"GOD's Unfailing Love"

[Israelite007]

I would like to take a moment to discuss the topic that has been bugging me lately which was brought up at the synagogue. Joseph mentioned that God's love is seen as unconditional in christianity however he said that it is not unconditional. I agree. Think about it How could GOD draw unrepentant sinners to him if he "Loves Them" already that's false! I can't find one passge in scripture that says GOD's LOVE is unconditional this is a theological christian evangelistic theorem. GOD's love is eternal and UNFAILING not UNCONDITIONAL> It requires relationship with GOD of LOVE and us loving him. His word is clear he hates the wicked and the wicked hate him,he hated Esau and probably Cain too. He hates them for their wickedness not for their humanity. He has compassion on all his creationof humanity if they would only seek his face if they would only turn from their sinful ways then GOD would heal them with his love. What is the way we can experience GOD's Eternal Unfailing LOVE? I believe it is through Mashiach! Is there any other way do you think?
Malachi 1:2-3
[ Jacob Loved, Esau Hated ] "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
See Deut 6:1-5, Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
I believe this is why the Mashiach or Messiah said The 1st commandment is to LOVE GOD. Because he then blesses it ten fold.
This is just a spiritual philosophy based on the written word do you think it meshes with truth?
Enjoy your Shabbat! (Sabbath is friday sundown to saturday sundown) I'll see your replys on monday!

[de Silentio]

I can't find one passage in scripture that says GOD's LOVE is unconditional this is a theological christian evangelistic theorem

Agape. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. When looking for unconditional love, you have to go back to the original language.

The problem with the English word 'Love' is that the one word describes many different types of love. Whereas other languages (I can quote Greek and Danish) use different words for the different types of 'Love'.

What is the way we can experience GOD's Eternal Unfailing LOVE?

By entering Heaven through Jesus' sacrifice.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Israelite007

I would like to take a moment to discuss the topic that has been bugging me lately which was brought up at the synagogue. Joseph mentioned that God's love is seen as unconditional in christianity however he said that it is not unconditional. I agree. Think about it How could GOD draw unrepentant sinners to him if he "Loves Them" already that's false! I can't find one passge in scripture that says GOD's LOVE is unconditional this is a theological christian evangelistic theorem.

So, are you saying that God loves only under certain conditions? Because according to scripture, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Romans 5:8 says, "But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The doctrine of conditional love justifies eternal damnation. It would also assume that God makes decisions based on feelings or human emotions.

Would God tell us to unconditionally love our enemies and then do the opposite for himself? What if you disagreed with everything the people in your church said, would they still love you?

[Solace]

God loves his children unconditionally. The way that any parent loves their child. As for those who aren't his children, well, they're plum out of luck.

[Vasska]

I had to look up my copy of the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for this, since George Carlin said it so beautifully;

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man - living in the sky - who watched everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever 'til the end of time... but remember He loves you!

- George Carlin

I find it strange that people can't figure out something like this by themselves while reading the bible. But that's me speaking as an atheist.

I sldo find comments as the one from Solace quite disturbing, even more disturbing is that more and more people seem to think this way lately.

Originally Posted by Solace

God loves his children unconditionally. The way that any parent loves their child. As for those who aren't his children, well, they're plum out of luck.

He Says God love "his childeren" - aren't we all equal in each and every way? - unconditionally, however many believers fear God. I find it disturbing to know someone loves me unconditionally but at the same time has to look at me every minute of the day if I'm not doing anything wrong.

His second remark; "As for those who aren't his childeren, well, they're plum out of luck. really proves my point that many religious peoples are damned elitists that base there elitism on a book and the idea of a God being there.

I think we should be fair here that if this God really exists we should not say that he loves unconditionally for he does not, it has been proven in the old testament, and in lesser extent in the new testament.

The rules are simple; life the way of the God you believe in and you earn his love, if not you'll be burning in hell, i would not call that unconditional and unfailing love.

[Didymos Thomas]

Carlin, like Dawkins, spends his time attacking the silliest incarnations of spirituality available. The difference is that ole George is a comedian, Dawkins pretends to be a great scholar, and that Carlin's goal is to root out the silliness while Dawkins is supposed to be a serious scholar.

Bringing up inconsistencies in beliefs of numerous people is disingenuous. It's okay for a comedian to take on the easy claims of silly people. Dawkins should do better than that - unfortunately, he prefers to stick with a caricature of religion.

Claims like 'God loves everyone, except the ones he doesn't love, and those poor bastards are out of luck' are silly on their face.

Instead of Dawkins, read Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell. They were not afraid to address the meaty religious claims. Dawkins lives off intellectual table scraps.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Carlin, like Dawkins, spends his time attacking the silliest incarnations of spirituality available. The difference is that ole George is a comedian, Dawkins pretends to be a great scholar, and that Carlin's goal is to root out the silliness while Dawkins is supposed to be a serious scholar.

Bringing up inconsistencies in beliefs of numerous people is disingenuous. It's okay for a comedian to take on the easy claims of silly people. Dawkins should do better than that - unfortunately, he prefers to stick with a caricature of religion.

Claims like 'God loves everyone, except the ones he doesn't love, and those poor bastards are out of luck' are silly on their face.

Instead of Dawkins, read Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell. They were not afraid to address the meaty religious claims. Dawkins lives off intellectual table scraps.

That's another way to look at it, and I must agree Dawkins indeed does
search for easy prey time to time, and for what he achieves he acts way to serious. However people like Dawkins are needed to appeal the masses to read something about atheism instead of knowing only the meaning of the word.

I must say I love Nietzsche, but for many people books like the Antichrist are way to hard to understand, and from what I found many mainstream religious people think rather at Dawkins level than Nietzsche's. It's just the way the world is.

[Didymos Thomas]

That's another way to look at it, and I must agree Dawkins indeed does
search for easy prey time to time, and for what he achieves he acts way to serious. However people like Dawkins are needed to appeal the masses to read something about atheism instead of knowing only the meaning of the word.

People have no use for Dawkins-like characters. If they want to learn about atheism, they would do better to avoid Dawkins and read people like Russell. Dawkins is dangerous because, given his preferred target, he makes atheism look a great deal sillier than it really is.

People like Dawkins will push people away from atheism, and will only rally the already atheist leaning base - which is exactly what he relies on for book sales. Well, that and an agent. Dawkins is the cheap romance novelist of atheism.

I must say I love Nietzsche, but for many people books like the Antichrist are way to hard to understand, and from what I found many mainstream religious people think rather at Dawkins level than Nietzsche's. It's just the way the world is.

It's called study. If someone only understands Dawkins, they do not understand much at all and therefore need to spend more time studying.

Someone people do not care to understand - that's the way the world is. For those who do, we can do better than Dawkins. We must do better than Dawkins.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

People have no use for Dawkins-like characters. If they want to learn about atheism, they would do better to avoid Dawkins and read people like Russell. Dawkins is dangerous because, given his preferred target, he makes atheism look a great deal sillier than it really is.

People like Dawkins will push people away from atheism, and will only rally the already atheist leaning base - which is exactly what he relies on for book sales. Well, that and an agent. Dawkins is the cheap romance novelist of atheism.

It's called study. If someone only understands Dawkins, they do not understand much at all and therefore need to spend more time studying.

Someone people do not care to understand - that's the way the world is. For those who do, we can do better than Dawkins. We must do better than Dawkins.

You win, thinking about it for a second time Dawkins is more the cheap romance novelist of atheism (I love that sentence) than the one who promotes atheism in a more sophisticated way like Russel or Nietzsche.

But before I am crossing Dawkings of my list i must stress one point in which he was completely right; Why must a child be a Muslim, christian, catholic, jewish child only because his parents are. Why the labeling. Why isn't the kid labeled an communist, democrat etc. Why is a child not allowed to believe something else, or at least given the choice to believe in something else; why is it accepted that religion is forced down the throat of a helpless child. (He however failed to put this in his book correctly and only wasted about 16 pages about it and rambled on another 20 about something irrelevant and ending up defending a pedophile, the moment i stopped reading).

[Dustin]

Who was first the atheist or the religious man? Labels are silly. ;-)