is Gods love conditional?

I would say no but I think most religions would say yes.

What say you?

From what I hear of the Christian God, no, He loves everyone unconditionally.

From what I hear of the Christian God, no, He loves everyone unconditionally.

Didn't jesus say that "none may come to the father but thru me"
A muslim can correct me if I am wrong but I think islam says that non-believers (people who aren't people of the book) will burn in hell too.

First i would question your premise--"God"

what do you MEAN when you use that term? an old due with a long white beard in the sky---a force, what?

and then what does unconditional love mean? that anything is forgiven. that we are all loved unconditionally. what about the children now getting abused by adults? their parents? are they being loved unconditionally by "God"? if so, why woldn'y 'he' put a stop to it, Or not have let such evil happen inthe first place?

so, what i'm saying is, there is something wrong with the question/premise--for me anyhow. it doesn't seem right. it presumes straight off

We are responsible for OUR actions. when we abuse others, WE are doing it.

let me explain it this way. in our past, A masculinized he-god oppressed the understanding of a goddess. With her, there was no 'problm of good and evil. everything was inclusive within her. death was accepted as being natrual consequence. this was represented in her triple aspect--symbolized by the moon's phases, of Maiden, Mother, Crone. The dark moon is Crone, which includes DEATH...
the patriarchs demonized the Goddess, but ESPECIALLY here Crone aspect, becauwe they sought to escape death--eventually

whats all this to do with your question? well, love would INCLUDE love of Nature, which we have lost due to patriarchal dogma. yet with Nature you have all manners of events, including death. that is love. that things die and their death gives life.
not accepting this we have created an ugle environemt with losts of damaged minds and evil. that aint love. that's confusion. the losing of the source of Love

Didn't jesus say that "none may come to the father but thru me"

I have no idea . . . I'm not a worshiper of God.

what about the children now getting abused by adults? their parents? are they being loved unconditionally by "God"? if so, why woldn'y 'he' put a stop to it, Or not have let such evil happen inthe first place?

Which is exactly why I don't accept God, in case anyone is wondering.

it is true that I make the presumption of the existence of God. It is also true that I personally do not belive in the existence of a typical God or should I say a God as described by most religions.
When younger it was part of religious indoctrination to accept that to have Gods love one must Love him. i found this reprehensible that I should some how construct a love for something demanding it.

To get to heaven one must believe and love God....to me this is fully conditional and a fraud, the belief is itself demeaning the object of that belief.

Suffice to say that if god exists his love woudl be immaculate and not dependent on or conditional to being loved in return.

Suffice to say that if god exists his love woudl be immaculate and not dependent on or conditional to being loved in return.

CHA-CHING! :D

edit: as people who know me have come to realise I often take all sorts of perpectives in my threads and responses.....

and THAt is why i want to know what you mean by "God"....IF it is what has been handed down to us since kids, that 'God' is this all-loving father-figure, then i can understand yours and others total confusion

not only is his so-calle all-loving-ness called in question the Bible, with its zillion contradictions....culminating in the New Testament where on one hand we are to 'love our enimies' and 'neighbours' yet on the other are killin all the 'heretics' 'witches' ANY one who dont agree...more like the fukin mafia

but IF you throw out THAt made-up-by-authoritarian-males god. does that mean you've thrown away the original FEELING of awesome deep felt power

let me briefly explain what i mean this way

there has been a development over the centuries. AWAY from Nature, and ecstatioc communal ritual in Nature inspired with all forms of ecstatic ritual, especially with hallucinogens....TO, dry meaningless authoritarian dogma. dogma which has led to our feeling split from Nature, form our bodies, and from each other. THAT, not "God" has caused the abuse

a perspective that some will take is that "God's" love allows us to fix our own mistakes and problems. As any good parent allows his children to find their own way in life.

A good parent doesnot demand the love of his children but earns it without condition. it is unfortunate and not to be unexpected that some fail to see the simplicity and integrity of unconditionality. not unexpected because most religious doctrine and ideology allows for no such unconditionality.

I think that God´s love is conditional, at least if this is the christian or muslim god. For both have a "distaste" for unbelievers. God only seems to love those that love him. But perhaps god is not loving at all, since he is perfect he may know that love is not good, or at least not reliable.

Anyway, if God´love would be unconditional, there would be no hell and all that negative stuff like Sodom and Gomorrha or the flood.

Say we take another perspective.....

God the creator has like alot of artists created something. Sure it's pretty big, prety complex and pretty awsome in so many ways.

the universe, life and everything else.

if he was truelly unconditional, what sort of score would you give him out of ten for his artistry and creativity?

do you love his creation and if so are you oblidged to do so?
(maybe we should run a pole) :)

Love is by definition a set of boundaries, it is not-hateful, not-selfish, not-deceitful etc. So maybe you should define "uncodnitional love".

Love is by definition a set of boundaries, it is not-hateful, not-selfish, not-deceitful etc. So maybe you should define "uncodnitional love".
ahhh and here in lies the problem......."love is by definition a set of boundaries'
thus love is conditional according to those boundaries.....yes?

Unconditional love is simply love with out condition.......something very foriegn to most people......for reasons stated earlier.

So if someone decides to love goats and people, that's a more noble kind of love than someone who loves only people? But it's perfectly possible to love your pets - on the the condition that it's not sexual. See the problem?

I really think you should reconsider whether even unconditinal love has no conditions. If something can be defined, it has conditions.

So if someone decides to love goats and people, that's a more noble kind of love than someone who loves only people? But it's perfectly possible to love your pets - on the the condition that it's not sexual. See the problem?

.
What is wrong with goat love?!

Seriously he is not referring to sexual love. I believe he is referring to the kind of love you have for your infant son or daughter.

I am puzzled.....why is sexual love deemed to be automatically conditional.

By using the word unconditional before the word love does this not qualify the definition of love as unconditional.

Maybe unconditionality is a really difficult concept.....hmmmmm....more so than I thought.

maybe unconditional acceptance is a starting point........

duendy: First i would question your premise--"God"

what do you MEAN when you use that term? an old due with a long white beard in the sky---a force, what?

and then what does unconditional love mean? that anything is forgiven. that we are all loved unconditionally. what about the children now getting abused by adults? their parents? are they being loved unconditionally by "God"? if so, why woldn'y 'he' put a stop to it, Or not have let such evil happen inthe first place?

so, what i'm saying is, there is something wrong with the question/premise--for me anyhow. it doesn't seem right. it presumes straight off

We are responsible for OUR actions. when we abuse others, WE are doing it.

let me explain it this way. in our past, A masculinized he-god oppressed the understanding of a goddess. With her, there was no 'problm of good and evil. everything was inclusive within her. death was accepted as being natrual consequence. this was represented in her triple aspect--symbolized by the moon's phases, of Maiden, Mother, Crone. The dark moon is Crone, which includes DEATH...
the patriarchs demonized the Goddess, but ESPECIALLY here Crone aspect, becauwe they sought to escape death--eventually

whats all this to do with your question? well, love would INCLUDE love of Nature, which we have lost due to patriarchal dogma. yet with Nature you have all manners of events, including death. that is love. that things die and their death gives life.
not accepting this we have created an ugle environemt with losts of damaged minds and evil. that aint love. that's confusion. the losing of the source of Love
*************
M*W: Bravo!

Quantum Quack: It is also true that I personally do not belive in the existence of a typical God or should I say a God as described by most religions.
*************
M*W: This is the problem. In their desperate need to conquer death, human beings have created the image of God. In doing so, they have disempowered the God that dwells within. Then what happens? Societies crumble.
*************
Quantum Quack: Suffice to say that if god exists his love woudl be immaculate and not dependent on or conditional to being loved in return.
*************
M*W: The god humans have created doesn't exist. It's the overall image they wish for in a father figure. But, god as I understand it may have been the dynamic force that created the universe, but it's not a being that loves or feels any kind of emotion, and certainly a force that doesn't judge us humans!

Seriously he is not referring to sexual love. I believe he is referring to the kind of love you have for your infant son or daughter.
I am puzzled.....why is sexual love deemed to be automatically conditional.
Let's say you tell your wife you live her unconditionally, but you won't have sex with her. Will she agree that you love her unconditionally, or will that seem like a condition for your love?

OK, I'm simplifying by using sex as an example, but at least you've realized it isn't such a simple concept. If sex can't be a condition for love, then your wife should thank you for loving her so unconditionally that you won't even have sex with her - and if it can be a condition for love, then your pet goat might wish your love were a little more conditional.

*************
M*W: I've always thought of Nature as being God. Nature provides us everything we need to live. Nature nurtures us. We are part of Nature, therefore, we, too, are God.

I think it might help to establish where the conditions lie, rather than whether there are conditions. I think unconditional love, in the most noble sense, lies in the giver - he sets the conditions: the condition being that nothing the receiver can do or say will cause him to love them less. For his part.

But if the receiver were to make clear that the unconditional love wasn't welcome, he would be free to reject it. That still fits into the giver's conditions. But if the receiver were to abuse that love, exploit or demean or pervert it - say for instance, your wife sleeps around and still expects you to love her, because your love is supposed to be unconditional - then it becomes clear that they have begun making the conditions.

And this is what has happened in our relationship with God. We have begun defining the conditions - and we expect God to go along with it "because He is supposed to love us unconditionally".

Still following?

Jenya, i understand your POV but also I can't agree.

i know of at least two couples that love each other with out the condition of sex. i am sure also that you do too. many couples where one partener is severely disabled or simply sexually dysfuctional learn teh nature of uncondional love. I am sure that you have accidently missed this point.

if your love is conditional upon sex what happens when you simply can't have sex..........If the happiness of your relationship is dependent on sex then your in trouble mate.

Medicine woman,

M*W: The god humans have created doesn't exist. It's the overall image they wish for in a father figure. But, god as I understand it may have been the dynamic force that created the universe, but it's not a being that loves or feels any kind of emotion, and certainly a force that doesn't judge us humans!
In this context I agree with this.....assessment

Now I ask is the universe's existence conditional to being loved.?.....i think in absolute terms maybe this is a physical dependency more than an emotional one but let's not get to much into metaphysics hey?

I've always thought of Nature as being God. Nature provides us everything we need to live. Nature nurtures us. We are part of Nature, therefore, we, too, are God.
Good for you, but that's very convenient. Why call it "God" if "nature" will do?

i know of at least two couples that love each other with out the condition of sex. i am sure also that you do too. many couples where one partener is severely disabled or simply sexually dysfuctional learn teh nature of uncondional love. I am sure that you have accidently missed this point.

if your love is conditional upon sex what happens when you simply can't have sex..........If the happiness of your relationship is dependent on sex then your in trouble mate.
OK. No, I was just using sex as a point of departure for my argument, since it's the most common element associated with true love. But I don't think it's a condition for love either. It's just an ingredient, with its own conditions.

What I was trying to say is that the conditions of unconditional love isn't fixed - but they're still there. They're just implicit. It applies to your question as well:
Now I ask is the universe's existence conditional to being loved.?.....i think in absolute terms maybe this is a physical dependency more than an emotional one but let's not get to much into metaphysics hey?
We are dependent on the existence of the universe in order to love, conditionally or unconditionally. It's an implicit condition. Just like we are dependent on an "other" to exhibit love. Even loving yourself means you see "yourself" as a possible recipient. If there were nothing or no-one to experience love as unconditional, then we'd have to redefine what we call "love".

That's why M*W says the force that created us cannot love: it can have no conditions of its own. We would not experience anything called "love" from an impersonal source, neither judgment. Her "god" is limited to her understanding. Fortunately love knows no such limits - when we don't let others limit our love, that's the beginning of unconditional love.

Jenyar: Good for you, but that's very convenient. Why call it "God" if "nature" will do?
*************
M*W: "God" is the common name most people understand as their higher being. I think "God" is a misnomer as there are millions of different concepts of "God." "Nature" works just fine. We all know what Nature is, and there's no confusion.

Jenyar: "That's why M*W says the force that created us cannot love: it can have no conditions of its own. We would not experience anything called "love" from an impersonal source, neither judgment. Her "god" is limited to her understanding. Fortunately love knows no such limits - when we don't let others limit our love, that's the beginning of unconditional love.
*************
M*W: Jenyar, you ignorant liar and creep! Each of us has our own understanding of what we believe god to be. Just because I describe my god differently than you do doesn't mean I believe in a false god. Right there your statement proves that you are NOT A CHRISTIAN! A true Christian would NOT SAY THAT! You're admitting that there is more than one god -- that's ANTI-CHRISTIAN -- Hah! You're the antichrist! Furthermore, you DO NOT know that the love I have for my family and the rest of humanity is limited! If you knew me and knew my family, you would be ashamed of being such a hypocritical liar! But, fortunately, you will never know my family, and thank god, we're not related to a pervert like you! YOU are the one member on this forum who puts LIMITS on everything anyone else says. You don't have two brain cells to rub together, so shut your fucking mouth, you liar.

I think what Jenyar is trying to say that whether something is unconditional love depends on the giver, not on the receiver.


Often, we say that A unconditionally loves B, if B feels it is unconditional love. If B doesn't feel it as unconditional love, then A is not loving B unconditionally. -- But I think such a perspective on love is misleading. It eventually means if A gives B a gift, this gift is absolutely worthless if B doesn't like it. Indeed, the gift may be worthless to B, but this doesn't mean that A is supposed to feel this same way about the gift he gave, nor that the gift per se is worthless.

Jenyar, you ignorant liar and creep!
If you knew me and knew my family, you would be ashamed of being such a hypocritical liar! But, fortunately, you will never know my family, and thank god, we're not related to a pervert like you! YOU are the one member on this forum who puts LIMITS on everything anyone else says. You don't have two brain cells to rub together, so shut your fucking mouth, you liar.

Ad hominems. Watch your language, Medicine Woman.

Let's say you tell your wife you live her unconditionally, but you won't have sex with her. Will she agree that you love her unconditionally, or will that seem like a condition for your love?

OK, I'm simplifying by using sex as an example, but at least you've realized it isn't such a simple concept. If sex can't be a condition for love, then your wife should thank you for loving her so unconditionally that you won't even have sex with her - and if it can be a condition for love, then your pet goat might wish your love were a little more conditional.

Sex has nothing to do with love, sex has to do with intimacy and a human understanding of what love is. The act of sex is a physical thing that gives a couple more physical intimacy. It is also a physical or biological need that must be satisfied in some way which is why we rely on our partner to fulfill that need. QQ is asking about gods love so you shouldn't bring sex into it....unless you are unsure if god has sex or not in which case please refer to the thread "does god have sex" in the cesspool :D

is Gods love conditional?

I would say no but I think most religions would say yes.

What say you?
I say I dont know,Im not god. :D

however,when it comes to xian bible god,all believers say you must worship/love Him or else you'll BURN IN HELL you sinner!
seems like a condition to me ;)

RosaMagika: Ad hominems. Watch your language, Medicine Woman.
*************
M*W: Yes, mother.

Sex has nothing to do with love.

So what does the word(s) "lovemaking" or "lets make love" refer too? It seems to be used quite frequently by lovers.

Dave

however,when it comes to xian bible god,all believers say you must worship/love Him or else you'll BURN IN HELL you sinner!
seems like a condition to me
That's also a convenient rationalization for rejecting unconditional love. If God's love is the only thing that can give you eternal life, then where else will you find it?

M*W: Jenyar, you ignorant liar and creep! Each of us has our own understanding of what we believe god to be. Just because I describe my god differently than you do doesn't mean I believe in a false god. Right there your statement proves that you are NOT A CHRISTIAN! A true Christian would NOT SAY THAT!
No need for theatricals. I was responding to your assertion that "...god [is] not a being that loves or feels any kind of emotion, and certainly a force that doesn't judge us humans!", in other words, just a "mindless force".

So what does the word(s) "lovemaking" or "lets make love" refer too? It seems to be used quite frequently by lovers.
As an aside to the topic.......

Actually in my research in to the hmmmmm.....paranormal...........hmmmmm that is exactly what we are doing when expressing our love for someone else in the act of physical love making.

WE are actually and literally making love.......this energy is being created by our lovemaking.......the synergy of two persons making love generates this energy.....
and if the love making creates a child then the lovemaking has now created a means to propagate the ability to love......by creating another love making entity....

Interesting way to put it. That's more or less how the Hebrews saw the war against sin, they learnt from spiritualising the physical. That's why women were said to redeem themselves through childbirth. It "propagates" the love that gave us life in the first place. Without that sustaining love, death is the only prospect. But if the physical aspect is all there is, then the act remains empty, a ritual. It creates empty lives and misery.

So what does the word(s) "lovemaking" or "lets make love" refer too? It seems to be used quite frequently by lovers.

Dave

As I said in my post, intimacy and a human understanding, or interpretation of what love is. When you have a child you will understand it better.

edit:Just saw QQs post hmmmmm interesting.

I just remembered something!

There's an IM conversation I had with a cousin of mine a while ago. She's a Christian. I'm not. Made for a great debate! Anyway, here's a snippet of the IM conversation.

Her: and He does love everyone
Her: including you
Me: why is there so much suffering though?
Her: it's part of life
Me: He'd help out somehow if He loved everyone
Her: He does
Her: He helped alot when He gave Jesus, and Jesus never did anything and still got punished for everyone
Her: including you
Me: But people in Africa are still dying of hunger
Her: sometimes, people don't necesarily do anything for something to happen. God has a plan
Her: if there wasn't anything happening in other countries, then there would be no pupose for missionaries
Me: Missionaries spread Faith, not food
Her: they sometimes, actually, do both
Me: but missionaries can't help everyone
Her: no, but God can
Me: but I don't see that He is
Her: you don't see, because you're not looking
Me: my point is He's not helping as much as anyone who loves someone would
Her: you don't understand, he's helping as much as people that love him are asking
Me: I'm sure there's someone somewhere that loves God dearly and is asking for Him to stop world hunger
Her: well, if everyone in the world was asking that whole-heartedly, then i'm sure that He would do it, but He sure feeds whoever asks
Me: it's not enough to be on the verge of starving, ya have to ask for food before you can get it? He can't just give you food out of pure kindness?
Her: well, He gives you His love when you ask for it, so why not for food.
Her: ?
Me: He already loves everyone
Me: not everyone asked
Her: and why are you only looking at the sad part of the world? there are good things in this world to.
Her: no not everyone asks
Her: but only those who do ask get to have Him
Me: yes, there are good things, but you can't deny the bad
Her: if you don't ask you don't recieve
Her: who said anything about denying the bad
Me: that's not entirely true
Her: ?
Me: Answer me this
Me: If you could do something that would feed everyone in Africa, even if it was only for one day, would you do it?
Her: yeah
Me: Because in a way you love the people in Africa, right?
Her: yeah
Me: God loves the people in Africa, AND He can feed them for eternity if He wanted
Her: "I call on the Lord in my distress, and He answers me." Psalm 120:1, yes He could
Me: Now if you had the power to stop hunger forever, would you have to be asked to do it?
Her: well, if nobody wanted me to, then whats the use in trying
Her: ?
Me: so that little Ethiopian child that hasn't had food for almost three weeks is okay with starving?
Me: just because no one asks for it, doesn't mean they don't want it
Her: i didn't say that
Me: you're right, you didn't
Me: I just don't think people have to ask
Her: you're impossible, is there anything that i can say to help you understand?
Me: I don't know

Apparently, it turns out that God's love is conditional.

Here's what I'm getting from all this: Ya have to ask for His love. Ya also have to ask for whatever you may need to survive, and if you love Him, He will give it to you.

No one has to ASK me for my love to GET my love. Also, if someone I love is somehow suffering and there's something I can do to stop their suffering, they won't be suffering for long!

It seems kinda twisted if God just won't stop yer suffering out of His sheer love for ya!

As an aside to the topic.......

Actually in my research in to the hmmmmm.....paranormal...........hmmmmm that is exactly what we are doing when expressing our love for someone else in the act of physical love making.

WE are actually and literally making love.......this energy is being created by our lovemaking.......the synergy of two persons making love generates this energy.....
and if the love making creates a child then the lovemaking has now created a means to propagate the ability to love......by creating another love making entity....

Hello QQ,

This is interesting, and perhaps believable. I was just trying to get across that Jenyar's example was good, as sex is an aspect of human love.

But perhaps a more accurate example of unconditional love in human beings is a mother's or father's love for their child. Obviously not all mother's or father's offer this unconditional love though.

So God's love for us is like a father's love for his child, but if the child wants nothing to do with their father then out of love the father would let go of his child.

Dave

Apparently, it turns out that God's love is conditional.

Here's what I'm getting from all this: Ya have to ask for His love. Ya also have to ask for whatever you may need to survive, and if you love Him, He will give it to you.

No one has to ASK me for my love to GET my love. Also, if someone I love is somehow suffering and there's something I can do to stop their suffering, they won't be suffering for long!

It seems kinda twisted if God just won't stop yer suffering out of His sheer love for ya!
I think I understand your cousin's line of thinking, but it isn't absolutely correct. Jesus didn't ask whether we want to be saved - or loved - He simply gave his life to everyone. God gave his life to everyone, including the suffering - not just those starving in Africa, but all over the world. Physical needs can be allayed for a short while, but since the physical world is by definition decaying, with or without food and shelter, it won't be a permanent solution. He does feed everyone in Africa: with hope - real hope. Everybody who feed and clothe the poor are missionaries. They are doing God's will.

God presented a permanent solution, of which those who love are a part. Your concern about people's physical well-being should reflect God's concern for their spiritual well-being. In other words: do something about it. You are the answer to their prayers. The real sin is people not doing God's will, that's why there are still people suffering.

Physical needs can be allayed for a short while, but since the physical world is by definition decaying, with or without food and shelter, it won't be a permanent solution.

Why is the physical world decaying. And can't He stop it from decaying, so there would be no more suffering.

He does feed everyone in Africa: with hope - real hope.

There are still many people who aren't fed and, therefore, die helplessly.

That's a question you should ask scientists, I don't know why. I guess it has something to do with nature not being God, in other words: it can't create life. But I'm concerned with the things that doesn't decay over time. People would probably still inflict suffering whether they knew they were going to die or not, at least the way we are now. It's a mystery why people are so destructive, but that has something to do with our relationship with God (or the lack of it). That's someting we can work at.

God is stopping it from decaying, though: first by providing us with an opportunity to reverse the effects, and secondly by providing a "new heaven and earth". That way, the physical is clothed with the spiritual. It's like being born into a new world, or to use Christian terminology: born again. But that means we should join together and stop letting people die helplessly. We can show them in this broken world what to expect in the next, healed world. The irony is, poor and suffering people are less inclined to reject that hope than those who have everything they need in this life. They only expect a finger reached out to them, crumbs falling from the table (Matthew 15:27) - wealthy people will settle for nothing less than God himself.

I think we sometimes expect God to take over our responsibilities. We want God to take care of everything but our "freedom" to take care of ourselves. As long as He keeps our bubble intact, we're content with keeping Him out of it. Think about it, if most people react like that, wouldn't God end up breaking more wills by interfering than giving us our (supposedly noble) wills?

As long as everything goes according to our wishes, we don't think we need God, and when it doesn't, we feel let down by Him. When we ask God, "but what can I possibly have that can change the world?", isn't the accurate reply usually, "More than you're willing to give"?

I think we sometimes expect God to take over our responsibilities. We want God to take care of everything but our "freedom" to take care of ourselves. As long as He keeps our bubble intact, we're content with keeping Him out of it. Think about it, if most people react like that, wouldn't God end up breaking more wills by interfering than giving us our (supposedly noble) wills?

As long as everything goes according to our wishes, we don't think we need God, and when it doesn't, we feel let down by Him. When we ask God, "but what can I possibly have that can change the world?", isn't the accurate reply usually, "More than you're willing to give"?

Hello Jenyar,

I agree to a large extent. Luke 15:11-32 sums "us" up to a tee, in my opinion.

Dave

No one has to ASK me for my love to GET my love. Also, if someone I love is somehow suffering and there's something I can do to stop their suffering, they won't be suffering for long!
Maybe this is one of those hard lessons for humanity to learn...youknow if every one felt the same way as the above quote then we wouldn't need to ask god tohelp us...as we could damn well do it on our own......

has any one ever bothered to ask God if there is some thing we could do for him (directly)

Like "hey god, I hope you are well and if there's anything I can do for you just let me know....."

another one of my perspectives

" I happen to hold the belief that 'God' has been very very sick and of course who cares......God is supposed to be invincable, perfection.....but hey, even he can get sick...." and if mankind is in the image of God you can see just how sick he is and has been......."

That's a useful analogy, but I wouldn't take it too far. Mankind certainly is very sick (in both senses of the word), but we don't like medicine - we'd rather damn well get well on our own ;).

M*W: The god humans have created doesn't exist. It's the overall image they wish for in a father figure. But, god as I understand it may have been the dynamic force that created the universe, but it's not a being that loves or feels any kind of emotion, and certainly a force that doesn't judge us humans!

just to clarify my position on defining god.

Freud. So you think "God" is a compensation for what we lack on earth, and at the same time circumscribing what we already have on earth?

hmmmm...no I guess what iam saying is there is a vast difference between preconceptions of what Gid is and the actual reality of what god is....

The universe is essentially unconditional in it's existence, nature is unconditional in it's existence. It have needs to survive but there is no obligation on the universe to provide foir those needs....suffice to say that those needs are normally met with out obligation. Thus unconditionality is teh nature of the universe and all life. It is in the main only a manmade subjective creation that conditionality exists.

Mankind is great at creating conditions and ultimations etc but the universe offeres no such input. It is.... only that it is.

The universe loves as nature loves as the sun loves etc and all is unconditional. The universe places no condition on it's benevolence or it's natural violence.

It is only man that places conditions on love and that is our challenge......because if love is conditional it wil ultimately fail. because it is in conflict with natural love which is unconditional.

God is also undonditional in His existence, but we are good at creating conditions for that too. In that sense, we are just as likely to create our own molds for god, as we are likely to define "God" accurately. Fortunately God chose to reveal himself to us, and one of the clearest (and most useful) revelations was love. Would we even know what unconditional love should be like if we couldn't understand its spiritual dimension?

To say the universe loves is a bit unfair towards the concept of love. If the universe truly "loved", we would have no problems with God having created it, as we do today - mainly because people purposely confuse God and nature.

jenya, if you wish to keep God in the clouds some where that's fine with me....i have no wish to change your POV.

for me however "God" is very much a physical reality including all that is deemed spiritual......also a physical reality.....made of real stuff.....nature...energy..no exceptions.....this is my POV.

love also is a physical energy...not unlike the energy from the sun. it is also a force not unlike the gravity of the universe. And in all cases unconditional.

I don't wish to keep God "in the clouds" either. But that notion actually developed because people are unable to deal with spiritual things in the physical world. I just don't think translating God into physical things is the answer, that's nothing other than idolatry. It's an artificial separation, which only reinforced our separation from a spiritual but no less real God.

well then jenya maybe you could enlighten me as to what exactly you think 'spiritual" is?

Quantum Quack:
is Gods love conditional?

I would say no but I think most religions would say yes.

What say you?
-----------------------------------------------------------

God's love, which god are we talking aboout, eros?,jesus?
there are many gods out there and they try to find out
who is the biggest and end up fighting just like humans
which love are you talking about, eros-love?,jesus-love?
there are many loves out there and they dont know which
love is the biggest and end up fighting just like humans
now
when god comes he will tell you
peace!
fuck love!
love ur ass love everything you like! because thats what you
do, love is your ass we dont need ass,we need peace


Philosopher Philocrazy

well then jenya maybe you could enlighten me as to what exactly you think 'spiritual" is?
Spiritual things are discerned with spiritual senses, they are the truth behind the things we can physically touch and see. Thing like love, hope and faith are good examples of spiritual exercises that have physical significance. It is not the purely carnal, physical, and immediate world, but it is not separate from it either - only God is truly separate from everything spiritually, as we are separate from each other physically.
When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
...The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. (1 Cor.15)

thanks......jenya for sharing your POV.....

No problem. As you can see, it's not only mine, though. And it's a lot more complex than that anyway, so debate on...

The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Jenya I am aware you wont agree me me here but this statement is a sad inditement on the causality of so much irrationality in the world today.

To be sown in weakness only to be raised reeks of futility.
As does all the other "need" vs 'Cure' scenarios that religions create.

with this level of irrational thought it is no wonder that people are confused and perplexed by what youare attempting to convey.

Children on one hand are tauught to be rational and then expected to allow this sort of thinking to exist in their minds....

To be sown in dishonour only to be raised in glory is a very strange way to do business.......


as I said I don't think you can possibly understand what I am saying....if you understood you would agree...........but of course you can't.....

I would have agreed, but I understand the terms a little diffrent than you do. You stigmatize "weakness" - just like "obedience" has become stigmatized. Our bodies are weak and fragile compared to almost anything on earth, is that not true? Or you are assuming it means spiritual weakness, like being "weak-minded", which is clearly and certainly not the context. There is nothing futile about being human - this and other verses reinforces that.

"Sown in dishonour" refers to our dependence and addiction to the physical world. God certainly didn't sow us that way, and since the context refers to death we must understand physical death to be the dishonour. When Paul explains that the wages of sin and immorality is death, he is reinforcing that we are bound to it - sin dishonours us.

Our lives are our only glory. Do you agree? A dead man can have no honour, unless he is remembered (in other words: in spirit). But how much greater his glory if he is not just remembered, but resurrected and alive again!

PS. You said "love also is a physical energy...not unlike the energy from the sun. it is also a force not unlike the gravity of the universe. And in all cases unconditional". If this is true, we should be able to measure this energy using instruments. Otherwise you are using metaphors to explain a spiritual truth. Then what is the difference between my "irrationality" and yours (even though we understand what the other means, for the most part)?

The only difference I can see is that you give priority to the physical side of the metaphor, as if there isn't even a spiritual side. It sure seems like you're saying that this is all there is, and this is as good as it gets? But then why spiritualize it at all, as I've asked M*W countless times?

The only instrument that is fully capable of measuring Love is the human heart. technology is not yet equiped to measure such quantum energies.

( Nor do I hope it ever will )

Can I ask if what you mean is""Sown in dishonour" refers to our dependence and addiction to the physical world. God certainly didn't sow us that way, and since the context refers to death we must understand physical death to be the dishonour." then why say it in a way that is confusing.

And I would argue quite strongly that death is not in any way a dishonour.......how can death be equated with dishonour except when phrased in the role of suplicant......

to me all this talk of dihonour and inferiority is a form of self abuse.....constantly thinking of your self as a sinner, an inferior product a, inferior creation is self demeaning......I suppose we should be so proud that we are created so badly....

that your creator has placed humanity in a prison of self abuse........ why why why......is self flagulation so important to religion?

so to be a christian the first thing you got to do is believe you are sh*t and then seek redemtion.......reeks of self abuse to me

The only instrument that is fully capable of measuring Love is the human heart. technology is not yet equiped to measure such quantum energies.

( Nor do I hope it ever will )
I doubt it will, because I doubt that love is a "quantum energy" at all. Not the way quantum physics is defined as present, anyway. The heart is definitely the only instrument able to measure it (note the very unscientific use of the word "heart"!).

Can I ask if what you mean is""Sown in dishonour" refers to our dependence and addiction to the physical world. God certainly didn't sow us that way, and since the context refers to death we must understand physical death to be the dishonour." then why say it in a way that is confusing.
You should read the whole chapter involved, it's actually quite clear. He talks about the resurrection body, and how it differs from the present body. But it is a difficult concept to begin with, and we cannot expect it to be just intuitively understood. The phrase isn't explained, but once again: the language isn't scientific - you can easily deduce that from the way he uses it, like an escalating list of synonymns until he gets to the real difference, to emphasize the harsh contrast between the spiritual and the natural.
And I would argue quite strongly that death is not in any way a dishonour.......how can death be equated with dishonour except when phrased in the role of suplicant......
Sure, you're free to. I would almost say Paul expects you to! If death isn't so dishonourable to begin with, Paul wants to tell us that it will look quite dishonourable against the glory of a new, immortal, life. But because we don't have that life yet, we should strive for it. "Take hold of the life that is truly life" (1 Tim. 6:19).

to me all this talk of dihonour and inferiority is a form of self abuse.....constantly thinking of your self as a sinner, an inferior product a, inferior creation is self demeaning......I suppose we should be so proud that we are created so badly....

that your creator has placed humanity in a prison of self abuse........ why why why......is self flagulation so important to religion?
That kind of thinking is a perversion, to put it mildly. It's a lie to believe we are inferior human beings - what we are is inferior to God. Our motal life is inferior to an eternal life. It is not inferior per se! This whole notion sounds like something the serpent would have tried to get Eve to believe in the garden of Eden...

But for all our present glory, we are sinners nontheless. For all our achievements we wage wars and we promote hatred. That's the reality. I always say there's very little difference between a realist and a pessimists. The reason for that is that we like to believe we can do things on our own, but after each enlightenement comes a war, and we are disillusioned. This process of becoming increasingly disillusioned with ourselves will only stop when we start living spiritual lives... lives that can change and remain glorious in spite of suffering, even in spite of death.

That's not self abuse, that's empowerment. It's not at the cost of this life, but for the sake of this life, please realize that. But redemption - in this context physical redemption - is only possible with God, and no matter how well we think of ourselves, that will always be so.

To be a Christian the first thing you have to do is be realistic about who you are. What is worse: to submit yourself as you are, admit your worst and be forgiven, or to submit your best, deny the accusation that you are a sinner (which is what Satan - the Accuser - does), and be found guilty? If you truly are a Job, then by all means. I'd dont' have that much faith in myself. But you'll have to face God no matter what you believe.

On the concept of love:

1 John 4:7-21

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No-one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us.
20 If anyone says, I love God, yet 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.
21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

To be a Christian the first thing you have to do is be realistic about who you are. What is worse: to submit yourself as you are, admit your worst and be forgiven, or to submit your best, deny the accusation that you are a sinner (which is what Satan - the Accuser - does), and be found guilty? If you truly are a Job, then by all means. I'd dont' have that much faith in myself. But you'll have to face God no matter what you believe.

If you truly are a Job -- then you'll do what?
Submit yourself as you are, admit your worst and be forgiven?
Or submit your best, deny the accusation that you are a sinner (which is what Satan - the Accuser - does), and be found guilty?
-- Which one?

Cyperium
-----------------
On the concept of love:

1 John 4:7-21

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No-one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us.
20 If anyone says, I love God, yet 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.
21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love to hate, I hate to love
is there love in the phrase?

Philosopher Philocrazy

to me it still reeks of self justified bastedry, self abuse. not unlike the usual abuse found in other walks of life.

It just seems so incredible to me to teach children self esteem only to have have them taught to accept that they are inferior simply by the words of someone else.

as far as I am aware god has never ( in the provable world of today) ever shown that we are inferior or sinners etc etc......it is only the words written by man some time in the past that tells us this and well isn't Satans greatest tool the use of words.

For it is only with language that we can lie and cheat and fraud and delude, words are not to be trusted and nor should they be for they can never truely express what we want to express.

The bible is no exception in that it can never describe gods wishes or intent...as the limitations of words and language prevents this.

To teach a child that he is in some way an object of contempt if he does not believe in the "word" is saying to the child that the words have an integrity that they do not nor can not possibly have.

my perspective on this is simply "God talks to no one - simply because he doesn't need to talk" afterall did he not create the chinese whisper effect and surely would he not know how to avoid such an error of judgement as to express himself in words that can never be fully understood.?

QQ,

I think I can understand your concerns. However, the truth is that if you approach something in a negative or resentful way -- don't be surprised to find just that: negativism and resentment.

Bark at a dog, and the dog will bark back.

If you truly are a Job -- then you'll do what?
Submit yourself as you are, admit your worst and be forgiven?
Or submit your best, deny the accusation that you are a sinner (which is what Satan - the Accuser - does), and be found guilty?
-- Which one?
I think I meant the second option. But I was thinking more along the lines of "whichever you have confidence in". As long as you're sure you're on the right path and your case is airtight, go with it. If you have to face God with it one day, and He is just, then you'll have nothing to worry about.

Job ultimately did both, in a way. His faith was justified and he was found innocent. My point was that it's less humiliating (and degrading) to let go of pride and be forgiven than it is to be found guilty after you've maintained your innocence.

QQ. The difference is one person builds his esteem from a clean slate, knows what humility means, and isn't afraid so serve - because nobody is worse off than he was - while the other takes his worth for granted, might not want to "stoop". They say if you truly love someone you should be willing to let them go first. Well, if you want to be truly humble, you should be able to let go of everything you *deserve* first.

as far as I am aware god has never ( in the provable world of today) ever shown that we are inferior or sinners etc etc...
I'm interested to know what words you do consider "proven"? As who has humanity as a whole proven itself? As pure, holy and without blemish? Or trying to be?
For it is only with language that we can lie and cheat and fraud and delude, words are not to be trusted and nor should they be for they can never truely express what we want to express.
The worst examples of each of those sins are done without the use of language or words at all. Those affected by them has sorrow that words also cannot express, does it make them unable to ask for help, or us unable to comfort them?
my perspective on this is simply "God talks to no one - simply because he doesn't need to talk" afterall did he not create the chinese whisper effect and surely would he not know how to avoid such an error of judgement as to express himself in words that can never be fully understood.
Maybe you're right, at least about audible words. Actions speak louder, after all. But what about everybody who talk about those actions - must we be deaf to them in order to hear God speak?

If all things that cannot be understood must be left unsaid, what will be left to say? About nature, about all things human - about life, the universe, and everything else? And is science really humanity's only voice? What does it say about science that it is speechless about God? Yet people still dare to speak. And some dare to listen.

to be believe one is guilty one has to have a basis for that belief.

"I was born innocent and I will die innocent as all my actions are as God wants"

if there is any guilt at all it rest with your God not with his creation.....

For one to assume guilt simply because of someones word is not good enough.

There is not a just court in the world that will convict you for the crime of being born.

There is not one just court in the world that will overturn the certainty of death, either. There are some things that even the most just courts cannot do, that God can.

Why don't innocent babies stay innocent? What is it that make people corrupt, and makes them corrupt others? If your life is to prove you are innocent or guilty, it must be free from corruption and corrupting influence. When you're not a baby anymore, what are your responsibilities towards people who were all innocent babies once? If you're not trying to fix something isn't broken, what are you doing?

Jenyar: I doubt it will, because I doubt that love is a "quantum energy" at all. Not the way quantum physics is defined as present, anyway. The heart is definitely the only instrument able to measure it (note the very unscientific use of the word "heart"!).
*************
M*W: The heart runs on involuntary electrophysiological impulses.

ok let's do a summary of beliefs

you believe death to be a problem........I don't
You believe that we must repent to be absolved of sin........I don't believe in the nature of this type of sin.

You believe that Gods love is conditional.....I believe it is unconditional

you believe that god is not fully responsible for his creation ....I do believe he is the ultimate responsibility.

You believe that you are sown in dishonour... I believe we are perfectly imperfect.

You believe that eternal life needs to be earned....I believe we already have it.

You believe in thngs that can't be proved.......I don't believe until it can be.

Now why should I burden myself with your beliefs and make my life amd existence less than it is?

what I realy want to know is why should I lessen my existence on someones word.

I unnderstand that you can not know how liberating it is to be free from the ideology and dogma of an ancient belief system. a bit like knowing the world is a sphere rather than flat...

liberated from the oppression of someone elses words.........to stand naked to this universe in love with this universe, free of shame and guilt that some one else wants me to feel........

Mind if I amend some of them?

you believe death to be a problem........I don't
Good for you, then. I'd would like to know how it does not require faith, to be so certain this life is all there is - but at least then this life is all you have to worry about. But what is freedom to you is a problem from my perspective: that there can be no consequence worse than death, neither for the suicide bomber nor the baby.
You believe that we must repent to be absolved of sin........I don't believe in the nature of this type of sin.
Isn't it that you just don't believe you are guilty of the type of sin that requires repentance? Which is fair enough. I'm not the one judging whether it's true.

You believe that Gods love is conditional.....I believe it is unconditional
We've talked about this. Even unconditional love has implicit conditions - for one: it must be recognized and accepted to be of any meaning to the recipient. Rejected unconditional love is no different than rejected conditional love. Love exists in relationships, not outside them.

you believe that god is not fully responsible for his creation ....I do believe he is the ultimate responsibility.
He has accepted the responsibility and has lived up to his promises, but He isn't the author of our wrong decisions or our sins, and we should be prepared to accept responsibility for the part of our lives which belong to us. We don't have to worry about the parts that belong to God. Strangely enough, that means we don't have to worry about anything except our thoughts and what we do with them.

You believe that you are sown in dishonour... I believe we are perfectly imperfect.
Which is the same thing. A seed is sown perfectly imperfect - a perfect seed - and grows up to be perfectly perfect, according to its design. There is no shame in being imperfect, but there is in being corrupted. There is no corruption of a life more complete than death, and never is its weakness more pronounced, especially in comparison with the uncorruptible glory that awaits.

You might still be able to romanticize death in poetry and philosophy, but I'll pay to see you admire the glory of a dead body against the beauty of a living one.

You believe that eternal life needs to be earned....I believe we already have it.
Where did I ever say it can be earned? It has to be seized. It's available to everyone with God. How could it be available without Him? Maybe you know of some other way.

You believe in thngs that can't be proved.......I don't believe until it can be.
Even though you said "I believe we already have [eternal life]" just one sentence ago? In fact, if anything you said had been proved (according to how I assume you apply the word), you would not have preceded each statemtent with "I believe". Why do you believe anything at all?

Now why should I burden myself with your beliefs and make my life amd existence less than it is?
//...//
what I realy want to know is why should I lessen my existence on someones word.
Sow it so that it can grow. If you make your life less than it is, God will make it more than it should be. That's not my word or my beliefs - it's God's words that we believe in Christ. Someone who tries to keep his life is too attached to it to lay at someone else's feet, let alone at God's feet. It's a matter of who you are to other people, it's not about yourself. If you think this is all about yourself, you'd better start over.

So I guess the answer is: you don't have to. You don't have to do anything at all.
I unnderstand that you can not know how liberating it is to be free from the ideology and dogma of an ancient belief system. a bit like knowing the world is a sphere rather than flat...
LOL, from someone who lives under a democracy (http://www.elysiumgates.com/~helena/Revolution.html), I presume? Or maybe some older system? I can just picture Hannibal Lecter saying that in court, with that intelligent charisma of his that makes you think: "My God, he's got a point!". There aren't many truly new things in the world, you know.

liberated from the oppression of someone elses words.........to stand naked to this universe in love with this universe, free of shame and guilt that some one else wants me to feel........
Then you have that much more to be thankful for. But are you free of repsonsibility as well? To stand naked implies no shame, yet once again I doubt you'll ever do that in practice.

The universe doesn't require your love, but your neighbour might. Nobody can serve someone else from a position of superiority. You sound like a sensible man, so I take what you say here with a pinch of salt. To be honest, I don't think you find it that repulsive show humility.

what I realy want to know is why should I lessen my existence on someones word.

I unnderstand that you can not know how liberating it is to be free from the ideology and dogma of an ancient belief system. a bit like knowing the world is a sphere rather than flat...

liberated from the oppression of someone elses words.........to stand naked to this universe in love with this universe, free of shame and guilt that some one else wants me to feel........

What exactly is the problem here?
What drove you to bring up this debate?
An uncertainty?


If this

liberated from the oppression of someone elses words.........to stand naked to this universe in love with this universe, free of shame and guilt that some one else wants me to feel........

is really so doubtlessly true for you -- then why talk about it?
Why the concerns?
Why the comparisons with other posters here?


I know that when I feel like talking about something, it is because it perplexes me, in one way or another. I don't talk about things that I feel fine about -- unless the conversation is explicitly about things that make one feel fine.

But this thread is obviously not a pleasant discourse over goodies. So far, quite opposing views have been shared, even some harsh words. Things must be serious enough then.


If you are so *sure* of this about yourself:

liberated from the oppression of someone elses words.........to stand naked to this universe in love with this universe, free of shame and guilt that some one else wants me to feel........

then why ask this:

what I realy want to know is why should I lessen my existence on someones word.
??


On one hand, you say that you have already dismissed the Christian notion of God, yet you keep on asking questions about it.
Either you haven't really dismissed it or are not sure about it, or something else is the matter here.

Rosa it is fair to say I use this logic to, the preacher needs to take a look at what he's preaching becasue somewhere in amongst his words is a need to have a look at him self.....I am not sure what this method is called.....

It is true I am trying to show why there is so much angst from others to the church.

What it is that is fundamental in theirs and mine declaration of religious and philosophical contradiction.

I see the church in a sort of bi-focal perspective, on one hand I respect the intention to love and to be generous but on the other I can't abide what I consider to be the ideologically entrenched notions that amount to self abuse.

So I guess I am trying to find a way in my mind that these two almost contra perpectives can co-exist.

And I admit I am having difficulty doing so.....

The reason for this thread was to ask for discussion on the contradiction that I find most appalling and that is that according to some God's love is conditional.
Conditional on believing in a state of inferior creation.

This I firmly believe is a man made conditionality and not one that rests with God or one that God would condone.

How can this polarisation of conditionality and unconditionality can be reconciled I have failed to discover so far.

It might be reasonably accurate to say this conditionality is man-made. We have set the parameters in which we allow God into our lives, and the measure to which we are prepared to follow Him. This is none other than sin. Maybe that's the reconciliation you're looking for? The prodigal son narrative.

God certainly won't condone everything in the name of love just so we could call it "unconditional".

It might be reasonably accurate to say this conditionality is man-made. We have set the parameters in which we allow God into our lives, and the measure to which we are prepared to follow Him. This is none other than sin. Maybe that's the reconciliation you're looking for? The prodigal son narrative.

God certainly won't condone everything in the name of love just so we could call it "unconditional".
ahh jenya ...this is why I like chatting with you.....

a question:

Is the churches love for God conditional or unconditional?

Well, churches as institutions don't love... people do, and churches facilitate. God wishes our love for Him to be seen in our actions towards each other, so it should be unconditional.
Romans 8:37
... in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I just think our capacity to love is hampered by many things, our own suffering included. But if God embodies that unconditional love, to what extent is it accessible to those who reject Him?

therefore it can be said that it is only our definition of that which is God whether it be the universe or Love that hinders our uniion.

For me I see God as a multiplistic sentience where as for you I guess you see him as single minded. This I think is the nub of contention.

The universe is a living organism with a huge diversity of sentience, from lesser animals to mankind. All those sentiences make up the mind of God.

Therefore we are Part of God already and every now and then the God to be shows up in the form of prophets and miracles......(but this is another story)

I believe that the single minded God that you speak of is yet to be........the evolution of God from multiplistic to single sentience.

In some ways religion is ahead of the times...ha...now there's another perpective.... :D

There are some fundamental problems with your theory, but I'll leave you and M*W to work them out. For one, it's somewhat naive to extend our life on earth to the universe and call it a living organism - with us as the "brain" or "heart" or whatever. We're not even living up to the definition ourselves.

What if we aren't part of God, and God is exactly who He says he is - the wholly Other?

What if we aren't part of God, and God is exactly who He says he is - the wholly Other?


"What if it is your belief that you are separate from God that keeps from being with God"

Ha! Nice try, but no cigar. What separated me from God was my blind addiction to the purely physical world - since God is Spirit. What connects me with God is my spiritual life, a faith that stretches beyond the grave, which is in conflict with all physical desires that demand immediate gratification. Christ, who entered the trappings of this world to serve it, mediates on my behalf for my salvation so I could have citizenship of God's world through Him.

Believe me, I know what separates me from God, and it's not my faith in Him.

aww...I like cigars.......

Jenyar,

Have given some thought to my behaviour in this thread and I thought I might try to explain.

Whilst I personally have had very little ideological distortion by the Church although I must admit I nearly threw up over what a pastor did a long time ago, my wife however did.

An example of what she endured as a child and early adult was the indoctrination of having to shower with underwear on.
Her devout Brazilian family believed that it was a sin to view her own body. For the best part of 25 years she never saw her own body other than parts that would normally be public.

Other very strange practices occured which I wont detail here.

I am sure she is not the only one to suffer these inhumane practices......other religions show similar draconian attitudes.

The problem I have is not so much with the enlightened or modern Church but with the 3rd world country type church that is maintained as correct and justified in beliefs and superstitions that to me are preposterous.

Jenyar I would consider you to be a modern Christian, and I think you would deplore some of these behaviours.

If I have been too strong in my responses and insinuations I appologise but unfortunatley I have to deal with the trauma that the church has inspired in my wife every day and I was in some way expressing my frustration....

QQ

this is why I feel that full acceptance of self, leads to full acceptance of others which leads then to acceptance of God.......this does not mean that we condone bad behavour but it allows us to accept it and deal with it in a way that removes the nastiness as we understand it's nature.

I'm truly sorry to hear what you and your wife had to go through. People who can't accept themselves are often drawn to the church for acceptance, unfortunately, their devotion to the church frequently only serves to cover up their real reasons for being there. I have come across very little of those draconian practices, although I've read about them as much as anyone. I've practically grown up in the church, and never has anything happened to come inbetween me and God. And South Africa is technically a third world country!

You are right, of course: a healthy attitude about yourself leads will translate into a healthy attitude towards others, and towards God. I don't condone unhealthy atitudes under any circumstances, but I also don't consider them to be indicative of the attitude God called us to. The Bible certainly doesn't teach us to be ashamed of ourselves - on the contrary.

The only shame is sin, and that is something Christ remedied. He wanted us to have confidence in our ability to know God and make peace with each other again. It is when people loose sight of Christ, and take pride in their own faith that their faith becomes smaller, ironically, and then they start looking for remedies, rules and compensations to attain what Christ has already attained for them. They spin themselves into paranoid coccoons of "purity" and think of themselves as "children of light" instead of being "a light to the world". That's simply deplorable. That's why I try to increase people's faith in themselves and in humnanity as far as I go. What Christ has made available to me is certainly available to everyone.

I'm truly sorry to hear what you and your wife had to go through. People who can't accept themselves are often drawn to the church for acceptance, unfortunately, their devotion to the church frequently only serves to cover up their real reasons for being there. I have come across very little of those draconian practices, although I've read about them as much as anyone. I've practically grown up in the church, and never has anything happened to come inbetween me and God. And South Africa is technically a third world country!

You are right, of course: a healthy attitude about yourself leads will translate into a healthy attitude towards others, and towards God. I don't condone unhealthy atitudes under any circumstances, but I also don't consider them to be indicative of the attitude God called us to. The Bible certainly doesn't teach us to be ashamed of ourselves - on the contrary.

The only shame is sin, and that is something Christ remedied. He wanted us to have confidence in our ability to know God and make peace with each other again. It is when people loose sight of Christ, and take pride in their own faith that their faith becomes smaller, ironically, and then they start looking for remedies, rules and compensations to attain what Christ has already attained for them. They spin themselves into paranoid coccoons of "purity" and think of themselves as "children of light" instead of being "a light to the world". That's simply deplorable. That's why I try to increase people's faith in themselves and in humnanity as far as I go. What Christ has made available to me is certainly available to everyone.I think you show a very healthy attitude Jenyar. You have increased my understanding, thank you.

Jenyar, thanks for your sympathies, I was reminded of another friend story

Do you recall some time ago in another thread I asked the question:
Does one need to know of Jesus to be a Christian?

Many years ago a Girl friend of mine lived in Fiji. She was born there and lived a very rudementary life growing up and eventually migrating here -Australia.

Any way the story she told me about Jesus, is this.

As Maya was an Indian Fijian her religion was very much Hindu and her language was Hindi. Part of their religious ritual was on a certain day place food and flower offerings to the Gods.

One year when she was about 18 she decided to place an extra offering to a god she had heard of called Jesus. Later after she found out who Jesus was she considered herself to be a Christian Hindu.
So my question about becoming a Christian with out knowing of Christ is an unusual yes.

Interesting story! You know that this is what happened when Paul was in Athens:
Acts 17:23
"Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
He essentially told them they were on the right track, but that they needed to know more!