Is God LOVE ? (page 4)

designs

2010 was a little above average in deaths from Natural Disasters, north of 400,000, not bad for a Loving God. Didn't you think the effort to level Haiti went particularly well.

AGuest

If God is love why did he let one of his bad angles tempt his own creation Adam and Eve

Love, dear True (peace to you!). Born out in His allowing them the FREEDOM... to CHOOSE. Which is what we ALL want, right? The right... and freedom... to choose, even if we choose poorly/wrongly? How can I say someone loves me... if they won't allow me to choose for myself how I want to live/who I want to follow/worship?

and ruin what he created in the first place.

They didn't ruin it, dear one. They were cast out before they COULD ruin in. They were given the life they CHOSE: one without God's "hedge" around them all the time.

A god of love wouldn't have just stared, watched and done nothing, as Satan proceeded to tempt the unknowing mortal two.

They weren't unknowing OR mortal, dear one. And a MAN of love wouldn't have chose to let his wife die (when he could have saved her by means of HIS perfect life - because it was still imperfect, wasn't it, until HE ate?)... or sold his children so that HE could have eternal life. A man of love... would have given HIS life... so that his wife... and potential children... could live. The account isn't about the kind of "man" God is/was; it was about the kind of man ADHAM was. Which is why God gave the LAST Adham, Christ... one who would and DID give HIS life... for HIS wife (Bride) and "children" (those begat by holy spirit).

Should Adam and Eve be held accountable for their actions when they didn't have the capacity of what was good and what was evil before eating the fruit?

Absolutely they should be, because they indeed had such capacity to know. God had told them, so they knew. Eve just didn't believe it any longer after another told her that there was another possibility than what God had said. Adam knew full well, but decided he WANTED to know bad (die). Because he thought he could buy his way back FROM death (by giving his progeny instead). So, both CHOSE to eat.

Would a God of love, TRUE love... deny His children their RIGHT... to CHOOSE? What, I ask you, would be the "love" in that?

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA, who has seen many a family where the parents never allowed the children to make decisions for themselves... and now they're adults who can't make decisions for themselves. Some of these adult children post here...

AGuest

In my experience christians play silly games with definitions of words like love. They assert that "god is love" and then abandon all reasonable understanding of what love means.

I totally agree, dear Cofty (peace to you!), to the extent you mean "christians" who are such because they believe in the Bible (and that is it the Word of God), joined a "christian" religion, attend a church, identify with a certain denomination, where a cross around their necks, "believe in Jeezus." Which I believe has been the lion's share of your experience? Christians who are such by means of an anointing with holy spirit never abandon the true meaning of love.

Since god ordered the genocide of at least 14 million Canaanites, including the cold blooded murder of thousands of babies then in some way we can't understand that must be "loving".

If you are to believe the stylus of the scribes. I do not. Nor did my Lord.

Since god will send millions to eternal torture in hell that too must be an act of "love".

The god of such so-called "christians", perhaps. There is no eternal torture at the hand of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, sorry.

Words can mean anything we want them to mean

Well, we can WANT them to, but wishing doesn't make it so.

If god is "love" then I have not got the faintest idea what the word means;

Sure, you do. Maybe not to it's fullest extent, but you have an inkling...

except I do know

See?

and the god of the bible does not fit any sensible definition.

The Jewish god of the OT, to a great deal, no. But that is why my Lord said "I came to bear witness to the truth," particularly the truth about the Most Holy One of Israel, so that when you see Christ (who killed no one, nor advocated killing anyone - to the contrary, he said we are to love our enemies, return evil to no one, and to revile no one, even when being reviled... all of which he said he learned from... and observed... the Father doing. It is also why he condemned the works of the scribes, those who job it was to copy the scriptures... without adding to, taking away, or tampering with. According to Jeremiah, however, and given my Lord's cry of "Woe" to such ones... that apparently didn't happen.

Conversely christians who buy into the horrors of the bible do not "love" god - they have a bad case of the Stockholm Syndrome

I absolutely agree. But getting a so-called "christian" to put down the Bible... well, that's another issue altogether. Ain't gonna happen for most, unfortunately, and to the world's further detriment...

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA, who realizes that you don't really "know" me and so a lot of your comments to/about me are, well, way off base, actually...

AGuest

2010 was a little above average in deaths from Natural Disasters, north of 400,000, not bad for a Loving God. Didn't you think the effort to level Haiti went particularly well.

Natural disasters are caused by forces related to the physical earth, yes, dear designs? (As always, peace to you!) Yet, God is a spirit. What, then, has He to do with that... other than to preserve alive the spirits of those so affected for a resurrection at the last day? Did He promise more than that? If so, I am not aware of it, so can you show me where... or tell me how you know of this? Otherwise, my understanding is that time and unforeseen occurrences befall ALL flesh, perhaps even mine. Is this not correct?

Thank you and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

cofty

SA, who realizes that you don't really "know" me and so a lot of your comments to/about me are, well, way off base, actually...

Actually nothing in that post was about you Shelby.

The following is about you however - Your arrogance in the way you dismiss everybody except yourself as a true christian is astonishing.

Satanus

Aguest

"it really hinges on (1) what comes out of you, and (2) what you allow in. If, regardless of transcendation of the flesh (which is what you're suggesting), what you project lacks love... it does so because there is no love IN you. Regardless of what you "got into"... or your spirit. To the same degree, if you are unwilling... or unable... to allow love IN. "

You are suggesting that within ourselves, we do not have love, that we need to get it from another source, first, a kind of second hand emotion.

S

designs

The 'Jesus' of the NT makes up for any early pacifist leanings by telling us he is now the Judge, John 5, and then proceeds with the planning and killing of most of the human race, Revelation 14-19+....... well maybe the Editors of the NT misunderstood things and quoted him wrong.

AGuest

Actually nothing in that post was about you Shelby.

Wasn't referring to that post specifically, dear Cofty (again, peace to you!).

The following is about you however - Your arrogance in the way you dismiss everybody except yourself as a true christian is astonishing.

If I did so dismiss everyone besides myself, your statement would be true, both that it is arrogance and astonishing. I don't believe that I dismiss everybody, however. I must say that I do find it curious, however, that you can dismiss all "christians", for example, with regard to the word love. A little hypocritical, given what you think of me, yes? Oh, wait, that's right: atheists can't be hypocrites. Forgive me, please, for forgetting that...

You are suggesting that within ourselves, we do not have love, that we need to get it from another source, first, a kind of second hand emotion.

This is true, dear Satanus (peace to you!). Love is not inherently IN us; it is learned. From some source. And it is not an emotion (although some say/believe/teach that it is); but it can elicit emotion. Love is what we are... or aren't... in our core, our essence. I know, I know... something different, perhaps, and if I had a number of letters behind my name, or the back of some great philosophical college of thinking, or other thinkers, you'd be more apt to hear it. But I don't. All I have is the One who showed me what love is. As Paul says, it never fails. And emotions not only come and go, but often fail us.

I bid you peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

AGuest

maybe the Editors of the NT misunderstood things and quoted him wrong.

No, it's actually you who's quoting wrong, dear designs (peace to youu!). Although you may be doing so only because of what others have told you the NT says, rather than reading it yourself. But we've had that discussion already, yes?

Again, peace to you... and please... feel free to review that post because I think you may have skipped some stuff.

A slave of Christ,

SA

Satanus

"Love is not inherently IN us; it is learned. From some source. And it is not an emotion (although some say/believe/teach that it is); but it can elicit emotion. Love is what we are... or aren't... in our core, our essence."

So then, until we learn love, or recieve love, or experience love, are we without a core. Are we 'essenseless', until that time? How can a learned thing, a thing which we were not, become the core of our being, our very being?

S

Is God LOVE ?

Share this