Can God love? (Part 1)
+15
agoodman
tlttf
astra
trevorw2539
Ivan
astradt1
blueturando
sickchip
polyglide
Phil Hornby
Adele Carlyon
bobby
Shirina
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
19 posters
Page 8 of 25
Page 8 of 25 • 1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 16 ... 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
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]
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]
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Sherina. It will be an obvious problem to get you to understand the offer God made to man, regarding free will, as at times I have felt as confused as you apparently are.
If God can see into the future it does not negate man having a free choice as to what he does in any given situation, when he knows man will make the wrong choice he must feel very downhearted but having given man that choice he cannot interfere and control matters.or there would be no free will.
Please before considering the matter pray for a little guidance.
If God can see into the future it does not negate man having a free choice as to what he does in any given situation, when he knows man will make the wrong choice he must feel very downhearted but having given man that choice he cannot interfere and control matters.or there would be no free will.
Please before considering the matter pray for a little guidance.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Is there any product from abstract discussion? It so quickly descends into a series of instructions.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
As for charity and helping others.
I have just read all the current papers that I buy and seen the current news on the television.
That which is involved aroused every emotion possible. from delight to despair and every emotion between.
It is all right considering matters from a position in which you enjoy most of the best things available but totally different from the opposite position.
The latter very often having no voice whatsoever.
The person who finds an amount of money, be it a penny or a thousand pounds is honour bound to return it to it's rightful owner.
However, in the case of the person who has to decide between her children having food and not having food the best thing to do would be to leave a note thanking the person who left the money and offering to pay it back when circumstances changed and leave a name and addess and buy the children a good meal.
I have seen the affluent and those in great need with little of anything including hope and it is a disgrace to mankind that such differences should occur in this day and age.
There is no answer because everyone wants to keep what they have and are afraid of becoming like those less well off.
Charity does help in many cases but a lot of the money donated goes astray and this puts many people off.
If there ever was to be a solution [which I think is beyond mankind] it would have to involve the participation of every nation all with the same intention in mind.
I have just read all the current papers that I buy and seen the current news on the television.
That which is involved aroused every emotion possible. from delight to despair and every emotion between.
It is all right considering matters from a position in which you enjoy most of the best things available but totally different from the opposite position.
The latter very often having no voice whatsoever.
The person who finds an amount of money, be it a penny or a thousand pounds is honour bound to return it to it's rightful owner.
However, in the case of the person who has to decide between her children having food and not having food the best thing to do would be to leave a note thanking the person who left the money and offering to pay it back when circumstances changed and leave a name and addess and buy the children a good meal.
I have seen the affluent and those in great need with little of anything including hope and it is a disgrace to mankind that such differences should occur in this day and age.
There is no answer because everyone wants to keep what they have and are afraid of becoming like those less well off.
Charity does help in many cases but a lot of the money donated goes astray and this puts many people off.
If there ever was to be a solution [which I think is beyond mankind] it would have to involve the participation of every nation all with the same intention in mind.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
astra wrote:
RoB, in my mind, DISASTER RELIEF is NOT charity.
Astra,
Donating of what one has to alleviate needs and suffering of others = Charity.
Journalists (real journalist, not 21st Century Murdochites), in bylined stories, accurately convey to the reader “who – what –when – where – how – why.” In 1988 post-Hurricane Gilbert Jamaica, journalists accurately conveyed the following:
- Who: Jamaicans.
- What: Were in need and suffering.
- When: Now.
- Where: In Jamaica.
- How: In various ways, including an acute need for clothing.
- Why: Because Hurricane Gilbert tore through Jamaica.
Of the “five w’s and an h”, the “who – what – when – where – how” motivated the donation of all items of clothing in my family’s closets that hadn’t been worn within the past year, and most items that hadn’t been worn within the past month. My family and I cared not about the “why.”
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
when Haiti happened we gave wot we could,
when the tsounami hit Japan we gave wot we could - both on the other side of the planet to us.
The only charities here in uk I support are for German Shephard rescue, and the local Air Ambulance
I tire easily of the "adverts" shown on TV at vast expence and so repeated ly that they have become tiresome!
The cost of the adverts - TV companies and newspapers will not present them for free, and the value of the "Executive's salaries, could fill a Royal Navy Frigate with supplies, but no, just keep pumping the public. They now invite us to leave to them in our wills! Nothing is private anymore
= ALMS and if we went BACK to the old ways perhaps we may help by getting clothes and cash and food, to the person who needs it rather that using more than comfortably well off middle men.
when the tsounami hit Japan we gave wot we could - both on the other side of the planet to us.
The only charities here in uk I support are for German Shephard rescue, and the local Air Ambulance
I tire easily of the "adverts" shown on TV at vast expence and so repeated ly that they have become tiresome!
The cost of the adverts - TV companies and newspapers will not present them for free, and the value of the "Executive's salaries, could fill a Royal Navy Frigate with supplies, but no, just keep pumping the public. They now invite us to leave to them in our wills! Nothing is private anymore
.Donating of what one has to alleviate needs and suffering of others = Charity
= ALMS and if we went BACK to the old ways perhaps we may help by getting clothes and cash and food, to the person who needs it rather that using more than comfortably well off middle men.
astra- Deceased
- Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Astra,
I’m not “moved” by slick ad campaigns touting other folks’ favorite causes at considerable expense to someone. My mother taught my siblings and me to always (1) count the cost, and (2) figure out who’s paying the tab.
The Jamaican campaign was grass roots; folks who cared doing everything they knew how to do, and coordinating what they did with others, to get the job done. That’s the kind of campaign which motivates me to action.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
That’s the kind of campaign which motivates me to action
Yes I agree, and only those without a heart would not.
Much the same may happen in this country if someone is burned out of their house. Disaster strikes suddenly and without warning - Lockerbie experienced the same phenomena all those years ago. The children who suffer horrible disfigurement (don't hear of them do you?) from Chernobyl come every year to the north east for 2 - 4 weeks, to get away from the continually reminding horrors of the place, AND to get medical help and treatment. 40 to 50 will come every summer, and live with families who give their time and space toward getting these kids back on track. (kids of kids are showing illnesses and disfigurement because of the radiation) This is heart warming stuff and really worthwhile and gladly, the suits and moneymen can get nowhere near them! (Which is why, presumably, the media have backed off!) or is it me
When Perth - Scotland was flooded in 1988, (The dam at Faskally, near Pitlochry had to be opened, for fear of overflowing) Perth's citizens banded together to help those flooded out of their homes by 8 feet of water. The same will be hapening all over this country now with the rains we are having.
it is the TV "Campaigns" I shout about, as if making the suffering of the needy some kind of 'entertainment'
astra- Deceased
- Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I'm only surprised that there hasn't been a greater backlash against this miserly (and at the same time Greedy) Coalition government.
What sheer cheek to try to transfer some of their humane responsibilities to voluntary organisations, and THEN want to change the tax relief for donors!
What sheer cheek to try to transfer some of their humane responsibilities to voluntary organisations, and THEN want to change the tax relief for donors!
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina wrote:Any nation with the Rule of Law would have to prosecute the mother, but any nation with a fair set of laws would recognize the extenuating circumstances and simply give the mother some community service as a sentence. We can't simply say that stealing $20 is okay ... as long as it's $20 or less because then everyone would do it. Shopkeepers and business owners would be nickeled and dimed out of business. In the Western world, especially, there is always help available. Charities are abundant and one can usually be found at any corner church ... or if not, they will know where to go. True starvation is more or less unheard of here unless the parent is doing it deliberately. In addition, there is government help ... which is more reliable than charities.Agreed. Now take that one step further. Is it 'morally' right to convict the woman using her moral/legal 'right' to keep her child alive, or risk legal action for allowing it to die? Should we take the child into care because her mother is not a good moral example? Should we cut her hand off for stealing? What are morals and what are legal rules based on religions.
One of the problems with charities goes back to my time in India. There, where I lived, everyone was poor. That's why people go hungry - no one has anything to give. I've lived in small rural communities here in the States where the whole community was poor. Those few who had middle class jobs were too few to make a dent, and that's assuming they gave to charities in the first place. And even if they do give, do they give locally? Who knows. But the point is: Charities are not always a reliable source of sustenance, which is why we need government programs.
While this isn't a political thread, per se, I must point out that this is one reason why I'm considered "liberal." Most conservatives are fiercely opposed to government programs because they're more worried about the scammers and fraudsters than they are about the poor and needy. However, having personally witnessed and lived through what it's like to be poor with minimal help from the outside, I know what our streets will become should we ever abandon our government assistance programs. Believe me when I say, it's not pretty. The difference, however, is that in India, everyone was poor. There wasn't anything to steal! But in the West, no one is going to obediently sit down and starve to death when supermarket shelves are groaning with the weight of an over-abundance of food. People WILL steal it to stay alive.
When I was just shy of my 16th birthday, newly arrived to the US, I took a job at the local McDonald's. Now, a place like McDonald's throws away a lot of food, especially at closing (these days they're a lot less wasteful, but back then ...). I remember one night a destitute family - including children - were scrounging in the dumpster for all of the food we had thrown away. I was handed a broom and told to go out there and chase them off. I refused. To me, that was intolerable. My exact words to the manager were, "So you'd rather feed the cockroaches than a family?"
At that point I was given a lecture on how, if they became sick, McDonald's could be held liable. So I asked why doesn't McDonald's simply give away the extra food at the end of the night? Hell, even we, the underpaid employees, wouldn't mind taking some of it home. But nope, I was told, "If we did that, then no one would buy the food. They would just come at the end of the night and get it for free!" I thought that was absurd logic, but there it was. So I handed the broom back to the manager and said I refuse to be a party to this kind of corporate nonsense. I was fired on the spot for insubordination.
That's how my very first real job ended ... I had been fired. I moped home figuring my parents would be furious. But when I told them what happened, both my parents merely hugged me tight and said how proud they were of me for standing up for what I believe in.
I agree to a point. However I would go further. A community sentence is all very well, but if the woman were that desperate it does not resolve the problem. We talk of morals, and it's great to have them until we are watching our child suffer, unable to do anything about it. We, in this country, have families in real need, finding it difficult to survive. For many work is not an option, there being none. Where there is some, parents are working part-time each trying to provide, and sometimes ruining health, losing homes etc. Many have worked hard in the past, contributing to Society in taxes etc. Successive Governments over many years have wasted taxpayers in Pensions contributions and many Pensioners are now in hard times, struggling to survive. Food or heat. And it really is happening.
Society has a moral duty to protect its poor and less fortunate. If it does not it cannot reasonably expect the poor and needy to reciprocate.
Shirina. This next sentence is not personal to you.
So sit back in your comfortable chairs and moralise all you like. I don't condone theft, either for personal gain, or for the sake of possessions, I 'understand' it for survival.
And RoC. I had a mother like you. However I learned to think for myself, particularly when my relationship broke up and I lived on baked beans, eggs and bread and margarine for quite some time.
You won't agree with me, but that is how I feel when I see a family struggling to survive, and when my Electric Bill comes in
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
trevorw2539 wrote:
You won't agree with me, but that is how I feel when I see a family struggling to survive, and when my Electric Bill comes in
First things first. If you need it, provide me a way to convey funds to your electric company, and, from that which I have, I’ll donate a modest amount per year. This is a serious offer.
It won’t be much, because I don’t have much, but such as I have, I’ll share. This I learned from my mother’s mother as I saw her consistently practice this principle.
More later.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
trevorw2539 wrote:
We talk of morals, and it's great to have them until we are watching our child suffer, unable to do anything about it.
In my family, we were/are taught to walk morals rather than talk of morals. In other words, if it’s not yours (1) don’t take it (that’s stealing), and (2) if you find it, return it to its owner. Why? Because it’s not yours.
No preaching, no philosophy, no excuses; if it “belong-a-Mick”, it is my moral obligation to do whatever I can to ensure that whatever belong-a-Mick is wherever Mick wants it (credit to Crocodile Dundee II).
trevorw2539 wrote:
Many have worked hard in the past, contributing to Society in taxes etc.
Several decades ago, I won an argument with a man who at the time was about 85 years of age. He had worked from the age of 12 until past his 75th birthday. Back in 1st grade, Miss Meanface taught me that 75 takeaway 12 equals 63.
He had been a laborer; loading/unloading trucks boxcars, etc., logging a time or two, and his recurrent job, picking cotton.
A word about picking the white stuff. I’ve loaded and unloaded trucks (vans, tractor trailers); one day, I handled approximately fifteen hundred (1,500) boxes of books which averaged eighty (80) pounds apiece. Do the math, and you might be as “plumb wore” as I was when I got off that day. This fellow, hearing that, said that he understood (boxcars are far bigger than vans/trailers), and that pickling cotton was much harder than loading/unloading boxcars.
The argument? This fine gentleman didn’t believe that he deserved SSI (Supplemental Security Income), or any retirement benefit from the federal government, because he hadn’t paid into retirement or social security during his lifetime. Took the better part of two hours before he realized that it wasn’t his fault that his employers had exhibited so little care for the workers upon whom they depended that they had bothered to neither set up retirement systems or participate in social security.
I finally won the argument after showing him the tags on my shirt and jacket (such and such percentage cotton) http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm. He applied for SSI the next day, and he got a check and medical benefits at the beginning of the next month.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Society has a moral duty to protect its poor and less fortunate.
That’s precisely the function of gleanings. The landowners “gave at the office” prior to taking their crops to market and selling them to the highest bidders.
trevorw2539 wrote:
I don't condone theft, either for personal gain, or for the sake of possessions, I 'understand' it for survival.
I understand the inbred compulsion to survive. There is a concept called hierarchy of laws. Martin Luther King articulated that concept; when confronted by billy-club welding cops who accused marchers of breaking laws, he responded by telling them the laws being broken were illegal.
trevorw2539 wrote:
And RoC. I had a mother like you. However I learned to think for myself, particularly when my relationship broke up and I lived on baked beans, eggs and bread and margarine for quite some time.
If you believe that my mother didn’t teach her children to think for themselves, then I’ve got some beachfront property with a Pacific Ocean view for sale in a secluded, exclusive neighborhood in Montana. For a few extra dollars (or pounds, but not Euros), I’ll throw in a bridge (Brooklyn, that is).
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
And herein lies the failure of our American system. Disability and SSI are not safety nets in the truest sense of the word. You're expected to pay into them. If you're someone like me, who is young enough to have only worked a few low wage jobs in between college semesters, you get absolutely shit from either program. I either get denied outright because I should've been picking cotton instead of going to school or I get such a small amount that it couldn't support a cat much less a human being. This is why so many people who end up homeless are disabled.The argument? This fine gentleman didn’t believe that he deserved SSI (Supplemental Security Income), or any retirement benefit from the federal government, because he hadn’t paid into retirement or social security during his lifetime.
I was even told by one of the evaluation doctors that "being young and educated" was going to work against me. I was like ... wha? What does either of those two things have to do with being disabled? Are educated people somehow more immune from being smacked down with an illness? I'd like to see the genetic studies on THAT. So our program invents reasons why you shouldn't receive disability payments ... in fact, you're treated as a liar and a fraudster until you prove that you're not. And ... since, to the best of my knowledge, there's no way to measure pain, they're probably going to deny me what little bit I can get from this program. What does that mean for me? Eating out of dumpsters?
Of course if I really did lie and cheat the system, I'd probably receive full benefits. Talk about a system that literally forces people to be immoral just to survive.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Roc quote. If you believe that my mother didn’t teach her children to think for themselves, then I’ve got some beachfront property with a Pacific Ocean view for sale in a secluded, exclusive neighborhood in Montana. For a few extra dollars (or pounds, but not Euros), I’ll throw in a bridge (Brooklyn, that is).
Then perhaps you could let it for few dollars to those genuinely homeless and hungry.
Morality is fine when you are not faced with hunger and deprivation. A mother faced with that thinks of her children. If no help is available what should she do. You needn't answer that.
Morality without mercy is worthless.
One definition of morality
The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
1.A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
More info »Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level.........................
Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community....
Wiki quotes
And that is my final say on the matter. You know where I stand. I apologise if I upset anyone with my 'comfortable chair' quotes. As you have seen I am intolerant of rigidity in religion and morality. Life is hard enough.
RoC quote.
That’s precisely the function of gleanings. The landowners “gave at the office” prior to taking their crops to market and selling them to the highest bidders.
Agreed, but this was neither a moral issue, or a charity issue on behalf of the owner. It was a direct instruction from God according to the Bible.
Thanks for the offer - electric bill - but I manage to budget for such items.
Then perhaps you could let it for few dollars to those genuinely homeless and hungry.
Morality is fine when you are not faced with hunger and deprivation. A mother faced with that thinks of her children. If no help is available what should she do. You needn't answer that.
Morality without mercy is worthless.
One definition of morality
The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
1.A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
More info »Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level.........................
Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community....
Wiki quotes
And that is my final say on the matter. You know where I stand. I apologise if I upset anyone with my 'comfortable chair' quotes. As you have seen I am intolerant of rigidity in religion and morality. Life is hard enough.
RoC quote.
That’s precisely the function of gleanings. The landowners “gave at the office” prior to taking their crops to market and selling them to the highest bidders.
Agreed, but this was neither a moral issue, or a charity issue on behalf of the owner. It was a direct instruction from God according to the Bible.
Thanks for the offer - electric bill - but I manage to budget for such items.
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I totally agree.Morality is fine when you are not faced with hunger and deprivation.
In one of the lesser known Jewish ghettos created by the Nazis, one of the survivors talked about life inside. She said that, at one point, the Nazis withheld food and people began to starve. More to the point, she talked about how she had to put a single slice of bread in her safe because the Jews were stealing from each other. Her comment: "People say - how can that be? How can they turn on each other? The circumstances were hardly normal. Everyone wants to live."
When people feel that their lives are at stake, morality flies right out the window. No one ... myself included ... would hand a misplaced apple back to the fat merchant if they're starving. Morality might be a way to live, but all too often, it is NOT a way to survive.
Far too many people today believe that the "right" to make a profit or the "right" hoard as much of the wealth and resources as they want is more important than the real right to to life. That is why I say that the immorality of theft can hardly hold a candle to the immorality of allowing yourself or your children to starve. We've seen the "morality" of profit in action many times, and it usually results in such disasters as the Irish Potato Famine or the starvation rampant in North Korea.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
trevorw2539 wrote:
Roc quote. If you believe that my mother didn’t teach her children to think for themselves, then I’ve got some beachfront property with a Pacific Ocean view for sale in a secluded, exclusive neighborhood in Montana. For a few extra dollars (or pounds, but not Euros), I’ll throw in a bridge (Brooklyn, that is).
Then perhaps you could let it for few dollars to those genuinely homeless and hungry.
Of course. I’ll meet them in Montana Tuesday.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Morality is fine when you are not faced with hunger and deprivation.
Morality is required of one who chooses to walk the talk.
trevorw2539 wrote:
A mother faced with that thinks of her children.
A mother who chooses morality thinks of her children.
trevorw2539 wrote:
If no help is available what should she do. You needn't answer that.
She should choose morality. If she chooses morality, as she should, then she must require herself to walk the talk. Walking the talk excludes stealing.
I in fact need answer.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Morality without mercy…
There is no such thing.
trevorw2539 wrote:
If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level.........................
Morality is in fact the answer as to how ought we to live at the individual level.
trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC quote.
That’s precisely the function of gleanings. The landowners “gave at the office” prior to taking their crops to market and selling them to the highest bidders.
Agreed, but this was neither a moral issue, or a charity issue on behalf of the owner. It was a direct instruction from God according to the Bible.
It was and is in fact (1) a moral issue, (2) a charity issue, and (3) a direct instruction of YHWH Elohim, conveyed by Moshe, and recorded in Torah.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Thanks for the offer - electric bill - but I manage to budget for such items.
No problem.
It would seem that you’ve yet to read and digest the Locke text. You might do so; it directly applies to this topic, especially the gleanings and ownership thereof.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina,
SSI, on its face, is intended to provide to needy persons exactly what its name states: Supplemental Security Income. The person of whom I spoke considered it a handout, and he wanted no parts of any handout, period.
The overarching intent of all such programs, according to Piven and Cloward, is also the title of their book, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. If Piven and Cloward are correct, perhaps your experience is predictable.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
God's intention
Roc
Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity.
Man's invention
But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
Yes I have read it.
Everything that follows the above is 'legal' position, and I acknowledge the need of the Law, while the above is the 'moral' position.
My post above relates only to your suggested link.
You quoted Crocodile Dundee. Allow me to follow suit. When asked about the Aborigines right to their land he replied (approximate words) ' Nah they don't own the land. Those rocks were here a million years ago and will be when they (Aborigines) are gone'.
The Jews never owned the Promised Land. God lent it to them. Leviticus 25:23 They were tenants. We own nothing in God's eyes. We are here for a 'season', and gone.
Always accepting you believe the Genesis account.
The good Samaritan knew that by touching the Jew he was polluting the man, but he chose to take the moral position. At personal cost to himself.
Jesus accepted the right of possessions, but he also knew the pitfalls of possessions 'thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee'.
I applaud your rigid stand on morality. My sympathy lies with the suffering mother and child. And I now bow out of this discussion.
You and I have differing views and have had differing experiences in life. So be it.
Roc
Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity.
Man's invention
But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
Yes I have read it.
Everything that follows the above is 'legal' position, and I acknowledge the need of the Law, while the above is the 'moral' position.
My post above relates only to your suggested link.
You quoted Crocodile Dundee. Allow me to follow suit. When asked about the Aborigines right to their land he replied (approximate words) ' Nah they don't own the land. Those rocks were here a million years ago and will be when they (Aborigines) are gone'.
The Jews never owned the Promised Land. God lent it to them. Leviticus 25:23 They were tenants. We own nothing in God's eyes. We are here for a 'season', and gone.
Always accepting you believe the Genesis account.
The good Samaritan knew that by touching the Jew he was polluting the man, but he chose to take the moral position. At personal cost to himself.
Jesus accepted the right of possessions, but he also knew the pitfalls of possessions 'thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee'.
I applaud your rigid stand on morality. My sympathy lies with the suffering mother and child. And I now bow out of this discussion.
You and I have differing views and have had differing experiences in life. So be it.
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Many people believe that there is little difference between "a moral compass", and the Christian Ethic.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
oftenwrong wrote:Many people believe that there is little difference between "a moral compass", and the Christian Ethic.
The Christian Ethic ,or compass, always points 'upwards'. The 'moral compass' points in any direction according to your own personal upbringing/culture/religion
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
YEAH!
I'm Jesuit one day, practicing Dominican the next!
(now where's the thumbscrew and red hot brand?)
I'm Jesuit one day, practicing Dominican the next!
(now where's the thumbscrew and red hot brand?)
astra- Deceased
- Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
astra wrote:YEAH!
I'm Jesuit one day, practicing Dominican the next!
(now where's the thumbscrew and red hot brand?)
Let me have your address. I'll send them on
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
If you take those who have all the worldly goods available and those who have nothing and all those in between then you will have a different perspective from each on any matter.
You cannot expect a starving person with nothing at all to understand the thinking of a millionaire who has everything.
Amongst the poorest of people you will find those with far more of the desirable qualities than those with everythimg.
Iam sure there are thousands of ordinary people who would willingly help anyone in need if they were sure that the person cocerned received the help directly and not their efforts used to pay for some ones car etc;
I think we all should support those less well off, I give to two charities, St Catherines Hospice, which I know does not misuse any monies and is a God send to many people and to Candis who I feel the same about.
But as I have said previously too many so called charities misuse the money by handing out salaries and providing cars etc; to too many hangers on.
You cannot expect a starving person with nothing at all to understand the thinking of a millionaire who has everything.
Amongst the poorest of people you will find those with far more of the desirable qualities than those with everythimg.
Iam sure there are thousands of ordinary people who would willingly help anyone in need if they were sure that the person cocerned received the help directly and not their efforts used to pay for some ones car etc;
I think we all should support those less well off, I give to two charities, St Catherines Hospice, which I know does not misuse any monies and is a God send to many people and to Candis who I feel the same about.
But as I have said previously too many so called charities misuse the money by handing out salaries and providing cars etc; to too many hangers on.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
astra wrote:RoB, in my mind, DISASTER RELIEF is NOT charity.
Semantics my friend.
Call it what you will. It matters not. When the $$$'s go out and down in a socio economic demographic pyramid, your pocket IOW, where it lands, or what we call that level, does not matter to the common.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
polyglide wrote:Sherina. It will be an obvious problem to get you to understand the offer God made to man, regarding free will, as at times I have felt as confused as you apparently are.
If God can see into the future it does not negate man having a free choice as to what he does in any given situation, when he knows man will make the wrong choice he must feel very downhearted but having given man that choice he cannot interfere and control matters.or there would be no free will.
Please before considering the matter pray for a little guidance.
You seem to think that God respects man's free will when your bible is full of instances where God is shown to trample them. Even to pave the way for more of his murders as in the myth of Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart.
Give your head a shake my friend.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
oftenwrong wrote:Many people believe that there is little difference between "a moral compass", and the Christian Ethic.
Let us pray against the barbarism of a religion based on immoral human sacrifice and a God who can be bribed.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
polyglide wrote:If you take those who have all the worldly goods available and those who have nothing and all those in between then you will have a different perspective from each on any matter.
You cannot expect a starving person with nothing at all to understand the thinking of a millionaire who has everything.
Amongst the poorest of people you will find those with far more of the desirable qualities than those with everythimg.
Iam sure there are thousands of ordinary people who would willingly help anyone in need if they were sure that the person cocerned received the help directly and not their efforts used to pay for some ones car etc;
I think we all should support those less well off, I give to two charities, St Catherines Hospice, which I know does not misuse any monies and is a God send to many people and to Candis who I feel the same about.
But as I have said previously too many so called charities misuse the money by handing out salaries and providing cars etc; to too many hangers on.
That is just your $$$ doing some value added. You should be pleased. Charity begins at home.
You need to think demographically my friend and recognize that the resources that you wish to send down will eventually get there, in a chaotic way, as the whole health of the economy is stimulated. We cannot see such benefit at work but we can know that it is at work. Think butterfly effect.
When your $$$'s go out and down in a socio economic demographic pyramid, where it lands, or what we call that level, does not matter to the common. The bottom feels the benefits.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Greatest I am wrote:
You seem to think that God respects man's free will when your bible is full of instances where God is shown to trample them.
Ha adama’s creation into freedom of choice is documented in Genesis 1:26-27:
Hebrew Bible:
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:26-27
If you continue experiencing difficulty in comprehending this simple truth, you need only examine yourself and the manner in which you freely express the freedom of choice endowed unto you by YHVH Elohim by intentionally disrespecting YHVH Elohim and the Logos of YHVH Elohim. If, after such self examination, you still experience difficulty in comprehending this simple truth, I will, upon your request, aid you as best I can.
Greatest I am wrote:
Even to pave the way for more of his murders as in the myth of Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart.
Please note the following:
- רָצַח, râtsach, to murder.
Please document your discovery of the Hebrew word “רָצַח”, transliterated “râtsach”, in the exodus (from Egypt) account of Torah.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
trevorw2539 wrote:
Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
You have incorrectly labeled this portion of Sectionn25 as “God’s intention.” More on this inaccuracy below.
trevorw2539 wrote:
But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
You have incorrectly labeled this portion of Section 25 as “Man’s intent.”
I posit that Locke has written this specific content as one section because this is one continuous thought. Earlier, Lock debunks the erroneous notion, “Divine Right of Kings”, upon which European monarchs have/had for centuries based their claims to sovereignty. Even England, with its monarchial history deviating from the European norm in 1215 AD at Runnymede, was, in 1690, still burdened by this onerous yoke. Locke sought to forever free his people to receive from their common Creator their common unalienable human right to property ownership.
I’ve repeated portions of Section 25, below with comments.
- “… it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. “
What does Psalms 115:16 say?
Seems pretty clear what Locke is “talkin’ ‘bout.” No monarch can legitimately lay exclusive claim to ownership of that which our Creator has, Owner and Sovereign of all that is, has specifically given “to the sons of men” (Psalms 115:16); thus, “Divine Right of Kings” is neither divine nor (a) right. Anti-monarchists in the 21st Century UK might take note of this.The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s, but the earth hath he given to the sons of men. - “…it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity.”
Locke nails it down; “… it is impossible that any man…” - “… but I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common…”
Locke states here that which he intends to do; “endeavour to shew” how all men, each man, can come into ownership of personal property.
Please examine Sections 26 through 51 for Locke’s promised exposition showing how an individual man (1) comes into ownership of property, and (2) that of which property consists.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Yes I have read it.
Everything that follows the above is 'legal' position, and I acknowledge the need of the Law, while the above is the 'moral' position.
If by “that follows” you mean that which follows Section 25 in Chapter V of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690, you are mistaken.
trevorw2539 wrote:
You quoted Crocodile Dundee. Allow me to follow suit. When asked about the Aborigines right to their land he replied (approximate words) ' Nah they don't own the land. Those rocks were here a million years ago and will be when they (Aborigines) are gone'.
Original Australians’ attitudes toward the land and its resources are an echo of and/or are echoed in Genesis 1:26, “… let them [ha adama] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
The underlined word, although in my opinion properly translated, connotes far more than it denotes. A more comprehensive “translation” might be “stewardship” or “conservatorship”, conveying a sense of caring for that which belongs to a superior as the superior himself would desire.
trevorw2539 wrote:
The Jews never owned the Promised Land. God lent it to them. Leviticus 25:23 They were tenants. We own nothing in God's eyes. We are here for a 'season', and gone.
A point of clarification: They were not Jews at the time they received Torah, including Leviticus. Properly, they were Y’srael.
True statement thereafter; Torah (and the Prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs) affirm that YHVH Elohim, Adonai Eluheinu, is Author, Creator, Owner, and Sovereign of all that is. As such, God possesses authority to delegate ownership as he chooses; Locke, in Sections 25—51, “shews” how “Adonai echod” has endowed unto each man the unalienable right to property and ownership thereof.
trevorw2539 wrote:
Jesus accepted the right of possessions, but he also knew the pitfalls of possessions 'thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee'.
Exactly.
trevorw2539 wrote:
I applaud your rigid stand on morality. My sympathy lies with the suffering mother and child. And I now bow out of this discussion.
There is no dichotomy between morality and sympathy for/empathy with suffering mankind. One cannot seek morality without seeking to alleviate suffering of others.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Wow, there's me thinking John Locke was in a plane crash on a tv programme?
tlttf- Banned
- Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There appears to be a misconception regarding love.
Love does not mean that you pander to everyones wishes and do not reprimand where necessary.
In fact in many instances not to take actions that appear none loving in fact is contrary to the meaning of love.
To take resonable action for the benifit of those concerned based on all the evidence available is more loving that doing nothing to save their soul.
Love does not mean that you pander to everyones wishes and do not reprimand where necessary.
In fact in many instances not to take actions that appear none loving in fact is contrary to the meaning of love.
To take resonable action for the benifit of those concerned based on all the evidence available is more loving that doing nothing to save their soul.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Greek Bible:
And you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons:
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by him, for those whom the Lord loves he disciplines, and he scourges every son whom he receives.”
It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons, for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, so that we may share his holiness.
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Hebrews 12:5-11
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Greatest I am wrote:
Correcting fools is my passion and I have not quite learned to control it yet.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
It is a war I wage and---------
You quote from the Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible.
Hebrew Bible:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:7
You quote from a source that rebukes your actions.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Of course fools will despise wisdom and instruction.
They will not think they need it.
Note how some ignore it for tradition old failed Gods.
Like the Jewish one.
Fools idol worship and name God.
Regards
DL
They will not think they need it.
Note how some ignore it for tradition old failed Gods.
Like the Jewish one.
Fools idol worship and name God.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Tue 12 Jun 2012 - 0:21
Correcting fools1 is my passion and I have not quite learned to control it yet.
Proverbs 3:12
For whom the LORD3 loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
It is a war I wage and---------
Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Thursday 21 Jun 2012 - 18:17
Of course fools1 will despise wisdom2 and instruction2.
They1 will not think they1 need it.
Note how some1 ignore it for tradition old failed God3s.
Like the Jewish one.3
Fools1 idol worship and name God.3
Hebrew Bible:
The fear of the LORD3 is the beginning of knowledge2, but fools1 despise wisdom2 and instruction.2
Proverbs 1:7
You quote from the Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible. You quote from a source that rebukes your actions.
- identical/equivalent words
- identical/equivalent/synonymous words
- identical/equivalent words
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The biggest fools are those who do not realise that they themselves are the fools and cannot see the wood for the trees.
A little enlightenment goes a long way.
A little enlightenment goes a long way.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
polyglide wrote:
A little enlightenment1 goes a long way.
Greatest I am wrote:
Yes it1 does.
Greek Bible, Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Christ, Sermon on the Mount:
“You are the light1 of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light2 a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light1 to all who are in the house. Let your light1 shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:14-16
- identical/equivalent/synonymous words (noun/pronoun forms)
- connected word (verb form)
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
This is starting to be fun.
Deserves to be an e-book download from Amazon.
Deserves to be an e-book download from Amazon.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
oftenwrong wrote:This is starting to be fun.
Deserves to be an e-book download from Amazon.
Or as Churchill might have said. 'Never in the field of Human literature has so much been interpreted by so few, for so many.' Sorry Winnie.
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
That is the whole point regarding the Bible and all it contains.
You can pick and choose verses and events and there will be any number of possible interpretations depending on what you set out to achieve and it is the latter that actually determines the way in which you view matters.
If you want to discredit the Bible, then you try to find examples of seemingly contradictions etc; if you believe whole heartedly in the Bible then you will seek to find the answers to the seeming contradictions and believe me they are there.
Seek and ye shall find.
You can pick and choose verses and events and there will be any number of possible interpretations depending on what you set out to achieve and it is the latter that actually determines the way in which you view matters.
If you want to discredit the Bible, then you try to find examples of seemingly contradictions etc; if you believe whole heartedly in the Bible then you will seek to find the answers to the seeming contradictions and believe me they are there.
Seek and ye shall find.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Would one of Alan Turing's strategies for decoding the Enigma machine have helped, do you think?
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Page 8 of 25 • 1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 16 ... 25
Similar topics
» Can God love? (Part 2)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
Page 8 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum