God accepts me the way I am

Originally posted by knightmeister
I dig what you are saying Ephin. I think you know I understand where you are coming from. God is nothing if he is not the unconditional lover , the Father who accepts us when we fail and loves us despite our faults. What you have described is so human and real. God bless.

I often get the impression from some theists, that their concepts of God are driven through need and little else. For example your phrase 'God is nothing if he is not' strongly implies that you need God to be something and will thus believe that he has certain properties that are required for him to be something whether you have other reasons for believing that or not. I suspect that if evidence surfaced that God was not a very nice character, you would ignore the evidence in favor of your needs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I often get the impression from some theists, that their concepts of God are driven through need and little else. For example your phrase 'God is nothing if he is not' strongly implies that you need God to be something and will thus believe that he has certain properties that are required for him to be something whether you have other reasons for believin ...[text shortened]... that God was not a very nice character, you would ignore the evidence in favor of your needs.

The reason I say this is because I have expereinced God's love , once you have tasted it (however briefly) you will know that a God who is anything else but unconditionally loving cannot compare and cannot have the same depth.

This evidence idea you have is highly abstract , my experience is real to me. I do have a need for God to be unconditionally loving because if he's not then I'm in trouble and cannot learn to love a different god. But then again , it's a basic human need in all of us to be loved and accepted for who we are. The need itself is some kind of evidence like the fact that nearly everyone hungers for some spirituality in their lives is also evidence. If you have come across people who love unconditionally you will know how special it is. I think we have all experienced being on the receiving end of judgements and harshness - I cannot imagine God is like that - can you?

BTW- Do you accept and love people unconditionally or do they have to do something first or live up to some standard before you will accept them ?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Thanks, KM. God bless.

Don't you think it's sad (in the genuine sense of the word) that so many here just don't see God's love for what it is.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Your interpretation is unintelligible and unsupportable. The term 'evil fruit' departs from the very
metaphor and does not reflect the Greek. 'Rotten fruit' is consistent with the metaphor and the Greek.

And, regardless of that, the conclusion that you are forced to embrace is that bad trees only produce
bad fruit. Not only is that claim absurd on th ...[text shortened]... y with you, so I imagine a sufficiency argument
is going to be wasted typing.

Nemesio

"Your interpretation is unintelligible and unsupportable. The term 'evil fruit' departs from the very metaphor and does not reflect the Greek. 'Rotten fruit' is consistent with the metaphor and the Greek."

You keep saying stuff like "evil fruit...does not reflect the Greek", but evidently the writers of seven of eight Bibles surveyed think it does. The other translates it as "bad fruit" which I'm also not opposed to. None seemed to think that "diseased fruit" or "rotten fruit" were appropriate. Evidently "reason has no currency" with YOU.

"Evil fruit" and "bad fruit" both fit the metaphor perfectly. As evidenced by Matthew 7:16b, Jesus clearly is speaking of "fruit" by the type of fruit such as figs and grapes. From what I could tell, you tried to dismiss 7:16b by saying that is wasn't related. You seemed to do the same with 7:18. Jesus only had three statements to make about knowing true / false prophets by their "friut" and you dismiss two of them as meaningless. Evidently "reason has no currency" with YOU.

Your arguments exemplify everything you deride in those "other Christians". You're playing the exact same games.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'd say this is a fair conclusion.

The question is, must that love be flawless? Does not showing love at some point in one's life
invalidate the love shown previously or subsequently?

It appears to me that your answers to these questions are 'Yes,' which seems to dismiss Jesus'
extensive teaching on forgiveness.

Nemesio

Seriously. If you truly believed that "Jesus' extensive teaching on forgiveness" applied to "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", you wouldn't believe that "good works" was required. Or you'd have to believe that this "forgiveness" applies to those who commit murder, rape, torture, etc., but does not apply to those who neglect to "do good works".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you truly believed that "Jesus' extensive teaching on forgiveness" applied to "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", you wouldn't believe that "good works" was required.

Can't agree with that. Nor did Jesus.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"Your interpretation is unintelligible and unsupportable. The term 'evil fruit' departs from the very metaphor and does not reflect the Greek. 'Rotten fruit' is consistent with the metaphor and the Greek."

You keep saying stuff like "evil fruit...does not reflect the Greek", but evidently the writers of seven of eight Bibles surveyed think it do ...[text shortened]... in those "other Christians". You're playing the exact same games.[/b]

😴

I've shown you why. You've ignored it. There's nothing more I can do. If you won't actually
address the content of my posts but just keep reasserting the same, tired, infelicitous stuff, I can't
really respond.

😴

Originally posted by Nemesio
Can't agree with that. Nor did Jesus.

Nemesio

Are you saying that you do believe that this "forgiveness" does apply to those who neglect to "do good works"? If it does, then "good works" are not required. You can't have it both ways. How are you different from those "other Christians" you deride so much?

Originally posted by Nemesio
😴

I've shown you why. You've ignored it. There's nothing more I can do. If you won't actually
address the content of my posts but just keep reasserting the same, tired, infelicitous stuff, I can't
really respond.

😴

I haven't ignored it. I've addressed it numerous times. The problem is that YOU have abandoned reason to support your position. And like those "other Christians" you deride, you can't see it.

I'm sorry, but your position is not only weak, it's ridiculously so, as I've repeatedly pointed out. What more can I do but show you the weakness of your arguments and provide a sound alternative when you keep presenting the same lame arguments?

BTW, the "snooze" emoticons: Yet another common argument from those "other Christians" you deride so much.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I haven't ignored it. I've addressed it numerous times. The problem is that YOU have abandoned reason to support your position. And like those "other Christians" you deride, you can't see it.

I'm sorry, but your position is not only weak, it's ridiculously so, as I've repeatedly pointed out. What more can I do but show you the weakness of your argumen ...[text shortened]... icons: Yet another common argument from those "other Christians" you deride so much.

Seriously, what choice do I have? You continue to ignore the structure of my argument by incessantly
reasserting your own position. It is indeed very boring. You've offered no explanation for why my
interpretation suffers and yours flourishes. You don't answer questions directed at you. And you
pepper your responses with ad hominems. At the end of it, you accuse me of the very same things
that you yourself are doing. It's like living in a parallel universe.

If you'd like to resume the discussion or start it anew, then I will be happy to do so, but only if
it takes the form of a discussion, where you specifically address the issues raised in my posts,
not ignore them.

But if you're going to continue to basically pontificate, then I'm just going to respond in kind.
People can refer to the thread I cited earlier to see how I've responded to your 'argument.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Seriously, what choice do I have? You continue to ignore the structure of my argument by incessantly
reasserting your own position. It is indeed very boring. You've offered no explanation for why my
interpretation suffers and yours flourishes. You don't answer questions directed at you. And you
pepper your responses with ad hominems. At the end of i ...[text shortened]... to the thread I cited earlier to see how I've responded to your 'argument.'

Nemesio

lol. The "argument" you cite most often that you went to "the original Greek". The problem is that you came up with a translation of "bad fruit" that none of the writers of the eight bibles I found agree with. I have to believe that most if not all of them have a better grasp of Greek than you do. I really don't get what part of that you don't understand. I really don't get how you say things like "you've offered no explanation for why my interpretation suffers" in light of this.


There's more, but you seem to get lost if I post more than one concept at a time.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. The "argument" you cite most often that you went to "the original Greek". The problem is that you came up with a translation of "bad fruit" that none of the writers of the eight bibles I found agree with. I have to believe that most if not all of them have a better grasp of Greek than you do. I really don't get what part of that you don't understand. ...[text shortened]...
There's more, but you seem to get lost if I post more than one concept at a time.

Repeat. Ad hominem.

If you'd like to restart the thread and pledge to actually discuss things rather than assert them,
I'll play ball.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Repeat. Ad hominem.

If you'd like to restart the thread and pledge to actually discuss things rather than assert them,
I'll play ball.

Nemesio

Then address the content of the paragraph instead of continuing to duck it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The "argument" you cite most often that you went to "the original Greek". The problem is that you came up with a translation of "bad fruit" that none of the writers of the eight bibles I found agree with. I have to believe that most if not all of them have a better grasp of Greek than you do. I really don't get what part of that you don't understand. I really don't get how you say things like "you've offered no explanation for why my interpretation suffers" in light of this.

You don't have to believe me or them. Just look at the Greek yourself and look at Strong's
concordance for the word 'bad.' Recall that Jesus was using a metaphor; if a fruit is good, then
it's healthy and wholesome, tasty and so forth whereas if a fruit is bad, then it's unhealthy, rotten,
and tastes nasty.

Just because eight people have translated it one way doesn't mean it's the right way.

Under your view, you've offered no analogue to the good tree. What's the actual bad tree in
the metaphor? What does a good fruit symbolize? What does a bad one symbolize?

Nemesio

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Then address the content of the paragraph instead of continuing to duck it.

As for ducking......

Do you believe in God?