It's quite simple to use the Bible as a reference, against the Bible itself. There's so many ideas that it probably didn't help having written by so many men, as most of them do infact contradict each other, as most of the postees in this thread already have shown they agreed. I'd rather just leave the Bible aside and use commonsense instead.

There were so many incidents where families were torn apart due to the 'Will of God'. For example that incident when Christ had been borne, being transported around in secret, and that King issued each newborn child be murdered as he didn't want any of those prophecies coming true about a child growing to greatness. Were these not examples of families that may have come to think they did a sinful deed, and then came to the conclusion that it may have been punishment from God? Forget about the story of Bathsheba, because the story above is much more heart touching than that.

I'm seeing a lot of posts involving examples of what you might pin the term of 'Unconditional love' as, but I don't quite agree that being a parent would demonstrate that. Unconditional love to me, means that you are there to support or help someone, no matter who it may be, and regardless of what their relation is to you. Unconditional love within a Mother/Father-Son/Daughter type of relationship is biased, as the condition to provide this so called 'Unconditional love', the recipient has to first of all be related to you, or be your offspring. Having said that, if a God truely holds a pure unconditional love towards us all, why are we even tested on this earth. Why were we not born into heaven instead.

i would say that you are not clear on what love in the Bible means or that you are rolling up several different social values into one, depending on what scriptures you are talking about.
I would say that God's love is unconditional, but love in the biblical world is group attachment. Nothing to do with being nice and never getting angry with someone. decent online article on the subject: http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html
so some form of punishment or disipline is not outside of love, especially when it is in the best interests of the group. Love alone will get one very far when it come to obtaining God's favor, grace, and mercy, which are the social values you may be rolling up into one and sticking under love. none of these are unconditional. Grace, in the NT, refers to God's willingness to be a patron. It is open to all, but one actually must accept it. Becoming a client of God will actually do one good in the long run, as one would then have access to God's favor and mercy and things otherwise unattainable, like the forgiveness of sins. The client-patron relationship is a reciprical one, meaning that God does something for someone and that person will do something for God and vice versa. So God's favor and mercy are not free, but always come with strings attachted.

i hope that clears something up, but i fear that i have not explained myself very well.

Then God's love has conditions and is not unconditional. This pretty much black and white
either it has conditions or not. Believe in me or burn in a lake of fire. That is conditional love.You can't step around it with all the malarkey and double talk in the world, there is just no deigning it.

The difference between this and the incident with David and Bathsheba is it wasn't God who is attributed as killing these children.

Regards, PA

If God wasn't attributed as killing these children, why was he not attributed as coming to their defence. He allowed special guidance to Mary to avoid Herod gaining control over Christ's life as a newborn, but where was this type of support for the other innocent bystanding families that lost their children? Was this the type of unconditional love that the Bible had been talking of all along?

I'll answer your question with a story.

Back in World War 2, shortly after England decoded the German's Enigma machine, it was found out that there was a planned strike on an English city (don't recall the details - someone more familiar with WWII history might be able to help). The English could have evacuated the city, saved hundreds (even thousands) of lives, but they would have given away the knowledge that they had decoded the Enigma code.

That's small comfort for the people who died during the German attack, but in order to win the war, England had to watch the Germans strike their cities, without more defence than they would have normally.

As with any analogy, take it too far and it breaks down, and this analogy isn't complete, but try and see the concept I am bringing up....

Regards, PA

I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't add up. You're saying that voluntary sacrifice is always necessary, if there is a possible greater victory to be won. But who is to say which individuals are to be sacrificed, to obtain that victory? And who is to say which individuals should enjoy the outcome of that glorious victory by surviving whereas those that were disposed of ranked as mere pawns? Do the minority, or those that consist of being sacrificed have a choice at all to partake in this role? Or would a God so abundant of unconditional love punish their defiance, by yet again leaving them defenceless from their right to exercise free-will?

Does free-will truly exist, I wonder? It would seem that depending on what you do, why you did it, and who it affected, this will determine your negotiable supply of love from God.

and i think you have completely missed the point of my post.

in my opinion, this entire event is a man-issue. Herod, ordering the deaths of the children. An angel visited Mary to warn her, because her son was the Messiah. Jesus had to survive. I don't think it's a matter of God "loving" one child more than any of the other's, or caring about the feelings of Jesus' parent's more than the others'.

Though I guess it depends largely on one's point of view. I'm telling it as I see it, you may interpret the facts of the case differently.....

Regards, PA

Yeah, but....

PA, in the OT and even in the NT, there are tales of God causing men to have a change of heart. In the OT. "God hardened Pharoahs heart...", and in the NT, the Vision of Jesus caused the conversion of Saul to Paul.

Why then, did god not try the same either with Herod, or the men that were sent out to slay the innocents? I mean, the book is replete with stories of 'angels' appearing and interacting with people, why not then?

And my recollection is a little rusty, did Herods men succeed in their heinous assignment? Did they get ALL the newborns except J?

Thank you!


I agree but that just might be too easy for some.

The simplest answer i can give is "I don't know".

Thats an honest answer

One of the reasons that I like and admire PA: He is honest and straightforward.

Yup he is...at least he is sure about his faith and he knows where he stands....he enjoys being a christian and he is well aware that not any one of us can know for sure what or how god thinks..this I do admire from PA...he lookes at it through reality

But I do have my opinions

Thanks guys. Seriously, no point in bullcrapping an answer that doesn't make sense. People see through it straight away, that you don't know.

You're more than welcome to have an opinion, PA. But even opinions have to be justified, as these should be formed from what we do know.

Ever hear the expression “words are sharper than the sword”? or “ the pen is mightier than the sword”.
Irish

Hey my friend
Look at PA for an example

What did I do?