Image of God - the Bible or Christ? (page 10)

OnTheWayOut

Tech doesn't always read and quote the Bible.

But when she does, she sticks with the parts she likes-
whatever makes Jesus look good.

Whatever parts agree with Him, OTWO, yep. Because of all that I have learned of God, through His Son... the biggest is that God is love. If we see something else in Him, then we are not seeing Him clearly. (perhaps because we are not looking at Him through Christ)

Peace,

tammy

myelaine

dear Tammy...

you said this: "As well... what the sheep did to feed the poor, the hungry, the needy, the suffering, the imprisoned... they did to Him. These are also invited into the kingdom. These are those Christ knows, regardless of whether they specifically know Him."...

that scripture in matthew is refering to the church. Jesus comes to the church like a thief in the night. He comes to the rest of the world so that every eye will see Him. Also in the scripture in matthew He comes with His holy angels...when He comes to the world He comes with all the saints. If you will notice, in the scripture in matthew, both groups call Him Lord...but He still seperates them into the sheep on one side and the goats on the other.

"by grace you have been saved by FAITH" ...the age of grace for is over...now those mentioned in matthew are only saved by prior works.

"For the time has come for judgement to begin at the house of God: and if it begins with us first, what shall be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now, 'If the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?'" 1 peter 4:17-18

love michelle

Qcmbr

God is love

OK - please explain what this actually means. The sentence is absolute drivel.

Try putting 'God is..' in front of these definitions of love:

...a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
...a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
...sexual passion or desire.
...a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.

tec

Mmm. How about this one, Q:

God/love

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

Peace,

tammy

Qcmbr

So God is not 'Love' but love is a quality of God - yes? What leads you to specifically assign God the qualities of:

1 - Patience

2 - Non-envy

3 - Non-boasting.

4 - Non-pride.

5 - Selfessness.

6 - Calm temper.

7 - No records of wrongs.

What does he protect, how does he trust, how can an all knowing being hope, in what way does he persevere and what would it look like if he failed?

Why doesn't the dictionary attribute these as qualities of love?

tec

Q, you could insert God for the word love in all of that definition of Paul's above. I think the reason we state that God is love, is because it is not just a quality of Him... it is all of him. Those traits that you just listed are qualities of love, and so also qualities of God.

What does he protect,

Life, and all those who belong to Him. Even those who reject him enjoy the same gift of life in the here and now, though what might be done with or to that gift is upon them and us.

how does he trust,

What do you mean?

how can an all knowing being hope,

All knowing is your word.

in what way does he persevere and what would it look like if he failed?

He is still here with us - though through His Son, who helps us, teaches us, guides us; no matter how many times we fail or do not listen; since the beginning of man and continuing on. That is perserverence, lol.

If he failed at what?

Why doesn't the dictionary attribute these as qualities of love?

I don't know. Why doesn't the dictionary hold Dawkins scale of atheism? Why does the dictionary define atheism as a belief that there is no god(s)?

Peace,

tammy

Band on the Run

The Jesus of the Bible is not groovy Jesus, perfect bliss. He is human. The cleansing of the temple, the cursing of the fig tree, the "I break up famlies," repudiating his own family (who evidently did not believe he was the Messiah but a lazy bum for negating his familial and social obligations. Jesus very radical things. HIs apolcalyptic statements are terrifying. I am not a first century Jew. They may have been comfortable. Jesus never explains things in clear statements. Perhaps there would have been fewer bloody battles within Christianity if he had. Of course, even scary Jesus is much more moral than YHWH.

It just boils down to what you want to believe. Tec, I sincerly believe, from my viewpoint, that your Christ is a weak idiot. Obviously, you do not. Jesus is God to me. I believe there other faith traditions that lead to God. I have tons of questions and would prefer the questions to simple answers.

If I engaged you harshly, I apologize. It is just that after a time why bother to engage at all. No one changes anyone else's views. I will not apologize for my views just as I believe you should not for your views.

Based on other current threads, I do believe a small segment of this board has formed a new cult, eerily similar to the old cult. Another value judgment.

Qcmbr

So Paul made up a definition for Christ, you misapplied it to the word 'love' and now you find yourself stating nonesense?

God definitely carries a record of wrongs (judgement day) , he is definitely jealous (I won't bother with quoting example and scripture for you but have a quick peruse of the ten Cs), I'm more than happy for you to suggest that God/Christ doesn't know all things (and therefore can hope just as humanely as we do), I think Eden/Flood/Sodom/Armageddon show that God is not calm and is quite capable of heineous acts of psychopathic murder when things don't go to plan (I'll gladly take your potential disagreement in the reality of all of the above biblical events), I see no evidence that he protects life (he failed miserably in Eden to protect it and allowed/caused death, his record of healings is miserable, he is responsible for sitting by during all famines, wars, plagues and murders) - so I utterly find his protection of life bad for life, ditto - no evidence of any efforts or effects of Christ or anyone supposedly supernatural anywhere in anything in the world, in fact his 'persevereance' looks exactly the same as Thor's perseverance, Quezocoatl's and Vishnu's.

So I still see no evidence of divine love, I see a bad definition of love (you stretch a 2000 year old Paulian yarn too far to fit your modern day concepts of love) and still I see nothing specific. Without Christ or God's so called love this world would look exactly as it does now.

It is somewhat lacking no?

tec

So Paul made up a definition for Christ, you misapplied it to the word 'love' and now you find yourself stating nonesense?

Don't know what you're talking about in this.

Paul described qualities of love. I did not missapply anything.

God definately carries a record of wrongs (judgement day)

Forgiven and forgotten for those who repent and ask; and for those who belong to Christ... since He covers their sin.

, he is definately jealous

Not as we are, or as we define that word.

I'm more than happy for you to suggest that God/Christ doesn't know all things (and therefore can hope just as humanely as we do),

Cool.

I think Eden/Flood/Sodom/Armageddon show that God is not calm and is quite capable of heineous acts of psychopathic murder when things don't go to plan (I'll gladly take your potential disagreement in the reality of all of the above biblical events),

If that is what you see, then you do not see those events as they truly are. (so we will gladly disagree then, lol)

I see no evidence that he protects life (he failed miserably in Eden to protect it and allowed/caused death, his record of healings is miserable, he is responsible for sitting by during all famines, wars, plagues and murders) - so I utterly find his protection of life bad for life, ditto - no evidence of any efforts or effects of Christ or anyone supposedly supernatural anywhere in anything in the world, in fact his 'persevereance' looks exactly the same as Thor's perseverance, Quezocoatl's and Vishnu's.

He did protect in Eden. Adam chose something that caused death; but God made a way that death was limited (not eternal); and that all of the offspring of adam and eve (made in their image) could also have life. He gave a way out of the harm that Adam had caused; protecting all of us from the fate Adam chose for himself, and for us.

So that death does not have to destroy us (the spirit who we are), but is limited to the flesh that God made to cover that spirit.

I assume we will disagree on this. As well as on the effect of Christ and God.

So I still see no evidence of divine love, I see a bad definition of love (you stretch a 2000 year old Paulian yarn too far to fit your modern day concepts of love) and still I see nothing specific. Without Christ or God's so called love this world would look exactly as it does now.

I stretched nothing. I gave the definition exactly as it is written.

But this world would not look exactly the same without God's love. People like me would not be the same. People who give (or love or forgive or who show mercy, etc) because of the teachings and love of Christ, would not do so.

If I engaged you harshly, I apologize

Apology accepted. And I agree that rarely does anyone change their views. It does happen though. But the point in speaking is to witness to Christ, at least it is for me. What people do with that is always entirely up to them; and if they want, they will ask and seek for themselves.

Peace to you both,

tammy

Image of God - the Bible or Christ?

Share this