General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[genkaus]

No, they misuse the direction so badly as to oppose it. It's how far you'll go to oppose the truth.

They don't need to "misuse" anything if the directions are horrific to begin with.

[fr0d0]

True. And the convoluted methods you needed to use to come up with such drivel speaks volumes about is quality.

[Hellfire1014]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I review god claims as they're submitted to me in light of the evidence. The abrahamic god I rejected a long time ago as claims for it are self-defeating and evidence has not been presented. It's impossible for me to reject all god claims as I don't know what they all are (nor could I ever know), though I think the idea of a 'god' character orchestrating everything highly unlikely.

I could not wrap my head around it if I wanted to. I've never researched any other religions. Hell I've not read the Bible from front to back yet, unfortunately. I'll probably have to get a newer translated version, because the KJV is just a bit confusing with lots of words I would have to translate.

But they are threats, aren't they? Whenever a theist cites hell they do so as a reason why people should believe what they do. "If you don't believe in Jesus this is where you'll end up." It's the definition of a threat. Even your handle is Hellfire. What the hell man?

I don't see them as threats, because usually when someone threatens someone they may, or may not follow through with it. I see it more as a promise.

You sound confused because you indicated you had thoughts (sexual I presume) about people of the same sex and you decided to pray the gay away instead (that's how I read it). That's impossible. You can't pray away who you are, only live in denial and do yourself further damage in the long run. I've got no idea your sexual preference, but it's apart of you, Jesus or no Jesus.

I'm a straight person who had a gay experience in their life. This was WAY earlier in my life. Like when I was 9, or 8. Maybe 10. Not sure. I did not pray it away. I decided for myself that I did not want to be gay. Everyone has choice. You're right it is a part of you, jesus or no jesus. Again everyone has choice.

Horses for courses. I look at porn, and I have a fiancé. Never been a conflict or a problem. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

You're right. What works for some does not work for others. IF your wife did mind you looking at porn, it would not work. Conflict, or no conflict. Situation, circumstance.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-control' but if you mean the urge not to sex everyone you see then I have that too, and I masturbate and watch porn. Go figure.

By self control I mean the ability to deny yourself. Not the urge to sex everyone. I did not have the urge to sex everyone, yet I always wanted to do something like look at porn. I would say in my mind I was going to do it. "it" being look at porn, or masturbate. I'm not questioning an atheist's control, morals, or anything.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I don't go for the whole woo aspect myself. Each to their own. I just don't see it as any more harmful than any aspect of christian or abrahmic theology. Indeed arguable the latter could indeed be worse in some cases.

What do you mean woo aspect? Like trying to will your body to do something?

No such thing.

I know you don't believe it. You state what you believe, I state what I believe.

Gay =/= anal sex. Straight people have anal sex, gay women don't have naturally occuring cocks in which to penetrate someone's anus. Some gay people don't have penetrative sex just like some straight people don't.

STD's are not unique to homosexuals, neither are haemorrhoids, and neither are 'anal fissures' (I presume you mean prolapses here?). You strike me as the kind of person who automatically defaults to 'gay = immoral!' when really you have no position or authority to make that claim.

Yea I would never have anal sex with my wife. Another way to be sexually immoral. If you're going to do someone in the anus what's the difference in that and a guy's anus? Not a lot. I applaud them for not having penetrative sex. I've not heard much about gay people, or researched it. I applaud them. I know STD's are not unique to homosexuals, or hemorrhoids, or anal fissures. I was not even thinking of prolapses. I'm not making a claim, I'm just stating my view. As for the straight people having std's if they all waited to get married before they had sex those effers wouldn't have std's. Another thing god commanded, but I'm sure you guys know all these things already.

Also what is it with you guys and the complete and utter misunderstanding of positions you're criticising? Also, how the hell does someone not holding the word of (your) god make them a bad person? What ever happened to judge not lest you be judged

What am I misunderstanding? Please show me. I never said someone who does not hold the word of my god makes them a bad person. A gay person can be an awesome person. A manwhore can be an awesome person. 98% of the friends I've had in my life were not religious. Bad people? No. Immoral? Yes. Also I'm not judging when I say that. Just stating a fact. Look up definition for immoral. "not conforming to accepted standards of morality." I have no problem with these people. I just don't delight in the same things they do.

Indeed, whatever does work for you. Each to their own. But I object to the repeated and constant inference of 'god' giving people a choice. There's no evidence for this god and certainly no evidence that anything has done anything. It's really frustrating when people take their deities as given and just presume it as such through a conversation.

Out of the millions of sperm your dad dropped into your mom you made it. I think life is being given a choice. God chose you for a reason.

Nobody knows what happens when we die.

K

Being rich has nothing to do with it. I mean being satisfied in life, in general. Some people want money, some want love, some what to be loved and so on. Nobody should need a god or a religion for any of that, as evidenced by me.

You're right. As I stated I could not care if I become rich. All I really want out of this life is true love. A wife who loves me as much as I love her. I'm not saying people need god to live a happy life, or anything. I'm only saying they need god/jesus to acquire the kingdom of heaven.


Oh as for my name, it's really funny. I used this name from a tank name on this Nintendo 64 game called Battle Tanx. I remember when we first got internet. AOL. Ah the days. I needed a new name that did not make me look like a kid. As Pokemon whatever it was clearly gave it away. I wanted something cool, so I used Hellfire. Had to add 1014 as Hellfire was already taken. It also refers to a missle, so. I've used this name since like 12, or 13 years old. I'm 25 now. My other names. Horoto, Kuwabarra, Psuedo. This name was just more fitting for these forums

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that touching your buddies peepee at the age of 8 or 10 qualifies as a "gay experience" (unless you thought to yourself "mmmmmm, cock"?). Can you decide to be gay for me, just for the next couple of minutes? Just to show that you're actually capable of making that "choice". Don't worry, you'll be able to "choose" to be hetero again, surely. The "accepted standards of morality" have nothing to do with your fairy tales (I know, I know, you want them to, you believe that they do, yours -just might-), so you're decision to call those people "immoral" is, perhaps, not a very solid one.

[genkaus]

True. And the convoluted methods you needed to use to come up with such drivel speaks volumes about is quality.

My convoluted methods have a name - logic.

[fr0d0]

And you don't see the irony in that

[orangebox21]

1. What do Christians mean by God's love or God is love?

One attribute of the nature and character of God is love.

2. Is God's love conceived as conditional or unconditional?

Unconditional (defined as unmerited)

3. If it is unconditional, how can one ever divorce themselves from it?

One couldn't.

4. Does God continue to love those whom he has reserved hell for?

I don't know for sure. To the best of my knowledge I would answer no He doesn't (although I do so under the protest of the phrasing of the question having included the word 'continue').

To address the assumptions in your question: How do you know that God loves those who's end is hell (so as to 'continue' to love them)? How do you know that God 'reserves' people for hell?

5. If God is omnipresent, in what sense is it logical to speak of the absence of his presence in hell?

If God is omnipresent it would be illogical to speak of hell as a place where His presence is absent.

I don't make the assertion that hell is a place where God's presence is absent, but let me offer some logical possibilities. First, presence can be defined as influence. In this case, while God's presence (being) is there, His presence (influence) is not. Another option is that if God removed the knowledge of His presence [if He hid himself] from the damned soul, God could both be present while the soul experienced the absence of His presence. To speak of hell as a place where His presence is absent would then be a matter of perspective, namely the damned soul's.

6. If God is immutable, how can any love he possesses for us ever change into wrath?

God does not change, our legal standing before Him does. While legally in debt to Him we are objects of wrath, but having been justified we are objects of mercy.

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?

If my choice to love or not to love someone is based upon what he/she has done, then my love is not unconditional.
If my choice to love or not to love someone is based upon my choice, then my love can be 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?

If God's love is conditional and human parents love is unconditional and we assume that unconditional love is superior to conditional love, then the answer to your question is yes.

On the other hand, no human, whether loving conditionally or unconditionally can do so perfectly. God can love, whether conditionally or unconditionally, perfectly. And so from the perspective of execution, God's love would be superior to a parents love.

[genkaus]

And you don't see the irony in that

Nope.

[Drich]

Let's try this again!

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".

No the doctrine of Christ is limited to the first four books of the NT. That said the whole bible is indeed used to describe the nature of God.

1. A lot of mainstream Christians don't follow the bible completely.

That is between them and God.

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".

We are all allowed to seek God our own way, however this does not mean God is bound to honor our efforts. That said if we seek God as our lined in scripture He will not only support us He will reward the faithful.

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.

Because their is a common element you are missing in the three cults you have mentioned. The bible is not the only source in which those cults derive their beliefs and doctrine.

The mormons have the book of mormon, the JW's have an endless stream of 'watch tower' augmentation/supliments to the bible (which is taken as the infalliable word of God) the branch davidians believe david koresh was the second comming of Jesus.. that had sex with all their wives and took a dozen or so 12 year old brides.

Once you stray from the bible add or cut out what you do not like you cease building your 'house' on the rock of Christ. Which means you cease being a 'Christian' by defination.

Mainstream Christians (for the most part) do not do this. That is where the consistancy is you fail to see.

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

They do if you understand context and what was orginally written.

And all the different understanding may be correct?

No, they are ALL Wrong to one degree or another.

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.

I know you do not see the irony here as I do, but to a degree you are right in that because you can not resolve these 'logical' errors you loose faith. The problem is, you from a point of pride assume that your understanding of God is indeed correct.

For instance in your last paragraph you assumed that 'all are right in their view of God.' No questions just an assertion and a blanket statement. The a follow up assertion that supports your current beliefs.

When in fact all Christians no matter what their faith is, are wrong in their view of God in one degree or another. And, it is the same grace that we receive when we willfully sin, that helps us find forgiveness when we are worshiping and trying to love God with all of our being. (As the greatest command tells us)

We are finite God is infinate, so therefore none of us can have a complete understanding of God.

..and we are not expected to either.

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

It does not include those covered by the attonement offered by Christ no.
(But as mat 7 tells us not all who say they are Christians/followers are indeed followers.)

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.

Again they are not because they have other 'holy books/writtings' the superceed the bible/Christ's teachings.

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

Ah, no.
Eu's First horn/paradox says that if morality is a standard greater than the 'gods' (plural because it was written to test the validity of the claim of the all powerful greek gods) then the gods were not omnipotent. Because again the standard is greater than the gods themselves making the one who put the 'pious standard' in place greater than the gods who have to obey them.

If the moral value of an act depends on when the command is issued then your god's morality is not constant.

This statement presupposes that any standard is constant. If you believe this name one. Name an instant where it is NEVER ok to 'X'.

The very nature of Morality is constantly moving as in man's world it is the lessor of two evil. On the other hand God's standard is Righteousness (not morality) and as such it is whatever He wants it too be, which is the true earmark of an All powerful God.

If it depends on your god's command and not anything about the act or the circumstances surrounding it, then it is subjective.

Indeed, subjective to the one who spoke creation into existance.
(Before you respond take into consideration the irony of my last statament.)

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.

Not at all. God's commands to Kill are like that of any nation. His command against Killing actually reads, "You shall not Murder." Note it says nothing about killing or the simple act of taking a life. The difference? If God commands the death of another, then the taking of human life is not what hold any righteous/moral value. It is the unsanctioned taking of human life that has been forbidden. rather the taking of life for your own reasons is what has been forbidden. That never changes.

So glad you picked this option.

Me Too!

[The Grand Nudger]

Um.....howsabout dicking an infant Drich? Is that ever okay?

On the other hand God's standard is Righteousness (not morality) and as such it is whatever He wants it too be, which is the true earmark of an All powerful God.

Sounds more like an earthly tyrant. At the very least, it's an opinion that no one should give two shits about. I don't need a god if I want to engage in that sort of game - I can go play with my 3 year old son.