Why don't Christians support a loving Jesus?

[Divine Insight]

This has been a major concern of mine that runs clear back to the days when I was a Christian. As a Christian I would try my best to argue for a loving Jesus. I would search though the scriptures looking for the most uplifting and positive verses and interpretations I could find. And I would use those verses and scriptures to argue for a decent loving Jesus. A Jesus who easily forgives people just as he had suggested we should do.

Ironically I found that my greatest adversaries were not atheists or non-Christians, but instead the people who objected to a loving Jesus the most were other Christians. They were always quick to point out other verses that seemed to contradict the loving positive verses that I would point to. They also seemed to always favor the most negative and condemning interpretations of any verses. Always rejecting any interpretation that might allow for anyone to ever escape condemnation if they don't proclaim Jesus to be the ultimate authority and King of Creation.

Is this the bottom line for Christianity?

Is the love that Jesus taught meaningless?

It is not enough to be a loving person?

Is Christianity ultimate about confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Ruler of the universe?

Is that what Christianity is all about?

Why are Christian so opposed to a loving forgiving Jesus?

And why is being a loving person not sufficient to be in harmony with Jesus?

[Elijah John]

This has been a major concern of mine that runs clear back to the days when I was a Christian. As a Christian I would try my best to argue for a loving Jesus. I would search though the scriptures looking for the most uplifting and positive verses and interpretations I could find. And I would use those verses and scriptures to argue for a decent loving Jesus. A Jesus who easily forgives people just as he had suggested we should do.

Ironically I found that my greatest adversaries were not atheists or non-Christians, but instead the people who objected to a loving Jesus the most were other Christians. They were always quick to point out other verses that seemed to contradict the loving positive verses that I would point to. They also seemed to always favor the most negative and condemning interpretations of any verses. Always rejecting any interpretation that might allow for anyone to ever escape condemnation if they don't proclaim Jesus to be the ultimate authority and King of Creation.

Is this the bottom line for Christianity?

Is the love that Jesus taught meaningless?

It is not enough to be a loving person?

Is Christianity ultimate about confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Ruler of the universe?

Is that what Christianity is all about?

Why are Christian so opposed to a loving forgiving Jesus?

And why is being a loving person not sufficient to be in harmony with Jesus?

We all speak from experience. I'm guessing your experience with Christians was in a Fundamentalist/ Evangelical Church. Those churches tend to have an "us versus them" mindset.

That is not true with all, or even most Christians. The RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican branches all tend to have a far more positive and loving understanding of Jesus. Or at least a far more positive and loving emphasis of Jesus and his teachings.

The RCC, for example, has a doctrine called the "Baptism of Desire" which simply means that those who seek the good and seek God according to their best lights are saved as well as those who explicity recognize and declare Jesus as their "Lord and Savior".

It is an inclusive vision.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]
I am not finding any second chances in the texts.

Revelation 21:6-8New International Version (NIV)

6 He said to me: It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars"they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Not only that by why in the world would the unbelieving be placed in the group of vile murderers etc?

This is where the authors of this cult shoot themselves in the foot and clearly give away the fact that they can't be speaking for any all-wise supremely intelligent God.

An all-wise supremely intelligent God would know that not believing in something could never be equated to being an immoral act.

So the authors of these ancient scriptures shoot themselves in the foot right there and give their scam away as being clearly ungodly.

[Divine Insight]

We all speak from experience. I'm guessing your experience with Christians was in a Fundamentalist/ Evangelical Church. Those churches tend to have an "us versus them" mindset.

Totally wrong guess. To the contrary the actual church I was raised in did not preach fire and brimstone. Moreover, they also believed that Jesus can save anyone he wants. They did not proclaim that anyone "needs" to believe in Jesus or God. But they did believe that they could assure their own salvation by accepting Jesus directly.

So no, you are totally wrong about my experience. The Christians that gave me a hard time about a loving Jesus did not belong to the church I was a member of.

That is not true with all, or even most Christians. The RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican branches all tend to have a far more positive and loving understanding of Jesus. Or at least a far more positive and loving emphasis of Jesus and his teachings.

The RCC, for example, has a doctrine called the "Baptism of Desire" which simply means that those who seek the good and seek God according to their best lights are saved as well as those who explicity recognize and declare Jesus as their "Lord and Savior".

It is an inclusive vision.

I agree with what you say about the RCC. But in America the vast majority of Christians are Protestants, not Catholics.

In in the early 1960's, back when I was still a Christian, 93% of Americans were Christians. Of those 70% were Protestant, and only 23% were Catholic.

Today, only 77% of America is Christian with about 54% being protestant and only about 23% being catholic

So, yes, I am speaking mainly to Protestantism. Consider also that Jehovah's Witnesses are not RCC. In fact, recently a Jehovah's Witness just told me in another thread the JWs consider the RCC to be the "Whore of Babylon".

So there are clearly many strong disagreements between these various factions of Christianity. It might be informative to note also that the JWs also broke away from mainstream Protestantism in the USA too. In fact, of the 54% of Protestants in the USA only less than 1% are Jehovah's Witnesses. So JWs don't even show up on the chart hardly.

Yet as you can see in this thread, even the JWs still hold to a God who demands to be loved lest he'll hurt someone.

So being a loving person clearly isn't sufficient for Jehovah's Witnesses.

It might be sufficient for RCC's. That I can't say. Pope Francis has indicated that atheists can go to heaven. So clearly atheists would not be proclaiming to love any God. So I supposed Pope Francis is supporting that being a loving person is sufficient. I can't say for certain precisely where he stands on that in detail.

Typically I don't have a bone to pick with the Roman Catholic Church. If fact, if they preach that love is sufficient to be in harmony with Christ, than I'm in agreement with that.

[KingandPriest]

This has been a major concern of mine that runs clear back to the days when I was a Christian. As a Christian I would try my best to argue for a loving Jesus. I would search though the scriptures looking for the most uplifting and positive verses and interpretations I could find. And I would use those verses and scriptures to argue for a decent loving Jesus. A Jesus who easily forgives people just as he had suggested we should do.

Ironically I found that my greatest adversaries were not atheists or non-Christians, but instead the people who objected to a loving Jesus the most were other Christians. They were always quick to point out other verses that seemed to contradict the loving positive verses that I would point to. They also seemed to always favor the most negative and condemning interpretations of any verses. Always rejecting any interpretation that might allow for anyone to ever escape condemnation if they don't proclaim Jesus to be the ultimate authority and King of Creation.

Is this the bottom line for Christianity?

Is the love that Jesus taught meaningless?

It is not enough to be a loving person?

Is Christianity ultimate about confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Ruler of the universe?

Is that what Christianity is all about?

Why are Christian so opposed to a loving forgiving Jesus?

And why is being a loving person not sufficient to be in harmony with Jesus?

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

In order to answer your questions, one must first identify what is love? Talking about love simply as an emotion or a concept created by humans would make your question mute, because you would be trying to force God into a box.

In a separate thread entitled "What is love" you wrote:

As far as I can see the concept of love is a human concept. Therefore it's open to the subjective opinions of humans. Different humans will most likely have different definitions for what the concept means to them. In fact, this appears to be precisely the situation we observe.

For me personally, I only have one definition for love, it wouldn't matter whether a God exists or not. My definition of love is to simply care for someone's welfare. And that "someone" could even be an animal. Therefore it's necessarily possible to love animals.

Of course there can be different degrees of caring for the welfare of others, and for this reason there can be different degrees of love. Obviously the more we love someone, the more we care about their welfare.

I tend to love most humans. But I confess that there are humans I do not care for very much. Even in those cases I wish them the best "welfare". But I may not be inclined to go out of my way to help or insure that they obtain the best welfare. None the less, I do wish most everyone the best welfare. And I certainly wish no harm toward anyone. Although there are people that I would have a hard time feeling bad about if they were to suddenly drop over dead.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 831#816831

Once we know what love is, then your questions about Christianity can ensue. I believe we only know what love is because God first loved us and showed us his love. The intricacies we see in nature is a blatant example of how much God loves us. Whether or not we choose to seek him, know him or reciprocate the love God showed us, he still allows the Earth to be filled with countless blessings. The air you and I breath is a result of a complex mix of elements that is just right for us. If the atmosphere had more carbon dioxide or even too much oxygen, we could not survive. Whether or not you choose to put your faith in Him, God still blesses us with an opportunity to be alive on this beautiful planet which is a testimony of His love.

We try an mimic this love towards one another but no one can match the level of care or selflessness God displays. To love a person so much that even if they hated you, denied you existed and consistently berated you day after day, that you would still bless them and send gifts (in the form of Christians ministering on this site) day after day. What a love God has for us.


________

As an aside, I think you are confusing love and justice. The fact that a person loves another person does not mean they should ignore justice. For example, if a parent goes to the store with their child and the child steals a toy or a candy bar. Later on the parent notices the child playing with a toy they know they did not purchase. After questioning the child, the parent discovers the child stole the item. The parent will more than likely communicate to the child that what they did was wrong. It is because the parent loves the child that they correct and in some instances impose punishment for the wrong doing. Justice and love are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes correction or rebuke comes as a result of love.

We see this even in a completely secular view. When a family pulls in one of their own for an intervention, the family is acting out of love. Though they act out of love, their words and refutation of the poor behavior may seem harsh, but it is necessary to spare future harm.

So to me, it is not that Christians are refuting a loving Jesus, we just sometimes may not use the best examples to help you understand how a person can seek justice or righteousness based on love.

[Divine Insight]

Once we know what love is, then your questions about Christianity can ensue.

You are more than welcome to define what you believe love is with respect to Christianity and the Christian God.

I believe we only know what love is because God first loved us and showed us his love. The intricacies we see in nature is a blatant example of how much God loves us. Whether or not we choose to seek him, know him or reciprocate the love God showed us, he still allows the Earth to be filled with countless blessings. The air you and I breath is a result of a complex mix of elements that is just right for us. If the atmosphere had more carbon dioxide or even too much oxygen, we could not survive. Whether or not you choose to put your faith in Him, God still blesses us with an opportunity to be alive on this beautiful planet which is a testimony of His love.

I see what you have just describe above as utterly absurd.

A creator who doesn't provide a hospitable environment for his creation would be irresponsible. Moreover, you seem to be ignoring the fact that nature often presents humans with extreme droughts, storms, volcanic eruptions, etc. Therefore if you are going to point to nature as being an example of God's Love for us you are opening up an extreme can of worms there.

Let's no forget to include biological hazards such bacteria and viruses that cause horrible disease in humans. That would all be part of this God natural environment he placed us in to. So your "air that we breath", example quickly fizzles out and become meaningless.

We try an mimic this love towards one another but no one can match the level of care or selflessness God displays.

Excuse me?

Medical doctors have already beaten the pants off this God in their work to heal people from the horrible diseases that your unloving God has allowed these people to become inflicted with.

So you're argument fails once again in a major way.

To love a person so much that even if they hated you, denied you existed and consistently berated you day after day, that you would still bless them and send gifts (in the form of Christians ministering on this site) day after day. What a love God has for us.

But that's not what this God promises. To the contrary, in then end he promises to unless the most extreme wrath upon them. So again your argument fails.

As an aside, I think you are confusing love and justice. The fact that a person loves another person does not mean they should ignore justice.

I never suggested they should. But just the same I'm willing to bet that I'll disagree with you ideas on what constitutes "justice".

For example, if a parent goes to the store with their child and the child steals a toy or a candy bar. Later on the parent notices the child playing with a toy they know they did not purchase. After questioning the child, the parent discovers the child stole the item. The parent will more than likely communicate to the child that what they did was wrong. It is because the parent loves the child that they correct and in some instances impose punishment for the wrong doing. Justice and love are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes correction or rebuke comes as a result of love.

No "punishment" is required IMHO. All you need to do is have the child return the stolen item, or pay for it. And then suffer any legal consequences the store may decide to charge the child with.

But this would be "restitution" not "punishment". Also, no God would be involved with how the store or the human legal system deals with the child. So what would talk place there cannot be extrapolated to what a supposedly omniscience God might or should do.

We see this even in a completely secular view. When a family pulls in one of their own for an intervention, the family is acting out of love. Though they act out of love, their words and refutation of the poor behavior may seem harsh, but it is necessary to spare future harm.

There is no threat of putting anyone to death here, or condemning them to "everlasting punishment" to use Jesus' words.

So once again, your analogy of human behavior with what a God might or should do is irrelevant.

So to me, it is not that Christians are refuting a loving Jesus, we just sometimes may not use the best examples to help you understand how a person can seek justice or righteousness based on love.

I agree, you guys never use very good examples at all actually.

In fact, most of your examples suggest that your God should deal with people the same way humans do. I don't support that at all. In fact, I quite often don't agree with how humans deal with their problems or address these types of situations.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight] It is difficult to extract money from the unbelieving. Therefore they must be evil and worthy of judgement.

[ttruscott]

Why don't Christians support a loving Jesus?

Christians do support a loving Jesus. If a little leaven (evil) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump, (person, city, country, world) then what will those who are demonic and psychopathological criminal do in our created reality if not banished from our reality?

The most loving thing to do for those HE does love, the billions of multi-billions of elect who chose to marry HIM forever in the heavenly communion who will inevitably suffer under the evil of the demonic reprobate if they are ever let free from the prison planet Earth, let alone if they should be able to access the telepathic communion that will permeate heavenly society. No hell = no eternal happiness, just eternal suffering for all until we are all corrupt and must be destroyed.

Love demands the banishment of eternally evil beings to the outer darkness outside of our created reality.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]




[center]
When being good isn't being good enough[/center]


It is not enough to be a loving person?

No

When love takes second place to JW theology.


Is Christianity ultimate about confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Ruler of the universe?

No, its about confessing Jesus as Lord and His Father JEHOVAH as supreme ruler of the universe.

When following orders is more important than love.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

Why cannot God just destroy the evil so they cease to exist?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

Why cannot God just destroy the evil so they cease to exist?

IF HE made them indestructible then HE cannot. An eternal hell must rest on this assumption. Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Eternal refers to the same length of time here...as long as the righteous live, the unrighteous suffer. Any manipulation of the word for different meanings in the same sentence would seem to be spurious sophistry.