You keep jumping back and forth between "love" and "acceptance." Earlier, you said that God unconditionally accepts everyone, then immediately stated a condition--repentance. I pointed that out, and you replied by discussing withdrawal of love.
Let's stick with acceptance for now. How does, for example, God ordering Israel to slaughter entire nations, including women and children, exemplify His unconditional acceptance of the people of those nations?
It doesn't look like they were given an opportunity to repent either.
You keep jumping back and forth between "love" and "acceptance."
???????
Love is acceptance
God loves/accepts us as we are
Just because he Loves/accepts us does not mean that we don't face the consequence of our actions.
Somehow someway the idea has come into being that because God loves/accepts us He is supposed to shield us from the consequences of our actions--it doesn't work that way.
Let's stick with acceptance for now. How does, for example, God ordering Israel to slaughter entire nations, including women and children, exemplify His unconditional acceptance of the people of those nations?
They were slain because THEY choose to commit acts contrary to the will of God. THEY choose to turn from him. Free agency was God''s greatest gift to us -- nowhere are we/they compelled to do what is right in God's eyes. God was very clear from the beginning that ignoring His precepts would result in, at the least, severance from Him and His kingdom with additional earthly consequences up to and including death.
THEY choose to be disobedient.. THEY knew the rules they knew the consequences of not following the rules. THEIR punishment in no way correlates to whether God Loved/accepted them but rather the was result of THEIR disobedience.
They were slain because THEY choose to commit acts contrary to the will of God. THEY choose to turn from him.
And this is specified ... where? In what way were they doing acts contrary to the Will of God, other than occupying the same land that Isreal wanted back then? Is that it? "Move out from this land, or God will have you smitten for defying His Will? Hell, since you worship other gods than we do, we'll smite you anyway!"
(What if it were your land?)
And what does this example have anything to do with doing the right and moral thing as God supposedly expects of us? Except as an attempt (and a rather poor one at that) to explain away/whitewash an otherwise clearly horrific example of how to treat people in a moral way?
Hell, since you worship other gods than we do, we'll smite you anyway!"
That worshipping other gods thing has to be right at the top of the list of WHAT NOT TO DO. To carry your logic further Why on earth would God shield people who pay homage to another god from the consequences of their actions?? I mean isn't that the job of the god they worship if, as LG maintains, that is what a loving god would do?
Its seems to me that a lot o'people want to eat their cake and have it to
They want a Loving and Accepting GOD who lets them do whatever they want when they want and then is to pretend that nothing at all is wrong-- Say that pretty much describes a whole segment of society today.........
That worshipping other gods thing has to be right at the top of the list of WHAT NOT TO DO. To carry your logic further Why on earth would God shield people who pay homage to another god from the consequences of their actions?? I mean isn't that the job of the god they worship if, as LG maintains, that is what a loving god would do?
But that smiting is what this selfsame loving God of yours does. And its portrayed as an extreme form of jealousy. "I am a jealous God, visiting the afflictions to the 3rd and 4th generations" of those that do the selfsame worshipping of other gods.
Or, using the parent to child scenario often used here, if your child wants to view someone else as their 'parent', you'd no doubt be quite upset and angry. But would you view it an action of a righteous parent to hurt, kill, or otherwise seriously afflict your child because of this? ... I seriously doubt it, as for one thing, that would make you an abusive parent. And yet how many times has God been shown to be an abusive parent on steroids by many of the things that he is said to do, and many whitewash/make excuses for those kinds of activities?
By the way, since the worship of other gods is at the TOP of things not to do, and it makes it OK for other people to be smitten/destroyed simply because they don't worship the right God (after all, why have a God if he isn't to be worshipped), ...
... based on all the above, I wonder how is it that people can call America God's Country when it, by law (via the Constitution, that is), allows, nay legally protects, the freedom to do the aforementioned taboo, ie., worship (or not) any god you choose? :blink:
But seriously, why would what you said about God smiting those who don't worship him be a spiritually and morally valid thing to do?
Maybe that's but one of the big things that results in more and more of us 'infidels' going "Wait a minute! ... Something is just quite right with this picture here ....."
People who claim to believe the Bible and also claim that love means unconditional acceptance or that the God of the Bible (New or Old Testament) unconditionally accepts people should look at the Biblical uses of "accept," "acceptible," etc.
Forget Old Testament examples, in which killing was involved. The New Testament makes it clear that acceptance is conditional. That's not criticism of the God of the Bible. Unconditional acceptance would be foolish, for man, beast, or deity.
some of you here at GS believe that there is no God, that somehow or other, that you can't explain, something came out of nothing and here we are.
You go on to complain that My God does not fit in your parameters as to how He should behave and demand that He must fit in your parameters in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship.
Since You don't believe He exists,
you can't believe He through Jesus Christ created this world, and us and everything else on it,
And since you don't believe Him as creator you don't acknowledge his ownership of this world and everything on it,
therefore you can't accept that he a- has the right to lay down rules b- demand that His creations follow them. Much less that failure to follow said rules results in very unpleasant consequences
I get it I really do
YOU choose to believe we came from nothing, we return to nothing and in the space between the two you get to do what ever you decide is moral.
I choose to believe that this world, in fact the entire universe, is God's and all I have I owe to him, and the least I can do on this earth is follow the rules He has laid down. In return I have eternity with Him and my loved ones.
I look at the finiteness of your beliefs and thin "how sad" while you look at my beliefs and say "how foolish"
There is no reconciliation of these two views that is possible
Free will is our freedom to choose from without outside votes and like any other freedoms there are conditions. I'd much rather be able to choose to say there is or isn't a God than be constrained to do according to another's will. But then you may ask "isn't that what I'm doing now?" "doing and saying according to God's constraints?". And yes, I am choosing to abide by his law (not as in dispensations but as in direction) and am being afforded freedom.
How can something that doesn't exist kill me? (although I don't believe that he does)
therefore you can't accept that he a- has the right to lay down rules b- demand that His creations follow them. Much less that failure to follow said rules results in very unpleasant consequences
I get it I really do
Actually, I don't think you do. No offence, but I actually can accept that. That isn't really what we are talking about.
The situation you described above could describe a father - yes.
It could also describe a dictator.
Personally, (and I know I'm trying to project my crazy beliefs in love and acceptance to your god) I would never write the death sentence for one of my children for not believing in me. I know, that's crazy.
So since I have these wild ideas about love and acceptance, I tend look at your god (even though I lean towards him not existing) as a dictator who rewards those that do as their told and hang on his every word.
No, you don't get it. The issue never was what the Biblical God (if He exists) has a right to do. It was your claim (not God's, nor the Bible's) that love means unconditional acceptance and the Biblical God unconditionally accepts all people. The Bible says otherwise, and so do you. You say that repentance is a condition of God's acceptance but still argue that God's acceptance is unconditional. So you not only contradict the Bible, but also yourself.
If you were to say that the Biblical God's love is unconditional, I'd not argue with you. But to say that His acceptance is unconditional is flat anti-Biblical. Again, none of this would be an issue, if not for your statement equating love with unconditional acceptance.
i don't think some of you have even read what it says
i've told you why and you refuse to hear
so be it
assume there is no god for a moment
why the wars?
remain ignorant of these things
40Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; 41Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
Again, none of this would be an issue, if not for your statement equating love with unconditional acceptance
LG
I can't help it if your definition of 'love" does not correlate with acceptance. Personally I would be hard put to envision any kind of love that did not include acceptance of the object of that love. The fact that you can, means that you look at the world differently than I do--but we already knew that, didn't we?
1) "that somehow or other, that you can't explain, something came out of nothing and here we are."
Not quite, and that line is so over-simplified that it lacks any real meaning.
2) "You go on to complain that My God does not fit in your parameters as to how He should behave and demand that He must fit in your parameters in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship."
Note something here, folks. Note that she doesn't put it as "You go on to complain that My God kills unbelievers/innocent children/others at His whim, and that He ought to behave according to His own standards that He expects of us, in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship." See, THAT would be directly addressing the specific point that I and others have brought up. No, the response is blurred and put in a way that makes the complaint sound unreasonable and insignificant, coming from a selfish individual, and not from someone who would naturally and reasonable pull away from a god who does things that, if a human being did them, he would be punished as tho' he did a capital crime. Yet God is shown to be doing these same things, and the moral standard changes.
In the *real* world, that is called hypocritical. Apparently, in Templelady's world, it isn't. <_<
3) "therefore you can't accept that he a- has the right to lay down rules b- demand that His creations follow them. Much less that failure to follow said rules results in very unpleasant consequences"
If it were simply a case of a Superior and Moral Being laying down rules, that is one thing, particularly if that selfsame Being has the integrity and honor to *follow His own moral rules*. But it becomes quite another when this same deity becomes 'above the law' as it were, and does those things that we aren't allowed to do.
It is these things, my dear Mo, that 'goes outside of my parameters', as it were.
But it becomes quite another when this same deity becomes 'above the law' as it were, and does those things that we aren't allowed to do.
It is these things, my dear Mo, that 'goes outside of my parameters', as it were.
So no, you don't get it.
But I do get it
in a nutshell
You don't like it that GOD, who is the creator and author of everything, gets to play by a set of rules of his own making --a set of rules that is different than the set of rules he makes for us.
That's your prerogative
But please stop telling the rest of us who believe that we are somehow less astute because we understands that GOD isn't required to adhere to "our rules"
HE IS GOD -He isn't answerable to us for any reason --that is why He is GOD and We're not
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
standing in the way of the coming of the Messiah
is not a good place to be
and repent can be done after this life is dead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lately i've been feeling bitter
viewing things bitterly
hopefully it won't root itself
and i can change my view
i'm sure it'll pass...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Love is acceptance
God loves/accepts us as we are
Just because he Loves/accepts us does not mean that we don't face the consequence of our actions.
Somehow someway the idea has come into being that because God loves/accepts us He is supposed to shield us from the consequences of our actions--it doesn't work that way.
They were slain because THEY choose to commit acts contrary to the will of God. THEY choose to turn from him. Free agency was God''s greatest gift to us -- nowhere are we/they compelled to do what is right in God's eyes. God was very clear from the beginning that ignoring His precepts would result in, at the least, severance from Him and His kingdom with additional earthly consequences up to and including death.
THEY choose to be disobedient.. THEY knew the rules they knew the consequences of not following the rules. THEIR punishment in no way correlates to whether God Loved/accepted them but rather the was result of THEIR disobedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And this is specified ... where? In what way were they doing acts contrary to the Will of God, other than occupying the same land that Isreal wanted back then? Is that it? "Move out from this land, or God will have you smitten for defying His Will? Hell, since you worship other gods than we do, we'll smite you anyway!"
(What if it were your land?)
And what does this example have anything to do with doing the right and moral thing as God supposedly expects of us? Except as an attempt (and a rather poor one at that) to explain away/whitewash an otherwise clearly horrific example of how to treat people in a moral way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Nevermind, templelady. You don't see the contradiction in what you're saying and I don't care to pursue it any further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
That worshipping other gods thing has to be right at the top of the list of WHAT NOT TO DO. To carry your logic further Why on earth would God shield people who pay homage to another god from the consequences of their actions?? I mean isn't that the job of the god they worship if, as LG maintains, that is what a loving god would do?
Its seems to me that a lot o'people want to eat their cake and have it to
They want a Loving and Accepting GOD who lets them do whatever they want when they want and then is to pretend that nothing at all is wrong-- Say that pretty much describes a whole segment of society today.........
I begin to see where the problem lies
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But that smiting is what this selfsame loving God of yours does. And its portrayed as an extreme form of jealousy. "I am a jealous God, visiting the afflictions to the 3rd and 4th generations" of those that do the selfsame worshipping of other gods.
Or, using the parent to child scenario often used here, if your child wants to view someone else as their 'parent', you'd no doubt be quite upset and angry. But would you view it an action of a righteous parent to hurt, kill, or otherwise seriously afflict your child because of this? ... I seriously doubt it, as for one thing, that would make you an abusive parent. And yet how many times has God been shown to be an abusive parent on steroids by many of the things that he is said to do, and many whitewash/make excuses for those kinds of activities?
By the way, since the worship of other gods is at the TOP of things not to do, and it makes it OK for other people to be smitten/destroyed simply because they don't worship the right God (after all, why have a God if he isn't to be worshipped), ...
... based on all the above, I wonder how is it that people can call America God's Country when it, by law (via the Constitution, that is), allows, nay legally protects, the freedom to do the aforementioned taboo, ie., worship (or not) any god you choose? :blink:
But seriously, why would what you said about God smiting those who don't worship him be a spiritually and morally valid thing to do?
Maybe that's but one of the big things that results in more and more of us 'infidels' going "Wait a minute! ... Something is just quite right with this picture here ....."
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
worshipping other gods....
ye are gods....
just how vast and numerous are the choices within
reminds me of the days before Noah
every imagination of the heart
no self control
just letting whatever "morals" progress
without any backdrop of sensability
and going to the tree of life
as far as those who were killed
they were redeemed
not many want to see it
yeah, kill the women and children too
take care of it before it grows again
and attacks...they would not forget
like get rid of the one but if it's not time
seven worse will return
a figure of the spiritual...
make sure you are ready to destroy it all
destroy this temple and rebuild it
as many times as it takes
death and destroy is so misunderstood
i wouldn't know where to start
not that i understand it all
but isn't something supposed to die
in order for somethin else to live
not like boom from a cannon
but fast and slow and fast and slow
those that were being saved......
god cannot be separated from the human mind
it's not possible to kill spirit
and when god said things like sin was before his face
just whose face do you think he's talking about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okaaaay...
God loves and accepts us all
BUT
there are consequenses to our actions
wherein he will KILL us and our wives and children and cattle
sounds conditional to me
Oh, wait...he loves us as he's having his "chosen people" burn our city.
Sounds about right to me.
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
once the blinders are removed you can see he does
physical death happens anyway...lol...
and were you there?
do you really know all the facts and truths?
yes kill-physical death was the ticket for the old
but not the new
how long you guys want to stay on this topic of killing?
i got lots that you haven't heard
not from the old but from the new
check out the prophecys from Mary and Elizabeth
and other words concerning this event
word studies on death die dead destroy....
sheesh..why are we so limited on this subject
and just want to talk about the killing
what about the life that was given
what about the results?
can you not see any good from what was done?
it's a tough thing to die...old or new
what was accomplished?
how much more is given?
the word became flesh
limited to Jesus the Christ
or now can be accomplished by anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmmm.
Methinks you are mixing dispensations here with a *literary ability* equal to that of docvic,
and what he did with scripture in general.
You are taking that (of which you have heard),
and mixing it with that of which you seem to believe,
and propound them as one entity, and as truth.
The two do not neccesarily mix,
especially when the time frames you are discussing took place in two (maybe more)
*dispensations* over the course of centuries.
but that's just my IMO -- since dispensations don't seem to be a hot topic,
and no one seems to give a ratzz azz about them --
but are willing to just spout rhetoric in general to prove a point they hold near and dear to their heart.
Oak -- if dispensations are NOT a viable entity in the bible --
then you just made a very valid point.
If not, then you didn't.
Think it over. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
People who claim to believe the Bible and also claim that love means unconditional acceptance or that the God of the Bible (New or Old Testament) unconditionally accepts people should look at the Biblical uses of "accept," "acceptible," etc.
Forget Old Testament examples, in which killing was involved. The New Testament makes it clear that acceptance is conditional. That's not criticism of the God of the Bible. Unconditional acceptance would be foolish, for man, beast, or deity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i agree LG
low grades on my kids report card is unacceptable to me
due course will be that i make them work harder
just one example
still love 'em
still accept them
just have to work on some things
don't change my love for 'em though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay...
some of you here at GS believe that there is no God, that somehow or other, that you can't explain, something came out of nothing and here we are.
You go on to complain that My God does not fit in your parameters as to how He should behave and demand that He must fit in your parameters in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship.
Since You don't believe He exists,
you can't believe He through Jesus Christ created this world, and us and everything else on it,
And since you don't believe Him as creator you don't acknowledge his ownership of this world and everything on it,
therefore you can't accept that he a- has the right to lay down rules b- demand that His creations follow them. Much less that failure to follow said rules results in very unpleasant consequences
I get it I really do
YOU choose to believe we came from nothing, we return to nothing and in the space between the two you get to do what ever you decide is moral.
I choose to believe that this world, in fact the entire universe, is God's and all I have I owe to him, and the least I can do on this earth is follow the rules He has laid down. In return I have eternity with Him and my loved ones.
I look at the finiteness of your beliefs and thin "how sad" while you look at my beliefs and say "how foolish"
There is no reconciliation of these two views that is possible
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Free will is our freedom to choose from without outside votes and like any other freedoms there are conditions. I'd much rather be able to choose to say there is or isn't a God than be constrained to do according to another's will. But then you may ask "isn't that what I'm doing now?" "doing and saying according to God's constraints?". And yes, I am choosing to abide by his law (not as in dispensations but as in direction) and am being afforded freedom.
How can something that doesn't exist kill me? (although I don't believe that he does)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Please for the love of God (Doh!), CM, don't kill your kid for the grades!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Actually, I don't think you do. No offence, but I actually can accept that. That isn't really what we are talking about.
The situation you described above could describe a father - yes.
It could also describe a dictator.
Personally, (and I know I'm trying to project my crazy beliefs in love and acceptance to your god) I would never write the death sentence for one of my children for not believing in me. I know, that's crazy.
So since I have these wild ideas about love and acceptance, I tend look at your god (even though I lean towards him not existing) as a dictator who rewards those that do as their told and hang on his every word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
No, you don't get it. The issue never was what the Biblical God (if He exists) has a right to do. It was your claim (not God's, nor the Bible's) that love means unconditional acceptance and the Biblical God unconditionally accepts all people. The Bible says otherwise, and so do you. You say that repentance is a condition of God's acceptance but still argue that God's acceptance is unconditional. So you not only contradict the Bible, but also yourself.
If you were to say that the Biblical God's love is unconditional, I'd not argue with you. But to say that His acceptance is unconditional is flat anti-Biblical. Again, none of this would be an issue, if not for your statement equating love with unconditional acceptance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lindy - that's a stupid thing to say to me
no i will not kill my kids
God had to though but brought em back
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i don't think some of you have even read what it says
i've told you why and you refuse to hear
so be it
assume there is no god for a moment
why the wars?
remain ignorant of these things
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
LG
I can't help it if your definition of 'love" does not correlate with acceptance. Personally I would be hard put to envision any kind of love that did not include acceptance of the object of that love. The fact that you can, means that you look at the world differently than I do--but we already knew that, didn't we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Nope, you don't. Here's why:
1) "that somehow or other, that you can't explain, something came out of nothing and here we are."
Not quite, and that line is so over-simplified that it lacks any real meaning.
2) "You go on to complain that My God does not fit in your parameters as to how He should behave and demand that He must fit in your parameters in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship."
Note something here, folks. Note that she doesn't put it as "You go on to complain that My God kills unbelievers/innocent children/others at His whim, and that He ought to behave according to His own standards that He expects of us, in order to either a- exist or b- be worthy of worship." See, THAT would be directly addressing the specific point that I and others have brought up. No, the response is blurred and put in a way that makes the complaint sound unreasonable and insignificant, coming from a selfish individual, and not from someone who would naturally and reasonable pull away from a god who does things that, if a human being did them, he would be punished as tho' he did a capital crime. Yet God is shown to be doing these same things, and the moral standard changes.
In the *real* world, that is called hypocritical. Apparently, in Templelady's world, it isn't. <_<
3) "therefore you can't accept that he a- has the right to lay down rules b- demand that His creations follow them. Much less that failure to follow said rules results in very unpleasant consequences"
If it were simply a case of a Superior and Moral Being laying down rules, that is one thing, particularly if that selfsame Being has the integrity and honor to *follow His own moral rules*. But it becomes quite another when this same deity becomes 'above the law' as it were, and does those things that we aren't allowed to do.
It is these things, my dear Mo, that 'goes outside of my parameters', as it were.
So no, you don't get it.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
But I do get it
in a nutshell
You don't like it that GOD, who is the creator and author of everything, gets to play by a set of rules of his own making --a set of rules that is different than the set of rules he makes for us.
That's your prerogative
But please stop telling the rest of us who believe that we are somehow less astute because we understands that GOD isn't required to adhere to "our rules"
HE IS GOD -He isn't answerable to us for any reason --that is why He is GOD and We're not
Now do you "Get it"?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.