The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.

Island Man

"If anyone makes the statement: “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen" - 1 John 4:20

Here the Bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one. Therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible God. Keeping this principle in mind note what Jesus says at Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37:

"“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26
"He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:37

But according to the logical principle implicit at 1 John 4:20 wouldn't it be impossible for a modern day disciple to hate his visible relatives and yet love the invisible Christ? Wouldn't it be impossible for modern disciples to love the invisible Jesus more than their visible relatives? And so Jesus' words at Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37 implicitly refutes the logic underpinning 1 John 4:20. For the words of 1 John 4:20 implies that it is impossible for someone to love their visible fellow human less and claim to love the invisible God more.

And by the way, what kind of loving God would require his worshippers to have greater love for him than for their family - to sacrifice their family relationships for him? Why should a loving God put a father through the emotional agony of having to sacrifice his son to Him? What practical purpose does such devotion serve? Is God afraid that humans having more love for each other than for him would mean that they're likely to conspire together and overthrow him? Does he need something from us that he can only get if we love him more than our own relatives? These can't be because God is almighty and is not in need of anything from us. It's nothing but petty jealousy and ego. For a God that is almighty and not in need of anything, the God of the Bible is obscenely egocentric and selfish - much like the dictatorial kings who reigned in the ancient times the Bible was written in. I'm willing to bet that that's exactly who the Bible writers modeled the personality of Bible God after.

Finkelstein

Subjective loyalty at all costs, even if means throwing your own family to the curb.

No wonder the WTS organization destroys and breaks apart so many families.

Loyalty to the GB of the Watchtower Publishing house is rigidly enforced, to not do so is in kind to objecting the direction of god and loyalty to JC as it were.

Many men have devised power around themselves from those pertaining scriptures.

freemindfade

Island Man

good logic Island man I will have to remember this one.

I like finding versus in the OT then thinking if any could imagine jesus saying them.

Compare 2 Kings 1:9-10 vs Luke 9:54-55

9 The king then sent to him a chief of 50 with his 50 men. When he went up to him, he was sitting on the top of the mountain. He said to him: “Man of the true God,+ the king says, ‘Come down.’”10 But E·li′jah answered the chief of the 50: “Well, if I am a man of God, let fire come down from the heavens+ and consume you and your 50 men.” And fire came down from the heavens and consumed him and his 50 men.

54 When the disciples James and John+ saw this, they said: “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven and annihilate them?”+ 55 But he turned and rebuked them.

Luke 9:54 Some manuscripts them, just as Elijah did

Jonathan Drake

In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote.

In the second quote is not a contradiction because of the point ive already made. However, if you read the context his reason for saying this is clear. He had just given an illustration, and the point he was making was that nothing should come between you and your devotion to following christs teachings. He wasn't giving permission to hate, he was saying if anyone gets in the way of your obeying his commandments and example or says they'll leave you if you do or whatever - you should choose to follow him instead. Whatever cost may come from choosing that life was your torture stake, and he said you should be prepared to bare it.

Godsendconspirator

If you are willing to sell your soul, your soul is not yet worth enough to sell.

Perry

And by the way, what kind of loving God would require his worshippers to have greater love for him than for their family - to sacrifice their family relationships for him?

The kind of people that believe God when he says that there will be judgment after death will appreciate this requirement if their family demands that they do things or believe things in a way that is disobedient to God....Like the WT does for example.

Island Man

"In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote."

That technical detail about it being a reference to loving God and not loving Christ, is irrelevant. What is relevant - as brought out in the first quote - is contrasting the claimed love for an invisible person with lack of love for a visible person. Both God and Christ are invisible so the point of 1 John 4:20 holds equally true for anyone claiming to love the invisible Jesus while despising his visible brother.

Island Man

Another point is this: Christ's ancestress, Ruth, displayed an attitude that is contrary to Jesus' words at Matthew 10:37. Ruth's words reveal that she had greater love for Naomi than for God.

"And Ruth proceeded to say: “Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God." - Ruth 1:16

Uppermost on Ruth's mind was, not worshipping the correct God in the correct way, but maintaining her strong attachment to her mother-in-law. Her very strong unequivocal words demonstrate that she was a woman who was more devoted to her mother-in-law than anyone or anything else. What if Naomi had decided to go live with the Amalekites and worship their god(s)? What would Ruth have done then? "Where you go I shall go ... your people will be my people, and your God my God"!! Ruth only became a worshipper of God because her mother-in-law Naomi, was. Whichever God Naomi decided to worship, Ruth would have followed suit.

Jonathan Drake

Ok, I'll concede that point you made. However it still doesn't change the error regarding the second quote.

As to your example of Ruth, Ruth fulfilled the comment of Your first quote above to love her brother (sister). In doing so she was an example of what God wanted for his people, proven by christs example and words testifying to this. god would have been pleased with this.

There really isn't an issue in any of these references. Ruth was praised as an example of love. she followed the later example, love your brothers you can see first.

ctrwtf

Just to be clear, Christ is not speaking at 1 John. It is a letter from the apostle John.

The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.

Share this