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]

All you are doing is repeating what a religious text says. I want to know - from you - if God actually loves you.

I wouldn't ask you if my wife loves me, I'd ask her. If I couldn't ask her, I'd look at her actions. I certainly wouldn't read the poetry in her best friends diary about her feelings towards me.

If she sent death and destruction towards me, unless I genuflected to her - I'd have to wonder.

Yes, God loves me. I believe this because I believe God tells me this daily in many intimate ways.

TMI.

I don't believe you, though. Can you demonstrate it in a way that we'd all recognize it, objectively?

[The Tanager]

TMI.

I don't believe you, though. Can you demonstrate it in a way that we'd all recognize it, objectively?

It seems impossible to me for someone to demonstrate their subjective experiences in a way that we'd all recognize it is objectively true, whether we are talking about God or that we truly love our spouse or any number of subjective experiences.

I do think one can demonstrate that God objectively loves us as the best explanation of reality. That doesn't come through sharing subjective experiences that one could be deluded about, but hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as the best inference from the historical facts surrounding that supposed event.

[TRANSPONDER]

TMI.

I don't believe you, though. Can you demonstrate it in a way that we'd all recognize it, objectively?

It seems impossible to me for someone to demonstrate their subjective experiences in a way that we'd all recognize it is objectively true, whether we are talking about God or that we truly love our spouse or any number of subjective experiences.

I do think one can demonstrate that God objectively loves us as the best explanation of reality. That doesn't come through sharing subjective experiences that one could be deluded about, but hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as the best inference from the historical facts surrounding that supposed event.

Good point. While there is no way of checking whether a claim to love anything - wife, household pet, dog, their car, superhero films, much can be shown by their actions.For example, when a bunch of fans made a publicity video for Rings of Power.Someone checked up their blogs later on and saw they never mentioned it again. The evidence is they cared nothing for the world of Tolkien and it was a stunt.

Similarly, I might guess from the antics of Televangelists that this is just done for publicity and donations and I cannot think they even believe in God let alone love him.

While we cannot (in the axiomatic phrase that is supposed to obviate all evidence) be 100% sure; and we are agnostic in this matter, I have little doubt that you really are devoted to the idea of God. And, as you rightly say, it hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. Since I believe it is demonstrable from the 'actions' of the writers in giving their accounts, that there was originally no agreed account, I don't think it happened and there is no point in loving something that isn't real, except subjectively.

[Masterblaster]

TMI.

I don't believe you, though. Can you demonstrate it in a way that we'd all recognize it, objectively?

It seems impossible to me for someone to demonstrate their subjective experiences in a way that we'd all recognize it is objectively true, whether we are talking about God or that we truly love our spouse or any number of subjective experiences.

I do think one can demonstrate that God objectively loves us as the best explanation of reality. That doesn't come through sharing subjective experiences that one could be deluded about, but hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as the best inference from the historical facts surrounding that supposed event.

Apologies for the long post, in advance. Please stay with it.

Hello The Tanager
You appear to be struggling to respond to the most basic of enquiries. There is a simple reason for this.
You have impaled your beliefs on John 3:16.( by your own admission ,see above)

"John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

You have compounded your difficulties by previously contextualizing this mantra of 3:16 within pagan mysticism.
You answered this question of mine....

Are you saying that the Sumerians,Greeks,Romans, Hindus, Pagan religions, called it correctly when they identified a portal from up there to down here?

in the following manner

The Tanager If by identifying a portal you meant were they correct that God could come down to Earth, then yes. But I'm not sure I understood your point

You questioned me vociferously

The Tanager -1. What Sumerian, Greek, and Roman myths talk about God incarnating as a human in order to redeem us from sin?

Answer: This is one, Wiki

"According to legend, the final savior of the world, known as the Saoshyant, will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster while bathing in a lake. The Saoshyant will raise the dead—including those in all afterworlds—for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell to be purged of bodily sin "

Please listen The Tanager( and others)
You openly admit to adhering to the fundamentals of pagan mysticism. That is why you struggle to respond to the most rudimentary skeptical enquiries.

I explained earlier

The whole thing cannot work and it will never act as a vessel for truth. It does a disservice to the core teachings of Jesus and it acts as an anchor to Hope, moving forward.

The whole thing saddens me.

[boatsnguitars]

TMI.

I don't believe you, though. Can you demonstrate it in a way that we'd all recognize it, objectively?

It seems impossible to me for someone to demonstrate their subjective experiences in a way that we'd all recognize it is objectively true, whether we are talking about God or that we truly love our spouse or any number of subjective experiences.

I do think one can demonstrate that God objectively loves us as the best explanation of reality. That doesn't come through sharing subjective experiences that one could be deluded about, but hinges on the resurrection of Jesus as the best inference from the historical facts surrounding that supposed event.

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

[Masterblaster]

Hello boatsnguitars

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


Have you bumped into this. What is it? I am not good at cryptic crosswords but sometimes at a party ,I get the first few syllables out of my mouth , when jumping into a 'high' conversation, and then, nosebleed, I realize there is no net.

God has subjective experiences
Love isn't objectively known to him
How does he know he actually loves you.
How does he know he loves you
Is that different
Is this a jigsaw
Maybe you were on to something and you can get back to us.

[The Tanager]

Good point. While there is no way of checking whether a claim to love anything - wife, household pet, dog, their car, superhero films, much can be shown by their actions.For example, when a bunch of fans made a publicity video for Rings of Power.Someone checked up their blogs later on and saw they never mentioned it again. The evidence is they cared nothing for the world of Tolkien and it was a stunt.

Similarly, I might guess from the antics of Televangelists that this is just done for publicity and donations and I cannot think they even believe in God let alone love him.

While we cannot (in the axiomatic phrase that is supposed to obviate all evidence) be 100% sure; and we are agnostic in this matter, I have little doubt that you really are devoted to the idea of God. And, as you rightly say, it hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. Since I believe it is demonstrable from the 'actions' of the writers in giving their accounts, that there was originally no agreed account, I don't think it happened and there is no point in loving something that isn't real, except subjectively.

And if what you believe is demonstrable is true, then that is the rational response.

[The Tanager]

You questioned me vociferously

The Tanager -1. What Sumerian, Greek, and Roman myths talk about God incarnating as a human in order to redeem us from sin?

Answer: This is one, Wiki

"According to legend, the final savior of the world, known as the Saoshyant, will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster while bathing in a lake. The Saoshyant will raise the dead—including those in all afterworlds—for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell to be purged of bodily sin "

What is the source and date of the source or the oldest copy we have of it? Let’s look at the actual writings.

Please listen The Tanager( and others)
You openly admit to adhering to the fundamentals of pagan mysticism. That is why you struggle to respond to the most rudimentary skeptical enquiries.

I explained earlier

The whole thing cannot work and it will never act as a vessel for truth. It does a disservice to the core teachings of Jesus and it acts as an anchor to Hope, moving forward.

The whole thing saddens me.

No, I didn’t openly admit to adhering to the fundamentals of pagan mysticism. I said that if they talked about a god being able to become human, then they have that in common with Christianity; that’s it.

I realize you claimed the above, but I didn’t see an explanation of why you think it can’t work or act as a vessel of truth. I don’t see why you think it is a disservice to the core teachings of Jesus. You have been very sparse with your thoughts and reasonings. At least it hasn’t been shared in a way that I've grasped what it is, even if that is completely my fault.

[The Tanager]

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.

[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!