God and love?

[SpheresOfBalance]

True love is from the holy spirit. The answer to your question is that 'love' without righteousness is not truly love. ... Inasmuch as a junkie loves shooting up, they also hate heroin. But true love is righteous.

Jesus says there is no greater example of love than to lay down ones life for friends. The type of love gays possess is apathetic of others, of future generations, it is divisive; so this is not laying down ones life; but he who strives to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for Jesus sake will find it. And gay 'love' it's more about sex, in actuality; sex has been confused with love.... love has actually been forgotten. Spiritual love between friends I have felt, there is nothing gay about that. But carnal love is a sin because of its implications; in the same way incest is a sin. All things are clean to me, but not all things edify - this is what Paul says about carnal sins.
One possible perspective to suit your biased need to feel superior, in the eyes of your god, though you can't even really know your god.

In the wake of Global Warming, a fact, homosexuals can only help the problem thus laying down their genetic continuance, in the name of lessening the effect, thus buying more time for your twisted offspring, that will probably bash the next gay, that's buying them more time.

Thats how perspectives are my friend, usually narrow of true vision. One concentrates on only a singular aspect, thus serving their selfish needs. There is no truth in such things. The absolute truth in such things is usually far to complex and involved for small minds to ponder.

So, to make the answer short - it does not edify, it is an unwillingness to lay down your life for your friends, and it is not from the holy spirit.

Nope there's a much bigger picture than that.

[Arising_uk]

...
So, to make the answer short - it does not edify, it is an unwillingness to lay down your life for your friends, and it is not from the holy spirit.

And yet there is a long history of gay soldiers doing just that?

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
So, to make the answer short - it does not edify, it is an unwillingness to lay down your life for your friends, and it is not from the holy spirit.

And yet there is a long history of gay soldiers doing just that?

Of course there is!

Why do people always need to downplay another to qualify their own existence, when in fact the differences between us are just randomness of experience, dependent upon a random location at a random time in space? If people could only understand the pettiness and ignorance of their not being able to see past their own nose.

I would never tie down the freedom of Christians because of their selfish un-acted upon beliefs. Everyone should be just as free to live their particular brand of life as everyone else, barring their brand threatening another's of course.

[ianrust]

x

[ianrust]

Show me the gay soldiers in history who were laying their life down for their friends, in altruism. By laying down ones life, I do not mean getting payed to do patrols. I mean jumping on a grenade, or something like this. It will be a rare case, not one which you witnessed; but the idea of someone being, permanently, 'gay' is nonsense anyway. I know 2 gay men right now who are questioning whether they're gay and one of them is dating a girl. These are flaming gays, too. So, it is not so clear cut... people can overcome their inhibitions, many people struggle with their religious beliefs throughout their whole lives.

[ReliStuPhD]

Abraham didn't kill Isaac (small, but important point).

Incorrect, he murdered him!

Incorrect. Check again.

For him to truly sacrifice a life in the name of love, he would have had to instead teach his child as much as he could about survival before committing suicide, so his child only had one mouth to feed, the situation was famine related, no? If not it makes no difference, because still one can only sacrifice their own life, it is only ever murder to end another's life, never a sacrifice! This is only one reason I earlier said that Christians say all kinds of insane crap.

You've missed the point. I'm not defending Abraham's decision to (almost) kill his child. What I am defending is the notion that it could, in fact, be an act that does not put self first. As a father, I cannot conceive of any decision I might make to kill my son that could be considered selfish since I'd quite willingly let hundreds or thousands of people die if it meant he lived. So the point was not whether what Abraham did was good or bad, but whether it was, as you (or someone else?) described it, selfish. This father sees it differently

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own. So it is at least possible that Abraham was putting someone else (in this case, God) before himself.

There's absolutely no proof that God commanded Abraham to do anything. That's the funny thing about schizophrenics in that ignorant time, they could say anything, and be believed. Then fast forward thousands of years while the likewise ignorant defend them, because they too are oblivious to knowledge, or at least what it takes for it to exist.

And if true, how could one know that it wasn't a test, that in fact he failed?

This is a red herring. Even if he was mistaken, Abraham (we can assume) believed he had been commanded as such. Whether God commanded it or not is not the point (at least not the point for this particular avenue of discussion). We can certainly debate that, but the point I was responding to was that Abraham's decision to obey what he took to be a command from God was somehow selfish. I disagree. Strongly. That does not, however, mean his decision was the right one.

Christians, always attempting to twist evil doing by their kind into something grand. I guess god wants little choir boys to be molested too. Oh no that has to wait for another several thousand years of dislocation, and biblical rewrites before that can be sold as gods command.

Perhaps so. I'm an apostate for reasons that mirror those thoughts (though I consider them to be based in rationality, unlike what you've presented here).

Sorry but logic dictates that a truly loving creator of everything loves everything equally, and would not have another destroy that which it creates, especially an innocent child.

Logic dictates no such thing. Your opinion dictates, sure.

Screw what Abraham supposedly had to face, lets look at the child for a second, as if your god didn't. How evil your kind actually are, it blows my mind!

And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.

Disclaimer: I consider Abraham to be a myth, and the story to be a (bad) telling of how one puts personal desires after divine commands. If such a case were to happen, however, I would consider the more rational answer to such a command to be "no," insofar as I don't see that particular move as anything God would command (i.e. I would be more inclined to take a "voice from Heaven" telling me to do that as the Devil).

How convenient, so your previous was just BS, like the rest of course! Many of you types are quite insane!

No, I just have a brain that works. Do you? I can debate a specific point without having to make it about the issue writ large. Can you? Insane people often aren't able to discuss hypotheticals rationally. Perhaps your barb was meant for yourself? My previous was an argument intended to show how the assumption that Abraham was being selfish was just that: an assumption. I cannot help that you were incapable of understanding a fairly simple argument.

[ianrust]

Loyalty to God until death is essential to Christianity. Without this, people do not follow any moral absolute. Abraham does not need to be excused because he did nothing wrong. What he did is a show of faith; and faith prevailed. God can resurrect a dead person.

[ianrust]

True love is from the holy spirit. The answer to your question is that 'love' without righteousness is not truly love. ... Inasmuch as a junkie loves shooting up, they also hate heroin. But true love is righteous.

Jesus says there is no greater example of love than to lay down ones life for friends. The type of love gays possess is apathetic of others, of future generations, it is divisive; so this is not laying down ones life; but he who strives to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for Jesus sake will find it. And gay 'love' it's more about sex, in actuality; sex has been confused with love.... love has actually been forgotten. Spiritual love between friends I have felt, there is nothing gay about that. But carnal love is a sin because of its implications; in the same way incest is a sin. All things are clean to me, but not all things edify - this is what Paul says about carnal sins.
One possible perspective to suit your biased need to feel superior, in the eyes of your god, though you can't even really know your god.

In the wake of Global Warming, a fact, homosexuals can only help the problem thus laying down their genetic continuance, in the name of lessening the effect, thus buying more time for your twisted offspring, that will probably bash the next gay, that's buying them more time.

Thats how perspectives are my friend, usually narrow of true vision. One concentrates on only a singular aspect, thus serving their selfish needs. There is no truth in such things. The absolute truth in such things is usually far to complex and involved for small minds to ponder.

So, to make the answer short - it does not edify, it is an unwillingness to lay down your life for your friends, and it is not from the holy spirit.

Nope there's a much bigger picture than that.

I've known gays well and I can say this from experience with them.

Gays pervert society and undermine its foundation, influence family values, cause a massive argument which spreads bitterness and brings us to a crippling halt. Perversion has been steadily increasing from one generation to the next, society has a role in raising children as much as parents do.

I don't believe they know what love is, it seems to be all about sex. Their relationships fall apart at a tremendous rate, they sleep around more than any other demographic. Sex basically rules their lives.

The solution for anyone born gay is to simply be celibate. This is a compassionate solution for them. I haven't met one who was truly happy. They know they're out of balance, what they do is not natural. They can't feel right doing it, they have a higher rate of suicide than almost any other demographic, they feel disgusted by it and by themselves. When they stop, they feel better. Depression goes away. Many say they feel more liberated than they ever have. Their lives improve. This fact does not need to be dissected any more than to say this is how it is; celibacy = liberation.

I know 2 gay males right now who are turning straight. And i've met more of them who question it. Infact I've known alot of gays that turned gay after sexual or physical abuse. A person is not simply 'gay', that is far too simple. People are complex, people are born into a world out of balance corrupted by original sin, and they're struggling to find their way back to normalcy (to do so, they can only follow Jesus). So gays have their paths to walk. BTW, everyone else struggles along their paths too, I'm a bit tired of everyone focusing so much on the gays.

If gays are concerned about slowing overpopulation, they can simply not have kids. I am not having kids. But I may adopt some kids if I find a good woman. Still, we know the earth is passing away. But I do not say gays are devoid of any redeeming qualities; infact they are often more well mannered and concerned for others than straight people. Everyone has original sin in them, the only way to purge it is through Jesus - and that is loyalty unto death, if necessary. That kind of loyalty can overcome anything, and that is what a Christian must live up to.

The greedy lawyer, the arrogant athlete, the gays, the alcoholics / drug addicts, the single moms, the working fathers, the whores, the porn addicts, the medical people, the police, the government employees, the blacks / poor underclass... not a single person in society does not have some tremendous problem unique to them. But, loyalty to Jesus overcomes every one of these problems.

[ReliStuPhD]

I've known gays well and I can say this from experience with them.

▲ this is completely undermined by this ▼

Gays pervert society and undermine its foundation, influence family values, cause a massive argument which spreads bitterness and brings us to a crippling halt. Perversion has been steadily increasing from one generation to the next, society has a role in raising children as much as parents do.

I don't believe they know what love is, it seems to be all about sex. Their relationships fall apart at a tremendous rate, they sleep around more than any other demographic. Sex basically rules their lives.

The solution for anyone born gay is to simply be celibate. This is a compassionate solution for them. I haven't met one who was truly happy. They know they're out of balance, what they do is not natural. They can't feel right doing it, they have a higher rate of suicide than almost any other demographic, they feel disgusted by it and by themselves. When they stop, they feel better. Depression goes away. Many say they feel more liberated than they ever have. Their lives improve. This fact does not need to be dissected any more than to say this is how it is; celibacy = liberation.

I know 2 gay males right now who are turning straight. And i've met more of them who question it. Infact I've known alot of gays that turned gay after sexual or physical abuse. A person is not simply 'gay', that is far too simple. People are complex, people are born into a world out of balance corrupted by original sin, and they're struggling to find their way back to normalcy (to do so, they can only follow Jesus). So gays have their paths to walk. BTW, everyone else struggles along their paths too, I'm a bit tired of everyone focusing so much on the gays.

If gays are concerned about slowing overpopulation, they can simply not have kids. I am not having kids. But I may adopt some kids if I find a good woman. Still, we know the earth is passing away. But I do not say gays are devoid of any redeeming qualities; infact they are often more well mannered and concerned for others than straight people. Everyone has original sin in them, the only way to purge it is through Jesus - and that is loyalty unto death, if necessary. That kind of loyalty can overcome anything, and that is what a Christian must live up to.

You don't know LGBTQ folk well at all.

[ianrust]

I have 2 close friends who are questioning their homosexuality right now, and I know of others. One of them I've spent a good amount of time with for about 8 years. Not just idle questioning, seriously questioning it. And they're doing that on their own. SO... what?

[ReliStuPhD]

I have 2 close friends who are questioning their homosexuality right now, and I know of others. One of them I've spent a good amount of time with for about 8 years. Not just idle questioning, seriously questioning it. And they're doing that on their own. SO... what?

3 people does not make "knowing well." It's akin to me saying "I know Christians well. They're nasty people, who couldn't care less about others, only their servitude to the wicked God of the Old Testament. They show very little love and spend most of their time condemning others with a holier-than-thou attitude. When they explain their faith, it's clear that it's pure fantasy and not even remotely close to anything one could consider rational." And then, when challenged on whether I actually know Christians, I reply with "I have 2 friends who are questioning their Christianity and I know of others."

So no, you don't know LGBTQ folk anymore than the vast majority of atheists who post here know Christians. All you've done it laid out the worst stereotypes with respect to the gay community. You might as well have said "I know black people well. They're lazy good-for-nothings" because you met 3 black people who were moving out of an inner-city slum. What you've done is the easiest trick in the book, and one of the most fallacious. If you expect atheists to fairly present Christians by not relying on a sample size they could count on both hands, you'll need to do the same with LGBTQ folk. Spending time with a few who question who they are is hardly grounds for claiming to "know" and entire category of humans.

So no, you do not "know" gays "well." All you know are the crudest stereotypes.

[Immanuel Can]

Side note: I observe that apparently Blaggard has been banned from the board permanently, so we can't expect him to finish this thread any longer, nor will an answer for him on our question be forthcoming.

Apparently he indulged in a bit of vituperation against Rick, and thus precipitated his demise. They posted "Bye Bye Blaggard" on the site, and it contains the relevant details of his departure.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Abraham didn't kill Isaac (small, but important point).

Incorrect, he murdered him!

Incorrect. Check again.
So supposedly, according to wikipedia he didn't kill his son, but to me it still doesn't matter, because my actual main concern with this topic is the term "sacrifice," how it's been used by the so called religious. Sorry but no creator of everything would call the killing of an animal, a sacrifice. Sacrifice by anyone can only be considered as such, if the person that is said to sacrifice, denies himself something. To deny an animal it's life, is no sacrifice, to deny your child his life is not a sacrifice. Here of course I speak of relativity. The degree at which something can be seen as true. To kill an animal that one normally eats anyway is not a sacrifice relative to killing oneself. If one kills themselves they pay the ultimate sacrifice, the only "real" sacrifice, because it's easy to kill something else, and not yourself as the killing of something else is always to sustain your life, at the expense of the other. Logic dictates that it's just a convenient term that man has twisted to serve his needs, 180 degrees out from it's true meaning.

Love can only be about "SELF" sacrifice, The point in my mind is that no self respecting god would confuse the two. This ambiguity I see between mans vision, and that of an all knowing creator, is so wide a gap, that it makes many claims in the bible, and by god fearing people, utterly ridiculous. It's obvious to me that much of the bible was written by men without the consent of a creator, because of this disparity of what it is to be a man or a creator. So I then scoff at those foolish/ignorant/stupid enough to believe in such absurd notions as if they could have any real godlike substance.

Bottom line, ones love can only be shown by their OWN sacrifice, not ever by the, so called, sacrificing of another. This is a HUGE problem in the bible, which is one of the many things proving that man created god and not the other way around. In other words, if those things reported in the bible, said to be sanctified by a god, sound more like a man than a god, then they probably are.

For him to truly sacrifice a life in the name of love, he would have had to instead teach his child as much as he could about survival before committing suicide, so his child only had one mouth to feed, the situation was famine related, no? If not it makes no difference, because still one can only sacrifice their own life, it is only ever murder to end another's life, never a sacrifice! This is only one reason I earlier said that Christians say all kinds of insane crap.

You've missed the point. I'm not defending Abraham's decision to (almost) kill his child. What I am defending is the notion that it could, in fact, be an act that does not put self first. As a father, I cannot conceive of any decision I might make to kill my son that could be considered selfish since I'd quite willingly let hundreds or thousands of people die if it meant he lived. So the point was not whether what Abraham did was good or bad, but whether it was, as you (or someone else?) described it, selfish. This father sees it differently
Wrong, in my book, no one has to do anything anyone says. If a man is holding a gun to my head saying that he will blow my brains out, if I don't confess to a murder I didn't commit, I have the option of telling him to piss up a crooked stick, that I'm innocent and shall never cop to that which I've never done. So if a god tells me to sacrifice my child, I choose the love of my child over my god, as he obviously is no god at all. If a god asks gods elder son to kill gods younger son, he loves neither one of them. For an infinite lived god to ask a finite lived creation to kill another finite lived creation shows no love whatsoever. For a god to place his "DESIRES" for one to always and ever obey him, over this love between father and son, a love that he himself should have for both of them is hypocritical and illogical. Because it's a sure way to erase the possibility of the child's love of god forever in that moment, while severely tainting, if not destroying the love of the father he asked to kill his son, that is if LOVE be TRUE!

You say Abraham was unselfish, not true, as you see only one perspective, yours. You choose your child over god so it seems logical that so would Abraham. But if you can say that Abraham's love of god was greater than for his son then he was indeed selfish. Do you really believe that you of today can get into the mind of a several thousand year old mans, where the world was much more harsh relatively speaking. His selfishness chose his god, because he believed his god could do much more for him than his son. Very selfish indeed.

It's very common indeed for people to project todays visions/understanding/Standard Operating Procedures on people of thousands of years ago, because they are incapable of imagining anything else but what they know. Very hard indeed. So much so, that to speculate what was in a mans mind or heart all those years ago is almost always biased by what serves the man who's contemplating it today. Largely because he can always argue it, and no one can necessarily prove it wrong.

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own. So it is at least possible that Abraham was putting someone else (in this case, God) before himself.

There's absolutely no proof that God commanded Abraham to do anything. That's the funny thing about schizophrenics in that ignorant time, they could say anything, and be believed. Then fast forward thousands of years while the likewise ignorant defend them, because they too are oblivious to knowledge, or at least what it takes for it to exist.

And if true, how could one know that it wasn't a test, that in fact he failed?

This is a red herring. Even if he was mistaken, Abraham (we can assume) believed he had been commanded as such. Whether God commanded it or not is not the point (at least not the point for this particular avenue of discussion). We can certainly debate that, but the point I was responding to was that Abraham's decision to obey what he took to be a command from God was somehow selfish. I disagree. Strongly. That does not, however, mean his decision was the right one.
Yet your strong disagreement was dismissed quite effectively above. You project what was in Abraham's heart from your perspective as if you could possibly know it. If his love of god was greater then his acceptance of gods command was indeed selfish, choosing god over son. And again, what true god would display such selfishness. As it's best to lead humans by example, not by threat! Everyone knows this today. So your omnipotent god was oblivious of human nature?

Christians, always attempting to twist evil doing by their kind into something grand. I guess god wants little choir boys to be molested too. Oh no that has to wait for another several thousand years of dislocation, and biblical rewrites before that can be sold as gods command.

Perhaps so. I'm an apostate for reasons that mirror those thoughts (though I consider them to be based in rationality, unlike what you've presented here).
You attack my rationality, without ever seeing it complete. You should know by now the limitation of such a venue. It's a cheap shot, of either ignorance or your red herring, a bait and switch tactic. Just as improper as you characterize my line of incomplete communication. It's far better to always play this game honestly, and ask instead of formulating accusations born of ignorance.

Sorry but logic dictates that a truly loving creator of everything loves everything equally, and would not have another destroy that which it creates, especially an innocent child.

Logic dictates no such thing. Your opinion dictates, sure.
Not at all, as I've presented above quite effectively. God treating Abraham as he did was in fact illogical, self defeating. Not loving at all, quite the contrary. Whether true or not matters not, as no way is it clear that there can be anything good that came out of such a story. unless of course you're saying that god is not omnipotent, that he's just a babe in the woods.

Screw what Abraham supposedly had to face, lets look at the child for a second, as if your god didn't. How evil your kind actually are, it blows my mind!

And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.
Believers of a god as presented in the bible, no?

Disclaimer: I consider Abraham to be a myth, and the story to be a (bad) telling of how one puts personal desires after divine commands. If such a case were to happen, however, I would consider the more rational answer to such a command to be "no," insofar as I don't see that particular move as anything God would command (i.e. I would be more inclined to take a "voice from Heaven" telling me to do that as the Devil).

How convenient, so your previous was just BS, like the rest of course! Many of you types are quite insane!

No, I just have a brain that works. Do you?
So I'm pissing you off, heh? Another shot below the belt? My brain works better than yours, your ignorance assumes that I have made it's logic, completely, available to you. And that my friend is a fools game! Can you really judge an entire novel by reading the first word? So you're clairvoyant then, huh? Of course if you're like IC you'll shut me down as being far too broad, yet your god is supposed to be everything. Which makes that sound kind of impossible.

I can debate a specific point without having to make it about the issue writ large. Can you?
And so here you go, complaining that I see things on a much larger scale than you do. That you and IC can't see the forest for the trees is not my fault, it's yours! Of course like he does, you can run and hide, making believe that I'm not worthy of your consideration, because I swamp you. Well at least IC does.

Insane people often aren't able to discuss hypotheticals rationally. Perhaps your barb was meant for yourself?
Well they say there is a fine line between insanity and genius. I believe if anywhere I'm just on the genius side of the line. OK maybe quite a bit inside that line, but still I'm no mans fool!

My previous was an argument intended to show how the assumption that Abraham was being selfish was just that: an assumption.
And mine was to say that your argument that he was not selfish was just as much an assumption. That it was a matter of perspective that you projected upon him, without possibly being capable of actually knowing what was inside his head/heart. Rather that you would just like it to be that way, and so you've made it so, at least in your own mind.

I cannot help that you were incapable of understanding a fairly simple argument.
No it's I that cannot help you see the errors of your logic or philosophy, because you cling so tightly, defending it at all costs, something that you think shall grant you ever lasting life in heaven.

My final thought on this is that god does not necessarily show any love at all, at least in some circumstances as presented in some texts. Thank "GOD" that man has come to supersede gods version of love, at least as presented in some biblical texts, with a more truthful and honest love, that's "unconditional." One can sacrifice him/her self for another not under any kind of threat. I fear no god, and I see it this way. Because I believe in the golden rule, or rather my version, that I've dubbed, "The fundamental Social Axiom," (no need to associate selfish gain with something so fundamentally true), to fix the issues as presented by philosophers. It actually predates the biblical texts, and incarnations are found in many many cultures. Maybe because it's only logical!

Love is "self" sacrifice! (Actually as much self sacrifice that any human is actually capable of, in light of the fact that there is no such thing as a One Hundred Percent Selfless Act.) Love has nothing to necessarily do with any god!

[ReliStuPhD]

I had a lot of responses ready, but then I got to this gem. In the interests of shortening the conversation rather than lengthening it...

It's very common indeed for people to project todays visions/understanding/Standard Operating Procedures on people of thousands of years ago, because they are incapable of imagining anything else but what they know. Very hard indeed. So much so, that to speculate what was in a mans mind or heart all those years ago is almost always biased by what serves the man who's contemplating it today. Largely because he can always argue it, and no one can necessarily prove it wrong.

You've undermined yourself quite well here. Thanks for doing my work for me.

Ooops, one more:

And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.

Believers of a god as presented in the bible, no?

Do you know what "apostate" means?

[ReliStuPhD]

Side note: I observe that apparently Blaggard has been banned from the board permanently, so we can't expect him to finish this thread any longer, nor will an answer for him on our question be forthcoming.

Apparently he indulged in a bit of vituperation against Rick, and thus precipitated his demise. They posted "Bye Bye Blaggard" on the site, and it contains the relevant details of his departure.

If only retribution was as swift for others.