Spirituality
19 Sep 17
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSays the guy who can't even tell me what is evidence that one person loves another.
Not even then. The best you can muster is goodwill.
That's not love.
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayQuite reasonable. I would not rely on an unbeliever for a description of God. I would refer to the way believers describe God.
Have you seen God described by non-believers? It isn't God that they describe, but whatever passes for God between their ears.
Do all unbelievers give identical descriptions?
Do all believers give identical descriptions?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @finneganWell not only atheists are excluded, even believers are.
Quite likely so then. As long as you define love in that way then atheists would certainly be excluded.
Do you find that helpful on some level?
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou are in a closed loop.
Well not only atheists are excluded, even believers are.
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
23 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @finneganNot all believers know God so that becomes a distinction without a difference.
Quite reasonable. I would not rely on an unbeliever for a description of God. I would refer to the way believers describe God.
Do all unbelievers give identical descriptions?
Do all believers give identical descriptions?
Originally posted by @kellyjayThat begs the question again. It is not making progress.
If love is the loop, sign me up.
If the answer to all questions is a quote from scripture, then no conversation is taking place - only the semblance of one, for which a coin slot machine would suffice. As Hero of Alexandria demonstrated in ancient times, a coin slot operated automaton would be far more economical than using up the time of scarce priests and thus would certainly suit your management principles. When your priests lose their margin of profitability they should be [must be!] displaced without ceremony.
http://www.ancientpages.com/2014/11/12/incredible-ancient-machines-invented-hero-alexandria-engineer-far-ahead-time/
I have also shown above that one can insert a different scripture into the automaton with satisfactory results. However, I would recommend instead going to the Poetry Foundation site and typing Love into the search box, a procedure as credible as your own.
The Garden of Love
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And Thou shalt not writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars, my joys & desires.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45950/the-garden-of-love
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayWell, it is not obvious how we are to distinguish those who really do "know God" from those who only claim to, unless we wait to see who gets Raptured, at which point we may feel the horse has bolted and the train left the station. However, you may concede that where a description of God is in the public domain then as long as we state our sources we can proceed with the conversation.
Not all believers know God so that becomes a distinction without a difference.
The range of descriptions available for discussion is pretty large. There are supposedly some 4,200 religions in the world at present, but that is only a fraction of the number that has been seen historically. Religions typically operate on the basis that they are right and alternatives are wrong, sparking off a Darwinian selection process over a longer time period that one might expect if one were to rely on the Young Earth interpretation of Genesis, which might suggest that the ones still surviving are pretty robust. Islam is an exception, since it recognises many different "revelations" specific to their own cultures and histories. That is why you will find a history of religious toleration in Islam that is very different to the history of Christianity and utterly alien to Judaism. However, European pagan religions did not survive by virtue of their tolerance, so perhaps intolerance does have an edge in Darwinian terms.
Religious people, then, are not at all reluctant to dispute different descriptions of God with a view to demonstrating their errors, and presumably manage to overcome the challenge of identifying which sources do not know God by simply asserting that their own rather unusual and recent interpretation is uniquely and astonishingly the right one at just the right historical moment and everyone else is at best mistaken if not actively Diabolical. [Careful selection of ancient texts will soon add a patina of archaism to each religious innovation.]
The thing is, if you can complain that people out there do not know God, that implies you have a reliable technique to identify those who do know God. Does that technique consist in identifying that those who agree with you are the right ones, and those who disagree are the wrong ones? This would, again, produce an unending logical closed loop.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @finneganWe are told to love God and each other, there is no distinction between those whom we
Well, it is not obvious how we are to distinguish those who really do "know God" from those who only claim to, unless we wait to see who gets Raptured, at which point we may feel the horse has bolted and the train left the station. However, you may concede that where a description of God is in the public domain then as long as we state our sources we can ...[text shortened]... ose who disagree are the wrong ones? This would, again, produce an unending logical closed loop.
are to love. The fruit of our lives should reflect Christ if He is really our Lord, are we
always out biting and devouring one another? Are taking we the LORD's name in vain,
condemning everyone around us, trying to hurt and insult?
Even picking out who it is that really knows the LORD or not isn't a concern under those
conditions, typically it will be made plain. The fact remains regardless of who does and
does not know the LORD, we are to love them anyway. Jesus came to save sinners, He
died for all of us, not some select specific few, but the whole world. He did that because
God so loved the world. Those that receive Him have been given the right to become
children of God!
So there are lot of descriptions of God, I agree with you we should site our sources and
we can proceed with the conversation. I think any religion that has us attempting to
impress God with giving, working, self-denial, self-abuse, or anything that revolves
around us making our selves worthy has already missed the boat with God. God has
created the universe and everything in it, holds it together by the power of His world, owns
all that there is, the whole of all creation even Satan and his demons all owe their being
to God. We cannot offer God anything He needs, we cannot make any deal that He has
to accept, we cannot impress Him with our promises, we cannot do anything to make
God accept us.
Our hope, our salvation, isn't due to how worthy we are before God, we are all sinners,
even the best of us. Our salvation rests in His love for us, He made the way to save us
because of His love for us. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life no one
come to God except through Him. God reaching out to man!
Man has come up with millions of ways to God, but none of them mean God accepts them.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjay"... I think any religion that has us attempting to impress God with giving, working, self-denial, self-abuse, or anything that revolves around us making our selves worthy has already missed the boat with God. ....We cannot offer God anything He needs, we cannot make any deal that He has to accept, we cannot impress Him with our promises, we cannot do anything to make God accept us. ..."
We are told to love God and each other, there is no distinction between those whom we
are to love. The fruit of our lives should reflect Christ if He is really our Lord, are we
always out biting and devouring one another? Are taking we the LORD's name in vain,
condemning everyone around us, trying to hurt and insult?
Even picking out who it is that r ...[text shortened]... to man!
Man has come up with millions of ways to God, but none of them mean God accepts them.
That is one perspective - is it closer to Arminianism or Calvinism? - Arminianism would make most sense as it links you to the Dutch and for example to Grotius, and therefore to the development of modern Liberalism prior to the Glorious Revolution, the roots of Capitalist ideology.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @finneganI believe God gives us the ability to make up our own minds and make choices. I God is the only One who could do that.
[i]"... I think any religion that has us attempting to impress God with giving, working, self-denial, self-abuse, or anything that revolves around us making our selves worthy has already missed the boat with God. ....We cannot offer God anything He needs, we cannot make any deal that He has to accept, we cannot impress Him with our promises, we cannot do a ...[text shortened]... lopment of modern Liberalism prior to the Glorious Revolution, the roots of Capitalist ideology.