God and love?

[uwot]

uwot:

I take the "you" there as editorial, correct? It means, what do humans do?

Actually, I was interested in specifically you. I assume you would describe your relationship to god, or Jesus, as one of love. I can't be sure, as I haven't seen you say so, but I don't wish to belittle that love, if that is what you feel. What irritates me about you is what I perceive as your dismissal of human relationships; this Platonic notion that the corporeal is base. Frankly, the idea that a god could create a material world, the sole purpose of which is to provide temptation that is to be resisted on pain of eternal damnation disgusts me. Perhaps you see things differently, but how can a manipulative, teasing relationship be described as love? Is god's 'love' any sort of model for us?

Human love goes not far at all. And it lasts not long at all. And it's quality is never really known.

Really? What do you know about human love? Granted it is parenthesised by birth and death, but for some lucky people it can be as beautiful as anything you feel for your skypilot.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..." (Romans 5:7-8)

That's it? Love is slaughtering your children? Do you not see that people who don't buy into your view struggle to find it motivational?

[Immanuel Can]

That's it? Love is slaughtering your children?

I suspect you're just being reductional there, and I probably shouldn't respond. But let me try anyway, since it's just possibly a genuine concern for some folks, and in case you're being sincere...

In Christian thought, Jesus Christ IS God. (You may not agree, but hear me out). That's important to understand. He isn't some secondary projection of the Divine, but literally "God manifest in the flesh," as the Bible puts it. If God sends Himself to save you, and you crucify him...who's that on? And if He knows you're going to do it, but comes to save you anyway, how does that change the picture?

Love is sacrifice. It means the giving up of oneself and one's privileges for the good of another. And that's true in human affairs too. When one gets married, one (at least promises to) be committed to "forsaking all others," which means an exclusive commitment to one person. That's a sacrifice. And when parents have children, they know that it's going to cost them...not just in money, but in time, energy, options and probably heartache. But they do it.

Now, I don't mean to belittle human love too much, but it is what it is: and let's face it, it's rarely fully self-sacrificial. Usually we're looking at the other person to do something for us, or to live up to some expectation, some bargain; and when that stops, our love diminishes a bit. But in some cases, such in case of perhaps, a truly loving parent, it may go further. For someone one has genuine reason to love, one may even agree to lay down one's life.

But who will die for a bad person? And not someone just a little naughty, but rather the sort of people who want nothing to do with you, and in fact would gladly spit on you, insult everything decent and nail you to a piece of wood to put you on display. How many people would die for other people who were like that?

The point, then, is that God's love is far beyond our human frame of reference. It puts Himself on the line for the good of those who care nothing for Him. So human love is good, yes; but it's not "good" like that. That simply transcends human love.

[Arising_uk]

At the same time, I'll do you a favour. I'll remind you to be careful what you say: for the Bible says, "...by your words you will be judged." You may not believe that now. Now, you may think it's fun to say what you do. But if it's true, then expressions of contempt, no matter how elaborate and spiteful, will not alter any facts. They'll just justify the judgment in the end. Those who despise the love of God get their wish at the end of the day: they die without it.

Big whoop, as they'll be dead.

If this 'God' exists then it is a tyrant of the first order and 'it', along with the 'Devil' and all the other so called 'angelic host' can go get fucked! The only mistake Adam and Eve made was to not eat from the Tree of Life first but with a bit of luck we'll be rectifying that fairly soon.

So think carefully, for your own sake.

I so love the veiled threats of the 'loving' christian.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not making threats, Arising. I have no power here. I'm not dangerous to anyone, and I decide nothing. And, of course, I have no personal reason to care for Trixie's well-being or what might follow by way of results to him. I could just as easily ignore all the insults. Why expose myself to (automatically expected) derision? What's in it for me?

Nothing. But if I saw you poke a lion with a stick, I hope I'd be kind enough to warn you to stop. And that duty done, I can do no more.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're missing the point. I'm asking "What ISN'T love, according to our definition for discussion?"

If "love" excuses anything, than anything done can be clothed in the language of "love" and made to appear legitimate: so what ISN'T legitimate? Can we agree?

OK, simply put, Love is "SELF" sacrifice, where the needs of others, one considers, before their own. Love is going the extra distance to ensure another's needs are met. No it's not the warm a fuzzy feeling one gets when close to another, as that's born of self.

For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child. For him to truly sacrifice a life in the name of love, he would have had to instead teach his child as much as he could about survival before committing suicide, so his child only had one mouth to feed, the situation was famine related, no? If not it makes no difference, because still one can only sacrifice their own life, it is only ever murder to end another's life, never a sacrifice! This is only one reason I earlier said that Christians say all kinds of insane crap.

[ReliStuPhD]

For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child.

Abraham didn't kill Isaac (small, but important point).

For him to truly sacrifice a life in the name of love, he would have had to instead teach his child as much as he could about survival before committing suicide, so his child only had one mouth to feed, the situation was famine related, no? If not it makes no difference, because still one can only sacrifice their own life, it is only ever murder to end another's life, never a sacrifice! This is only one reason I earlier said that Christians say all kinds of insane crap.

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own. So it is at least possible that Abraham was putting someone else (in this case, God) before himself.

PS Abraham did not kill Isaac.

Disclaimer: I consider Abraham to be a myth, and the story to be a (bad) telling of how one puts personal desires after divine commands. If such a case were to happen, however, I would consider the more rational answer to such a command to be "no," insofar as I don't see that particular move as anything God would command (i.e. I would be more inclined to take a "voice from Heaven" telling me to do that as the Devil).

[SpheresOfBalance]

For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child.

Abraham didn't kill Isaac (small, but important point).
Incorrect, he murdered him!

For him to truly sacrifice a life in the name of love, he would have had to instead teach his child as much as he could about survival before committing suicide, so his child only had one mouth to feed, the situation was famine related, no? If not it makes no difference, because still one can only sacrifice their own life, it is only ever murder to end another's life, never a sacrifice! This is only one reason I earlier said that Christians say all kinds of insane crap.

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own. So it is at least possible that Abraham was putting someone else (in this case, God) before himself.
There's absolutely no proof that God commanded Abraham to do anything. That's the funny thing about schizophrenics in that ignorant time, they could say anything, and be believed. Then fast forward thousands of years while the likewise ignorant defend them, because they too are oblivious to knowledge, or at least what it takes for it to exist.

And if true, how could one know that it wasn't a test, that in fact he failed?

Christians, always attempting to twist evil doing by their kind into something grand. I guess god wants little choir boys to be molested too. Oh no that has to wait for another several thousand years of dislocation, and biblical rewrites before that can be sold as gods command.

Sorry but logic dictates that a truly loving creator of everything loves everything equally, and would not have another destroy that which it creates, especially an innocent child. Screw what Abraham supposedly had to face, lets look at the child for a second, as if your god didn't. How evil your kind actually are, it blows my mind!


PS Abraham did not kill Isaac.
No he murdered him!


Disclaimer: I consider Abraham to be a myth, and the story to be a (bad) telling of how one puts personal desires after divine commands. If such a case were to happen, however, I would consider the more rational answer to such a command to be "no," insofar as I don't see that particular move as anything God would command (i.e. I would be more inclined to take a "voice from Heaven" telling me to do that as the Devil).
How convenient, so your previous was just BS, like the rest of course! Many of you types are quite insane!

[Immanuel Can]

Spheres wrote:

For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child.

ReliStuPhD is right; you need to read the story again, I'm afraid. Abraham didn't kill his son. In fact, God provided a way for him to obey without having to pay the price himself. That's the point of the story.

But you're right: self-sacrifice is the basis of love. And Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh," according to the Bible. That would be self-sacrifice on God's part, then.

Don't get too caught up in the word "son" in reference to God; the word is, at best, a metaphor drawn from mundane affairs to illuminate only a limited set of aspects of the relationships in the Godhead. To run to far with it is to go well beyond what Scripture says and what Christians believe. Jesus Christ is not some sort of biological progeny, but an eternal member in God Himself. At least, that's how Christian theology describes it. You are free to believe a you choose, of course.

But that all this confuses you, I well believe. And it's not your fault. The Bible also predicted this. In fact, it mentions this very specifically in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres wrote:

For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child.

ReliStuPhD is right; you need to read the story again, I'm afraid. Abraham didn't kill his son. In fact, God provided a way for him to obey without having to pay the price himself. That's the point of the story.

But you're right: self-sacrifice is the basis of love. And Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh," according to the Bible. That would be self-sacrifice on God's part, then.

Don't get too caught up in the word "son" in reference to God; the word is, at best, a metaphor drawn from mundane affairs to illuminate only a limited set of aspects of the relationships in the Godhead. To run to far with it is to go well beyond what Scripture says and what Christians believe. Jesus Christ is not some sort of biological progeny, but an eternal member in God Himself. At least, that's how Christian theology describes it. You are free to believe a you choose, of course.

But that all this confuses you, I well believe. And it's not your fault. The Bible also predicted this. In fact, it mentions this very specifically in 1 Corinthians 1:18.

Explanations, explanations, explanations???? Nope sorry, all wrong!!! Rather simply, rationalizations, rationalizations, rationalizations!!!!!

Of course you want to please yourself, please your beliefs, at any and all costs, "of course"!! So lets try rationalization. I mean you'll never get caught, because those things you're rationalizing, happened thousands of years ago, there's no proof either way. One can easily make it anything they want. And so they do, to suit themselves.

Selfishness runs rampant amongst the human population, they're the only animal on the face of the earth that can do so, rejoice. They can make anything anything, if only in their own minds. The only animal on the face of the earth that can convince themselves that because some possibly deranged, drugged, schizophrenic or otherwise person wrote something on paper, (the death of a forest), it most absolutely has to be true. It's on the death of mother nature, so it absolutely true.

Humans, the dumbest animal on the face of the planet!

Logic dictates otherwise, my friends!

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing to respond to in this. Just emoting.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Nothing to respond to in this. Just emoting.

Just the facts, my friend, just the facts!!

So it's only logical that you evade.

[Arising_uk]

...But if I saw you poke a lion with a stick, I hope I'd be kind enough to warn you to stop. ...

So much for this 'God' of love then. Good job 'it' doesn't exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I see a whole lot of words...

I read what you said. Explanations (for some reason) are bad, as are rationalizations, apparently. Everybody you know is selfish, drugged, deranged and/or schizophrenic (how could anyone argue with that). And dumb. People are dumb (presumably at least the ones you know). Got it.

And apparently you conclude, "it's only logical" that I "evade." I can't claim to understand that statement at all. It looks like some sort of grammatical error.

So what now? Nothing's supported, and we can't argue against how you say you experience the world. There's no rational predication, just a bunch of pejoratives; so there's no possible response. You're expressing an opinion. You're allowed to do that. No one has to respond.

[ianrust]

True love is from the holy spirit. The answer to your question is that 'love' without righteousness is not truly love. ... Inasmuch as a junkie loves shooting up, they also hate heroin. But true love is righteous.

Jesus says there is no greater example of love than to lay down ones life for friends. The type of love gays possess is apathetic of others, of future generations, it is divisive; so this is not laying down ones life; but he who strives to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for Jesus sake will find it. And gay 'love' it's more about sex, in actuality; sex has been confused with love.... love has actually been forgotten. Spiritual love between friends I have felt, there is nothing gay about that. But carnal love is a sin because of its implications; in the same way incest is a sin. All things are clean to me, but not all things edify - this is what Paul says about carnal sins.

So, to make the answer short - it does not edify, it is an unwillingness to lay down your life for your friends, and it is not from the holy spirit.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, I see a whole lot of words...

I read what you said. Explanations (for some reason) are bad, as are rationalizations, apparently. Everybody you know is selfish, drugged, deranged and/or schizophrenic (how could anyone argue with that). And dumb. People are dumb (presumably at least the ones you know). Got it.
Incorrect, the point was, "AS FAR AS YOU COULD KNOW." Yet to save your belief, you concoct. A typical human response, to save themselves and that which they hold dear, despite how irrational, or illogical. Thats the point, that I'm surprised has to be reiterated.

Another evasion tactic I presume??

And apparently you conclude, "it's only logical" that I "evade." I can't claim to understand that statement at all. It looks like some sort of grammatical error.
Not at all, just that which most choose to ignore, their need to evade that which hits too close to home, namely in this case their denial.

So what now? Nothing's supported,
Citing books doesn't necessarily support things. Though I'm sure I could come up with book support, if need be.

and we can't argue against how you say you experience the world.
Sure we could, if both parties were well equipped. Which in fact what I'm doing. I'm saying that your experience of the world is full of mysticism, that it's supported by your rationalization of things that you cannot necessarily know. That religion, these days, twist and turn meaning of their own bible to make it work with todays scientific understandings. If something has been proven beyond all doubt then it becomes a story to represent some other meaning, a parable.

So tell me, what lesson was actually meant to be gleaned from the church saying that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around it? I'm sure you can come up with something, some kind of guess that sounds logical "enough."

There's no rational predication,
Apparently as far as you can understand, caught up in the dogma.

just a bunch of pejoratives;
Of course you'd characterize them as pejoratives. Prove that they are. Sure they are in opposition. Is that how you characterize opposition, when you have no other recourse.

so there's no possible response.
Or so you say as a response, to belittle. To be expected from some people.

You're expressing an opinion. You're allowed to do that.
And so are you, that's what we've been doing, right? Show me where, what either of us has said, is "necessarily" set in stone.

No one has to respond.
Of course, you are absolutely correct, no one does. But what does a response or the lack thereof "necessarily" mean? Absolutely nothing relating to the truth of the matter. Quite possibly, simply a personal perspective, that one is unwilling to continue for a plethora of reasons, not necessarily containing any truth whatsoever. Simply a decision, always of course, to suit ones needs (wants). That's the only given.