The Love of Humanity

[Thomas]

"And if I should have prophecy (propheteia) and should know all mysteries (musterion), and all knowledge (gnosis), and if I should have all faith (pistis), so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (agape), I am nothing."
1 Corinthians 13:2

This is the definition not of love, but of authentic Christianity — the prophet, the mystic, the gnostic, even faith itself, without love ... is nothing, and the Christian is not a Christian at all...

Now the next step is to determine what the scribe means by love which is, I would suggest, a long way from what the 21st century considers it to mean.

Love today is commonly defined by the benefit derived by the lover — it is discriminatory — even the love of one's spouse is made on the basis that, 's/he completes me' — it is not bad, but it is not 'Christian' in the full sense, it is, quite simply, natural and therefore good ... but it cannot be denied that we do tend to love those things that, directly or indirectly, benefit us.

And a materialist/consumerist culture fosters that love ... which traces back to a love of self ... as a virtue.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Of course, it was not the Christian scribes who introduced to the world the idea that the Divine might possess a man (or woman), and the latter not lose (or give over) his rational, brain consciousness to the event. This is called the sibylline power, and many a sibyl remained awake for the amazing rapturous "Divine possession" that followed.

I think you need to qualify that, as:
"The Sibyl, with frenzied mouth uttering things not to be laughed at, unadorned and unperfumed, yet reaches to a thousand years with her voice by aid of the god." (Heraclitus, fragment 12)

This is precisely eros, the 'frenzied mouth' (the gods are not subject to frenzy), so I think to say 'many' is somewhat too general, and 'sybilline power' does not therefore indicate a mode of consciousness? The sybil of Delphi, for example, is another example of eros.

Nor am I saying that Christianity held the term exclusively, but Christianity was the first to present agape as 'a better way' than eros, and enshrine that method doctrinally ... I was marking a distinction, that's all, one that many scholars point out, and not necessarily Christian ones, either.

The sybils themselves, sometimes ten, sometimes twelve, were acknowledged in Christian antiquity and appear in Christian art throughout the Renaissance, so Christianity does not deny the inspiration of the oracle, but rather points to its ongoing refinement.

(Our discussions would proceed a lot easier, and potentially a lot more fruitfully, if you try to desist from personal jibes against me, and Christianity in general, at every given opportunity ... thanks.)

Pax,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Agape does not negate eros, but locates it. The erotic dimension is most prevalent in the language and symbolism of the great Spanish mystics, St Theresa and St John of the Cross, and was rich in the works of Tertullian and Augustine, who shaped Western or Latin theology.

The East, which prioritises the intellect rather than the will, has always regarded this erotic dimension with utmost suspicion, relegating it to the volitive passions, a fantasia born of the sentiments ... hence their ambivalence towards St Augustine, whom they acknowledge as a saint, but not a Doctor, and their nigh-on dismissal of the spirituality and authenticity of St Theresa.

Interestingly, St Catherine of Siena and St Theresa, both Doctors of the Church, describe the heart being pierced by a Dart of Divine Love.

Thomas