Jesus Loves You

[LittleLambofJesus]

You portray the insincere heart of a scorner quite well - and consistently too! Does that mean you're actually incapable of comprehending that others sincerely want to know?

Psalm 1:1 Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2Peter 3: this first knowing, that shall be coming on last of the days scoffers, according to the own of them desires going

Jude 1:18 That they said to ye that in last time shall be scoffers according to the own of themselves desires going of the ungodliness who should walk after their own wicked lusts

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Does that mean you're actually incapable of comprehending that others sincerely want to know?

Psalm 1:1 Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

I can comprehend that there are others like myself who want to know more about reality. From childhood I was able to imagine the existence of something transcendent, greater and more absolute than myself. I was trusting, submissive and vulnerable to what you call faith and to the notion of some external absolute moral authority. Despite being raised in an agnostic/atheist home, my life and mind were assaulted by the constant drum beat of Christianity. Kindergarten teachers started the indoctrination process behind my parents' backs. I got the message from well-meaning grandparents and neighbors. It came into my living room through the TV before I had developed the critical thinking skills which should have made me turn the channel. I accepted the bible as truth before I ever had a real chance to examine its claims in light of reason. I ended up giving my life and heart to Jesus at 14 and spent at least 30 years living with the consequences. So, yes I am aware there are sincere seekers. Some of them no doubt will believe because that is their main objective; i.e., to find something to believe in, because they are taught from a young age that faith itself is a virtue and such virtue requires an monarchial authority to tell them what to do. I can now look back and realize that the kindergarten song, "Jesus loves me for the bible tells me so" was a propaganda tool meant to convince me to believe long before I had lived enough life to understand the conditions I would find myself under after hitting puberty such as the default condition of biblical condemnation under the rule of judge Jesus. If Jesus loves me, then let him come pluck me out of the lake of fire which he prepared for the devil and his angels, and tend to my burns. Otherwise, you can just keep singing, Jesus loves me" to yourselves. Except you may want to add a verse about scoffers and scorners so children will know what not to be when they grow up.

 

[razeontherock]

With all due respect, you clearly are not content to let us sing "Jesus loves me" by ourselves, since you've insisted on being a haranguer in these parts.

I ended up giving my life and heart to Jesus at 14 and spent at least 30 years living with the consequences.

If Jesus loves me, then let him come pluck me out of the lake of fire which he prepared for the devil and his angels, and tend to my burns.

So I take it you turned your back on Him after said 30 years? However long ago that was, that's about how much older you are than I am. After 30 years I am not about to do anything but follow Him, as best I can. So I could make a few observations, as distinct possibilities:

1) You met an entirely different Jesus than I did. Don't laugh, as this is a clear possibility!

2) The book of Revelation pertains to your life so far, as well as your exit path out of said lake. This makes it no less painful, and the pain truly can thwart our powers of cognition. This would be the option to take if you did in fact meet the Christ at 14, and not a false one. You've shown clearly that you don't understand the difficult things of the OT, so starting in Rev now won't hurt to read it, but it won't be enough; you have to master the other 65 books first.


I see you taking no responsibility for how you got into said lake. Do you assert you got there by following Him, blamelessly? I do say this in compassion, although I rather expect that doesn't come across in this medium at all. I wasted years of my life shaking my fist at G-d, which is why I speak of Rev as present day deliverance. But I also had to see where I deviated from His path, even though some of that really was in the best of intentions. I expect we have lots of common ground, we just haven't seen any of that yet

Ray

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

2) The book of Revelation pertains to your life so far, as well as your exit path out of said lake.

I see you taking no responsibility for how you got into said lake.
Ray

I find this interesting. The word for "lake" is used only 11 times in the Christian Bible.
All in the Gospel of Luke and Revelation

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Lake mentioned 11 times.
5 times in Luke [Luke 5:1,2 8:22, 23,33] 6 times in Revelation

(lake)
occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 (Luk 5:1 - Rev 21:8)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7434988/
OC Jerusalem and Lake of Fire

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

1) You met an entirely different Jesus than I did. Don't laugh, as this is a clear possibility!

Before final deconversion, I did consider the concept of there being more than one Jesus. Without too much explanation, I'll just say it wasn't effective in saving my faith. I have to wonder if subconsciously I'm hoping that by arguing with Christians on here, it might provide an overlooked idea which could make belief possible again. To borrow a biblical metaphor, I'm like Lot's wife looking over her shoulder at Sodom, but in my case, I'm standing still to glance again at the charred memory of a burned-out Christianity from which rises the smoke of religious sentimentality. Sorry if I've taken it out on you personally Ray.

 

[razeontherock]

Honesty is good! Thanks for that, no hard feelings, all is forgiven.

What about this possibility?

It was the real Jesus you met, you really did get burned, and you really are looking at smoke rising, of something He destroyed. In which case, what was burned would have to be something that wouldn't endure past Judgment anyway. (One of many Scriptures to this effect would be 1 Cor 3:12 "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire")

You'll notice I don't take such a thing lightly, and I'm NOT asserting this is what actually happened. I do know people that've been in this position however, and since you're thinking about the subject anyway I present it for your consideration.

Whether there's any validity to this for you or not, the road ahead is still

1) determine the foundation
2) learn what is meant by gold, silver and precious stones
3) wood hay and stubble will then be much more evident.

Such passages also say the person is saved, only the work is destroyed. I doubt there's a Christian of 30 years who doesn't know that pain, but some of us linger on that side longer than others.

So as for the foundation itself, first of all I hate the term "fundamentalist."

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation"

Fundamentalism to me speaks of being in clear violation of this passage. Sometimes we're given clear insight that another person IS "on that Foundation," but seeing the opposite is something I'm much slower to accept. A person's own words can reflect a heart that completely violates that Foundation, but even that can deceive.

So if you care to examine your own Foundation, I personally think it's 100% appropriate in a thread entitled "Jesus Love You." Or maybe you're more comfortable putting that some other place? And you certainly don't need any of us here for that, but if nothing else has worked and you're asking for help ... yah, this is all familiar territory for me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
Honesty is good! Thanks for that, no hard feelings, all is forgiven.

What about this possibility?

So as for the foundation itself, first of all I hate the term "fundamentalist."

Fundamentalism to me speaks of being in clear violation of this passage. .

Did someone mention Fundamentalist? Count me in!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7350852/
GT Fundies. Who are they?

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Glass*Soul

Hi peaceful soul.

In the post as a whole, I was drawing a distinction between Jesus as conceptualized by Christianity and the historical Jesus. In the gospels, I fear that we are already getting a combination of both. Each of the four authors presented a portrait of Jesus that expressed what they had come to believe about him over a period of time. So one is meeting a person who was probably an historical figure, but one is getting him through the lens of decades of reflection. There are probably parts that are pretty raw and unadulterated and parts that are pretty digested and reflect somewhat later thought. I'm not skilled enough in historical-critical analysis to tease the two apart in a scholarly fashion. I have my inklings regarding a few passages but that is probably only really useful to me.

The historical Jesus is the one depicted in the Bible. Are you arguing that since people can and do reflect differently on things, especially over time, that we can't take the words of those who were either eye witnesses or knew the witnesses directly are not giving an accurate account of Him?

Even if you disagree with what I've said above, we must both agree that nearly 2000 years of history have intervened. Jesus, as conceptualized by the church, has been pushed and pulled this way and that, looking quite different in different places and different times and as presented for different purposes.

How would that change who He was reported to have been, given that these people reported what He said and did with an attempt to be unbiased. They were reporters. They were intent upon giving the facts. Even if people later created various views of Jesus, the reports are still available for us to see and study.

In answering the OP's claim that Jesus loves me, I first give my heart-felt response to the conceptualization of Jesus that Christianity has presented and is presenting.That Jesus often has existed solely to serve the church and the wants and desires of the church rather than the other way around.

There is no reason to believe that you are stating anything other than what you feel. I wouldn't accept anything less from you.

I need to understand your POV. Do you feel that a majority of Christians think that Jesus serves the Church? We are suppose to serve Jesus. There are people who have self serving motives and would act this way, but that doesn't change scripture and what it says about Jesus.

He generally does not come across as loving someone like me. He comes across in quite the opposite manner: as detesting someone like me and anticipating punishing me in due time.

Oh really. Can you elucidate? Where do you see this in the Bible?

One might even say that detesting the members of various out groups is his most well worn function, as demonstrated by how he is so often presented. There is huge power in being able to do that. Anyway, if you re-read my whole post you will see that asking me to defend part of my first paragraph purely by citing the bible would force me to leave a great deal of my thinking out.

The way Jesus is presented in the Bible is the most reliable stuff we have to understand and to know Jesus; so, how are you going to make your point in any other way that could be seen as objective?

I can present the beginnings of Christianity's use of the figure of Jesus to vilify and condemn out groups by citing from the Bible, but there is much more down through history and going on right now that has contributed to that impression.

The best way to make your observation and conclusion is by using the data contemporary to Jesus and His Apostles.

The challenge is to determine what you will do in light of the fact that some people are getting the distinct impression that Jesus not only does not love them but hates them and will some day hurt them. One possible reaction is to call the impression ridiculous. If you have enough power you can actually have it both ways. That is one of the perks of truly massive power.

I am lost by your use of 'power'. What is it that is written in the Bible that shows that Jesus does not love you? Please use context when discussing.

If you are interested I will give you a walk-though of the book of Mark that outlines why I answered the question again in regard to the historical Jesus the way I did in my second paragraph. The bible is my main reference point in that half of my answer.

OK. Go for it! Please use context.

 

[razeontherock]

I know where she's going with this. It's gonna get dark, but it's always darkest before the dawn so damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

 

[Glass*Soul]

Instead let me address the thread title, that Jesus loves you, from the very valid angle of Glass Soul saying she doesn't think so. She has given ample and sincere reasons to think and feel like that.

YouTube - ‪Who Am I - Casting Crowns‬‎

Lyrics are there, sorry I can't cut and paste them so you have to watch the vid. I wrote them all out to create my cheat sheet for this tune but my puter crashed since then, gotta go practice ...

I think this song says it rather well!

Thank you Zeena. It would be interesting to also see how much time this student of Gamaliel had spent in Jerusalem from childhood to seeing the Lord, as the Bible is completely silent on all of that. Jane, the song expressly did NOT address you in the least, but does directly address Glass Soul, as I stated. And I never insulted you. You've simply chosen to argue for it's own sake, w/o any basis.

I've been debating with myself as to whether I should reply to the song you posted in address to me. Sometimes when someone posts a song, or a picture, or a poem, or such it is simply meant as a picture of how something feels--an expression of what otherwise might seem ineffable. It doesn't seem quite right to debate a gesture of that nature. One simply says thank you.

So, thank you for posting the song.

I have decided, however, that the words to the song deserve, or even demand debate. Moreover, I have concluded that you would probably not mind the content of the debate and so I will go ahead.


Who am I
That the lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt
Who am I
That the bright and morning star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart
Not because of who I am
But because of what you've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who you are
I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind...
I am yours.

That isn't all the words, but what I've left out does not add to or change the message of the song.

A relationship that is entirely one sided, in which one of the persons is entirely without merit beyond that which the other condescends to impute by the nature of his person, does not go to what I would define as love. If I use the term "love" in that way, I lose its use for those relationships which are based on voluntary mutuality--mutual respect and generosity toward one another being of primary importance. (It might create a footnote to what I am saying here to point out that I have developed this definition out of my study of the gospel of Jesus.)

The analogies of flower, wave and vapor fall short of a crucial element needed in a loving relationship in that they are not capable of voluntary mutuality. Human beings, however small and fleeting our existences may be, are self aware and thus can be with one another another in a way unique to such beings. If there is a being to whom we can direct only flattery and self deprecation, then we are reduced to simply existing beside that being. The being-with that love (as I would define it) demands must have an element of voluntary mutuality (as opposed to mere symbiosis) or it ceases to be.

There are those who imagine a God who grows along with us, learning from us what it is to be a moral being (as Jung suggested, beings who because of their puniness, helplessness, and defenselessness are forced into self-reflection). As a non-theist, I believe that the figure of the Son of Man that Ezekiel glimpsed on the sapphire throne is and always has been a projection of our own natures. The projection enjoys more or less consciousness as we ourselves learn to or fail to reflect upon the human experience. I hope that the more conscious it becomes in mankind as a whole the more aware we will become that we are seeing a reflection of ourselves, and the less evil we will do in its name and in our own.

Over time, I have come to suspect that Jesus grokked that the surest route to the fullest possible consciousness of the being on the throne is to treat one another with the very mutuality (of respect and generosity) I have mentioned above, and that the identity of the figure on the throne will be made manifest most quickly and efficiently when we nurture this mutuality with the least amongst us: the poorest, the most helpless, the most damaged. As Matthew 25 states, when we do this we find that they are mystically Christ. It is Christ to give and it is Christ to be in need. The concept creates a circle of mutual respect and generosity.

He seems to have thought he could prompt this awareness to such a degree, in one generation, in one place, and within the framework of the standing religion, that it would culminate in a nationwide mystical experience in which the Son of Man would arrive as from heaven, as if with angels. That the curtain would radically be torn between ourselves as ourselves and ourselves as projected as Deity. That the identity of the one on the sapphire throne would be fully and forever revealed.

Tragically he was wrong. I suspect, in reading his story, that his sense of himself, of his powers as a leader, of his ability to address the depths of need in the crush of the crowds that came to surround him, of his invulnerability to the powers that be, were too grandiose.

Would he have loved me? I would have been a faceless statistic in the sea of humanity that threatened to crush him physically, and one suspects, spiritually. He was a man with a man's limited ability to love each and every one who surrounded him. In theory he would have wanted to have loved me and would have wanted to find himself responding to me in like kind if I had reached out to him in such a way as to have have closed that circle of mutuality. I think. His seeming coldness to John the Baptist's plight worries me a little...

After piling up such a weight of faith over 40-some years, I want to give him the benefit of doubt on that count. I think it is better though to plainly doubt. I think it is, for me, a part of the processes of uncovering the deity. That's a good thing. I chose to doubt.

As for the Jesus sometimes created by the church at its most monstrous and by those caught up in the gears of that grinding monstrosity? It does not love me. It's not even human. I try to stay out of its way. The persons caught in the gears of that machine are a different matter, and if I can find a chink in the workings of the monster big enough for a little mutual respect to pass between, that makes me particularly happy. I hope that if they have the eyes to see the true nature of whatever machines have been invisibly working me that they will do the same.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I know where she's going with this. It's gonna get dark, but it's always darkest before the dawn so damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!

Are we getting there? Or have I gone off on an unexpected tanget (better knows as a sleep-deprived rant).

 

[Glass*Soul]

originally posted by Glass*Soul

The historical Jesus is the one depicted in the Bible. Are you arguing that since people can and do reflect differently on things, especially over time, that we can't take the words of those who were either eye witnesses or knew the witnesses directly are not giving an accurate account of Him?

An accurate account of a life condensed to the length of a Gospel is a difficult thing to obtain. To attempt it decades later almost guarantees that it will be colored by the intervening reflection that is natural to mankind. That's not a bad thing. It's just good to keep it in mind.

How would that change who He was reported to have been, given that these people reported what He said and did with an attempt to be unbiased. They were reporters. They were intent upon giving the facts. Even if people later created various views of Jesus, the reports are still available for us to see and study.

Our modern zeitgeist seems to demand such. I don't know that this was actually what the writers of the gospels held as an ultimate goal. Telling the story in such a way as to communicate his significance, his spirit, his meaning to them as gained over time might have been more important. Strict chronology and word perfect quotations are very important to us in certain settings (and instant replays if they can be produced), but not so much to writers at that time. This is part of context.

There is no reason to believe that you are stating anything other than what you feel. I wouldn't accept anything less from you.

I need to understand your POV. Do you feel that a majority of Christians think that Jesus serves the Church? We are suppose to serve Jesus. There are people who have self serving motives and would act this way, but that doesn't change scripture and what it says about Jesus.

I suspect it is mostly unconscious. I doubt most Christians have the guile to do it in a perfectly deliberate manner.

Oh really. Can you elucidate? Where do you see this in the Bible?

Jesus as conceptualized by the church.

The way Jesus is presented in the Bible is the most reliable stuff we have to understand and to know Jesus; so, how are you going to make your point in any other way that could be seen as objective?

Agreed, but I was not trying to paint a portrait of the Jesus of the Gospels but Jesus as put forward by the church over time. That Jesus is often put to use to condemn and to provide the anticipation of a horrific punishment against those who don't get with whatever program is being tendered as serving orthodoxy for the nonce.

The best way to make your observation and conclusion is by using the data contemporary to Jesus and His Apostles.

I am lost by your use of 'power'. What is it that is written in the Bible that shows that Jesus does not love you? Please use context when discussing.

OK. Go for it! Please use context.

Give me a few days. I work weird hours that have me doing nothing but working and sleeping for stretches of time. I'm just coming to the end of two days off, but I felt pretty bad yesterday.

As for context, I will try my best, but I often find that I do not mean the same by "context" as those who insist I'm not using it. (I've been known to quote large blocks of scripture to anchor the verses I'm commenting on, disregarding paragraph breaks, while tying the passage to corresponding work in the Old Testament, commenting on the traditions of the the times and contrasting then with our own, only to have someone protest, "but you're not reading it in context. ) We'll see if you think I've managed it when I'm done.

(If the only context someone accepts is orthodoxy, I will probably disappoint. I'm an atheist!)

 

[Zeena]

A relationship that is entirely one sided, in which one of the persons is entirely without merit beyond that which the other condescends to impute by the nature of his person, does not go to what I would define as love.

There are many persons incapable of reciprocal love; infants, the mentally challenged, those who have built up walls in self defense of their heart, ect, ect..

Are you not implying that they are undeserving and/or incapable of being loved?

Really, please think about that.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Again, this [that is: taboos and conventions] speaks TO "the Lord of all the Earth."

One small interjection here, razeontherock:

If that were the case, wouldn't we expect these taboos and conventions to be the same, or at least similar enough to detect an underlying common ground?

As it is, they are hugely diverse, and without any detectable thread connecting them all:

Israelites/Jews mustn't eat shellfish.
Muslims are compelled to only eat the meat of animals who've been conscious when their throat was cut.
Hindus must stay away from beef, as cows are regarded as holy.
Inuit fathers need to wear their pinniped coat inside out when it seems like their newborn child might be destined to become a shaman.
African tribesmen venerate monozygotic twins.
Americans consider public breast feeding to be indecent or even immoral.
Germans think that addressing a waitress with her first name is inappropriate.

And so on and so forth.

 

[Glass*Soul]

There are many persons incapable of reciprocal love; infants, the mentally challenged, those who have built up walls in self defense of their heart, ect, ect..

Are you not implying that they are undeserving and/or incapable of being loved?

Really, please think about that.

I do not believe that infants, the mentally challenged and persons with damaged personalities are entirely without merit beyond that imputed to them by more mature, capable or whole individuals. We are enriched by interacting with them. One could make a case that there are those who are so impaired that they are no more responsive than an object. In those instances we tend, out of respect, to make the possession of human DNA a bright line that demands a certain level of care even when the distinguishing marks of humanity are absent. I tend to think of these as the exceptions that prove the rule. We know that there is something significantly different in these relationships though we may act as if there is not.

My mother died two years ago after a decline of several months. In the last week of her life she did not respond even if I placed her hand on the head of our cat. (This was the last sort of physical stimulation that she was able to respond to, moving her hand in a slight stroking motion.) When that was gone I continued to care for her body out of respect for the person who had made use of it. I do not consider what passed between me and her body at that point as love. It was important. We had loved each other. There was much sentiment involved, but not love as I tend to define it.

I don't think it's important that you and I use the word in exactly the same way. I do, however, protect the definition I have and don't allow the word to be appropriated in my thinking for things that stray too far from a minimum requirement. I could give an extreme example, but it would only polarize what should be a delicate discussion. If you have cared for someone who was beyond responding in any way and wish to call that love, I would not argue with you. I would want to honor your labor. Using the word in that way does not strike me as significantly far from how I would use it.

The song, however, really crossed a line for me.

 

[Zeena]

*snip*
extreme example

I believe we are the "extreme example", in that we've sinned and God has still demonstrated His Love for us.

Romans 5:7-8
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Pet 3:18a
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God

 

[b&wpac4]

I believe we are the "extreme example", in that we've sinned and God has still demonstrated His Love for us.

and that's the major difference. I think God showed His love without some sort of sacrificial death.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This is where Eudaimonist Mark's comment "Humans are not Orcs" comes into play, methinks.

It's one of those factors that I've never quite understood about, shall we say... conventional Christianity: how can you even talk about love (either for yourself, or your neighbour, or even for God) when all you see in yourself and others is TOTAL DEPRAVITY. (The "T" in the Calvinist TULIP, if memory serves...)

It's such a bleak and utterly unrealistic assessment of everything we are and can be - just as unrealistic as seeing us as utterly "perfect", morally unambiguous creatures striving solely for what's right.

There's a deep, significant difference between "Peter once looked at his best friend's wife and thought that she's hot" and "Peter is totally depraved". Just as there's a difference between "Jack cares deeply for his fellow man" and "Jack is morally immaculate in every deed, thought, and feeling".

 

[Zeena]

and that's the major difference. I think God showed His love without some sort of sacrificial death.

God demonsrated His unconditional Love for me, even when I was found a sinner.

In the Judaic religion, it takes a sacrifice to do that, for sin separates man from God. Therefore one must wait 'till even to be cleansed.

I am continually cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb.

Rom 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

 

[b&wpac4]

In the Judaic religion, it takes a sacrifice to do that, for sin separates man from God. Therefore one must wait 'till even to be cleansed.

No it doesn't. It does not take a sacrifice.

Honestly, Christians get upset when I interpret their beliefs, why do you feel you get to interpret mine?

We are told many times the way back to God is repentance and that sacrifice was not the way back.