0
   

"GOD's Unfailing Love"

 
 
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 01:29 pm
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. GOD's love is eternal and UNFAILING not UNCONDITIONAL> It requires relationship with GOD of LOVE and us loving him. His word is clear he hates the wicked and the wicked hate him,he hated Esau and probably Cain too. He hates them for their wickedness not for their humanity. He has compassion on all his creationof humanity if they would only seek his face if they would only turn from their sinful ways then GOD would heal them with his love. What is the way we can experience GOD's Eternal Unfailing LOVE? I believe it is through Mashiach! Is there any other way do you think?
Malachi 1:2-3
[ Jacob Loved, Esau Hated ] "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
See Deut 6:1-5, Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
I believe this is why the Mashiach or Messiah said The 1st commandment is to LOVE GOD. Because he then blesses it ten fold.
This is just a spiritual philosophy based on the written word do you think it meshes with truth?
Enjoy your Shabbat! (Sabbath is friday sundown to saturday sundown) I'll see your replys on monday!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,156 • Replies: 47
No top replies

 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 06:03 pm
@Israelite007,
Quote:

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


Agape. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. When looking for unconditional love, you have to go back to the original language.

The problem with the English word 'Love' is that the one word describes many different types of love. Whereas other languages (I can quote Greek and Danish) use different words for the different types of 'Love'.

Quote:

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


By entering Heaven through Jesus' sacrifice.
0 Replies
 
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 09:45 am
@Israelite007,
Israelite007 wrote:
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.


So, are you saying that God loves only under certain conditions? Because according to scripture, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Romans 5:8 says, "But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The doctrine of conditional love justifies eternal damnation. It would also assume that God makes decisions based on feelings or human emotions.

Would God tell us to unconditionally love our enemies and then do the opposite for himself? What if you disagreed with everything the people in your church said, would they still love you?
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2008 11:40 pm
@Israelite007,
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.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 02:17 pm
@Solace,
I had to look up my copy of the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for this, since George Carlin said it so beautifully;

Quote:
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
I find it strange that people can't figure out something like this by themselves while reading the bible. But that's me speaking as an atheist.

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.

Solace wrote:
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.


He Says God love "his childeren" - aren't we all equal in each and every way? - unconditionally, however many believers fear God. I find it disturbing to know someone loves me unconditionally but at the same time has to look at me every minute of the day if I'm not doing anything wrong.

His second remark; "As for those who aren't his childeren, well, they're plum out of luck. really proves my point that many religious peoples are damned elitists that base there elitism on a book and the idea of a God being there.

I think we should be fair here that if this God really exists we should not say that he loves unconditionally for he does not, it has been proven in the old testament, and in lesser extent in the new testament.

The rules are simple; life the way of the God you believe in and you earn his love, if not you'll be burning in hell, i would not call that unconditional and unfailing love.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 02:26 pm
@Vasska,
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.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 02:46 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 02:52 pm
@Vasska,
Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 03:08 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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.


You win, thinking about it for a second time Dawkins is more the cheap romance novelist of atheism (I love that sentence) than the one who promotes atheism in a more sophisticated way like Russel or Nietzsche.

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).
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:31 pm
@Vasska,
Who was first the atheist or the religious man? Labels are silly. ;-)
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 07:24 pm
@Vasska,
Quote:

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.



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.

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


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

Quote:

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


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.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 07:37 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
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.
Or read even older figures, like Hume and Spinoza (who was not necessarily an atheist, but viciously critical of religion). The philosophical arguments favoring atheism have been around a long time -- if not then we wouldn't have ever needed God proofs in the Middle Ages.
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 07:41 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
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.


That's right, God's children cannot sin. And that's why God created two vessels: one for honor and one for dishonor. Choose the one of honor and you are a child of God. There are two parts to human nature.

While I believe how the bible was written has a purpose, I would recommend doing more research on eternal damnation. You may also consider the contradictions in scripture when holding this view.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 07:57 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
Choose the one of honor and you are a child of God. There are two parts to human nature.
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.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 08:04 pm
@Solace,
Quote:
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).


Free from sin? That's crazy, the atonement cleanses us from our sins, but that does not mean I am free of sin. The way you write it seems like your saying 'No matter what God's children do it is not sin'.

Free from the Law? Jesus came to uphold the Law: Matthew 5:17 'Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter ... will by any means disappear from the Law ...'

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

Quote:

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


So, nothing you have done in the past two days was a sin? No coveting, No lying?
Dustin phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 08:09 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
And yet I'd assume that one could conceivably switch from one to the other, right?


Oh most definitely and if we set either force in motion we'll quickly see the manifested results.

Aedes wrote:
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.


Very astute observation! I believe all are children of God; we need only to claim our inheritance.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:26 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:

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



Since you put it that way, read 1 John 3: 9. Pay particular attention to the part where it says "and he cannot sin". In fact, you should probably read the first ten verses or so of that chapter, just to get more of it.

Also read Romans 6, the whole chapter if you would, so as to get the context, but pay heed to passages like verse 14, (for ye are not under the law, but under grace.) and 18, (being then made free from sin).

I could post more such verses, but as this is not strictly a religous forum, I understand that philosophy is preferred and not the quoting of scripture. I ask all to forgive me for resorting to scripture, but in de Silentio's words, that is all we have to go on here.

Or is it? Let me attempt to sum it up, philosophically, if I dare use that word in relation to faith. The nuts and bolts of a belief in God's children being unable to commit sin, the philosophy of it, if you will, is simply this, that sin is disobedience. When Christ died, he fulfilled the law, thus ending it. Yes, you read that correctly. For as Paul told us, the law, the ten commandments and any other ordinance that condemned us, was nailed to the cross with Christ, and thus died with him. (Yes, I could provide scripture to show this, but we're trying to avoid that, remember. If such is required of me, then I'll gladly provide, either here or by means of a pm, at the requester's discretion.) Unlike Christ, however, it was not resurrected with him.

Now, if there is no law, no commandment, how can one disobey? If one cannot therefore disobey, how can one commit sin? This is the stuff they don't teach you in church, folks.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:31 pm
@Dustin phil,
Oh, and sorry Dustin, I don't believe that we choose to be God's children any more than we chose who our earthly parents are. We don't force our will upon God. And no Aedes, I also don't claim to be a child of God as a statement of potential. I claim it as a statement of faith.
Vasska
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 02:56 am
@Aedes,
Quote:
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.
I find them disturbing because this elitism is blinding people. The whole child of God thing is making me sick. I used damned instead of filthy because i did not want to sound like an out of control atheist, and not the damned as in you are going to hell as you probably interpreted it.

I also find it hard to understand why you see yourselves as an elitist only because you believe in God and read an old book. If someone from the Rockerfellers, Rothschildts or Rupert Murdoch for that matter says they are elitists i believe them for they are. But someone who happens to believes in an old book and prays to an (in my opinion imaginary) God and acts like an elitist is just sad.


Quote:
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
Take a simple story as "The Story of Job" (you can (re-)read it here) you see God as someone who tortures his own "child" just to prove his point to an "fallen angel". I would not say a God like this loves unconditionally and is the loving God that just wants that you obey him. He is pictured as the mean kid that's burning ants with his magnifier.


Quote:
the bible states clearly that some are God's children and some most definitely are not. So, no, we are not equal.
Nietzsche states God is dead, so God is dead. Don't take those things that literally. I Guess you would not be so dumb to discriminate against "colored" people, why should you discriminate against people who just happen to believe something else.

Quote:

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.
The problem here is that the old testament is just like the new one true. We still despise Hitler for exterminating millions of people 60 years ago, why should god be any different. If you believe in God and the Bible you should believe in both the new and old testament, even if the new testament is a lot better and shows a more loving God.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 03:30 am
@Dustin phil,
Quote:

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).


Culture. That's why we pass religion down to our children. We also pass morals. We pass down a great deal, and this is called cultural identity. The whole "forced down the throat of a helpless child", you must admit, shows some bias towards religion. Don't get me wrong, you should believe what you want, and institutionalized religion has done a marvelous job of corrupting countless minds. But this does not mean we should shrug off the process of transmitting culture from one generation to the next. We should just make sure we go about this process in a positive way.

Why should the Muslim hate the Jew or vice versa because his parents did? He shouldn't. This is hate, hate is not good. Why should the Muslim or Jew or what have you observe the religious holidays of his parents? To dedicate that time to reflection, or charity, or family, or whatever the holiday is supposed to cultivate.

Quote:
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.


The Bible is a collection of documents written in different places, at different times, by different individuals of different faiths. The book we have today was assembled with political agenda by Bishops who opposed the teachings of Arius and of the Gnostics. The Bible says many things, and has many contradictions. A single passage of the Bible is no authority on God.

As I recall, Jesus taught everyone present that day to pray "Our Father..." Certainly some present were sinners, and somehow they were still children of God - at least according to Jesus.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "GOD's Unfailing Love"
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 05:46:22