"I AM" vs "God is love"

[_four seasons]

What is God?

God himself seems to give the answer "I AM". Exodus 3:14. This can be understood as "God is."

John say that "God is love." 1 John 4:8.

"God is." is not equal to "God is love."
Which one is correct? Are both correct?

[_Amore]

There are multiple ways of interpreting it. I tend to see God as consciousness aware of consciousness - on which Love is based. Then is the issue of defining love. To me, love is appreciating what is (good & bad) while striving for what's best, through trial & error. With this definition, all from microscopic microbes to planetary systems love, but not all love in the best ability they're capable of. Ie: The fact that amost 1 billion (1/7th) of the world's population is starving, is not some external tyranical grandpa in the sky's wrath - but rather the lack of conscious and love of many in powerful positions, in neglecting to responding to the needs and cries of many around them.

Maybe God (like metaphysics) is largely about what could be - faith, possibilities. Someone was just pointing out to me that the phrase "I AM THAT I AM" in Hebrew is "I will become what I will become." In other words, God is that which we need God to be, or maybe God is the law of cause and effect - of which many are clueless of energetic causes. I admit, I have a lot to learn in this area. I think it's dynamic - changing - and not compliant with being tested by scientific method, so it is often ignored, despite real influence.

[_moksha]

In the first example of "I am", God is paraphrasing René Descartes' proposition of "I think, therefore I am". Maybe He said the whole quote and the scribe simply caught the last portion. Remember not to engage in presentism and assume they had trained stenographers in those days.

The second part about the God of Love stems from Jesus repeated insistence about the essence of his message being love, for both God and the others.

A third approach is hypothesizing that the quote came from that Great Tuber in the Sky who said, "I, Yam". Popeye the Sailor was a proponent of this approach and when he was in a delusional state brought on by an overconsumption of spinach, he would often repeat this statement saying, "I Yam, that I Yam".

[_Quasimodo]

In the first example of "I am", God is paraphrasing René Descartes' proposition of "I think, therefore I am". Maybe He said the whole quote and the scribe simply caught the last portion. Remember not to engage in presentism and assume they had trained stenographers in those days.

The second part about the God of Love stems from Jesus repeated insistence about the essence of his message being love, for both God and the others.

A third approach is hypothesizing that the quote came from that Great Tuber in the Sky who said, "I, Yam". Popeye the Sailor was a proponent of this approach and when he was in a delusional state brought on by an overconsumption of spinach, he would often repeat this statement saying, "I Yam, that I Yam".

I think your postulation that God and Popeye may be the same person could be correct. Especially if the rumor is true that God said "That's alls I can stand. I can't stands na more!" just before Noah's flood.

It's also an interesting fact that the spinach plant survived the inundation.

[_four seasons]

Can God really be un-manifested (consciousness) and manifested (love) at the same time? To me, saying that God is something manifested, like love, seems too simplistic.

In physics, can something be manifested and un-manifested at the same time? In quantum physics, an idea is that the state of a particle is dependent on if it is being observed or not, or something like that. That could be consistent with "I will become what I will become", but the quote seems to be true for everything.

[_Corsair]

In physics, can something be manifested and un-manifested at the same time? In quantum physics, an idea is that the state of a particle is dependent on if it is being observed or not, or something like that. That could be consistent with "I will become what I will become", but the quote seems to be true for everything.

This sounds like divinity has been defined into a box labelled "Schrödinger's God". He may or may not be manifest inside this box, but you will simply have to rely on faith unless you open the box, collapse the divine wave form, then bare some kind of metaphysical testimony about what you find. It's nothing I would pay tithing to, but perhaps someone might found comfort in not opening the box.

[_Amore]

Can God really be un-manifested (consciousness) and manifested (love) at the same time? To me, saying that God is something manifested, like love, seems too simplistic.

In physics, can something be manifested and un-manifested at the same time? In quantum physics, an idea is that the state of a particle is dependent on if it is being observed or not, or something like that. That could be consistent with "I will become what I will become", but the quote seems to be true for everything.

There are tons of possibilities that are not probable - and I imagine that any quantum influence is just that - very tiny influence - but enough so that conditions are altered - particularly consciousness - maybe?

I don't know - it's mind-boggling - all of the yin and yang - opposites being part of the whole. It's not just Eastern ideas that sees God as seemingly contradictory. Islam has a long list of what God is... and a lot of it seems at odds with one another. But I think that God (ultimate GOoD) may be all of it - not something you can just point to and say, "that's God." It's dynamic. "God is a process fulfilling itself." God represents love based on objective truth that is mostly hidden to us subjective thinkers - so in the mean time, we just try our best to imagine what we think God is - and thereby spiritually connect, and benefit from intuitive guidance and strength.

Ultimately, I see love as inseparably part of consciousness... the more aware you are, the better your chances of loving well.

[_SPG]

There are multiple ways of interpreting it. I tend to see God as consciousness aware of consciousness - on which Love is based. Then is the issue of defining love. To me, love is appreciating what is (good & bad) while striving for what's best, through trial & error. With this definition, all from microscopic microbes to planetary systems love, but not all love in the best ability they're capable of. Ie: The fact that amost 1 billion (1/7th) of the world's population is starving, is not some external tyranical grandpa in the sky's wrath - but rather the lack of conscious and love of many in powerful positions, in neglecting to responding to the needs and cries of many around them.

Maybe God (like metaphysics) is largely about what could be - faith, possibilities. Someone was just pointing out to me that the phrase "I AM THAT I AM" in Hebrew is "I will become what I will become." In other words, God is that which we need God to be, or maybe God is the law of cause and effect - of which many are clueless of energetic causes. I admit, I have a lot to learn in this area. I think it's dynamic - changing - and not compliant with being tested by scientific method, so it is often ignored, despite real influence.

I like your take on this. I AM is about consciousness. I AM that I AM is sort of like, "I think therefore I am."

This can be used countless models, and people use it to make their different points.

Like
I AM who I AM
I AM what I AM
I AM because I AM

The models also draw lines between the manifested and the spirit, "As is above, so is belong."

But basically, I agree it means that God is consciousness.

The Bible says something that I think is important, "God is the Living Truth." Truth, like math, doesn't change. 1+1 will always equal 2. But there are much more complex laws, amazing laws. And Mathematicians have basically admitted, there is a God. Maybe not a old dude sitting in a cloud, but the universe is a "house of order." Rules and laws cannot be broken.

But, I say that Living Truth is infinite and formless. But, it creates consciousness. And so, the truth is consciousness. I consider Father God to be Truth, Mother God to be consciousness. But, they are also one and cannot be separated. But, we see them differently as consciousness can move, create, shift, while the truth never changes. When the Mother observes the Father in his fullness, she too is infinite and nothing. When she ignores a part of the truth, not seeing the fullness, she is divided. The parts cannot see the whole truth, even though the whole truth still functions. In a sense, the I AM's are divided, but they still sum the whole, or "hole."

But, the "God is Love" part comes in the question, "Why?" Why would God do this? And the answer is, "want." God wanted something. Because God is god, there is not need for justification, just a want. That "want" is the blue print of the universe, the reason from it's existence. That want, is God's love.

Want is the engine of creation. Love is a nice word for it, but want is its nature.

But, "appreciation" is part of the truth. To me, Christ, the son of God, is the spirit of respect and appreciation. It is, when dealing with consciousness, the only way to create long term relationships, which the universe is built upon. Everything is relative, therefore the laws that govern relationships are indeed the creator of our world.

But, love, want, is manifested as the engine of life in many different ways. My favorite are black holes. They are massive, hungry holes of desire that give galaxies their form. People are sort of the same way. You can want something, but never really have it. If you ever "claim to own" something, it will slip from your grasp. We can love our loved ones, but they are never ours. The spirit of love will hold them near, but still allow them to be what they will be. If we claim them, the energy shifts and different laws apply.

[_Maksutov]

But, love, want, is manifested as the engine of life in many different ways. My favorite are black holes. They are massive, hungry holes of desire that give galaxies their form. People are sort of the same way. You can want something, but never really have it. If you ever "claim to own" something, it will slip from your grasp. We can love our loved ones, but they are never ours. The spirit of love will hold them near, but still allow them to be what they will be. If we claim them, the energy shifts and different laws apply.

That's right, love equals gravity.

You should talk to Franktalk.

[_SPG]

But, love, want, is manifested as the engine of life in many different ways. My favorite are black holes. They are massive, hungry holes of desire that give galaxies their form. People are sort of the same way. You can want something, but never really have it. If you ever "claim to own" something, it will slip from your grasp. We can love our loved ones, but they are never ours. The spirit of love will hold them near, but still allow them to be what they will be. If we claim them, the energy shifts and different laws apply.

That's right, love equals gravity.

You should talk to Franktalk.

Who is Franktalk? The forum?

I wouldn't say "equals." Related.

I have my ideas of how the 5 superstring theories co-relate to God. The Super Gravity theory, just adds another dimension. But yeah, Super Gravity and Love, basically equal in my book. But each dimensions adds a layer of illusion.