General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Mudhammam]

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.

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.

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.

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[StealthySkeptic]

[Michael B]

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.

[Mudhammam]

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.

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.

[genkaus]

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?

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?

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"?

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?

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?

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.

[Drich]

[genkaus]

[Drich]

[Chas]