Nature of God (and questions?)

[pow wow]

Love does endure. God loves us despite our condition and God is eternal.

[Martin]

Love does endure. God loves us despite our condition and God is eternal.

And God.....is Love itself.
Have you ever wondered what that actually means?

[pow wow]

God is love. It is a primary characteristic of God. Humanity does have the ability to love because we are created in God's image.
Love as in phileo, is usually conditional on how people treat us. Agape is God's love for each of us. Non partial and sacrificial.

[Jan]

It's the laws of physics that govern what happens - not some mythical purpose.

Can it not be both JJ ? 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[JJ]

Well, it's not really mythical if it's true is it? 

[Jan]

Well, it's not really mythical if it's true is it? 

myths can be based on a truth or even contain some truth - just that it may be unproven.

Laws of physics themselves are part of 'something greater' (IMO).

Then again there is 'Synchronicity - A Meaningful Coincidence' (which I know we have discussed before - and again this is something I personally believe has great significance in our lives)

[JJ]

Yes I know I am quibbling - myths can be based on truth or contain a truth, but we are on unsteady ground if we base anything on them unless they become proven.

I'm losing my own thread now!

[Jan]

Yes I know I am quibbling - myths can be based on truth or contain a truth, but we are on unsteady ground if we base anything on them unless they become proven.

I'm losing my own thread now!

There again - its possible to have (current) proof of something (say for example proof in how something works), but then later find out that there is much more to how it works than originally thought.

lol - neither losing or winning - just talking 

[JJ]

oops not just losing my thread but completely getting lost he he.

[AndyHB]

It's not empirical proof then is it?  It's theoretical.

but it has still been reached through empirical means.  In other words, the evidence hasn't simply been guessed at, but come to through the use of standard empirical argumentation.

[AndyHB]

There are views of God which are logically inconsistent - They simply can't be true because they are self-contradictory.  One doesn't have to be an 'authority' to point this out - it is simply self-evident.

So self-evident that there are plenty of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with you, Martin.

Being ruled by a book like the Bible is far less consistent than being ruled by what we feel in our hearts to be wholesome and true.

I'd love to agree with you, Martin, but I'm afraid that my experience as a teacher, bond officer for a housing charity, and as a friend - and in various parts of the world - tells me that what 'we feel in our hearts to be wholesome and true' is SO different for different people, depending on the situation prevailing at the time, the wider global or national situation, etc.

Think, for instance, of this scenario.  I know that you regard the BNP as despicable - in fact most of us here do.  Yet, there is no doubting that they feel that what they believe is 'wholesome and true'.  So, is there a hierarchy of truth and wholesomeness, depending on what you believe or feel?  Surely, it is far better to have written standard by which 'truth and wholeness' is measured?  Isn't this precisely what the body of British law - in fact any body of law - seeks to be?

[Martin]

So self-evident that there are plenty of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with you, Martin.

Quite so Andy.  Such is the power of religion that it prevents reasoning in many people.

Think, for instance, of this scenario.  I know that you regard the BNP as despicable - in fact most of us here do.  Yet, there is no doubting that they feel that what they believe is 'wholesome and true'.

I dispute this.  All prejudiced people know,deep down, that their prejudice is wrong, especially when it is pointed out to them.  But in their minds they quite often go through a justification process, shutting their consciences away.  We sometimes call such behaviour 'mindless' or 'shallow' because it refuses to see the other person as a person,it refuses to allow the mind to go to the deeper level where it might really have to ask the conscience whether there is any truth in what is being pointed out about their prejudice. People build all sorts of defence mechanisms to prevent any challege reaching them and forcing them to look deeply at themselves. Christians use the Bible as an excuse for their prejudices, BNP members will use a distorted view of nationality, they will use stereotypes and stories of the supposed behaviour of those they persecute, to push all black and asian people into a 'type' within their minds - a 'type' who are not like 'us', a 'type' whose behavour is dirty, swindling, criminal, wishes to impose its religion on us, wants to take over what is ours etc.

The conscience only really works if is is allowed to. Suppression of conscience comes from a learned exercise - it's something of the mind, and it's usually rooted in fear - fear of being excluded themselves, fear of being mocked by the crowd for not conforming, fear of being shown to be wrong, that sort of thing.

[AndyHB]

Quite so Andy.  Such is the power of religion that it prevents reasoning in many people.

Including many people who are so prevented from reasoning that they are employed by our leading universities to teach such unreasoned thinking at degree, higher degree and Ph.D level, Martin!!

[AndyHB]

To pick up on another comment from Tabba's introductory message.

... as opposed to a separate, physical entity in heaven ...

I appreciate that many Christians seem to have this picture of God, but I'm not sure that this is actually what the Bible indicates.  For one thing, we are told that there will be a new earth and a new heaven.  The Greek word used in both 2 Peter 3: 13 and Revelation 21: 1 is kainos - a word often used in the Bible to refer to renewal as opposed to previously unknown (for instance, it is the same word as used for the 'new' covenant referred to in Matthew 26:28, or the 'new' commandment referred to in John 13:34).

As such, the implication is that the earth and the heavens will be renewed - restored to their pre-fall condition.  As such, God is just as earth-bound as He is heavens-bound.  In fact, Jesus and the writers of both the Old and the New Testaments refer to the Kingdom of God and to the Kingdom of Heaven - but these are also said to exist on earth now, as the outworking of Christ's people on earth at any given time in history.

[Martin]

So self-evident that there are plenty of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with you, Martin.

As I said - there are views of god which are logically inconsistent. Now of course there may be highly qualified people who believe otherwise, but they are generally the victims of dogma. 

The way to argue against accusations of illogic, is to produce a logical argument.