#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What is God's love?
Christians often talk about God's love for people and refer to God as all loving, even knowing about the terrible things the bible states he has done and the terrible things he allows. Does this mean God has a different definition of love to how we would normally see it?
Atheists, this is all hypothetical. (In other words, this is not a debate about god's existence or lack therof.)
| Add New Argument |
|
for God so loved the world .. that he gave his only begotten Son .. that whoever believes in him shall not perish .. but have eternal life http://www.gty.org/MediaPlayer/sermons/ 1 John 4:10 .. In this is love .. not that we loved God .. but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation (payment) for our sins http://dadmansabode.com/forum/ If god created us in his way then why would he make people gay and other people that he is against like me. Why would god do these things if he knows that those people will not believe in him. Why would God send people to hell if he loves everybody. Why would god make people that goes against his rules. 1
point
God is not against anybody and is accepting of all. God didn't make any "gay" people. God never commits any acts of evil. All his actions and commands are for the greater good. God sends you to hell because that is the rightful punishment you deserve for not embracing his covenant. 1
point
It still all there opinion and say with out agreeing with anybody else. Just because a big ruler says something doesn't mean its good or bad. How is to lovers loving each other and would walk though hell to be with each other wrong. Why should I give up everything I love to follow him to have eternal life but will never be happy. I would kill my son also to save lots of people but I would not ask for anything in return. 1
point
In heaven all shall be happy and filled with joy. Psalms 16:11 - "You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever." Psalms 21:4-6 - "He asked life of You, You gave it to him, Length of days forever and ever. His glory is great through Your salvation, Splendor and majesty You place upon him. For You make him most blessed forever; You make him joyful with gladness in Your presence." 1
point
1
point
1
point
Then I would not be at peace because I hate the human body and there would be no joy if I can't in joy myself. I don't think heaven is heaven to me because I can't be with something I love and if I can't be with something I love. Then heaven and hell is the same to me because both paths lead to hell for me. There is gay people because people chose that route to go to. They exchanged natural relations into unnatural ones. He sends people to hell because they were never willingly wanted to believe in Jesus at all. Everyone will hear about the Gospel of Jesus, so saying "what if" nobody heard about God is impossible because it will not happen. But god made us in his view why would he make people that would choose that road and anyway why would it be wrong to be gay it's just two people loving each other in a different way they are not trying to hurt me, you or God. Gays just want peace and happiness given more then God or anybody else. God made us in His own image because He wanted to create life. It's wrong to be gay because God created male and female on this earth and that's how it's supposed to be. From the very beginning. It actually does hurt God because God doesn't want any of us to sin. He hates sin. He wants us to be free from sin and that is why He came down to save us from it so that we don't have to sin no longer. Ok forget about gays but how about people that want to be opposite sex then gets a sex change would God be ok with that. Another thing does the same rules apply in heaven or can you finally be happy and be who you want to be and not something that you hate so much being. Like for me I hate my body but if I live and not sin and go to heaven can I finally be who I want to be or do I still live in this hell body. 1
point
God's nature is the ontology of love. God loves His elect specifically with a specific and personal type of communal love. Everyone else, on this level, God hates, for they are evil. With this being said, God loves and is loving to all people, sharing common grace on a general and plutonic type of level. I stick to the formula of "if evil, then hate." Let us suppose that evil is lack of good, and hate is the absence of love. If everyone loved each other, then there would be no evil. Hate = not love --- not hate = not not love. So we have a negation in the consequent, which infers a negation in the former. Thus, if love, then goodness. However, this does not infer that one cannot hate and still do good, since that would be denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. not hate = not not love. Not not love=love However, this does not infer that one cannot hate and still do good, since that would be denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. I can hate my neighbor, but still love my mom... Yes. But I can't love my neighbor unless I no longer hate him. Or I can do something good, like bring him his mail, but still hate him. But I would be doing that out of kindness, which would be a product of some type of love. Not love in a romantic or family sense, but still love... In a sense. I can hate my neighbor, but still love my mom... Yes. But I can't love my neighbor unless I no longer hate him. Or I can do something good, like bring him his mail, but still hate him. But I would be doing that out of kindness, which would be a product of some type of love. Not love in a romantic or family sense, but still love... In a sense. I'm not talking about person to person. For persons, "if hate, then evil." That is a Biblical truth. However, I'm not referring to specific objects of the equation, only the equation itself. Hate does not necessarily infer evil, in absolution. Hate begets to hate. But when hate is not justified, then it is evil. This is why murder is considered unjustified killing, while killing is not inherently wrong. This simply goes into another type of the problem of evil. But I think that God hated x people before they were born, making them hate Him. But that does not make His hate evil, while it does make theirs evil. Hate begets to hate. But when hate is not justified, then it is evil. Hate is never justified. 1 John 4:20 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 John 3:15 "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" 1 John 2:9 "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness." (This one is a good example of my analogy) You know that by "brother" it is talking about fellow man, not necessarily a sibling. But I think that God hated x people before they were born, making them hate Him. But that does not make His hate evil, while it does make theirs evil. A God that is defined as love could not hate. Hate is never justified. They are referential to man, not God. The same goes with killing: if murder, then killing, but that is not to say if killing, then murder. A God that is defined as love could not hate. Nonsense. His nature is love, but love does not have to be applied to all things. They are referential to man, not God. What is your point? That doesn't make hate any more justified. Matthew 5:42-44 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" The same goes with killing: if murder, then killing, but that is not to say if killing, then murder. Hate is different though. You can have hateful intentions, which are evil intentions, but never take action... But that doesn't make them not evil. Hate only spawns more hate. Nonsense. His nature is love, but love does not have to be applied to all things. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." Everything is a creation of God. Why would he hate his creations? But at the core of it, everything is really one thing. Even in the Bible, Adam was created from the Earth. Is clay taken from the ground to form a pot, no longer that clay from the ground? Of course it is! Then Eve was made from Adam. If you pour a bottle of water into two separate glasses, they're still the same water, aren't they? So, as the Bible says, they became one flesh... But they weren't only flesh, they were the earth as well. So as humanity grows, we see the continuation of the one flesh. You're part of your mother and father. The doctor cuts the umbilical cord, which is like cutting a branch off a tree. That branch is still the tree. You are still your parents. So what on Earth can God possibly hate, when everything is one? I believe in the Big Bang and evolution, which I think were from God, so this rings even more true for my beliefs. What is your point? That doesn't make hate any more justified. The hate being referred to here is to man, not absolution. Why is it murder in one's heart? Because it is the desire to kill the person in malice. God hating is not in evil malice, but in a hatred of evil. God hates evil, and loves good. Everything is a creation of God. Why would he hate his creations? Because He hated them. But at the core of it, everything is really one thing... You are still your parents. So what on Earth can God possibly hate, when everything is one? We are not everything. You are equivocating properties with identity. The identity of the person is based in the person's soul. God hates the soul of the wicked, because He hates evil. From the very beginning in Genesis 3, God differentiates between 2 spiritual lineages: the offspring of the serpent and of the woman, children of Satan and children of God. This is why Jesus called out some Pharisees saying that they were of their father the devil. Their identities were evil, intrinsically, which God hates, being all good. So I don't see any problem with this at all. The hate being referred to here is to man, not absolution. Why is it murder in one's heart? Because it is the desire to kill the person in malice. Has evil ever occurred outside of man? Don't say Satan either, because I don't believe Satan is a literal being. If the Bible describes hating an individual as the desire to kill the person in malice, isn't that a good way to understand how New Testament interprets hate? To say that God hates evil, is to say that he wants it to go away. To say that you hate spiders, is to say that you want them to go away. To say that you hate an individual, is to say that you want them to go away. So give me an example of something that you hate, that you don't want to go away? But to say that you hate evil, is not to say that you want it to go away, necessarily. Not anymore than if you were to say that you want your half empty cup to go away, when in reality, you just want more water. If someone is evil, they just need to be filled with more love. So does God hate evil, or is it that he just simply wants more love? We are not everything. That would have been better phrased, "I do not believe we are everything," because my beliefs are not the same as yours. The identity of the person is based in the person's soul. I believe that God is our higher Self, our universal soul. I believe that we are God looking within himself. Different from the traditional Christian interpretation, which I believe ridiculously corrupted the original message. Since I believe that the Big Bang did occur, then we are obviously that starting point. We grew from that seed which was the source of all creation. Kind of like an acorn growing to be an oak. If I were to put this Biblically, I'd say that God obviously didn't have any materials to create the universe, so everything had to come from him, making all of it an extension of him. So Adam being formed from the Earth, which ultimately is an extension of God, makes Adam an extension of God as well. He is part of the Holy Spirit. Nobody ever stops to think about the similarities between the words Holy and whole. God hates the soul of the wicked, because He hates evil. You don't get rid of evil with more hate. You get rid of it with more love. the offspring of the serpent and of the woman, children of Satan and children of God. Well, like I said, I believe the serpent (Satan) to be a metaphor. He's that negative tempting inner voice. Even the Jews, who introduced Satan in Old Testament, claim that he is a metaphor, and the Catholic church actually made a statement that hell is a metaphor as well. This is why Jesus called out some Pharisees saying that they were of their father the devil. I assume that is a metaphor for taking the wrong path. 1
point
1
point
Darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of love. If darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of something, then it should follow that evil is the absence of good, not love. Something cannot exist without its opposite. This does not follow. Good can exist without evil. Light can exist without darkness. Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." That word "evil" is a word for disaster, not moral evil. If darkness is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of something, then it should follow that evil is the absence of good, not love. True, evil is the absence of good makes more sense. And so does hate is the absence of love, but they go hand in hand. This does not follow. Good can exist without evil. Light can exist without darkness. If light were to dominate evil as of now, yes. We already created the term light. But if darkness and evil were to have never appeared, we would not call something good, because it would be normal. We would have never experienced evil to know the difference between good and evil. That word "evil" is a word for disaster, not moral evil. I know that in the new translations they say "calamity" or something like that, but it was evil prior to that. So how do you know that it wasn't originally supposed to mean evil? True, evil is the absence of good makes more sense. And so does hate is the absence of love, but they go hand in hand. Sure they go hand in hand in practicality, but not necessity, in a certain sense. If light were to dominate evil as of now, yes. We already created the term light. But if darkness and evil were to have never appeared, we would not call something good, because it would be normal. We would have never experienced evil to know the difference between good and evil. Simply because we never would have experienced the difference, it does not follow that neither exists. One could only infer that we do not perceive them, or a difference between them. Take Adam for example: he had a cognition of evil and good, before the fall, but experienced evil and goodness, in full personal knowledge, after it. Also, do not fall for the de dicta - de re distinction. I am referring to de re, not de dicto. Simply because we do not name something, it does not follow that it is not there. I know that in the new translations they say "calamity" or something like that, but it was evil prior to that. So how do you know that it wasn't originally supposed to mean evil? The Hebrew word here is about calamity. King James changed it up. Simply because we never would have experienced the difference, it does not follow that neither exists. If we were to suddenly transition from all-loving to hate, then hate would be something we'd come to know... But without ever experiencing it, how would you be able to say that it exists? Take Adam for example: he had a cognition of evil and good, before the fall, but experienced evil and goodness, in full personal knowledge, after it. In Hebrew, it wasn't called the "tree of Knowledge of good and evil", it was called the "tree of knowledge of everything". I believe that The Fall demonstrates the transition from spiritual knowledge, to materialistic knowledge. This is why Adam and Eve were ashamed to be naked. This was the introduction to the illusion of life. Materialism leads to a lot of problems in the world, and it can even be argued that materialism is the source of evil. I am referring to de re, not de dicto. Simply because we do not name something, it does not follow that it is not there. That's not what I'm arguing. If we never experienced evil and darkness, how would we know that they exist? The Hebrew word here is about calamity. King James changed it up. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/ This translation says "evil", but if you have something that says otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look at it. In Hebrew, it wasn't called the "tree of Knowledge of good and evil", it was called the "tree of knowledge of everything". I believe that The Fall demonstrates the transition from spiritual knowledge, to materialistic knowledge. This is why Adam and Eve were ashamed to be naked. This was the introduction to the illusion of life. Materialism leads to a lot of problems in the world, and it can even be argued that materialism is the source of evil. http://www.scripture4all.org/ That's not what I'm arguing. If we never experienced evil and darkness, how would we know that they exist? Epistemology is irrelevant to metaphysical disputations. This translation says "evil", but if you have something that says otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look at it. http://www.gotquestions.org/ "The word translated 'evil' is from a Hebrew word that means 'adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.' Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: 'disaster' (NIV, HCSB), 'calamity' (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and 'woe' (NRSV)." http://www.scripture4all.org/ It says forbidden page. Mind explaining it yourself? Epistemology is irrelevant to metaphysical disputations. If we only loved and were only good, then evil certainly would not exist, because it never occurred... Only when it occurs would it exist. We create evil. "The word translated 'evil' is from a Hebrew word that means 'adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.' Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: 'disaster' (NIV, HCSB), 'calamity' (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and 'woe' (NRSV)." Yeah, I read that, and even as a Theist, I find that site to be incredibly unreliable. Notice how they didn't even post the Hebrew translation? It says forbidden page. Mind explaining it yourself? It says "good and evil" for the tree of knowledge. The insinuation many have made is that it intends "everything." If we only loved and were only good, then evil certainly would not exist, because it never occurred... Only when it occurs would it exist. We create evil. Okay. I don't deny that we create evil. That does not mean that evil is not ontologically there. I could create a triangle, but that does not negate the fact of "triangle." Yeah, I read that, and even as a Theist, I find that site to be incredibly unreliable. Notice how they didn't even post the Hebrew translation? http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil CARM says this: First of all, the Hebrew word for evil, "rah," is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked," "bad," "hurt," "harm," "ill," "sorrow," "mischief," "displeased," "adversity," "affliction," "trouble," "calamity," "grievous," "misery," and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV. It would make sense to contrast peace with calamity. It says "good and evil" for the tree of knowledge. The insinuation many have made is that it intends "everything." It's not an insinuation. It actually means "everything" in Hebrew. "In the phrase, tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree imparts knowledge of tov wa-ra, "good and bad". The traditional translation is "good and evil", but tov wa-ra is a fixed expression denoting "everything". Okay. I don't deny that we create evil. That does not mean that evil is not ontologically there. I could create a triangle, but that does not negate the fact of "triangle." But whatever it is, you created it. We don't have to name anything, but if something never occurs, it does not exist. It would make sense to contrast peace with calamity. Okay, I agree. I think it could be open to interpretation though. I personally believe that evil is the lack of love though, and a product of materialism, so in a sense, God made evil. Also, as far as Satan and hell go, I just think that they are metaphors for our own negative internal struggles, so ultimately, evil is as a result of God's doing... In my opinion. But I believe God is everything, so us as God, are responsible for evil. "In the phrase, tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree imparts knowledge of tov wa-ra, "good and bad". The traditional translation is "good and evil", but tov wa-ra is a fixed expression denoting "everything". That simply means that it is a common phrasing. I could say "Bull in a china shop" and actually mean it, but it could also mean the idiom. But whatever it is, you created it. We don't have to name anything, but if something never occurs, it does not exist. It doesn't exist in actuality, but in potentiality. It could exist. So one doesn't need good and evil, but only one. That simply means that it is a common phrasing. I could say "Bull in a china shop" and actually mean it, but it could also mean the idiom. No, this is more like saying "there was an actual bull running through an actual China shop". Everything cannot be phrased to mean only two things, without mentioning those two things in advance. Plus, prior to Old Testament, the Egyptians and Greeks would say "good-evil" as a way for saying "everything" (that was their idiom, so to speak), but the Hebrew interpretation does not say "good-evil"... It says "everything." It doesn't exist in actuality, but in potentiality. It could exist. So one doesn't need good and evil, but only one. If we could only love, then how could we have the potential to hate? If we only loved by choice, then doesn't that signify at least some knowledge of hate? The realization that we could do the opposite.
1
point
1
point
If " God" loved everything, he wouldn't allow his most valuable creation to Fuck up the world he created for them. He wouldn't have allowed Adolph Hitler to successfully execute the Holocuast. He wouldn't have allowed his proud worshiper to commit one of the largest genocides in history, Native American Genocide, over 500 million people was murdered, and the Killers were Christians. If he loved everyone and everything, he wouldn't allow humans to leave half dead, and Multiple species extinct. 1
point
1
point
|
