Is divine love, defined as unconditional love, at the source of the cosmos and at the source of all life, as we often hear, where unconditional love makes everything okay, including the suffering and misfortunes of life? This perspective seems to depend on defining Godhood more like “Time” that "exists" outside the real world, rather than defining Godhood as a natural living supermaterial object, or group of divine objects where time is seen as a secondary definition only, dependent on the actions of objects.
Living objects in the cosmos seem to be driven, activated to live and evolve, with all that goes with living and evolving. This activation we call the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood which is then shaped by outside evolution. This is what seems to be the true character, tone and direction of the cosmos, rather than an unconditional love which says that everything is okay.
Does this dynamic compare a personal maternal Godhood with a more detached paternal Godhood? Religion and philosophy often seem to confuse expanded definitions and descriptions with the object itself. This all seems to be more a comparing of sacred Time outside of life, with living objects in time evolving to the sacred. If Heidegger's Being is actually this sort of Time or Nothing outside of life, unconcealed or concealed, then modern philosophy is more of the same nonobject definition-as-God.
No comments:
Post a Comment