Can God love?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That isn't comparable to what god does to people who don't do what he says.

I do think it's interesting that Neo compared sinning to muddy shoes.  It's almost as though an all-powerful deity would simply be slightly inconvenienced by sin, and that a proper response to it isn't permanent banishment and eternal suffering....

The analogy is really pretty simple. It takes real effort to distort it like some here have done. The only thing preventing the child (anyone) from entering the house (the presence of God) is to clean-up. We make the choices and most choices have consequences. The concept of eternal torment versus blessedness is predicated on the idea that people cultivated lifelong habits of choose to cling to what they love, for better or worse, to the point that they cannot do otherwise than continue on going down the road they have chosen. If you love wearing muddy shoes more than a roof over your head and being with people who love you, then you will voluntarily stay outside with the rest of the belligerents. A similar analogy would be parents that refuse to enable their alcoholic adult child.

[Foxaèr]

The bathroom is in the house. The dirty child needs to enter the house and then go to the bathroom to clean up. Therefore, your analogy doesn't work.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The bathroom is in the house.  The dirty child needs to enter the house and then go to the bathroom to clean up.  Therefore, your analogy doesn't work.

The oldest son (Jesus) is in the house ready to help the kid bath, but only if the kid wants too.

(Analogy repaired from intentional distortion. Which is pretty much the point of the analogy. You're willing to twist around the analogy to conform to your rejection of Christianity rather than understand it's basic meaning.)

[The Grand Nudger]

This just keeps getting sillier.  Do you have kids?  Your kid doesn;t want to take a shower...your kid still gets a shower.  The alternative is neglect, and you lose your kids.

[Chad32]

I do think it's interesting that Neo compared sinning to muddy shoes.  It's almost as though an all-powerful deity would simply be slightly inconvenienced by sin, and that a proper response to it isn't permanent banishment and eternal suffering....

The analogy is really pretty simple. It takes real effort to distort it like some here have done. The only thing preventing the child (anyone) from entering the house (the presence of God) is to clean-up. We make the choices and most choices have consequences. The concept of eternal torment versus blessedness is predicated on the idea that people cultivated lifelong habits of choose to cling to what they love, for better or worse, to the point that they cannot do otherwise than continue on going down the road they have chosen. If you love wearing muddy shoes more than a roof over your head and being with people who love you, then you will voluntarily stay outside with the rest of the belligerents. A similar analogy would be parents that refuse to enable their alcoholic adult child.

The problem is that "cleaning up" involves ignoring things that are both fundamental to Human nature, and hurt no one. Or that someone just wants concrete irrefutable proof that there is a guy that wants them to keep their shoes clean, before they take all the time and energy to do it. It's not as easy to love a woman when you're only attracted to men, as it is to just take your shoes off on the porch.

[KevinM1]

I do think it's interesting that Neo compared sinning to muddy shoes.  It's almost as though an all-powerful deity would simply be slightly inconvenienced by sin, and that a proper response to it isn't permanent banishment and eternal suffering....

The analogy is really pretty simple. It takes real effort to distort it like some here have done. The only thing preventing the child (anyone) from entering the house (the presence of God) is to clean-up. We make the choices and most choices have consequences. The concept of eternal torment versus blessedness is predicated on the idea that people cultivated lifelong habits of choose to cling to what they love, for better or worse, to the point that they cannot do otherwise than continue on going down the road they have chosen. If you love wearing muddy shoes more than a roof over your head and being with people who love you, then you will voluntarily stay outside with the rest of the belligerents. A similar analogy would be parents that refuse to enable their alcoholic adult child.

And yet, in both cases, the proper response isn't to simply throw the person out, letting them suffer in eternal torment....

Like I said, it's a shitty analogy, one that makes the opposite point than what you want.

[vorlon13]

Can't be too much room inside God for love with so much of this crap festering in Him:

Ezekiel 9 (KJV)
4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

[KevinM1]

I mean, this thread has talked about god's purported unconditional love - agape - yet the best analogy is not letting a loved one into the house because of their muddy shoes?  Or because of their addiction (which is an illness)?

Man, if I loved someone, I wouldn't throw them out because of muddy shoes, even if it happened every day.  What I'd do instead would be to make them clean up the mess.  You know, actual, personal atonement, not done through a proxy.  Similarly, I'd do what I could to help a loved one in the grip of addiction seek help.  Maybe I'd have to distance myself from them at some point, but I'd damn well make an honest effort to help them before it got to that point.

[vorlon13]

Jesus, get a Welcome Mat !!

[Succubus]

He's the very epitome of a snowflake. He's so offended by people being different than he is, he just can't stand being anywhere near them. Muddying up his safe space.

Even better: god loves everyone, but only decided to share this message 'directly' (obvious "prove it" caveats apply) to his chosen people.  He could've just as easily appeared/fucked around in Africa proper, or Asia, or South America, or anywhere else outside of a small slice of the ancient Middle East.  But apparently this game of spreading the message through mythology is more important than simply being direct with his purported loved ones.

The resurrection.
The greatest of all miracles and what does our lad do, he leg’s it. Is Jeebus one thick cunt or what? It didn't occur to him to create some mischief for his tormentors, you know, appear in front of the Sanhedrin the next morning, "Now-you-Are-fucked!"
Or perhaps in front of Pilate, "Dude, you got no balls? You knew I was the real deal. Sucking up to the Joows eh, what happened, they help you get elected?"
Or mebbie the emperor, "Tibs, (no relation) three days ago I was a putrefying corpse but just look at me now eh! No quick end for you son, not like I did for the dinosaurs, no, emperor Theodosius is going to do the business. A slow horrible lingering death for human civilisation."

And how about fixing the first century void problem? Why not invite a bunch of the boys round for a pissup.

Philo Judaeus.
Seneca The Younger.
Pliny The Elder.
Suetonius.
Et,al.

'Now then lads I've just had a look at 21st century records and surprise and alarm I don't get a mention!'
Guys, stay off the drink, the weed and the whores for a few weeks and put quill to parchment and give me a fucking history! It'll help my credibility no end.

"Oh, and lads, while I'm here what freebasing fuckhead wrote The Book Of Revelation? We only just got away with that one."