I think it would be tough being a Christian with jealousy problems.

[ZombieNixon]

I mean, God and Jesus love everybody...if my SO came out and said she loved everybody, I'd be pissed off! I wanna be special!

:silly:

...
:think:
...

Hey, maybe that's what's up with Fallwell and Robertson and the fundies, given that they insist that God doesn't love people who don't think just like them. Yeah, that's it! Fundies have jealousy issues! I'm a genius! :D

:popcorn:

[tjwmason]

1. I know that this isn't really a serious thread

but you do have something there.

The point of Christianity is love for everybody - it's an incredibly simple idea intellectually, but is nigh-on impossible for folk fully to embrace. I know that Falwell et al. aren't quite in the same league as Phelps, but the difference at times is one of degree rather than of kind - and Phelps' "God hates fags" is, above all, pure and simple blasphemy. This denial of the universality of God's love is at the root of everything that's wrong with the fundies.

[ZombieNixon]

2. It was a random musing.

(I've gotten more random over the past few weeks. :crazy:) I typed out the first two sentences and then had one of those :think: WHOOOAAAOMG!! moments. :D

Maybe I should post it in GD! :D

[ThomCat]

3. But God doesn't love everybody.

At least, not according to any religion I've ever seen, including every major sect of Christianity. Some people are damned. Others are smited. There are chosen people, and everone else are not. The way to heaven is only through one person, and everyone who doesn't agree is left among the damned. There's going to be a final judgement, and most people will not be among the blessed.

This idea that God loves everyone is a very modern belief that has no basis in any scripture anywhere that I've ever seen.

[xchrom]

4. well, the scripture was written by error prone men.

and in the spirit of the op -- jesus was gay if you ask me.

[ZombieNixon]

5. I think you could make a good, yet rather facetious argument for it:

Think about it...he had long hair, which, if we are to trust paintings of it (:crazy:) looks very sily, worse sandals and a long flowing gown (read: dress) and spent most of his adult life living with twelve purportedly single men. :silly:

[xchrom]

6. who did he call beloved and sleep with?

facetious -- yeah, maybe -- i mean we can't know for sure.

but he did ask JOHN not mary magdelene to take of his mother.

and mm had money.

[ZombieNixon]

7. I don't know.

:shrug: I'm not a Christian, the only version of the Bible I've ever read was done in comic book form (seriously), and I stole that riff from somewhere, not sure where.

[xchrom]

8. lol -- hezekiah smites the gideonites!

god thows a mountain at the moabites.

or something like that.

any way it was john.

[tjwmason]

9. I have to disagree.

Maybe your thinking has been influenced by Calvinism - but certainly Catholicism and Orthodoxy have always taught the universal love of God towards humanity. Neither of them teach the silly notion that there are "chosen people", those who do the choosing are the people themselves - a high doctrine of free-will means that God will not interfere with the decisions so made.

Far from being a very modern belief, it far predates the (quite frankly nasty) thoughts about election which arose a mere 500 years ago at the Reformation.

[ThomCat]

10. Calvinism has nothing to do with it.

The Catholic church has always beleived that some people are damned, outside of God's love. The whole belief in Hell makes it explicit that God does not love everyone. Most people are Damned for eternity.

This belief that God loves everyone does not pre-date the reformation. It has only existed in the past 100 years. It arose with the modern idea of the universality of humanity. Before that, there were constant talks about who was human and who wasn't. The idea that everyone was equally human was unheard of, and the idea that God loved everyone equally was equally unheard of.

I challenge anyone to site scripture anywhere to show that any major sect of any religion believed that God loved everyone.

This is wishy-washy modern historical revisionism. People are trying to reinterpret the past to make it conform with some modern ideal that had no place in history.

[JVS]

22. Yeah, the scripture is ambiguous at best.

The closest thing I can get to the evidence you seek is 1st Timothy 2:3-7

"3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time."

Of course one must also remember Romans 8:18-21

"18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

[JVS]

23. Catholicism has predestination (albeit not as strong as Calvin's version)

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM

[billyskank]

12. You could try Bhagavad-Gita

Also a variety of other scripture preserved in India: Srimad-Bhagavatam, any of a number of Puranas & Upanishads.

They quite clearly state that God does indeed love each and every one of us: why would he not, when every single living entity is part and parcel of Him? The fact that many of these living beings are not favourable to Him is due to His gift of independence. The living entities have the ability to choose to be devoted to Him, or to pursue their own interests in the material world. However, none of this has anything to do with His love or lack thereof for them.

Indeed, these scriptures tell us that His heart is continually melting with compassion for the living entities suffering in the material world. But we may choose not to accept his help, again because of our natural independence.

[ThomCat]

13. I stand corrected.

You are correct.

The Bagavagita does express the idea that the Gods love everyone pretty unconditionally (despite being set in the middle of a bloody war). I haven't read the Upanishads in a lot of years, so that's due to get back on my reading list.

[billyskank]

14. Not Gods

Just one God. The philosophy expressed in B-G is exclusively monotheistic, according to the version published by Srila Prabhupada, which is widely accepted as being highly authoritative, and also the version published by Srila Narayana Maharaja including commentary by Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura.

[ThomCat]

15. Prabhupada is only authoritative

among the Hare Krishnas (the movement he founded). His verision is not authoritative among other sects.

[billyskank]

16. Well, of course

:)

[hfojvt]

17. Not in Austin 3:16?

Or was that John? For the scriptural basis that God loves everybody. Yet only some goto heaven and the rest to destruction. My analogy is that everyone is born in the Niagara river, rushing forward into the future at the rate of one second per second until we plunge over the falls to our death. Some are thrashing around in the river, barely able to keep their heads up. Others have kayaks, canoes, rowboats, pontoon boats, rafts or flotation devices. Still others, like Bush (or Bennett) are going down the river on a casino ship with games and shows and fancy food to entertain them. God, in his/her love, throws everyone a life-line in the person of his Son. Everyone makes a choice, to take the lifeline or go over the falls. Deuteronomy 30:11-20 "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and keep his commands, decrees, and laws; then you will live and increase...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..."

[ThomCat]

19. That doesn't work.

You just made the point very clearly that in Christianity God does not love everyone. love that concept of God, and do certain things commanded by that religioin. If you don't do these things then God doesn't love you, but it's your fault.

That doesn't sound like God loves everyone. It sounds like God is an egotist who demands attention, affection and obedience, or else.

[hfojvt]

20. an egoist demanding attention? No, more like a parent

wanting their kids to be decent, happy, and productive. Doing certain things, commanded by the parent, like brushing your teeth, exercising, studying, wearing scarves in the cold, and sunblock on a sunny day, etc. are good for you. Refraining from certain things, like salty snacks, cigarettes, pierced tongues, drunk driving, addictions, etc. is also good for you. Then there are the commands, like "never tease a weasel" and "thou shalt not steal, kill, or commit adultery" which are good for your siblings and fellow creatures, and conversely it is good for you if your neighbors follow them. So, it is not about God's ego, that he/she punishes us for not obeying, but that if we, individually, or as a society, ignore the counsels of wisdom, then he/she allows us to suffer the consequences - like the prodigal son. Yet, any prodigal child who goes astray and suffers does have the option of reaching out to a loving parent. So God is the loving parent, hoping the runaway children will return home, but not willing to drag them home against their will.

[Arugula Latte]

11. Why can't people just adhere to the golden rule without

bringing religion into things? :shrug: ... On second thought, I should probably just shut up because if I get going on religion I'll undoubtedly say something nasty and probably get the thread locked.

Peace to all. Shalom.

[noonwitch]

18. I know you are being silly, but I do think there is some appeal to people

I was involved with Young Life as a teen, which is an evangelical group. I have no bad feelings toward that time-the people were really nice, we had a lot of fun both at the meetings and at camp, and it kept me out of trouble when I was at a vulnerable age. It also gave me something that drove my mother crazy, but that she couldn't do anything about.

One of the things that appealed to me was the teaching that I was special and God loved me because I was special. I was raised in the UMC and UCC, so the individual religious commitment was never really doctrine in those churches. We had Sunday School, studied some Bible lessons, but not many.

So when I was a teenager, looking for answers, along come these really fun college students and young adults, preaching that Jesus loves me personally enough to take an interest in my daily life, and taking us to camp in Colorado, and I was sold.

When you are a teen, you haven't read all the books about Bible translations, texts, literalism vs. symbolism, doctrines, theology, etc. If you grew up with a nominally christian backround, then you assume the Bible is the word of God if you haven't read much of it yet.

Young Life did get me interested in the Bible, and after years of practicing wicca solitare and being indifferent, I am now a liberal christian. I would never be like my mom about evangelicals, though, because I had some positive experiences and know that deep down they are good people, even if I disagree with them about politics and religion.

[skygazer]

21. Isn't it amazing when a silly thread like this

Spawns a serious theological discussion? I just love DU!

:popcorn:

[ZombieNixon]

24. Yes, it is.

I should just stop thinking because my random threads are more successful than the ones where I actually think about the topic. :silly: