(June 22, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Just stop, lol.  You dont have to keep telling me that your own personal jesus is an asshole...I already know.  Hell, had you not already told us all of the ways that your personal jesus was an asshole it would have been an easy guess just by reference to you.

Seriously?!?!? Who's the "God don't believer here?" YOU ARE! so then how can you EVER be in a position to dictate the charastics of God? a God you don't believe in let alone met?

I on the other Hand do believe because I have been in His presence, and I do see his personality standing out on page and I do see Him disrespect/attack one religious leader after another

Why else do you think He was killed the worse way possible?!?!

If he was a kindly shepard then why did the religious elite have a problem with Him?

Here's something for you to chew on... You said you tried worshiping your kindly shepard version of God and what has that yeilded for you??? You keep waiting for this old sheard to show up, has he? Nor will he. not to you. your on the wrong end of the shepard's staff to every see the kindly old man you are looking for.

I don't find a God that loves oppressors, their supporters, and watchers worthy of worship.

(June 22, 2018 at 12:50 pm)Drich Wrote: Here's something for you to chew on... You said you tried worshiping your kindly shepard version of God and what has that yeilded for you???

No Drich, I;ve never said that lol.  I;ve never worshipped or believed in any gods....nor am I waiting for any god to show up.

I merely note that your personal jesus is an asshole while the majority of others personal jesus is not.

(June 22, 2018 at 12:40 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I think God is loving but maybe it’s my own perceptions that are limited? I don’t adhere to religion per se, but part of my thinking might come from religions. I don’t have a prerequisite that a god is tantamount to a genie in a bottle that should grant my every wish and provide me with a life free of pain. I guess the question is - if God allows suffering etc then how can he be loving?

I think it’s difficult to convince people that one almighty God loves them, when they are hurting and some of that hurt might be coming from their families, loved ones, etc

The bible NEVER said God is loving. The bible originally said God is Agape' which we translated into loving... our loving and God's Agape' are not compatible terms.

As you pointed out a loving person would protect from Harm. Agape' uses things like hardship and suffering to work away our spiritual imperfections to polish and shape us into usable tools for God's use.

A loving person may see a shape in a knot of wood that resembles a mother and child

An Agape person will take that knot and cut, chip sand grind and shape that knot till a beautiful sculpture of a mother and child is instantly recognisable.

God's love/Agape' love is love beyond the moment and want. Agape' is the love that will see you through pain rather than help you avoid it. why? because we only grow through pain.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Emjays a bit of a pushover, lol.  The only thing he profoundly misunderstood is what -you- are referring to with eros.  He actually got it right from his source material.

don't hate sport. some people seek truth other's seek conflict. same tools just different end.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:57 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 12:50 pm)Drich Wrote: Here's something for you to chew on... You said you tried worshiping your kindly shepard version of God and what has that yeilded for you???

No Drich, I;ve never said that lol.  I;ve never worshipped or believed in any gods....nor am I waiting for any god to show up.

I merely note that your personal jesus is an asshole while the majority of others personal jesus is not.

that's a lie earlier this week you were asking my to "go get papa."

That said I can't help if everyone else is wrong. Jesus was harsh towards his students unyeilding/cursing to his religious superiors and kind to his sheep. I can't help it if other only see what they want. the truth is the truth and is written on page for anyone to see it. Jesus gave peter the name petros or unstable gravel that is like calling a full grown man "sport." it refers to the man's in ablity to commit to a course of action.

(June 21, 2018 at 3:43 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 21, 2018 at 10:32 am)SteveII Wrote: God has certainly 'actualized' his love for everyone even prior to any one person's salvation experience:

1. John 3:16, For God so loved the world...he died to atone for anyone's sin. Romans 5:6-8, God proved his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
2. God continually preserves this message of hope and constantly orchestrates events so that people hear it. Mark 4:3-20 (the parable of the sower/seeds)
3. When a person's heart is receptive to this hope, he is waiting there to respond. I John 1:8-9


So, your whole point above is wrong: God has already shown his love for us. There is no "God would love you if he could, but he can't, so he shan't."

My references are not exhaustive, rather are just one of many places in the NT where you get the same principles.

Try to keep your eye on the ball, Steve.  The question was not does God love a certain class of people who meet his conditions, but rather does God have agape toward the unbeliever, who, according to you, he is metaphysically unable to approach.  And the answer to that latter question is no, he doesn't have agape toward them, for the reasons outlined.  As for the other class of people, his love toward them is conditional, so that's not agape either, though for different reasons.

For reference: The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.

All 3 points I made above are examples of actions/attitudes of God prior to any decision by any person. I also think that your characterization of God cannot love since he is "metaphysically unable to approach" is wrong on two fronts:

1. John 16:7-11 tells one of the Holy Spirit's purpose as one of conviction the world of their sinful condition and driving them to seek God. That alone defeats the "metaphysically unable to approach" idea.
2. Further, I don't think the barrier between God and unrepentant man applies to the question of God's love for the same person. I think it is sufficient to see that God desires, has planned for, physically provided for, prompts (via Holy Spirit) and continually waits for the repair to be made to qualify as love. 

Quote:But let's get something else out of the way.  Your God did not die for anybody's sins because your God did not die.  And he knew he wasn't going to die.  That's the same lie that Christians have been telling for 2,000 years and no matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a lie.  Jesus was temporarily inconvenienced for my sins, maybe; but what is that to an eternal God?  Fuck if I know.  Generally when it comes to God's pseudo-sacrifice, the explanation breaks one of two ways.  Either Christ's "death" was merely symbolic in order to facilitate our rapprochement toward God, or it was in some sense metaphysically necessary.  In the first case, it being symbolic, it wasn't necessary, it had no substantive effect upon God's relationship towards man, and was little more than a calculated PR campaign.  In the second sense, Jesus' crucifixion becomes some sort of magic spell, requiring the right physical ingredients and saying the right magic words.   Why God needs a cantrip to forgive someone is never fully explained, it's just an ad hoc supposition required to make sense of the story.  That's not how the rest of the world forgives.  Me, I just will myself to forgive, and it's done.  Apparently, if God wants to forgive someone, he has to sacrifice a goat.  Your God is the most emotionally inept God I've ever heard of.

Jesus most certainly died--in every sense of the word. A couple of points of clarification:

1. It is impossible for man to atone for his own sin. 
2. So God decided to do so.
3. But in order to atone for man's sin, God had to become a man in order to stand in for us. So, the sacrifice was not simply "symbolic" as you put it. 
4. That means that Jesus was truly human. He was still God, so he was not just merely human. He had a unique dual nature. 
5. His human nature endured life, suffering and death. There is another thing that comes up--God turned away from him at the time of his death because he represented the sins of the world. This was apparently a heavy thing to go through. 

You can say 'big deal', he knew in the end he would be fine. Sure, but that point really does not undercut that he loved us enough to provide this way back. 

One last point on this. You mention that you "forgive, and it's done". That is not the same thing as what is happening with the Christ's atonement. Christ's atonement does not forgive, it wipes the slate clean--as if it never happened. This is an important distinction in systematic theology that few ever take note of. 

Quote:Regardless, the Christian is always attempting to make disbelief some kind of moral failing for which we are culpable.  It's not, so all the gymnastics attempting to justify God's justice ultimately fail.  At the end of the road is a God who loves some people and not others, specifically because of who they are.  That's not agape, no matter how you slice it.  Since you've abandoned the possibility that God is capable of other kinds of love right out of the gate, the final conclusion is that no, God does not, or cannot, love.

I don't think that your "disbelief" characterization is correct either. Our natural state is one that needs fixing. Being in that state is the failing--not the disbelief itself. If you reject what has been revealed to you about God, that is a moral failing, but it is your natural state that has and will always separate you.

I defended my premise. God's actions shows conclusively that he has and does love all humanity and it is his will that they respond to him prior to or in spite of, a lack of response. Your attempts to undercut the premise are well thought out, but don't prevail once we fill in the systematic theology behind the beliefs.

(June 22, 2018 at 11:14 am)Drich Wrote: what teacher is not more knowledgeable than his students? How does any teacher react when questioned by a student who presume to know better?

I say again:  You are not our teacher.  You have not demonstrated to our satisfaction that you possess any extraordinary knowledge or truth.

At some point you're just going to have to accept that we have valid and compelling reasons for not believing every assertion made to us by religious individuals.  Re-asserting those same assertions ad nauseum is not going to make them any more convincing to us.

Quote:I am here to spread the truth about God and the bible in the same way Christ did. No, He was very authoritative and condescending to those who argued what he knew to be true. so much so the leadership of his day had him killed.

From my POV, your god and the Christ character in the Bible are indistinguishable from fictional characters.  Calling it "truth" isn't likely to change my perception.

(June 22, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 12:40 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I think God is loving but maybe it’s my own perceptions that are limited? I don’t adhere to religion per se, but part of my thinking might come from religions. I don’t have a prerequisite that a god is tantamount to a genie in a bottle that should grant my every wish and provide me with a life free of pain. I guess the question is - if God allows suffering etc then how can he be loving?

I think it’s difficult to convince people that one almighty God loves them, when they are hurting and some of that hurt might be coming from their families, loved ones, etc

The bible NEVER said God is loving. The bible originally said God is Agape' which we translated into loving... our loving and God's Agape' are not compatible terms.

As you pointed out a loving person would protect from Harm. Agape' uses things like hardship and suffering to work away our spiritual imperfections to polish and shape us into usable tools for God's use.

A loving person may see a shape in a knot of wood that resembles a mother and child

An Agape person will take that knot and cut, chip sand grind and shape that knot till a beautiful sculpture of a mother and child is instantly recognisable.

God's love/Agape' love is love beyond the moment and want. Agape' is the love that will see you through pain rather than help you avoid it. why? because we only grow through pain.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Emjays a bit of a pushover, lol.  The only thing he profoundly misunderstood is what -you- are referring to with eros.  He actually got it right from his source material.

don't hate sport. some people seek truth other's seek conflict. same tools just different end.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:57 pm)Khemikal Wrote: No Drich, I;ve never said that lol.  I;ve never worshipped or believed in any gods....nor am I waiting for any god to show up.

I merely note that your personal jesus is an asshole while the majority of others personal jesus is not.

that's a lie earlier this week you were asking my to "go get papa."

That said I can't help if everyone else is wrong. Jesus was harsh towards his students unyeilding/cursing to his religious superiors and kind to his sheep. I can't help it if other only see what they want. the truth is the truth and is written on page for anyone to see it. Jesus gave peter the name petros or unstable gravel that is like calling a full grown man "sport." it refers to the man's in ablity to commit to a course of action.

John 15:13 - “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life to one’s friends.”

John 13:34 - “A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.”

The Bible speaks a lot about God’s love, from a Christian view.

(June 22, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Emjays a bit of a pushover, lol.  The only thing he profoundly misunderstood is what -you- are referring to with eros.  He actually got it right from his source material.

Er... awkward But maybe I just wanted to have a discussion rather an argument, because I'm actually interested in the subject and it's new to me... and there's no point if we're talking about different things.

Anyway, what did I get right? I don't hear that very often

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 10:37 am)emjay Wrote: @Drich. Yeah, I think I've grossly misunderstood the meaning of eros. I thought it could be generalised to mean seeking any sort of value... ie the only way human life progresses is by constantly seeking from moment to moment; if we did not want anything... be it food, comfort etc... we would do nothing... and eventually die... in other words, humans are goal-driven even when that goal is only to maintain our current state. So I was characterising value in that sense as the seeking/attainment of any goal. And where I thought, under that scheme, a goal did not need to be egocentric in nature... because it's perfectly evident from looking at psychology that not all goals are. But that's not what eros is saying at all; it's saying that we can only love what has pleasure or ulility for us and us alone... ie it is entirely egocentric.

Say for example that the world consists of you, me, and a winning lottery ticket... of which I'm the current holder. Under eros it would make sense for me to keep the ticket because it would be expected to provide me with utility and pleasure. But say I choose to give it to you. I could give it to you publicly and then, though losing the ticket and the utility/pleasure it would provide, could instead gain a different type of egocentric pleasure/utility... your gratitude... or at least the expectation of it... and other social feelings related to pride. That would therefore appear to be another example of eros since it is egocentric. But say now that I choose to give it to you completely anonymously. In that case I could still get some indirect egocentric benefit out of the act if doing it in some way improved my self-esteem or whatever... made me feel like a good person for doing it. But finally, say I give you the ticket completely anonymously - ie with no hope or expectation that you or anyone else will ever know I gave it to you - and for the sole reason that I want you to be happy... and the reason for wanting that may be love, sympathy, or empathy for you etc and that alone. In this case there is no egocentric benefit aside from whatever happy feeling I get from you being happy; there is no material benefit, there is no social benefit, and there is no self-esteem benefit.

It's the latter of those four that appears to have no place in eros... though I thought it did in my earlier characterisations/generalisations of eros because even the happy feeling that comes from someone else being happy is something that I feel in my consciousness... but it looks like that's taking the word egocentric too far. So anyway, since the latter type of love is a reality but eros makes no provision for it, I accept that eros is the wrong word for what I've been trying to describe... and won't use it again in this context.

 this maybe the first time any of you has ever taken a correction of mine and accepted it publically.... Never before, has it mattered if I was right or not.. I don't know what to do now.. I guess I should say thank you or your welcome or something, but again find my self at a loss for words..

Maybe I'll go and argue with someone else about the sky being blue and come back to this...

Er... another awkward one

As I've just said to K, I'm interested in this as a discussion rather than an argument, and the subject is new to me, and we're just gonna talk past each other if we're using different definitions of words.

(June 22, 2018 at 1:31 pm)emjay Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Emjays a bit of a pushover, lol.  The only thing he profoundly misunderstood is what -you- are referring to with eros.  He actually got it right from his source material.

Er... awkward But maybe I just wanted to have a discussion rather an argument, because I'm actually interested in the subject and it's new to me... and there's no point if we're talking about different things.

Anyway, what did I get right? I don't hear that very often

You;re not going to get a "conversation" out of Drich, lol. Heres here to fish for souls by telling you you;re wrong about everything.

Eros.  It actually is the desire of value and the seeking out of value or transcendent beauty..at least in it;s classical conception. In point of fact..eros -is- love.  The other categories, like philia...that was friendship.  Agape...good will and benevolence.  When Drich thinks eros he thinks titties....but thats not actually what it was envisioned as, even if it included that as the very lowest form of eros. Of the body driving the eros car rather than the soul doing so.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote:

---

(June 22, 2018 at 12:57 pm)Khemikal Wrote: No Drich, I;ve never said that lol.  I;ve never worshipped or believed in any gods....nor am I waiting for any god to show up.

I merely note that your personal jesus is an asshole while the majority of others personal jesus is not.

that's a lie earlier this week you were asking my to "go get papa."

You can;t possibly be so dull as to imagine that I thought you would..or were even capable of doing so..can you...?

---

Continuing along.  If a god has love, then it seeks, it desires, it pursues that beauty and value it sees but does not possess.  A god may not have a body, so it may not seek or desire or find value in my peener...lustful bodily eros, butithe must in some way be incomplete and unwhole in the absence of my possession as a valuable and beautiful thing.

A god asserted to be complete and whole in every way, that desires for nothing because it has everything.....cannot possibly love, cannot express eros..because love is found in the seeking. It may be benevolent, (agape). It may be friendly (philia)..it may even be empathetic (storge)..but it does not love....eros.

More broadly, the retrograde christians god possesses none of these things by reference to it;s purported actions and position...all retrograde christians assertions to the contrary...but is that really surprising? They didn;t come up with any of this, it was yet another borrowed ladder grafted onto their confused mythology as a bid to purchase the credibility that came with classical pagan intellectual traditions.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 1:31 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: John 13:34 - “A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.”

The Bible speaks a lot about God’s love, from a Christian view.

That one would be a rather empty command if one deferred to a retrograde view of how god "loves" us. 

Personally, I like the buddy jesus who does actually love, and in the context of that and ignoring pretty much every other bit of scripture that would be a great command..perhaps the only command required.

"We should like..love each other and stuff..man" Yeah...yeah! That dirty hippys right! We should seek each other out and see the value and transcendent beauty of man. We should want that, and want to possess it ourselves. We should want to preserve it, promote it, grow it, see it increase. This, imo, was the failure of the arc that christendom took for so long..because it had so much potential to be the good news so many believe it to be.

Agree, Khem.