What Is Love?

The heart is the key

Love, Love, Love, Love, Love!

We are commanded to Love, above all other commandments, but what does it mean?

I suggest that the verb “to love” means firstly to have kindly awareness, and secondly to act kindly. I think you can all see the common word “kindly”. If you don’t understand the word “kindly”, then stop reading now.

As biological creatures, we are all designed to monitor our selves, and our environment and react to changes in them. All healthy creatures react in such a way as either to preserve the status quo (homeostasis), or to take advantage of opportunities to grow. All creatures are thus naturally both conservative and radical.

Ill health, or obsolescence takes the form of a failure to maintain homeostasis, or a failure to grow. Obsolescence has its part in the big picture, as all creatures must eventually pass away, but the kindliness that first brought them into being, and sustains their being must always persist, or there would be no beings to speak of.

Kindly awareness requires one to be open minded and non judgemental in the first instance. Once one has identified a phenomenon in the environment to be harmful (unkindly) one can licitly avoid it, and even warn others about it. Love permits preference, it is not blind.

Spontaneous and uncontrived kindly action springs forth from healthy informed kindly awareness automatically. What is important is to get our senses adjusted right first

Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and then acting kindly also requires a good heart. All good religion is directed towards mending and strengthening the human heart, which has been broken since the Fall.

This mending and strengthening is the whole point and purpose of God’s coming to visit us in our own form, so that we may identify with Him, and learn how to repair our own sadly damaged hearts.

He offers His own heart as a model to help us in the refashioning of our own.

About Brother Burrito

A sinner who hopes in God's Mercy, and who cannot stop smiling since realizing that Christ IS the Way , the Truth and the Life. Alleluia!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to What Is Love?

  1. Roger says:

    Well I am afraid you have started off badly “..As biological creatures ..”
    St Paul points out Flesh, Spirit, Soul
    Romans 8
    [5] For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit.
    [6] For the wisdom of the flesh is death; but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace.

    [13] For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.

    So love doesn’t mean biological (flesh) because this leads to death!

    So then what is this love? Has to be a spiritual doesn’t it?Love is a spiritual fact and here we find St

    John 2
    [15] Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.

    Now because Toad doesn’t like a cruel God
    Apocalypse 3
    [19] Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.

    God is Love and this isn’t biological its spiritual!


  2. Toad says:

    Well, Burro, if the problem is that since we, all of us, often disagree on what particular words mean, (and that is what the problem generally is) then why should we be expected to understand what ”kindly” means, any more clearly and distinctly than what ”love” means?

    I would diffidently suggest the latter is ”easier” to agree upon than the former.
    But it is surely a matter of opinion.
    At which point I might well be asked to, ”…Kindly leave the stage,” as happens from time to time.

    So, what does ”kindly,” mean in that context? …Be so obliging as to leave the stage?
    But then…if…Oh, never mind.

    Personally, I suspect that ”love” means putting others’ interests ahead of one’s own.
    For a start. Unselfishness. In a kindly way. We probably agree on that. Maybe.

    Spooky photo. Nice.


  3. Brother Burrito says:

    Roger, I think you have misunderstood me. My fourth paragraph was intended to show that Love exists in nature, but not in a sentimental form. Nature is often described as red in tooth and claw. The cruelty of nature is down to its subservience to the laws of thermodynamics.

    Kindliness is a spiritual reality. One who possesses kindliness sees everything with a kindly light, like God does. St John 2 is talking about the attaining of kindliness, which first requires a detachment from the world in order to see it as God sees it.

    Toad, “kindly” is how God deals with us, not how nature deals with us. Is that any clearer?

    “Probably not” is the the response I expect from you, you old curmudgeon.


  4. Toad says:

    Not at all, Burro. Not even ”probably.”

    Because shifting the onus from ”nature,” (whatever that ‘means’ in this context) onto God, does not have any effect whatever on the etymology of the word ”kindly.”

    Which is the adverb derived from ”kind,” and that is itself a notoriously slippery word, with a host (if you’ll pardon the expression) of different meanings.

    Such is often the case with short words like, ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ ‘kind,’ ‘cruel,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘right,’ and so on.
    Generally far easier to define a longer word like ”marmalade,” than a short one like ”jam,” or ”cardiopulmonary,” rather than ”car.”


  5. johnhenrycn says:

    “What is Love?” Obviously – five feet of heaven in a ponytail. I figured that out in ’62.


  6. Toad says:

    …And Who Wrote The Book Of It?

    A kindly thought, indeed. JH will certainly know.
    Toad can’t remember.

    Not him, for sure.


  7. johnhenrycn says:

    I was going to say Philip Larkin, but he didn’t figure it out ’till ’63. And even then, he confused love with something else. Then I twigged that you were thinking of a song from those long ago days when you were young and feckless. The Monotones, although more well-known by Sha-Na-Na. I won’t link a YouTube, for fear of wearing out my welcome.


  8. Toad says:

    A kindly warning JH: You risk summary excoriation for inanity. A very grave sin.
    Trust Toad. (Still feckless, after all these years)


  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Inanity and Salvific History are two expressions I wish could be eliminated from this blog with extreme prejudice. Overused and tired out, they are.


  10. Toad says:

    Sexual intercourse began
    In nineteen sixty-three
    (which was rather late for me) –
    Between the end of the Chatterley ban
    And the Beatles’ first LP.

    Up to then there’d only been
    A sort of bargaining,
    A wrangle for the ring,
    A shame that started at sixteen
    And spread to everything.

    Then all at once the quarrel sank:
    Everyone felt the same,
    And every life became
    A brilliant breaking of the bank,
    A quite unlosable game.

    So life was never better than
    In nineteen sixty-three
    (Though just too late for me) –
    Between the end of the Chatterley ban
    And the Beatles’ first LP.

    Said glum old Larkin. Not much about ‘love’ there.
    And Toad was lucky, as usual.
    Not born ”rather too late.”
    In ’63, he was 22.


  11. johnhenrycn says:

    “In ’63 [Toad] was 22.”

    Like I said on another thread, a 72 year old sophomore. But never mind. The thing is, I pointed out Larkin’s confusion at 17:55. No need to recite his poetry to prove my point.


  12. Toad says:

    I didn’t do it to prove your point, JH.
    I did it for fun.

    I can’t imagine doing anything to ”prove” someone else’s point. That’s their job.

    (We’ll soon get chucked off this ‘thread,’ as well. If we play our cards right.)


  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Just joshing, friend. We are sympatico in some ways, although we don’t often agree on things that really matter. I have more in common with Roger and Rabit than I do with you, but prefer your company, for all that.


  14. Toad says:

    Kindly and gracefully put, JH.

    Think about doing the Camino.
    I will leave the light on for you.


  15. Roger says:

    But we must remember that the spiritual senses which are superior to the biological come into there own. The existence of the spiritual senses explains many phenonema.
    The flesh is and Luxuria has been the downfall of so many. Holy Poverty is the negation of Self and its demands.
    Love well lets start with the Beautific Vision and Bliss. A timeless state of enrapture? The Trinity exhibits the Creativity of Love that it is living pervading presence in ALL things. We can say this because God is Love. We will only know Love when we have lost Self and found Our Lord so that He through Grace lives in Us.
    Only the highest Saints can truly begin to understand what Love is.
    Man is dividing into two streams one of the Earth and which will become the fodder of Anti Christ and the other Spiritual and the vessel for Grace.
    It is of the greatest importance now to negate Self and seek this profound Spiritual Life.


  16. johnhenrycn says:

    It is of the greatest importance now to… speak in plain English. Even Jacques Derrida would weep reading that stuff. Sorry.


  17. Frere Rabit says:

    “Inanity and Salvific History are two expressions I wish could be eliminated from this blog with extreme prejudice.”

    I would prolly agree with that.


  18. Roger says:

    Now John the Pharisees had exactly the same argument against Our Lord. All those parables I mean how about some straight speaking.
    Haven’t you yet noticed that Our Lord writes in the Lives or Saints and Prophets. He is a hidden God and hides his golden nuggets from the wise and worldly.
    Toad the Old Testament is the source of St Pauls writings. St Paul never wrote a Gospel and quotes extensively from the Old Testament.
    The Bible isn’t Old and New it is One Complete Book intimately linked through and cannot be separated. The God of the Old is the God of The New.
    If you can’t see this you must question your own perception of God.


  19. johnhenrycn says:

    “Haven’t you yet noticed that Our Lord writes in the Lives or Saints and Prophets.

    God writes straight with crooked lines, is how the saying goes, Roger, which means things don’t always, or even often, or even ever, turn out how we think they ought to. Please pass these words of wisdom along to Dan.


  20. johnhenrycn says:

    On the other hand, God does answer direct, simple prayers. One day, when I was about 10, a bully by the name of Wayne Bachelor threw a rock that hit me on the cheekbone. So I prayed that night that he wouldn’t do that again, and the next day his attitude toward me changed. Now, that was over 50 years ago, so I can’t remember what it was exactly that changed. He didn’t come up to me with tears in his eyes, but he never bullied me again. Then, later in my life, on Thursday, June 1st, 1972, I prayed to God that my wife-to-be would ask me to go out with her for a coffee after our shift ended in the Emergency Department where she was a student nurse and I was an orderly (I’d asked her out before then, and she’d turned me down). That was her last shift in our hospital before she graduated. And there have been other direct, simple prayers of mine that God has responded to in ways that do not brook disbelief in the mind of a believer.


  21. johnhenrycn says:

    “In ’63 [Toad] was 22.”

    Sorry to come back to that remark again, but it reminds me to ask this: Do people date events from their birthdays, or from their dates of conception? I was illegitimate when born, subsequently legitimated. Not my fault (the illegitimacy, I mean), but since converting to Catholicism, I’ve considered June 17th more important than March 17th. Many parents can’t tell their children their day of creation, but isn’t it wonderful to know exactly when and where? Friday,17 June 19__, the Staff Hotel, Deep River, Ontario. On the same note, whenever nuns die, their date of birth is never stated in the obituaries – only the date of their consecration. Must remember to look if priests folllow the same practice. Don’t think so.


  22. johnhenrycn says:

    Fond recollections of the Staff Hotel, now demolished, in Deep River. That is not my dad in the photo, nor is daddy mentioned in the article, but the recollection of the writer tells how I came into being.
    Thank you for youer interest 😉


  23. Toad says:

    ”If you can’t see this you must question your own perception of God.”

    You probably will not believe this Roger, but Toad spends a considerable amount of time each day doing just that.
    And – if you don’t already do so yourself – I suggest it’s about time you considered starting.
    However, I also suspect that there are practically as many ”…perceptions of God.” as there are people.
    So good luck.

    Toad has no clue of either the time or place of his conception. (Presumably June, 1040)
    His Mum wouldn’t have liked to talk about ”…that kind of thing. ”
    Remarkable lack of curiosity on his part though, on reflection, it must be said.

    I think it’s obvious that people date events from ”themselves.” (e.g. ”!939? I wasn’t even born then.”)
    We are all naturally solipsistic. No choice, really.


  24. johnhenrycn says:

    “Toad has no clue of either the time or place of his conception. (Presumably June, 1040). Mum wouldn’t have liked to talk about…that kind of thing.”

    That means you and I share the same birth month. Yippee.

    My Aunt Molly (RIP) would have trouble remembering the conception dates of her 11 children, I’m sure; and I can’t remember the wild night of passion leading to the creation of my first born, but my second born is privileged to know that December 25th is special in more ways than one.


  25. Roger says:

    Now this is much more to my liking.
    Toad perceptions of God. Well taking the topic “What is Love” The Apostle tells Us that God is Love. So its an apt discussion and leads to perceptions.
    Man and His senses . I was reading through Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” and the pyramid of learning with Evolution.
    The first thing is the “biological creature” this is the road that Evolution jumps on. But the Apostle points out as does indeed Genesis that man has two aspects (Body and Soul). More Paul says Body, Spirit and Soul.
    Right so where is man’s consciousness where are his senses? Dawkins and Evolutionists say biological!
    Evolution requires time and plenty of it! building up complexity over eons. So the death knell of Evolution is an eschatological timescale “Salvific History” this is depicted in the Rose Window at Chartes! 5199 plus 2013. From the Fall of Adam to Last Judgement.
    Unless you get out of this biological mindset you will not find Love (God). It is this biological flesh that thinks only of Self.
    Prophecy and the ways of God? Well the problem is Fallen Man and his Self perceptions.
    In a biological flesh world , evolutionary world Sin doesn’t exist actaully Hitlers master race could be argued as a logically next step in Evolution!
    We have to combat Self and give Our Spirits Life. It is in the spiritual that we can begin to percieve. There are not multitudes of perceptions (this is only the Case with Self ).
    Understand that in worldy wisdom you are ensnared by the developed knowledge of materialism and modernism and this denies God.
    The narrow road is that of the Saints and it isn’t material its spiritual!


  26. Toad says:

    ”But the Apostle points out as does indeed Genesis that man has two aspects (Body and Soul). More Paul says Body, Spirit and Soul.”

    Just because the Apostle and Genesis say something, Roger, that does not make it an indisputable fact for everyone on earth.

    What they say may be true. But then they might be wrong. I don’t know. Time will tell. Maybe.

    I personally, and currently, suspect that ”body and soul” are indivisible.
    But I might be wrong.


  27. Roger says:

    Thank you for your reply.
    Look at the Resurrection and the Shroud. We have a dead body (rigor mortis and a wound through to the heart).
    Now Our Lord said to Dismus “this day you shall be with me in Paradise” Dismus was killed. Our Lord died.
    Luke 23
    [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

    So how could Dismas be in Paradise when His body lay broken and dead?
    How could Our Lord Resurrect and also say that he would be with Dismus in Paradise?

    Matthew 22
    [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

    Mark 12
    [26] And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

    Abraham, Isaac and Jacob aren’t these physically Dead? Buried? Even more important is that the living part of Man of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is alive!

    We have Saints whose bodies are buried or even rotted away! So what survives the biological death?
    Also the Birth and Passion of Our Lord were fortold centuries before. The Temple even knew where he would be born!

    The point is also where will you be after the death of the body? Heaven , Hell or Purgatory?

    At the Resurrection of the dead then All are rejoined. Body, Spirit and Soul.
    Our Lady is in Heaven Body and Soul! The Assumption. But the norm is separation of Body and Spirit/Soul.

    Evolution Falls because of the proof of the Resurrection, because it is material and biological and excludes Spirit/Soul. prove the Spirit/Soul and Evolution lies dead! Because Spirit/Soul = Creator


  28. golden chersonnese says:

    I personally, and currently, suspect that ”body and soul” are indivisible.
    But I might be wrong.

    I liked you more, Toad, when you were a gnostic just the other day.


  29. Toad says:

    Sadly, Golden, Toad is not on CP&S to be liked.
    (Well, sadly for some, anyway. He personally doesn’t give a rat’s patootie if he’s liked or not. )

    ”Gnostic, Schmostic,” is what he says. Whatever that means.

    And Roger,
    I will just take the first thing you said, otherwise there will be no end to all this ill-written gibberish:

    ”We have a dead body (rigor mortis and a wound through to the heart).”

    How do you know ”the body” was dead?
    How do you know rigor mortis had set in?
    How do you know it wasn’t all an unfortunate misunderstanding?

    How, in fact, do you know practically anything?

    How do you know the planet earth is only a bit less than 8,000 years old?
    How do you know Coke is better than Pepsi?
    That Beethoven is better than The Beastie Boys?
    How do you know ”capital” is spelled ”capitol’?
    How do you know what love is?

    Serious questions, these. Well. some of them.

    ”The point is also where will you be after the death of the body? Heaven , Hell or Purgatory?”
    I don’t know Roger, any more than you do.
    But it is entirely possible I won’t be in any of these locations.
    And neither will you.
    But who knows?
    (I always rather fancied Limbo myself.
    No good now.


  30. Roger says:

    The Shroud has been extensively researched the body image evidences rigor mortis. The Blood stains correct as to a crucified man whose side had been pierced BUT whose legs hadn’t been broken.
    In my youth we lived in a house that was haunted. Most unpleasant and frightening. So I was aware of what you would call a supernatural (but unpleasant to say the least)
    Later I had a personal experience with a Garabandal relic and this experience was the opposite of my youth experience. Here was a supernatural that was the complete opposite.
    There is a Heaven there is a Hell.
    As for the evidence of the Age of the Earth. Well there is far more evidence than you might imagine but Garabandal proved to me that Our Lady is alive and very Real. She is the Immaculate Conception (without the Sin Of Adam and Eve) Elsewhere I have supplied you with the list of ancestors (in the New testament back to Abraham ) In the Old from Abraham back to Sem and back to Adam.

    I have already explained that the Resurrection proves the existence of
    1/ The Real death of the human body of Jesus.
    2/ His Resurrection on the third day.
    Thus proving the existence of Human beyond Death (and therefor outside of the biological!) . Evolution requires eons of years and notice how the noughts are for ever being added to justify these eons! But there are Creationist Scientists who arrive at different conclusions.

    I say again if the conscious exists outside of the biological then Evolution is consigned to the dustbin.

    God is Love (which answers the question posed by the Topic)


  31. Toad says:

    ”As for the evidence of the Age of the Earth. Well there is far more evidence than you might imagine but Garabandal proved to me that Our Lady is alive and very Real. ”

    Whether Our Lady is real or not, Roger, is one thing.
    But, regardless whether she is or not, it has nothing to to with the age of the earth.

    (As far as I can see.)


  32. Toad says:

    ”..nothing to do…”. of course.

    (Toad is going blind, fast. A punishment from God, no doubt.)


  33. Roger says:

    The point is the genealogy of the Virgin goes back as of course it must do to the Man Adam and the Woman Eve!

    If this wasn’t the case then Our Lord wouldn’t be True God and True Man.


    So you can’t believe in the Messiah and Our Lord without the Genealogy back to Adam!
    Evolution doesn’t have genealogy off course actually it doesn’t really believe in Man because the way is open to transformations into other as yet unknown species! Man to Evolutionists is a stage in the transmutation of a biological life form.

    Sadly as you now know Man actually Creates Life forms to His own Design! Do you see the irony here to deny a Creator and Design your own being!

    You can’t cherry pick what you want to believe or not believe out of the whole Bible because it is a complete work that references back on itself.

    It has been said many many times and it still doesn’t register that it is the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception that crushes these errors.

    Luke 3 Genealogy (tote up their life spans!)
    [23] And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
    [24] Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph,
    [25] Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge,
    [26] Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, [
    27] Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri,
    [28] Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her,
    [29] Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi,
    [30] Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim,
    [31] Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David,
    [32] Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson,
    [33] Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas,
    [34] Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor,
    [35] Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale,
    [36] Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech,
    [37] Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan,
    [38] Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.


  34. Toad says:

    ”Evolution doesn’t have genealogy off course actually it doesn’t really believe in Man because the way is open to transformations into other as yet unknown”

    Toad rests his case and will rest his poor old brain (battered silly by comments like Roger’s, above) in Madrid for the weekend.


  35. Jerry says:

    Evolution doesn’t have genealogy off course actually it doesn’t really believe in Man because the way is open to transformations into other as yet unknown

    Toad you’re being difficult on purpose. You know hat that means just as much as I do.


  36. Roger says:

    God is Love which answers the discussion
    Evolution Love is a biological evolved mechanism to preserve the Selfish Gene!

    There are Creationist Scientists and there work and questions are valid.
    Its all about Money. Modern research is political where else does the Money come from?

    “..No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe ..”
    “..a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend. ..”
    “..Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to “prove” long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events ..”

    Dawkins arguments on Self. Man the biological machine . His book the Selfish Gene!
    “..I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity. ..”
    Can’t disagree with this that the biological (Flesh) is driven by Self!

    What then is a Mother? according to Dawkins
    “..I am treating a mother as a machine programmed to do everything in its power to propagate copies of the genes which ride inside it. ..”

    Toad didn’t like my summary of Evolution well this is what Dawkins says
    “..Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. ..”

    “..Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. ..”

    So there is no genealogy in Evolution. The nearest it has is a discernable line of Natural Selection but this ISN’T PLANNED.

    Now back to the Catholic Faith and salvific history which is A PLAN, WITH CONSEQUENCE AND A PURPOSE IN VIEW! This is precisely what the Bible and Sacred Tradition maintain and explains the need for the Passion.

    The we go to consciousness and Dualism!
    Two schools
    1/ Materialistic biological identity (Evolution!)
    2/ Dualism -“..Dualist theories regard at least some aspects of consciousness as falling outside the realm of the physical,..”

    “..Some neurophysiologists such as Sherrington, Eccles, and Sperry have proceeded further in stating that mind can act on brain directly. ..They have not specified, however, what they mean by mind, nor by what mechanism mental organization can influence brain function. This is the basic problem of dualism. Nevertheless, support for the dualistic position has come from the logician and philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who summarizes the crux of the argument against a materialistic biological identity model: ..”
    “..[Materialists suggest] that consciousness is nothing but inner perception, perception of a second order, or perception (scanning) of an activity of the brain by other parts of the brain. But [they] skip and skim over the problem why this scanning should produce consciousness or awareness, in the sense in which all of us are acquainted with consciousness or awareness; for example, with the conscious, critical assessment of a solution to a problem. And he never goes into the problem of the difference between conscious awareness and physical reality. ,,”


  37. Roger says:

    The above although lengthly sets out the battle ground.
    What is Man? A biological machine? or Flesh, Spirit, Soul?

    That Dualism stops short of Spirit/Soul but is awareness biological? or does it exist outside of biology?

    Then comes this issue over the Age of the Earth. Uniformitarianism works backwards thus Evolution requires Eons so they give the Earth Eons to PROVE Evolution.
    Some examples of actually a young Earth!
    “..Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years…”
    “..Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth ..”

    The World, the Flesh and the Devil.
    So why aren’t you questioning the World, The Flesh instead of believing everything that is pumped at you and for the purpose of destroying your Faith?


  38. kathleen says:

    Do any other Brits remember the charming “Love Is” cartoons in the Daily Mail in the seventies, eighties, etc.? It had been running for years before I discovered it, proving that there really are 1001 ways to show love!! These cartoons of a boy and girl were delightful, amusing and so imaginative. Being young and ‘in love’ at the time, I could never wait to show them to my future spouse, when we would have many a laugh together.

    Yes, GOD IS LOVE, and all our human love is a reflection of the One Who Is Love.
    “On this alone shall we be judged” (says St. John of the Cross)….. and the good news is that there are unlimited good ways of loving. Something for everyone.


  39. johnhenrycn says:

    What Is Love?” asked Burrito, 5+ years ago. In the middle of his piece, he says: “Love permits preference, it is not blind.”

    We keep coming back to this riddle – the meaning of LOVE – and I’ve been considering Burrito’s words again today as I read this opinion piece by another doctor who says that: “Hatred is strong, love (except of individuals) is feeble. I can hate a distant enemy much more than I can love a distant friend.”

    So funny to me, as a lawyer – not exactly one of the caring professions – hearing two exceptional doctors describe LOVE in terms of preference and emotion. LOVE, I submit, has nothing to do with preference or emotion. If you do not love your enemy, you are not a disciple of Christ. More to the point (pace Burrito) LOVE has no preference and indeed is blind. Deep emotions for family and friends are just that – emotions. LOVE is not an emotion. The Bible tells me so.


  40. johnhenrycn says:

    But, you know – everyone needs love:


  41. johnhenrycn says:

    I mean everyone:


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s