(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to.
God is love, where is the confusion?

What do you mean Frodo is entitled? Am I entitled to build the picture of God's nature that I need? Because I am currently witnessing a flexibility in God's nature that allows it to change with whatever satisfies the person's rationale. That leaves my picture of God, as I need it to be according to the logic and evidence that I am coerced into acknowledging, as an idea that can have both positive and negative--powerful and weak--effects on an individual's psychology... or for that matter, simply none at all.

Quote:Can't you love someone and hate another, without collapsing into an endless paradox?

Not if you believe God's nature is infinite love and goodness... but then you're basically conceding that pretty much of all Christendom has had it wrong. I applaud the boldness of your move.

Quote:God loves his children, and hates those who do evil towards them or others. Any parent can relate to this what is the big mystery here?

Perhaps Jesus and God should get their messages in line.

(September 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What do you mean Frodo is entitled?

Frodo is a God of the bible/Jesus Christ centered Christian, as such has the benfit of attonement to cover any mistakes in Doctrine he may have. Fore the same forgiveness available to the Christian when he willfully sins is their in abundance more when he is ask/seek/knocking while constructing the best picture of God he possible can.

Quote:Am I entitled to build the picture of God's nature that I need?

with your currently stated religious views? No. At least not before God.

Quote:Because I am currently witnessing a flexibility in God's nature that allows it to change with whatever satisfies the person's rationale.

in a manor of speaking that is the very reason we have so many different denominations.

Quote:That leaves my picture of God, as I need it to be according to the logic and evidence that I am coerced into acknowledging, as an idea that can have both positive and negative--powerful and weak--effects on an individual's psychology... or for that matter, simply none at all.

Their is a limit. Christ warns us not to become too comfortable/luke warm in our beliefs. Rather we need to push our understanding of God and have it evolve as we walk and grow in the Spirit. Otherwise it would be better if we never knew of God.

Quote:Not if you believe God's nature is infinite love and goodness...

God's love is indeed boundless to those in whom He has chosen to love. (As per John 3:16 those who believe) However his anger is equally boundless to those in whom He hates.

Again what is so difficult to understand there?

Quote: but then you're basically conceding that pretty much of all Christendom has had it wrong. I applaud the boldness of your move.

not at all, only those who speak to an endless love that is nowhere to be found in the bible. That is a modern catholic construct, and not a biblical precept.

We just had a thread on Christian platitudes, and how to decern empty Christian fluff from the doctrine of Christ. In it I say the doctrines of Christ must all have one qualifier in common, in that they must be taught by Christ. Well, here is a prime example of an empty Christian platitude that is not taught by Christ.

I worship the God of the bible and not the god of popular christianity. I have constructed a vision of the God of the bible by only using what the bible says He is like. In some areas we agree and in others we do not.

Does it make me more Christian and someone else less? No not at all. The only way someone who believes God is Omni benevolent is any less of a believer than, someone who recognizes what the bible actually says about God's love, is when That person believes because that is what they were told in Sunday school, and no other source. In short when their belief starts and ends there. Meaning they do not grow in What they know. They do not read the bible or seek God out on His terms, rather they try and make God fit who they think Him to be.

Quote:God loves his children, and hates those who do evil towards them or others. Any parent can relate to this what is the big mystery here?

Perhaps Jesus and God should get their messages in line.
[/quote]
How so? Where do you see a difference?

Will respond to everyone else later.

These two videos, both by DarkMatter2525, highlight the irrationality of a loving God vis a vis the primitive scapegoat justice that is espoused by Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWAUhadJzTk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNtBkOXItqw

(September 13, 2014 at 2:57 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 1. What do Christians mean by God's love or God is love?
2. Is God's love conceived as conditional or unconditional?
3. If it is unconditional, how can one ever divorce themselves from it?
4. Does God continue to love those whom he has reserved hell for?
5. If God is omnipresent, in what sense is it logical to speak of the absence of his presence in hell?
6. If God is immutable, how can any love he possesses for us ever change into wrath?
7. If you have/had a child who disowned you as a parent, and you therefore reacted by revoking any extension of love you possessed for them, in what sense could your love be considered unconditional?
8. If God's love is conditioned on our actions or beliefs about him, is it fair to say that God's love is inferior to the love that many human parents do in fact possess for their children?

Interesting questions!

I'll just start with question 1 which seems rather key.

When you ask what Christians mean by God's love I think it's important that words we use about God must have a parallel to how we use words normally. There will always be limitations to how we can talk about God but if we start saying that God's love is somehow very different to how we talk about love between people, for example, then language seems to have lost its usefulness. So I think the love of God must have parallels to how we generally think about love, and that would be along the lines of:

* How we as parents love our children.
* How we as husbands and wives love each other.
* How we love our family and dear friends.
* How we show charity to those in need. And that would include not only those whom we know and like, but those whom we may not know or whom we may even know but dislike.

So when we say 'God is love' I would say that we mean that those characteristic of love are integral to God. When we recognise love we are recognising something of God 'himself'. To know love is, John says, to know God. And so from the Christian perspective one of the answers to the question 'how can I see God?' is to say 'recognise love wherever you see it'. Indeed one of the great ancient hymns of the Church begins 'Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est' or 'where there is love and charity, God is there'.

Let me throw out a little additional speculation for the fun of it: The phrase 'God is love' comes from John the letter-writer who we believe was also probably the primary author of what we call the Gospel of John. In that Gospel John appears to show knowledge of Greek thought, describing 'the Son' (who would become incarnate as Jesus) as the 'Logos', that underlying order to the universe that Greek philosophers described. Perhaps, then, John was also aware that the Greeks saw virtue as something distinct and apart, so that Euthyphro posed the question of whether God defined virtue or whether God obeyed a pre-established idea of virtue. John, then, sidesteps both horns of the established Greek dilemma and goes straight between them saying that God neither defines goodness (love) nor obeys a predetermined goodness, but that God is goodness/love.

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: Frodo is a God of the bible/Jesus Christ centered Christian, as such has the benfit of attonement to cover any mistakes in Doctrine he may have.

Jesus H. Christ. Talk about an ego-maniac. I'm pretty sure if there is a just and fair God there must be a special place in hell reserved for people who think the world starts and begins with themselves, like you, drich. I'd be very cautious to set myself up as the arbiter for who is and is not allowed to err in doctrine if I thought the Bible was magic powder.

Quote:Perhaps Jesus and God should get their messages in line.

How so? Where do you see a difference?

One blasts hypocrites and commands loving thy enemies, and is alleged to have loved the whole world, even those who killed him.

One hates his enemies, only loving those who love him (which Jesus criticizes because even the sinners do THAT!) and worse, almost seems to delight in expressing it.

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: Frodo is a God of the bible/Jesus Christ centered Christian, as such has the benfit of attonement to cover any mistakes in Doctrine he may have.

How does that work specifically?

Frodo, I'm assuming, has already done the "accept Jesus" spiel along with whatever correct or incorrect conditions that go with it. But, according to you, he is wrong about the doctrine right now. Does he have to repeat the "atonement" correctly (according to you) at some future date or does his past atonement cover all future mistakes even though it was incorrect?

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: Fore the same forgiveness available to the Christian when he willfully sins is their in abundance more when he is ask/seek/knocking while constructing the best picture of God he possible can.

Again, do you have to ask forgiveness every time you sin or does asking it once cover all future sins? For example, if a bank robber steals a lot of money and kills three hostages while trying to escape, is the only difference between him going to heaven or hell is if he has the time to think "Please Jesus, forgive me", before being gunned down by the cops?

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: Their is a limit. Christ warns us not to become too comfortable/luke warm in our beliefs. Rather we need to push our understanding of God and have it evolve as we walk and grow in the Spirit. Otherwise it would be better if we never knew of God.

More vague, open-to-interpretation "rules" from your bible?

What is the limit specifically? At what point does a Christian denomination stop being a Christian denomination according to you? What could their beliefs be that cannot be covered by "mistaking the doctrine"?

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: but then you're basically conceding that pretty much of all Christendom has had it wrong. I applaud the boldness of your move.

not at all, only those who speak to an endless love that is nowhere to be found in the bible. That is a modern catholic construct, and not a biblical precept.

Are you denying that most of the Christendom speaks of endless unconditional love (which isn't in the bible according to your interpretation) or are you simply unaware of it?

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: In it I say the doctrines of Christ must all have one qualifier in common, in that they must be taught by Christ. Well, here is a prime example of an empty Christian platitude that is not taught by Christ.

So, what position do you take on subjects that your Christ never spoke about, supposedly?

(September 15, 2014 at 12:21 am)Drich Wrote: The only way someone who believes God is Omni benevolent is any less of a believer than, someone who recognizes what the bible actually says about God's love, is when That person believes because that is what they were told in Sunday school, and no other source. In short when their belief starts and ends there. Meaning they do not grow in What they know. They do not read the bible or seek God out on His terms, rather they try and make God fit who they think Him to be.

Its interesting that you should argue that - because others would argue the following: You believe only in the bible. Your belief starts and ends there. You do not grow in what you know. You do not apply critical thinking. You do not seek your god on his terms, which encompass the totality of things he created. You are the one who has become comfortable/lukewarm in your beliefs because you limit your god to the things you can find in the bible. Thus, you'd be the one trying to make him fit who you think him to be.

Other Christian theologians and philosophers would argue that in order to "push your understanding" you need to go beyond the bible - something they have been doing for centuries.

(September 14, 2014 at 6:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Drich: I agree with you that the term I used is modern and sloppy. But I knew what was meant by it.

The verse wasn't talking about hate, but enemies. To love your enemy is to be like Christ.

What I am discussing is not about us nor what we have commanded to do. My whole argument centers around the fact that no where in the bible does it say God loves everyone unconditionally. That passages I pointed out clearly states that there are those in whom God hates. Therefore the doctrine of Omni benevolence is a biblically unsupported one.

Again not disputing the fact that we are to love our enemies. Nor that, act is Christ like to a degree. (Don't forget his actions with the money changers, not a whole lot of praying went on that day.)

The actions taken with the money changers shows that God knows there are some of us beyond redemption. Those who are have been deemed wicked.

Quote:This bit supported my view I thought:
Love seeks the welfare of all, Romans 15:2, and works no ill to any, 13:8-10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men

Again you seem to be confusing our commands with the limits of God's hatred toward man. One has nothing to do with another.

Quote:Of course it isn't. It's a modern translation of the Greek

to which I identified as being incorrect by providing 3 points of verifiable legitimate biblical reference material.

Wikipedia Wrote:Agape (/ˈæɡəpiː/[1] or /əˈɡɑːpeɪ/; Classical Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē; Modern Greek: αγάπη IPA: [aˈɣapi]), often translated "unconditional love"

Sorry, but wiki does not trump actual Greek lexicons.

Quote:I am certainly not advocating that salvation is unnecessary. God loves the unsaved which is how they end up saved. Because he still loved them. And God loves the sinners such as the prostitute and tax man. Those engaged in sin, he still loved and still saved. If he harboured hatred, there would be no second chance.

for some their are no second chances.
Numerous scriptures refer to believers being chosen (Matthew 24:22, 31; Mark 13:20, 27; Romans 8:33, 9:11, 11:5-7, 28; Ephesians 1:11; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10). Predestination is the biblical doctrine that God in His sovereignty chooses certain individuals to be saved.

The question is how, and who. Because in these passages of scripture it says over and over that we can not seek Him unless he calls us.

Quote:A ministry of hatred is not something I recognise. It is inconsistent with my belief.

again you go too far. I did not say we are to practice a ministry of hatred. I simply pointed to scripture in which God exercises the power to hate those who revel in evil.

Quote:I checked your psalms references and couldn't find a translation that stated that God hates.

What translation did you check in? Here is the kjv linked with the orginal Hebrew, with word by word break down and the word defined:

If you are serious about 'finding a legitmate translation that identifies God hate toward the wicked then simply click on the link provided.:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...onc_489005

Quote:You mention the difference between sin and evil. Could you provide references for those please.

more than happy to.
For this all one must do is go to a lexicon of your choice and type in sin and evil.
Here is what the vines had to say:
http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Now contrast the definitions in evil with sin:
http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)

Two words, two totally different meanings. Yet 'modern translations' give these two words one meaning.

Quote:All are forgiven if they accept it. Only by refusing it do you earn a place in hell. It is never withheld.

Again you go too far with what I have said. What I have provided is scripture that shows the doctrine of Omni benevolence to be invalid. That's it. It does not change the nature of God Himself.

Just how we think of Him.

Quote: Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him.

So?

Did the rich young ruler fall into the category provided by psalms 11? Again another example of you trying to take what I have pointed out I. The scripture to an unwarranted extreme. Christ did not hate the SINNER because he was caught in sin. As Psalms 11 states God hates evil doers and is all to ready to judge them. Christ displayed this level of distinct and anger toward the money changers. He also sharply and harshly rebuked the Pharisees and makers of the law. He even said 'one's righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees to enter heaven.'

---

(September 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Another one Drich.. (I see the hatred line is psalm 11) hatred in this sense, referring to long lasting defiance, I take to mean an ongoing anger. That is, not an unjustified state of condemnation. Rather an extended version of the short and sharp measure usually dealt. What do you think?

Click on the link I provided from the blue letter bible. The word and it's usage is clearly defined. The word sane' only means to hate in the English. The example is given "to hate one's enemies.'

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...8130&t=KJV

What will change in your estimation if God can hate?

---

(September 14, 2014 at 6:43 pm)genkaus Wrote: Its the definition that mainstream Christianity supports. Are you saying that all those people who call themselves Christians are not Christians?

what I have said repeatedly is we as Christians have the freedom to build whatever picture of God we can fathom so long as this picture is continually evolving to match that picture found in the bible.

That is why we have so many different legitimate denominations.

Quote:No, there are a multitude of other logical problems as well.

well maybe string a few together and start a thread, and we will see if we can't take care a few of those for ya.

Quote:Then it should be easy for you to convince your fellow Christians of that and get them change their definition and stop spouting shit like "god loves you".

who am I to judge who is ready for a deeper understanding and who is not? My task is to simply provide clarity when asked.

Quote:But if Frodo needs to worship an all-loving god, which according to you, your god isn't, then clearly Frodo isn't worshiping your god - which is something your god does not forgive.

who says? I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian. It is only the wicked who need fear the wrath of God.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: of course not. Sam 15, was a command issued in one specific instance to one specific set of OT Jews under king Saul. We know this because this was not the m/o everytime the Jewish army conquered a rival nation. Each and everytime this sort of thing happened their was a special command given.

Quote:So, your god's command in this instance was contrary to his morality?

Please explain your logic there.

Quote:Both of you supposedly worship the same god - so no confusion there. Your biblical morality is as absolutist and authoritarian as the Islamic one.

that statement is proof positive that you do not understand basic biblical Christianity.

Quote:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word rational.
It means to simply have a reason.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

Please read the definition you provided:

"based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings".

So when I say a rational morality, I mean a morality that is based on facts and reasonably derived and not one based on emotions of feelings.

are you really so ignorant of history you do not know of the propaganda campaign hitler under took to dehumanize the Jews? It may have started out in anger, but the nazis quickly fabricated/provided fact and reasoning to justify their final solution. It started with 'natural selection/Darwinian' arguement that say they were a genetic throw back/cave man who was holding the Arian race down and keeping it from being a world power to the reason Germany lost the First World War, to the reason Germany could never afford to pay all the reparations for loosing the war, to their economic situation. The Jews had to go and it was every red blooded Germans moral obligation to ensure that not one Jew was left.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: By this definition the extermination of nearly 7 million Jews was a rational act by hitlers germany.
Why because they had a reason for doing what they did.

No, by this defintion, since their so-called justification was not factual but emotional, their actions were not rational.
Facts have nothing to so with truth. Facts are statement that can be proven or disproven. The German people were overwhelmed with 'facts.'

Quote:Different Christians interpret your biblical morality differently - therefore, not well-defined and open to interpretation.

actually no. Interpretation of a definition has no bearing on whether or not the definition is well defined.

(September 15, 2014 at 8:53 am)Drich Wrote: more than happy to.
For this all one must do is go to a lexicon of your choice and type in sin and evil.
Here is what the vines had to say:
http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Now contrast the definitions in evil with sin:
http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)

Two words, two totally different meanings. Yet 'modern translations' give these two words one meaning.

This is interesting. You defined sin as:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Sin is anything outside the expressed will of God.

And you defined evil as:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Evil is a willful endulgence or delight in being outside the expressed will of God.

And yet, the source you pointed to doesn't support your definition.

(September 15, 2014 at 6:23 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Jesus H. Christ. Talk about an ego-maniac. I'm pretty sure if there is a just and fair God there must be a special place in hell reserved for people who think the world starts and begins with themselves, like you, drich. I'd be very cautious to set myself up as the arbiter for who is and is not allowed to err in doctrine if I thought the Bible was magic powder.

Are you really surprised that God would favor and forgive the saved/believers over the unsaved/non believers?

Quote:Perhaps Jesus and God should get their messages in line.

How so? Where do you see a difference?

One blasts hypocrites and commands loving thy enemies, and is alleged to have loved the whole world, even those who killed him.

One hates his enemies, only loving those who love him (which Jesus criticizes because even the sinners do THAT!) and worse, almost seems to delight in expressing it.
[/quote]
Again, there is a difference between sinners and evil doers. God has mercy on sinners but no tolerance for evil doers. Even Christ demonstrated this with the Pharisees and money changers.

---

(September 15, 2014 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 15, 2014 at 8:53 am)Drich Wrote: more than happy to.
For this all one must do is go to a lexicon of your choice and type in sin and evil.
Here is what the vines had to say:
http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Now contrast the definitions in evil with sin:
http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)

Two words, two totally different meanings. Yet 'modern translations' give these two words one meaning.

This is interesting. You defined sin as:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Sin is anything outside the expressed will of God.

And you defined evil as:

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Evil is a willful endulgence or delight in being outside the expressed will of God.

And yet, the source you pointed to doesn't support your definition.

Please use the source and refute, or your assertion will be dismissed.

(September 14, 2014 at 11:13 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Frodo says that according to biblical Christianity God's love is unconditional and inseparable from his creation.
Drich says that according to biblical Christianity God's love is conditional and separable from his creation.

How will this conflict ever be solved? Part of my problem with theism is the very trouble of defining God in the way we have just witnessed.

With swords and fire as always.

---

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word rational.
It means to simply have a reason.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

You are wrong. Reread that definition. It's not "a reason", it's "reason".

Your argument fails.