Originally posted by karoly aczel
Whats 'ROFL', please?

Really Old Foolish Line.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Really Old Foolish Line.

Thank you sir. (I got a feeling I like these ROFL's)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Thank you sir. (I got a feeling I like these ROFL's)

Im kidding ... Its rolling on the floor laughing... 🙂

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im kidding ... Its rolling on the floor laughing... 🙂

🙂 -keepin me on me toes,eh???

Originally posted by josephw
If some one put a gun to your head, and told you to deny what you believe or die, what would you do?

Hey joseph, what was the point of this thread?

BTW, I would not lie.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I think that the god you talk about here is no more than some imagined “thing” more beautiful than anything you actually know—and therefore could actually love—in your life. And this “thing” commands you to love it more than anything or anyone you could actually know.

There is truth in what you say here. How can I fully understand the beauty of his love for me and for yourself other than his willful sacrifice on the cross for me? In fact, it is easy to lose sight of his love in a world of hurt. Just like Peter walking out on the seas to be with Jesus, we begin to sink when we take our eyes off him.

Originally posted by vistesd
I have never understood these abstract, “universal” notions of love. Now, you will probably want to tell me about the great love of this god… First tell me about how you love this god so much that you will sacrifice the life of your wife or child rather than deny this god—and how your god counts that as a better love…[/b]

It is not just love, it is trust. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son at his command, it is a respect and trust that he is benevolent no matter what the circumstances around us may dictate. It is a little thing called faith that is produced when mutual loving relationships are established.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As Christ once said, if you deny me before men I will deny you before the Father.
So there is a command (or threat), and its curious that you mention it even though you suggest it is not the reason.

I veiw it this way. If something is of more value than the God that provided those things in your life that you value more than his person you are in error.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Well the question here is whether denying your faith by means of a lie in order to save your life constitutes a lack of love for God. In my opinion, if someone put a gun to my head and said "deny that you love your son or die", I do not think my denial would be an indication that I do not love my son.

When Peter denied his Master, it was to save his skin. I believe it was at a time in which doubt entered his mind as to who and what Jesus actually was. His belief system had been shattered and on the verge of capitulation. His Master was at deaths door and all that he had been taught by him was being nailed to a cross. It seemed that he was on the losing side and all was lost. However, Christ reminded him that when he denied him three times, which he adamently denied he would ever do, a cock would crow reminding him that Christ forsaw this event. At that moment, he was reminded that Jesus was in fact who he said he was because he had the insight to see this occuring. In short, he was still in control even though circumstances would dictate otherwise. His faith then returned with the knowledge that he had betrayed him on some level. After all, Peter was offended that Chrsit said that he would ever deny him for any reason. The simple fact was that he loved him and thought he would follow him anywhere.

Now as for denying that you love your son, I think this is a bit different. You must realize the call of the Christian. It is to be lights into the world. In fact, Christianity blossomed during a time of great persecution when they were being fed to lions for not renouncing their faith. It is a testament to those in darkness that there is something worth dying for. There is somethiing waiting on the other side that is far better. In fact, a great many were drawn to the faith during this time. It almost seemed that there were two converts for every martrye.

Originally posted by whodey
It is not just love, it is trust. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son at his command, it is a respect and trust that he is benevolent no matter what the circumstances around us may dictate. It is a little thing called faith that is produced when mutual loving relationships are established.

My point (badly put, no doubt) is that the Greek os (“like”, the same as) relates that the second love-commandment is exactly the same as the first in Jesus’ (and YHVH’s) understanding. So when you talk about loving god more or less than your wife, your child, your “neighbor”—you have already missed the mark.

And even if my scriptural exegesis is incorrect—what kind of god called “love” says “love me more, love me more”?

I was not (and am not) addressing the question of Christian faith. But: love—in human terms—does not require faith. Love just loves. You just love someone or you don’t. If their faithlessness results in your no longer loving them, then you no longer love them; or else you still do. Faith or no faith, you either love or you don’t. Faith or no faith, God either continues to love or (at some point) he doesn’t.

One can look at things from the point of view of the lover or of the beloved. The highest love that I know—well, the two perspectives just collapse and there is just loving. I don’t know how to say it other than that. (And I am not talking simply of eros.) Questions of sacrifice no longer even enter in, since the barriers between lover and beloved that allow such talk have merged.

Now, maybe that is not the Christian vision of love (agape, which is what I am talking about). Perhaps it is something less. Perhaps even that something-less is more than I am capable of most of the time—but I have known the something-more, and I judge myself for betraying that (in every occasion that I have betrayed it); and I cannot deny that something-more—which is what I call love/agape—even in the face of my own betrayals. I cherish my times of embracing it (of being embraced by it) too much.

One loves or one doesn’t: the rest is just why or why not (for good reason or ill). I certainly don’t judge people for failing to love. But I do condemn attempts to water down love in order to hide our failings—or “God’s failings”, for that matter (by which I really mean the attempt to water down love in order to account for this or that cherished piece of theology).

Originally posted by whodey
Now as for denying that you love your son, I think this is a bit different. You must realize the call of the Christian. It is to be lights into the world. In fact, Christianity blossomed during a time of great persecution when they were being fed to lions for not renouncing their faith. It is a testament to those in darkness that there is something worth ...[text shortened]... to the faith during this time. It almost seemed that there were two converts for every martrye.

So rather than simply admit that your original position was wrong, you go off on a tangent trying to explain it away. Why are you so afraid of admitting your mistakes? If your new explanation is how you demonstrate your love for God, then surely dishonesty is a demonstration of failure to love God.

Originally posted by josephw
If some one put a gun to your head, and told you to deny what you believe or die, what would you do?

Isn't this what the christian church has done in all times?
The renaissance scientists, the southamerican indians?
"If you don't admit that the sun moves around the earth, then you will burn!"
"If you don't put your life in the hand of Christ, you will die!"

Even today: "All sinners will suffer the eternal fire in hell!"

Originally posted by twhitehead
So rather than simply admit that your original position was wrong, you go off on a tangent trying to explain it away. Why are you so afraid of admitting your mistakes? If your new explanation is how you demonstrate your love for God, then surely dishonesty is a demonstration of failure to love God.

I would say that his love for self was greater at that moment than his love for God. Fair enough?

Originally posted by vistesd
And even if my scriptural exegesis is incorrect—what kind of god called “love” says “love me more, love me more”?

As I said before, to love the created more than the creator is folly.

Originally posted by vistesd
I was not (and am not) addressing the question of Christian faith. But: love—in human terms—does not require faith. Love just loves. You just love someone or you don’t. If their faithlessness results in your no longer loving them, then you no longer love them; or else you still do. Faith or no faith, you either love or you don’t. Faith or no faith, God either continues to love or (at some point) he doesn’t.

You are correct in that to love someone you need not have faith. After all God loves those who reject him does he not? However, to have a mutually loving relationship faith is a requirement on some level.