Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does God Love Everyone?

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:57:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not trying to be lazy could you summarize the video?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 4:50:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
In one word: yes.


K, now use some more words, and explain.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 5:20:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh

It's asking a question about a state of affairs, not assuming a position on it.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 5:42:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 5:20:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh

It's asking a question about a state of affairs, not assuming a position on it.

Oh you can ask a question about a state of affairs with assuming a position. For instance, the question also assumed there were persons apart from God too. God can be indifferent to persons or he can choose to love persons. That seems obvious, but our question remains if he loves them all. So I pose a further question, can we or do we deserve something more than indifference?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 5:42:22 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:20:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh

It's asking a question about a state of affairs, not assuming a position on it.

Oh you can ask a question about a state of affairs with assuming a position. For instance, the question also assumed there were persons apart from God too.

Yes, it does assume that. I agree.

God can be indifferent to persons or he can choose to love persons. That seems obvious, but our question remains if he loves them all. So I pose a further question, can we or do we deserve something more than indifference?

Posing a further question is different then suggesting that a different question should have been asked altogether.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:43:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 6:33:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:42:22 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:20:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh

It's asking a question about a state of affairs, not assuming a position on it.

Oh you can ask a question about a state of affairs with assuming a position. For instance, the question also assumed there were persons apart from God too.

Yes, it does assume that. I agree.

God can be indifferent to persons or he can choose to love persons. That seems obvious, but our question remains if he loves them all. So I pose a further question, can we or do we deserve something more than indifference?

Posing a further question is different then suggesting that a different question should have been asked altogether.

And you asked why I posed a further question. "Do all deserve God's love" is a deeper inquiry than "Do all receive God's love?" A different question altogether would be, "Is spam good?" I was in subject. It strikes me as nit-picky you would argue this. Are you getting at something?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:48:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 6:43:14 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 6:33:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:42:22 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:20:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 5:03:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:09:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:00:55 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:58:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:55:47 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:48:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 2:46:38 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
I think the question should be, 'does everyone justly deserve God's Love?'

Why?

Do you deserve mine? Love is a positive bestowal, indifference isn't.

I mean: Why should that be the question as opposed to the question that was actually asked?

The original question asked presupposes everyone can deserve love from a just God.

No it doesn't.

Ya-huh

It's asking a question about a state of affairs, not assuming a position on it.

Oh you can ask a question about a state of affairs with assuming a position. For instance, the question also assumed there were persons apart from God too.

Yes, it does assume that. I agree.

God can be indifferent to persons or he can choose to love persons. That seems obvious, but our question remains if he loves them all. So I pose a further question, can we or do we deserve something more than indifference?

Posing a further question is different then suggesting that a different question should have been asked altogether.

And you asked why I posed a further question.

To say the question should be yours implies it shouldn't be the one that was asked in the OP. It is to that I was asking why. You implied exclusivity.

"Do all deserve God's love" is a deeper inquiry than "Do all receive God's love?" A different question altogether would be, "Is spam good?" I was in subject. It strikes me as nit-picky you would argue this. Are you getting at something?

Yeah, I'm wondering why you are trying to inhibit the investigation into the question that was asked, hijacking the threat to answer this question that you decided is more important. If you want your question asked, start your own thread.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 8:00:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...

Then why during the reconciliation does Jacob say that seeing Esau was like seeing God's own face? lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 8:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 8:00:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...

Then why during the reconciliation does Jacob say that seeing Esau was like seeing God's own face? lol

Because it brought him joy? maybe?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 8:35:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 8:16:14 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:00:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...

Then why during the reconciliation does Jacob say that seeing Esau was like seeing God's own face? lol

Because it brought him joy? maybe?

C'mon paradox...there has to be a better Calvinist explanation than that of the seeming fact that Esau turns from a vessel of wrath into a vessel of mercy (as God does with the Israelites as reported by Paul in Romans 9 -11 - he bound them in disobedience so that the Gentiles might be reached with salvation - but he doesn't leave them in disobedience).

Are you saying that Jacob was perceiving Esau's reconcilation with God wrongly? Why would he see God's own face in a (allegedly eternal) vessel of wrath during a moment of reconcilliation between the two? Why would he even use that type of language if it wasn't the truth? That would seem like something akin to a major blasphemy...would it not?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 8:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 8:35:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:16:14 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:00:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...

Then why during the reconciliation does Jacob say that seeing Esau was like seeing God's own face? lol

Because it brought him joy? maybe?

C'mon paradox...there has to be a better Calvinist explanation than that of the seeming fact that Esau turns from a vessel of wrath into a vessel of mercy (as God does with the Israelites as reported by Paul in Romans 9 -11 - he bound them in disobedience so that the Gentiles might be reached with salvation - but he doesn't leave them in disobedience).

Are you saying that Jacob was perceiving Esau's reconcilation with God wrongly? Why would he see God's own face in a (allegedly eternal) vessel of wrath during a moment of reconcilliation between the two? Why would he even use that type of language if it wasn't the truth? That would seem like something akin to a major blasphemy...would it not?


"Hebrews 12:15-16 states that Esau was a godless man who fell short of God's grace. This paints a pretty dark picture of him. Hebrews 12:17 speaks of Esau's repentance, but also says that it was not genuine. Whether or not this was the repentance of Genesis 33, however, is not stated (I suspect it refers to the Gen. 27 episode, where we see Esau cry for a blessing). Further, Paul speaks of God's rejection of Esau as an example of the way God predestines the reprobate to hell (Rom. 9:10ff.), in effect stating that Esau was not saved."

http://reformedanswers.org...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:00:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 8:47:17 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:35:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:16:14 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:00:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:46:53 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 7:09:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Jacob and Esau eventually reconcile, lol.


But God and Esau don't lol...

Then why during the reconciliation does Jacob say that seeing Esau was like seeing God's own face? lol

Because it brought him joy? maybe?

C'mon paradox...there has to be a better Calvinist explanation than that of the seeming fact that Esau turns from a vessel of wrath into a vessel of mercy (as God does with the Israelites as reported by Paul in Romans 9 -11 - he bound them in disobedience so that the Gentiles might be reached with salvation - but he doesn't leave them in disobedience).

Are you saying that Jacob was perceiving Esau's reconcilation with God wrongly? Why would he see God's own face in a (allegedly eternal) vessel of wrath during a moment of reconcilliation between the two? Why would he even use that type of language if it wasn't the truth? That would seem like something akin to a major blasphemy...would it not?


"Hebrews 12:15-16 states that Esau was a godless man who fell short of God's grace. This paints a pretty dark picture of him. Hebrews 12:17 speaks of Esau's repentance, but also says that it was not genuine. Whether or not this was the repentance of Genesis 33, however, is not stated (I suspect it refers to the Gen. 27 episode, where we see Esau cry for a blessing). Further, Paul speaks of God's rejection of Esau as an example of the way God predestines the reprobate to hell (Rom. 9:10ff.), in effect stating that Esau was not saved."

http://reformedanswers.org...

Appealing to Romans 9 alone just ignores the the context of Pauls argument that he was making throughout Romans 9 and into 11. He very clearly states that God bound some of the population of the Jews in disobedience as a way to effect salvation for "the full number of Gentiles" (vessels of wrath). But the kicker is that those very same Jews that were bound in disobedience will be grafted back onto the tree they had been cut off if they don't persist in unbelief (which implies that at least some DON'T persist in unbelief, rom 11:22-23). And then Paul ends his argument with this gem:

Rom 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

That still doesn't answer the puzzle of why Jacob saw God's face in Esau, anyhow.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:02:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:41:32 PM, joneszj wrote:
This sounds interesting. But I have no idea what either of you are trying to propse.

I don't see the merit in the idea of predestination insofar as it means that God predestined that some people would be the vessels of wrath (i.e. that God doesn't love them) and some people would be the vessels of mercy for all eternity. The categories seems malleable. The guy is the video tried to use those examples (especially Jacob and Esau) as a means to show that God doesn't love everyone.

I don't think that there is biblical support for the notion that God doesn't love everyone.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:12:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 12:02:39 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/27/2012 11:41:32 PM, joneszj wrote:
This sounds interesting. But I have no idea what either of you are trying to propse.

I don't see the merit in the idea of predestination insofar as it means that God predestined that some people would be the vessels of wrath (i.e. that God doesn't love them) and some people would be the vessels of mercy for all eternity. The categories seems malleable. The guy is the video tried to use those examples (especially Jacob and Esau) as a means to show that God doesn't love everyone.

I don't think that there is biblical support for the notion that God doesn't love everyone.

Generally Calvinism differentiates between two types of love. One is a providential love and the other a salvific love. Your probably already aware of the terms. Providential love is providing for all wicked and righteous (it rains on the wicked as it does the just, etc). Salvific love being a saving love for the elect (eph 1). Not sure if perhaps that addresses whatever but perhaps it will help?