So that would be a "no" to my direct question to you? You do not condone the behavior of the "God hates fags" crowd? That's good.
Last edited:
God doesnt love everyone?
- Thread starter kenworth
- Start date
So that would be a "no" to my direct question to you? You do not condone the behavior of the "God hates fags" crowd? That's good.
*************
M*W: Yeah, that's what the priest kept telling me when I would ask him a serious question. Then he finally told me to quit asking questions, because a woman shouldn't be asking questions! Yeah, it was a mystery alright.
Those Catholic priests can be nasty Med Woman!!! Why didn't you sue him for his gender based remark, I can't believe it, no wonder you left the Catholic church!!!
*************
M*W: I didn't try to sue him, because I was a good catholic!Well, that's not the reason I left. I left when I visited The Vatican and saw how pagan christianity was. Also, hordes of people went through St. Peter's kissing statues, praying to statues, like they were zombies. The whole idea of sun worship was so obvious as were the various and sundry Roman gods who dominated the place. That's where I got my very first inkling of astro-theology.
BG 9.29: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.
SB 1.8.28: My Lord, I consider Your Lordship to be eternal time, the supreme controller, without beginning and end, the all-pervasive one. In distributing Your mercy, You are equal to everyone. The dissensions between living beings are due to social intercourse.
etc etc
What worth is there in "friend" if God envies no one nor is partial to anyone?
Isn't "friend" a mark of favour - non-impartiality?
Answer = No.
LUK6:35 said:
How could God hate? We are all 'Sons' and 'Daughters' of God. While the Bible never specifically says "God loves everyone", Jesus especially speaks continuously of the importance of showing love towards everyone. In the days of the OT - Judeism was a tribal religion. Love did not include 'enemies' outside the tribe because a universal message of love would not have been acceptable. Jesus clearly exteds that love to all in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by Jews and vica-versa).
MRK12:31 said:
God's purpose is always to help... is always positive, because without love we live in fear and bring misery to ourselves and others! Such is the state of mind known as 'hell'. Salvation is when God leads us out of hell (addiction, violence, fear etc.) and into the state of love - of the gift of life.
The 'good news' is that help is at hand - your guide to life awaits you. But we don't have to accept guidance... we can stay as we are. Nothing is forced on us - we are free, as Jesus described in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Wave.png/400px-Wave.png
What can resemble GOD, devil, angel in above?
Last edited:
I thank you for your honest answer, sir. Although, the person I was asking continues to avoid the question.
Cheers LK - though I think I'm only stating what should be obvious!
1 John 4:8 said:
The 'gay' issue seems to be splitting churches apart - yet there are so many more important issues crying out for our energy & attention! It's all a huge red herring...
Jesus would have wept! :bawl:
The Bible says that we love God because God loved us first.
It's not about God loving us, it's about we loving God.
Purport
One may question here that if Krsna is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service? But this is not discrimination; it is natural. Any man in this material world may be very charitably disposed, yet he has a special interest in his own children. The Lord claims that every living entity--in whatever form--is His son, and as such He provides everyone with a generous supply of the necessities of life. He is just like a cloud which pours rain all over, regardless of whether it falls on rock or land or water. But for His devotees, He gives specific attention.
Unfortunately, while you may think that this resolves the apparent contradiction - it doesn't.
One can NOT be impartial in all things if you consider someone your friend.
"Any man in this material world may be very charitably disposed, yet he has a special interest in his own children." - i.e. the children get preferential treatment - in whatever form it might be.
But good try.
the point is that a charitable man is giving to all and everyone (he has nothing against 'everyone'), but he has a special relationship with his child. The analogy goes on to talk about how rain falls everywhere, even on places that cannot utilize the rainfall (rocks, ocean etc), however rain that falls on useful places (like wheat fields) yields a result not observable in useless places. Similarly since there are a variety of living entities in this world who have a variety of different attitudes towards god, they yield different results, even though they all receive the mercy of god equally - if god behaved in any other way he would violate our free will which would make performance of acts of love for the living entity toward god impossible
And this STILL fails to answer the apparent contradiction - as all you do is offer up different ways of looking at the same contradiction.
Define "special relationship" if it is not, in some way, preferential?
The rain, in your analogy, has no special relationship with anything it lands on.
Others might use what they're given - but there is no relationship. The rain does what it does in complete independence of what is beneath it (in your analogy).
If the "special relationship" was to change this independence in ANY way then it is no longer impartial - and thus non-equal.
Hence the contradiction.
The only alternative that conclusion is that the "special relationship" is irrelevant and means nothing.
Sorry to barge in... I think there is a way out of this apparent contradiction.
Perhaps the emphasis is on 'relationship' more than 'special'. A parent may love two children equally, but have a close (or special) relationship with one, which develops over time, while having virtually no interaction with the other (who moves far away and never rings home).
The parent may yearn for a relationship with the second, but out of respect not impose themselves. The parent is impartial and the love felt (money given etc.) towards each child is equal (like the rain) - but the relationship with each, and the level of interaction/interest is not.
Last edited:
Then it boils down to the alternative I gave - that the "relationship" is worthless.
If there is no benefit given, no benefit gained, to either party as a result of the "relationship" then of what value is it - to either party?
Person A has a "relationship" with a Bank.
Person B does not have this relationship with the Bank.
Both A and B receive from the Bank the same facilities on the same terms and conditions.
The Bank treats both A and B the same.
What does this "relationship" therefore actually mean? None of A, B, or the Bank benefit from this "relationship" or lack thereof.
Well... I think a relationship with an institution is not quite the same as with another 'being', which is it's own reward in terms of getting to know them and a growing sense of love/friendship between them which goes way beyond the practical advantages of mere co-operation.
Having said that, many banks are very keen to advertise themselves as 'friendly', showing smiling staff welcoming you into a beaming bank manager's office to advise you on how to invest your hard earned cash. A good relationship makes people feel that they are more than just an account number, and hopefully, if the relationship grows - they may come to trust the bank to help and advise them e.g. when they hit financial difficulties. The bank may be more trusting about extending loans etc. or suggesting services helpful to customer A's financial situation. A good relationship is therefore mutually beneficial in building trust, loyalty, mutual regard and understanding.
With no relationship, customer B is unlikely even to ask for help, or advice, and the bank will be more rigid about calling in debts etc. Neither side feels loyalty, trust or regard toward the other, and therefore get none back - they merely use each other while that is convenient.