The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

Evangelical Universalism
#41

If you cannot see it in Jesus’ words then I doubt that I can do better.

youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes … r_embedded

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I am a brethren of Jesus. I just think all should be. You see grace as coming from without and Jesus nor I see it that way.

Regards
DL

#42

DL, I’d disagreed Jesus saw God (the Ground of our being) as a “sugar daddy,” but argued he reflected a wonderful sense of grace toward others.

Your response complains that I don’t “see it,” and offers three of Jesus’ wonderful sayings. I have no idea what is the “it” is here that you think contradicts what I said? I don’t see these verses as saying at all that God is a sugar daddy, nor denying that Jesus reflected divine grace.

I certainly agree with you that “all should be brethren of Jesus.” You did close by critically declaring that I “see grace as coming from without.” Where are you seeing me say that? Do you mean that you assume that I think God is found as spatially “outside” of us? Wouldn’t my term, “Ground of our being” imply that Ultimate Reality is not ‘outside’ at all?

Since I had emphasized that “Jesus displayed divine love and grace,” which you dismissed as “throwing it around,” I can only guess that you are not drawn to such grace. But I love your citation of John 14, that if you will keep Jesus’ teaching, his “Father will love you, and come to you, and make His home in you.” Maybe we can unite on finding a promising heart of our faith in this text that you beautifully cited.

Blessings to you,
Bob

#43

Not if your Jesus is the usual bible Jesus. That one’s morality is poor. Not surprising since Rome invented him. His no divorce policy is especially anti-love.

youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgV … r_embedded

Regards
DL

#44

DL,

I see the same impasse as I’ve had with other critics of Christianity here who tell us how we should interpret what the Bible means, and then criticize us for that view. I keep clarifying my views, and just asked you if there was any shared ground. You only respond, “Not if your Jesus is the usual Bible Jesus,” meaning the immoral one that you despise! And that’s right after I again clarified that my understanding of Jesus is NOT what you see as the “usual” Jesus. I’m concerned that you depend on defining yourself adversarily in terms of what you oppose, and are not comfortable enjoying the common ground that you may share among those with whom you dialogue.

On the other thread, you criticize us for conceiving of God as “good.” When I explained what I mean by good and asked your view, you agree that you too see God as good. Another small specific here is your repeated dislike of Jesus & the Bible’s “no divorce policy.” But I don’t see it as such a policy, and find many Christians I know to be blessedly divorced. Thus, when you don’t engage what I’ve detailed, but slam a view someone has defined & attacked in a video, it feels like your passion toward me involves a straw man, and we aren’t comparing our own actual perceptions.

#45

Dear GB,

Though I did not read the previous thread to this one which I have followed, I guess you already debated God as Father and Creator, Christ as His Son, and we as His children…

Though I have no intention of entering this thread I would just like to add a voice of full support to dear Cindy and Bob.

Also in case you have any doubts, of which you seem to have plenty but seem not to unravel yourself and open your heart to Cindy and Bob’s questions and their good will towards you, I would just add that like many millions and millions of Christians around the world I have always held God as our Father.

To imply that this is foolish and an insult to we fathers here in this world surely is an insult to God.

Thankfully God the Father is all-forgiving, and, as clearly taught us by Christ and as millions of Christian fathers and mothers believe, is known to us as Love, Truth, Just, Compassionate, Merciful, Forgiving, Righteous, Good.

If only we would more often open our hearts to Him, we would be a much better lot of fathers than we try to be!

Carry on dear Cindy and Bob !!!

Affectionately, Michael in Barcelona

#46

Because you ignore morals and accept poor ones so as not to have to take a real look at the poor morals being offered.

Sure there are happily divorced people. That is the point. They should not lose anything for seeking love yet your theology is against it.

Regards
DL

#47

Thanks for sharing your delusion.

Ignore that God, the Father, murdered his first three children.

Father indeed. Murdering Father is more truthful. Do you deny God’s murder of his first three children?

youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j … re=related

Regards
DL

#48

GB

In view of my prevous post, do you really think that your question is necessary?

I would ask you please to read it again…

I would be most surprised if you then don’t come up with my answer, although, allow me to guess, your own answer would be very different to mine.

Never mind, this forum is for debate, sharing with and understanding each other.

Affectionately,

Michael in Barcelona

#49

DL,

Everyone here (except perhaps for myself) has been more than kind to you, and you repay their kindness by intentionally (I can only assume since I do assume you possess at least the usual measure of intelligence) and persistently misreading what they say, then responding with inflammatory purjurative caricatures of their actual remarks. This is your warning. Tone down your trolling. Now. There is honesty and there is rudeness. You are rude, and we don’t tolerate that forever on this forum.

Cindy

#50

DL,

Can you help me with your epistemology? I emphasized that I rejected a “no divorce policy” interpretation. You responded, “because you accept bad morals… your theology is against it.” What bad morals did I say I accepted, and where did my own theology take a position condemning all divorce?

#51

I went back and took a look and think we should restart.

People keep telling me about this wonderful theology that you follow.

Show me what yours says about divorce, since you do not seem to veto it, and I will compare mine.

Less personal observation of me might make it easier for us if you stick to the issue.

Regards
DL

#52

Since in another recent thread, GB explicitly indicated he thinks it is impossible to reason with any theist, therefore cannot be here to reason with practically all the people he writes threads and comments addressing, despite any evidence of them reasoning with him, he or she has been identified as a “troll”: someone amusing themselves by unreasonably provoking forum members in posts, thus abusing membership privileges.

Consequently, GB has been banned for a month; and whether GB is permitted to resume posting will depend on whether he or she agrees to reasonably discuss things with forum members or not.

If GB tries to get back on around this ban, his account will be permanently locked and new sock-puppet accounts identified as GB by internet tracing will be deleted as equivalent to spam.

Please be charitable to GB considering his restrictions for a month and don’t make challenges he will be in no position to answer anytime soon.