Does GOD Love You?

[glockmail]

Who are you to decide which is greater? The only reason those two gospels are not in the Bible is because there were voted out at The Council of Nicaea because they made Jesus appear to be mortal and not the son of God. So a bunch of scholars at the time made that decision, hardly credible. That makes it a speculation, not fact.

I didn't make the decision. As you pointed out scholars did. IMO its better to leave those decisions up to the scholars who are most familiar with the material. You appear to disagree with them but offer nothing in defense of your position.

[nevadamedic]

The "Gospel" of Phillip isn't a gospel, nor is it related to Philip. It is an apocryphal collections of quotes and sayings, unlinked, and without context. The earliest it can be traced (using the same methods used to like the four real gospels to their namesakes) indicates the thing was written, at the earliest, around 180 A.D., making it less credible than if I wrote a book today claiming to have come across information that Abraham Lincoln was drunk all the time and payed John Wilkes Booth to kill him.

Same goes for the Gospel of Mary. The text is rather ambiguous. Pages are missing. It didn't originate until over a century after Christ's death. It's apocryphal and unreliable.

Also, neither of these texts at all indicate that Jesus was not the Son of God. In fact, the Gospel of Mary discusses his ascension. The only doctrinal change that would be associated with accepting these gnostic gospels as scripture would be the idea that Jesus was married and the attitudes towards female leadership in the church. While both would be rather jarring to the Christian community, neither is as drastic as you seem to think.

My mistake, the Gospel Accordint to Phillip and the Gospel According to Mary point to Mary being Jesus's wife. One's interpertaion would make him a mortal and thats my opinion, im not stating fact here im stating and opinion, just like in my opinion parts of the Bible are opinion. For those of you who out there who have not read the Gospel According to Phillip here is an excerpt from it as the whole Gospel would be two long to put here.

"As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

The Lord said, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be."

Now in those days a companion meant spouse.

[Hobbit]

My mistake, the Gospel Accordint to Phillip and the Gospel According to Mary point to Mary being Jesus's wife. One's interpertaion would make him a mortal and thats my opinion, im not stating fact here im stating and opinion, just like in my opinion parts of the Bible are opinion. For those of you who out there who have not read the Gospel According to Phillip here is an excerpt from it as the whole Gospel would be two long to put here.

"As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

The Lord said, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be."

Now in those days a companion meant spouse.

The bolded word is speculation and is missing from the original text. Also, these texts were translated in the 20th century. If the original meant spouse, then the translation would likely say spouse, just as all modern translations of Exodus have the commandment "Thou shalt not murder," rather than the archaic and controversial "Thou shalt not kill."

However, if this were authentic scripture, it would be a good bet that they were married, even if the writer didn't just jump out and say it.

[nevadamedic]

The bolded word is speculation and is missing from the original text. Also, these texts were translated in the 20th century. If the original meant spouse, then the translation would likely say spouse, just as all modern translations of Exodus have the commandment "Thou shalt not murder," rather than the archaic and controversial "Thou shalt not kill."

However, if this were authentic scripture, it would be a good bet that they were married, even if the writer didn't just jump out and say it.

They used the word companion for spouse back then.

[Nienna]

The God that considers a persons lack of faith in God's love a sin, establishes that God's value of His divine vanity over a persons free will. If that God burns such people in hell for eternity for their sins, He values obediance to His divine vanity above all else.

While I take umbrage at your depiction of my God's character, you are hitting on something that even many Christians overlook: This is love for God: to obey his commands (1 John 5:3a). Our love for God is directly equal to our obedience to Him.

[Nienna]

Today I set into motion plans to throw a surprise party this weekend for my girlfriend's birthday because I love her. God's never thrown me a surprise party...

It's in the works! Wait until the end of time! But you aren't invited unless you believe in Him.

[LOki]

While I take umbrage at your depiction of my God's character, you are hitting on something that even many Christians overlook: This is love for God: to obey his commands (1 John 5:3a). Our love for God is directly equal to our obedience to Him.

I didn't pick out your God on purpose, you know. Sorry about your luck.

If there is no room in a God's love to accomodate defiance of evil (if evil is commanded) then that God is not capable of love. A God whose divine vanity is so fragile that he cannot tolerate any disobedience what-so-ever--so much so that He'd condemn such disobediece to eternal torture--cannot be considered a "good" God. Any such petty, vain, sadistic, and bloodthirsty God, whose religion would feature human suffering and torture, would certainly be evil, and certainly would be my enemy, as well as the enemy of His victims, and the enemy of good people everywhere.

I suppose I take some umbrage at the way people have taken it upon themselves to visit upon their fellows every evil concievable--including, but in no way limited to, theft, murder, slavery, and most importantly, human sacrifice--and call it God's love. It occurs to me that this notion of obediance=love really derives from the cowardly vanity of people who demand unquestioning obediance from their fellows; people who claim that such-and-such is God's will, and you better "toe the line fellah" or you'll burn for eternity.

I don't take the admonitions from such folks too seriously, because if I had to, I'd also have to take seriously that they are no less evil than their God. And unlike their God, I have enough love for them to allow the benefit of the doubt. My God does too.

[typomaniac]

It's in the works! Wait until the end of time! But you aren't invited unless you believe in Him.

But if you believed in Him, it would no longer be much of a surprise, now would it?

[glockmail]

.... A God whose divine vanity is so fragile that he cannot tolerate any disobedience what-so-ever--so much so that He'd condemn such disobediece to eternal torture--cannot be considered a "good" God. ......

He tolerates you.

[nevadamedic]

I believe in God, but I dont believe the Bible is accurate. All that should matter is if you believe. How it happened is irrelevent. I also dont believe Jesus is the son God, but I do believe he is a savior because he gave his life for the betterment of society.

[glockmail]

I believe in God, but I dont believe the Bible is accurate. All that should matter is if you believe. How it happened is irrelevent. I also dont believe Jesus is the son God, but I do believe he is a savior because he gave his life for the betterment of society.

So all that fullfillment of scripture, raising people along with himself from the dead, is just BS?

[LOki]

He tolerates you.

Who does?

[glockmail]

Who does?

Read much? Who the fuck do you think?

[Hugh Lincoln]

The God that considers a persons lack of faith in God's love a sin, establishes that God's value of His divine vanity over a persons free will. If that God burns such people in hell for eternity for their sins, He values obediance to His divine vanity above all else.

A point worth pondering. Still, as the bumper sticker says, if you don't believe in God, you'd better be right.

I'm more interested in a person's motivations for believing in God, or not, which I suspect are usually suspect:

BELIEVE

1. I believe in God because I'm afraid not to (part of mine, still, is this so great?)

2. I believe in God because everyone else does.

3. I believe in God because my parents told me to, and threatened to beat me if I didn't.

4. I believe in God because I'm too lazy to think of alternative explanations for my existence or consciousness.

DON'T BELIEVE

1. I don't believe in God because it makes me cool, like a philosophy grad student.

2. I don't believe in God because I hate my religious parents.

3. I don't believe in God because I haven't bothered to conceive of God as anything but an anthropomorphic white-bearded old man who it's easy to dismiss.

4. I don't believe in God because I want to commit all kinds of morally questionable activity and don't want to have to worry about the consequences.

ETCETERA.

[nevadamedic]

So all that fullfillment of scripture, raising people along with himself from the dead, is just BS?

It could be, then again it may not be. It it up to each person to make that decision for themselves.