Do you think God loves you? Why?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Make the case for a loving God!

Start with your best indication that this is, in fact, the case. Use example, scripture,doctrine, personal belief, whatever.
I will debate to the contrary, and I will no doubt, have help.
Give it your best shot!

[boatsnguitars]

Love is subjective? God has subjective experiences, and Love isn't objectively known to him? How does he know he actually loves you?

Love is a truth about individual subjects, yes. It’s about what they want to do well. But I objectively know whether I love my wife or not. You can’t be 100% sure even if you watched me on many occasions because I could be putting on a show, but I know the truth. God would know the truth about His own love, but (being omniscient) would also know who truly loves who as well.

You are just making that up about God. You made a claim. Defend it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Love is subjective? God has subjective experiences, and Love isn't objectively known to him? How does he know he actually loves you?

Love is a truth about individual subjects, yes. It’s about what they want to do well. But I objectively know whether I love my wife or not. You can’t be 100% sure even if you watched me on many occasions because I could be putting on a show, but I know the truth. God would know the truth about His own love, but (being omniscient) would also know who truly loves who as well.

Broadly, yes. People don't know what anyone loves or hates unless they say so or by their actions. 'Known by their fruits'as it were, which is what ordinarily happens and is not property of the Church.

But to apply that to a god first requires that a god - claim be validated and indeed which god. Anyone can imagine a big invisible human and attribute human characteristics and behavior to it, but that validates no argument.

I know that believers work within the Box; it is assumed that Biblegod is real before the discussion starts, so 90% of the apologetics are futile before we start, as the unbeliever does not accept that god is real or any particular religion is true.

Which is why arguments about the mindset of Biblegod doesn't do anything, but validation of the Bible - the only real evidence there is - is the only real discussion, and right from the start, I could see that it was inconsistencies and factual problems were the key to that discussion.

Of course, the apologetics 'within the box' are used to counter epistemology problems like the claim that God loves you. But in the end the feeling that this is so is worthless. The only objective evidence is the Bible says so, so really, it's back to Bible credibility.

[The Tanager]

Sorry,T, but you did. We were two kids shoving each other on a park bench, and you fell into the ' Lake of Fire'. You bowed to the Altar of Hellenistic mysticism ,that is John-Paul.
Now you want a date for the pagan quote I gave,to suggest that they stole it from us. They would need to be hard up. They were there for 600 years before Christianity, a fact that you are well aware of. You see the opportunity to construct another lame-dog
excuse. We could impeach the pagans for ten pages.Why waste your intellect with this deflection, T.?
God loves you because John said it. You would be far better off reading the pagan theology, you might be surprised at its depth. Thanks

Lake of Fire ( Nirvana)
Where do bad folks go when they die?
They don't go to Heaven where the angels fly
They go to the lake of fire and fry
See 'em again 'til the fourth of July!

That song brings me back! Thanks for that.

I didn’t claim that they borrowed from Christianity. I think it’s a stretch to call them parallels in the original forms. You quoted something that sounds more like Christianity and my previous research into these areas (it’s been a little while) is that Christian sources do predate in the use of that language. So…if you are going to argue that shared language like that points to borrowing (I think the language often is vague enough to not warrant that call)…then they copied Christianity. I briefly thought about doing my dissertation on this issue but my professors said they wouldn’t allow it because that theory is seen as debunked and laughable in secular academia. But I’m open to being shown differently.

[The Tanager]

Love is a truth about individual subjects, yes. It’s about what they want to do well. But I objectively know whether I love my wife or not. You can’t be 100% sure even if you watched me on many occasions because I could be putting on a show, but I know the truth. God would know the truth about His own love, but (being omniscient) would also know who truly loves who as well.

You are just making that up about God. You made a claim. Defend it.

Which specific claim are you asking me to defend? I'm not trying to be daft; I just really want to make sure I'm understanding you.

[The Tanager]

Broadly, yes. People don't know what anyone loves or hates unless they say so or by their actions. 'Known by their fruits'as it were, which is what ordinarily happens and is not property of the Church.

But to apply that to a god first requires that a god - claim be validated and indeed which god. Anyone can imagine a big invisible human and attribute human characteristics and behavior to it, but that validates no argument.

I know that believers work within the Box; it is assumed that Biblegod is real before the discussion starts, so 90% of the apologetics are futile before we start, as the unbeliever does not accept that god is real or any particular religion is true.

Which is why arguments about the mindset of Biblegod doesn't do anything, but validation of the Bible - the only real evidence there is - is the only real discussion, and right from the start, I could see that it was inconsistencies and factual problems were the key to that discussion.

Of course, the apologetics 'within the box' are used to counter epistemology problems like the claim that God loves you. But in the end the feeling that this is so is worthless. The only objective evidence is the Bible says so, so really, it's back to Bible credibility.

I largely agree, but people are allowed to jump into different parts of that conversation, like this thread has down. If you don’t want to do it, then jump into some other thread. I don’t assume Biblegod is real. I would start with the Kalam, and I’ll have that conversation with you in a different thread, if you want, out of respect for those who don’t want this conversation to turn into that one.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #44]

Hello The Tanager

You say -"No, I didn’t openly admit to adhering to the fundamentals of pagan mysticism"

Sorry,T, but you did. We were two kids shoving each other on a park bench, and you fell into the ' Lake of Fire'. You bowed to the Altar of Hellenistic mysticism ,that is John-Paul.
Now you want a date for the pagan quote I gave,to suggest that they stole it from us. They would need to be hard up. They were there for 600 years before Christianity, a fact that you are well aware of. You see the opportunity to construct another lame-dog
excuse. We could impeach the pagans for ten pages.Why waste your intellect with this deflection, T.?
God loves you because John said it. You would be far better off reading the pagan theology, you might be surprised at its depth. Thanks

Lake of Fire ( Nirvana)
Where do bad folks go when they die?
They don't go to Heaven where the angels fly
They go to the lake of fire and fry
See 'em again 'til the fourth of July!

Hello TRANSPONDER, The Tanager.
The confusion is all my fault , the post was a response to The Tanager not you TRANSPONDER.
abbreviations are fraught with danger, Sorry!

[boatsnguitars]

Love is a truth about individual subjects, yes. It’s about what they want to do well. But I objectively know whether I love my wife or not. You can’t be 100% sure even if you watched me on many occasions because I could be putting on a show, but I know the truth. God would know the truth about His own love, but (being omniscient) would also know who truly loves who as well.

You are just making that up about God. You made a claim. Defend it.

Which specific claim are you asking me to defend? I'm not trying to be daft; I just really want to make sure I'm understanding you.

That God is omniscient and understands his love.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
In the interest of fairness, I introduce this to the mix.

Wisdom 3:7
" When God comes to reward the righteous, they will blaze out against the wicked like fire in dry straw. 8 They will rule over nations and peoples, and the Lord will be their king forever. 9 Those who have put their trust in God will come to understand the truth of his ways. Those who have been faithful will live with him in his love, for he is kind and merciful to the ones whom he has chosen"

This is not unlike John and comes from about 200yrs previous ( I think).
Wisdom's theology , is interesting because it is the dragon (that was a snake), before it gets it's fire

[The Tanager]

That God is omniscient and understands his love.

Well, you don’t have to be omniscient to understand one’s own love; I understand when I love my wife and when I don’t, at least some of the time. But my belief in omniscience ultimately hinges on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of it to record Jesus’ teachings, which include the reliability of the Tanakh to record God’s revelation to humanity. Now, obviously, that isn't the case for those things, just describing what they are.

[TRANSPONDER]

Broadly, yes. People don't know what anyone loves or hates unless they say so or by their actions. 'Known by their fruits'as it were, which is what ordinarily happens and is not property of the Church.

But to apply that to a god first requires that a god - claim be validated and indeed which god. Anyone can imagine a big invisible human and attribute human characteristics and behavior to it, but that validates no argument.

I know that believers work within the Box; it is assumed that Biblegod is real before the discussion starts, so 90% of the apologetics are futile before we start, as the unbeliever does not accept that god is real or any particular religion is true.

Which is why arguments about the mindset of Biblegod doesn't do anything, but validation of the Bible - the only real evidence there is - is the only real discussion, and right from the start, I could see that it was inconsistencies and factual problems were the key to that discussion.

Of course, the apologetics 'within the box' are used to counter epistemology problems like the claim that God loves you. But in the end the feeling that this is so is worthless. The only objective evidence is the Bible says so, so really, it's back to Bible credibility.

I largely agree, but people are allowed to jump into different parts of that conversation, like this thread has down. If you don’t want to do it, then jump into some other thread. I don’t assume Biblegod is real. I would start with the Kalam, and I’ll have that conversation with you in a different thread, if you want, out of respect for those who don’t want this conversation to turn into that one.

sauce! I shall of course comment where I see fit within the rules, so far as I can and can do without your advice. The thing is that there are so many knock - ons and whether or not one's delusion (probably) that that there is a god who loves them depends on the validity of the religion and Holy Book and though Kalam is irrelevant we often get there to establish any kind of god.

But Kalam fails, The Bible fails, the resurrection fails, the religion fails and the claim that the god loves them is a delusion as much as you would probably consider that a Muslim or Hindu's conviction that Shiva or Allah loves them is a delusion.

That God is omniscient and understands his love.

Well, you don’t have to be omniscient to understand one’s own love; I understand when I love my wife and when I don’t, at least some of the time. But my belief in omniscience ultimately hinges on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of it to record Jesus’ teachings, which include the reliability of the Tanakh to record God’s revelation to humanity. Now, obviously, that isn't the case for those things, just describing what they are.

I don't think any of us really understand our love though we know we have it. But as a matter of course we can't have a window into others' minds and see whether their claim to have love or not is real. It is even less credible to make such claims about a god when we don't even know that such a God exists. The appeal to Holy Books is ludicrous as you don't believe in Allah or Shiva just because their books talk about them, do you? So why should the Bible, New or OT, carry any weight at all? Sure you identify what the 'Tanak' (1) does while accepting that doesn't prove it, but that is really strawmanning the argument, isn't it? It isn't what spurious claim tells you God loves you, but how do you know it's a true claim?

Because the events are credible? No, the debates here show clearly (as elsewhere) that they are not and only faithbased denial keeps the conversation going.

The elephant that has not yet entered the room is of course, belief in a personal connection with God. I'm frankly surprised that you haven't mentioned hot line information down the mental wire of Faith into your brain that signals God's love for you even better than inferring your wife's love for you on the grounds that that she didn't clock you with the pizza tray today. God 's mind manifests in the brain and mind of the believer because of course, that is all it is..

(1) as a placeholder for anything else in the Abrahamic Holybook corpus, not of which carries any real evidential weight.