How much does the Christian God really love us?

[Debunker]

But you didn't answer my post at all. You merely confused the hypothetical with your own theology.


You believe there is a Body, a Soul, and a Spirit. Three separate dimensions to your existence.

You believe that only by accepting Jesus can your Spirit be born.

My hypothetical was this: what if a person, who claims to be the Father God, came to you and other people and said that there is a fourth dimension to you: the Essence. And at the moment it is dead.

So now you have a Body, Soul, Spirit, and Essence. The only way your Essence can be born is if you believe in this person.

If you believe in him your Spirit will go to heaven, and your Essence will become a God after you die.

He then sacrifices himself for the salvation of humanity.

Now, you can only understand this new theology once your Essence is born (by believing in this person/Father God). If you do not believe in this person/Father God then he claims you cannot understand this truth (because your Essence, this fourth dimension, is dead)

How can you accept or deny the truth of this hypothetical claim?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

mix too many words. It may be that
It may be that you find fault with Look's premises but your premises are more faulty. When you are born again, the dody/spirit 0r soul is born again, not just the spirit (breath). Where did this essences stuff come from? Not from the Bible.

 

[Debunker]

Well, then your view is entirely inconsistent with the New Testament. Because:

[a] Jesus says "no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6). Which means that if you choose to believe in this new theology, and first believe in this "Father God" then you would be violating Jesus' command, and not get eternal life.

Except of course, that the claim of this "Father God" is that once you believe in him, then there's no contradiction between his theology and that of the N.T. - but there is an evident contradiction if you do not accept this new view. So either this Father God" is a true God or he isn't. If you choose to believe in him and he isn't a true God, then you're violating the N.T., but if he is a true God then your life is incomplete. The question is how do you make a sound choice?

The second reason why your view is inconsistent with the N.T. is that the N.T. says that whoever does not believe in Jesus and follows his commands: "their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur" (Revelation 21:8). So you have the choice to either accept it or not. But if you don't there are supposed consequences of damnation.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

[a] Jesus says "no one comes to the father except through me" (John 14:6). Which means that if you choose to believe in this new theology, and first believe in this "Father God" then you would be violating Jesus' command, and not get eternal life.

John saw Jesus as logos or dabarwhich was a theme of the Bible from beginning to the end, from OT to NT. This destroys your first assumption. Context means everything here.

The second reason why your view is inconsistent with the N.T. is that the N.T. says that whoever does not believe in Jesus and follows his commands: "their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur" (Revelation 21:8). So you have the choice to either accept it or not. But if you don't there are supposed consequences of damnation.

Understanding figurative language, which you say you do, explains the above. There goes your second reason. Eternal damnation is eternally dead. The dead know nothing. Read the complete Bible for a better understanding.

 

[Debunker]

Well let me explain one thing first before I continue. I am not a Christian. My views about Jesus and God come from a non-Christian perspective. That being said, I will address the statement "no man comes to the Father, but by me." Some would look at that statement and believe Jesus is speaking of himself, however, he isn't. He is speaking of the Christ, the mystic consciousness within all. I do not believe Jesus was the first avatar, I also believe Krishna was, and many others. Let me be clear I do not believe that is speaking about Jesus, and I think the NT puts forth a very mystic view, but literalism gets in the way.

Very good point. An objective point of view should always be welcomed in pursuit of truth.

 

[Debunker]

But here you're using again a verse that supports what I said!

How can the verse: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," be consistent with worshiping the "Father God" from my example? It cannot.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

this supports your contention only if you fail to acknowledge that Christ was logos which is the position the Bible takes on this subject. Your counter statement does fall short.

 

[Debunker]

You're again not addressing my question. The verse you gave suggests that Jesus said that ONLY God should be worshiped and served. How can that be consistent with the example I gave you, if people were to worship this new person who claims to be God?

If that person is indeed God then they wouldn't be violating Jesus' command (and that of the O.T. Ten Commandments). But if he isn't God then they are worshiping someone who is not God, which violates Jesus' command.

So I ask you again. How can you decide whether to worship this person (and his new theology) or not?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

There is no new theology here. Christ was God. Your counter statement falls short again and will continue to be short until you understand what the Bible is saying.

 

[Debunker]

Excellent response!

So the only way to verify if a new theology is credible is by looking at the existing holy texts.

Fundamental belief in Christ/Christianity is based on this verse:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

Correct?

In this one verse the New Testament talks about the Trinity, heaven/hell, eternal life, and belief in God.

So if we want to verify if the New Testament is credible we'll have to look at the holy texts that were present before the New Testament - namely, the Old Testament.

Can you show me where the Old Testament speaks of the Trinity? Can you show me where it speaks of heaven/hell? Of eternal life? Can you show me where the Old Testament says we have to believe in God? (hint: the first of the Ten Commandments simply says "I am your God." It asks for recognition, not belief)

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

Christ did not introduce a new theology. He was the fulfillment of the same theology that began in the beginning. There is no contradiction with Christ and OT theology of dabar .

 

[Debunker]

What is a 'Christian God'?

I would like to refer you to my comments on dabar and logos.

 

[Enoughie]

You make many mistakes as you define the Christian God. The Bible does not teach that God's love is unconditional. That is what you teach the Bible says. You must obey God first, then God's love is unconditional.

You must accept that God is. then his love is unconditional.

I don't think you understand what the word unconditional means. You can't say "You must accept that God is" (which is a condition) and then god's love is unconditional. It's a self-contradiction.

God is a father does not mean he does not have conditions for children. You might be a child whose parents did not have conditions that you had to live up

Conditions and expectations are not the same.

to but most of us had to obey our parents until we were wise enough to make decisions on our own.

When will the Christian god allow people to make "decisions on their own"? When they die? Nope. According to the Bible you'd still be a slave to god then.

Most of us learned this fact of life. A few like you seem to be turned out to be oppositional to any authority that threatened to limit your hedonistic spirit.

This is a baseless assertion. Prove that my "spirit" is hedonistic (that I view the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good). It is clearly not. It is just that I don't accept the immorality and the tyranny of the biblical god.

Without having read any of the post in this thread, I venture to say that you raised the issue of homosexuality. If How I am incorrect here, I will certainly apologize, but with your penchant for pleasure as a measure of morality, I venture to think I am correct.

Again, you have to demonstrate that I view pleasure as the highest good. But I clearly don't. And if you ever bother to read about my views on morality (which you can do on my blog here: Natural Philosophy of Life) you'd see that I view life, honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom as the highest good.

How much does God really love us? You fall under the category of people that Christ said to dust the dust off our feet concerning how much God loves you. See, the Bible does not say his love is unconditional. Too bad for you.

Well, I don't really care, considering the fact that your god doesn't actually exist.

Also, too bad for you, you are in the category of people that Paul talks about in the Book of Romans. These people were atheist/agnostics. God played games with them because "they did not like to retain God" in their minds. God sent these people "strong delusions so they would believe a lie" and the purpose of the delusion was to damn them, You are not escaping God's resentment of you but you are escaping his love, according to the New Testament.

I became agnostic because I tried to follow the Bible and saw it as an absurd and delusional theology, not because I tried to run away from it. So you're saying that your god made me delusional because I tried to follow the bible. Well, then clearly your god is not a loving god, but a wicked god. Also, when you assert that someone is delusional because he doesn't believe in your imaginary god, you first have to demonstrate that your god is actually real. After you do that, then we can determine who's delusional and who's not.

According to the New Testament you are not a child of God as yet. God is a good parent figure but he has no obligation to render parental guidance to you. Theologically speaking you will die while still in opposition to God and to your own salvation. According to the Bible, because of your opposition, neither God nor Christian are to be overly concerned about you. That also is part of his love to us and the rest of mankind Theologically, we both blow you off like dust on our feet.

You're bible makes you into a very kind person . It is nothing but a divisive doctrine.

Enjoy your own God, if you can find one.

Not everyone cares to have their own private dictator.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

 

[Debunker]

This is not a question of a halffull vs. half empty glass. You are attributing things to the O.T. that are simply not there.

For example, you've just misquoted the O.T. to support your claim for a heaven.

The original verse in the O.T.: "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth"

The original word for "heaven" - "shamaim" means "skies." It has nothing to do with a heaven (unless you're suggesting that after Jesus' sacrifice people who were in the underworld would now float in the sky)

The word "shamaim" is actually derived from the creation story itself. God separated the waters:

"And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."
(Genesis 1:6-7)

"sham" = there, "ma-im" = water --> "shamaim" = the waters above/skies.

That is your interpretation to make it consistent with Jesus' claims. But it has no relation to the original text. If you want to demonstrate how the "sheol" is actually a "prison" you have to show where in the O.T. it is viewed in that way.

Again, this has no basis in the O.T., this view is entirely derived from the N.T.

I asked you to show sources in the O.T. that support these claims.

I'm not asking you to show the word "Trinity" in the O.T., merely to show where it suggested in the O.T. that God is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Holy Spirit.

The O.T. doesn't suggest this anywhere

Believe and recognize are two very different things. The O.T. doesn't ask you to believe in God, so this new theology is entirely derived from the N.T.

So far you haven't provided any source in the O.T. to support the claims of the N.T.

Reinterpreting the O.T. and attributing things to the O.T. that were never there is not the same as providing sources from the O.T. to support Jesus' claims.

Well, I don't think that either the details, or the picture as a whole in the O.T. supports Jesus' claims.

Nowhere does it say anything about, a Trinity, eternal life in heaven/hell, or belief in God.

All these are entirely based in the N.T. without any grounding in the O.T.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

I do not support everything Look says but he seems to have a good grasp on what was the purpose of Christ IMO. If I disagree with you Look, it is because we need to correct some misunderstandings of the OP.

]This is not a question of a halffull vs. half empty glass. You are attributing things to the O.T. that are simply not there.

For example, you've just misquoted the O.T. to support your claim for a heaven.

The original verse in the O.T.: "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth"

The original word for "heaven" - "shamaim" means "skies." It has nothing to do with a heaven (unless you're suggesting that after Jesus' sacrifice people who were in the underworld would now float in the sky)

The word "shamaim" is actually derived from the creation story itself. God separated the waters:

"And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."
(Genesis 1:6-7)

"sham" = there, "ma-im" = water --> "shamaim" = the waters above/skies.

That is your interpretChrist didation to make it consistent with Jesus' claims. But it has no relation to the original text. If you want to demonstrate how the "sheol" is actually a "prison" you have to show where in the O.T. it is viewed in that way.

The above represents pretty good research IMO. The slip in logic comes in the rest of what the OP says about a new theology in the NT or in the theology that Christ preached. Christ did not preach a message different than that found in the OT. The kingdom of God has always been here on earth,in our hearts, and John saw this kingdom of God coming down to earth from heaven and dwelling here on the earth. If you want a better figurative understanding of heaven, or kingdom of God, read the Revelation of Jesus Christ written by John.

Jesus did not change the theology of the OT. That is a myth. He confirmed the true meaning of the search for God in the OT. He preached the resurrection of the dead, which was believed by the Hebrews and was the reason that the Israelites brought the bones of Jacob out of Egypt when Moses led them out through the Red Sea. Job had the same concept as he knew in the last day that he would see God. All the major figures in the OT according to the NT had this same idea.This resurrection to life is what Christ taught and it was nothing new to the Hebrews (Jews).

Again, this has no basis in the O.T., this view is entirely derived from the N.T.

I asked you to show sources in the O.T. that support these claims.

I'm not asking you to show the word "Trinity" in the O.T., merely to show where it suggested in the O.T. that God is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Holy Spirit.

The O.T. doesn't suggest this anywhere

Believe and recognize are two very different things. The O.T. doesn't ask you to believe in God, so this new theology is entirely derived from the N.T.

So far you haven't provided any source in the O.T. to support the claims of the N.T.

Reinterpreting the O.T. and attributing things to the O.T. that were never there is not the same as providing sources from the O.T. to support Jesus' claims.

Well, I don't think that either the details, or the picture as a whole in the O.T. supports Jesus' claims.

Nowhere does it say anything about, a Trinity, eternal life in heaven/hell, or belief in God.

All these are entirely based in the N.T. without any grounding in the O.T.

The slip in logic here rest in the fact that the NT does not teach what the OP says the NT does teach. Biblical scholars do not teach the NT teaches the Trinity so there is no urgent need to support this concept in the OT. (However, we could do so.) We all know the Trinity was a post NT doctrine. This does not mean the doctrine is not true but it was post NT.

Believe and recognize are two very different things. The O.T. doesn't ask you to believe in God, so this new theology is entirely derived from the N.T.

This statement above is a great slip in Biblical thinking so much that it is an insult to have to respond to it. Belief in dabar was the only purpose of the OT. What on earth is the OP trying to pull on us? Let's get real. If Christians and Jews are asked anything by God, it has always been to believe in the great I am.

 

[Enoughie]

this supports your contention only if you fail to acknowledge that Christ was logos which is the position the Bible takes on this subject. Your counter statement does fall short.

The claim that Christ is logos is an assertion that you must first prove with evidence. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

 

[Debunker]

I'm not arguing that that's not what Jesus said. I'm arguing that Jesus' claims for a Kingdom out of this world cannot be derived from the Old Testament, because the Old Testament never even suggests that such a dimension exists. Which means that Jesus created a fundamentally new and different theology from that of the O.T., and created new dimensions that never existed in the original texts.

Which means that if you want to evaluate the credibility of what Jesus says based on the texts of the O.T., you see that he created a new theology, and new dimensions (ie. the Spirit, Heaven, Afterlife, belief in God).

I'm not saying that you can only read the Bible literally. What I am saying is that however you choose to read the O.T. - literally or figuratively - you still can't find the theological foundation for Jesus' claims.

In fact, in places where you'd be most likely to see some clue (or foreshadowing) for Jesus' claims and sacrifice, you find nothing.

The most prominent example of this, I would say, is the Binding of Isaac. You'd think that God telling Abraham to sacrifice his "one and only Son," would include some hint of God intending to do the same to his own Son.

Instead, one of the reasons for the Binding of Isaac was God telling the world that a new era has come, and that no more human sacrifice is necessary.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross can only be viewed in that light as a step backward to darker ages of civilization where human sacrifice was a common practice.


This is again an inference that has no basis in the Old Testament.

Where does it say in the Old Testament that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing Covenant, and that one day it must be replaced? Nowhere.

Remember. I'm asking you to demonstrate the O.T. basis for Jesus' new theology. If you cannot demonstrate this, then belief in Jesus can be viewed the same as belief in the "Father God" from the example I gave you in the following post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2287415-post54.html - it has no basis in the holy texts that preceded it.




I have a pretty good insight of how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. That is not what the argument is about.

The argument is about the New Testament creating new "dimensions" that never existed in the Old Testament - such as believing in having a "Spirit," the Trinity, Heaven, and belief in God. These are all new dimensions that the New Testament invented. They have no basis in the Old Testament. Which means that if we want to establish the credibility of the N.T. by looking at the O.T., we cannot substantiate the N.T.'s claims by doing so.

Which means that belief in Jesus is based on the same foundation as belief in the Deity I postulated in the other post (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2287415-post54.html). You either believe in him or you don't. And you can claim that belief in this new theology is entirely consistent with the preceding holy texts (even when there are evident contradictions). But you cannot demonstrate how this belief is grounded in existing holy texts.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

This argument you present can be exposed by one sentence. The NT and Jesus did not preach what you say they preached.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The Christian god? Isn't that just the Jewish god remixed and revamped? The new, better, and improved Jewish god. Jehovah 2.0.

 

[Debunker]

Again, as long as you do not address my question (ie. where in the Old Testament does it say that the Covenant should be replaced, or that it is incomplete? Where does it say anything about the Trinity? Where does it say anything about eternal life in heaven? Where does it say anything about us having to believe in God?), then you cannot substantiate the credibility of the N.T.

What you are doing is making up things that the NT does not say and then asking Look to defend what the Bible does not claim to be true. This being the case, your testimony alone establishes the credibility of the NT. I have already covered your basic slips in logic so give up the malor distortions you offer here.

 

[Enoughie]

This argument you present can be exposed by one sentence. The NT and Jesus did not preach what you say they preached.

The question was: how much does the christian god really love us? As is evident from what you wrote, the answer is not much!

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and

 

[Debunker]

where in the bible does it say that gods love is unconditional?
john 3:16 is only talking about god loving us first and wants his love to be reciprocated and if not we are threatened with an ultimatum and therefore manipulated by the use of fear...
if you ascribe to this ideal, then you adhere to the principle of celestial dictatorship...
no thanks.

In support of Look, it is a myth that God rules by celestial dictatorship. Neither God or the Bible teaches this and we do not defend against this idea. Just to point out that this belief about God is false should be sufficient.

 

[Debunker]

If the "Old" covenant was supposed to be replaced by a "New" covenant, why does Isaiah 24:5 say that covenant is forever?

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, violated the statute, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 24:5).

This not only shows that the N.T. is inconsistent with the O.T., it blatantly contradicts it.

So how can you rationalize your "understanding" that the N.T. came to "complete" the O.T.?!

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

Actually the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old. The New C. is nothing new, it is the same agreement with God.

 

[Debunker]

How can someone, at any given moment in time, "fulfill" an eternal covenant?! This is an impossibility.

Either the covenant is eternal or it's not. The O.T. says it's eternal.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

Man is in time and not in eternity at this time. We are mortal beings. The OT is eternal and that is why the NT is fulfilled or continuation of the Old. The New C. is nothing new.

 

[Debunker]

That's not much at all. God can make millions of Jesuses popping in and out of existence, (even with greater suffering, if he so desires). He's all powerful. It shouldn't be a challenge for him at all.


Do you tell them that if they don't do what you tell them, no matter how bizarre your request may be, that they would have the most horrible things done to them? For eternity?

Sorry to tell you, but that's not good parenting. Especially if you're the one in charge of what happens to your children if they digress.



And if not, you would do the most horrible things to them, for eternity? Doesn't sound like a very "loving" thing to do.




Are you going to be the one to construct this jail and torture them? Or is this something that you have no control over?

Now, does God have any control over who goes to hell, and what hell is like? Again, not a very "loving" thing.


So God has no control over the law, and its consequences? Sounds like an incompetent god to me. I don't know why would anyone believe in such god.


So as a parent, your god basically says: "you're on your own kids, deal with all the natural catastrophes that I bring upon you, with the starvation, and disease. I'm not going to help you there."

But when it comes to torturing people for eternity, your God is more than willing to assist.

This God of yours sounds more like a psychopath, than a caring and loving father.


That's not what the N.T. says. It clearly says "slaves":


"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life" (Romans 6:22)



I was not aware of this "star wars syndrome." Didn't know your God is so limited in his power. I thought he was all-powerful.


If I have no say in what the law is, then of course I'd complain and blame the government. Especially if it is a ridiculous law, such as the laws of the Christian God.

That is why people prefer to live in republics, and not in theocracies.



I do not accept your God, because your God seems like a sadomasochist to me. I don't equate sadomasochism with "unfathomable love." Sorry.

I also see no factual basis to the existence of your God, or any of his claims of heaven, hell, eternal life, and so on. I think life is wonderful without all this nonsense and false promises.

A true God would never do anything so "ungodly." And would never design a theology that is so wicked and unjust.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

God is not doing horrible things to anybody. You simply are not going to wake up.

 

[Debunker]

Yes, if you accept what the O.T. says, then you must conclude that the N.T. can only come from a different god.

Of course, I accept neither the O.T. nor N.T. as the word of God, because if God were to dictate any of these books that would make him an imperfect and incompetent God (as I explain here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/109289-question-intelligent-design.html)

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma

did anybody mention circular thinking on this thread as yet?

 

[Debunker]

The Christian god loves me as much as I love him. We stay out of each other's way, and it works out well for both of us.

for the time being that is true.