The conditionality of Gods Love

[Jenyar]

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!

 

[Jenyar]

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?

 

[Quantum Quack]

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......

 

[Quantum Quack]

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?

 

[Quantum Quack]

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

 

[Jenyar]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

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.

 

[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.

 

[water]

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?

 

[philocrazy]

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

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.?

 

[water]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

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.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

 

[Jenyar]

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?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

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.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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?

 

[Quantum Quack]

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........

 

[Jenyar]

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, 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.