Could there be a Greatest or Ultimate Truth for God?

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In a single sentence...

Love is wisely acting in the best interest of others.

Alternatively:
Love is the commitment to the good of someone.

"Someone" because that someone could be oneself.

Whether it is a simply act of kindness or the forfeiture of your physical life, it is the fact that the action was taken in the best interest of another person that makes it an act of love. However, I say "wisely" because such a statement could be taken to an extreme that is anything but wise. For one thing, just because you feel like something is in someone else's best interest doesn't mean that it actually is. Giving a beggar on the street corner money, even though it feels like a kindness, might actually be the worst possible thing you could do. Also, acting in someone else's best interest when it means disaster for yourself isn't usually a wise thing to do. That's why Jesus said to love others as you love yourself. Notice in that directive that loving others is predicated on loving yourself and therefore, acting in someone else's best interest is not necessarily in conflict with your own interests. Indeed, most often, there is no real conflict of interest between righteous men.

Clete

Agreed.
 

Eric h

Active member
If we are completely united with God in purpose,

I have been trying to think of an analogy that defines purpose. Maybe its like designing a formula 1 racing car, everything about design is focused on one single purpose - winning races. This one purpose of winning races has been the driving force that engines, gear boxes, steering etc have evolved over the last century at the cost of billions of dollars. Design is always a compromise, if you design the best racing car, it will be useless for a builder to carry the tools of his trade.

Is there one single purpose so great that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance that his son would die? And knowing in advance the suffering of mankind if we went against God's purpose.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have been trying to think of an analogy that defines purpose. Maybe its like designing a formula 1 racing car, everything about design is focused on one single purpose - winning races. This one purpose of winning races has been the driving force that engines, gear boxes, steering etc have evolved over the last century at the cost of billions of dollars. Design is always a compromise, if you design the best racing car, it will be useless for a builder to carry the tools of his trade.

Is there one single purpose so great that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance that his son would die? And knowing in advance the suffering of mankind if we went against God's purpose.
Who, besides Aristotle and Plato says that God knew those things in advance? Not the bible!

He planned for them to be sure but KNEW in advance, definitely not.
 

Eric h

Active member
He planned for them to be sure but KNEW in advance, definitely not.

Thanks for bringing more clarity to my sloppy use of words.

It does make more sense that God hoped Adam and Eve would obey what seems to be a seemingly innocuous law. I guess God knew that once mankind had disobeyed a fairly small law, we would then go onto disobey all the important laws, hence the chaos of today.

When Jesus said that it was his choice to lay down his life, this makes more sense if it was a contingency plan set before creation began. But what purpose for creation can be so great, that God would ask his son to sacrifice his life if things went wrong?

The written word is not my strong point, so please feel free to correct any more glaring errors.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Thanks, I like that definition, especially the acting wisely.

Thanks for bringing more clarity to my sloppy use of words.

It does make more sense that God hoped Adam and Eve would obey what seems to be a seemingly innocuous law. I guess God knew that once mankind had disobeyed a fairly small law, we would then go onto disobey all the important laws, hence the chaos of today.

When Jesus said that it was his choice to lay down his life, this makes more sense if it was a contingency plan set before creation began. But what purpose for creation can be so great, that God would ask his son to sacrifice his life if things went wrong?

The written word is not my strong point, so please feel free to correct any more glaring errors.
How amazing a place would TOL be if even half the people here had this sort of attitude!

Understanding that freedom of the will is a real thing and that people, including God, have real choices to make not only allows us to relate to God in a much more meaningful way but it just makes the whole Christian faith make more sense. This includes the answers to questions such as the one you posed here. The purpose for creation is love! God created us so that He could love us and so that we could love Him. Relationship is the central theme of the entire Christian faith. It is THE very purpose of creation and as such it is THE most important thing.

As for God the Son being willing to sacrifice His life if things went wrong, I would just point out that while Jesus did sacrifice His life, He did not sacrifice His existence. There are two ways in which Jesus suffered death. He suffered spiritual death when He was forsaken by the Father (Matthew 27:46) and He suffered physical death when His spirit separated from His physical body. This separation is what it means to die. It is not a matter of existence, it is a matter of spiritual condition. If your spirit is separated from your body, your body is dead. Likewise, if your spirit is apart from the Father, your spirit is dead. Thus, Christ died in just the same way as anyone else has ever died. He willingly suffered this death, spent three days in this condition and then He took up His life again (John 10:18, Revelation 1:18).

Those of us who have died in Christ (Galatians 2:20) do not fear physical death because we know that to be absent from the body (i.e. physical death) is to present with the Lord (spiritual life). Thus Christ's death restored that which man had destroyed, that which is the very purpose of creation itself, the relationship between God and man!

How awesome is God!

Clete
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Thanks for bringing more clarity to my sloppy use of words.

It does make more sense that God hoped Adam and Eve would obey what seems to be a seemingly innocuous law. I guess God knew that once mankind had disobeyed a fairly small law, we would then go onto disobey all the important laws, hence the chaos of today.

When Jesus said that it was his choice to lay down his life, this makes more sense if it was a contingency plan set before creation began. But what purpose for creation can be so great, that God would ask his son to sacrifice his life if things went wrong?

The written word is not my strong point, so please feel free to correct any more glaring errors.
I've been thinking through this idea of what God had planned and what He didn't. I think there was a purpose in so innocuous a test--that the first couple would fail, though there could have been other tests if they had not on the first one. Remember that Jesus endured 3 temptations in the wilderness, not just one. But if He had failed the first one, the 2nd and 3rd would have been unnecessary.

The reason He needed the first couple to fail, and before they had children, I expect, was related to how salvation works. To save Adam, for instance, seems to require the savior to be a descendant of Adam. If that's the case, then if the first couple protested prior to sinning, then all of their offspring that sinned after that would have required a separate savior. As there us only one Son of God, some offspring would then not be able to be saved.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I've been thinking through this idea of what God had planned and what He didn't. I think there was a purpose in so innocuous a test--that the first couple would fail, though there could have been other tests if they had not on the first one. Remember that Jesus endured 3 temptations in the wilderness, not just one. But if He had failed the first one, the 2nd and 3rd would have been unnecessary.
One thing that should be kept in mind here is that we don't really know that the test was "so innocuous" as you suggest or as the scant details we are given in Genesis might lead one to believe. In other words, there may have been a great deal more discussion between the Lord and Adam about this Tree and the rules surrounding it. What we are told in Genesis doesn't have to be the whole story and in fact, I strongly suspect that it isn't.

The reason He needed the first couple to fail, and before they had children, I expect, was related to how salvation works. To save Adam, for instance, seems to require the savior to be a descendant of Adam. If that's the case, then if the first couple protested prior to sinning, then all of their offspring that sinned after that would have required a separate savior. As there us only one Son of God, some offspring would then not be able to be saved.
While it is clear that Adam and Eve did fall before Eve became pregnant, I don't think your logic follows about needing multiple saviors had that not been the case.

First of all, there was no NEED for a savior at all. God was perfectly fine before He created human beings and could have chosen to simply kill Adam and Eve and been done with it. Of course, in His wisdom and mercy, He chose otherwise but the point is that He didn't have to do so. So, if Adam and Eve hadn't rebelled and one of their sons did, then God would not have had to provide for their salvation at all. He could simply dispose of the offender(s) and continued on with those who had not rebelled.
Further, even if God did decide the provide salvation for those who rebelled, why wouldn't His death provided for that salvation the same way it does now? Just because Adam didn't sin doesn't mean that those children of his that did wouldn't have been fully and totally normal human beings the same as Adam. The only difference is that, instead of the whole population being fallen, you'd have two separate populations, one righteous, the other fallen. I see no logical reason to think that the same sacrifice that saved the whole couldn't have been made for part of the whole.

Incidentally, on the subject of Adam and Eve's rebellion prior to procreating, there is a pretty good argument to support the idea that they fell on the Friday after their creation (i.e. they were created on Friday the 6th Anno Mundi). It has to do with menstruation cycles and when Eve would have been fertile and requires some amount of speculation and so there's no way that anyone could be dogmatic about it but if it happens to be accurate then that Friday, a week after their creation, would have been the last day that Eve would have likely not been able to get pregnant and if that is indeed when they fell, then seven days after they were created would make it the first Friday the 13th and that would go a long way toward explaining the historical origins of the superstitions surrounding Friday the 13th, which are as ancient as history itself.

Clete
 

Derf

Well-known member
Always lots of good thoughts from you, Clete.
First of all, there was no NEED for a savior at all. God was perfectly fine before He created human beings and could have chosen to simply kill Adam and Eve and been done with it. Of course, in His wisdom and mercy, He chose otherwise but the point is that He didn't have to do so.
He didn't have to create them in His image, either, but once He did, it seems like He saddled Himself with some responsibility to honor His own image, yet also to be just.
Further, even if God did decide the provide salvation for those who rebelled, why wouldn't His death provided for that salvation the same way it does now? Just because Adam didn't sin doesn't mean that those children of his that did wouldn't have been fully and totally normal human beings the same as Adam. The only difference is that, instead of the whole population being fallen, you'd have two separate populations, one righteous, the other fallen. I see no logical reason to think that the same sacrifice that saved the whole couldn't have been made for part of the whole.
This kind of goes back to the rules for justice and mercy, which I don't know what they were for God, or what makes Him have to follow any rules in the first place, except as it befits His character. So my supposition is just that--and it leads to speculation.

But let's continue down the road a bit, assuming as I did, that Jesus' sacrifice only benefits those in the same line as His. So if Adam hasn't sinned, but Cain and Seth had, then Abel wouldn't need a savior, but Cain and Seth would. Adam also had other sons and daughters, so there might be several that sinned and several that didn't. And then, Abel died in the real story, but since he hadn't sinned, there was no curse of death on him, so he could have eaten of the tree of life and survived the attempted murder and had children, some of whom were sinners and some not. The sinner families would need a savior, while the non-sinners wouldn't, except for their kids that sinned. Etc., etc. Once you pass that first opportunity, there's no going back. God would have to deal with all the different dailies that had a sinless patent separately, under my supposition. There could quickly be millions or billions of people that need a separate savior.

You suggest that God would not have to save them all, and that's a possibility, but it goes back to my first point--the image of God.

Not providing a savior for all also would not allow statements like, "For God so loved the world..." to be uttered, because it wouldn't be true. It's the same argument most of us here have with Calvinism. God can't both love a person and also not allow that person to be edit from His salvation plan.

Any plan that does not allow all of His imaged children the possibility to be saved is one that denies His own character.

Incidentally, on the subject of Adam and Eve's rebellion prior to procreating, there is a pretty good argument to support the idea that they fell on the Friday after their creation (i.e. they were created on Friday the 6th Anno Mundi). It has to do with menstruation cycles and when Eve would have been fertile and requires some amount of speculation and so there's no way that anyone could be dogmatic about it but if it happens to be accurate then that Friday, a week after their creation, would have been the last day that Eve would have likely not been able to get pregnant and if that is indeed when they fell, then seven days after they were created would make it the first Friday the 13th and that would go a long way toward explaining the historical origins of the superstitions surrounding Friday the 13th, which are as ancient as history itself.
Interesting thoughts.

On Eve's first fertility, there are a lot of paths of logic (or biology) that can allow for more than that amount of time, and a few that allow for less than that amount of time.

On the source of Fri 13 superstitions, your supposition makes a fair amount of sense.

I'll have to disagree with you about Friday 13 superstitions being as old as history. History goes back to the first day of creation, which was, as you have pointed out, 12 days before the first Friday the 13th.
 

Eric h

Active member
The purpose for creation is love! God created us so that He could love us

You defined love as wisely acting in the best interest of others; but is this the greatest way that God can love us? Or could it possibly be that God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself. Would this be the greatest way that God could love us?

Relationship is the central theme of the entire Christian faith. It is THE very purpose of creation and as such it is THE most important thing.

Absolutely agree with you, and we can do nothing greater than live by the two greatest commandments. If Jesus gave us these commandments, they would have been relevant for him as Jesus the man. But Jesus is also God the Son and he said, if you know me then you know the Father.
 
Last edited:

Eric h

Active member
if the first couple protested prior to sinning, then all of their offspring that sinned after that would have required a separate savior.

Jesus died once and for all. It is within God's power to make this happen. This only seems to make sense if these plans were set in place before the creation of the universe and life began.

I wonder if first we can search for one Greatest GOOD purpose for creation, then we could come back to these other questions later.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Jesus died once and for all. It is within God's power to make this happen. This only seems to make sense if these plans were set in place before the creation of the universe and life began.

I wonder if first we can search for one Greatest GOOD purpose for creation, then we could come back to these other questions later.
Greatest good for Him or for us?

For Him, it would be hard to say, but it is His pleasure to create, being a creative person.

For us, as He is the definition of good, it is for us to understand that and act accordingly. The greatest good would be for us to be in complete submission to Him at all times. But that's not the greatest good purpose. The greatest good purpose for God toward us is to make us happy, aka give us an abundant life. But to do so, He knows we have to recognize His wisdom to know that His will is best for us. That would mean we "diligently seek Him". And He will reward us, not with things, necessarily, but with whatever makes our lives more abundant.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Always lots of good thoughts from you, Clete.
If so, its only because I've had good teachers.
He didn't have to create them in His image, either, but once He did, it seems like He saddled Himself with some responsibility to honor His own image, yet also to be just.
Responsibility?
To whom?

Would it have been unjust for God to kill Adam and Eve? I don't see how.

The fact that God loved Adam and Eve and was able to see the benefit of saving the human race is what made the cost of doing so worth paying. God's action was one of love, not obligation.

This kind of goes back to the rules for justice and mercy, which I don't know what they were for God, or what makes Him have to follow any rules in the first place, except as it befits His character. So my supposition is just that--and it leads to speculation.
I understand what you're getting at here but your own terminology may be the source of the confusion. There are no rules of justice, per se. That is to say that justice doesn't emanate from nor is it defined by a list of rules. Justice is a principle. As such, you can make a list of rules that are just but the rules come from justice, not the other way around.

The principle of justice is not as complicated as many think. Justice is simply getting what you've earned. When this principle is applied to criminal matters the result is an eye for an eye, where it is done to the criminal as he has done to his neighbor. When applied to normal relations between men it becomes love your neighbor as you love yourself. When applied to our relationship with God, it becomes love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength because we've been given all of those things by God and they belong to Him anyway.

So, justice and righteousness are not two different things. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Hebrew language doesn't even have two separate words for justice and righteousness or at least that's what I've been told. Surely, you don't believe that God is righteous because He has followed a list of rules - right?

But let's continue down the road a bit, assuming as I did, that Jesus' sacrifice only benefits those in the same line as His. So if Adam hasn't sinned, but Cain and Seth had, then Abel wouldn't need a savior, but Cain and Seth would. Adam also had other sons and daughters, so there might be several that sinned and several that didn't. And then, Abel died in the real story, but since he hadn't sinned, there was no curse of death on him, so he could have eaten of the tree of life and survived the attempted murder and had children, some of whom were sinners and some not. The sinner families would need a savior, while the non-sinners wouldn't, except for their kids that sinned. Etc., etc. Once you pass that first opportunity, there's no going back. God would have to deal with all the different dailies that had a sinless patent separately, under my supposition. There could quickly be millions or billions of people that need a separate savior.
Well thank you for explaining that line of thinking more thoroughly. I understand where you're coming from now. The solution based on your premise is the same as it was for saving the whole race. Christ would need to be of Adam's line. That would cover ALL of Adam's descendants whether they fell or not.

Further, I think your assumed premise is somewhat incorrect. It is true that Jesus needed to be of Adam's line but not for the reason your assumption implies. Jesus needed to be fully human that's all. There had been some people who's blood lines had been mixed with angels (i.e. the Nephilim). Indeed, the whole purpose of Satan sending angels to procreate with human women was an attempt to make the Messiah impossible. And it was a plan that would have worked had God not flooded out the whole place saving only Noah, who was "perfect in his generations" and seven members of his family.

You suggest that God would not have to save them all, and that's a possibility, but it goes back to my first point--the image of God.

Not providing a savior for all also would not allow statements like, "For God so loved the world..." to be uttered, because it wouldn't be true. It's the same argument most of us here have with Calvinism. God can't both love a person and also not allow that person to be edit from His salvation plan.
Well, it was a rhetorical point designed to test your logic. Anything we say about how God would have dealt with it had things played out differently in Eden is speculation at best. Maybe God would have chosen to provide for their salvation and maybe He wouldn't have. I'm not saying for sure one way or the other. I was simply covering the reasoning associated with both scenarios.

Any plan that does not allow all of His imaged children the possibility to be saved is one that denies His own character.
How so?

It would not have been unjust for God to have condemned both Adam and Eve the moment that fruit touched their lips. It would have done no damage to His character at all. He didn't save us for His sake but for ours. Not that He doesn't derive any benefit from our salvation, He clearly does, but the point is that it was not a selfish motive on His part.

Interesting thoughts.

On Eve's first fertility, there are a lot of paths of logic (or biology) that can allow for more than that amount of time, and a few that allow for less than that amount of time.
Right. That's part of what I was referring to when I said that there is a fair amount of speculation that has to happen. It's more of just a possibility that's fun to think about. It's certainly isn't anything that anyone would have grounds to be even close to dogmatic about.

On the source of Fri 13 superstitions, your supposition makes a fair amount of sense.

I'll have to disagree with you about Friday 13 superstitions being as old as history. History goes back to the first day of creation, which was, as you have pointed out, 12 days before the first Friday the 13th.
Well, history is the recording of past events, not the events themselves but I totally get your point there. It was only meant as a figure of speech. All I really meant was that people having weird feelings about Friday the 13th as well as the number 13 itself goes way way way way back to super duper ancient times. Even the code of Hammurabi skipped the number 13 in its list of laws.

Also, the number thirteen is associated with rebellion in scripture as well. The first time the number thirteen is mentioned in the bible is Genesis 14:4...

Genesis 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and the thirteenth year they REBELLED."​

Jericho was encircled a total the thirteen times (once each day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day) before the walls were caved in by God.

Of course, this sort of thing can quickly get you entangled in the web of numerology and superstition so it isn't good to take stuff like this too seriously but, like I said, its sort of fun to think about it.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You defined love as wisely acting in the best interest of others; but is this the greatest way that God can love us? Or could it possibly be that God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself. Would this be the greatest way that God could love us?
What?

No!

God does not love each and every one of us as He loves Himself. That isn't even close to being biblical. There's a whole list of people God hates! And I'm not kidding! There's a lot of people that God truly despises!

Of course, love and hate are not the mutually exclusive things that some might try to make you believe they are. While there is life there is hope and so even for the vilest of human beings, people like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, for example, are afforded that hope entirely on the basis of God's love toward them. But until such people repent, they are God's enemies and God sees them as exactly that.

Romans 12:9 Love must be free of hypocrisy. Detest what is evil; cling to what is good.​
Absolutely agree with you, and we can do nothing greater than live by the two greatest commandments. If Jesus gave us these commandments, they would have been relevant for him as Jesus the man. But Jesus is also God the Son and he said, if you know me then you know the Father.
We are not under the law and you cannot be made perfect by following the law, even if it is distilled down to only two commandments.

Forget the commandments! The law is not of faith and will not help you live a righteous life. All the law will do is condemn you. That is it's purpose and function. The law's ministry is death, not life.

Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in the parts of our body to bear fruit for death.​
Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​
1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;​

In all of the bible, there is only one other thing besides the Law that had a ministry of death, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Law came as a result of Adam and Eve eating of that tree. You might even say that the Law is the fruit of that tree. They have the same ministry of death because they are the same thing, the alternative to God. You do not need the Law. You do not need rules, not even two of them! You need God - period. He is your ONLY source of righteousness. As I said, the Law is of the flesh, not of faith and in your flesh nothing good dwells. If you try to love God and love your neighbor because Jesus said for you to then you've failed before you started.

The fact is that you cannot live the Christian life. You cannot do it because it cannot be done by anyone other than God Himself who did do it for you. It is not for you to be righteous but to believe that God's righteousness has been imputed to you BY FAITH. It is not for you to do, it is for you to be. If you be in Him then you are righteous. Not because you follow a list of rules but because He is righteous. You have been crucified in Christ and it no longer you who live but Christ who lives His life through you BY FAITH (i.e. not by your flesh)!

Read the opening post in the following thread. It'll change your life (really)!...

You Cannot Live the Christian Life by Bob Hill

Clete
 

Eric h

Active member
He called some people snakes.
I reckon there are a fair percentage of people on Earth today who Jesus could label as snakes in the same way. Jesus died for sinners, did he die for those he called vipers and hypocrites?

If Jesus died for sinners, it must mean that he loves us as much as he loves himself. Did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself when he spent his time on Earth? Including those who condemned him to death and nailed him to the cross and the ones he called vipers.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
When Jesus spent his time on Earth, did he love all his neighbours as he loves himself?
My statement, if not taken in the way I meant it, could be considered an overstatement. Yes, of course, Jesus (God) loved (loves) His neighbor as He loved (loves) Himself. The question then becomes what does that qualifier mean? Why, and in what way, does God love Himself?

That is a question that I might be willing to discuss with you but not until I have better reason to believe that you aren't wasting my time. Did you read the opening post of that thread I linked to? Your question, as well as your response to Right Divider's observation, leads me to strongly suspect that you did not and that, in fact, you never read much if anything more than the one sentence in my post that you quoted.

Discussions are two way streets and effort has to be put into at least trying to understand what the other person is getting at without pulling individual sentences out of the context in which they were stated.
 

Eric h

Active member
I started this thread by asking; Could God love each and everyone of us as he loves himself?
Yes, of course, Jesus (God) loved (loves) His neighbor as He loved (loves) Himself.
How many of Jesus's neighbors did he love as himself?
The question then becomes what does that qualifier mean? Why, and in what way, does God love Himself?

Jesus loves us up to the point of dying for us.
How does God the Father love himself? After creation God saw that his creation was good. It suggests that The Father knew that he had created in the greatest good way possible.
Did you read the opening post of that thread I linked to?
I read most of it with interest, but I failed to see how it related to the thread I started.
Your question, as well as your response to Right Divider's observation, leads me to strongly suspect that you did not
Right divider seemed to suggest that because Jesus called some people vipers, that he might not love them as he loves himself. My reply was to ask if Jesus died for the sinners today; whom he might label as snakes or vipers. I was merely trying to understand what his response meant.

Discussions are two way streets and effort has to be put into at least trying to understand what the other person is getting at

With that in mind, I reread your first reply to me on this thread.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I read most of it with interest, but I failed to see how it related to the thread I started.

Right divider seemed to suggest that because Jesus called some people vipers, that he might not love them as he loves himself. My reply was to ask if Jesus died for the sinners today; whom he might label as snakes or vipers. I was merely trying to understand what his response meant.
I have a very difficult time believing you.

It seems to me that you want to ask very nearly meaningless questions that make you sound pious and that you think are somehow "deep".

I specifically stated that love and hate are not the mutually exclusive concepts that many people think they are and I said that for two reasons. First of all to make sure that I wasn't misunderstood to be saying that God doesn't love everyone. God clearly does love everyone enough to provide a means of salvation to any who would repent, A point which you promptly ignored. I also said it because the very questions you are asking seem to directly imply that love and hate are mutually exclusive. In short, you seem to be ignorant of some of the most foundational concepts upon which biblical Christianity is based, namely how justice and mercy are not opposites.

Jesus simply did not love everyone the way your pedantic questions would seem to imply. He made his feelings very clear toward hypocrites, pretenders and those who took advantage of the poor. Perhaps the harshest of all the things He said is recorded in Luke chapter 9...

Luke 9:27 'But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’

And if you want to find a nicer version of Jesus, don't bother getting anywhere near John's Revelation where He threatens His own followers with condemnation if they do not repent. The fact is that Jesus was simply not a nice guy and neither should you be, by the way!

However, none of that is to say that He did not love these people. The idea can be expressed in a single sentence. God loves evil people enough to despise them. If that sentence makes no sense to you then you do not know God, you do not understand the bible and may very well not be a Christian. You seem fixated on the Law and have little to no concept of what it means to love someone which would make it utterly impossible for you to even begin to try to follow the very law you seem so fixated on. If I hadn't told you, you'd have not come up with a decent definition of love in a hundred years and you still don't seem to be able to grasp how it could possibly be in someone's best interest for God to hate them.

At any rate, I'm not the least bit interested in rehashing the whole conversation because it reached a point past which you are unwilling to go. If you can't understand how my telling you that you don't need the Law applies to your original question which is based on Jesus' own distillation of the Law then I don't how to remedy that. If you can't see how a sermon which is all about how to live the Christian life doesn't relate to the topic of the thread which is all about Jesus telling you how to live, then I can't get over that hump either! I mean, both are a direct response to your specific questions! They are THE answer to the questions you are asking and you can't be bothered to read it which tells me that you're way more interested in sounding pious and deep than you are in finding any answers and I'm not interested in feeding that sort of ego.

Clete

Jesus Was Not Nice — and You Shouldn’t be, Either

 
Last edited:
Top