Originally posted by snowinscotland Even if someone actively does something fairly nasty, you would see it as someone failing to do something good? You must be rather young...
You see mere acts as where I see the condition of ones heart that triggors such acts.
Originally posted by whodey I view "good" and "bad" in a different light. For me "bad" does not exist, rather, it is simply failing to do what is "good". To put it another way, I do not believe that evil exits much in the same way that darkness does not exist nor does coldness exist. This is because darkness is simply a measurement of the absence/presense of light and coldness is sim ...[text shortened]... r me sin is simply the word describing the absence of the love of God in ones heart. 😉
That makes sense just as light is the absence of darkness.
The word good harbours a judgement, it needs all kind of conditions to cover the content, leaving lots out of it. Same with evil. Love does not judge. Love does not exclude. This is what I meant with love is beyond duality.
This is what the teachings of Jesus were all about.
Originally posted by Sake That makes sense just as light is the absence of darkness.
The word good harbours a judgement, it needs all kind of conditions to cover the content, leaving lots out of it. Same with evil. Love does not judge. Love does not exclude. This is what I meant with love is beyond duality.
This is what the teachings of Jesus were all about.
I see. So now you are beginning to define love by saying that it never excludes nor does it ever judge. However, Biblically how does one approach Christ's interactions with the Pharisees as he rails accusations at them by calling the hypocrites? How does one approach the Jesus who grabbed a whip and drove out money changers from the temple?
In terms of love not excluding anyone, I would agree. In fact, I think Christ even had love for the Pharisees. What Christ was doing with the Pharisees was essentially calling them out, so to speak, and was equivalent to throwing cold water on them to wake them up. This is because they thought they were all "righteous" and needed no correction whatsoever. The biggest reason for his attacks, however, was that they were his representatives on earth and they were to attend to the lost and dying which they had no love for. Therefore, these attacks were out of love for those lost and dying as well as for the Pharisees themselves.
Originally posted by whodey I see. So now you are beginning to define love by saying that it never excludes nor does it ever judge. However, Biblically how does one approach Christ's interactions with the Pharisees as he rails accusations at them by calling the hypocrites? How does one approach the Jesus who grabbed a whip and drove out money changers from the temple?
In terms of ...[text shortened]... se attacks were out of love for those lost and dying as well as for the Pharisees themselves.
I don't see Jesus as the only son of God, but like a human being like you and me with some more extraordinary achievements then me in his life. I can't tell if he did what you mention out of love, I was not there and the bible is not telling necessarilly the truth all the time. I guess he just lost his temper in some occasions.
Originally posted by whodey I see. So now you are beginning to define love by saying that it never excludes nor does it ever judge. However, Biblically how does one approach Christ's interactions with the Pharisees as he rails accusations at them by calling the hypocrites? How does one approach the Jesus who grabbed a whip and drove out money changers from the temple?
In terms of ...[text shortened]... se attacks were out of love for those lost and dying as well as for the Pharisees themselves.
I see Jesus not as the only son of God, but as a human being just like you and me, but a bit more extraordinary then you and me. I can't tell if he did it out of love. I was not there and what people write is not nenecsnes Therefor I think he only lost his temper on some occasions.
I suppose the same could be said for coldness. Just go to the Antartic and tell me that coldness does'nt exist...
To compare the physical, empirical world with abstract ideas like love is laughable. I suppose given enough time you could find a link between Marylin Manson and Pope Benedict XVI. Is bad simply not doing good? What basis do you have for this? I mean, I could just as easily argue that good is the absence of badness. When evil takes a break, good happens. You can't say I'm wrong... So, convince me!
Originally posted by Sake I see Jesus not as the only son of God, but as a human being just like you and me, but a bit more extraordinary then you and me. I can't tell if he did it out of love. I was not there and what people write is not nenecsnes Therefor I think he only lost his temper on some occasions.
Are you saying that a man who let himself be tortured and slowly killed on a cross for 3 days lost his temper in the temple with a whip? He sweated great drops of blood before going to the cross because he knew what was about to happen yet he did not so much as offer a verbal defense to prevent them from sending him to the cross nor did he strike back in any way when they carried out such barbarism? You are saying that this same man lost his temper when confronting the Pharisees?
Originally posted by limp biscuit To compare the physical, empirical world with abstract ideas like love is laughable. I suppose given enough time you could find a link between Marylin Manson and Pope Benedict XVI. Is bad simply not doing good? What basis do you have for this? I mean, I could just as easily argue that good is the absence of badness. When evil takes a break, good happens. You can't say I'm wrong... So, [b]convince me![/b]
I am merely pointing out that we may use terms to describe phenomenon and not to say that such phenomenon exists per sey. I believe I have made my point.
As far as questioning what exists, whether it be good or evil, I would say that "goodness/love" exists because it is self evident. Case in point is our innate morality which inclines us to certain behavoir that we deem is "good" behavoir. You could then either say that God indwelled this behavoir in us because we were made in his image or God was created in the minds of men to help explain abstract phenomenon such as love that exists in their minds. Nonetheless we are lost without the notion of love existing in our lives. Without love our lives our lives mean nothing and the more we violate the law of love the less our lives mean to us as well as those around us.
Originally posted by whodey I feel compelled to start a new thread about how I view the God of the Bible. I have come to the conclusion that the study of God, or at least for me, is really based upon the study of love. For example, the Bible makes some compelling statement for my view. The Bible says that God is love. It also says that love is the greatest commandment and if one kee ...[text shortened]... s anyone have any other definitions are objections for the definitions I have provided?
I think you are choosing to believe a whole lot based only on the fact that the Bible talks about love. Why not take the parts about love and leave the parts where God makes people eat their own children? If you do this, you give up the superstitious reverence of the Bible, and you get freedom from the stupidly vicious parts of it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I think you are choosing to believe a whole lot based only on the fact that the Bible talks about love. Why not take the parts about love and leave the parts where God makes people eat their own children? If you do this, you give up the superstitious reverence of the Bible, and you get freedom from the stupidly vicious parts of it.
I have no intentions of running from such questions. In fact, I knew they were inevitable. However, I was slowly working up to these questions. Before answering yours, however, have you any contribution in terms of defining love?
Originally posted by whodey I am merely pointing out that we may use terms to describe phenomenon and not to say that such phenomenon exists per sey. I believe I have made my point.
As far as questioning what exists, whether it be good or evil, I would say that "goodness/love" exists because it is self evident. Case in point is our innate morality which inclines us to certain behav ...[text shortened]... he more we violate the law of love the less our lives mean to us as well as those around us.
I have a different opinion. Man is innately bad and things like love and trust have to be taught to him. No one has to discipline a child in the ways of throwing tantrums and suchlike. Good things, on the other hand, a man has to be taught.
Originally posted by limp biscuit I have a different opinion. Man is innately bad and things like love and trust have to be taught to him. No one has to discipline a child in the ways of throwing tantrums and suchlike. Good things, on the other hand, a man has to be taught.
There is truth in what you say in that we have a "sin" nature. However, we innatly know the difference from right and wrong and as a society we tend to esteem doing the "right thing" as where our sinful acts are often hidden from view. We are wired with a conscience to help us decipher what is the right thing to do although inevitably we go against this inner voice at some point.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I think you are choosing to believe a whole lot based only on the fact that the Bible talks about love. Why not take the parts about love and leave the parts where God makes people eat their own children? If you do this, you give up the superstitious reverence of the Bible, and you get freedom from the stupidly vicious parts of it.
Since no one seems to have anything to add to the defintion of love, I think we can move on to your question. So how can God be a God of love and eat babies? No matter how eloquently put, I do not think it scripturally factual. Where does God have people eat babies exactly in the Bible? I think what you are refering to are examples in the Bible where God has judged people to be "wicked" and were subsequently killed by God in the flood in Noah's day or Sodom and Ghommora etc. Am I right?
Originally posted by whodey Are you saying that a man who let himself be tortured and slowly killed on a cross for 3 days lost his temper in the temple with a whip?
Who was on a cross for three days? Who are you talking about?
04 Nov '07 10:08
God/Love
Back to Top