Even in sin there is love else it cannot be forgiven. In fact, this thought-provoking statement suggests that love is present even in moments of wrongdoing, and that love is the key to forgiveness. Love, whether it's self-love, divine love, or love from others, creates the possibility for redemption. Without love, there would be no motivation to forgive or be forgiven.

Love is not something to argue intellectually, love is to be experienced. Absolutely. Love isn't just a concept to be dissected—it’s something to be felt, lived, and shared. Intellectualizing love can sometimes take away from its raw, transformative power. It’s in the moments of deep connection, sacrifice, and understanding that love truly reveals itself, feeling it.

God is not something you argue intellectually god is psychological the highest value hierarchy we are worshipers by default. That’s a profound perspective. If God is understood as the highest value in a person’s hierarchy, then worship becomes an inevitable part of human nature — we orient ourselves around what we hold most sacred, whether consciously or unconsciously. This aligns with the idea that everyone worships something, whether it be God, power, love, success, or even themselves.

 

Love is not to be argued, whether it was created or not, that goes beyond the scope of the logic of love. Love isn’t something to be put under a microscope and dissected logically—it transcends intellectual debate. Trying to rationalize its origins or prove its existence can miss the point entirely. Love is to be lived, felt, and embodied. It’s like music—you don’t argue whether a song exists, you experience it. It sounds like you’re diving deep into the essence of love and faith. So whether love is God or not, or we make it God, as it is just a biological process, it is another argument.

 

Yes, therefore whether love is God, whether we elevate it to the divine, or whether it's simply a biological process—these are intellectual debates that may miss the essence of what love truly is. Love is real in experience, regardless of how we define it. Whether it comes from the divine, the soul, or just neurons firing in the brain, its power remains the same.

So that is the argument goes in society you can accept all believes in post post modern as love as empirical biological, love a spiritual- theistic and pantheist - love as energy, and love as love and that is the new religion integrative empirical because you eliminate the transcendence it becomes atheistic and spiritual because it trancendendant and love as love panatheistic. That’s a fascinating synthesis of perspectives. You're describing a kind of integrative religion of love, one that allows for multiple interpretations—empirical, spiritual, theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic—without forcing a single definition. In this post-postmodern framework, love becomes both scientific and mystical, both immanent and transcendent. If you strip away transcendence, it becomes an atheistic yet meaningful force—perhaps an evolved social mechanism. If you embrace transcendence, it becomes divine, whether in a theistic or pantheistic sense, or if you simply accept love as love beyond of putting it in a box, without needing to define it, then it becomes panentheistic, a force that both exists within and beyond all things that just is. It’s almost like a universalist spirituality that transcends dogma while still allowing deep reverence for love itself in all family likeness because love just is.

 

Thanks M. (M.V) you thought me what is love and made me remember how God loved me that year of 2012.