Some of it is, some of it is not; no matter your opinion, love is still only an emotion, and it’s still not always a good thing. That’s fact; I can see, personally, people’s lives being screwed up by love.
And if you want to be positive regardless of the realism or results of your beliefs, why not take drugs or get a lobotomy ? That’s not really different than following love at any cost, possibly to your or other’s ruin or even death.
Sorry, yes, I did understand that overall. Really I just meant that was possibly the change specifically with thorns; I do get the “now you must work” thing, but I didn’t explain myself very clearly.
That’s true, but the thorns themselves aren’t of much use (although I suppose as needles?). That’s why I would guess that the “thorns and thistles are actually just being mentioned as well as plants” idea might not work; I think it’s reasonably clear that these are being cited as a punishment (or down side, depending on your view).
I meant that the curse* was* being thrown into the lake of fire. Rather than that curse being upon a person after having committed some unforgiveable sin, instead i’m suggesting the text leaves the possibility that it is only after* life* that that curse is enacted; and thus that the life itself is judged fully and there are no totally unforgiveable sins.
I quite agree. We shouldn’t. But then again, I think Jesus does get better than us; he had guaranteed salvation. He wasn’t contaminated with original sin (assuming you believe in that). BUt I do agree that this is another example of unfairness.
Ah, but it is not fair. Having that sin only gives us the ultimate option of declining salvation. We have no way of declining salvation - and then changing our minds. Taking it to the furthest points, we don’t actually have a way of gaining salvation and then declining it. I’m not sure many would, but it’s pretty unfair that we don’t have those options.
And I would still say that the entire idea of an unforgiveable sin is inherently unjust. No matter how hard to commit, as you suggest, there will inevitably still be good people who commit one and so do not gain salvation. Fair, perhaps, by the standards of an imperfect body, but perfect righteousness implies perfect justice.
But likewise it’s very possible that horrible people did advance the Kingdom and lead people to Christ but not see the light. Or for generally good people to do so and not see the light. Putting in a condition other than “good things you did vs. bad things you did” biases the results.
And i’m very confused by this “all can be forgiven” when we’ve just been talking about the things that can’t be forgiven. You don’t believe God is all-forgiving. Now, in my book, that would be a good thing, since I don’t think everyone is worth forgiving. But I certainly wouldn’t set a rule up which when broken inevitably means no forgiveness. To use the lingo, it means there can be no redemption.
I’m very confused at this point. Is it unforgiveable or not? You’ve said rejection means inevitable loss of salvation, and now you’re suggesting it doesn’t? I apologise for not getting it, but could you perhaps explain it more simply for me?
I’m actually with **Der Trihs ** on this one. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad. Love is good - but it’s love that’s involved in a jealous lover stopping their partner from seeing other guys/girls. Or love that can motivate a stalker. Likewise, fear is not always bad; fear is useful. People talk as if letting go of fear is a good thing, and in some cases it is, but without it we wouldn’t recognise danger, or be motivated to avoid it. A person without fear will jump into the tiger pit at the zoo to get closer photos. Without fear, no deterrent will work; criminals won’t fear jail or punishment, so why not commit that crime?
Anything can be used for good or evil.
Also, most or all of love’s positive qualities require fear to function. Why do you protect your loved ones ? Because you fear harm to them. If you felt no fear, you’d stand by and let them die, love or no love - you’d have no reason not to. The same goes for plain old morality; I don’t, for example, leave poison out where kids can find it or shoot a gun into the air as a celebration, becaue I fear hurting people. The idea that love is always good or fear is always bad is a serious distortion of reality. The same goes for the other emotions.
I disagree that that is love. That is possessiveness and that’s something else entirely. That’s dominance and ownership. Love is gives away – it doesn’t clinch.
One can lead to rape or murder. The other doesn’t.
I don’t think i’d go that far. I think my tiger pit example is actually a bad one in retrospect, too. You don’t necessarily need fear to be motivated to do something. If you know that a tiger will rend you limb from limb, you might not fear that happening, but you could still recognise that that is a situation you won’t enjoy. Likewise, not having fear wouldn’t necessarily mean you’d be happy to leave poison out, since you’d still have the logical faculties to know that that could risk someone’s death and result in your arresting; and you still have your moral ideas that death is bad (if indeed a person’s beliefs include that).
That said, while it doesn’t mean there’s an entire removal of motivation to do/not do something, fear is a very important motivation, and I think the lack of it would cause considerable problems.
You have a point, especially with regards to rape.
But I disagree with your characterisation of it as always possessiveness. If a person who loves another murders their partner to open the way for them - they may not necessarily want to* possess* or dominate the other. Perhaps they want to just engage in a normal relationship. Likewise, if someone asks their partner to do something bad (not *that * kind of bad), they may do it out of love. You could make a case that that person is not being loving, is dominating the other - but the partner is motivated by love.
Of course love clinches. Not in all cases, but it does. Otherwise we’d all be polygamists and happy about it. Is it the specific examples i’ve given that you disagree with, or the premise that love can be a bad thing?
Actually I think a greater mystery is how will things work when the negative is gone (or confined to the lake of fire)
Yes, and one reason I believe is because of live evil beings. When you hate someone, if you happen to be under demonic oppression at the time it could have lead you to murder, the reason it doesn’t go that far is that external evil forces just happen not to have been attacking you on that at the time. By not allowing hate into your heart you don’t give Satan a chance at all.
Yes but what to do, give him a fish or teach him to fish? How do you know what to do?
I’ll agree with this. Jesus walked with His apostles and protected them (as spiritual babies). When He left He gave them His Spirit, but warned them that they will have hard times (as spiritual adults, they will have to fend for themselves). Yes they are still children of God.
My point is to get to this point you have to surrender your life to God.
God does not accept lip service, Jesus pointed the way, take up your cross and follow Me. Just saying Jesus is lord without making Jesus lord in one’s life is worse then not knowing that Jesus is lord.
Lekatt, Jesus is NOT a pacifist, He is King on a mission of love, peace and mercy. Jesus will come again in power to strike down nations. How do you take the end times Jesus?
True. I guess we can concentrate on doing our best right now and find out when we get there.
Personally, I’ve found if I focus on understanding and forgiveness of others, which isn’t always easy, I learn a lot about how it all fits together. When someone really pisses me off it usually reveals something to me about myself. Some attitude or idiosyncrasy I need to look at.
when it comes to being being hateful and cruel in the extreme I have a hard time understanding. We make choices that are unconscious choices. A reaction we don’t want to look at honestly so we suppress or deny it. Part of the work is exposing the truth about ourselves and dealing truthfully with others. JC stirred up a lot of anger by being so direct with those in charge at the time.
Why not both? We don’t always know exactly what to do. IMO we must go forward doing what we can as the situations present themselves. Being very honest with ourselves and striving to put love and truth first will eventually reveal the path for us. Each experience helps us grow and learn. It’s better to try and be imperfect, than to be afraid to try. Trying to commune with the HS through meditation and prayer helps.
Okay, but I think for the sake of uniting mankind as equal children of God we need to realize that the path to truth that works for us, influenced greatly by our past and our culture, may not be the right path for everyone. Insisting that it is seems to breed division. I don’t think God or Christ are egotistical about names or care about religious tradition. It’s what’s in a person’s heart and soul. We don’t just decide one day to give our lives to God and that’s it. We have to decide every day and in every situation. That’s how we grow as a person, and to the spiritual maturity mentioned in that passage.
So I might meet a Buddhist, or a Wiccan, or a Christian, and though we don’t agree on every detail of doctrine and belief, I can still honor a loving truthful spirit, and their right to choose their own path, just as I choose mine. I can do that because I have faith that all those who seek the truth will find it and that God knows their heart better than I do. I know I am far from perfect and have plenty left to learn, so I accept that in others as well, leaving it to God to lead them.
Here I am talking about real unconditional love, the only kind of love in existance.
What most of you are talking about is contracts. I will love my girl friend as long as she loves only me, dates only me. That is a contract, not love. So, you love hamburgers, no, you like them. Show me love that is unconditional if you wish to understand God.
Jesus taught it right: love everyone.
Paul said it clear also.
Read this description of love very carefully, it is the one thing in the Bible that can save you from yourself.
Love is a state of mind, a way of being.
Now, as for Jesus returning, no, He will not be back to wipe evil off the earth. That is our job, one person at a time.
If you should chose to try to become more loving, I have more helps.
I really like this post, thanks. One of the best lessons in humility I learned from a Wiccan. I thought I was good until I met this man.
Are you saying that all curses are only enacted after death, or can some happen during life? If I read you correctly you take this as a curse that is applied to the person after they die, and even after judgment. And I think you also acknowledge that some can be applies to a person before death, but that’s me reading into it.
There seems to be a few acts that are mentioned as unforgivable/unpardonable/unredeemable, meaning one is not going to get out of the lake of fire, how can you reconcile them with your statement?
The way I take it is that you can’t do the will of God on your own. You can try, but you can’t really know what God wants without having God indwelling you (or Jesus telling you, but right now He’s in heaven). This goes to how to know how to help and love people, feed them or teach them to catch food. One verse that really points this out to me is:
This in some other translations is converted to ‘You believe in one God’ which misses the point, God is one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in perfect alignment and all do the Father’s will. The spiritual gifts are given so we can know and do the will of the Father. The demons don’t shudder because they believe there is one God, but because God is One, something they in the satanic kingdom can’t do. Demons are fighting as individuals under leadership similar to military structure, while God is countering with a ‘military’ without the fog of war.
In the post I made this refers to someone coming to God through Jesus for the first time. As such this person couldn’t have committed the unforgivable sin yet - and all things can be forgiven (exception is acceptance of the mark of the beast during end times). Once they accept Jesus and sin the unpardonable sin it appears they are eternally lost.
Scripturally speaking the unforgivable sin is unforgivable, as well as the acceptance of the mark of the beast, How one goes about committing these things is debatable. I believe committing the unforgivable sin is very difficult and only for those who have first accepted Jesus as Saviour, as I relate the Hebrews verses that we started this with as the unforgivable sin.
Scripture does address this - we do not know how the Spirit of God works anymore then we know which way the wind blows, where it comes from or where it goes to. I’d say today with the invention of the weather channel we now know more about how the wind goes then the Holy Spirit.
As I said above I find your POV interesting, and haven’t found a direct contradiction in scripture.
**
Lekatt** yes I really like that in 1 Corinthians 13, it shows that the gifts are not toys for our amusement, but tools that we are to use to advance God’s kingdom.
That’s both twisted and insulting. It’s twisted because “unconditional love” is a sickness. Your love is the kind of thing that impels people to stay with abusive spouses and such. It insults most people by claiming that they aren’t really in love, because they wouldn’t still love someone who abused or betrayed them.
And it insults love by making it into a sick compulsion to adore someone or something no matter how awful they are. It further insults love by saying you should love everyone, whiich implies it should have zero standards and is therefore worthless and meaningless.
You will get it someday, or I should say feel it, and you will love it as much as everyone else who gets it.
Another non-answer, and a patronizing one at that. Can you actually defend your opinions, instead of condescending to me or flatly asserting them, or both ?
This is wrong and then wrong some more, and somehow tragic because you believe it’s true. You evidently have very little experience with profound love and can’t understand it.
No, unconditional love does not have to tolerate emotional or physical abuse. It means not abandoning someone as a human being because they did some bad things. You can allow them to deal with the consequences of their actions and choices, while still loving them. It means you don’t cling to anger and resentment over bad behavior if they truly repent and change their ways. It doesn’t mean you continue to tolerate bad behavior. Unconditional love is a two way street. Loving others and loving yourself enough to not allow yourself to be abused and used.
I love my kids and if they became thieves, prostitutes, and drug addicts, I hope I would continue to love them, but out of tough love, I would make them bare the consequences of their actions.
I know what you mean.
Meeting a great person with a totally different perspective is a real education isn’t it?
Sorting out what is love and the things we call love that actually aren’t love is part of the work we have to do. That section in Cor. has always been helpful to me. Thanks for the reminder.
I have already done all of that, your mind is made up solid.
Where are we going?
To one infinite singularity. Oh, you mean more recently? To the store.