Even John and Paul disagree with the God of the OT

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think that it is extremely helpful to cite the translation being used, so that readers know which one it is -- I always use the NIV, even though some of my friends here would argue that it is a bad translation, and as a Catholic, I should be using one of theirs, but I've been hanging out with the NIV for a long, long time, and it's tough to give up a longtime friend, even the printed sort.


Under fair use, I don't believe that it is necessary to provide a link back to a web site if the actual text is a book, whether you have it or not, so long as the text is cited (so if one were to, say, copy text from a web site that had previously copied it from a book, you would cite the book, not the web site) -- though I'm not a lawyer, so that may be incorrect. If the book was not commonly available (like a 18th century textbook,) I'd say it better to link to the website, noting that said site is quoting from a book.




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think that it is extremely helpful to cite the translation being used, so that readers know which one it is -- I always use the NIV, even though some of my friends here would argue that it is a bad translation, and as a Catholic, I should be using one of theirs, but I've been hanging out with the NIV for a long, long time, and it's tough to give up a longtime friend, even the printed sort.


Under fair use, I don't believe that it is necessary to provide a link back to a web site if the actual text is a book, whether you have it or not, so long as the text is cited (so if one were to, say, copy text from a web site that had previously copied it from a book, you would cite the book, not the web site) -- though I'm not a lawyer, so that may be incorrect. If the book was not commonly available (like a 18th century textbook,) I'd say it better to link to the website, noting that said site is quoting from a book.


My best friend as a writer is...Easybib
That way I never get into trouble when writing articles. But here at ATS, we are just really posting opinions based on information collected at websites. You would have to cite the original source if you can, but if that source is on a website, then link the website and only the text you intend to use. Say I wanted to quote HG Wells, a good book of his called What is Coming, I want to point out a sentence, then I should cite it like this...

Wells, H. G. What Is Coming? A European Forecast,. pg. 295; New York: Macmillan, 1916. Print.

But on here, I should just italicize the name of the book, so people know the book in question. I could not just use a sentence to pass it off as my opinion as though I wrote it. I would say "As HG Wells said in What is Coming" then I have clearly indicated the source.

I suppose it depends on the TOS, and on here, it would only be appropriate to list the author and book, but if I were creating an article to be published, then I would be required to cite it as I did above. Easybib does have the website citation format, but on ATS we are using the hyperlink function, which is appropriate in my opinion.

You should read What is Coming, a European Forecast, you will be shocked that the things he predicted that actually came true.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Some great replies... Thank you everyone for your contributions...

Lets seee....


Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
 


Where do you think Paul got his information from ? Paul was a Jew and worshiped the God of the OT. He knew no other. as usual you are mixing apples with oranges. Dude, take a theology class or two or ten. Your smarter than this. one word, BORING!


heh... you see because im "smarter then this" i see logical discrepancies within scripture unlike most... No need to take classes its quite obvious to me...

You say "as usual" as if you know me... but you don't...


Apples and oranges are both fruit... No?

reply to post by WarminIndy
 



When He said "It is written" or "So that Scripture might be fulfilled", it was the Torah that Jesus was talking about.


I only used one quote from the Torah... Theres plenty outside of the Torah... but that is definatly the main souce of garbage you'll find within the bible


I think what may have happened to you is this, you find Paul seems to be contrary to Jesus and cannot reconcile that. But you have to understand that Paul himself often admitted much of what he said was his own opinion. So if you read something that is opinion, you can disagree with his opinion. You just have to rely on what Jesus said, primarily. You don't have to agree with Paul's opinion or Peter's opinion, for that matter. But you should know what their opinions were.


This really isn't about Paul... i only used that passage to make a point... And while i do not like pauls writing simply because i find it useless information, i also realize that his writing is based on his opinion... similar to all christians views on Scripture... regardless of how much they tell you their inturpretation is "correct" in reality it is nothing more then their opinion...


@Akragon, yes, you have the right to cite whatever verses you wish, but it would be more proper to cite the context also. What you are proposing is "cherry-picking" that leads to literary dishonesty.


The context is love... And i could have just posted the entire chapter but i wouldn't have had the room... Do you believe that the idea behind "love" changes according to who he was speaking to?


Who was the verse written to, where were those people at, and what were they doing when the verse was given? Those are things you need to address before you post a verse and say it is true, because it is nothing more than your opinion, and why is your opinion greater than the writers' opinion?


None of that matters... Love is defined... and Paul was the one that defined it within the NT with that passage... You are free to disagree with his definition, but i actually like it.... which is rare for me considering who we're talking about here...

My opinion matters more then the writers because it is MY opinion... It is unbias towards those that read the bible because as i always say... "believe what you will"... and not backed by anyone but my own thoughts... My only bias is towards the words of Jesus... and he would not kill anyone or anything in my opinion

No one tells me what to believe... no one tells me what is right within said book. For example... there are many who believe the bible is Gods word uncorrupted... i say thats a load of crap... and i back that statement with the obvious contradictions within the pages of said book... Exactly like the issue within the OP

IF God is love like the writers claim... Said God would not be telling his followers to kill children... they have no concept of God or rational thinking... children are innocent, and closer to the true God then any of us simply because they recently came from God.

And just for clairity.... "who am i do dictate what God should and should not do"?

I am who i am... IF this God willingly kills the innocent... He is not My God... and i am most definatly against the God from the OT... he is a fraud.

Thankfully i can see the differences between the true God and this creature from the OT


reply to post by adjensen
 



No, my question was more along the lines of "if you disagree with someone, why cite them in a disagreement with something else?" It seems like you're either showing that he's not all that wrong, or you're undermining the claim.


It seems that i've told you this before.... Reading the OP usually helps clear up things like this...

my quote
But... keeping that in mind, lets move on to Paul... His view on love is one of the few things i do like about his writing...

edit on 25-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



Yes, my beliefs did change and they changed for the better as it brought me closer and now I can honestly say that I have a personal relationship with Him.


As i suspected...

So as i've said, his time with you was in fact a blessing that brought you closer to God... Without which you likely would not have the same beliefs as you do now...

Everything has a purpose... Unfortunatly death has a stigma in our world, it is not looked upon in a good light, but i do not see death as a bad thing... more of a release, even a return to what our spirit knows as normal...

Perhaps he was called home because he was needed elsewhere

Much love hun



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
It seems that i've told you this before.... Reading the OP usually helps clear up things like this...

my quote
But... keeping that in mind, lets move on to Paul... His view on love is one of the few things i do like about his writing...


... and as I have told you before, taking things out of context or cherry picking texts is not the proper way to approach scripture. It's not as if Paul had a bunch of theology piled up over here, and then one whacky idea about love set off to the side -- it's all one piece, and if you can't see how he gets his "love is slow to anger" stuff, that's your deficiency, not his.

If you don't agree with it, fine, but you can't keep taking the 5/95 approach, using 5% of the text to condemn the whole thing. If you don't view it as a whole, or at the least take the majority of it, your analysis is flawed -- how seriously would a scientist be taken if they dismissed 95% of observed data because it disagreed with them, and simply reported on the 5% that did?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
It seems that i've told you this before.... Reading the OP usually helps clear up things like this...

my quote
But... keeping that in mind, lets move on to Paul... His view on love is one of the few things i do like about his writing...


... and as I have told you before, taking things out of context or cherry picking texts is not the proper way to approach scripture. It's not as if Paul had a bunch of theology piled up over here, and then one whacky idea about love set off to the side -- it's all one piece, and if you can't see how he gets his "love is slow to anger" stuff, that's your deficiency, not his.

If you don't agree with it, fine, but you can't keep taking the 5/95 approach, using 5% of the text to condemn the whole thing. If you don't view it as a whole, or at the least take the majority of it, your analysis is flawed -- how seriously would a scientist be taken if they dismissed 95% of observed data because it disagreed with them, and simply reported on the 5% that did?


Where did i say "i don't understand where he got this Love is slow to anger thing"?

If you haven't noticed i've said repeatedly i agree with his view on love... The only deficiency i see is you not understanding what im trying to say here...

So perhaps you can define Pauls view of Love for everyone here (Not like he didn't define it either way)

After which you can also show the class how that definition of love can be applied to the OT God telling his followers to kill innocent people such as women and children.

And by the way im not taking this 95% approach as you claim... The 100% is the gospels, the rest isn't even included in the same count. Aside from the words of Jesus, the rest of the writers of the bible are nothing more then side notes, which i can and will dismiss if i feel the need to do so.

As i've said before, im not Christian so i don't need to adhear to what you people believe is correct according to your religion.

And if you think my analysis is flawed as you said.... you are also free to dismiss what i say as well...

Unlike most christians you will never find a single instance in all of my 7K+ posts saying... "this is what you must believe"

I don't tell people what they must believe... i present an arguement, and let the reader decide who is correct...

edit on 25-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
And by the way im not taking this 95% approach as you claim... The 100% is the gospels, the rest isn't even included in the same count. Aside from the words of Jesus, the rest of the writers of the bible are nothing more then side notes, which i can and will dismiss if i feel the need to do so.


You agree 100% with the Gospels?

And yes, you're taking a 5/95 approach with the Old Testament, with all the "the God of the Old Testament is evil" stuff, and you're also taking a 5/95 approach with Paul, saying "I'll cite his views on love to support my position, while saying that the rest of it is wrong, because it doesn't support my position."



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
And by the way im not taking this 95% approach as you claim... The 100% is the gospels, the rest isn't even included in the same count. Aside from the words of Jesus, the rest of the writers of the bible are nothing more then side notes, which i can and will dismiss if i feel the need to do so.


You agree 100% with the Gospels?

And yes, you're taking a 5/95 approach with the Old Testament, with all the "the God of the Old Testament is evil" stuff, and you're also taking a 5/95 approach with Paul, saying "I'll cite his views on love to support my position, while saying that the rest of it is wrong, because it doesn't support my position."


I agree with the words of Jesus within the Gospels... Not always the writers of them... John seemed to have an affinity for narration... And luke was a follower of Paul...

And you are free to believe whatever you like about my views... The OT is the word of MAN, not God... So said books are on a completely different level then those of the NT... While being a great read, i don't believe they were "inspired" by God as others do, with the possible exception of some "prophecies" of Jesus' comming... Thus OT writing is not included in said 100%...

And i said specifically i don't like his writing... and find it "useless information"... Perhaps he is right according to christianity... fortunatly i don't have that issue either...

Paul is also included in said "side notes" within the bible...

So back to this love issue... perhaps you might answer my question? That being, define it and show how it applies to killing innocent people...




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MamaJ
 



Yes, my beliefs did change and they changed for the better as it brought me closer and now I can honestly say that I have a personal relationship with Him.


As i suspected...

So as i've said, his time with you was in fact a blessing that brought you closer to God... Without which you likely would not have the same beliefs as you do now...

Everything has a purpose... Unfortunatly death has a stigma in our world, it is not looked upon in a good light, but i do not see death as a bad thing... more of a release, even a return to what our spirit knows as normal...

Perhaps he was called home because he was needed elsewhere

Much love hun


Thank you!

The story of the trials and tribulation we went through then and after is an unbelievable testimony. I couldn't even begin to tell you how spiritual and beautiful the journey has been. Its as if Joshua has been with me every step of the way leading and guiding me to where I am supposed to be. Some people do not require such steps, but I did/do. I have had many answers given to me as soon as I asked. Its been telling.

My nature has always been to ask why. Some days the why gets me down a rabbit hole, but I enjoy the commune. I really do.

Some days I feel guilty for not just trusting in God more, especially through the illness. I have a lot of regrets, but I can honestly say I have learned from them and will never make them again.

I have had many revelations and believe God to be, with all of my heart, loving.

I dont think he has as much control over us as some would like to think. We were given free will to eradicate that which does not reflect light. If something we do or say does not go in the good order of nature then it is not of love. Meaning, it is not of God.

My opinion anyway.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



Some days I feel guilty for not just trusting in God more, especially through the illness. I have a lot of regrets, but I can honestly say I have learned from them and will never make them again.


The past is gone my dear... holding on to such feelings helps nothing and only hurts yourself...

Again i mean no harm, i only wish to comfort... and sometimes i can be quite blunt...

im by no means eloquent...


But i know someone who is...

John 16

Pay close attention to 20 to 22... These are for you...


19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.

All my love hun
edit on 25-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
I agree with the words of Jesus within the Gospels... Not always the writers of them...


Okay, not 100% of the Gospel, but you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus says in them?


So back to this love issue... perhaps you might answer my question? That being, define it and show how it applies to killing innocent people...


I am not a fundamentalist, so I lay no claim to knowing all the facts associated with events portrayed in the Hebrew Bible.

I do, however, think it supremely arrogant to believe that one can pass moral judgement on the acts of God.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Okay, not 100% of the Gospel, but you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus says in them?


Isn't that what i said?

Haven't found any serious issues with them as of yet...


I am not a fundamentalist, so I lay no claim to knowing all the facts associated with events portrayed in the Hebrew Bible.


So you need a label to understand how this so called God can be justified... Fair enough



I do, however, think it supremely arrogant to believe that one can pass moral judgement on the acts of God.


feel free...

I find it extremely nieve to take the entire bible as "the word of God"... because it says its the word of God...

to each their own i suppose

edit on 25-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Thank you for the concern.

I once held onto the past.... that I cannot deny, however I have let it go but I do embrace the times of learning for mistakes not to be made again in the future. This is learning, nothing more.

John is my favorite!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I cant tell you how many times Christians told me I was not a Christian since I didn't believe every word in the Bible was from God himself. lol

Ahhhhhh.... so ya know what I said after a while. You are right, I am not a Christian, and I thank God for it.

"Oh, well you just cherry pick what is from God because you don't want to live right". LOL!

Seriously, why would I want to be a part of a large group who dictate how I should feel, how I should pray and when to wipe my butt? Not happening. I am a big girl now, with my big girl panties on.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I tend to look at the bible this way...

Jesus was sent from God... Christians call him the word, so lets work with that... Even he said "its my words that give life"... So his words are the prime source of "spiritual knowledge" within the bible... After which comes those that were closest to him... though they do hold insite into his life... They are not his words so others words will always come secondary to what Jesus said. And on a personal note i do include Thomas in "the gospels" even though it is controversial... Thomas holds a different view of what he said, and can usually only be understood by understanding the Jesus from the gospels. ( just my opinion )

Outside of which there are people that lived around his time such as paul.
.
And i would take other religious texts from other religions before his word...

the OT on the other hand holds little spiritual value outside the Psalms and in some cases proverbs...




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 



Okay, not 100% of the Gospel, but you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus says in them?


Isn't that what i said?

Haven't found any serious issues with them as of yet...


I am not a fundamentalist, so I lay no claim to knowing all the facts associated with events portrayed in the Hebrew Bible.


So you need a label to understand how this so called God can be justified... Fair enough



I do, however, think it supremely arrogant to believe that one can pass moral judgement on the acts of God.


feel free...

I find it extremely nieve to take the entire bible as "the word of God"... because it says its the word of God...

to each their own i suppose

edit on 25-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


I guess you must be one of those "God loves us no matter what kind of person we are or what we do" kind of people. I have met people like you before. They push the "love" verses so much they actually end up worse.

What makes you dislike God for saying there are punishments for what you do? Is it that fear of punishment that turns you away? If so, why? Let me ask this, since there is only grace now within your theology, where does that grace come from? Is that grace extended to wife-beating child molesters? So God loves them to, why then punish them, according to your theology?

If you say "love" is applied, then is it across the entire spectrum of human behavior, or only parts? If it for only parts, then who dictates which parts?

What kind of "love" are we applying? Are we to express erotic love only? Are we to express filial love only? What kind of love? Now let me ask this, to what degree are we to love? If you are my neighbor and I harm you, would you not expect me to be accountable for that? I say not, I say you must show me grace regardless of how you feel about the harm.

To what degree are we to love? Can you love the child molesters because your theology is framed around grace? How does that help the child victim? You seem to want a God that says nothing to you about what you do, yet you don't seem to want the accountability for actions.

But what about society as a whole? Should we toss out every law because punishment is contained within the law? Is your "love" going to save society? Are victims of violent crimes to be punished at all? In those laws by God you have to understand they were placed there for your rights and protection.

So you don't want the law, good, then don't complain if someone harms you. Eat the pork, I don't care if you do, that is what you have the right to do. Can you commit adultery knowing you are taking something that does not belong to you? Does that harmed spouse have any rights under the "grace" and "love" through your theology?

What is it you want from God other than love? He gave that to you already but you have to determine how society is going to function with your theology. When you remove punishment, you have said that the harmed individuals have no rights.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



I guess you must be one of those "God loves us no matter what kind of person we are or what we do" kind of people.


I am


I have met people like you before. They push the "love" verses so much they actually end up worse.


Does that mean i am like these people you've met?


What makes you dislike God for saying there are punishments for what you do? Is it that fear of punishment that turns you away?


Who said there wasn't punishment?


If so, why? Let me ask this, since there is only grace now within your theology, where does that grace come from? Is that grace extended to wife-beating child molesters? So God loves them to, why then punish them, according to your theology?


See the above statement...


If you say "love" is applied, then is it across the entire spectrum of human behavior, or only parts? If it for only parts, then who dictates which parts?

What kind of "love" are we applying? Are we to express erotic love only?


Sex is not love generally... it is lust, but of course it can be loving...


If you are my neighbor and I harm you, would you not expect me to be accountable for that?


Why would you harm me... And whos to say you could either way



To what degree are we to love?


With all you are capable of...


Can you love the child molesters because your theology is framed around grace? How does that help the child victim?


Grace is pauls doctrine not mine...

All will be judged by their actions or lack there of... Sounds good to me



You seem to want a God that says nothing to you about what you do, yet you don't seem to want the accountability for actions.


You are wrong... who can hide their actions from God?


But what about society as a whole? Should we toss out every law because punishment is contained within the law? Is your "love" going to save society? Are victims of violent crimes to be punished at all?


I've been meaning to post " the story of Two islands"...

perhaps one day...


In those laws by God you have to understand they were placed there for your rights and protection.


Good thing im not a wiccan, or Gay for that matter...

Lets not go there



So you don't want the law, good, then don't complain if someone harms you. Eat the pork, I don't care if you do, that is what you have the right to do.


Didn't we cover this in another thread? Ye know.... nothing that goes into the mouth can defile you or some such?

I like pork thank you...


Can you commit adultery knowing you are taking something that does not belong to you? Does that harmed spouse have any rights under the "grace" and "love" through your theology?





posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 



Okay, not 100% of the Gospel, but you agree with 100% of the things that Jesus says in them?


Isn't that what i said?

Haven't found any serious issues with them as of yet...


Fair enough. So, no issues with this?


When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” (John 2:13-16 NIV)


Why does Jesus refer to the "evil God of the Old Testament" as his Father, and defend the sanctity of the building where said evil God was supposed to dwell in?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


the temple was supposed to be a symbol for the people... and who needs a corrupted symbol...



Why does Jesus refer to the "evil God of the Old Testament" as his Father, and defend the sanctity of the building where said evil God was supposed to dwell in?


Doesn't Isaiah say this of God?

Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Please tell me what temple made of man God dwells in...

I would head there immediately...




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy


Then what are we disagreeing about? I don't think of God as a monster, but when those scriptures were written God was making the statement that laws have been established for the purpose of helping all of society. I have a brother that is pagan and I have never stoned him. Does that mean I have a Biblical mandate to do so? Well, no. Stoning does not mean just physical, we can stone someone to death just by our words. The power of life and death are in the tongue.

I happen to view evil people as monsters because they have turned away from God and commit horrible acts. I don't blame God for the actions of people. And I don't think I have participated in a thread about eating things.

I have seen with my own eyes people who say "love is the ultimate" and then abuse drugs, get into fights with the police and do all kinds of other crimes, while saying "God is love". Yes, God is love, but also judgment. One time a lady was trying to witness to me about agape love, and was drunk while she was telling me this. I just had to listen to her, bemused. She kept telling me that as a Christian I had to show her agape love and give her a few dollars so she could go buy more alcohol. Agape love does not mean you enable another person.

She got angry with me because I did not give her the money and she stomped away angrily because I was not the true Christian like she was. But in her mind, agape meant loving everyone so much you just enable them, after all, that's what Jesus would do. I don't think Jesus would have enabled a drunk to remain drunk and keep them in a drunken condition. But her definition was based in love.

I view God as a parent and one who may seem harsh, but does things for our benefit. That is what a loving parent does. Love does not imply a permissiveness, that would not make a very good parent. Love includes teaching as to why we should not do certain things and what the cause is if we do such things.

If we are to love with all that we are capable of, that love has to be tendered with what is best for the person we love. It is not best to just love without regard for their personal safety. That is how God loves us, with regard to our benefit. Do I think God wants me to stone my brother for being a pagan? He believes in Wicca before the modern ways of Wicca, and he believes himself to one day become a good warlock. I believe God wants me to love my brother enough to still pray for him and to still care for him. But at the same time, I cannot agree with him. He knows this. His life is valuable, but right now his mind is twisted. He believes he can fly while invisible. As much as I love him, I have to tell him he can not. He told me one time about a visitation from a dark being that told him all was lost, that God would never love him again. Then his life was full of turmoil and destruction. How do you tell someone who is in that condition? You can't, you just have to show them. He blames God for everything, and yet he was the one who turned away from God.

I have lived on this planet for some time now and have seen many kinds of people. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I have seen the destruction that comes from turning away from God, and I have seen destruction brought into the lives of people that believe in God. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. But one thing I have learned is this, love also means doing what is right for the other person, not just saying God is love. If walking away from some people is going to bring peace, then walk away. That also is a part of loving. Jesus didn't just die for our lack of love, He died for our sins.
edit on 9/25/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/25/2012 by WarminIndy because: end quotes will be the death of me....
edit on 9/25/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join