Calm Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 18 minutes ago, Durangout said: Sure seems like His love is conditional in that verse. Only if you insist God can only love his children one way. 1
Durangout Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 12 hours ago, Calm said: Only if you insist God can only love his children one way. Would you please explain that a bit more? Thanks.
bluebell Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 12 hours ago, Durangout said: Ecclesiasticus 12:6 “For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment.” King James Version (KJV) Sure seems like His love is conditional in that verse. 12 hours ago, Durangout said: Ecclesiasticus 12:6 “For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment.” King James Version (KJV) Sure seems like His love is conditional in that verse. In Elder Nelson's talk that you linked to earlier, he said this about sinners-- "Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again."
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 (edited) On 3/22/2022 at 4:31 AM, Nofear said: With mfbukowski, I also second your sentiments. Fortunately, there has been some push back to our fallible prophets. Not that what Pres. Nelson said was overtly wrong, but that talk lacked some of the nuance that you describe. I am still very happy to sustain and support and believe in him as a prophet, seer, revelator, and the presiding high priest. It takes time for central paradigms to change, and the idea that a postmodern view can actually be beneficial for religion is now at about the stage in growth that the evolution paradigm was in the 1920's. Scopes trial, etc. Not popular But I think that change is inevitable because without it God becomes "the flying spaghetti monster". This absurd notion that God has to be proven scientifically to exist must die. We are now crawling into the age of relativity, screaming all the way! But postmodernism is the only way I can see religious discourse to make any sense whatsoever. With it, we could have a new age of religiosity. Scripture has never been about science or old ideas about scientific truth. Athiests need purpose as much in their lives as religious people do, and religious EXPERIENCE is as valid as scientific observation, each in their own category It is a breath of fresh air for religion Edited March 23, 2022 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 14 minutes ago, Durangout said: Would you please explain that a bit more? Thanks. I ain't Calm, but here we's a talkin' "tough love".
pogi Posted March 23, 2022 Posted March 23, 2022 13 hours ago, Durangout said: Ecclesiasticus 12:6 “For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment.” King James Version (KJV) Sure seems like His love is conditional in that verse. The first problem is that this is from the apocrypha and is not considered canonical or necessarily inspired. The verse in context: Quote Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. 5Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him, lest he overmaster thee thereby: for else thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done unto him. 6For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment. 7Give unto the good, and help not the sinner. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like the teachings of the God that I know. However, the Psalms does suggest that God "hates the wicked". What are we to make of that when the scriptures are full of demonstrable "compassion", longsuffering and even abundance of faithful love towards the wicked and sinning Israelites? What are we to make of this passage: Quote God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. No passage of scripture can usurp this loving act which "proved" his love for sinners. It is undeniable to those who believe in the atonement. His love in inescapable. How do we reconcile this? It could be that the Bible is true "only when it is translated correctly", or it could be that the word "hate" is used in different ways to mean different things. For example: Quote “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Surely hate, doesn't mean "hate" in the way we think of it today. That would be in violation of at least one of the 10 commandments, and the command to love everyone, even our enemies. My understanding is that there are nuances of the Hebrew terminology for "Hate", which has more to do with not approving than an emotion. In that sense, love and hate are not mutually exclusive. One can feel both toward an individual when you think of love and hate as more nuanced and not so absolute.
Calm Posted March 24, 2022 Posted March 24, 2022 9 hours ago, Durangout said: Would you please explain that a bit more? Thanks. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74418-dc-9512/?do=findComment&comment=1210086466
Recommended Posts