Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Can God love? (Part 1)

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

Can God love?

We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.

Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.

Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.

Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.

It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.

You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity.  You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.

Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you.  See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.

Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.

We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.

Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?

Have you seen God express his love for us lately?

Regards
DL

These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.

[youtube]



avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down


Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Fri May 25, 2012 8:45 pm

polyglide wrote:-
I do not laugh at those who have neither sense nor reason
How irritating must it be to find oneself surrounded by Pygmies?

oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11752
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Sat May 26, 2012 11:08 am

Yep
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sat May 26, 2012 5:51 pm

..and with such modesty.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11752
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Mon May 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Yep
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Mon May 28, 2012 5:32 pm

study
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:06 am

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow these rules at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what man thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:30 pm

Greatest I am.

You definately set a poser, to a parent a child is the most important and presious thing possible and I doubt if there is one person who had to decided between his/her child and themselves who would not save their child.

The difference between humans and God in this respect must be one of the things we do not fully understand.

In my humble opinion, God, in allowing his son to become a sacrifice to save we sinners was done to show just how much he wanted to save us from our own demise and a more definate manner I could not think of, had God just made a simple jesture then it would not have emphassised his love of mankind and his hopes for same.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:20 pm

Maybe god has a personality disorder...

Who in their right mind would forsake his only son, to prove that he loves us so much, and then inflict so much misery and cruelty on us all at the same time. Maybe if prozac had been around back then things could have been so different! Wink
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am.

You definately set a poser, to a parent a child is the most important and presious thing possible and I doubt if there is one person who had to decided between his/her child and themselves who would not save their child.

The difference between humans and God in this respect must be one of the things we do not fully understand.

In my humble opinion, God, in allowing his son to become a sacrifice to save we sinners was done to show just how much he wanted to save us from our own demise and a more definate manner I could not think of, had God just made a simple jesture then it would not have emphassised his love of mankind and his hopes for same.


Allowing!

You try to exonerate what you would not follow in your God, put yourself above him IOW, by trying to hide behind that word.

God did not allow anything according to the words of Jesus. ------my father who SENT me.
He did not allow. He caused.
God had his son needlessly murdered and put his stamp of approval on barbaric human sacrifice.

Keep trying to justify such immorality and Satan will be quite pleased with you.

Regards
DL

avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:29 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:Maybe god has a personality disorder...

Who in their right mind would forsake his only son, to prove that he loves us so much, and then inflict so much misery and cruelty on us all at the same time. Maybe if prozac had been around back then things could have been so different! Wink

I like people who can judge with reason and wisdom and not just accept immoral dogma.
That is the difference between a spiritual person and a religious one.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:15 pm

God is clearly a sixteen-year-old adolescent. No other entity knows EVERYTHING.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11752
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:07 pm

hahaha That didn't half make me chuckle! I've a thirteen yr old who's starting to think he's god! He'll be feeling my shoe leather if he carries on! lol
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:29 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:hahaha That didn't half make me chuckle! I've a thirteen yr old who's starting to think he's god! He'll be feeling my shoe leather if he carries on! lol

There is discipline and there is punishment.

A good parent uses discipline so that punishment is not required.

Punishment shames the parent more than the child. At least it did for me the one and only time I punished my son's.

The only exception to this will be children whose actions are controlled by poor internal chemistry or mental condition and from that sense, punishment may have value. Your doctor is your guide here though.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by astra on Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:49 pm

Doctors begorrah!!

"GP's are only failed VETS!!" That from an uncle who asked the vet who came to his small holding for answers to problems said. He NEVER trusted the GP

Seems he was right!

My GP said "you have Gastro Enteritis, take the prescription"

After 18 months of this I ended up getting my bowel removed, 2 days after the last visit

DO NOT, NOT EVER trust a GP. No matter HOW nice he/she talks to you!

This will only multiply now when GP's find it in their own intrest to watch the pennies!
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Adele Carlyon wrote:hahaha That didn't half make me chuckle! I've a thirteen yr old who's starting to think he's god! He'll be feeling my shoe leather if he carries on! lol

There is discipline and there is punishment.

A good parent uses discipline so that punishment is not required.

Punishment shames the parent more than the child. At least it did for me the one and only time I punished my son's.

The only exception to this will be children whose actions are controlled by poor internal chemistry or mental condition and from that sense, punishment may have value. Your doctor is your guide here though.

Regards
DL

It was a joke. Both of my son's have never had a finger laid upon them in their lives. I'm not a fan of grown people beating small people to be honest.
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by astra on Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Adele, re your last post,

At 18 years old, I pulled some stunts, most on a motorcycle - 750 Norton, and I really do not know how I ever managed to get this far along the highway of life! I REALLY do not. 18 years old, I knew it all, was indestructable, and just pure cute!!



Modest, Thankfull, Mannerly?? ME? furget it chum!! Life OWED me a living!! Very Happy
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:26 pm

I've got two good lads, 13 and 22, never been in trouble in their lives. Don't get me wrong, they've had plenty of groundings, but beatings, never. Haven't needed to, and wouldn't do it even if they'd done something terrible. I was a typical tomboy, I got into scrapes when I was little and I used to get a walloping when I did. It's stayed with me all my life, I resent those wallopings I got so much. Some of them were downright cruel to the point of ending up bleeding. I vowed right then that if I ever had kids I would never ever hit them. I nag at them too much sometimes, but I'm so glad that I've never done to them what I had done to me.
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:38 pm

It is difficult and hypocritical to teach your children that it's wrong to resort to physical violence when you, yourself, resort to physical violence toward your children. Kids learn what hypocrisy is really fast, even if they don't know the actual word "hypocrisy." They know when you say one thing and do the opposite. I suppose this is why so many kids who are beaten at home end up becoming the bullies in school.

I'm certainly not against a spanking when children are young since the idea here is shaming a child into obedience. At a young age, kids want nothing more than to please their parents, and a light smack to the bottom is all that's needed to make a child feel guilty for crossing you. However, once kids reach their teen years, hitting simply becomes cruel, IMO. At that point a "spanking" is intended to cause physical pain, not just shame. If hitting people - much less whipping them with belts and switches - is not acceptable in the adult world, it should not be acceptable between adults and children, either. Imagine a world where bosses could whip employees with belts when they weren't fast enough or came back from a break a minute too late? Would you like that? Would you feel properly chastised or would you feel pissed off and ready to hit back? Teens are the same way ... beat them with a belt and they're liable to lash back, even if it's in a passive-aggressive manner.

Just my thoughts on the whole corporal punishment issue. Deprivation is more effective than a beating, anyway. A whipping lasts a minute or two. Losing your cell phone for a month lasts, well, a month. And that sucks!
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:25 am

Adele Carlyon wrote:
I've got two good lads, 13 and 22... but beatings, never. Haven't needed to, and wouldn't do it…

Do you love your two good lads enough to have beaten them to save their lives? Would you have beaten them to…

  1. … prevent them from being struck, and perhaps killed, in the street directly beyond their front yard by a motor vehicle?
  2. … prevent them from being run over and killed in the driveway of their own home by a pickup truck being backed out of the driveway by their father?
  3. … prevent them from perhaps being kidnapped, sexually molested, tortured, and murdered one black beyond their limits by persons unknown?

These are serious questions, generated by real events known personally to me or related personally to me by persons to whom the events are known personally. I would appreciate serious answers, and I would appreciate in your answers evidence of abiding consideration of the fact that your two lads are not ideological icons but real live young men that you love more than you love yourself and of whom you are profoundly proud.

Adele Carlyon wrote:
… I got into scrapes when I was little and I used to get a walloping when I did. It's stayed with me all my life, I resent those wallopings I got so much. Some of them were downright cruel to the point of ending up bleeding.

From your brief description, you did not receive discipline; you received retaliation. Unlike discipline, the motivation of which ought to be love, the retaliation you received seems to have been motivated by shallow selfish emotions.

Adele Carlyon wrote:
I vowed right then that if I ever had kids I would never ever hit them. I nag at them too much sometimes, but I'm so glad that I've never done to them what I had done to me.

Discipline, specifically the corporal punishment component of discipline, seems not to be what was done to you. Accordingly, to measure what you chose to do against what was done to you is like setting up a sure bet; you know ahead of time that whatever you choose to do, whatever it is and whatever its shortcoming, will automatically be better than what was done to you.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:12 am; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:36 am

Shirina wrote:
It is difficult and hypocritical to teach your children that it's wrong to resort to physical violence when you, yourself, resort to physical violence toward your children.

Would you yourself resort to physical violence to save the life of your child? Perhaps your error lies in assuming that you should teach your children that it’s wrong to resort to physical violence.

Two young ladies were leaving a nightclub at closing time. A male began physically restraining one of the ladies, against her will and despite her loud protests. Apparently, this male was unhappy that his attentions had been rebuffed. From observation, this male was about 6’5”, at least 260 pounds (124 kilos), and muscular.

A sailor, active duty United States Navy, witnessed the altercation. He calmly walked over to the 6’5” 260 pounds male, removed his hand from her arm, and softly said something like, “Touch her agin and I’ll break your arm.”

The 6’5” 260 pound male released the young lady, who departed with her companion, while the sailor maintained pressure on the ass-clown’s forearm. As soon as the ladies were clear, the sailor released the ass-clown’s forearm and backed away.

The sailor was never taught that it’s wrong to resort to physical violence. The sailor was taught that it’s wrong to allow injustice to remain unchecked.

Shirina wrote:
I'm certainly not against a spanking when children are young since the idea here is shaming a child into obedience.

Not in my house. Not in either of my houses, the one in which I was raised and the one in which I raised. I’m not speaking of physical structures here.

The purpose of discipline is discernable in its root word, disciple. One makes a disciple by a process often called “discipleship”, wherein the student desires to become the teacher and the teacher desires to replicate herself/himself in the student.

The sailor mentioned above underwent discipleship, which manifested itself in his chosen behavior as an adult. He could not have abided with himself in his own skin had he allowed injustice (the physical accosting of a lady by a “grown-ass” male) to remain uncorrected.

The sailor was never subjected to physical discipline to shame him into obedience, or to shame him in any way.

Shirina wrote:
However, once kids reach their teen years, hitting simply becomes cruel…

Not necessarily. Had I hit Sapphire (I was 13), I would have been… Let’s just say that after my Dad’s older brother had “laid hands on me” after finding out that his nephew had struck a girl, whatever my Dad had done to whatever was left of me would have been a relief.

What is true, and what renders physical discipline inappropriate for teenagers, is its ineffectiveness at that age. Discipleship is not furthered by administering physical discipline to teenagers. That’s the age for allowing consequences to do the teaching. That can be tough to witness when the one being taught is one you would give your life to protect, but that’s when you must realize that love often means hurting while your child learns from the school of hard knocks.

Shirina wrote:
If hitting people - much less whipping them with belts and switches - is not acceptable in the adult world, it should not be acceptable between adults and children…

Flawed analogy. Reword it slightly to see why.

If incarceration in maximum security facilities (Sing Sing, Soledad, Parchman Farm) is acceptable in the adult world, it should be acceptable between adults and children.

We don’t treat children as adults because children are not adults.

I “jacked a kid up”; i.e., I interrogated him unmercifully, during class on morning. It was a 3rd grade class. He was 9 years old. He had stolen several pencils from another student. While the remainder of the class was completing seatwork, I quietly (so that his classmates would not hear) and intensely did a “Joe Friday” on him.

After about ten minutes (interrupted from time to time by attending to other students), he broke down and cried his eyes out. He admitted his theft, he returned the stolen property, he apologized to the student he had wronged, he returned to his seat, and he began to “get out his lesson.” No further consequences occurred, no further consequences were appropriate, no further consequences were necessary.

Had he been an adult, he would have (1) been arrested, (2) spent the night in county lockdown, (3) been arraigned and bound over for trial, and (4) depending on various factors, faced a number of other consequences. Perhaps he would have been released on his own recognizance or on bail prior to trial. Perhaps, upon conviction, he would have been incarcerated for a period of time.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:59 am

Greatest I am wrote:
Allowing!

God did not allow anything…

Incorrect.

Greek Bible:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over1 in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over1 to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over1 to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Romans 1:18-32


  1. paradidōmi, to surrender, yield up, allow.



What Elohim has allowed.

  1. … “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity”;

  2. … “that their bodies would be dishonored among them”;

  3. … “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie”;

  4. … “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”;

  5. … “to degrading passions”;

  6. … “for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”;

  7. … “in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error”;

  8. … “a depraved mind”;

  9. … “to do those things which are not proper”;

  10. … “being filled with all unrighteousness”;

  11. … “wickedness”;

  12. … “greed”;

  13. … “evil”;

  14. … “full of envy”;

  15. … “murder”;

  16. … “strife”;

  17. … “deceit”;

  18. … “malice”;

  19. … “they are gossips”;

  20. … “slanderers”;

  21. … “haters of God”;

  22. … “insolent”;

  23. … “arrogant”;

  24. … “boastful”;

  25. … “inventors of evil”;

  26. … “disobedient to parents”;

  27. … “without understanding”;

  28. … “untrustworthy”;

  29. … “unloving”;

  30. … “unmerciful”;

  31. … “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

In this passage (Romans 1:18-32), by my count, Elohim has allowed thirty-one (31) things.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:21 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Adele Carlyon wrote:hahaha That didn't half make me chuckle! I've a thirteen yr old who's starting to think he's god! He'll be feeling my shoe leather if he carries on! lol

There is discipline and there is punishment.

A good parent uses discipline so that punishment is not required.

Punishment shames the parent more than the child. At least it did for me the one and only time I punished my son's.

The only exception to this will be children whose actions are controlled by poor internal chemistry or mental condition and from that sense, punishment may have value. Your doctor is your guide here though.

Regards
DL

It was a joke. Both of my son's have never had a finger laid upon them in their lives. I'm not a fan of grown people beating small people to be honest.

Good.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:52 pm

Shirina wrote:It is difficult and hypocritical to teach your children that it's wrong to resort to physical violence when you, yourself, resort to physical violence toward your children. Kids learn what hypocrisy is really fast, even if they don't know the actual word "hypocrisy." They know when you say one thing and do the opposite. I suppose this is why so many kids who are beaten at home end up becoming the bullies in school.

I'm certainly not against a spanking when children are young since the idea here is shaming a child into obedience. At a young age, kids want nothing more than to please their parents, and a light smack to the bottom is all that's needed to make a child feel guilty for crossing you. However, once kids reach their teen years, hitting simply becomes cruel, IMO. At that point a "spanking" is intended to cause physical pain, not just shame. If hitting people - much less whipping them with belts and switches - is not acceptable in the adult world, it should not be acceptable between adults and children, either. Imagine a world where bosses could whip employees with belts when they weren't fast enough or came back from a break a minute too late? Would you like that? Would you feel properly chastised or would you feel pissed off and ready to hit back? Teens are the same way ... beat them with a belt and they're liable to lash back, even if it's in a passive-aggressive manner.

Just my thoughts on the whole corporal punishment issue. Deprivation is more effective than a beating, anyway. A whipping lasts a minute or two. Losing your cell phone for a month lasts, well, a month. And that sucks!

Our first point of disagreement.

Strange that you would think that the younger the child, the more corporeal punishment you can use.

Strange that you would teach your child to do good out of fear instead of teaching them to do good for goodness sake.

You are not teaching your child shame with a beating. You are teaching fear.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:42 pm

I've had the belt, the slipper, a fishing rod, a fist, wooden spoons, you name it, I've been walloped with it. The cruelist part was my mother saying just wait til I tell your dad what you've done. That's when the sick feeling sets in. The laughable part is that my parents have now re-written history, in so much as they actually tell people that we never got hit as kids! I could never inflict physical pain on my kids, in my eyes it's totally unjustified, it ruins relationships and breeds resentment. I've been emotionally scarred for life to be honest.
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:50 pm

A useful rule-of-thumb is the aphorism -

Strike a child only if you mean to kill.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11752
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:28 pm

Oh I've survived, and I broke the cycle! Yay! lol

My boys are my pride and joy. They're at Download Festival with their Dad watching Black Sabbath as I speak! Knee deep in mud and moshing like two good uns! haha
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:32 am

Adele Carlyon wrote:
I've had the belt, the slipper, a fishing rod, a fist, wooden spoons, you name it, I've been walloped with it. The cruelist part was my mother saying just wait til I tell your dad what you've done. That's when the sick feeling sets in. The laughable part is that my parents have now re-written history, in so much as they actually tell people that we never got hit as kids!

What you’re describing, whatever it might be, is not physical discipline. In the term physical discipline, the noun is discipline, which indicates that its associated action verb must be to disciple, and its associated goal must be to make a disciple.

Thus, the immediate object of discipline, including physical discipline, is to change behavior, not just immediate behavior, but behavior down the line when he/she who administers discipline, including physical discipline, is not “there” to observe.

One situation which calls for immediate, fear-engendering discipline, including physical discipline, involves changing behavior which, if not immediately changed, could cause loss of limb or life.

A boy of five was rambunctious and a bit of a handful. He was a good kid, never malicious in his misbehavior, courteous to adults and children, a boy with whom grown folks like me tended to fall in love. His parents did not believe in physical discipline, perhaps because, as children, they had had experiences similar to your childhood experiences.

The parents had repeatedly warned the boy to stay out of the driveway while vehicles were operating therein. Additionally, they had used non-physical strategies (“time outs”, deprivation of privileges, “grounding”) recommended by doctorate degree holding child behavior “gurus.”

One morning, the father hugged his five year old boy, warned him again to stay out of the driveway, got into his pickup truck, backed up (intending to back into the street), and ran over his boy, killing him instantly.

Absolute predictions are reserved unto those whose crystal balls predict absolutely; as I’ve no crystal ball of any sort, I’ll refrain from predicting. That being said, another young rambunctious, well mannered young boy with whom adults fell in love ran into a street when he was three months shy of 4 years old, His father, alarmed beyond words, rushed into the street, scooped up his boy before moving vehicles had a chance to hit him, rushed him into the house (this happened mere feet from their front door), revisited in detail the rule forbidding going into a street without holding hands with a responsible adult, made sure is boy understood, and tore his natural behind up. Afterwards, the father revisited the rule, the violation, and the swift, sure consequence, debriefing in detail and ensuring that the boy understood what had just happened to his behind and why.

The first father is a friend. His boy would be just turning 13 about now. If the boy was alive, I’ve no doubt that he would be a budding gentleman.

The second father is me. My boy is grown, a thorough gentleman, protective of the weak, courteous, scrupulously honest, and engaged in honorable activities in all aspects of his life. More importantly, my boy is alive.

Mourning for a 5 year old boy or being proud of a grown man? My friend chose no physical discipline and mourns for his boy. I chose physical discipline and mourn for his boy with him.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:13 am

Strange that you would think that the younger the child, the more corporeal punishment you can use.
What I'm talking about is a swat to the bottom that isn't even hard enough to kill a fly. Those are often reserved for an urgent need to quell a child right then and there, usually in a public setting since punishment options are limited there. The swat is not designed to inflict physical pain ... it is simply a very direct signal to the child that the bad behavior must stop.
Strange that you would teach your child to do good out of fear instead of teaching them to do good for goodness sake.
Here I think you're being far too melodramatic. First of all, there is always an element of fear involved with discipline. When children no longer fear the consequences of disobedience, then there is no way to truly punish a child for bad behavior. Secondly, the kids I'm talking about are very young. Children at this age generally do not live in fear of their parents and those dreaded swats to the backside. Third, any kind of corporal punishment without a very good explanation is not punishment, it's simply a beating. Kids don't always know good from bad, especially the younger ones. You can't sit them down and explain morality to them and expect them to truly understand.
You are not teaching your child shame with a beating. You are teaching fear.
Then it must be said that ANY form of punishment for ANY reason is merely teaching fear. And I said a light swat to the bottom (my original quote), not "a beating." I'm firmly against that.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:15 am

Shirina wrote:
Those [swats to the bottom not designed to inflict physical pain] are often reserved for an urgent need to quell a child right then and there, usually in a public setting since punishment options are limited there. The swat… is simply a very direct signal to the child that the bad behavior must stop.

It’s a little different in my place, my two places, the home in which I was disciplined, and the home in which I disciplined. Once again, I’m not speaking of physical structures. For ease of writing and understanding, I’m using present tense for past events which themselves are separate in time/space.

In both places, there are no painless swats. The pain is intentional and palpably real, and anticipation of its imminent deliverance can ruin your day.

Swats are never administered in public unless imminent danger on the order of possible loss of limb or life is involved. In those cases, all bets are off; mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers, older brothers, sisters, and cousins of the child whose behavior has placed her/him in imminent danger do whatever they know to do to kill that behavior on the spot forever.

To bring a child up short right then and right there normally takes but a glance, or occasionally but a few words.

I’m a headstrong 9 year old whose grandmother has told me to do something that I vehemently do not want to do. My face shows my extreme displeasure.

My mother, unaware of my grandmother’s instructions, asks me why my face is scrunched up. I tell her. What happens next I’ll never forget.

We are both standing. Mom turns slightly, looks me dead in the eye, places her left hand on her left hip, and says, “That’s my mother”, softly, intently, with decided emphasis on mother.

Done. I turn on my heel, seek out my grandmother, ask her to repeat her instructions, take detailed mental notes, and proceed to do what she wants, and to do it when, where, and how she wants it done. After completing the task, I again seek out my grandmother and receive confirmation that the task has been performed to her specifications and her satisfaction. Three words, spoken softly, accomplish all that.

Those three words, using a baseball analogy, are the warning track. Directly beyond the warning track is the wall. If I hit the wall, I will hurt. If I turn back from the wall, thereby heeding the warning track’s implicit but definitive warning, I’m good.

Like a child with at least a modicum of common sense, I choose “I’m good” over “I will hurt.”

My grandmother praises me for a job well done. My grandmother praises me for my conscientious attention to detail. My mother never mentions the incident again.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The next time, all it takes is a look from Mom. The time after that, all it takes is my abiding memory of the look, the hands on hip, the three words (first time), and the look (second time).

Shirina wrote:
… there is always an element of fear involved with discipline.

What is the strongest feeling, my boy’s desire to run into the street, or my boy’s fear of his father’s displeasure at that behavior?

The first time, his desire is stronger. The second time, and all subsequent times, his fear is stronger. Notice that c=mv, when m is 3,500 pounds or more of metal and v is upwards of 30 mph, is not a part of his thinking process.

By the time the boy is old enough that the fear of Pops has abated (externally generated fear), his fear of that c in c=mv (internally generated) has arrived full force. Part of that arrival is listening to and laughing at his Dad’s repeated narratives of his own (Dad’s) encounter with c=,v that (luckily) resulted in Dad tumbling through the air, apex maybe twenty feet, Dad coming to rest on the parkway (green strip between street and sidewalk), Dad watching the c of c=mv mangling Dad’s bicycle beyond recognition, Dad going crazy in the mind “seeing” himself wrapped up in that mangled mess, and Dad hurting for several weeks like he’d been mauled by a mountain lion and a grizzly bear at the same time.

My boy laughs at his Dad’s foibles, takes in and digests the chilling account, and makes the experience his own. And experience is a hell of a teacher.

Shirina wrote:
When children no longer fear the consequences of disobedience…

… parents had better hope and pray that children have internalized the lessons. The window of opportunity swiftly closes.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:32 pm

I have never been subjected to any kind of physicall punishment, my parents who were by no means well off shamed me into doing what is right through showing me how upset it made them when I did wrong.

I did exactly the same with my own childred and never ever had to resort to physical violence.

In fact although I have been in many scrapes in many places I have never actually had to resort to lifting a finger in anger, I have always talked my way out of trouble rather than fight my way out.

Physical violence in any form does no one any goog neither the winner or the loser, in fact there never is a real winner.

'



avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:43 pm

Shirina wrote:
Strange that you would think that the younger the child, the more corporeal punishment you can use.
What I'm talking about is a swat to the bottom that isn't even hard enough to kill a fly. Those are often reserved for an urgent need to quell a child right then and there, usually in a public setting since punishment options are limited there. The swat is not designed to inflict physical pain ... it is simply a very direct signal to the child that the bad behavior must stop.
Strange that you would teach your child to do good out of fear instead of teaching them to do good for goodness sake.
Here I think you're being far too melodramatic. First of all, there is always an element of fear involved with discipline. When children no longer fear the consequences of disobedience, then there is no way to truly punish a child for bad behavior. Secondly, the kids I'm talking about are very young. Children at this age generally do not live in fear of their parents and those dreaded swats to the backside. Third, any kind of corporal punishment without a very good explanation is not punishment, it's simply a beating. Kids don't always know good from bad, especially the younger ones. You can't sit them down and explain morality to them and expect them to truly understand.
You are not teaching your child shame with a beating. You are teaching fear.
Then it must be said that ANY form of punishment for ANY reason is merely teaching fear. And I said a light swat to the bottom (my original quote), not "a beating." I'm firmly against that.

"You can't sit them down and explain morality to them and expect them to truly understand."

Why would you need to explain? All you would need to do is guide what they already instinctively know.

I do recognize what you are saying and do not disrespect you for it. I just split discipline and punishment more than most. If my disciple is good then I should never have to punish. Punishing is because I have not reared the child well enough and it is my own shame that becomes the reason I have to now punish.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/

As you can see, even babies have a sense that leads them to do good. Only later with pressures from society and peers do they learn, through rearing, to do evil.

Evil or bad kids are created, not born.

Having said this, I recognize that evil, if done as a part of evolution, is good.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for bein available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:58 pm

polyglide wrote:
Physical violence in any form does no one any goog neither the winner or the loser, in fact there never is a real winner.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Mourning for a 5 year old boy or being proud of a grown man? My friend chose no physical discipline and mourns for his boy. I chose physical discipline and mourn for his boy with him.

Which father do you choose to be?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:24 pm

I would not want to be either, my way has proved the right one for me and my children.

I could set up many different scenarios as you have but they are purely speculative.

Of course were I certain that to dicipline my children in a certain way woul;d save there lives then I would have no choice, the answer is do not put them in that position in the first place.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:36 pm

polyglide wrote:
I would not want to be either…

There are two fathers. Which father do you choose to be?

polyglide wrote:
I could set up many different scenarios as you have but they are purely speculative.

I’ve set up no speculative scenario. The father that backed his pickup truck over his 5 year old boy, and the 5 year old boy that was killed thereby, are real. The father that tore up the behind of his almost 4 year old boy, and the boy who has lived to manhood to tell the story, are real.

Reality is a cruel mistress that sometimes requires men to choose when men would rather not choose. Once again, which father do you choose to be?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Do you recognize that God gains pleasure in creating evil?

Post by Greatest I am on Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:06 pm

Do you recognize that God gains pleasure in creating evil?

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

This quote indicates that the creation of evil is an ongoing process by God and that he creates evil for his pleasure. This makes sense in that God would not create something that he did not want in the world or that would displease him.

As a Gnostic Christian, I recognize that the concept of God is all myth.

Literal and historic belief did not generally come about till about the years 80. 50 years after the death of Jesus. In fact, Jesus was not declared divine till the Trinity concept was accepted, by the force of Constantine in 380.

Having said this, I recognize why the ancient thinkers would say that God is pleased when he creates evil in the world.

Do you understand how and why God gains pleasure from creating evil and sin?

If not, why do you think God would create evil and sin for his displeasure?

If God does not do or create evil as some think, then who else has the power to create evil?

Regards
DL

This did not require a new thread. You've already been asked to desist from continually starting new threads on almost exactly the same theme.

You are now banned from starting any more threads. Ivan.
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:26 pm

Define "evil" in the context of God's creation, or as the antithesis of any creation of God's.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11752
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:44 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Define "evil" in the context of God's creation, or as the antithesis of any creation of God's.

Evil is rather subjective so I leave it to the reader to use whatever definition he likes.

I am dealing with a concept, not individual evils.

An S & M would think that pain is good where most would not so as you can see, the definition is subjective.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:10 pm

After 18 months of this I ended up getting my bowel removed, 2 days after the last visit

So you had a .... bowel removement? Laughing
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:11 pm

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Well said ... and entirely accurate to boot!
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:10 pm

greatest quote.

Literal and historic belief did not generally come about till about the years 80. 50 years after the death of Jesus. In fact, Jesus was not declared divine till the Trinity concept was accepted, by the force of Constantine in 380.

Now that's odd. Nero was persecuting the Christians in Rome around AD64. Paul speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in his letters in his letters. And they were around AD60.
Early Christians believed that Jesus was the 'Son of God', though there was some uncertainty about it actual meaning.

Jesus claimed it, the disciples claimed it. And in case you think they would anyway, remember it cost many of them their lives accepting this doctrine.

Josephus circa 100AD calls Jesus 'the Christ'. And wrote in his book Jesus was both 'God and Lord of Hosts'.
Around the same time Ignatius wrote of Christ as God.
Justyn Martyr 150AD wrote of Jesus 'being the first-begotten Word of God'.
Irenaeus calls Jesus 'our Lord, our God, our Saviour and King'. Again in a book.
Clement (200AD) in his book wrote that Jesus was 'truly manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the Universe, because He was His Son'.
Tertullian (220AD) 'the Son is of one substance with the Father'.
Another writer - can't remember who - makes similar comments. Can't find my notes.

A declaration doesn't mean either that that belief doesn't already exist, or isn't true before the declaration.

After all it has taken Gnosticism around 2500 years to get where it is today. And as I understand it there a different schools of thought within Gnosticism.

Ivan. Have posted this in reply but please delete if you think it's off subject.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1349
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:47 pm

Shirina wrote:
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Well said ... and entirely accurate to boot!

Do I know what to plagiarize or what. cheers

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1058
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum