Not to put a fly in the ointment that doesn't need to be there, but does it bother any one if I point out that you have shifted the mystery of the box from that which may or may not relate to God to a mystery which is only about people?
I am still thinking about what was said, for the moment.
The mystery of the box isn't only about the people, it can also be about the contents of the box as well as MYSTERY itself. As in, the nature of mystery and it's effect on our imagination, our creative process, our destructiveness, etc. Some people will focus on the people aspect, others will focus on the mystery aspect, others will do a combo. Some will see something supernatural or they may see "God" concerning the box. It's not only about one thing or another.
The mystery box is a practical mystery (since it can be shown to exist and have an effect) which asks no questions. To claim it's only about one thing or another, may be your claim. Not the boxes. The box is just sitting there with a single symbol: a question mark.
This is actually simpler than I thought it was.
The love of the father is the love of the people for the child, embodied in the Son (that conceals Himself from view, that the child may be revealed).
The love of the lover is the love of the world for the lovers, disembodied by the Devil (for the truth to be known, that the son of the Devil may come forth).
I'm not totally sure I understand what you are getting at, because I'm not sure how all of your remarks here relate back to the section you're quoting of mine.
If you are essentially saying I was describing love from a wordily POV verses one from "the love of the father" POV, then my response is:
I was describing love from the point of view of someone who values the relationship. It's not about protecting the other person necessarily, it's about valuing the relationship and something that people often do in relationships on various levels: we hold something sacred. Sacred as in, something that is for us only and not to be shared with others because we value it that way and it's deeply personal to our very being/core/etc: "sacred".
So you are creating an opposition that is as old as time itself, in the reverse direction to the morality of allowing the mystery to flourish - which is false.
If in this part you are speaking to the mystery box: the mystery flourishes. Who is preventing it from flourishing ? Straw men suck btw.
Perhaps you did not know you were doing this, but the fact is that if you were trying to defend God (instead of critiquing the mere place of Him, as if to destabilize that which is above reality) you would have at least questioned whether taking that approach was really in everyone's interests (which defending, in principle, one's right to establish universal order in the Name of the Revelation of the Son, which is the foundation of society, through example - by defending God (the peak example (of examples)) - is)
I'm not sure if you're speaking to the box, or my comments concerning a relationship. Depending on which one you were speaking to, if you could further clarify these comments that would be appreciated.
I mean I don't think you are being fair, suggesting that false morality is equally as relevant as true morality, for the sake of argument - I am not making a mere argument, I am trying to adopt a way of life that is informed by the consequence of developing arguments that point to Christ.
I'm not sure what this is speaking to either, which aspects of my comments you are pointing out. And I'm trying to look past your ad homs and straw men. Concerning whether or not false morality is equally as
relevant as true morality ... I think it was Stephen Colbert who said, "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Whether you, or I, or anyone thinks we can nail down "true" morality over "false" morality, the REALITY is that people don't always agree on what is true or false concerning morality. And this disagreement perpetuates. They are relevant because they are an aspect of our society.
Concerning wanting to adapt a way of life informed by the consequence of developing arguments that point to Christ ... it's my understanding that Christ healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, performed miracles, spent time with those whom were outcast in the society, taught others about the Kingdom He came from and His Father, etc and so forth. Do you do these things ? When I see him "developing arguments" it appears it's often in regards to the religious of his day whom he sometimes called "children of the devil". Are your arguments geared towards the religious and helping them to see the errors of their ways ? Finally, I believe Jesus dying for the sin of the people, taking their sin upon Himself out of love for them ... I believe this is common to most people's understanding of Him, yes ? Have you done this ? Have you given your life for the sins of others ? If not, then what do you mean about "adopting a way of life that points to Christ" ?
It's a good watch, all on YouTube (I googled) 
It's tempting 
