Unconditional love

[Sassy]

Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.

Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.

Do you unconditionally love god? So if it asked you to kill you son aka as per Abrham you'd do exactly what was demanded of you?

I thought many Muslims love Mohamed but it is on condition he was not a dick.

Not an intellectual response to my post, Jak.(not calling you thick, either.)

As there is NOTHING in the bible asking us to kill our son or daughter for that matter.
There is NOTHING to base your argument on. When you mention Abraham, there were no laws given then. But truth always existed.

Maybe you just could not understand that Abraham knew God in a different type of relationship to that of the world today. He heard God speak to him and he knew God gave him his son and made promises through him. He knew God could raise his son and that no matter what would keep the promises he made.

It is difficult with a closed mind and understanding to see the reason for the LORDs intervention. But what is clear is that Abraham NEVER killed his son. So a ''what if'' is not an option in this case. God does not want people to kill anyone by way of sacrifice to him.
This was a clear teaching that Abraham learned from the beginning.

31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

God has clearly shown that he does NOT want us to sacrifice our children to him as others did to false gods.

Would be good if the atheists could take this on board.

[Sassy]

BA

It is because if you don't hold it, the belief, you are excluded.
Therefore going to heaven excludes those who don't believe the right things.
Unconditional love excludes no one.

Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.

Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.

God's love is NOT NOT NOT unconditional!

It is given on the condition that you do exactly what he says or he will smite the total crap out of you!

Sassy, you don't half talk a load of shite sometimes!, No, you do it most of the time!

Unconditional love tells you the TRUTH.

Something your reply lacks because of lack of knowledge when it comes to unconditional love and truth.

Truth is there was no way back for man by his own means to God through the sins mankind committed. Because truth and justice are all part of unconditional love.

God still shows his unconditional love by paying the price for us to come back to him.  All the angst in your post displayed and vented in dislike and towards me is all due to ignorance and you being unwilling to see the truth for what it is, and why justice and truth are part of unconditional love.

Say what you will about me and vent it towards me, it won't change the fact it is your lack of understanding about unconditional love from God which is at fault.

[floo]

Unconditional love includes loving God... You cannot love God whom you do not see if you do not love your brother whom you can see.

Unconditional love is given and therefore if you love God you believe what he says.

Do you unconditionally love god? So if it asked you to kill you son aka as per Abrham you'd do exactly what was demanded of you?

I thought many Muslims love Mohamed but it is on condition he was not a dick.

Not an intellectual response to my post, Jak.(not calling you thick, either.)

As there is NOTHING in the bible asking us to kill our son or daughter for that matter.
There is NOTHING to base your argument on. When you mention Abraham, there were no laws given then. But truth always existed.

Maybe you just could not understand that Abraham knew God in a different type of relationship to that of the world today. He heard God speak to him and he knew God gave him his son and made promises through him. He knew God could raise his son and that no matter what would keep the promises he made.

It is difficult with a closed mind and understanding to see the reason for the LORDs intervention. But what is clear is that Abraham NEVER killed his son. So a ''what if'' is not an option in this case. God does not want people to kill anyone by way of sacrifice to him.
This was a clear teaching that Abraham learned from the beginning.

31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

God has clearly shown that he does NOT want us to sacrifice our children to him as others did to false gods.

Would be good if the atheists could take this on board.

Your posts don't require an intellectual response Sass, anymore than a child's fairy tale does!

[Gordon]

I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

Loophole sniffing again Gordon?

Nope - looks a very dodgy proposition to me, so I decided not to get involved: but don't let that stop you.

(p.s. I've got this bridge in New York for sale - seriously - you interested?)

[Hope]

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

And the small print is what?  Take it or leave it?

[Gordon]

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

And the small print is what?  Take it or leave it?

Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.

[Hope]

You pretending to be a bit of Jesus doesn't make hm alive.

But that wasn't the point to which I was responding, jeremy - as you well know.  You asked why he doesn't show himself - to which I responded that he does, through Christians.

If he's alive, why doesn't he go on The One Show?

Again, how many times have we seen Christians on The One Show talking about the work that God is doing in this world?

You seem to miss the point that prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, animal (penal substitutionary atonement) sacrifices had to made at least once a year for the Jews, Hindus and other faiths.  Jesus' death was meant to be a once for all event, thus making PSA unnecessary.  Clearly, there remain those who do not believe that PSA has been made unnecessary, and continue to practise it; but that doesn't meant that it is still needed.

[Hope]

Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.

I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'.  I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

Don't forget the small print Vlad: after all, they do say the devil is in the detail.

Loophole sniffing again Gordon?

Nope - looks a very dodgy proposition to me, so I decided not to get involved: but don't let that stop you.

(p.s. I've got this bridge in New York for sale - seriously - you interested?)

Sorry Gord, I don't usually buy stuff from people who have sloppy or literally dodgy/dodging methodology....or people who see nativity plays as a great social danger...and you seem to fit both categories.....

[Gordon]

Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.

I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'.  I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.

Hope

I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!

'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.

[Hope]

I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!

Just because you are a Scot doesn't mean that you can't read newspapers or hear news reports.  Nor, for that matter, does it mean that you can't play cricket.  There is a fairly successful Scottish national cricket team and a Scottish Cricket Board.

'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be no methodology to explain the events of that first hour and a bit of the 4th Test Match.  As many of the reporters and commntators have said since, whilst great conditions-specific bowling and poor batting explain it in part, there seems to have been something that day that defies 'natural' explanation.

[ekim]

You pretending to be a bit of Jesus doesn't make hm alive.

But that wasn't the point to which I was responding, jeremy - as you well know.  You asked why he doesn't show himself - to which I responded that he does, through Christians.

If he's alive, why doesn't he go on The One Show?

Again, how many times have we seen Christians on The One Show talking about the work that God is doing in this world?

You seem to miss the point that prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, animal (penal substitutionary atonement) sacrifices had to made at least once a year for the Jews, Hindus and other faiths.  Jesus' death was meant to be a once for all event, thus making PSA unnecessary.  Clearly, there remain those who do not believe that PSA has been made unnecessary, and continue to practise it; but that doesn't meant that it is still needed.

That seems odd to me as that same God created a commandment which says 'Thou shalt not kill' and then sacrifices his own son.  Whereas he could have amended the commandment to include 'neither shalt thou sacrifice animals nor humans to appease me, for I am a God of unconditional love and do not require it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - the seemingly made up unbelievable bits.

I notice that you hedge your bets by the use of 'seemingly'.  I seem to remember very similar phraseology was used by the Test Match Special commentators at about 11.30am on the first day of the recent 4th Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.

Hope

I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!

'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.

Oh No, Antitheists seem to be into the 'method' thing at the moment.
Well I suppose they need a 'Big Gun' argument like the one non naturalists have.

I've only seen it used recently. I think it was Nearly sane who came up with it and then all the monkeys in the jungle started whooping.

When you examine it though it seems like the method and somehow the invocation of 'The method' in this way circumvents the situation where 'The method' i.e. science does not support 'The philosophy'. It doesn't circumvent it.

Philosophically speaking the elimination of God is arbitrary within philosophical naturalism. Secondly if there is more than the 'natural' i.e. more than the physical or material then there is no guarantee that 'the method' is not in some way applicable.

For the person who gave us 'the method/methodology' God is somehow invalid because he is an uncaused cause. That need not be a problem in an inclusive cosmos.

That the universe might be it's own uncaused cause points rather to an inclusive cosmos rather than the exclusive one of philosophical naturalism.

However, let me repeat...any talk of a method still does not support any argument that philosophical naturalism is more likely or as good as proven.

[Gordon]

I am a Scot: therefore I have no idea what you are on about!

Just because you are a Scot doesn't mean that you can't read newspapers or hear news reports.  Nor, for that matter, does it mean that you can't play cricket.  There is a fairly successful Scottish national cricket team and a Scottish Cricket Board.

'Seemingly' because one day you guys might come up with a 'method', which is about a likely as me having even the remotest interest in mind-numbingly boring alleged sports.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be no methodology to explain the events of that first hour and a bit of the 4th Test Match.  As many of the reporters and commntators have said since, whilst great conditions-specific bowling and poor batting explain it in part, there seems to have been something that day that defies 'natural' explanation.

I'd say that anyone would be remotely interested in cricket defies any form of explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Polkingehorne on 'The method'

 Theology lacks recourse to repeatable experimental confirmation as in fact do most other non-scientific explorations of reality.

My Italics

[Rhiannon]

If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.

Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

That makes no sense. Yes, there are things that people do which are truly evil. But what you are saying is that justice means punishing ordinary human beings for our very human failings - and then you go a step further and say that somebody else pays the price instead. That's not just.

I don't know if I expect justice for others - it's nice to think that what goes around, comes around but it probably doesn't. But I don't need anybody else to judge me; I do it to myself and it'd be a whole lot more beneficial if my inner critic would shut the fuck up from time to time. The bottom line is though that if I screw up, I pay. That's justice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you point out which ones I will explain why I made them - but I am neither anti Christian nor anti theist and you will find plenty of posts from me defending both. I 'pointedly' dislike the doctrine of penal substitution and the notion that we cannot be decent human beings without it.

Penal substitution is about justice. To be against it IMHO is to want to deprive us of justice. In other words treat justice as though it were a bad thing.
Of course, it is unreasonable to think that we are or should be recipients of justice in one way and not the other (As penalty).
In that sense it is not unreasonable to suppose that God in the crucifixion takes that justice upon himself.
There are other interpretations of the cross and I don't think all of them are incompatible with each other.
I therefore don't think we should be ungrateful therefore since the way to God is now open. But hey ho we are modern consumers, given to complaining about the accommodation.

That makes no sense. Yes, there are things that people do which are truly evil. But what you are saying is that justice means punishing ordinary human beings for our very human failings - and then you go a step further and say that somebody else pays the price instead.

That's always the price of these failings though. Failings result in suffering. That is part of a very natural order. what we are saying is there is a God dimension to this.
God takes the penalty(The results of our failings) on himself.

As you point out you doubt there is ever justice and I agree.

Human failings is a by term for minimising the penalty our actions, words etc, can have on other people.

Thank God that he has taken the penalty on himself. Diminishing the consequences of what we do means we don't want to face the possible genie we have let out of the bottle and our inability to control consequences. God has done this for us. The consequences of continual throwing this back in his face seems to me habitual.

I also don't think you can separate the divine from Jesus since you are rewriting Christian theology to mislead into thinking God is practicing some destruction on another or making someone other than himself take your penalty. That is engineering of the moral highground, tied in with subsuming one's own part.

What say you of other theories of atonement?

[Rhiannon]

No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.

I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.

I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.

I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.

I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.

I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.

I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.

You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.

It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid

[floo]

No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.

I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.

I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.

I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.

You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.

It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid

Your posts raise a 'laugh', although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.

I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.

I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.

I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.

You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.

It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid

Your posts raise a 'laugh', although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!

Are you claiming mental incapacity on my part here? Any expert knowledge or other evidence for your diagnosis?

[Rhiannon]

Seriously, Vlad? You think I'm laying open my own stupidity to get a laugh? And didn't you get that I find the 'hey, it was only two days' kind of comments crass and thoughtless?

It's a fair point that my post didn't mention the impact of having stuff on others, but that doesn't mean it isn't something I think about. A lot of what I buy for my home I source second-hand, and I repair and remake things where I can, but that isn't alwąys possible, and making ethical choices can be a minefield. I try to do what I can but I know I could do better.

But you seem to be focussing very much on consumerism as the greatest sin that us 'normal' sinners commit. I'm unimpressed by the misrepresentation of others in order to score cheap points and enable the stroking of ones's own ego.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously, Vlad? You think I'm laying open my own stupidity to get a laugh? And didn't you get that I find the 'hey, it was only two days' kind of comments crass and thoughtless?

It's a fair point that my post didn't mention the impact of having stuff on others, but that doesn't mean it isn't something I think about. A lot of what I buy for my home I source second-hand, and I repair and remake things where I can, but that isn't alwąys possible, and making ethical choices can be a minefield. I try to do what I can but I know I could do better.

But you seem to be focussing very much on consumerism as the greatest sin that us 'normal' sinners commit. I'm unimpressed by the misrepresentation of others in order to score cheap points and enable the stroking of ones's own ego.

On the contrary it is the person who minimises the impact of their actions who is salving there own ego.

An undue focus on the sins of the modern consumer may be at the other end of the spectrum which includes complete self exoneration and I take your point that even I have to watch drifting into heresy.

That the belief that we are all fallen short is taken, by those troubled by it, instead as ''You are fallen short and I am not'' has always puzzled me.

[floo]

No, I don't minimise how my own actions hurt others. But I'm not evil and I do so from my own stupidity, not because I'm a terrible person, and the only right thing to do is try to make amends to them if I can and learn from it. And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying.

I don't see how penal substitution does anything to change the suffering that our mistakes causes to others and ourselves.

I've always thought that reminding ourselves that it is God on the Cross somehow diminishes the suffering. You'll have heard non-believers say that hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.

I like Marcus Borg on the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, although I don't come from the same place as him. My personal belief is that Jesus was a real man who had a passion to teach his people how to lived coupled with great wisdom and courage, and who entered his ministry knowing he'd pay with his life for it. That is the willing sacrifice he made. No cosmic get-out clause afterwards. And I find him much more compelling and engaging and I pay more attention to his ideas when I strip away all the stuff the church has lain upon him and focus on Jesus the man.

You seem to be putting a high yet consistent premium on self judgment of actions and consequences.
Also you seem to be valuing theological ignorance of ideas such as kenosis and the last words of Christ on the cross.
Knowledge of those frankly makes statements like ''hey, it wasn't that bad, he knew it was a couple of days dead and he'd be back.'' look facile, flippant but above all,wrong. Talking of the facile and flippant we could include this '' And I eat too much chocolate and have more stuff than I need because I'm stupid too. And if I get fat and can't stand the clutter then I'm paying. ''
where your concerns seem only for yourself without considering the wider consequences of having more stuff.

It all smacks of trying to ''raise a laugh from the gallery'' i'm afraid

Your posts raise a 'laugh', although I suppose one should be pitying you rather than giggling at your crazy nonsense!

Are you claiming mental incapacity on my part here? Any expert knowledge or other evidence for your diagnosis?

I am saying that your posts seem to be getting crazier, but maybe that is your intention!

[Rhiannon]

Of course we are all fallible, silly creatures. But we aren't rotten as a result, because generally we are also capable of thoughtfulness, kindness, creativity, even heroism and self sacrifice - you might call these things 'loving'. And we don't need to be punished just for being human, with our crazy mix of failings and glories. Let's face it, we are so very good at punishing ourselves anyway (with a nod to Ms Christie once again).