God is love or we Get Infinite punishment for our finite sins
- Thread starter Alan McDougall
- Start date
I thought the main excuse was the flaunting of the law. To love God = loving His laws; this makes the flaunting of those laws as evil.
Read what LG wrote which I was responding to here and then direct your amazement at LG.Should you mean, what Moses meant, if your talking laws?
Never ceases to amaze.
Doreen, i am not sure you understand the differences put forth here. Can you honestly say you 'love your neighbor'? Love...in that sense is kind of...meh.
Many people would but that is simplistic. Some circumstances escalate, there is no law (in the legal sense) saying someone has to respect another. People are different too and have lower thresholds for doing things which put them in line for crossing the line into illegality. As for me personally, in all my years i have never been in a fight. Few people can make that claim.
Are you telling me you love your neighbors John? Do you love me?
What follows being told to love something - especially by the violent God of the OT - does not lead to love, it leads to the appearance of love, at best. Often it leads to hate.
So perhaps you do not need laws to make you a good person. Perhaps you would choose that course anyway. Note: I never said abolish laws, and I certainly never even implied that about secular laws. I just doubted that love was only based on laws, which is what he said. It seems John, you might not need laws to make you a good person. Good for you. Consider the possibility that their might be others.
seems he is talking about being socialized around god.
But seriously - what exactly is meant by the law is now fullfilled - and which of the laws? I find that if only those laws are fullfilled which was not suitable to Paul or Europeans - then this is somewhat a self serving fullfilment rather than being a revelation.
It appears wrong because a revelation cannot fail if divinely inspired - and the notion of fullfilling away any of the Hebrew laws has been an abject failure by both the offshoot religions of the Hebrew bible. The weirdest part is they have failed by advocating mutually exclusive dostrines of the same space-time events, and their own country's Judiciary rejected them. Moral of the story: one can argue laws - not so beliefs - even when it is clear all beliefs cannot be right.
Evil is not a subjective view when measured by good laws. It becomes evil only when it flaunts the law.
Love is like penicilin - some can be saved by it - and some can be murdered by it.
Better than, WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU - DO UNTO OTHERS, I prefer:
WHAT IS EVIL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS. Yes/no?
Um, keep trying.
What constitutes a "good" law is also a matter of opinion. Which sort of leaves "evil" dangling somewhat...
I've already explained the error here to you. Please try to learn English.
Really?
I must check my tolerance levels before venturing outside again.
No.
Some people may like what I consider evil. And vice versa.
I think he is talking specifically about the 10 commandments. IOW laws in words in stone.
You seem to me to be going off on a tangent. It may be a fine one, but it's not a response to me. Perhaps others will pick it up.But seriously - what exactly is meant by the law is now fullfilled - and which of the laws? I find that if only those laws are fullfilled which was not suitable to Paul or Europeans - then this is somewhat a self serving fullfilment rather than being a revelation.
It appears wrong because a revelation cannot fail if divinely inspired - and the notion of fullfilling away any of the Hebrew laws has been an abject failure by both the offshoot religions of the Hebrew bible. The weirdest part is they have failed by advocating mutually exclusive dostrines of the same space-time events, and their own country's Judiciary rejected them. Moral of the story: one can argue laws - not so beliefs - even when it is clear all beliefs cannot be right.
That is what i am telling you is a luke warm version of love and we can substitute love with so many different words and i think the main one is like. I can be with my neighbors every day and still wouldnt love them like i love my family. Having been in love many times before i know the difference and it is just a different type.
I never wanted to hurt someone enough to get into physical altercations and never been physically attacked but laws have absolutely nothing to do with that. For one hting i am not competitive so things that may bother people dont really effect me. It does seem unnatural to me to get into a violent fight with someone but being over 30 i dont even think about it anymore. There was a brief period in my life where i fell into the male macho trap but i got some good advice.
1. there is alway going to be someone stronger than you (so what is the point?)
2. i cant spend my whole life fighting. the second one i figured out on my own at around early 20s. there was one issue that would have made me fight someone but ten i figured out number 2 and i had to just look the other way because it wouldnt have changed much and fighting would not have accomplished anything. Although going to prison is a deterrent it often times gets pushed aside.
It doesnt make me a good person just not bad in that way.
Nope. Unless a law is enshrined in writings, with a reference clause, it is not a law. Here, if the law does not suit one's opinion, or if one is ignorant of the law - the law still prevails.
There are 613 laws in the Hebrew bible - and all are active today. There are no laws outside these 613.
So the rule 'love thy neighbor' isn't working on you. But it sounds like you are a good person anyway.
True. But since secular laws are generally not trying to make people good but rather prevent them from being bad, you may not, it seems not at least, need them to avoid being bad.
It still doesn't alter the fact that it whether it's "good" or not is an opinion.
You're not replying to what I write but seem to be having some entirely other conversation in your head.
Basically, I asked 'which' laws are fullfilled specifically and how is this determined - according to whom?
Whatever...you are not talking about underlying principles in the way LG was. I suspect you two do not agree. So when LG responded to my response to you, I had the sense all along that he was bringing in a rather different take on 'law', which was your reaction also, but in response to my post.
Well there are a lot of sets of laws out there and they do not fit with each other and everybody seems to have an opinion. Whether we are talking about secular laws or divine laws.