God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Bradskii]

Agreed. I love the first amendment, and hate to see it ignored. It is there for a good reason. I am against establishment of religion, against theocracy, until it is Christ himself ruling as King. Not a substitute, not a representative, not clergy running a theocracy.



Ha! Nobody can hold God to account. But it would be interesting (to put it nicely) to watch someone try.

So you are concerned because occasionally some (I notice you left the word 'Christian' out of it) might (and some have, I agree) believe it's actually God commanding them to commit an atrocity. Why are you concerned about this instead of about those who are committed to such things as a general principle?

More to the point, why do you not separate this matter into two categories --insanity, and sanity? Why religion? And if you know of a religion where this is policy, either stated outright, or merely hinted at, as currently taught or practiced general principle or command, why lump the rest of religions in with it? If I didn't know better, I'd say you hold some kind of antagonism or bias against religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

You gave the answer to that last question. If we have a politician or some other leader who asks us to do something that we think is immoral, then we can refuse. We can debate the matter. We can look at the arguments for and against. We can look at what the likely outcomes would be. We can hold that person to account.

But if you truly believe it's God that's doing the asking? Then none of those options are then available. The person who believes it might well say 'Nobody can hold God to account.'

 

[Mark Quayle]

You gave the answer to that last question. If we have a politician or some other leader who asks us to do something that we think is immoral, then we can refuse. We can debate the matter. We can look at the arguments for and against. We can look at what the likely outcomes would be. We can hold that person to account.

But if you truly believe it's God that's doing the asking? Then none of those options are then available. The person who believes it might well say 'Nobody can hold God to account.'

And if a tyrant who occupies the office, or the Congress, does it for other reasons --such as supposed social good-- what options are available? They are a law unto themselves, they don't answer to anyone. Why pick on religion? Nobody is "holding that person to account" either.

But hopefully we keep the 1st Amendment, and if we don't hold a leader to account for any other reason, I expect the media and Congress will on the basis of its prohibition of government establishment of religion.

 

[BigV]

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Because God has no true rivals that are equal to Him.

You have to read the whole bit on love. It says love does not seek it's own benefit. Does God seek his own benefit? Love does not keep an account of wrong suffered, but God of the Bible rushes to judgment. Eating of the forbidden fruit results in the ETERNAL punishment and not only for those who ate of the tree of knowledge, but for everyone after them. Is this love?

 

[BigV]

In God's case, He has the RIGHT to begin with, just as our wives have the RIGHT to expect us, their husbands, to focus on them and not on "other women."

Conveniently for God, he can do anything and everything and remain loving. In fact, there is absolutely nothing that would make God unloving. He could torture entire planet, drown everyone in flood, and then throw them in hell. Save one fellow, and that person would call God loving and sing his praises.

 

[Bradskii]

And if a tyrant who occupies the office, or the Congress, does it for other reasons --such as supposed social good-- what options are available? They are a law unto themselves, they don't answer to anyone. Why pick on religion? Nobody is "holding that person to account" either.

But hopefully we keep the 1st Amendment, and if we don't hold a leader to account for any other reason, I expect the media and Congress will on the basis of its prohibition of government establishment of religion.

The point I'm making is that there are options. Maybe not one's that will work in any given situation, but we can debate the morality of the action being commanded. Even soldiers in war time can refuse to obey an order that they think is unlawful (or immoral). But if you truly believe that the command is from God - then you don't have those options. God is literally a law unto Himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have to read the whole bit on love. It says love does not seek it's own benefit. Does God seek his own benefit? Love does not keep an account of wrong suffered, but God of the Bible rushes to judgment. Eating of the forbidden fruit results in the ETERNAL punishment and not only for those who ate of the tree of knowledge, but for everyone after them. Is this love?

So God answers to the rules like everyone else? He WROTE the rules.

God is not like us. He is not one our peers, and humans are not his peers. You can't make him answer for the standards he sets for us. But if you must know how love fits God, he seeks the benefit of those he loves. He does not keep record against those he loves of the wrongs they have done him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point I'm making is that there are options. Maybe not one's that will work in any given situation, but we can debate the morality of the action being commanded. Even soldiers in war time can refuse to obey an order that they think is unlawful (or immoral). But if you truly believe that the command is from God - then you don't have those options. God is literally a law unto Himself.

People debate the morality of God's commands all the time! We have those options. But, yeah, I know what you are trying to say, and it is a good point, except that I think it neglects one huge point: "When God shows up, there is no doubt." When someone "knows" it is God, they can be wrong, and hopefully at least have the common sense to reject when what they are told contradicts what God has said.

Regardless, I insist you have less to worry about from Christians than you do from unbelievers, as far as atrocities.

 

[Bradskii]

People debate the morality of God's commands all the time! We have those options. But, yeah, I know what you are trying to say, and it is a good point, except that I think it neglects one huge point: "When God shows up, there is no doubt." When someone "knows" it is God, they can be wrong, and hopefully at least have the common sense to reject when what they are told contradicts what God has said.

Regardless, I insist you have less to worry about from Christians than you do from unbelievers, as far as atrocities.

Generally agree. But I might change that last senetence from 'unbelievers' to 'other believers'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Generally agree. But I might change that last senetence from 'unbelievers' to 'other believers'.

Ha! I don't expect you to get specific about which other believers that may be...

 

[BigV]

So God answers to the rules like everyone else? He WROTE the rules.

Does God not follow his own rules? If not, why do you expect to enjoy heaven? Perhaps God will torture people there worse than those in Hell. After all, God can do anything he wants and still be loving.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You have to read the whole bit on love. It says love does not seek it's own benefit. Does God seek his own benefit? Love does not keep an account of wrong suffered, but God of the Bible rushes to judgment. Eating of the forbidden fruit results in the ETERNAL punishment and not only for those who ate of the tree of knowledge, but for everyone after them. Is this love?

I predict some special pleading in the future.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Does God not follow his own rules? If not, why do you expect to enjoy heaven? Perhaps God will torture people there worse than those in Hell. After all, God can do anything he wants and still be loving.

God is consistent. I can count on him to accomplish what he set out to do. His rules for us are not his rules for himself. It kind of amazes me that so many don't really mind the two-tiered justice system in this country, yet complain when God makes rules for his creatures, to which he is not subject.

You do know the difference between ludicrous and sensible, right?

 

[Bradskii]

God is consistent. I can count on him to accomplish what he set out to do. His rules for us are not his rules for himself. It kind of amazes me that so many don't really mind the two-tiered justice system in this country, yet complain when God makes rules for his creatures, to which he is not subject.

You do know the difference between ludicrous and sensible, right?

I'm not following that. It seems like you're saying that members of the legislature aren't subject to the laws they make.

 

[BigV]

God is consistent. I can count on him to accomplish what he set out to do. His rules for us are not his rules for himself. It kind of amazes me that so many don't really mind the two-tiered justice system in this country, yet complain when God makes rules for his creatures, to which he is not subject.

You do know the difference between ludicrous and sensible, right?

well, you are contradicting yourself. God has special rules for himself, yes? So, God will judge people based on their words and actions but he has given himself a pass for not following his word.

Matthew 21:21 says you will receive whatever you ask in prayer. But that’s false because you only receive what everyone else receives. John 14:12 says that he who believes in Jesus will do the works of Jesus. Yet, it doesn’t work that way. So how can you trust God for promises you cannot verify when those promises you can verify all fail?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not following that. It seems like you're saying that members of the legislature aren't subject to the laws they make.

Correct. That is what I'm saying.

 

[Bradskii]

Correct. That is what I'm saying.

Why wouldn't they be? Is a member of congress not required to obey the same laws as you?

 

[Mark Quayle]

well, you are contradicting yourself. God has special rules for himself, yes? So, God will judge people based on their words and actions but he has given himself a pass for not following his word.

No. God has no rules for himself. He is the source and reference for the rules he gave us. He is not subject to anything. He is pure spirit, pure self --he is the default fact. What attributes and principles we apply to him, WE apply to him. He is not subject to them. If there is any worth or truth to the attributes and principles we ascribe to him, they are him. If they are true, then they are not something he must live up to, but they are what they are because they are from him. I once read something I wish I could find, saying something along the lines that "God is not good because it is good to be so. No, indeed, goodness is what it is, because God is good."

To say that God must obey something he has said he is, is a bit like saying that water must obey the principle of being wet.

Matthew 21:21 says you will receive whatever you ask in prayer. But that’s false because you only receive what everyone else receives. John 14:12 says that he who believes in Jesus will do the works of Jesus. Yet, it doesn’t work that way. So how can you trust God for promises you cannot verify when those promises you can verify all fail?

God's promises don't fail. It does work that way --he who believes in Christ will do the works of Christ. You take verses out of context, ignore the meaning, style and use of the language, and beyond that, you make a claim that is patently false. You say, "...you only receive what everyone else receives." Truth is, we all receive things according to God's use for us. No two receive the same.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why wouldn't they be? Is a member of congress not required to obey the same laws as you?

No. Even the ones they are 'required' to obey, if they do not, nothing generally happens to them. The whole bunch is corrupt.

 

[Bradskii]

No. Even the ones they are 'required' to obey, if they do not, nothing generally happens to them. The whole bunch is corrupt.

So we don't have a two tier system. It's just that you think that some people feel themselves exempt from what we do have.

But God does have this two tier system. As in 'Do what I say, not what I do'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So we don't have a two tier system. It's just that you think that some people feel themselves exempt from what we do have.

But God does have this two tier system. As in 'Do what I say, not what I do'.

But he does do it. His love is perfect. It is just not the same to one person as to another. People are not God's peers. He owns us. We don't own each other, to do with as we please. God has every right to do with us as he pleases. For God to wipe out a whole society is his right to do. The right to life is endowed by the Creator --not by peers.