Can God love?

[Drich]

I'm not sure why we should care about outdated definitions of love. We've changed as a society to the point where if it doesn't fit the way we see love, then why should we want it?

because those out dated definitions are how the word was used to describe more accurately what God has offered.

For instance if I said my family had a gay olde time at the park in the 1960's would it be then correct to apply the modern day definition to what was said? No if you are translating 1960 dialect you must use the 1960 defination.

Like wise if you are speaking of another culture who's has several different word that in the more primitive modern english gets translated into a single word then one must make a provision to understand the sub-definition of the one word translation.

The only way you can rightfully ignore the old definition is to openly drop the 'truth' from your debate ,and seek a facade that covers your true purpose here.

---

I doubt that love has changed much in the past 50k years, lol. The deeply humanist message of the new testament, otoh, has changed drastically in the last 60.

then the picture is complete. the avatar with the side shaved mullet, the closed minded approach to the way you think thinks should be the exclusion of evidence and truth to the benefit of your personal definitions.

Or you can educate yourself:

http://www.hipgreece.com/the-ancient-gre...-love.html

There are 6 forms or six word in the ancient greek that all get translated into the single english word, 'love.'

philo
eros
ludus
agape
pragma
storge'

All of these words in the ancient greek get translated into one single word in the english that word is love. 

So why did the greeks have so many different words for love? each word described a small portion of the broader word. our love is all encompassing, the greek word is subdivided meaning that love was often awarded in one or two catagories at a time very few people could obtain all or complete love. for example eros is passion while phila was long standing battle harden love for friends and family. the two forms did not mix. Agape is also a word that does not mix with physical or emotional standards. Agape is honor duty charity respect.

So rather than say God is a big ball of feeling and puty, God is the oppsite when the word agape is applied.

---

What you 'good people' don't get is if you are too proud to simply seek atonement you are actively working for sin, as such there is no difference between you and an isis fighter seeking to destroy what does not align itself with their religious views.

Really ISIS? There is difference between me and ISIS. I don't believe in Allah or any god and also don't kill people and bomb cities. The only thing I do is showing you that your religion is wrong by writing on the internet, but you're too big of a snowflake to handle it.

you also enjoy a good measure of popular morality and try and force it on to all religions. Pop culture is your God 'human rights' is your bible pop culture is your church. forcing the religious to accept homosexuality and the destruction of the family through gay marriage, divorce, and abortion is your 'great commission.'

You may not serve allah but you do serve man as your master which is steeped in the same sin ISIS is just to the extreme left instead of the extreme right.

You are only different because you are radical left instead of radical right. even so you share all the same markers.

---

---

And theoretical science isn't? 

Here get this: 100 trillion years ago there was nothing except in the center of what would be a the known universe. and in that center was a basket ball... a basket ball solid of course because in that basket ball contained all matter all planets all oceans all stars everything! then it exploded the uncaused cause for no reason despite what would be an unfathomable amount of gravity caused an outward explosion!!

And all the small minds said amen, tell me more because that is soooo much more plausible than any part of creation.

I don't think I said a thing about science but thanks for trying to play the science card incorrectly.

And yes, while only a theory, it is immensely more plausible and amenable to change as we understand more.

like a basket ball exploding being an uncaused cause.. do you understand that term? uncaused cause? that is the 'science' shame phrase used to call out all people of faith when they can no go back any further in their explanation as to what caused creation, in essence in the religious terms "god did it" is the uncaused cause... I am saying you exploding basket ball is the scientific version of the uncaused cause. Now because 'science' has an uncaused cause as religion does, tell me some more how "immensely more plausible and amenable science is" tell me more about how I am applying science wrong even though it follows the patterns of faith almost identically.

---

There has never been a moment in all of human history that a person has claimed that a wizard did something as anything other than a vocal expression of the fact that they have absolutely no clue.  

"More plausible" doesn;t even approach the reality of the matter.   The wizard explanation has the constant handicap of having been idiotically false at every turn, for everything, at all times.  Even the religious have come to understand this...with the exception of a vanishingly small number of dimwitted retrogrades..as they attempt to coopt all of the better explanations that those retrogrades find implausible.

and the exploding basket ball?

what caused the explosion? how did all matter fit in that space? would the gravity of the mass keep it from an outward explosion?

Would it be more plausible that the 'wizard'/Alien/transdimensional being blew up said basketball?