sentinel00

I was corresponding with a friend of mine who is going through a period of serious religiosity, and he signed his e-mail with this quote:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NIV"

Emphasis is mine. Since every Xian I've run over in my car claims that "God is Love," wouldn't that mean that he keeps no record of our wrongs (sins), and therefore would not send anybody to hell?

Mageth

Or that God is not love.

yummyfur

NOt quite, It's fairly clear that god requires that you love him first, before he will ever love you. And that he defines this love as "keeping his commandments', which seems self seeking, so it probably violates the human Paul's definition of love. For example, if I defined god's love for me as keeping yummyfur's commandments, my guess is god would say I was being self seeking.

John 14:21
"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

John 14:23
"Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. "

sentinel00

Doesn't that violate the "it is not self-seeking" part of that biblical passage?

ziffel

It's yet another logical contradiction about BibleGod.

Christians also have to juggle the God of Infinite Love, and the God of Infinite Justice (wrath). Compare the 1 Cor 13 passage with the god of the OT! yikes!

yummyfur

Sure, but one is the word of Jesus and one is the word of Paul. My guess is that Christians will say, that Paul was speaking of the rules for human love(which he clearly is, in context), but as in everything, the rules for god's love are totally different(and unknown). My guess is that many Christians would have no problem seeing everlasting torment as somehow an expression of god's love. Also many would say that by definition a monotheistic all powerfull god would be self seeking, as it is impossible to be otherwise, so his "love" can't be restricted by such human definitions.

mens_sana

The thread title is Quote from the Bible disproves Hell. That appears to take for granted that a quote from the Bible can prove something, a matter that is certainly up in the air for a fair number of people.

sentinel00

Of course, there are cop-outs that keep the true believers from tossing and turning all night. I know that.

However, for conversation's sake, God can't even live up to human standards of love?

Tigers!

Nope.
"But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

mdarus

Yummyfur is pretty close to explaining your problem but he has almost ruined some pretty good ideas.

Let's review your suggestion:
1) Part of Paul's definition of love includes "keeps no record of wrong."
2) God keeps a record of wrong. This is established because God sends people to hell to pay for the wrongs that he has kept record of.
3) God fails Paul's definition of love.

1) This is a given from the passage quoted.
2) This has not been substantiated. This is a popular concept of hell that may not be an accurate description of what the Bible says.
3) This is disputed below.

Yummyfur makes a valid observation that the passage in I Corinthians is addressed to human expressions of love. He discounts the possibility that God's expression of love could be different. He requires that God be held to the same moral standards as men. On the face this seems reasonable yet we sense there is something wrong with the argument.

Can we allow that one action for man that would be inappropriate would be completely permissible and necessary for God? Is there something about keeping a record of wrong that is best avoided by men but necessary for God?

Keeping a record of wrong may involve many behaviors, but primarily here it seems to be linked to revenge. The Bible claims this is a proper conduct for God but not a proper conduct for men.
Yummyfur is also correct that Christians will maintain that God can be loving as he is being just. This is an apparent paradox (not necessarily a contradiction). An interesting question is whether God could be considered loving if he decided there was no need to be just?