Love is Greater than God

If you are designed by God then his first involvement is unavoidable. You have been made with the capabilities of yearning for and wanting to give .. love. This doesn't mean you would necessarily create a relationship nor does it mean that the only relationship you could create is with your wife. But it wouldn't happen without God.Then there would be his potential involvement in influencing circumstances that brought you two together. This wouldn't mean you would necessarily decide to create a relationship or that that relationship would last without your inputting effort. But is would nevertheless be a power-assist. You doing the steering but unable to manage it on your own.- Can an up exist without a down, a heads without tails? I can't imagine things existing without their antithesis. If you love children for example, then you must, of necessity, hate the actions of a paedophile. It would appear then that there is a place for God's wrath - a hatred of that which is unholy.But that wrath can said to be a product of love. The tough side of love perhaps. But since it's arguably good that the actions of a paedophile are hated, both the 'fluffy n' warm' and the 'horrendous to behold' sides of love can be called good.- The Abrahamic God appears abounding in love (in both fluffy/horrendous senses)- Because you're going to die one day and the love you have will be ruptured for all eternity? Because the love you have for your wife, which operates part-according to his plans for love and part-contra his plans for love would be better if God were fully included?It would make sense (in all areas of life) to have the author of the manual for life consulted.- The argument would be that most-perfect-love (which is utterly sacrificial) can only be achieved by his transforming you in ways that you are unable to do by yourself. The tendency for sin within is to encourage you to be selfish minded - you'll no doubt see this at times in your own relationship with your wife (which is not to say you don't have a very loving relationship). You can struggle with this on your own if you like but you won't overcome it in the way made possible by himWhilst the struggle itself is laudible, you won't struggle all the time and it's those times of failing that detract from the degree of love you have for your partner.Which is more selfish: going it alone in your struggle to love or taking the assistance offered - even though that means a capitulation on your part?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Neither. I'm pointing out a logical conclusion attaching to Gods existance. I know you don't believe he does, but his doing so would have all sorts of consequences, including in this arena. Probably primarily, you'd have someone assisting you in dealing with your sin. Your sin can't but have an effect on your relationship.- You haven't even been irritated, angry or frustrated with your wife? You've never had a lustful thought for another woman run through your head? You've never put your own interests first?How long are you married? can we first examine whether yours is a marriage in a million first? I don't see why God's general providence can't mean you live a fulfilled married life (I don't get this unbelievers-only-lust gig at all atall). Or a contented life in general. This isn't to say that there is no qualititive difference between a life lived with God and without.Life with God brings with it a purpose that can't be generated by man on his own (which you would logically conclude to be the case in the case of God's existance). The marriage arena is but a subset of that overarching principle - which is again not to say a godless marriage can't be satisfying. Or that a godly one won't have it's trouble.

Sin is self-centred. Love is other centred. As sin > 0, love > flourishing.- I haven't got a me-without-God marriage running alongside this one to compare with. I'd merely point to the above as the operating principle.- I don't know yours to be able to answer this. For all I know you could have a better, more fulfilling relationship with your wife than I do with mine. The question isn't whether your's has more than mine, the question is whether yours or mine would be better with than without God in it.Again, in dealing with the general thrust of your OP, it would appear to make sense that directions & assistance from the designer of both you and marriage would add to your marriage.- By way of general providence, in all likelyhood. And by way of being made in the image of him as I say.- Experienced couples I've talked to have, to a man, talked of the fact that marriage brings trials and tribulation as well as great joy. Which reminds me: you never said how long you've been married for - but if it's been a decent stretch and you've never had a struggle of note: no sickness, no loss, no sex/financial/in-law trouble, no core differences of opinion .. then I'd be at a bit of a loss on how to comment on your situation.Your's would indeed sound like a marriage in a million. It could be improved on by God only by the removal of those mirco-second moments of sins-effect.- It would make it better because you would be functioning as you have been created to function. Because it's not possible to describe the godly life to someone who hasn't god - other than in general terms, the best that can be done is to point to like-example.If you're familiar with border collies (sheepdogs) you'll know that they are at their very happiest when they are kept as working dogs - their greatest joy coming from being out with their master doing the work set them. If well looked after as house pets in surburbia you can avoid their becoming neurotic and distressed. But they don't flourish in the same way as they do when acting according to the purpose for which they've been bred. Their eyes don't have that same fire burning in them.The same applies to you (logic would instruct). If operating according to your masters purpose then you'd be happier, more content, more at peace. The fact that you might have the contentment of a well-looked after collie in surburia now doesn't alter that. There is possible a fire which burns hotter than that. Woof!Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I've given you a general principle involving two elements:- sin tends towards selfishness and love towards selflessness.- God-in-your-life = an agency who works at reducing your sin > 0Without having to know a single thing about your marriage I can say that your marriage would be better with God in it. He would be dealing with yours and hers sin. I take it you would agree that a marriage with less selfishness would be an improved marriage?The only counter to this would be your claim that you/she aren't in any way selfish within your marriage. That you/she have selfishness compressed down to being resolved in "micro-seconds". I don't believe that for one micro-second myself, but if that's your position...Are you agreed that I have given you the specific of 'selfishness > 0'?- Good. Because that's the second principle invoked which doesn't require me to go into the specifics of your marriage.If something is designed for optimal operation when applied to a specific function - especially something as complex as a human being + marriage - then it appears self-evident that operation will be less than optimal when that something is applied to a different function. That the something operates to a degree is neither here nor there - the issue is optimal function.-Since most of what comes below can be answered by applying the 2 principles above I'll just skim through them. If you feel any need deeper addressing then pull them out. - Thank you. When faced with someone who says there is but trace elements of selfishness within the relationship, no struggles to speak of, no areas of core disagreement .. one is inclined to suspect that relationship to be in the very early "fallen in love" stage. The stage where her poo doesn't smell. That's why I said your marriage appeared to be one in a million. Not that I'd be as negative as you. It's just that the experienced couples I talk to, who have good marriages and who love each other deeply, say that struggle is part and parcel with it. So I dump principles 1 and 2 (and take the negative that come with that) and replace it with something unspecified to arrive at an overall better solution. Where's the logic in that?- The one who provides some rational principle to support the claim? I've provided 2. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that your marriage would be better God-ful than not (in the case God exists)- Your veering off from what would be the case in principle to demanding that God be proven to exist. I'm only dealing with the principle - I'm not making any claims about God's existance.- The veering off is complete.

This conversation of ours stems from a necessary assumption on your part that (the Christian) God exists for the purposes of discussion, in order for his role in your marriage to be evaluated. You spoke in those terms in your OP.

quote:

---

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?

---

In questioning what the Christian God could bring to your marriage you must don the robes of what Christianity says your position before God would be as a believer. That position sees you sinful and him working to bring your sin > 0. That's an additional to your marriage - aside from any efforts you expend on reducing your (e.g.) selfishness yourself. Self-reduction of selfishness is all the unbeliever can envisage - he's down that iadditional supplied by God.Yours isn't a counter Stile, it's extracting yourself from the 'assuming God exists' position you placed yourself in when querying what God could bring to the table of your marriage.- I'm sure there's things I'm missing out on in this life. No doubt about it. I'm not sure I see the relevance of this though.It is self-evident that operating according to a designers design would optimize your function (with the assumption that God has your well-being at heart and that contentment is tied to operating according to his design).You don't have to know that such a fire exists (from your position as unbeliever) in order to acknowledge the principle being true (in the case God exists).- Life with God is always good - it would be better to share the excitment one feels about a new relationship with him than keep it to yourself. It would also be better to include him in order to guide you past the dangers inherent in thinking someones poo doesn't smell. It does and the fact it does will become apparent someday. God can help ensure that you are embarking on a relationship that has a sound basis for withstanding future smelly poo - and warn against a relationship that is built on mere newness of attraction.- I'm not expecting you to take my word for it. I'm expecting you to (necessarily) assume God exists for the purposes of discussion so that the question "what could God-in-my-marriage add?" can be answered. Once you do that your faced with the affirmative answers provided by the two principles already mentioned.I'm not dealing with the question of "how would I gain access to God in order to a) believe these benefits are actually there to be had b) gain access to those benefits)In mentioning two principles operating when God-is-in-your-life I am being quite specific. What have you offered specifically by way of counter in favour of the godless marriage? I can only envisage you arguing for reliance on self to counter own selfishness - something which clearly brings less to a marriage than reliance on self + a God bent on reducing selfishness >0- I don't need to explain self-evident principles which you necessarily need to assume for the purposes of discussion.- God in your life allows you to do the same reflection. It's just that with God in your life there's your motivation to change and his motivation to change you. His is an additional to the godless life.- This point is dealt with by your re-assuming the Christian God exists for the purpose of discussion.- Do you mean you want to do a Bible study to see if a pretty orthodox Christian position is indeed orthodox? If not interested in that kind of reliability, and if not requiring the reliability that would come from a demonstration of God's existance then what category of reliability are you endeavouring to obtain?God intent on reducing selfishness in your life is rendered reliable by Christian doctrine (although it's possible for a Christian to exclude God from his life and suffer consequences)Contentment brought about by operating according to design is rendered reliable by both Christian doctrine and common sense.- I'm hinging the reliability of the principle on your assuming God exists for the purposes of discussion. If you don't want to do that anymore then you need to edit an OP which still does. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your issue (in the OP at least) revolved around "if's"

quote:

---

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?

---

So I respond with "if's". If the Christian God exists and if he is as the broad Christian consensus says he is, then your marriage would be improved in areas where you don't understand love and don't base your life around love.I not expecting you to accept these things about God - on my say so. For to do so would be to ask that you believe he actually exists - on my say so. You'd only accept it if he turned up and did what it says on the tin - which isn't required in order to counter your position.I'll skip past that of your post which seeks proof of God existing.- By proving God exists as we say he does. Not the topic.- You don't want a bible study, you don't want self-evident principles that work in the case of God existing). You don't want me to prove God exists.I don't see any categories of reliability left and, for all your words, you haven't actually mentioned one (but do seem to be demanding a proof).- What's shaky about the principle that complex mechanisms function best when applied to the job they've been designed for?- Your looking for a proof.- That's okay. I was dealing with the issue of how God could improve marriage. Where the room for that would be - given that everyone is selfish. I'm not sure where the lines crossed but I was dealing with an OP which was framed in a way to see no place for the God which was assumed to exist for the sake of argument.I don't need to prove the God you yourself have both assumed and queried whether there could be any need for. Edited by iano, : No reason given.