02
Feb
2014
The Father’s (Mother’s) Love
If you’re a parent, think of how much you love your kid. Your kid knows it intellectually, but doesn’t really have any idea of how much you do, especially since you set the rules. Does this exercise change your opinion of God?
Help me with something if you could please. Why does my father think he has a right to be angry at me whenever I do not respond to his distant callings at once. He argues that he feels very uncomfortable going to my door (like a dick is the phrase) whenever he has to call me or ask me about something, or ask me to do something so he won’t do it. And thus I should respond, always, immediately. He uses ethical arguments and insists that it’s how it should be. I’m 31 😀 Is this the kind of rules you’re talking about?
Frankly I don’t think you’re supposed to set any rules, you can create environment until the kid can undertand consequences of his actions, after that rules are either objective – you can derive them logically, or a form of abuse.
Some people are just not capable of loving yet they can have children.
Not sure what kind of rules or relationship you guys are talking about? This is the kind of love I am talking about.
Ephesians 2:8
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
My kid has pretty incontrovertible evidence that I exist, so not really.
Parents love their children regardless of their sexual orientation. According to Gary Notrh, the head of the Ron Paul Curriculum, God is a homophobe. So there is really no comparison between God’s love and a parent’s love. A parent’s love is unconditional.
“Boundaries and Dominion – An Economic Commentary on Leviticus”:
[page 26]”God is indeed a homophobe. He hates the practice and those who practice it, which is why He destroyed Sodom. God warned Israel; practice such an abomination, and the land will vomit you out, just as it vomited out its former inhabitants (Lev. 18:24-29)” [page 221] “Homosexuals do not reproduce. They recruit. There is an inescapable competition for bodies and souls: homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. If the homosexuals should win this competition, the human race will end unless test-tube babies become a cost-effective reality. This is not just a war over civilization; it is a war over the survival of the human race.”
The ruling classes of the ancients (Church) hated gays because they were perceived as reducing the rate of procreation of new warriors to keep defending the Church’s dominance.
Violent, myth-based societies have such a sensitive and precarious social structure!
Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit do not hate gays or anybody.
Leviticus, Gamble. Leviticus.
Calling for the murder of gay people who of course engage in gay sex is hatred, pure and simple.
I see you have a penchant for wanting to excuse the hate in the Bible with ridiculous hand waving.
Wow… Okay, so let me ask this instead. If you violate a ‘natural law’ say for instance you decide to walk off a cliff. Do you believe that the consequence will be anything other then damage to the self? Now lets say that there are consequences to all things chosen in this life. Now lets also pretend that the all powerful God is all powerful because He obeys all ‘natural’ law so to speak and He simply knows more of it than you do. He in his wisdom lays things out so that we, who do not know ‘all things’ but are making a good stab at it, have some simple rules to follow in an attempt to learn about how things work.
As far as homosexuality goes I can come up with a number of reasons it is probably not the best life style choice, but then the same would go for lying, cheating, stealing, and adultery, pre-marital sexual relations, etc.
Is God ‘angry’ that you chose these things? Well are you angry when your kids do something bone headed stupid and you have attempted to explain the consequence? No, disappointed would be my word for it. According to that which I have come to understand however the Christ has managed through some mechanism that I do not understand ( but probably involves some rule of the universe that simply exists and we have not uncovered yet ) pay for those things but only to the penitent.
As far as destroying Sodom I believe it was more due to the way the inhabitants behaved in reveling in forceful homosexuality than anything else. Call it Rape of others… I know that God does not hate gays nor is He homophobic. those that believe otherwise are placing their own understanding of the situation at the fore in an attempt to make God to be the Devil.
Again when reading the scriptures unless you do so in an attempt to understand God you are simply spinning your wheels and liable to take the writings of man and turn it inot whatever you want it to be.
It does Bob. Thank you.
Saying that a parents love is unconditional is kind of a generalization. There are plenty of parents out there who abuse their children (and I’m not speaking of corporal punishment designed to correct bad behavior, I mean legitimate, no-excuses, nasty abuse). There are also plenty of parents who will in fact cut problem children out of their lives (although usually this takes numerous offenses and won’t actually happen until adulthood).
The Christian notion of God and forgiveness is that, no matter WHAT you have done, if you repent he will forgive you. I’m not certain this is true of all parents. Humans have their breaking points. We are not like God.
If being a good parent means that you should kill your child if they:
1. Disobey you – Deuteronomy 17:12
2. Were gay – Leviticus 20:13
3. Hit you – Exodus 21:15
4. Cheats on their spouse – Leviticus 20:10
5. Fornicate – Leviticus 21:9
6. Worships a different dad, or no Dad – 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
7. Believes they are a prophet – Zechariah 13:3
…
…
Then yes, I would change my existing opinion of God.
MF,
Everything you said was before The Messiah Jesus Christ therefore irrelevant.
Well that depends on how seriously you take Matthew.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18″For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19″Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; “
” I did not come to abolish the law or prophets but to fulfill.”
“When he had received the drink, Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:30)
Heaven and earth passed away at that point?
No, the law and prophets were fulfilled.
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” (Luke 19:10)
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” (1 Timothy 1:15)
“But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins.” (1 John 3:5)
Amusingly, I point out it depends on how seriously you take Matthew, and you quote John.
The alleged final words are different in Matthew. As ever I recommend to Christians that they read these books.
The 4 Gospels are the same story written from 4 points of view. 4 points of view are used as a teaching aid.
I have the 4 Gospels memorized. What is your question?
Recite the first book of Thomas or the second of Peter. Bonus for any chapter of Judas.
Hi Ken,
The screen will not let me respond to your comment.
“Ken B
Recite the first book of Thomas or the second of Peter. Bonus for any chapter of Judas”
I said the 4 Gospels, not the ” hidden gospels.” There is no need for any other books. Enough was said in the 4, to grasp the concept.
You can’t finish what you said you didn’t come to finish, without contradiction.
Ayn Rand said there are no contradictions, you had better check your premises.
You’re citing Ayn Rand in a PRO-religion argument?
Exactly.
In reality, the very conflicting evidence from the NT suggests that the earliest Christian community was divided into 2 groups:
(1) those following Paul’s version of Christianity, and
(2) the original Jewish Christian form that continued to follow the Law/Torah, including the Jewish disciples of Jesus (whom St. Paul calls the “Pillars” of the church) and their community in Judaea, led by Jesus’s biological brother James.
Form (2) came first and was the original form of Christianity and has the greater claim to represent what Jesus thought about the Law.
St Paul never met Jesus and came later and repudiated the Law. He was opposed by group (1) and most probably was regarded (rightly) as a heretic by them:
http://thoughtsphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/2012/06/james-brother-of-jesus-apostle-paul-and.html
Correction:
“He was opposed by group (2) “
It’s even worse than that. There were it seems from very early on more than two groups.
Yes 2 groups. Hypocrites and non-hypocrites. Non-messianic and Messianic.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.” – Jesus.
Jesus disagrees with you Gamble.
Yes but how did He fulfill the law and prophets?
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” (Luke 19:10)
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” (1 Timothy 1:15)
“But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins.” (1 John 3:5)
Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, which implies “fulfill” can’t mean abolish.
Christ fulfilled the demands of Mosaic law.
Gamble, do you agree that Jesus did not come to abolish the law? If that is true, wouldn’t that mean that the law of the Prophets was not abolished, and thus still holds today?
I believe Gamble argues Jesus “fulfilled” the law and thus vitiated the need for it. This is in flat contradiction to the passage I cited, which mentioned the earth passing away.
He said he did not come to abolish the laws. That means they are still valid according to Jesus.
False. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law of the prophets. You were already advised of this in a previous post.
Not surprising faith is trumping your reason.
Relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c
Final post in this thread.
Who is the accuser?
Revelation 12:7-12 “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”