"GOD's Unfailing Love"

I can't find one passage in scripture that says GOD's LOVE is unconditional this is a theological christian evangelistic theorem

What is the way we can experience GOD's Eternal Unfailing LOVE?

I would like to take a moment to discuss the topic that has been bugging me lately which was brought up at the synagogue. Joseph mentioned that God's love is seen as unconditional in christianity however he said that it is not unconditional. I agree. Think about it How could GOD draw unrepentant sinners to him if he "Loves Them" already that's false! I can't find one passge in scripture that says GOD's LOVE is unconditional this is a theological christian evangelistic theorem.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watched everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever 'til the end of time... but remember He loves you!

- George Carlin

God loves his children unconditionally. The way that any parent loves their child. As for those who aren't his children, well, they're plum out of luck.

Carlin, like Dawkins, spends his time attacking the silliest incarnations of spirituality available. The difference is that ole George is a comedian, Dawkins pretends to be a great scholar, and that Carlin's goal is to root out the silliness while Dawkins is supposed to be a serious scholar.

Bringing up inconsistencies in beliefs of numerous people is disingenuous. It's okay for a comedian to take on the easy claims of silly people. Dawkins should do better than that - unfortunately, he prefers to stick with a caricature of religion.

Claims like 'God loves everyone, except the ones he doesn't love, and those poor bastards are out of luck' are silly on their face.

Instead of Dawkins, read Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell. They were not afraid to address the meaty religious claims. Dawkins lives off intellectual table scraps.

That's another way to look at it, and I must agree Dawkins indeed does
search for easy prey time to time, and for what he achieves he acts way to serious. However people like Dawkins are needed to appeal the masses to read something about atheism instead of knowing only the meaning of the word.

I must say I love Nietzsche, but for many people books like the Antichrist are way to hard to understand, and from what I found many mainstream religious people think rather at Dawkins level than Nietzsche's. It's just the way the world is.

People have no use for Dawkins-like characters. If they want to learn about atheism, they would do better to avoid Dawkins and read people like Russell. Dawkins is dangerous because, given his preferred target, he makes atheism look a great deal sillier than it really is.

People like Dawkins will push people away from atheism, and will only rally the already atheist leaning base - which is exactly what he relies on for book sales. Well, that and an agent. Dawkins is the cheap romance novelist of atheism.

It's called study. If someone only understands Dawkins, they do not understand much at all and therefore need to spend more time studying.

Someone people do not care to understand - that's the way the world is. For those who do, we can do better than Dawkins. We must do better than Dawkins.

I sldo find comments as the one from Solace quite disturbing, even more disturbing is that more and more people seem to think this way lately.

it has been proven in the old testament, and in lesser extent in the new testament.

aren't we all equal in each and every way?

People have no use for Dawkins-like characters. If they want to learn about atheism, they would do better to avoid Dawkins and read people like Russell.

You should find my comments to be disturbing. Unless you are a child of God, it is disturbing. As for people believing what I believe, I find that disturbing. Or, at least, unlikely. And yes, I am elitist, but not damned. Paul called us "the Elect". The very idea of it is elitist. It would be hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

A statement like this implies that you know something of the scriptures. But obviously not very much if you think that anywhere it says that

The bible states clearly that some are God's children and some most definitely are not. So, no, we are not equal.

And yes, I meant unconditional love. Again, had you read the new testament to any real extent you would find a great many passages about being free from sin and the law (ie: the ten commandments). That, in fact, God's children cannot sin. That grace abolishes all else. Sounds rather unconditional to me.

Choose the one of honor and you are a child of God. There are two parts to human nature.

Again, had you read the new testament to any real extent you would find a great many passages about being free from sin and the law (ie: the ten commandments).

That, in fact, God's children cannot sin.

And yet I'd assume that one could conceivably switch from one to the other, right?

Thus to say we're children of God is a statement of potential and not actuality; rather than a priori our existence is as children of God, it's only at the gates of judgement that this is determined.

(sorry to quote Scripture, but that is all we have to go on here)

You should find my comments to be disturbing. Unless you are a child of God, it is disturbing. As for people believing what I believe, I find that disturbing. Or, at least, unlikely. And yes, I am elitist, but not damned. Paul called us "the Elect". The very idea of it is elitist. It would be hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

A statement like this implies that you know something of the scriptures. But obviously not very much if you think that anywhere it says that

the bible states clearly that some are God's children and some most definitely are not. So, no, we are not equal.

And yes, I meant unconditional love. Again, had you read the new testament to any real extent you would find a great many passages about being free from sin and the law (ie: the ten commandments). That, in fact, God's children cannot sin. That grace abolishes all else. Sounds rather unconditional to me.

But before I am crossing Dawkings of my list i must stress one point in which he was completely right; Why must a child be a Muslim, christian, catholic, jewish child only because his parents are. Why the labeling. Why isn't the kid labeled an communist, democrat etc. Why is a child not allowed to believe something else, or at least given the choice to believe in something else; why is it accepted that religion is forced down the throat of a helpless child. (He however failed to put this in his book correctly and only wasted about 16 pages about it and rambled on another 20 about something irrelevant and ending up defending a pedophile, the moment i stopped reading).

The bible states clearly that some are God's children and some most definitely are not. So, no, we are not equal.

And yes, I meant unconditional love. Again, had you read the new testament to any real extent you would find a great many passages about being free from sin and the law (ie: the ten commandments). That, in fact, God's children cannot sin. That grace abolishes all else. Sounds rather unconditional to me.