Love vs Holiness

treeplanter

Well-known member
Yes - no savior = no cleansing of SIN = rejection at God's final Judgement.

YES - temporarily, and then The Lake of fire for eternity.

What you left off, naturally, is the infinitly more favorable experience of those who DO (under conviction of sin) REPENT of their sin, surrender to God calling upon Him in FAITH (that He gives) for salvation by the SIN OFFERING of Jesus on the cross.

Atheism (which is generally nothing more than common agnosticism) offers nothing during physical life, and a terrible penalty when physical life is over.
You might want to take Furion aside and educate him as to what Christianity actually teaches, Bob
He doesn't seem know...


As to it being "infinitely better" to give one's self to Christ, I don't see it that way at all

I think it's better to live a life of integrity and then, upon death, go to Hell / Lake of Fire than it is to betray one's integrity in return for a less painful afterlife
 

Algor

Well-known member
Yes, a holy entity that demands it's own version of truth be recognized {at threat of eternal damnation} IS a selfish holy entity!

I'm not talking about the ignoring of truth

I'm talking about those who {for whatever reason} innocently arrive at a different truth and are then burned and tortured for all eternity by a being who has come to the conclusion that the recognition of the sanctity of His own "set-apartness" {i.e. HOLINESS} is of greater value and worth to Him than is His concern and care for His creation {i.e. LOVE}

If this isn't selfish then I don't know what is...


That aspect of God's nature which we describe as LOVE - is the aspect of God's nature that would surely lead Him to compassionately offer salvation to those who die without having recognized {for whatever reason} His truth

That aspect of God's nature which we describe as HOLINESS - is the aspect of God's nature that would, due His insistence upon an inwardly directed valuation demanding absolute primacy, lead Him to send to Hell those who die without having recognized His truth

Christianity makes clear which of these two attributes of God takes precedence over the other


If God is, in fact, truth - then each and every one of us will ultimately know this truth when we die and find ourselves standing, in judgement, before Him

And Christianity makes perfectly clear that God will, at this point, cast into Hell those that died without having recognized Jesus Christ - even if and when they now desire {having come, in death, to recognize Him for the first time} to spend an eternity glorifying Him


What it all boils down to is this:

God cares more about an affront to His holiness than He does about the eternal destination of the souls that He purports to love
God puts Himself first

And again, if this is not selfishness then I don't know what is...
Lol. You are now cherry picking as to which elements of doctrine you will support as true in order so that by your rules others are false, neglecting that the ones you will support as true are advanced in the context of the ones you are declaring false...are true! You can’t have this both ways: you can declare that the system is incoherent, but not that one part works by different rules than the other simply because you want it to.

This is a fundamentally inconsistent line of argumentation.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Lol. You are now cherry picking as to which elements of doctrine you will support as true in order so that by your rules others are false, neglecting that the ones you will support as true are advanced in the context of the ones you are declaring false...are true! You can’t have this both ways: you can declare that the system is incoherent, but not that one part works by different rules than the other simply because you want it to.

This is a fundamentally inconsistent line of argumentation.
Lol?

What element of doctrine have I cherry picked?
What part of the system have I declared to be governed by a different set of rules?

When it comes to God acting in accordance with His attribute of love
VS
acting in accordance with His attribute of holiness

He chooses to act in accordance with His attribute of holiness
He chooses to act in a manner that benefits Himself rather than in a manner that benefits us
He chooses self over other

This is selfishness
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
John 14:6
"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Correct, you must listen to Jesus Christ and what He tells you.
Unless Jesus was lying, Christianity DOES teach that one must accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior in order to go to Heaven
Actually it teaches that if you reject Christ you will perish.
Which is it, James?
Are you right or is Jesus right?
Jesus is right, it is you who is wrong.
John 3:36
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him"
Correct, the one who rejects Christ, like you, will perish

Are you going to double down and assert that you are right and the bible is wrong?
You are wrong, the scriptures speak for themselves.

So much for your silly 'love vs holiness'
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Correct, you must listen to Jesus Christ and what He tells you.

Actually it teaches that if you reject Christ you will perish.

Jesus is right, it is you who is wrong.

Correct, the one who rejects Christ, like you, will perish


You are wrong, the scriptures speak for themselves.

So much for your silly 'love vs holiness'
Listening to Jesus and having faith in Jesus are one in the same, Jimmy

"You must accept Christ as lord and savior in order to go to Heaven"
is the exact same thing as
"If you fail to accept Christ as lord and savior then you will go to Hell"

I relayed the gospel message of Jesus Christ and you said that it was wrong
You declared that Jesus is wrong

Pretty silly for a Christian, don't you think?
 

Algernon

Active member
And as if we needed any further confirmation that God’s holiness trumps His love, we have the words of Jesus Christ, Himself:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
{Matthew 22:36-39}

FIRST AND GREATEST!

That we love Him {i.e. satisfy His holiness} is FIRST AND GREATEST!

Loving our neighbor is, by definition, of secondary importance
Loving our neighbor, while GREAT, is NOT AS GREAT as loving God!


I have a hard time reconciling, as morally deserving of devotion, ANYONE who is more concerned with his/her own glorification than they are with the ultimate welfare of others, but I find it especially difficult to do so when said being is reputed {AND personally claims} to be perfect...

You seem to read much into a few verses taken out of context. To understand what Jesus is saying in Matthew 22:36-39 one must take into consideration of the entirety of the gospel preached by Jesus.

Consider other things Jesus had to say while preaching His gospel:

According to Jesus, what is the standard for loving God and Jesus?
John 14
15“If you love me, keep my commands.
21Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
23Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Keeping the commandments of Jesus -which are one and the same as the the commandments of God- is the standard for loving God and Jesus.

According to Jesus, what is the standard for loving your neighbor?
Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the law and the prophets.

The "Golden Rule" is the standard for loving your neighbor.
Also note that "Golden Rule" also serves as the foundation of for the commandments of Jesus and God - which is the standard for loving God and Jesus.

Therefore to love God and Jesus IS to love your neighbor. They are one and the same. It's all about keeping the Golden Rule.
 
Last edited:

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I think it's better to live a life of integrity and then, upon death, go to Hell / Lake of Fire than it is to betray one's integrity in return for a less painful afterlife
(Sob!!) I'm deeply touched but the incredible depth of your "personal nobility". I wounder if it'll hold water when the judgement is passed, and you bow in submission before him as everyone will.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
(Sob!!) I'm deeply touched but the incredible depth of your "personal nobility". I wounder if it'll hold water when the judgement is passed, and you bow in submission before him as everyone will.

Maybe God deserves to go to hell for violating our holiness of human well-being, eh?

It is true that accusations against God only reduce in reality to pride and rebellion, but we should try to maintain a heart of mercy.

I've said some stupid things to God and was glad someone prayed for me.
 

Algor

Well-known member

Yes. It's really hard to take seriously.
What element of doctrine have I cherry picked?
What part of the system have I declared to be governed by a different set of rules?
Here's one, one sentance into your last post "a holy entity that demands it's own version of truth be recognized"

"It's own version"? In a monotheism, there IS only one version, and the reason that God is holy is that God is the source of all truth. The two are inter-related ideas.

I can understand the idea that Property X of God is in conflict with Property Y, or that the demands placed on humans by Property X are in conflict with those placed on them by Property Y. That's totally legit. But that isn't what the OP stated. It went waaaaaaaaaay past that. You should probably re-read it and give it a think.
When it comes to God acting in accordance with His attribute of love
VS
acting in accordance with His attribute of holiness

He chooses to act in accordance with His attribute of holiness
He chooses to act in a manner that benefits Himself rather than in a manner that benefits us
Here you go again. Doctrinally, God doesn't. You accepted the doctrines of love and monotheism, but then when you encounter an aspect that contradicts your idea of love, instead of saying "Given that God loves he can't be holy because holinesss implies..." What you said was "Holiness is selfishness, so God can't be loving" which is ....nevermind.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Listening to Jesus and having faith in Jesus are one in the same, Jimmy

"You must accept Christ as lord and savior in order to go to Heaven"
is the exact same thing as
"If you fail to accept Christ as lord and savior then you will go to Hell"
"Fail to accept Christ" is not an actual option.

One doesn't "fail" at that.

One, perhaps like you, have taken to flipping God off, abusing those who love Him, running around accusing God of whatever plops into your head, and in general displaying a blasphemous and total rebellious mouth and attitude.

That's not failing my friend, that's an enemy of God.
I relayed the gospel message of Jesus Christ and you said that it was wrong
You declared that Jesus is wrong

Pretty silly for a Christian, don't you think?
Don't worry, people here won't defend me.

However people can see your errors and that is enough.
 
Last edited:

Dizerner

Well-known member
I do think God's holiness is a presiding attribute, and his love is in a sense subservient to it.

This, however, does not make God unloving, or less loving, but makes his love specified; that is, it has requirements to be received (but not to be offered). The amount or intensity of the love is genuine and present, but it is specified, it does require a response to be received and enjoyed. Does this make God less than all loving, or less loving than he could theoretically be? It makes the application less, but not the amount offered less. Would a God who had no requirements be more loving? It would be a lower quality of love no doubt even if more universally applied, as it would be permissive and passive towards evil. Love cannot be just removing all specifications, because that is at the cost of cheapening and lessening the meaning, depth and nobility of the love, having at its heart and center a true source of worth to give, which an unholy God would not have.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
What is love?
Don't hurt me
Baby don't hurt me
No more!

---

With allowances for individual interpretations, I think that most every definition of holiness {as pertaining to God} ultimately boils down to the idea that God is 'set apart from' {and above} His creation - i.e. us
Well sure, I'll concede this. I just don't see this as incompatible with Love.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
When you make mutual human valuation the source of all meaning and worth, you essentially move the creation into the Creator position. God should bow down to us, do exactly what we want, and apologize to each and every one of us for violating our innate sense of what we deem good and evil. But the problem with this is, that God is the source of our own sense of entitlement, and the only true source of infinite worth and power from which all beings came and are upheld, and all things are owed to him by virtue of coming from his supply. As the old joke goes, "Get your own dirt."
Arguably, the creation has no right to move itself into the creator position
{i.e. demanding valuation equal to / above that of creator}

However, the creator does have the right to value the creation equal to and/or above self
{Much like a human parent automatically does with his/her child}

My argument is that it would have been right for the creator to have exercised this right

Does this mean, then, that God would have put Himself into a position wherein He would be required to bow down to us and give to us everything that we want?

No, of course not!
{No more so than a human parent is expected to bow down to a child and give into the child's every whim}

Does this mean, then, that God would have put Himself into a position wherein He is no longer holy?
Wherein He is no longer the one true source of infinite worth and power?

No, of course not!
{No more so than a human parent sacrifices his/her position of authority by placing the child first}

To the contrary, I believe that God humbling Himself enough to put us first would stand as further testament that He is, indeed, both a holy and loving God worthy of our complete and total devotion
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Don't hurt me
Baby don't hurt me
No more!

---


Well sure, I'll concede this. I just don't see this as incompatible with Love.
I'm not saying that holiness, itself, {i.e. to be "set apart"} is incompatible with love

What IS incompatible with love is for God to value His holiness above and beyond us, His creation


PS
If I had a nickel for every Haddaway reference I've come across on CARM- I'd have 5 cents
 

Algor

Well-known member
I'm not saying that holiness, itself, {i.e. to be "set apart"} is incompatible with love

What IS incompatible with love is for God to value His holiness above and beyond us, His creation


PS
If I had a nickel for every Haddaway reference I've come across on CARM- I'd have 5 cents
If I could hazard a suggestion,,,,

Try it this way: Holiness means X
God appears to demand A B and C from his adherents and these demands are justified by his holiness ( give references for each))
Love means Y. (Reference)
Y is in conflict with A because 1,2 3. (Give reference).
This structure has the benefits of transparency and a demonstration that you are pointing out an inconsistency in Christian doctrine, and not a mere distaste.
Alternatively it can be used to demonstrate where you think doctrine is psychologically implausible. (ie the Bible says property X means (give reference.. ) but I think it means ( give definition, tell story etc).
One problem the atheist faces is the conflation of those two kinds of arguments. The way the words are used in the doctrine, and the way they function in the heads of believers, is different from the ways they do so in yours. Until you make that distinction, you are just going to be dismissible as someone who doesn’t understand because you don’t want to.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Yes. It's really hard to take seriously.

Here's one, one sentance into your last post "a holy entity that demands it's own version of truth be recognized"

"It's own version"? In a monotheism, there IS only one version, and the reason that God is holy is that God is the source of all truth. The two are inter-related ideas.

I can understand the idea that Property X of God is in conflict with Property Y, or that the demands placed on humans by Property X are in conflict with those placed on them by Property Y. That's totally legit. But that isn't what the OP stated. It went waaaaaaaaaay past that. You should probably re-read it and give it a think.

Here you go again. Doctrinally, God doesn't. You accepted the doctrines of love and monotheism, but then when you encounter an aspect that contradicts your idea of love, instead of saying "Given that God loves he can't be holy because holinesss implies..." What you said was "Holiness is selfishness, so God can't be loving" which is ....nevermind.
I am well aware that Christianity revolves around, what is regarded as, a single "truth"

That said, there are dozens {if not hundreds} / {if not thousands} of different gods being worshiped around the world as we speak

And each of these gods and each of the religions that surround them are equally regarded, by their adherents, as THE TRUTH i.e. fact


Nonetheless, when I used the word TRUTH in the following statement:

"a holy entity that demands it's own version of truth be recognized {at threat of eternal damnation}"

I was using the word TRUTH in a different context
{as should be made obvious in the statement that immediately followed}:

"I'm talking about those who {for whatever reason} innocently arrive at a different truth and are then burned and tortured for all eternity by a being who has come to the conclusion that the recognition of the sanctity of His own "set-apartness" {i.e. HOLINESS} is of greater value and worth to Him than is His concern and care for His creation {i.e. LOVE}"

"different truth" should have been the tip off that I was using the word TRUTH as an interchangeable and entirely acceptable term for the word BELIEF
 

Algor

Well-known member
I am well aware that Christianity revolves around, what is regarded as, a single "truth"
Right, then you should have no problem with that truth being holy.
Can we get that out of the way?

Now, show, using references, that holiness is the reason for eternal torment of the damned. That's something you haven't done.

I mean, it might be, I'm not arguing that its not. I think in some denominations it is, and in others it isn't, as far as I recall. There might be a more general case to be made. It's just that you aren't making a clear argument: you are saying love is in conflict with damnation (OK, seems to me too!) but you are placing holiness as the mediator of that conflict (which is a different thing).
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Well-known member
If I could hazard a suggestion,,,,

Try it this way: Holiness means X
God appears to demand A B and C from his adherents and these demands are justified by his holiness ( give references for each))
Love means Y. (Reference)
Y is in conflict with A because 1,2 3. (Give reference).
This structure has the benefits of transparency and a demonstration that you are pointing out an inconsistency in Christian doctrine, and not a mere distaste.
Alternatively it can be used to demonstrate where you think doctrine is psychologically implausible. (ie the Bible says property X means (give reference.. ) but I think it means ( give definition, tell story etc).
One problem the atheist faces is the conflation of those two kinds of arguments. The way the words are used in the doctrine, and the way they function in the heads of believers, is different from the ways they do so in yours. Until you make that distinction, you are just going to be dismissible as someone who doesn’t understand because you don’t want to.
1. Holiness means to be "set apart"

The holiness of God refers to the absolute moral purity of God - the absolute moral distance between God and his human creatures


2. God demands, at the threat of eternal damnation, that He be recognized for His holiness and glorified as the "absolute of moral purity"

"For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another"
Isaiah 48:11

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
John 14:6


3. Love means wanting what is best for another

The love of God is the benevolent disposition or inclination in God that stirs him to bestow both physical and spiritual benefits upon those created in his image (and is thus in this respect synonymous with grace), the most exalted of all such benefits is God’s selfless gift of himself to his creatures in Jesus Christ


4. God's love is in conflict with His holiness because His insistence to be recognized and glorified as holy takes precedence over His desire to bestow physical and spiritual benefits upon us

EX:
Those who were deceived into following false gods and die without faith in Jesus Christ will go to Hell even if and when they are now ready, in death, to accept Christ as lord and savior


God chooses to value and lend primacy

a demand to be recognized and glorified by His creation

above and beyond

a desire to physically and spiritually benefit His creation
 

Algor

Well-known member
1. Holiness means to be "set apart"

The holiness of God refers to the absolute moral purity of God - the absolute moral distance between God and his human creatures


2. God demands, at the threat of eternal damnation, that He be recognized for His holiness and glorified as the "absolute of moral purity"

"For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another"
Isaiah 48:11

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
John 14:6
OK
3. Love means wanting what is best for another

The love of God is the benevolent disposition or inclination in God that stirs him to bestow both physical and spiritual benefits upon those created in his image (and is thus in this respect synonymous with grace), the most exalted of all such benefits is God’s selfless gift of himself to his creatures in Jesus Christ
OK
4. God's love is in conflict with His holiness because His insistence to be recognized and glorified as holy takes precedence over His desire to bestow physical and spiritual benefits upon us

EX:
Those who were deceived into following false gods and die without faith in Jesus Christ will go to Hell even if and when they are now ready, in death, to accept Christ as lord and savior
Nope. Show that going to hell is because of God's consideration of his own holiness. You are skipping that step. Maybe I'm just being dense, but it isn't deliberate, I assure you. Just look at it as an undergraduate essay in Eng. Lit. and make as airtight a case as you can. It won't be perfect, but you have to make it explicit.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Right, then you should have no problem with that truth being holy.
Can we get that out of the way?

Now, show, using references, that holiness is the reason for eternal torment of the damned. That's something you haven't done.

I mean, it might be, I'm not arguing that its not. I think in some denominations it is, and in others it isn't, as far as I recall. There might be a more general case to be made. It's just that you aren't making a clear argument: you are saying love is in conflict with damnation (OK, seems to me too!) but you are placing holiness as the mediator of that conflict (which is a different thing).
As far as I am concerned, holiness is the dump all of God's attributes

Most of God's various attributes comfortably fall under the heading of HOLINESS

God's aseity, eternity, immanence, immutability, impassibility, impeccability, incomprehensibility, incorporeality, infinity, jealousy, mystery, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, oneness, providence, righteousness, simplicity, sovereignty, transcendence, trinity, veracity, wrath

God's holiness describes who and what He is and His special status as apart from all else
God's holiness is inwardly looking


Then there is God's love
God's love is how He interacts with us
God's love is outwardly directed


And when push comes to shove, God prefers to look inward as opposed to outwardly - towards us
 
Top