Someone I love dearly is a friend on Facebook, but I have to admit that I sometimes lose sleep and appetite over the way he lives his life, the choices he’s made, the agenda he proclaims, and what he posts.
In response to a post he made recently, which suggests that unconditional love means “accepting who he is” without question (which in his mind means celebrating his lifestyle, his choices, everything he believes, and so on) I responded accordingly:
“Unconditional love is some things and it is not other things. By definition it means we are loved regardless of what we do, say, think, and believe. It means we are loved whether we love God back or we neglect God and focus only on ourselves. What it does not mean is that love is only love if we accept as true what another says, does, and believes.”
The response was frustrating, but unsurprising. I’m going to dissect it piece by piece.
“My innate disagreement with your definition of unconditional love is that it is conditional.”
OK. Got that? This is why argument is futile. Take something, turn it upside down, establish that as a premise, and all arguments flow from there. The issue is that the premise here is poppycock. It completely renders all subsequent arguments absurd. And yet, this is his mindset. How can unconditional love mean anything other than the fact that I (or God, or anyone) will love you no matter what. You may be right, you may be wrong, you may be wonderful, you may be obnoxious… but I love you anyway.
“…that stems from our idea of what the idea of “God” means.”
God is not an idea. God is real. It is true that we develop our own ideas of what the reality of God is. So I kinda sorta maybe get what he’s saying here. But I think he falls short of admitting the reality of an actual God, and I think he has succumbed to the idea of “God” actually being equivalent to “the idea of God.”
“In my eyes, as the very experience of God (which is love) in action, every single one of us are all true in what we say, do, and believe.”
This sounds wonderful. It’s also nonsense. It is pure relativism and it is amazing to me that anyone in his or her right mind can actually believe this. The entire concept of all of us being all true in everything logically collapses on itself the moment I say I disagree with his statement. If I disagree with him, then it means I don’t believe that we are all true in what we say, do, and believe. Which either means I’m right about that or I’m wrong. but according to him, I can’t be wrong, so I might be right. But then that makes him wrong. It’s an unwinnable position of paradox that is utterly simple to dismantle using lessons learned on Day One of logic class.
“That is what makes unconditional love – which really is a redundant term, if you break it down, because love cannot be conditional – so important.”
I’m not exactly sure what everyone being all true has to do with love being unconditional, but I will grant that real love is probably redundant with unconditional love. I still think the term has explanatory merit.
“It allows all things to exist as they are.”
I really don’t get this line. All things exist as they are regardless of whether I love you or hate you. But whatever.
“It allows us to recognize the God essence of the perfection in what one another says, does, and believes, understanding that on the level of truth in which that being exists, it is perfect, it is “right,” and it is good.”
So, do you understand that? Yeah… me neither. He does like to get all flowery with the language, and it is a Facebook response, so it probably was just a flowage of thought and words. But, I think I can boil it down simply to the following: Everyone has the essence of God, which makes us perfect, which makes us right in everything. Which, of course, is utter nonsense. But how do you go about convincing someone that they epitomize the perfection of God that they are wrong? This is one problem with relativism – it defies all logic, but once embraced, there is no logical offense against it.
“Whether or not what another says, does, and believes rings true for another God essence makes no difference as to its “rightness,” because God does not evaluate itself based on the polarities of “right” and “wrong,” as love automatically transcends both polarities in the act of being expressed to a place where all beings’ choices are beautiful and perfect for them.”
Sigh. It’s actually amazing to me, but in a sad way. There is no acknowledgment here of an actual God. Everything is an idea of God, a God essence. The statement that “God does not evaluate itself” is actually true, but he is not talking about the being of God judging Himself. He is talking about us all being God, which means we can’t judge each other, because we are all God and we can’t judge God. I’ll be honest, this actually makes me a bit queasy when I really think about it.
“By loving unconditionally, we allow all perspectives to exist and evolve into their highest form. Mandates of “right” and “wrong” pervert this allowance by judging what is good and bad, inducing guilt and fear, which is not God, which is not love. Judgment, or condition, only indicates a lack of God in the being who is judging, not the one being judged.”
And here we go. There is no right or wrong. To judge anything at all induces guilt and fear. And what does that mean? It means that if you judge any thing at all – not a judgment of the soul or of a person’s salvation, but even anything they do or say – anything at all – then you are NOT God.
This is insane.
You may wonder how I responded. I didn’t. First of all, this person is family. It’s a peacekeeping response by me to not respond. Second of all, I know with certainty that he believes my view on things to be archaic. He will not listen to me. My job at this point is to pray that someone comes into his life that will help him realize this erroneous and dangerous path that he’s on. He receives so much support from others when he posts that I am worried it won’t happen, but with God all things are possible.
Now, why did I mention that relativism is nothing new?
It’s because I am pretty sure he thinks that what he believes about God – or the God essence, or idea, or whatever the hell he believes – is a progressive idea. It’s an evolution of thought. It’s an evolution into self-divinity.
This is the oldest heresy. It’s vanity and pride, and it’s the very first sin. Satan tempted Adam and Eve by appealing to the very idea that by eating the fruit they will have the knowledge of God. They bought into it and ate the apple, or apricot, or pear, or pomegranate or whatever that forbidden fruit happened to be.
So the flowery language and appearance of deep thought aside, relativism is more ancient and archaic than Catholicism is.
So,all you Relativists, put that in your pipe and smoke it.