In the ecological model the persuasive ordering principle that coordinates the creativity of a multitude of creative agents is
the divine Eros.
The divine eros attracts, calls, invites.3 The divine agape responds, receives, feels our feelings compassionately.4 How do these two movements helpfully redefine divine power?
McFague goes further with her images and speaks of God as mother, lover and friend, each of which includes
divine Eros and divine Passion.
For
the divine Eros is the source of these gifts.
The response of the creature to
the divine Eros is passionate and transforming.
The proposition of this chapter is that as the cosmos evolves God as
divine Eros, transcendent to the universe, becomes immanent within the new creation.
This is Whitehead's doctrine of
the divine Eros or the primordial nature of God.
Divine creativity is a consequence of
divine Eros finding a response in the world.
They too are what they are by their participation in
the divine Eros.
The divine Eros draws the world to greater richness of experience as each individual entity responds to possibilities for itself.
The life force, which is
the divine Eros, is calling humanity to a new organization of human societies.
There is
the divine eros and the divine passion.
Whitehead has called this transcendent source of the aim at the new the principle of limitation, the organ for novelty, the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire,
the divine Eros, and God in his Primordial Nature.
From a feminist perspective, why not affirm this mutuality of relationship and re-vision
the divine eros?
This is
the divine eros flooding into the world.
61 Keller invites the displacing of our love of power with what she has represented as the power of love, combining eros and agape:
the divine Eros attracts, calls, invites; the divine Agape responds, receives, feels our feelings compassionately.62
Not exact matches
In his analysis, he found in Whitehead a concept of
divine love which lies in contrast to New Testament agape and medieval amicitia and which identifies with Platonic
eros.
To begin with the first of these questions, it must be recalled that in the Bible it is agape, not philia or
eros, that is a
divine demand.
Thus in Adventures of Ideas he contrasts the
divine «
Eros» with «the Adventure in the Universe as One» (pp. 380 - 81), which in Modes of Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1938) he refers to as «the reservoir of potentiality and the coordination of achievement» (p. 128).
male centred theology has missed the
divine feminine, it has enslaved sensuality, feelings, body, trustfulness, creativity,
eros and playfulness — and condemned this aspect of self as sin.
When the
divine love meets the human
eros toward God the only appropriate response is with zest, with all one's heart and soul and mind and strength.
Eros, as Plato finally came to recognize, is indeed
divine.
The same notion of
divine perfection as excluding all change is functioning in the famous passage in the Symposium in which Socrates, taught by the wise woman of Mantineia, denies the divinity of
Eros.
In Platonic philosophy
eros meant the yearning of the soul for the realm of the
divine.
If God desires human response, is even the
divine love free of
eros?
I would be inclined to affirm
Eros with Altizer, and Thanatos with Rubenstein, without trying to give either of those gods new or
divine names.
Eros is acknowledged as the necessary synthesis of
divine and human activity that leads, by both revelation and human reason, to a full future salvation.