Is God love?

[Cobie]

.

Edited May 8, 2025 by Cobie

[old3bob]

"The phrase "The Tao gave birth to One" translates to "Tao, in its ultimate, undifferentiated state, is the source from which all things, including the concept of 'One,' emerge". It's the first step in the Tao Te Ching's description of the universe's formation, where Tao (the Way or Path) is the origin of all things."

 

I'll go with this for now, alluding to the unmanifest manifesting in the sense of the "One"... thus connected but not the same for the One can be talked about (or named) but not the unmanifest other than being pointed towards.
 

Edited May 8, 2025 by old3bob

[Cobie]

.

Edited May 8, 2025 by Cobie

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

besides created try emanated,  btw if Tao gave "birth to the One" what is the One?  I'd say every-thing is under the One from the first to the last...

 

 

 

 

That singularity that 'emanated '    before the big bang  but after ..... whatever came before it  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

 

 

Before ?  Aside from being termed Dao ; 

 

2. Models and Theories about What Came Before:

• Quantum Foam/Multiverse:

  Some models suggest a pre-Big Bang state of "quantum foam" or a multiverse where our universe is just one of many. 

   
• Cyclical Universe:

  Another idea is a cyclical universe, where the Big Bang might be the result of a previous phase of contraction and expansion. 

   
• Beyond the Big Bang:

  Some argue that asking about what existed before the Big Bang is meaningless because time as we understand it may have originated with the Big Bang. 

   
• Inflationary Cosmology:

  Inflationary cosmology suggests that the universe underwent a period of rapid expansion very early on, which may have started from a finite state rather than a singularity. 

   

  Hot Tricks in Nova Mix: 

  For those that don't  need to speculate on   the details but just need a general idea .

  or ...   " A Wizard did it "  

   

Edited May 8, 2025 by Nungali

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, old3bob said:

"The phrase "The Tao gave birth to One" translates to "Tao, in its ultimate, undifferentiated state, is the source from which all things, including the concept of 'One,' emerge". It's the first step in the Tao Te Ching's description of the universe's formation, where Tao (the Way or Path) is the origin of all things."

 

I'll go with this for now, alluding to the unmanifest manifesting in the sense of the "One"... thus connected but not the same for the One can be talked about (or named) but not the unmanifest other than being pointed towards.
 

 

Dao   =   0   the unmanifest . 

 

Giving birth to the one  unveils its inner 'potential'  ... the 'one ' being expressed as    ( n^-  +  n⁺  ) 

 

which  =   0

 

The one giving birth to the two   ,   n ^_      n⁺  unveils its inner potential ;       -  and  + 

 

which is   within the signature of all creation (10,000 things )  ;    in physics this relates to 'supersymetry theory '  . I better not go on about that here , but it is a principle theorized to exist in many fields ' 

 

• • • The supersymmetry algebra
  • Supersymmetric quantum mechanics
    • In finance
  • Supersymmetry in quantum field theory
  • Supersymmetry in condensed matter physics
  • Supersymmetry in optics
  • Supersymmetry in dynamical systems
  • Supersymmetry in mathematics
  • Supersymmetry in string theory
• Supersymmetry in particle physics
  • Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Mode
  • • Supersymmetry in alternate numbers of dimensions
    • Fractional supersymmetry

[Lairg]

21 hours ago, Tommy said:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

Does that assume that a human consciousness has identified all possibilities?

 

I suspect there are many timelines, universes and species that human consciousness has yet to discover.  

 

 

[old3bob]

16 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Dao   =   0   the unmanifest . 

 

Giving birth to the one  unveils its inner 'potential'  ... the 'one ' being expressed as    ( n^-  +  n⁺  ) 

 

which  =   0

 

The one giving birth to the two   ,   n ^_      n⁺  unveils its inner potential ;       -  and  + 

 

which is   within the signature of all creation (10,000 things )  ;    in physics this relates to 'supersymetry theory '  . I better not go on about that here , but it is a principle theorized to exist in many fields ' 

 

• • • The supersymmetry algebra
  • Supersymmetric quantum mechanics
    • In finance
  • Supersymmetry in quantum field theory
  • Supersymmetry in condensed matter physics
  • Supersymmetry in optics
  • Supersymmetry in dynamical systems
  • Supersymmetry in mathematics
  • Supersymmetry in string theory
• Supersymmetry in particle physics
  • Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Mode
  • • Supersymmetry in alternate numbers of dimensions
    • Fractional supersymmetry

 

what the hell give me a steam turbine/generator to run or something to fix, don't know about all the other interesting stuff...;-)  do know that anything under the One belongs to the One and can not make a cross over to no-thing. (without dissolution as a thing)

 

Edited May 9, 2025 by old3bob

[Nungali]

 

 

I bet when you do a genius job on fixing something ... you followed those principles - even without knowing it .   

 

[Ajay0]

In eastern religious philosophy , God is considered the same as  love. Brahman is the name for the Absolute or God in Hinduism, who in turn is equated with consciousness, with pure consciousness being considered the same as pure love.

 

Quote

 

Prajñanam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

"God is love." - Jesus Christ (John 4:8)

"Pure consciousness is pure love, and love is the highest healer on the planet - you can say, it is your natural Self." - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

 

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj further elaborates on this principle of God being love...

 

https://selfrealization.blog/2020/04/17/nisargadatta-maharaj-on-love-2/

 

 

Quote

 

Now, let us go back again to what I told you about need being the basis of love. Consider what is the most priceless possession of any sentient being.

 

If he had the choice of possessing either all the wealth in the world or his ‘beingness’, or ‘consciousness’ (you may give it any name to add to the thousands that have already been heaped upon it), that which gives him the sense of being alive and present, and without which the body would be nothing but a cadaver, what would he choose?

 

Obviously, without consciousness, all the wealth in the world would be of no use to him. This beingness, this conscious presence that he is, is the beingness of every sentient being on the earth, the very soul of the entire universe, — and indeed, therefore, this-here-now, this conscious presence, cannot be anything other than God. It is this which one loves more than anything else because without it there is no universe, no God.

This, therefore, is Presence-Love-God.

 

And, St.John was obviously very much conscious of this when he said ‘God is Love. . . .’ It is very clear that all he could have meant is that he (John) and He (God) were not different as pure subjectivity, as noumenon. And, therefore, he who is anchored in the conscious presence that is Love, that is God, ‘dwelleth in God and God in him.’

 

 

[Cadcam]

God is the best of us; our ideal state in being and action. To project ones mind upward and outward towards a God grants us a real or imagined supernatural strength.  Certainly, if history is correct, the new God of Love, creator and all good, was better than the previous gods, whom were irrational at times, and to be feared.

 

Perhaps having a God of Love gave us a linear logic, and acceptable morals, and that is why that God has endured.

[Thrice Daily]

It’s a second hand emotion

[Cadcam]

Yes, as John wrote "God is love", I too believed that statement. I went a little further and accepted that God made the world, and then one more step: the world, then, is love.

 

But it's not. I woke up when I was 29. 

[Salvijus]

The world you see is not the way it is. The world you see is the way you are. When you see your true nature, you will see the ecstacy of love to be at the core of everything. You will see the Truth. 

 

Edited September 8, 2025 by Salvijus

[Cadcam]

There are two realizations that I keep returning to in order to keep a level head.

 

The first is that all people have free will. Regardless of what they have been taught, all people are free to do what they choose. To expect them to do otherwise is asking for conflict. People can do whatever they want for whatever reason. This can be especially difficult to acknowledge for those that come from a wisdom tradition. 

 

The other but of awareness that I return to often is that no matter what I personally think, feel or say, the world goes on unaffected. That means there is no one to reward or console me for grief or goodness. I can sit in despair all I like but it will reap nothing. 

 

With these two pieces of knowledge,  I can maneuver through the world and control my thinking and action.

[Cadcam]

So I've reconsidered the title of this post. I think God is in everything, and the impulse of God is love, but because of our free will, and God's will to test our ability to love, people do other things than choose a loving response.

[Cadcam]

It strikes me odd that so many people call themselves Christian, yet the world is the way it is.

[Nungali]

Note : 

 

8 hours ago, Cadcam said:

It strikes me odd that so many people call themselves Christian, yet the world is the way it is.

 

 

 

[Thrice Daily]

Im teaching my daughter about the golden rule at the moment. Treat others as you want to be treated.

 

I also added the idea pf the golden bubble. I got her to visualize a golden bubble of light protecting her from others behaviour that is more unsavoury.

 

I explained that by being in this bubble of light and that nothing bad cam get through it , that it would be easier to remember the golden rule and exercise it.

 

While I was explaining this ot became very clear how simple it is. To wrongs dont make a right and we are only in control of ourself not others.

 

Love and forgiveness is a choice and one worth striving for. I think this is what it means to be Christian but its always a test of the mind to exercise the golden rule , especially when being treated badly , shouted out, raged at etc.

 

I explained to her that this is where the true treasure is, when it is harder to generate love and kindness , it is more of a muscle worked and a skill gained. 
 

Believing God is love is useful i think in prayer and in living in the world exercising love even when times are hard.

[Cadcam]

I'm not so sure God is love. Being invisible,  the gods can do what they like. I suppose that is their privilege,  being immortal. I suppose too, that they get bored and want to cause a little mischief. 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Cadcam said:

I'm not so sure God is love. Being invisible,  the gods can do what they like. I suppose that is their privilege,  being immortal. I suppose too, that they get bored and want to cause a little mischief. 

 

Indeed they do ... the Greek Gods .   However the Christian God is supposedly one of love .  The OT God one of jealousy war and vengeance .

 

Jesus was a bit of a hippy . 

 

I prefer a Goddess myself .... its good for my   Anima      

[Tommy]

On 12/29/2025 at 5:45 AM, Cadcam said:

I'm not so sure God is love. Being invisible.

God is invisible? Is love visible? I do not see love as being visible but I do see the effects of love. Hugs, kisses, gifts and happiness. So, maybe God is invisible?? But maybe, the effects of God is visible if one knows what to look for??

 

Is boredom a justification for mischief? Or is that just a human explanation of events?

[Lairg]

On 12/29/2025 at 8:45 PM, Cadcam said:

I'm not so sure God is love. Being invisible,  the gods can do what they like.

 

I am not all sure that the concept of "God" is particularly useful.  It usually leads to religious beliefs and various intolerances.  

 

On the other hand "gods" is a bit more useful 

 

 and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.

 

A couple of days ago speaking to a friend and had an image of her with her feet on a square of limestone.  When she connected to the image she was sitting like one of the enormous Egyptian statues of the gods, and she could see the very small humans, not much bigger than grasshoppers in proportion to her.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2025 by Lairg

[old3bob]

On 1/14/2025 at 5:34 AM, Cadcam said:

Though it is a nice idea, and I'm sure God appreciates our love, I don't believe that God must love each of us individually as is often suggested by Christianity. 

 

God gave us free will to choose to love, and loving everyone unconditionally leads to problems.

 

No, people have to earn love.  

 

God too, has the free will to choose who to love, and can you imagine, with the billions of people born throughout history, and all their virtues, deeds, and talents; how hard it would be to attract God's attention and earn God's love?

 

 

well there is that saying:  

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10) 

 

But what in the hell does that mean and how can that be if God is love?   Well its more or less emotional pretzel time if you are a Christian trying to fully understand that but if it was changed to a more "eastern" meaning of, "one should  knowingly fear breaking dharma for karma will then kick your ass a good one",  is easier to understand for me.

 

[Lairg]

35 minutes ago, old3bob said:

well there is that saying:  

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10)

 

There were/are many gods in the Old Testament and the lord god of the Hebrews was very specific about punishing those that followed other gods - such as the Phoenician god Salem.

 

Jehovah had a tent/tabernacle made for himself.  He was specific about the height of the tent - being of medium tallness for a god.   But he was not the tallest god.  That was The Most High god.

 

The use of the term "lord god" refers to TMH allocating various human groups to be lorded over by the junior relatives of TMH.

 

Quite specifically we are told that the people of Jacob are the inheritance of Jehovah: 

9 For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

 

These days humans are permitted free will - and can choose or refuse such gods

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:49 PM by Lairg

[Haribol]

Hmmm… ultimately, I think that the suggestions given like consciousness is the one that resonates the strongest with me.
 

Although I’d certainly love to know God more intimately, and am no atheist, I try to not concern myself to much with the term. For one thing, it can mean a hundred different things to a hundred people. And I also feel that the term has been misused for worldly gain so much that it has kind of been… idk, poisoned in a way. Aaaaaalso, there is so much I don’t know and have no way to talk about, like celestial hierarchies and stuff. If I have zero direct experience of it, I should not get lost in mental speculation and/or preaching about it, I feel.

 

I was once told that Krishna (by which the person meant God) is in everything, but everything is not in Krishna. Kind of a paradox, I know, but if we think about it like the sun: the sun shines for everyone, but one has to choose to walk into the sun light to experience it.
 

To me, God is best described as the supersoul, as in BG. 10.20:

 

I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.

 

Allow me to throw in 10.36 as well, because I just got introduced to it and it’s kind of awesome:

 

I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.

 

The term godhead/hood is something that intriges me as well. 
 

So, to summarize my thoughts:

(1) God is all

(2) there are various degrees of divinity

 

by that we can conclude: 

 

(3) This makes no sense, perhaps it will get clearer in time