General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[fr0d0]

Like I said genkaus, I don't think there's an argument either. So if the views are comparable what is your objection? You don't seem to have one.

[Hellfire1014]

What do Christians mean by God's love or God is love?
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
-1 John 4:18

Is God's love conceived as conditional or unconditional?

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. -Romans 5:8

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. -1 Corinthians 13:4-7

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God -Ephesians 2:8

If it is unconditional, how can one ever divorce themselves from it?
See link - http://carm.org/does-god-hate-anyone

Does God continue to love those whom he has reserved hell for?
See link - http://randalrauser.com/2011/12/does-god...-not-save/

If God is omnipresent, in what sense is it logical to speak of the absence of his presence in hell? They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power -2 Thessalonians 1:9

If God is immutable, how can any love he possesses for us ever change into wrath? The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. - Nahum 1:3

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? Contrary to the world’s mindset, the fact that “God is love” does not mean He “winks at” or excuses sin (Rom. 6:23). However, He forgives us if we are humble enough to ask.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:23

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? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. -Romans 8:35-39

Your last two questions contradicted each other by the way. You question god's love being inferior to a parents love. Yet the question before you verily state a parent reacting by revoking their love for a child. God is our heavenly father. He is a parent to us all. For we are his creation. God is love, but just like a parent can be made to become disgusted, and hate his children. Just like a parent with a child that rebels. That parent does not know that child that rebels any more, because that child is not the child that the parent raised. Only due to his own actions. Love rules all. After we're in heaven we will no longer need faith, because we will be with god, and see. After we're in heaven we will no longer need hope, because our hope will be realized. And finally when we're in heaven love will continue.

It is not me who could post these things, or come up with these things. Obviously they are from the bible. It is gods holy spirit, inspiration, and power that make's this able. The bible is truth. The bible is gods words. I could not be so smart by myself as to do these things on my own.

As much as we do not want ourselves, or other christians to burn in hell we do not want to see ANYONE burn in hell. I wish everyone in hell could be saved eventually, but I'm pretty sure this is not so. If me a mortal man who is not pure, who is not perfect, who is not ALL TRUTH, who is not worthy, who is basically nothing does not want to see anyone burn in hell. Do you not think god does not want to see you burn in hell?

No one would want to burn in hell for TRILLIONS of years. Imagine what one day in hell would feel like. You know time on earth sometimes goes by slow, sometimes fast. It talks about gods time being different from our time on earth. It says nothing about how the time in hell is. Just imagine you being bored, waiting, or any situation where the time passes slow for you. I don't think there is redemption from hell.


Just a month ago I was looking at porn, hateful, masturbated lots, practiced trying to open my chakra, practiced trying to orgasm with the root chakra to do it "hands free", smoked weed, I knew these things were wrong. Well the weed I didn't think was that bad, but finally after I turned back to God, and Jesus I remembered things I had forgotten. I rebelled against god (turned away even though conviction was put on me) a few years ago. Smoking weed, and reading the bible before I went off to play Counterstrike Source. I felt in my heart that I either could continue to smoke weed, and do as I pleased, or I could stop and turn to god. I continued to smoke weed, and do as I pleased. Only like I said a month ago in my love for my sin did I turn back to him. I knew it was wrong. Finally, finally I hated it. Finally I wanted to change. That's the biggest thing. YOU have to want to change. You have to want it in your heart. You have to hate your sin. How can you want that if you love it? Obviously you can't. You don't want to sacrifice anything. You want to continue to do what pleases you. I've stopped smoking weed, I've stopped looking at porn, I've stopped masturbating. Obviously I also stopped practicing any yogi, meditation, chakra crap. When I was younger I had "gay experiences." I knew these were wrong when I was younger. I did not want to continue that lifestyle. I did wrestle with that for a while. (My sexuality.) I knew it was wrong, I wanted the change in my heart, and it had changed. That was younger though.

I can't say anything to you to change you, that is all up to you, and god. I'm no better than anyone one of you. I'm a sinner too. The only thing I have that you don't have is help from god. Help to turn away from my sin. Help to understand. My hope for you guys is that the below has not happened to you....


They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. -Ephesians 4:18

Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ -Matthew 13:14-15

[Fidel_Castronaut]

As much as we do not want ourselves, or other christians to burn in hell we do not want to see ANYONE burn in hell.

Nobody will burn in hell because hell doesn't exist. It's a fantasy.

I wish everyone in hell could be saved eventually, but I'm pretty sure this is not so. If me a mortal man who is not pure, who is not perfect, who is not ALL TRUTH, who is not worthy, who is basically nothing does not want to see anyone burn in hell. Do you not think god does not want to see you burn in hell?

I don't think (your) version of god exists so I don't think 'it' sees anything.

No one would want to burn in hell for TRILLIONS of years.

You're right. Nobody would want that.

Imagine what one day in hell would feel like. You know time on earth sometimes goes by slow, sometimes fast. It talks about gods time being different from our time on earth. It says nothing about how the time in hell is. Just imagine you being bored, waiting, or any situation where the time passes slow for you. I don't think there is redemption from hell.

But I think you're making it all up.

Using threats of eternal punishment derived entirely from your imagination isn't scary and neither is it threatening. It's just, well, weird.

Just a month ago I was looking at porn, hateful, masturbated lots, practiced trying to open my chakra, practiced trying to orgasm with the root chakra to do it "hands free", smoked weed, I knew these things were wrong. Well the weed I didn't think was that bad, but finally after I turned back to God, and Jesus I remembered things I had forgotten. I rebelled against god (turned away even though conviction was put on me) a few years ago. Smoking weed, and reading the bible before I went off to play Counterstrike Source. I felt in my heart that I either could continue to smoke weed, and do as I pleased, or I could stop and turn to god. I continued to smoke weed, and do as I pleased. Only like I said a month ago in my love for my sin did I turn back to him. I knew it was wrong. Finally, finally I hated it. Finally I wanted to change. That's the biggest thing. YOU have to want to change. You have to want it in your heart. You have to hate your sin. How can you want that if you love it? Obviously you can't. You don't want to sacrifice anything. You want to continue to do what pleases you. I've stopped smoking weed, I've stopped looking at porn, I've stopped masturbating. Obviously I also stopped practicing any yogi, meditation, chakra crap. When I was younger I had "gay experiences." I knew these were wrong when I was younger. I did not want to continue that lifestyle. I did wrestle with that for a while. (My sexuality.) I knew it was wrong, I wanted the change in my heart, and it had changed. That was younger though.

You sound like a confused individual. MY recommendation would be to ditch the bible crap and go seek some real advice from real people. Entirely your choice, naturally, but there's nothing wrong with porn, masturbating, following some religious woo like Chakras or indeed being gay. You've been told there is a problem with these things by people who espouse a philosophy derived from a supposed celestial entity. It's a nonsense. You've been told not take responsibility for anything; if it's 'bad' is the devil, if it's 'good' then it's all god's work. It's netiehr, it's entirely you and the circumstances around you. Get an A on a test? God did fuck all. You did it. Fail that test? That's entirely on you. buddy.

Think for yourself and you'll be happier for it.

I can't say anything to you to change you, that is all up to you, and god. I'm no better than anyone one of you. I'm a sinner too. The only thing I have that you don't have is help from god. Help to turn away from my sin. Help to understand. My hope for you guys is that the below has not happened to you....

There is no such thing as sin, and as such, I am not a 'sinner'. I'm a human being.

I/we don't need help for an imaginary being to live a good and fulfilling life. Indeed, compare your life and my life, and it'd probably come out roughly the same regarding happiness and sadness, or rewards and disappointments. That's life.

Sorry that you can't see this. Good luck.

[genkaus]

frodo beat me to my two goto's. The branch davidians, and the jones towners are two more. Basically anyone who replaces the doctrine of Christ with the teachings of a false prophet and yet still wish to be called Christians.

Since you are willing to quote any part of the bible as justification for your beliefs, I'd assume the whole bible qualifies as "the doctrine of Christ".

1. A lot of mainstream Christians don't follow the bible completely. They pick and choose which parts apply. They also accept the works of other Christian theologians and philosophers (such as adding in the concept of omni-benevolence according to you). But you have no problem calling them Christians who are "seeking god in their own way".

2. Mormons do believe in the bible and like mainstream Christians, they add other stuff to it and pick and choose what to believe. But they are not Christians.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the bible too, but they pick and choose as well and add their beliefs. But they are not Christians.

4. The same goes for Branch Davidians who are also not Christians.

I'm not seeing any consistency here.

and there are quit a few more that I have. Just because you do not like or agree with what I have said does not mean you do not have an accurate biblically based answer.

Biblically based answers don't automatically resolve the logical issues of your god.

why should it? We are only responsible to what has given us over to understand about Him. I maybe a hand in the body of Christ while my brother maybe a foot. Just because my perspective is different than his doesnot mean we are both wrong nor both right. It just from out fix point of time space and personal capasity for knowledge of ?God we may have a different understanding.

And all the different understanding may be correct? That is why your god is illogical. In reality, when people understand things in a conflicting and contradictory manner, then all views cannot be correct. But apparently, where your god is concerned, anything goes.

My passage in psalms 11 as well as my pervious references to what Christ said about the wicked define what and who God sees as wicked. (The unrepentant heart is among that list.)

And that does not include people who don't worship him?

it depends on the person, and their heart.
If an unrepentant person seeking to cause a believe to stumble or fall, then harshly. For the Christian doing his best to comprehend a given aspect of an infinite God, and is willing to take correction and direction.. He will be offered the same atonement given when he willfully sins. (With grace)

So, basically, all the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses and Branch Davidians are Christians because as far as we know, its your god they claim to comprehend and there is no evidence of disingenuity on their part.

Option 5: the act of raping and killing in of themselves have nor hold any intrinsic value. (Meaning they are morally neutral) until God makes a decree or command concerning a given act.

In short this is how it is ok for God to command what is being discussed in 1sam and other OT passages, and restricted these same acts in other parts of the bible.

Which is consistent with His title of Alpha, and Omega (the beginning and end) this title means that their is nothing above God not even the governing principles of 'morality.' This title means God has control over what is right and what is wrong, rather than the acts themselves have a set moral value. In short a given act is only wrong because God says it is in a given instant.

And thus your theology gets skewered in the ass by Euthyphro's first horn.

If the moral value of an act depends on when the command is issued then your god's morality is not constant.
If it depends on your god's command and not anything about the act or the circumstances surrounding it, then it is subjective.
And here, since god gave the command to kill (thus making it moral and not morally neutral) and he later considers the same action immoral, then your god's morality is self-contradictory.

So glad you picked this option.

see above explaination

According to that it is absolutist and autoritarian.

maybe you do not see that even now we fabricate facts and reasoning, just like they did.

And anything based on those fabrications isn't rational either.

Maybe you also do not understand that all it takes for a fabricated 'fact' to become an absolute truth is popular belief.

No, popular belief has no influence over facts.

Example, most atheist Americans believe that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. I have argued this ad nausium. Even in the light of the recorded history @ Monticello.org

The facts remain that Jefferson was a solid Christian, yet popular belief places him as an atheist. http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
How much long do you think before history is changed to support the current popular belief? How long before the supporting documentation of Jeffersons faith is lost?
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-...e/Religion

Granted Jefferson was no respecter of religion, but he did acknowledge God, and was a devout church goer/seeker of God.

What American atheists believe about Jefferson has little bearing on the facts. I've no problem concluding on the basis of your evidence that he was a Christian Deist.

However, I am a little surprised that you would consider him Christian. According to you, simply going to Church shouldn't make him a Christian. His beliefs clearly diverged a lot from what you call "doctrine of Christ" - to the extent he tried to revise it. And I doubt you consider a lot of his beliefs "biblically supported".

But, he called himself a Christian and I have no problem regarding that as a fact.

Maybe you do not know me so well, but the others here should know I am a 'fact' checker. I am constantly scrutinizing words, their meaning and source orgins.

I know how cursory your scrutiny is and how frequently you fail at it.

If I say a fact is a statement that can be proven or disproved then, know I generally have several sources that will support what I have said.

A fact can be proven or disproven and once it is disproven, then it is no longer a fact. That is what I argued and that is what is in the links you provided.

You also said "Facts have nothing to do with truth" - and your wiki source proves you wrong. I'm not sure what the other one is or why is it supposed to be reliable.

I disagree. A definition is neutral in how people want to use it. Case in point the word 'fact.'

The purpose of a definition does not depend on your agreement.

The good people at auburn.edu as well as the other two reference I listed define a fact as a verifiable statement, and yet despite several clear cut definitions you have insisted that a fact always pertains to truth.

A verifiable statement is one that can be shown to be true. If it is shown to be wrong - i.e. it does not represent reality as it is - then it is not a fact.

Is the definition at fault for being unclear? Or are you for adding to it to support personal belief?

No, your comprehension skills are at fault. The definition is quite clear - as evidenced by the fact that most people do get what it means.

You do know what a summery is correct? It's when one takes two or three pages of info and condenses the information down two a couple of sentences.

A definition is the summary of what a word means. The links you gave provided definitions, which means they'd already summarized the meaning.

Next I need to ask you if you understand the concept of refutation?

Sure, its when I prove you wrong - like I did here.

In order to refute something one must find contradictory information.

No, in order to refute someone I just need to show that either the basis or the reasoning is invalid. In this case, I showed an absence of basis.

Now with those two concepts in mind find where my summation contradicts the two pages of source material I provided. That is what I asked you to do. Not find where I plagiarized these two pages of text.

Now, with that concept in mind, you simply need to validate your basis to refute my refutation. Go on, I'll wait.

so Darwinism is not rational?

It is rational - but not due to its popularity.

Homosexuality (both sides of the arguement) is a perfect example of majority support, being a sound belief.

50 years ago beating and oppressing gay people was indeed ones societal responsibility. Now the opposite is true. Why one and not the other? In short the only reason is

majority beliefs changed.[/quote]

That majority belief changed doesn't mean each instance was sound. Oppressing gay people 50 years ago was an unsound and irrational position. Then society corrected itself.

The limit is different for each of us.

Christ describes these limits in the parable of the talents.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV

If God gives you the capacity for a level 3 understanding then it is to that 'level 3' that you must remain faithful.

However if you get that ability for a 'level 7' and you stick around level 3 then you have exceeded the grace God is willing to give you.

So, you have no objective basis for saying that the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses or Branch Davidians are not Christians. In fact, you have no basis for saying anyone isn't Christian. Everyone else could simply be "understanding god at a different level".

---

Like I said genkaus, I don't think there's an argument either. So if the views are comparable what is your objection? You don't seem to have one.

No objection. Just pointing out that view are not compatible.

[Mudhammam]

In fact, you have no basis for saying anyone isn't Christian.

Of course he doesn't, and he knows as much, but then he wouldn't have anything to peddle in overcoming his inferiority complex.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[fr0d0]

That majority belief changed doesn't mean each instance was sound. Oppressing gay people 50 years ago was an unsound and irrational position. Then society corrected itself.

I don't suppose you were around then to hold the opinion that was the societal norm. The vast majority thought that position to be sound and rational. How much is our collective thinking shaped by fleeting fashion.

[genkaus]

I don't suppose you were around then to hold the opinion that was the societal norm. The vast majority thought that position to be sound and rational. How much is our collective thinking shaped by fleeting fashion.

Don't have to be. I know why people thought those opinions were sound and rational, also I also know why they were wrong. Because they didn't know the fact. Many opinions today are thought to be sound and rational and facts may prove them wrong as well.

[fr0d0]

So facts are proven to have let us down badly and we base our actions upon current ones. Lovely.

[genkaus]

So facts are proven to have let us down badly and we base our actions upon current ones. Lovely.

Facts didn't let us down - religious suppositions did.

[Ben Davis]