Originally posted by ShakyamunisonHere is a Mormon scripture dealing with justice, mercy and love:
It is the fact that he has tied love to the existence of evil that is the contradiction.
I think it is a decent treatise on the subject.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonHere is a Mormon scripture dealing with justice, mercy and love:
It is the fact that he has tied love to the existence of evil that is the contradiction.
I think it is a decent treatise on the subject.
Originally posted by Regret
Here is a Mormon scripture dealing with justice, mercy and love:I think it is a decent treatise on the subject.
Sorry, I'm not really interested about the topic as much as I am interested in what thundar's point of view is. However, thank you for the information. 😄
Originally posted by Regret
He should have used the phrase "a just God", God is loving, but justice must be met.
1 Corinthians 13:6,7
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
So being just and reveling in truth, is just another part of God being loving.
Originally posted by ThundarThat is correct, but those not understanding love in the Biblical sense will not equate the two, and will often ignore correction as loving and only see it as delivering an extremely harsh punishment. Also, they often believe perfect love should be solely personal for each individual without concern for the whole or the impact an individual has on another. Thus, in the context of your audience "a just God" would have been a better choice of phrases to explain the position, unless you had included the Corinthians verse and your explanation in the initial post.
1 Corinthians 13:6,7
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.So being just and reveling in truth, is just another part of God being loving.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYour welcome, I would be interested on your thoughts on the chapter though, if you ever read it let me know what you think.
Sorry, I'm not really interested about the topic as much as I am interested in what thundar's point of view is. However, thank you for the information. 😄
Originally posted by Regret
That is correct, but those not understanding love in the Biblical sense will not equate the two, and will often ignore correction as loving and only see it as delivering an extremely harsh punishment. Also, they often believe perfect love should be solely personal for each individual without concern for the whole or the impact an individual has on another. Thus, in the context of your audience "a just God" would have been a better choice of phrases to explain the position, unless you had included the Corinthians verse and your explanation in the initial post.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Regret. Please take note that I'm not doing so to be argumentative or belligerant, but rather to clarify how important it is for Christians to make no distinctions between God being "loving" or "just." When one does this, they have already inferred that love is something apart from justice. This can get them into a whole lot of trouble, specifically when engaging with those who define certain actions of God as not being loving, despite how just they are.
Ex.
Poster: If God's so loving..how could he send one of his own children to hell?!!!
I've had this question asked to me a ton of times, in a ton of different ways within this forum. And my response has always involved the reason being that God is loving(at least from what I can remember, if it hasn't then feel free to correct me). So I think it's always more accurate to define God as loving..as oppossed to just defining him as any one thing that makes up love(i.e., rightoeusnous, truth, justice, patience, etc, etc, etc....)
Originally posted by ThundarThis does not show consideration for the audience you have. You are not teaching if you do not start at the point your audience is capable of understanding. If you are not teaching you are only pontificating. It isn't incorrect or misleading to state that God is a just God, and it embraces the language of your audience. Regardless of a Biblically correct terminology, you are speaking to people that do not have a great understanding of such. You infer no such separation as you suggest, you merely use the definition. If the separation you suggest is feared then a statement explaining that a part of love as you are speaking of it encompasses justice as well, and thus [place argument here], would suffice. If you do not explain, or define, your definition of love, your audience will assume you are using love as they do.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Regret. Please take note that I'm not doing so to be argumentative or belligerant, but rather to clarify how important it is for Christians to make no distinctions between God being "loving" or "just." When one does this, they have already inferred that love is something apart from justice. This can get them into a whole lot of trouble, specifically when engaging with those who define certain actions of God as not being loving, despite how just they are.Ex.
Poster: If God's so loving..how could he send one of his own children to hell?!!!
I've had this question asked to me a ton of times, in a ton of different ways within this forum. And my response has always involved the reason being that God is loving(at least from what I can remember, if it hasn't then feel free to correct me). So I think it's always more accurate to define God as loving..as oppossed to just defining him as any one thing that makes up love(i.e., rightoeusnous, truth, justice, patience, etc, etc, etc....)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? Since when do we make massive natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands of people?
Erhm..sin, death, destruction, and disasters entered the world after Adam fell from grace because of that whole disobedience thing....To bad ol Adam or Eve couldn't have just asked God for that knowledge, instead of forcefully taking it. But hey it wasn't completely their faults and all..with ya know, with Satan being there...😉
So anyway, the whole world became cursed with sin because of it..as it was originally the responsability or in control of Adam, now it became under the control of sin..i.e.Satan himself. Read the Book of Adam and Eve, it actually goes into the whole story explicity.
So yeah, it is our faults and not God's. Damn Adam and the apple!! But hey, God being loving and all gave us a way back, and we get to know him in a more intimate and loving way because all of this, so ya know...I kind of think it worked out for the best. Now can I get an amen and praise the lord from you mr. Symmetric or whatever?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do the people killed in more recent disasters also not equal people?
Originally posted by Thundar
Erhm..sin, death, destruction, and disasters entered the world after Adam fell from grace because of that whole disobedience thing....To bad ol Adam or Eve couldn't have just asked God for that knowledge, instead of forcefully taking it. But hey it wasn't completely their faults and all..with ya know, with Satan being there...😉
They couldn't ask for it God wasn't very . . . whats the word . . . generous with knowledge back then.
Originally posted by Thundar
Read the Book of Adam and Eve, it actually goes into the whole story explicity.
I believe thats noncanon
Originally posted by Thundar
So yeah, it is our faults and not God's.
even though he's the one creating the disasters
Originally posted by Thundar
Damn Adam and the apple!!
Apple?
Nothing mentions an apple I believe it was just a fruit.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They couldn't ask for it God wasn't very . . . whats the word . . . generous with knowledge back then.
evidence please?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe thats noncanon
evidence?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
even though he's the one creating the disasters
no disasters if it wasn't for Adam's sin an all...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Apple?Nothing mentions an apple I believe it was just a fruit.
Could have been an apple..😉