I disagree with Clete's hypothesis and agree with Derf. Here's why.
God is three persons in one. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept. Therefore love cannot be God. That would make God an inanimate force or principle. That's called pantheism: God being a force that exists in all animate and inanimate objects but having no personality or personhood.
God has principles, but principles are not God. There's a profound difference between a principle and a person with principles.
Wow! You could take Marke to school on how to at least make it look like you've made an argument to the point that it deserves a response! You get to come off my ignore list because of this post, not that you'd care about that. (Don't worry, I doubt very much that it will last long!)
So you make the following argument...
Premise 1: God is three persons in one.
This premise is a fact that is not in dispute and that is not germane (i.e. not relevant) to the question at hand.
Conclusion 1: Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.
While this statement is another fact that is not in dispute, this conclusion does not follow from the previous premise, nor could it follow from any argument because there has been no argument made. You simply stated a premise and then went straight to stating a conclusion. The best you could accomplish here is to say that the two statements are equivalent to each other but there is nothing in either the premise or the conclusion to substantiate such a claim. Again, the factual truth of the statement is not in dispute but all you've really done here is to state two opinions that have nothing to do with the question being debated. If I thought you were skilled enough at debate I'd suspect you had done this intentionally in order to set your audience on a path of agreement with you. Make two statements in a row that everyone agrees with and sort of hope that the just keep on agreeing with you as you proceed. That's a real tactic that many people have employed in many debates to excellent effect but I seriously doubt that you were doing that. You somehow think that you've started a real argument with these two statements but you haven't. In reality you actual argument states with the next stated premise....
Premise 2: A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept.
This premise fails for several reasons. First of all, and most importantly, SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!! What are we supposed to do, take your word for it that this premise is true?
It further fails because love is not an inanimate force or concept. Love, by definition, must be personal, relational and volitional. That's just about as opposite of inanimate you could conceivably get!
Further, this premise has already been responded to in the opening post where I stated the following in respond to basically this exact objection...
"Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used can't be made any sense of at all."
So, let's continue with your post...
Conclusion 2: Therefore love cannot be God.
This premise fails because it is based on a false premise as established above but that's not the only reason it fails....
1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for
God is love.
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us.
God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
The Greek in both sentences is "Theos este agape" and there is no other way to translate it or to even understand it. It does say flatly that "God is love." Thus, speaking of love in any sense in which you aren't also talking about God is to alter the meaning of the words as they are being used in this context and thus to change the subject. In other words, there are different kinds of love and therefore the word "love" has a wide sphere of meaning that is determined by the context in which the word is used. The Greeks had three different words that are translated into English as "love" and all three of those words have their own sphere of meaning, all of which we would simply call "love" in English. The point being that there is some effort required to remain in keeping with the intended message of the opening post and that it would be easy to take what I've said too far, especially if one wanted to find a reason - any reason - to disagree.
QED
The rest of your post is just repetitive restatements of previous premises/quasi conclusions and an ad hominem thrown in for flavor that need not be addressed.
Clete
Now, you see Marke?! That's how substantive debate works. It can be accomplished with even the feeblest attempts at actual argumentation and it is far more interesting than just stating your position and then repeating yourself endlessly like some sort of broken record.
