Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether or not there is a church out there that preaches it is irrelevant. It is extrapolated logically FROM the Gospel.
1 John 4:7-8 (King James Version)
7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
The love used here is agape.
Luke 6:35
King James Version
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
1 John 4:4 (King James Version)
4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
"God IS agape love" and "we are children of God" are part of the Gospel. Logically extrapolate from there to my assertions and you can see it is NOT "made up."
You have strung together things that are not exactly what you were preaching earlier.
Again, I have no problem with the concept you are preaching. Could even be true. But it's still your contruction.
It's the old business, begun by Paul and continued t up to the present, of coming up with your own ideas and finding something in Scripture that seems to fit in with it (though the 'Children' references seem pretty strained) and presented as though it was evidence.
I know you asked for Scriptural support and you got it. And maybe the 'Love' of this demanding and intolerant god isn't so far from 'Agape' love, as demonstrated by Mystic, anyway.
You have strung together things that are not exactly what you were preaching earlier.
Again, I have no problem with the concept you are preaching. Could even be true. But it's still your contruction.
Logical derivation from basic premises which is consistent is NOT "made up" although the syllogisms must be constructed. What is your problem with logical derivations. Isn't that what reasoning consists of. Just because our primitive ancestors operated under a different context about the nature of God and used barbaric and flawed reasoning does not mean we are restricted to accepting their reasoning.
It's the old business, begun by Paul and continued t up to the present, of coming up with your own ideas and finding something in Scripture that seems to fit in with it (though the 'Children' references seem pretty strained) and presented as though it was evidence.
I know you asked for Scriptural support and you got it. And maybe the 'Love' of this demanding and intolerant god isn't so far from 'Agape' love, as demonstrated by Mystic, anyway.
You know there are many other references to God as agape love and to us as children of God, Arq. The primitive and barbaric OT descriptions of God present a demanding and intolerant God, NOT the descriptions and demonstration by Jesus. I know you are quite capable of discerning how I arrived at my assertions, Arq. Your intransigence is simply your desire to continue to promote your anti-God agenda.
I do not and never have held up myself as an exemplar of agape love. That was Jesus's role. You are no bowl of sunshine yourself, Arq.
Logical derivation from basic premises which is consistent is NOT "made up" although the syllogisms must be constructed. What is your problem with logical derivations. Isn't that what reasoning consists of. Just because our primitive ancestors operated under a different context about the nature of God and used barbaric and flawed reasoning does not mean we are restricted to accepting their reasoning.
In fact, if we are honest about it, we have a duty to modify the belief based on conditional changes. That being, new information.
using the scientific method instead of blind faith tends to self correct beliefs. I just wish the SM had a different name.
Logical derivation from basic premises which is consistent is NOT "made up" although the syllogisms must be constructed. What is your problem with logical derivations. Isn't that what reasoning consists of. Just because our primitive ancestors operated under a different context about the nature of God and used barbaric and flawed reasoning does not mean we are restricted to accepting their reasoning.
You are determined not to give any ground in your rejection of my views, eh? Shame.
No, that is not correct.
I said I had no problem with the concept. That's not saying I agree with it, but I have no problem with it being considered. So I haven't rejected "your view".
What I reject is the way that you justify "your view".
You slap things together, you write/speak well, and you think that constitutes proof of your belief. It doesn't. A million people out there can slap other things together and have a view of christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism, or any other ism, and they can march along to that path if they wish. It doesn't make it real.
I said I had no problem with the concept. That's not saying I agree with it, but I have no problem with it being considered. So I haven't rejected "your view".
What I reject is the way that you justify "your view".
You slap things together, you write/speak well, and you think that constitutes proof of your belief. It doesn't. A million people out there can slap other things together and have a view of christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism, or any other ism, and they can march along to that path if they wish. It doesn't make it real.
I think it’s more accurate to say that what you reject is anyone confident enough in their view to make a case for it. You don’t make a case for your own view because you don’t have confidence that it’s true, and that’s how you want everyone to feel about their own worldview. Your worldview consists of “I don’t know” and “Maybe...” and it triggers you when others display more confidence in their beliefs than you are in yours. This is my reading of your actions and behaviour, which is more accurate than your words.
Logical derivation from basic premises which is consistent is NOT "made up" although the syllogisms must be constructed. What is your problem with logical derivations. Isn't that what reasoning consists of. Just because our primitive ancestors operated under a different context about the nature of God and used barbaric and flawed reasoning does not mean we are restricted to accepting their reasoning.
As many of us have pointed out ad nauseum, logic by itself is not the basis of knowledge and understanding (science). Without factual or evidence-based premises, a logical argument for god does not establish plausibility and is indistinguishable from any other conceptual possibility.
Do you understand this? Do you understand without evidence there's nothing to distinguish god from omnipotent pixies, leprechauns, or any other entirely conceptual thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
