How do you as a Christian view an unconditionally loving god with conditions

I would like to know how you as a Christian resolve the problem of the teaching that God's love is unconditional yet that Christianity, like all religions, place conditions upon that love.

For example, he loves us all in such a deep way that we mere mortals cannot even understand, but that we have to believe in him and his son and submit to his will or we will be punished.

I'm not going to argue the point with you, I just want to know how your resolve this contradiction in your own beliefs.

 

I think that it works on the assumption that mankind makes the rules of society.

Their must be some comfort in knowing that God still loves you when you are behind bars for the rest of your life.

 

I'm probably not a Christian in good standing. I've been too imbued with Borg theology (Marcus Borg, not the Startrek kind.) I don't have a concept of God as being anthropomorphic. I think of God as being an ineffable experience and whatever is responsible for the laws of science+the totality of human idealism and morality--kind of a Stoic/panentheist concept: God as a felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being." I experience that as loving and benevolent. love It back.

 

In being loving , confirmation of God's love can be experienced in nature . To be a loving human
is the condition . To live and die devoted to peace is the condition , and the concept of punishment
can simply be abolished . Within existence there lives a kindness . Verily , even a wild and golden
eagle can love a Christian . Even the clouds can make words and speak of this .

Once one is born a Christian , it is unseemly to ever deny it . Oh , let it be , and exist in the holy spirit
of gentle playfulness .

 

That's ok, I'm not a Christian. I too experience God as love. But I don't really see God as an anthropomorphic being either.

 

I think my perspective on God evolves as time progresses. And while my first inclination was to reject notions of religion, I have learned that there is something significant to be gleaned by living in sacrifice. I believe that love transcends. God's love for man is the golden sun above, heaven beyond, and the loss of His son to the hands of men so that our sins may be forgiven in His name. He gives of himself, and we may also give in His image.

I understand the concept of unconditional, but because God really loves you He requires that you live your life according to virtue.

I think people take offense to that - if you weren't raised to know God, you must likely wonder why there is a "price", or how someone you don't even know can require something of you.

So who is it that's telling you to live your life according to virtue, or values, or with the concept of morality? Well, I don't know it all but I know the God that I pray to loves me. He knows me and is a shepherd for me. He protects me and He answers me in the way God answers prayers. Because when I ask, the answer comes, and then I know, I'm confident, and I can go on knowing.

If you love God, but you also feel threatened by 'conditions' of membership to the church, I would suggest a different approach. Perhaps it's simply a matter of considering God's wisdom and finding Faith to be valuable in your heart and mind.

I'm not the best example of God's faithful, but I think He is wonderful and good. I know in my heart that he answers my prayers, and that on judgment day I want to be in the grace of God.

 

So if I was to restate your answer in the context of the question in a slightly different way, would you agree with this, God loves you unconditionally, but he requires you to live a virtual life to be, say, in harmony with him. But if a person has trouble with conditions such as being a member of the church, that they can find a different approach to a relationship with God?

But what about belief in, Jesus, for example, would God in your opinion require a belief in Jesus?


There is no right or wrong answer in this thread because belief is a subjective personal thing. I am asking how Christians view this issue. So my question is just to clarify your position on this.

 

Seems to me that as one who is not a fan of Religion (more of that witch is Faith) my opine is not required,
however
The second part of your text would seem to indicate that freedom of expression is encouraged
- If this is the case, then I would offer this:-
"The unconditional love that a 'God' advocates, is not something that can be aligned to that which is Human Nature"
My Credo of Faith is moreover of "Harm No one, but take No shit" is more easily explained in the way of life
IMO

 

I feel like a jerk answering, so I'm going to leave this one alone.

 

Don't feel that way. You provided a very good answer. I know it sounds like a loaded question, but it is not.

For me there is a contradiction here in this issue. For others, there may be a contradiction, but they don't care. For others there is no contradiction.

I am just trying to see the different viewpoints. I'm not trying to prove a point in this thread, or knock someone's beliefs. I am simply trying to understand the different view points on this.

 

Or even nature itself. How does unconditional love fit into a world where a couple of lions will take down a baby water buffalo and devour it as it attempts to escape with the last 5 minutes or so of its existence. For some who believe in God this would suggest an impersonal God. For other's it may be that God's love actually is conditional. On the other hand, if souls are eternal, then what is 5 minutes of a cruel and painful death over countless lives and loves enjoyed and sufferings endured. There are Christians though that may counter that animals don't have souls.

Then there is the issue of free will. soulcompromise referred to God loving us but wanting us to live a good life. Human nature being a product of human free will (neural scientists be damned in this argument) is this actually an expression of unconditional love, then we would need to be shown a way of staying in harmony.

All spiritualities and all religions teach varied lessons that range from a balance to actual righteousness, because through these we learn to live together and in harmony with nature. Could we argue that they are merely codes to live by rather than conditions?

 

Perhaps it is arrogant of mankind to project the human constructs of morality upon god. On the other hand, maybe God did impart universal laws of ethics, or even just human specific ethical wisdom.

Either way I think that there is comfort for many of those under any kind of existential crisis that can find a sense of unconditional loving in a god.

 

This is a really interesting question. I don't think that the understanding that many people have about this is correct. I don't think that the message of the gospel is a message of "obey, or else." To really understand the gospel, you must understand that at its heart it is based upon love.

The true path to salvation doesn't come as a result of following some rules or whatever you think of as the way that God requires you to live your life in order to be saved. Salvation is a response of the heart, it comes as a reaction to God's love. Christians, well true Christians, don't walk the line because they have to, they do it because they are compelled by love. This is salvation. 2 cor 5:14 "For the love of Christ compels us,".

For example, on the day of Pentecost in the book of acts, after Peter addressed a large crowd of more than three thousand people about the death of Jesus, and then acts 2: 37 says, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"" They were cut to the heart. This came as a reaction to the love that was shown to them, and perhaps the guilt for the wrong they had done -- some of them may have actually been there in the crowd when Christ was crucified.

In john 21 after the apostles miraculously drew in a multitude of fish when Jesus told them to cast their nets, Jesus simply said to Peter john 21:15 "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?"

Now I think of making such a huge haul of fish 2000 years ago almost equivalent to getting a ton of money. That was a lot of fish. They could have made a lot of money from those fish. They were hungry too. And Jesus simply said "Do you love me more than these?"

 

That is a good answer Desos.

Now let me ask this, and please don't leave like Soulcompromise because I am not arguing with you, just trying to get a full picture of your answer.

Would you consider scripture like John 3:16 which states that it will be those who believe in Jesus that will have everlasting life, as, rather than a condition, simply a means to get people into the fold to experience this love---much like a loving father would direct a child? A loving father, for example, would know that the child does not understand the complexities and difficulties of life, so he could set rules down which are not really rules for later in life, but simply keeps the child out of trouble in a world that child would not understand.

Or would you see that as an actual condition?

Or is there another interpretation I have not thought of?

 

Certainly God cares for us as children. Many of the early letters to the church from the apostles were addressed to "little children" -- the church being little children.

John 3:16 says that Jesus is the way to everlasting life. Actually that is what Jesus said(john14:6), "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." One analogy is given in ephesians 2:19 where Jesus is referred to as the chief cornerstone of the household of God. A house cannot stand without its chief cornerstone. So there is no way to God except through the foundation which is in Jesus. And again in john 15:5 Jesus says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

I am still trying to gain a better understanding of it all. In several places the gospel is referred to as a mystery.

 

Fair enough.

 

I guess my problem with putting it that way is that it anthropomorphicizes God. When humans, like the gospel writers, talk about God, they often do so in metaphor (whether they know it or not), as we do in other contexts: Ol' Man River, Father Time, Mother Nature, etc. I'm not so presumptuous that I think I have more than a vague idea what God is like, but I suspect it's closer to gravity or QM. One could convey the nature of gravity and its "requirements" by saying: "Thus spoke Gravity: I am the Lord they Gravity. Thou shalt not jump off the top of the Empire State Building, and if you do I shall splatter your ass all over Broadway!" And some would say: Man, that Gravity is such a mean $%%. How could anyone follow such a!@#$%? Or we could acknowledge that a loving Gravity is just looking out for our best interests (and those of others we might land on).

As Christians, we have to figure out as best we can how to balance and implement principles that might seem (and be) contradictory: unconditional love for everyone and the expectation that there are rules and norms of conduct to follow if that ideal is to be implemented for everyone. Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek. But is there such a thing as tough love? And are we required to turn our neighbor's cheeks, or do we intervene when the poor, misguided racist is pushing the elderly oriental lady in front of a bus? At some level, these principles reach the point of paradox that God may be able to solve but are beyond the pay grade of most of us. According to Christian teachings, God loved Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin, just as (S)he now loves Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley. No accounting for tastes. Their mothers probably loved them too.

And we are supposed to love them? That's asking a lot. What does it even mean? If we love somebody, do we have to like them? And can we still put them in prison or keep them out of office to protect the innocent? I'd say it would be inconsistent with true love to give them the impression that they aren't thoroughly loathsome human beings, but it would be sick to wish them horrible harm, as opposed to just deserts for correction of themselves and protection of others. The early Christians took the opposite path of the Essenes, who believed "Hate your enemies." Of the two approaches, I prefer the Christian one:to look for the good in people and try to bring it out; to give second chances, as we hope our God will give us.

I tend to agree with Justin Martyr on this: "those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are accounted atheists." In Catholic elementary school, the nuns with rulers taught me that there is "No salvation outside the Catholic church", but hastened to add that doesn't mean non-Catholics aren't going to heaven. (And that's why my head has been so messed up ever since). It seems there's a loophole for the "invincibly ignorant"--those who, either because of being unable to experience Christianity (Socrates, Aristotle, some isolated Amazonian Indian tribe) or as a practical matter being unable to understand or accept it because of their religious upbringing (Muslims, Buddhists, Baptist fundamentalists). They get a free pass because, as Jesus said: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

Recently, the Catholic Church has been more explicit that Islam can be a path to salvation and that non-Christians acting in good conscience can be saved, although the Church naturally thinks the path is more difficult without the sacraments, rituals and communal support to keep us on the straight and narrow. Conservative Pope Benedict XVI, formerly head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), explained: "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith". The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1260, states: "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." Pope Francis even suggests that this applies to atheists. I should add that not all Christians accept this point of view. Fundamentalists denounced this idea as further proof that Catholics are a bunch of damned heretics. I'm a progressive Methodist myself, and am unsure of an afterlife, so I hope I'm on the right track!

I think of Heaven as an idealized condition that theoretically we might experience here on earth if everyone got with the program and devoted themselves to love of God and neighbor. Hell is likewise a hypothetical condition that would result if everyone were driven by selfish pursuit of wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence without regard to the impact on others--the "war of all against all" which Thomas Hobbes described in Leviathan.. The brilliant insight of Dante's Inferno is that the poor souls who are there are so addicted to their vices that they resist the measures that could get them out. Even Satan is trapped in the middle of hell in a block of ICE generated by his huge flapping winds beating rapidly in a desperate effort to escape God! Hell is a bad attitude! There is no escape, except by an attitude adjustment.

 

Sorry, Removed this post.

will write something else soon.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

My friend, you partially anwsered your own question.

“For example, he loves us all in such a deep way that we mere mortals cannot even understand,”

All of Christendom needs to go back to its grass roots and remember that a fellowship and relationship with Jesus... post-ascension ... is a profoundly spiritual (extra-sensory) one. Its NOT do’s and don’t-do’s. It’s not impositions, ... obligations, Its not rules. Its not laws... Jesus entered the world, suffered, was tortured, and died the most humiliating and evil death ever known to man, by ex-sanguination on a cross, right on to the last drop to Fulfill the law... I’m gonna repeat that To fulfill the law.

This does not mean the “old” covenant was abolished, it evolved, it took on a completely different meaning. Spiritually, Physically, Psychologically... Everything a Christian does from sun up to sun down should be divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit of God as humble acts of reperation to the most sacred Heart of Jesus. Reperation. Not obligation to follow rules. It needs to be a deep call from within to payback what is felt on every fibre of your being to be owed.

Ergo,

The wisdom you are seeking is spiritual in nature, and not intellectual/rational. Christians refer to a term frequently: “The folly of the cross”. And the reasoning behind it is exactly that, through the lens of human psychology alone, the cross is absolute madness.

This is that part of the movie where I encourage you to ask Him this question directly. Trust me on this, if your desire is sincere and you really truly want this wisdom. You will get a response that will truly speak to the depths of your own soul in a unique way. There will no longer be any shred of doubt in your concept of what you truly are, who God truly is, and what the relationship between you and him means.

God Bless you my friend.