The analogy only works is when the kid refuses to take his shoes off, the Father leaves him out there day and night to starve to death, and then tortures him for eternity, while explaining ''you did this yourself''.

(June 20, 2018 at 5:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 20, 2018 at 12:22 am)Godscreated Wrote:  
God does accept people as they are, it doesn't matter your condition. What matters is you are wanting a change and God wants to be there to guide you through the change. God accepted me as I was and accepts me as I am now, His love has rang true in my life because I wanted it.

Agape... with conditions.  Sorry, GC, it doesn't work that way.  If he doesn't accept me unless I want to change, then he doesn't truly accept me.  Your complaint is ridiculous on the face of it.  What if you said to your wife, "I accept you as you are, but only if you're willing to change"?  That would be pure hypocrisy.

Steve has given you the answer. Agape has no conditions and I said that at the beginning of the post. I can love and do love many different people but I do not have to like certain things about them to love them, including my wife. Like Steve said, God loves you but He will not allow your sin into His presence. That sin part of your life is what has to change, you being willing and God directing.

GC

(June 20, 2018 at 1:32 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 20, 2018 at 12:55 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: LOL! Listen to this absurdity: because I stand for the opposite principles than ISIS I am like ISIS. It seems that you have much more in common with ISIS like you both hate gay people's right to marriage (if not even the mere existence of gays) and woman's rights.

You have no 'moral stability' you right and wrong are based on society.. So then what makes you think this society can not make mistakes? what makes you think this society hasn't already made huge mistakes? So why then haven't stand against your pop morality? that's right because you have no sense of true righteousness and you've been programed to do what ever society says without question. Just like the ISIS guys and just like the Nazis in germany.

And yet I end up having completely opposite stance on gays, women rights and Jews than ISIS. While it is you who is following "right" moral credo end up having same stance as ISIS & Hitler. As well as many other Christian pastors like pastor Steven Anderson



My morality, as well as any sane person, comes from what makes sense and not just what it says in the Bible. Like gays - you, ISIS, Hitler and Steven Anderson want to kill them because it says so in the Bible/ Koran, while I rationally ask myself "Is there any reason to kill gay people? Are they doing harm by their existence? Is there any reason except Bible not to allow gays to marry? What harm does gay marriage does? (answer: none)". I don't blindly follow some barbaric Bronze Age stance, I think.

(June 20, 2018 at 1:32 pm)Drich Wrote: Now because you have never challenged or said I can not stand with popular morality it is wrong, that puts you in the same boat as a radicalized ISIS fighter or a 1930's german. Meaning with your current mind set if you were born in an isis rule area or in 1930 germany your value system would allow you to simply do what the crowd is doing, if ISIS rape murder steal, if German basically the white version of that.

ISIS taking it's morals from popular morality? What are you smoking? They take their morals from an ancient holy book, just like you do and just like ISIS & Hitler do.

If I was born in ISIS rule? And yet you weren't born in ISIS rule and would still do terror attack that ISIS does, like their attacks and killing of Muslims, or their bombings of music concerts that represent popular culture that you hate so much and see it as source of evil. It's because you were both brainwashed by same primitive people that wrote basically same books.

There are, after all, millions of nonbelievers in the US alone. If they are the most immoral people in America we should notice their reign of terror. Strangely, however, atheists are not raping and pillaging and generally clogging America's court systems at a detectable rate. These people, supposedly immoral by definition, seem eerily quiet.

(June 21, 2018 at 12:28 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(June 20, 2018 at 5:26 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Agape... with conditions.  Sorry, GC, it doesn't work that way.  If he doesn't accept me unless I want to change, then he doesn't truly accept me.  Your complaint is ridiculous on the face of it.  What if you said to your wife, "I accept you as you are, but only if you're willing to change"?  That would be pure hypocrisy.

Steve has given you the answer. Agape has no conditions and I said that at the beginning of the post. I can love and do love many different people but I do not have to like certain things about them to love them, including my wife. Like Steve said, God loves you but He will not allow your sin into His presence. That sin part of your life is what has to change, you being willing and God directing.

GC

How can they keep saying two completely contradictory things in the same sentence and not notice?

Christians, Making shit up for 2000 years!

(June 21, 2018 at 5:52 am)robvalue Wrote: How can they keep saying two completely contradictory things in the same sentence and not notice?

Because what they consider "logic", which it isn't in the slightest, is theistically based rather than realistically based.

This whole idea that God would love me 'if', is, I think, rather beside the point. If God chooses not to let me near because of some supposed flaw, or whether he cannot, is, I think an irrelevant distinction. Love, in order to be real, has to actually involve, you know, "loving" the other. If God neither does actually let me near, regardless of whether he simply won't, or because he can't, then God's love for me is never actualized. Love that is never tested isn't really love, it's just the idea of love. We have no idea whether God would or would not embrace me in spite of my flaws because he never actually does. So this idea that God has agape for me is hollow, empty, and meaningless. It is like the teenager's "undying love" for her boyfriend that turns out not to be so undying after all. God's love cuts and runs at the first sign of trouble. How Christians consider that agape, or anything at all, is beyond me. That's not love, it's just a romantic notion. It's the idea that God would love you if he could, but he can't, so he shan't. It's nothing real, it's just empty words.

(June 21, 2018 at 7:50 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: This whole idea that God would love me 'if', is, I think, rather beside the point. If God chooses not to let me near because of some supposed flaw, or whether he cannot, is, I think an irrelevant distinction. Love, in order to be real, has to actually involve, you know, "loving" the other. If God neither does actually let me near, regardless of whether he simply won't, or because he can't, then God's love for me is never actualized. Love that is never tested isn't really love, it's just the idea of love. We have no idea whether God would or would not embrace me in spite of my flaws because he never actually does. So this idea that God has agape for me is hollow, empty, and meaningless. It is like the teenager's "undying love" for her boyfriend that turns out not to be so undying after all. God's love cuts and runs at the first sign of trouble. How Christians consider that agape, or anything at all, is beyond me. That's not love, it's just a romantic notion. It's the idea that God would love you if he could, but he can't, so he shan't. It's nothing real, it's just empty words.

Brilliant.

/thread