Can God love?

[Losty]

Moderator Notice
We’ve decided not to split this thread, let’s please try to keep things on topic. Thanks

[Angrboda]

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. 

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. 

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.

Before I respond, I'd like to know your beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, so I don't misrepresent you. The traditional doctrine is that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which makes sense to those who, for whatever reason, do not understand the meaning of the word 'fully'. Or was it some split, that, say, Jesus was 60% divine and 40% human? Or were there two Jesuses, one human and one divine? What exactly are your beliefs here?

[Drich]

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.

Actually I have several time just today. One of you even took the correction and readjusted their perception of greek text, just in this thread. there are also several other examples of me demonstrating recorded attributes of Christ's personality that are contrary to how most of you view him/old shepard. I go on to point out his teasing of his students and riticule of his comtenories till the plotted and conspired to have him put to death the worst way imaginable at that time. Without my insitght and direction this poster would have no idea how wrong his perceptions of Christ and christianity actually were. In fact I then point out that if his perception of God/Christ is so far off what was recorded then in fact how would he know when or whether or not God has ever made contact with Him???

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. 

As an atheist you ony have only one valid explaination as to not believe in god that is lack of evidence. how that lack of evidence manifests is always ends n the same formula. you tried you did not get what you were expecting, you stopped/did not believe. that outline can be place onto each and every one of your stories lest you do indeed have evidence of God and despite that choose not to believe anyway. which is not atheism btw..

Re-asserting those same assertions ad nauseum is not going to make them any more convincing to us.

your speaking in generalities now/what other christians do here. I repeat very little unless you ask the same questions. everything is taylored to your specific points.

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.

 
actually they are more, as you have yet involved yourself in one of my threads or posts involving fictional characters.
you just can't admit what your actions/words clearly indicate.

Calling it "truth" isn't likely to change my perception.

don't care so much about your limited perception. I only look to correct bad theology and answer questions. you as an individual are not my mission so much as the questions and pints you make. as you represent people who think a certain way but are afraid to speak up. I respond to you not for you specifically but to the truth seeker behind you who has the same pint or question they want answered. You are not the sick I'm looking to treat you are the the test subject tablet or the pill is being tested on.

So whether you give me the honor of being a teacher (oh btw the pharisees did not all see Christ as a teacher either) your bad theology and tainted questions give me opportunity to teach/preach on subjects I would normally be restricted in broaching with out being prompted by someone like you.
so there is that as well

[The Grand Nudger]

There has to be a point at which you realize that what you call "bad theology" is also the article of some other christians equally legitimate faith.  Some of you think that god is incapable of love.  Some still like to say god loves but they make clear that they;re using a novel definition of the term.

Others play it plain and straight.  Yes, god can and does love.  Love love..not "love".  

I;m, not sure how any of you could establish that the others are wrong..but it;s not entirely clear why you would want the other crowd to be wrong.  Love, plain and straight..is a winning message.  If something is going to bring people to christ in a way that isn;t just sad and filthy and deeply nuerotic..it;s gonna be love. We love and we seek love and often enough we return love granted. The busniess of christianity was to further humanize a god and with that comes the possibility of love on it;s own terms. It would be a waste to place a god in the body of man but throw that one cherished thing about man away after making the lift. To create an exclusionary theology after so much effort had been made to whittle it into inclusivity.

[Astreja]

...In fact I then point out that if his perception of God/Christ is so far off what was recorded then in fact how would he know when or whether or not God has ever made contact with Him???

I think you're all imagining it, without a single exception in the history of humanity, and that no gods have ever made contact with anyone.

[SteveII]

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. 


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. 


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.

Before I respond, I'd like to know your beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, so I don't misrepresent you.  The traditional doctrine is that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which makes sense to those who, for whatever reason, do not understand the meaning of the word 'fully'.  Or was it some split, that, say, Jesus was 60% divine and 40% human?  Or were there two Jesuses, one human and one divine?  What exactly are your beliefs here?

Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

[The Valkyrie]

Not according to the bible.

[Drich]

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.

---

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

---

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.

Glob...
you understand the original bible was NOT written in any form of english correct???

The orginal texts were written in what is called the Koine Greek. we have 3 and 4th century examples of these text. these text once compiled are called codacees. or indivusally they are known as a codex. Different codacees for different translations. meaning all orginal forms of the bible were in the koine greek. 

So when I say you know the bible Never orginally said God is love it said God is Agape. I mean to say your idea of love is not God's idea of love. or more speciffically Agape is not a word that repersents what you would define as love.

lets look at your verses in the greek:

15:13  μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρτῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ
13:34  ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησαὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους

Now show me the word love....

Can't find it? that is because the word is not there. it does not exist yet. meaning the defination you assign to this word love does not exist yet. So then ask yourself what does the orginal greek use instead of the word love?

ἀγαπᾶτε

Is this a direct translation meaning can we say this word 100% means the same as our word???? No that is what this whole thread is all about. The greeks have 6 words we translate all into the single word love. the greek broke love down into 6 primary aspects. Agape' is the word the greeks use to describe the love God shares.

So when you passages say God loves... They are actually saying God Agape'

What is the difference? It was what I described to you n my first post to you.

You asked how can a loving god allow pain.

I said a loving god can't because our word love forbids the intentional transmission of pain. therefore either there is a faul with your understanding of the word love or god. Since the word God is solid, the word love must be examined for all the reasons I just mentioned. (it was not invented when the word agape' was used to describe god.) So then we must find out what the word agape means. Which again is what this thread is all about. and why I gave you the definition I gave you.

---

...In fact I then point out that if his perception of God/Christ is so far off what was recorded then in fact how would he know when or whether or not God has ever made contact with Him???

I think you're all imagining it, without a single exception in the history of humanity, and that no gods have ever made contact with anyone.

thatt's not true. there are several examples. ever christian since the day of pentecost included.

---

There has to be a point at which you realize that what you call "bad theology" is also the article of some other christians equally legitimate faith.

That's the thing the only bad theology is the theology that keeps you from seeking out the God of the bible. Everything else is permissible. We have so much freedom in God we are allowed to get it all wrong and STILL be counted among the saved!
The only 'bad theology' I ever address is the picture of god non believers paint.
The same picture can be used by a believer and I would not say a word.
Because again we as believers have so much freedom under God we can do just about whatever if we are earnestly trying. if we are putting in 100% God's grace that covers us when we willfully sin also covers when we simply get it wrong.

  Some of you think that god is incapable of love.

 for them i encourage to keep reading.

Some still like to say god loves but they make clear that they;re using a novel definition of the term.

these are closer to the truth than you know. I would correct somone who would call this truth novel because often time westerners think the bible was written in english or their bibles are 100% accurate to the orginal texts. they are not. so then we have approximations of words as we have 'literal translations' rather than ontextual translations in our bibles. a literal translation tries to give a word for word translation knowing that it is on the reader to know which words are most accurate and what words are approximations. "here agape is a 1/6th accurate translation to our word love." why because there are 6 words in the Koine greek that all get translated to the word love. which mean only 1/6th of the word love is meant when the word agape' is used. You CANOT take a word for word translation because the word love is not something the greeks would understand as we would understand. If you ever took or learned to speak a second language this would be a nonissue for you to grasp.

Others play it plain and straight.  Yes, god can and does love.  Love love..not "love".  

again all are true for the believe. one is true for the nonbeliever.

I;m, not sure how any of you could establish that the others are wrong..but it;s not entirely clear why you would want the other crowd to be wrong.

"we" don't need to "we" live in a state of peptual grace. We only need to proove you wrong, as you need to understand the nature of God to see Him when He shows up.

  Love, plain and straight..is a winning message. 

so then why would a loving God allow bad things to happen???
Do you see? a loving God by the defination of loving can't that = paradox paradox= no god in a closed mind. So then what are the options? look at the word loving, is it a valid interpertation of the word the greeks used to describe that aspect of god? answer??? no. the Greeks used Agape. Agape only describes one aspect of love the part that will see you through pain and suffering the aspect that supports respect and undeserved support. so do God love? no not as you understand the word. God Agape

If something is going to bring people to christ in a way that isn;t just sad and filthy and deeply nuerotic..it;s gonna be love.

it will also divide the unbelievers as well because they build a picture of a god which nothing bad ever happens and the first time it does these people make a wish, and because God can not support this picture of him, nothing happens. the winds and rains come and wash the foolish man's house away!

The wise man build his house on the Agape' God offers not omnibenevlence you would teach.

 We love and we seek love and often enough we return love granted.  The busniess of christianity was to further humanize a god and with that comes the possibility of love on it;s own terms.

 wrong agan. this is PR from the church. Christianity sole purpose was outlined on the day Christ ascended into Heaven and that is to bring the 'good news'/seek and save the lost this is through the agape God offers and the phila of the church.

It would be a waste to place a god in the body of man but throw that one cherished thing about man away after making the lift.  To create an exclusionary theology after so much effort had been made to whittle it into inclusivity.

Believe it or not your version excludes people. What God has done does not require people to understand any of this. all one need do is live this life and decide whether or not to serve God for eternity. in this life we were supposed to get to know God. You can't do that if yur head is filled with bad theology.

[*Deidre*]

I didn't know you speak for God, Drich. lol

Good lawd, get over yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC he does.  His god lives inside his head.  Who else would speak for him if drich wouldn;t.

---

  Love, plain and straight..is a winning message. 

so then why would a loving God allow bad things to happen???
Do you see? a loving God by the defination of loving can't that = paradox paradox= no god in a closed mind. So then what are the options? look at the word loving, is it a valid interpertation of the word the greeks used to describe that aspect of god? answer??? no. the Greeks used Agape. Agape only describes one aspect of love the part that will see you through pain and suffering the aspect that supports respect and undeserved support. so do God love? no not as you understand the word. God Agape

This is just about the only thing worth responding too..since it;s fact adjacent.

Do I see a paradox between a loving god and a god that allows bad things to happen..or, at least doesn;t do anything when they do?  No.  I see people who love either allowing bad things to happen or being incap[able of preventing them from happening.  The saving grace, in their case..is that they would if they could - that they at least love even though they can;t make al;l the bad things go away.  "Paradoxes" like these aren;t really a problem for me, because I;m not a believer, theyre a problem for believers...but only insomuch as they cant stand to admit that every mythology contains inconsistency.

Insisting that god actually doesnt love, but is somehow benevolent doesn;t escape this particular complaint in any case..so you;ve tied your scrotum into a knot for no good god damned reason and I again point out that others feel no need to do so. Your own personal jesus is an inconsistent dick....amd other peoples personal jesus are also commonly inconsistent..but at least they love.