provide you with an ability to identify Bad actions and therefore work at reducing them.So, what's the difference?
I can name a few differences:
You use a term ("sin") that is not defined, where I do not. Granted, "Bad actions" isn't explicity defined, but it's certainly more easily identified in society than "sin" is.
You also give a base claim (God will work at reducing your sin) without any basis for that claim. Where I do provide a basis for how one can go about reducing "Bad actions". I'm not asking you to show God's existance.
I'm asking you to show the reliability of the principles you espouse.
I'm not the one hinging the reliability of my principles on the existance of a God I can't show to exist.
That's another difference.

I have no problems entertaining the existence of God (as I implied in the OP).
My issue is attributing to God all the things you want me to accept He does just on your say so (or Christian theology's say so, if you prefer).You say many things are associated with God: But how can we know that you're not mistaken?
How can we know that Christian theology is not mistaken?
How can we know that these claims about God are a true part of reality beyond your say-so? Beyond Christianity's say-so? I'm looking for the basic kind of reliability... the kind that would show that what you say is actually the truth for how things work in reality. What other kind of reliability is there?You can be mistaken.
Christian theology can be mistaken.
The Bible can be mistaken.So how do we know if any of these things you say are true are actually reliable? Even if true (which is shaky at best), how do you know the designer's intended function?
You say the Designer wants us to have God-ful relationships.
I say the Designer wants us to have God-less relationship.Who is right? How do we tell the difference?Again, all your claims and words are exactly the same as those made by people with no idea of what they're talking about.
Absolutely no connection to to how things actually work in reality.
Therefore, there is no way to differentiate any of the things you claim from pure imagination.
There is no way to differentiate any of the things you claim from any of the things I claim.When it comes down to it:
You claim a God-ful marriage is better.
I claim a God-less marriage is better.Who is right? How do we tell the difference?
What can we look at that can be shown to be real that will help us determine the answers to these questions?You claim I must accept that God exists, and then I must accept all the things you say about God, and then your answer is clear.
I agree.
However, I see absolutely no reason beyond Christianity's say-so, and your say-so, that these things are actually real.I can claim that you must accept that God exists, and then you must accept all the things I say about God, and then my answer is clear.
Which is equally logically valid.
However, I have not provided any reason beyond my say-so that my claims are actually real.So which one of us is right?
You claim God has to have attributes and affect us in reality, but you cannot show any of these effects or how they are actually attributed to God.
I claim that God doesn't require any attributes, and doesn't need to affect us in reality at all... so it doesn't matter if I can show my claims to be true or not. My claims rely on people being people.Who is right? How do we tell the difference?If you are attempting to argue that you're right... as long as we agree with everything you say about God... then I absolutely agree with you. I just also point out that this is exactly what people say when they have no idea what they're talking about.

I suppose, technically, I am talking about Agape love.In my mind I was thinking of the two togther... Agape coupled with romantic. However, as far as this thread is concerned, simply Agape love without the romantic part should work as well... I think.

Yes. "If's" that I showed to have a link with reality.I have Love (my relationship with my wife) that exists without God, He does not exist within the relationship. The relationship is a sole creation of mine and hers.I know you want to say that God as creator is in everything. But this doesn't help. Going in that direction, God would also be in the most evil and heinous actions of human beings. The kind of Love I have with my wife is never associated with any of those kinds of actions. Therefore, again, the Love I have with my wife would be greater than the Love that is "always with God".Since I have Love in my relationship with my wife without God, I obviously can have Love... understand Love and base my life around Love... without God. So, why do we need God? I understand your response.
Your "if's" are not connected to reality in any way shape or form.
You cannot show in any reliable way that God is indeed "as the broad Christian consensus says he is", nor can you mention any way which my marriage might be improved, nor can you identify any aspect of love that I don't understand or base my life around.Seems like my "if's" and your "if's" are very different. So, why do you espouse such ideals if you do not expect anyone to take you seriously? Are you just hoping some people might not care that you have no connection with reality and they may just take you at your word anyway?
Again, this sounds a lot like the methods of people who have no idea what they're talking about. The only category of reliability left is the only one that actually matters... being able to show how any of what you claim is a part of reality.I agree that if reality is not a concern, then your claims are extremely convincing. The subjective terms involved are shaky. What's "best"?
A hammer is designed to drive nails.
A hammer can save my life if I use it to help me up a hill of ice.
Wouldn't you say that saving my life is the "best" use of the hammer?Perhaps, perhaps not. But there certainly is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt would imply "shaky at best". You're arguement boils down to:
"If you believe everything I say, while I give no connection between it and reality, then I am right!"And, yes, my OP is framed in such a way as to have no place for such an arguement. I don't consider this a negative. All I'm asking is whether or not the things you say have any connection to reality.If your answer is "I'm not sure". That's fine. However, you can't expect anyone to take your argument seriously if you aren't even willing to offer a suggestion for how it could be connected to reality.

I've been thinking about why you might think my question is so unfair. I have been unable to think of an answer. So, I started to think that it may help to rephrase my question in another form. Perhaps this will claify what it is I'm attempting to get at?I think this form will get around the "you're assuming this, if you accept this, then that must follow" arguements. Hopefully.I can rephrase it another way if you'd prefer. I will try, in any case.

---

New OP:How do we tell the difference between these marriages: Marriage 1 - God exists and exists as the Christian doctrine dictates. The marriage is God-ful and those involved believe it to be as such. Those involved in the marriage are happy and content. Marriage 2 - God exists and exists as the Christian doctrine dictates. The marriage is therefore God-fully created (in some form). However, those involved actually believe the marriage is God-less (even though this is impossible). Those involved in the marriage are happy and content. Marriage 3 - God does not exist. The marriage is therefore God-lessly created (in some form). However, those involved actually believe the marriage is God-ful (even though this is impossible). Those involved in the marriage are happy and content. Marriage 4 - God does not exist. The marriage is God-less and those involved believe it to be as such. Those involved in the marriage are happy and content.How do we tell the difference?
Is there an observable difference?Some facts about our reality:Some people believe their marriage is God-ful, and they flourish.
Some people believe their marriage is God-ful, and they fail.
Some people believe their marriage is God-less, and they flourish.
Some people believe their marriage is God-less, and they fail.I understand that if we know we live in a God-existing-as-the-Christian-doctrine-dictates world, then Marriage 1 will have the possibility of being better than Marriage 2.However, my question is a practical one that is meant to be useful within our reality where it is unknown whether or not God actually exists as the Christian doctrine dictates.My question is... what if those involved in a God-less believeing marriage (2 or 4, but unknown), are extremely content and happy and feel like they are living to their full potential... but then hear about Christianity...How can they justify risking all that is good in their life for an increase in a marrital relationship that is so slight that it is unidentifiable and unpredictable?
Can this be justified in the face of the facts that a very significant number of professing God-ful believers have failing or failed marriages?
I don't think that such a Love should be risked.
Such a Love is the one I'm attempting to describe in this thread.I am claiming that this Love should not be risked because the possible negatives (losing happiness and contentment and the-best-feelings-you've-ever-had-in-your-life) greatly outweigh the possible positives (an unidentifiable and unobservable increase in the relationship).Because I'm claiming that this Love should not be risked for God's sake, I chose the title "Love is Greater than God".

I completely agree. Seems reasonable, anyway.
Perhaps the best solution is to allow folks to go the way they best see fit. Those that believe God is giving them the chace for the best relationship should continue to follow those standards. And those believing they have a better relationship without God involved, should also continue.The facts available to us (that relationships flourish and fail regardless of belief in God) would seem to support this, anyway. My decisions are always final. Until I learn something new, anyway
"Final" generally lasts about a day or two...

It is interesting to point out that even if we grant the assumption that we're living in a Christian-God-governed world, the dilemma still exsts just as strong.Even if we could prove that God exists as Christian-doctrine dictates, it is still a fact of this world that many professing-Christian relationships fail. It is also still a fact that many professing-Godless relationships flourish.These facts keep the dilemma in place, even when assuming that God exists:

quote:

---

How can anyone justify risking all that is good in their life for an increase in a marrital relationship that is so slight that it is unidentifiable and unpredictable?
Can this be justified in the face of the facts that a very significant number of professing God-ful believers have failing or failed marriages?
I don't think that such a Love should be risked.

---

The only way to break this dilemma would be to show:
-that the increase in the relationship is not slight, it is observable, identifiable, and predictable.
OR -that those professing to be in God-ful relationships actually do flourish significantly better than those in God-less relationships (in some observable, identifiable, predictable way).

What makes you think I'm talking in black and white terms?It seems like you're the one thinking in black and white. Take this: Why do you think if one isnot focusing on God, then one is therefore focusing on themselves?
Why can't we not focus on God, but focus on Love instead?That's my point... you can replace "the God concept" with "the Love concept" and end up at exactly the same place. To me, this sort of makes God kind of redundant.That's not to say He doesn't exist.
It's just to say that since He's so redundant and unneccessary, I don't see why so many folks think He's so important. I don't begrudge them for that... they can think whatever they'ed like. I just don't understand them, that's all.

Well, that's an old post to ask questions about.
Not sure if my current response will keep all the same context as I can't really remember my state-of-mind from that long ago. But I'll give it a shot: The same reason I keep any stranger out. I have no idea what their intentions are.If God is as fantastic as people sometimes say He is... then I would have no issues at all letting Him into the relationship between me and my wife. I would even invite Him in, it seems like He would be a great benefit.But if God is as horrible and terrible as other people sometimes say He is... then I don't want Him anywhere near me and my wife.So, who is God? What is He like? Does He even exist?If those questions ever get some answers... then my position may very well change.
Until then... as long as God does not exist (or, at least, keeps Himself as a stranger to me...) then it would be irresponsible of me to open up important aspects of my life to Him.
I am certainly always open to hearing or learning about God. But it's just plain stupid to dive into a pool without checking the depth first... I've heard that, yes.
Sounds fishy to me. Like someone's trying to hide the fact that God just doesn't exist in the first place...
Just because someone says something, or someone else writes it down... doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I'm sure many people say such things.
In life... you can't really do anything without someone voicing their disapproval.
I'm not really worried about people who say things that are indistinguishable from being completely made up.
I'm more worried about what people can show to be real.