God is love.

[kentuck]

Last edited Sat Jun 27, 2015, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

John 4:16

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

[SamKnause]

1. I do not rely on the love of any 'God'.

'God' is love ???

What proof do you have of that statement.

Which 'God' are you referring to ???

Are you insinuating that non believers have never known love,

can never know love if they do not believe, deserve no love if they

do not believe, or that believers can not love unbelievers ???

Shouldn't this be posted in the Religion & Spirituality forum ???

[H2O Man]

2. ho-hum

[pintobean]

3. Relax. It isn't about you

and your beliefs.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Relax it is ok to disagree with a post.

Post about God, expect posts pointing out that there are no gods.

[roguevalley]

26. I support Kentuck. I am removing this post because I am sick of the bullshit

Love is good, Kentuck. Thanks.

[roguevalley]

25. I am removing my posts because I don't want the inevitable attacks for my opinion

I support Kentuck making a comment about love. It is a sad day in the world when that it immediately attacked. A small comment of love.

[H2O Man]

4. I preferred Gandhi's

"Truth is God." This is distinct from "God is Truth." Thus, I would also prefer "Love is God."

[kentuck]

6. As you probably know, my intent was not to post a religious post ...

...but a political statement to those that profess religion and their love of God.

I apologize to those on whom it may have been lost.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. That is ridiculous.

[kentuck]

11. That is...

your opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. You quoted the New Testament.

You made claims about God. Those are facts, not opinions.

[pintobean]

13. I understood it.

Some people are just a little too sensitive.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. I don't give a shit that this is posted in gd.

I find the claim that this is not a religious post a ridiculous example of religious privilege.

[pintobean]

16. That's a shame.

"religious privilege"?

[jwirr]

19. Since so many do not beleive it - then it must be an opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Wait, we vote on facts?

[H2O Man]

30. Some are that limited.

Others vote on values, among other things.

[H2O Man]

20. Two choices:

[1] It was a vicious attempt to push the person's privilege in his victims' faces; or

[2] It was a Good Person's attempt to share his happiness with others.

I consider it a privilege to know kentuck, and read his positive messages here on DU:GD.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Thanks for the hyperbolic false dichotomy.

I said that they op's claim that the original post was not religious was a ridiculous claim an an example of religious privilege. I said nothing about the original post itself being an example of religious privilege, or that it was vile. It was a mundane expression of religious sentimentalism. It was the op's odd insistence that quoting the N.T. referencing the nature of a god was not a religious statement that was, not a vile, but a ridiculous example of how the religious are essentially blind to how openly religious they are.

[H2O Man]

24. You're silly.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Right. You know what else is "silly"?

Dragging God into what happened yesterday. God had nothing to do with that ruling other than it was primarily those who believe in God who were most bitterly opposed to what happened yesterday and it was and is religious institutions and their political allies who oppose equality.

Your God may be love but it seems patently obvious that many people believe in a hateful bigoted deity.

[H2O Man]

29. Even sillier!

It's a giggle: everyone but one person on this thread is chipper and upbeat, with but one exception -- our favorite Eeyore!

[Fumesucker]

32. You managed to lose some of my high respect for you with this series of posts

I really thought you of all people would be above mocking people for expressing an opinion you disagreed with.

[H2O Man]

34. That happens.

I didn't even comment on my friend's opinion -- what I did comment on was his uncalled for, aggressive spurts aimed at a Good Friend who was merely expressing his opinion. I suppose it may have gone from "lighten up," to laughter. (I do mock people, every now and then, for a variety of reasons. But this wasn't mocking.)

Good luck to you!

[Fumesucker]

36. There's on OP in GD right now about "Saw your wedding announcement in the paper: YOU'RE FIRED!"

It could just as easily be "Saw your LTTE about atheism in the paper: YOU'RE FIRED!". Atheists basically have zero protection from discrimination based on their philosophy of life because of course it's not a religion and only religion is protected.

But I know if I were to post that OP on GD it will be locked, mocked or ignored. No one here other than atheists gives the slightest shit.

Religious privilege exists whether you wish to acknowledge that or not.

[H2O Man]

37. Please.

[Fumesucker]

38. Please shut up?

No problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Please stop pointing out that religious privilege

is pervasive. You know, because pointing that out is an aggressive spurt or something.

But what can we do but spurt aggressively? After all we can't love, as that is a god thing.

Same day God was being all lovey it was also sending its minions out for some coordinated slaughter in France, Tunusia, and Yemen. But never mind that just shut up when somebody claims something good for their God. Because the religious must not be offended by any evidence that we all don't share their nonsense world view.

[H2O Man]

21. Yes!

I think that both of us are saying the same thing -- it is a time when Love and Truth are being experienced in a too often depressing era.

[Zorra]

5. Love works for me. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

7. There are no gods.

[FLPanhandle]

41. +1

But some people need/want their fantasies.

[edhopper]

9. I appreciate your intent

it's a tweek on the noses of Christians who think their God doesn't want gay marriage.

[kentuck]

12. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Ruh roh.

Whoops, I missed that. Sorry I was sarcastic.

[libdem4life]

17. Yes, S/he is.

[jwirr]

18. The whole message of yesterday in a nutshell. Thank you.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Yeah, because it's not like tens of millions of Christians blocked it and forced

Us To resort to the courts to enable it.

[jwirr]

48. You know that I am really sick of being lumped in with the rw assholes. Neither I nor my

church (ELCA) have blocked anything on gay rights. - in fact we have gay members who would be able to get married in our church when it is legal which is today. Our social issues committee includes several gay members as well as myself. No one is pushed out of my church - with the possible exception of my developmentally disabled daughter who has a tendency to scream at the top of her lungs for as long as she can .

[AtheistCrusader]

50. In the U.S. That makes you a statistical outlier.

Maybe you should do something about that.

[jwirr]

51. I will agree on that. Just saw a lot of posts like yours and finally did not feel like taking it any

more.

As to doing something about it. What do you suggest? In the Christian church we are not all one big happy group. That is what most non-Christians do not understand.

I have no more to say about what the Pope says than he does in what I say. We are doing what we can in our community by welcoming openly gay couples and arguing the issue when it confronts what we are doing. Oh and we also get out the vote on issues that effect the subject. Many of us belong to a social justice site on facebook run by my former retired pastor.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Drying up the vaticans money supply will make it change.

Recruit from or make a welcoming home for/transition to believers in that church, perhaps.

It's a much bigger leap for me to convert/attract them to secular humanism, than it might be for a church like yours to draw them away from Catholicism.

At the end of the day, I don't mind if people are Christians. I don't seek to make everyone an atheist. I'd just like to coax them into sects that are hands off of public policy/law, or progressive in nature.

I'm sorry if you feel beat up by all this. That's not fair, if you guys specifically don't participate. I do apologize for that.

[jwirr]

53. Thank you friend. I think the Catholic Church was losing members until this Pope. He is just

liberal enough to stop the drain as long as he is there. And humanism is a good draw as many in my church are humanists including me. Ironically it was Christian professors in college that taught it to me. I always wonder how many others the failed to indoctrinate.

I usually do not feel beat up - often agree with most statements. I think it is just the idea of coming back to the real world after the things we have been seeing in the Charleston church. They are so much better than I am.

No need for an apology - you let me rant.

[Uncle Joe]

27. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.

[XemaSab]

31. The Christian God who murders millions of people?

And who is the same person as Jesus?

Right.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Did Jesus murder millions of people? n/t

[truebrit71]

40. No god did directly, who is the same person/entity as Jesus...

So by extension, seeing as how they are one and the same, I guess he kinda did, before he was alive, and then dead, and then alive again but invisible except when he appears on toast. .. or something.... it's all so confusing...

[XemaSab]

42. Do you believe in the triune God?

n/t

[Uncle Joe]

49. How did Jesus teach us to pray? n/t

[kentuck]

35. To clarify...

Most of the criticism of the decision yesterday is coming from the Christian community. They say things like, "I love everybody but this goes against everything the Bible says..." or "the end of time is coming"...

But, if two people love each other and the Bible says that "God is love", how can we be sure that their criticism does not come from hate??

It is simply a counter argument to the Christian criticism of gay marriage. I do not think anyone should look at it as anything more.

peace

[truebrit71]

39. So those that don't believe in "god" are what, loveless?

Also, where was the love god felt when the gunmen murdered those nine innocent people? That's the part that has always puzzled me in tragedies like these, someone's house is the lone building left standing after a tornado and somehow that is an indication of his love and/or mercy, not the fact that he allowed everything else around to get destroyed showing that he is actually a bit of a bastard...

I understand that people cling to that which they know in times of anguish and pain, but there comes a point when it strains credulity.

[mr blur]

44. Why isn't this in Religion, where it belongs? Read the sticky post at the top!

Why is this left here and not locked?

Yes you have the right to believe any old nonsense you like. No, you do not have the right to pour this drivel over everyone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Except when he's, you know, drowning the whole planet and killing everyone.

[NuclearDem]

54. Shrek is love.