Does Jesus Love You? Hate Your? Conditionally So?

The correct answer is clearly "conditionally so".
From this Sunday's NYT magazine interview with Wes Craven.

I feel like studios are more inclined to push the envelope with sex and violence than with religion. Why?
I think being Jewish has been covered really well but almost nothing about being fundamentalist Protestant. For years, I’ve had a movie in my mind called “Total Immersion” that looks to my life as a kid where you’re immersed in this different worldview from almost everybody around you. In high school, we would give away rulers to our friends that said, “Jesus loves you.” I couldn’t put together the concept that Jesus loves you, but if you don’t love him back, you’ll burn in hell forever. I worried, I’m rejecting the Holy Spirit, so I’m definitely going to burn in hell.

This topic is getting a lot of play lately, what with Rob Bell and all.

But the idea of Jesus being all loving is quite strange, given he condemns all who don't believe to eternal hellfire.

 

I don't think Craven understands the idea of justice, another trait that God possesses. Just because God doesn't reward you eternal life because you did not choose to be justified with God through Christ, does not mean God and Jesus do not love you.

Love and Justice are not mutually exclusive

Rob Bell is a universalist, and he's gone a little crazy. I'm not sure if that, or he's just trying to draw in people or make Christianity seem more PC ... but I disagree with his new book. I don't see his viewpoint supported via scripture text.

 

I have been a fan of Rob Bell for a while. I actually visited Mars Hill back when it was brand new. I heard him preach on Leviticus, which was his first sermon series and his exegetical preaching was very good. I was in seminary at the time, so I was probably even more critical then than I should have been. I thought he was pretty solid though.
I won't comment on his latest book, because I haven't read it. I have read Velvet Elvis, and seem many Nooma videos as well, and find most criticisms of those works to be unfounded, or fairly petty and beyond the scope of the major thrust of those works.
I won't comment on his current book, but from what I hear he does seem to go beyond the Biblical record, without necessarily contradicting it. Doesn't mean I agree, but I am not going to call him names either.

That being said, I don't think Craven seems to have a good grasp on justice either. I would agree with Bay on that point. I also disagree with the very term 'God sends people to hell.' In effect that is not at all what God does. That is not Scriptural nor in line with most types of Christian teaching. What God does is fundamentally unfair in that in God's mercy He gives people, all people, a way to be reconciled to Him. Going to hell in an afterlife, is no more than a continuation of the current state of humanity, which is to be those opposed to God. Those who go to heaven, are ONLY reconciled because of their acceptance of God's redemptive work. The invitation is extended.
It's akin to people bitching about not going to a party, and you say, 'were you invited?' and people say yes, but I didn't RSVP, and willfully didn't go. The party thrower should have dragged me to the party though, because I didn't know it was going to suck so bad not being there....
To me, to argue against a hell, means that you are arguing for a coerceive God who doesn't allow people to freely love Him or reject Him. The God of revealed in the Bible, is never a coerceive God.

 

Outstanding answer THEU. Very well put, and very simple terms.

 

That was a good answer Theu....as usual, very well said! Happy Easter my friend!

 

Think of it this way - there are two (actually three, but one isn't used that much) words for love in the NT - "agape" and "phileo". Agape is best described as intellectual - it is the love God has for all men (John 3:16 and other passages) and it is the love we are commanded to have for each other. It means I put the other person's needs ahead of my own and seek his good regardless of how he treats me (i.e. "love your enemies").

The second type of love, phileo, is often called "brotherly love" which is based on the other party - I like that guy because we have common interests, I respect him, I admire him, etc...

It's important to note that while God's agape love is mentioned over and over, the only time I see "phileo" love applied is in God's relationship to those who accept Christ (John 16:27). There's no passage that teaches God has affection for or is pleased with someone who rejects him, chooses to live in open rebellion to His will and is not interested in having fellowship with Him.

With that in mind, I've heard a lot of people say that no one will ever miss Heaven who wants to go there. The only caviat I'd add to that is that there are some people who may want to go, but not badly enough to change their lives and conform them to God's will.

As someone said, God loved us enough to allow Jesus to pay the price for sin for a group of people who by in large never asked for His help and didn't really want it. I don't know how that can't be seen as an act of love.

If someone doesn't want to go to Heaven, if they don't want to be with God in the afterlife, why would God force them to do so? And if someone doesn't have an interest in being Godly on this earth in this life and surrounding himself with things that are good and righteous, then why would that person be interested in doing it for eternity?

 

Another angle...would a person who has spent their life denying God and going their own way be happy to be in heaven? A place where you will worship and adore God for eternity, the exact opposite of how they CHOSE to live their life on earth? Doesn't make much sense to me. I believe one good definition of hell to be the absence of God, which is where they chose to live their life. Why not eternity there?

 

When I attempted church and to accept Christ, I had a very good pastor. Although I never bought in that Jesus was in fact God in the flesh, I did take a lot from my pastor's teachings. One topic he would touch on quite a bit is that people (christians) put God in a swivel chair. When we do bad, God turns around in his chair and bad things happen, when things are going well, then God is turned back around in His chair, and showering us with blessings. All of this is false because God "is at rest" with Jesus sitting to the right. His work is done, complete, no mas. God's love for one does not fluctuate due to one's behavior. The only sin God cares about after his son died and rose again is unbelief, that's it, end of story.

 

The guy should probably spend a little time reading Job.

Or perhaps you should read the book of Job?

Basically, Satan and God entered into a bet whereby Satan claimed the only reason Job worshipped and loved God was because Job was wealthy, i.e., God showered Job with blessings. Satan said that if Job encountered troubles he (Job) would abandon God. God said go for it. Job is a book of suffering, bad things happening to good people. The point of the book of Job has little, if anything, to do with a "chair swivelling" god, imo.

The point was well made when a small town in Iowa was hit by a powerful tornado. Luckily, no one was killed. The county sheriff expressed what is possibly the classic "chair swivel" version of God when he said, paraphrased, "I believe in God and His existence is proved because nobody was killed in this terrible storm."

Note that if the sheriff's version of God did exist the sheriff was strangely silent on why God allowed the storm to occur in the first place.

 

Funny how when you point your "patronizing finger" at someone, you seem to have three fingers pointing back at you. When you are able, or willing, to engage in an intelligent discussion then maybe you can forego your hypocritical claims.

But no, the swivel-chair analogy is not only as you claim. While one may define it as us attributing God's actions depending and relying on us being good or bad (or how we arbitrarily choose to define good and bad) the swivel factor also can be viewed as God "doing good" when, say no one dies in a storm, and God being indifferent when the storm actually hits.

All this really shows is that God is an entity and concept created by humans.

 

And here we go again. perham is baiting you into an argument. He will explain it as discourse, but he has no desire to listen to you. HIs mind is made up in his belief, or unbelief, whichever you choose to say. He wants to play a game.

 

do you have any real evidence to stake this claim....

Lol. My claim that god is a human-derived concept? Why yes, I have lots of evidence. Look at your holy text of choice. Look at how people describe their deity, anthropomorphizing Him to an embarrassing degree.

But not to worry. The Tooth Fairy is also a figment constructed by humans. As is Saint Nick.

What evidence can you proffer that this God thing is real? You mean the way He saved all those Jews at Auschwitz? Wait, I guess He did no such thing.

 

the evidence is out there in the writings, historical accounts and archeology.

Friday is right, stating the facts would change little with you if you aren't at least open to the idea.

claiming God is not real on the idea that he did not "save" people's lives in some event in history carries little to zero weight, and does little to support your claim.

 

the evidence is out there in the writings, historical accounts and archeology.

Just to be sure I'm understanding you: you claim that the above proves the existence of a supreme being?

I don't really think you know what a supreme being is. None of the things you mentioned prove there is a supreme being/god. You also seem to be making the all too common error in thinking that the god mentioned in the Christian myth-text is actually the real supreme being.

My claim that there is not a loving god because he allowed millions of Jews to die most definitely offers better proof for my position than your "evidence" does for yours.

I am not saying that a supreme being doesn't exist, far from it. What I am saying is that your evidence, and the standards of "proof" employed by you and your ilk, are so abysmally and pathetically poor (and selective to boot) that it is laughable that you attempt to settle your case based on it.

 

HIs mind is made up in his belief, or unbelief, whichever you choose to say.

Let us be very clear about this: me not believing in the same version of god as elucidated in your sacred myth-text is not the same thing as me not believing in a supreme being.

The arrogance you display is typical of many modern-day evangelicals. That, and an open display of bigotry toward homosexuals.

 

The bigotry displayed by the evangelical bloc is a major reason why young people are leaving.

 

the evidence exists that events (not referring to ones described allegorically/poetically) written about in the Bible are based off of actual historical events and facts. People have tried to debunk these events but more often than not, archeological findings and have supported the Bible. It's not terribly difficult to ascertain that what the Bible talks about are not lies and myths but that there's a lot of truth in it.

you would like to argue against these things based off of what? your idea that because soandso weren't spared from some form of genocide or natural disaster, that a God, written about in the bible, can not exist, or at least ... isn't "loving", as you would percieve?

Please ... you're smarter than that, at least from other tidbits I've seen you write about.

 

Perham, why do you give a ****? Seriously, get another hobby.