"God is Love"

by Justin 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

defd

God is love, but God is also hate, death, violence, truth, lies, etc. ad infinitum...
God does not lie, has NEVER lied and for that matter CANNOT lie.
daystar

God does not lie, has NEVER lied and for that matter CANNOT lie.
If you say so.
defd

Daystar show me where.
daystar

Daystar show me where.

First of all, I find it interesting that this is the only part of that comment you chose to deny.
How about I tell you why. There is more than one religion claiming to have the only Truth from God. They don't all believe the same thing.
Jehovah God does not change, right? The FDS is the mouthpiece of Jehovah God, right? If what was Truth ten years ago, for example, is no longer the Truth, then when it was thought to be Truth, it was actually a lie. A Truth, capital "T" Truth, cannot ever have been a lie? And if it was, and if it came from the FDS, who do claim to be the mouthpiece of Jehovah God, then Jehovah God lied.
Or..., perhaps, the FDS are lying in the name of Jehovah God? Wow. And if that is the case, the Witnesses are following Liars. And we all know who the father of the lie is, now don't we? If that is true...
Alas, our worldviews and understanding are so different that I seriously doubt I could possibly convince you were I to really care to.
Why don't you spend some time seriously studying world religions without your Reasoning From the Scriptures book?
Legolas

Jehovah God does not change, right? The FDS is the mouthpiece of Jehovah God, right? If what was Truth ten years ago, for example, is no longer the Truth, then when it was thought to be Truth, it was actually a lie. A Truth, capital "T" Truth, cannot ever have been a lie? And if it was, and if it came from the FDS, who do claim to be the mouthpiece of Jehovah God, then Jehovah God lied.
Or..., perhaps, the FDS are lying in the name of Jehovah God? Wow. And if that is the case, the Witnesses are following Liars. And we all know who the father of the lie is, now don't we? If that is true...
jstalin

God lies
Ezekiel 14:9
And as for the prophet, in case he gets fooled and actually speaks a word, I myself, Jehovah, have fooled that prophet; and I will stretch out my hand against him and annihilate him from the midst of my people Israel.
Abaddon

Justin
then present a God-idea which seems as if it were pulled out of thin air and has no foundation in the texts.

This assumes the texts do not represent a God-idea which was pulled out of thin air and has no foundation in facts.
It also often assumes that one can tell the difference between literal passages and metaphorical passages in the Bible.
I have never seen evidence of massive locusts with sulphur breast-plates, or multi-headed beasts. Therefore it is reasonable to assume it is metaphor (although whether god-inspired is a different question).
Likewise, I have never seen evidence of an Earth that is any less vastly old than modern science tells us, or any evidence of a global flood at the time priod the Bible allegedly specifies. Therefore it is reasonable to assume it is metaphor (although whether god-inspired is a different question).
Other people feel that they, or those whose Biblical interpretations they put trust in, can determine which of two Bible passages is metaphorical and which is literal even when they have no evidence to support this claim.
Shiney
Gave up, eh? Imus ad magum Ozi videndum, magum Ozi mirum mirissimum, as St. Dorothy once said...
The very nature of liberal theology is the denial of the parts of scripture that they find personally embarrassing.
And the very essence of conservative theology is to trust on an inbuilt ability to seperate metaphorical passages from literal ones even if to do so requires a denial or avoidance of common facts, and to assume it is really god's word without conclusive proof yet deny all other religionists the right to similary verifiable claims.
Then there is the corrupting influence of modernism upon Christianity.
Yup, since the start of the 19th Century, when most Christians were misogynistic racists who supported the use of force against 'uncivilised' people to gain their land, Christianity has been SO corupted by modernism we now have (legally if not in everyday practise) equality of sexes, races, sexualities, the increasing acceptence of the concept of "human rights", international laws that outlaw aquistion of territory by force or extra-territorial activities by sovreign powers, a greater percentage of readers than any other point in human history, a higher average lifespan than any other point in human history, better average educational levels, health and standard of living than any other point inhuman history... Yes, indeed...
What has modernism ever done for us?, as Monty Python might say...
I suspect that the skeptics embrace this types of Christian because their weak, watered down gospel does not force them to deal with their own sin.
And you exagerate your knowledge of evolution without sin? Cool...
Rex, since when did god become about a strict but unprovable literal approach to scripture? You have reduced the creator of the Universe to a matter of opinion based upon a book of uncertain provenance and laugh at all those who have a different faith or belief.
I don't feel you have one shred of evidence to prove your conservative litealism is any more likely to be "true" than those 'liberals' you sneer at.
defd
How can god command ethnic cleansing of cities and the sexual servitude of young girls to the soldiers who killed their parents, and then talk about the importance of love, without changing?
``
I find it amusing how SOME people feel they can have a 'right' definiton of the Bible's meaning. How many of those making this claim have studided literature I wonder? The finate possibilities of interpreting a sizable text seem to be something many people are blissfully ignorant of.
Justin

To remain with the point I was trying to make: If we can point to scripture texts which depict God acting in ways which do not seem to be loving (whether justifiably so or not), then the clergy who represent God as unconditionally loving are misrepresenting their own Book. (It doesn't matter whether the Book is inspired, is correct or not - they have chosen to depart from the tradition while claiming to be its representatives.)
If these same people do not actually believe in a god (and we discussed their seminary experience in another thread), and their motive in ministering to others is a humanistic one, then perhaps they feel free to invent a god who is healthier for people who need to believe. Then, when they say, "God loves you," their emphasis lies on the humans who are being loved. In other words, there is something good about you for God to love you. Whereas, the traditional belief would seem to be that God loves the unlovable - there is something in God which reaches out to those who do not deserve his love. And, the older belief follows this up with the threat that those who do not respond to this love will experience the other side of God.
So the liberal belief is intended to make people feel good about themselves, whereas the classical belief is intended to make them feel good about God (as they say, to the glory of God).
Narkissos

Justin,
If we can point to scripture texts which depict God acting in ways which do not seem to be loving (whether justifiably so or not), then the clergy who represent God as unconditionally loving are misrepresenting their own Book. (It doesn't matter whether the Book is inspired, is correct or not - they have chosen to depart from the tradition while claiming to be its representatives.)

But if they represent God as not unconditionally loving then they will never get into the word "God is Love" as an absolute saying (which exceeds even the broader Johannine theology).
The diversity of Bible texts is a fact. Any doctrinal consistency is bound to betray much of this diversity. We all choose our betrayals (and we can switch them sometimes).
In principle theological liberalism should allow for at least homiletical inconsistency. This Sunday let's really preach Matthew (and don't tone him down with Paul). Next Sunday we'll hear Paul or John. That imo would be the very best solution, from both homiletical and exegetical perspectives. Unfortunately this is usually not what preachers are paid for.
If these same people do not actually believe in a god (and we discussed their seminary experience in another thread), and their motive in ministering to others is a humanistic one, then perhaps they feel free to invent a god who is healthier for people who need to believe. Then, when they say, "God loves you," their emphasis lies on the humans who are being loved. X In other words, there is something good about you for God to love you. Whereas, the traditional belief would seem to be that God loves the unlovable - there is something in God which reaches out to those who do not deserve his love. And, the older belief follows this up with the threat that those who do not respond to this love will experience the other side of God.
X = non sequitur. Loving the unlovable is the central apory of love. Just as forgiving the unforgivable is the ground of forgiveness (Derrida wrote very interesting pages about this, from a purely philosophical standpoint).
That was one central point for Tillich: accept to be accepted even though you may be unacceptable; even though there might be nothing or nobody to accept you (not the exact words, but it's the idea, see for instance the conclusion of The Courage to Be.)
Of course it is anthropocentric. But isn't theology most dishonest when it pretends to be anything else?
Or perhaps it's about the same issue as in theatre. In classical dramaturgy the actors never say "Hey, we're acting." In modern dramaturgy they sometimes do, and some spectators have developed a taste for that.
gf
Shining One

Abaddon,
So far, me discussing anything of substance with you leads to nothing meaningful. You have already decided to attack anyone who expresses belief in scripture. Jgnat has her 'merry go round', never get anywhere avoidance of issues. Your reply below show your own lack of logic:

>Yup, since the start of the 19th Century, when most Christians were misogynistic racists who supported the use of force against 'uncivilised' people to gain their land, Christianity has been SO corupted by modernism we now have (legally if not in everyday practise) equality of sexes, races, sexualities, the increasing acceptence of the concept of "human rights", international laws that outlaw aquistion of territory by force or extra-territorial activities by sovreign powers, a greater percentage of readers than any other point in human history, a higher average lifespan than any other point in human history, better average educational levels, health and standard of living than any other point inhuman history... Yes, indeed.<

None of this has anything to do with the subject of theology. How many logical fallacies can you pack into one paragraph? Let's change it a little and I will show you what I mean:

Yup, since the start of the 19th Century, when most people were misogynistic racists who supported the use of force against 'uncivilised' people to gain their land, society has been SO corupted by modernism we now have (legally if not in everyday practise) equality of sexes, races, sexual perversions like anal sex that almost singlehandly has spread a pandemic of AIDS, the increasing acceptence of the concept of "human rights", by all means, women can now terminate another human life that they are partially responsible for for any reason, parents do not have a tight to know when their daughters are taken by a school official to have an abortion yet the same offical cannot dispense asirin to the that CHILD, international laws that outlaw aquistion of territory by force or extra-territorial activities by sovreign powers, yet with a United Nations that is so corrupt as to accept bribery to get a former dictator illegal arms, a greater percentage of readers than any other point in human history, a higher average lifespan than any other point in human history, better average educational levels, health and standard of living than any other point inhuman history... but all depending on where you happen to live! We have had various atheistic governments that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions, a 'peace' movement that led to the deposing of a U.S. President, that indirectly resulted in two million deaths in Cambodia due to an atheistic communist government coming to power. Of course we had Joseph Stalin starve thirty million Ukrainians in the 1930's and the National Socialists of Germany take evolutionary genetics to its logical conclusion: the gassing of millions of people who did not fit the Aryan profile. Yes, indeed we have had a wonderful century in this wonderful age of enlightenment!
Back on ya! Making an argument of hysterics and generalisations will simply not do.
Rex

"God is Love"

Share this