Jobar

"Wants"? You think that an infinite and eternal God has wants?

This is so closely related to my own recent thread, Does God lack for praise?, that I'm tempted to merge the two threads.

I'll give this one a day or so, and see if it branches off in some other direction; I urge all to read that thread first, though.

The_Unknown_Banana

Don't worry, I know how it is. I have a couple of things I should really reply to as well...

Magus55

Because sinners can't enter Heaven, and God can't lie.

Scandal

Unknown Banana,
Thanks for the welcome.

I guess you can say that God/Love is an "intense emotional attachment".

My definition of Love:
Unconditional, manifested in the form of compassion and kindness.

Scandal

Yeah, what Billy Graham is cool said.

Quantum Ninja

Yes, good point. Desire is a weakness, an emotion grown out of lacking something. Most people desire food when there is none readily available, or more money when they don't have enough of it. But if you were omnipotent being, you could have and do anything, so why would you ever express desire? Would you really want anything?

Similarly, could an omnipotent/omnscient being express fear? How about curiousity? Envy? Surprise? Despair? Confusion?

Philosoft

How goes it, BGiC? Good to see you here more frequently.

Okay, you have two separate ideas here with no connection between. If we stipulate "God is love incarnate," whatever it means, how does he become not-love incarnate in this universe? Perhaps you're talking about our perceptions, as beings within a universe attempting to understand an extra-universal being?
The problem I have is, by no definition I am aware of would a being who embodies love sentence another being to eternal suffering. You can say God is fully just, of course, but that would preclude his also being fully loving. I can imagine a being, who is less just than God, who doesn't send people to a realm of eternal suffering. That being would be more loving than God, which would be slightly problematic for Christian doctrine.

Cross Examiner

Look at this! I said I didn't intend on getting involved, now just look. I have, like, 8 other threads and don't need another one. Oh well, you people here are just too interesting to ignore. Philo, bro, check it:

Shucks, you say the sweetest things.

He cannot exist as love incarnate in this universe, since, as fishbulb would tell me, to exist here, in the strictest sense, is to occupy space/be composed of matter over time. So love does not "exist" physically but as an idea, as a form of the perfect, casting it's "shadow" on the minds of men (Platonic sounding, I know). What then is the mechanism for converting love, the tangible being/thing in the eternal domain, into love, solely the idea and practice in the finite domain? If I answer coherently will they send us our Nobel Prize via FedEx ?

I think that may be a way to understand the "shadow" of love, percieving the infinite from a finite perspective. Perceptions matter, perhaps they are all that matters.

The problem of hell. Good tie-in Philo. This may go way tangential to OP...but all that depends greatly on your understanding of what hell is, exactly. So, what is hell?

This idea relates to our understanding of hell. What is more loving, justice and free will for man or coddling and coercion for man?

And back to perception, full circle. How do you perceive hell? How might have the Aramaic language/mindset influenced our notions of hell? Is there a more accurate understanding of hell than flames and pitchforks? How about heaven, is it puffy clouds, cupids with harps, St. Peter at the gate, and eternal elevator music? Both places sound equally torturous to me .

A little pre-empt...don't worry, we'll apply methodology consistently to Scripture. I think I done went and involved myself. S'ok though.

Regards,
BGiC

Philosoft

So God is always love incarnate, but neither God nor love can exist fully in the universe?

A figment of several million imaginations?

You're equivocating. If God's love is a love for mankind, he might behave differently than if he loved each individual. That's what you're saying, that God loves a state-of-affairs - that mankind should have particular judgements and pronouncements made against it as a whole - rather than any particular individual.

If I am a parent with 3 kids, I can make and enforce general rules that govern acceptable behaviors. For example, I can have a general rule like, "If you get yourself into trouble, you can get yourself out." I might consider that loving, in the sense that it teaches my children responsibility. But if one of my kids gets into a fight and goes to jail, I'll go downtown and bail him out.

God might exhibit loving behavior by applying general rules, but he fails when it comes to loving individuals.

I don't think it matters. Place, existence, mindset, whatever, Christians generally agree that it entails eternal suffering.

Scandal

Philo,

You said, ["]Perhaps you're (B.G. is cool) talking about our perceptions, as beings within a universe attempting to understand an extr-universal being?[/"]

And B. G. is cool said, ["]...Perceptions matter, perhaps they are all that matters.[/"]

I agree with these statements. "God is Love", is an impression of God in my heart.

B.G. is cool said, "...How do you perceive hell?"

I'm thinking that maybe this incarnation IS hell!