SearchNavigationUser login |
Thoughts on 'God is Love'The meaning of the statement “God is Love” is not self-evident. It seems that today, most people use this phrase as the primary descriptor of God while at the same time assuming that God does not feel anything. At least, there seems to be some sort of lip service to “God is Love” while living life as if God does not truly love. This problem should cause pangs of remorse and pity in anyone who has a spiritual inclination. This is a result of the usage of “God is Love” becoming rather ubiquitous, so much so that the statement “God is Love” has become meaningless as an objective descriptor of God. Popular thought defines the statement in purely subjective terms based on the common experience of the individual. This common experience then is more often negative than positive. The current usage of the statement “God is Love” is reminiscent of Bertrand Russell’s observation that the term ‘Christian’ had lost a great deal of meaning due to its ubiquitous usage. Consequently, common imprecise usage redefined the term ‘Christian’ over time. It means something now that it did not back when the classical medieval theologians were writing. Even by 1927, the year in which Russell delivered his famous “Why I Am Not a Christian” lecture, there was a need to define ‘Christian’ to avoid confusion and foster communication. Just as Russell provides a needed service, even for those who disagree with his thesis, by clarifying the term ‘Christian’ so also we need an explication for the statement “God is Love.” The problem for that most people have comes from applying their life experiences to God’s love. There is a useful idea for understanding how this happens, that of the “power of the past”. The power of the past is useful in acknowledging that while the past cannot veto future decision, it does hold a strong influence over how one reacts to the present. I suspect that enough people today have experienced unrequited love that they think of love as generally one-sided. Common usage of the term regularly includes non-thinking, non-feeling objects. For example, “I love my computer.” “I love my house.” “I love my car.” Even Christian evangelists are prone to state, “God loves you” and make a point that regardless of reciprocation, it is the case. There is a tendency to downplay response. Once the idea of reciprocity in love is broken, it seems that it is easy in popular thought for there to be an assumption that loving God does not mean that God loves back in the same way. Popular thought then combines this with the experience of a multitude of ‘loving’ parents who provide good material possessions out of guilt. This guilt is due to not being present to reciprocate love to the child. Now there is a break between the act of loving and reciprocal love combined with the non-reciprocal good provision of the parental figure. This naturally leads to the conception of God’s of having unsympathetic love. This is the idea that God gives good gifts (whether that is basic life provision or material possessions) without truly caring for the beloved. As some theologians have put it, “God only seems to us to be compassionate; he is not really compassionate!” It is as if the popular view of God’s love is as the cosmic absentee father, eternally paying child support to His creation. In popular thought, there is a divorce between love and reciprocation. The truest form of love necessitates sympathetic response on the part of the lover. Really, this is a dynamic relationship of lover and beloved sympathetically responding to each other. There is true caring and true emotional response on behalf of both parties. We need to feel something when we love God and God needs to feel something when God loves us back. The emphasis here is on God feeling an emotion. Most importantly, this emotion needs to be spontaneous prior to the act of loving. The act of sympathetic love adds rich emotional experience to both the lover and beloved. God’s sympathetic love adds to Godself just as this love is an addition to the make-up of the human psyche. When we hurt, God hurts, when we experience joy, God experiences joy. The idea that “God is Love” yet God is also unfeeling is a contradictory concept. The embedding of such a contradiction inevitably influences the lives of the persons infected with this contradiction. To think that one’s love towards the divine is unrequited must drain the joy out of life. This is inevitable. When a person enters into relationship in which unrequited love is present, this relationship is not one of joy but of anxiety. One never knows how the beloved will react. When one believes the relationship with God to be of unrequited character, then the affect is much deeper. If God is the ground of reality, then this is a relational dysfunction involving all of reality. The entire universe is at odds with the individual. There is no way to know how God will relate with the individual from one moment to the next. This is relational anxiety intensified, projected, and objectified. The solution is to realize “God is Love” in a full and healthy sense. That is, that true love involves sympathetic response. This means that when love is the essence of God then sympathetic response is inherent to the nature of God. Accordingly, God truly feels and experiences with us rather than merely giving a stiff emotionless “pat on the back.” The challenge then for the individual is to let this idea seep into the mind and heart. Once one knows to the core of one’s being that God sympathizes, then the entire universe, the very ground of reality, can be a source of joy rather than anxiety. By Bruce Paolozzi at Nov 1 2007 - 5:41pm | Bruce Paolozzi's blog | login or register to post comments
There are many big successThere are many big success for the Nike Jordan shoes Jordan shoes to become the famous brand since the first time that the Cheap Jordans Series are introduced to the world.In my memory, Air Jordan has been about rather famous in the sneaker shoes ever since we know that brand.So what great joy for us now is just to get one Air Yeezy to enjoy the traditional fashion the filled in the Cheap air yeezy series.I believe they will make you satisfied when you wear cheap jordans for sale on.. Coach handbags，a knownCoach handbags，a known brand, but when asked about the original story about coach, how many have you got? Maybe you will say "I know cheap coach bags" That's all known to all.Nothing more to say.In 1941, the founder of coach outlet,Miles and Lilian cahn found that the texture used in glove will be more soft.Just few decades later, Leather coach poppy has been the top one in American market.And the coach op art bags are all standing for a innovation and fashion. coach sunglasses also take the classic style to catch consumers' attention.coach kiristin bagswill offer you different style that you want.coach wristlets are designed in brief style, no more surpus decoration. cheap mbt shoesThe discovery is a rarity for emeralds found not in MBT Shoes On Sale the rich veins of South America and Asia but in North America, said Robert Simon, owner of Windsor Jewelers in MBT Fanaka Winston-Salem."Most of the stones that have come out have not been gem-quality that MBT Chapa I would mount in jewelry," said Simon, who was MBT M.Walk part owner of a 7.85-carat, dime-sized emerald found in MBT Women's Chapa the same community in 1998 that has since been set in jewelry and Discount MBT Shoes sold to a private owner. Basically good adviceBasically good advice Experiencing browse through your details preceding, I am able to barely are in agreement together with mention great amount of time in giving you good knowledge.Happy amazing information Needing look at the information you have in this article, I can merely are in agreement and articulate interesting amount of time in giving good quality facts. chicago erotic massage Many air max shoes expertsMany air max shoes experts ugg boots are sheepskin ugg boots confident ugg boot that a pragmatic China louis vitton will succeed in air jordan 12 making the transition in the coming winter boots decade to a ugg boots new growth winter boots model cheap ugg boots anchored by nike air max urban-based prada handbags consumption, technological upgrading and air jordan 11 a ugg boots greater role for adidas shoes market forces. Manolo Blahnik fashion andManolo Blahnik fashion and glaceful.Manolo Blahnik Sandals up to 79% off,Manolo Blahnik Shoes cheap now. Jimmy Choo popularJimmy Choo popular trend,many ladies love this brand very much.Jimmy Choo Shoes are promotion now.You will find the bestJimmy Choos here,so cheap,hurry up. A practical problem rooted in theologyIt would be so easy to rail against culture, nominal Christendom and many other things in attempting to come to terms and solve the difficult issue you raise concerning why people do not "experience" the love of God regularly, if at all; many of whom may frequent pews each Sunday morning. Of course, the media is quick to report many actual or alleged scandals that arise among the varied religious bodies of America, a practice that tends to exacerbate any skepticisms that the "churched" may already feel; or will feel. And lends to even greater mockery and dissatisfaction by those who do not openly embrace Christ. In fact, it reminds me of an L.A. Times article written by a former Christian who, as an "Evangelical" Christian, covered the religious beat for that paper. He had indicated that his "mission" was to highlight the works of churches in the community to broaden public knowledge of the charitable contributions they were making, of uplifting stories of faith, ect. Instead, his research and reporting turned up many and varied abuses (his article recapped several of them) in Catholic and Protestant parishes that left him a skeptical, jaded and cynical convert to atheism. And while secular ideologies tend to debase and corrupt individuals and societies (i.e. skepticism/atheism in France, Nazism in Germany and Marxist/Leninism in Russia), was there really any expectation that those "systems of thought" could or would offer anything better ethically or spiritually? And how could one escape the conclusion that a "nothing to something to molecules to morals" universe as being nothing less than alchemical/magical fantasy, just as miraculous as Middle-Earth or those "religious myths" that the atheists rejected to begin with? In fact, the atheist picture looks even more miraculous!!! But Christianity boasts of something much more...the church as "Bride of Christ", "Salt of the earth", "City on a hill", "Pillar and support of the truth", "Mind of Christ", ect. And so if the "left-wing liberal" media reports abuses, fraud, ect., why not own up to the fact that the "churches" are evil and corrupt? If that's the truth, then we need to own up to that instead of complaining of "slanted News reporting". That's their job and it's their right. Ironically, the reporter had unwittingly listened to the wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ who said "Know that no good tree produces bad fruit" and "You shall know them by their fruit". The real blame for abysmal spirituality, lack of graciousness to outsiders, shameful greediness, lustful abandon, hate and murder by "Christians", is theology. Not pastors, individuals or churches or bad techniques, but theology. Bad theology, to be sure. The "intellectual/spiritual" well is empty; or more likely poisoned. The Emperor has no clothes!! Endless visits to and quotations of scripture, hours pouring over Calvin's Institutes and the latest regurgitated Apologetics book, or time spent in church may see you before Christ arguing "Did we not prophesy in your name..." to be answered with "I never knew you". The early church laid down her life for Christ....stoned to death; young girls raped and drowned in the Tigris-Euphrates river; men, women and children burned alive in pitch; hacked to pieces by lion and sword....many of whom were eager and earnest to lay down their life for the Lord of love. Armchair theorizing was far from the minds of alienated and destitute Christians deep within the semi-protective confines of catacombs; a place to peaceably worship without immediate threat of imprisonment or death. And yet we complain of traffic and parking on Sunday mornings...grumble about a disagreeable point in a sermon....pray for God to "increase our territory" and give us "health and wealth".....embarrassed to associate with certain individuals in our congregations because they appear "unseemly" and "not like us".....solitude, hunger and rejection by others seen as an affront to our "dignity" as kids of the kingdom.....and pray when it's convenient and can be seen by others..... Perhaps a vital reassessment of theology is most needed...not with Bible study and winded tomes of Systematics; but rather with fearful and repentant hearts on our knees before Him Whom all must render account. A God that isn't far away over the sea nor living inside any book; nor unwilling to hear or sympathize with anyone; a God that "stands at the door" and is discernible within each of us (Romans 10). And when the scabbed and calloused skin surrounding our hearts has healed, then we may see and experience that "love of God" we so hunger and thirst for. "Easy in" will be "easy out" for people who are not asked to "count the cost" anymore; or told about "bearing a cross" or "dying daily" or "suffering for the sake of Christ". And the parable of the sower ought to sober us to help make the ground good for the seed...by tilling and cultivating it. No wonder many people don't believe Christianity...we scarcely believe it ourselves! The Love of God and TheologySome observations on points made by brush your teeth: The problem that you perceive in much of Western Christianity strikes me as being deeper than any of the doctrinal points we debated in seminary. It's as if the whole direction of many people's Christian lives is off course--as if we are aiming for the wrong thing. I came up with a list of practices and teachings that might contribute to this misdirection. To wit: Since I am involved in evangelism, I have heard a number of sermons about Hell. A church in town even did a play about Hell. Many, many people came forward at the altar call to accept Jesus, and the church people celebrated like something noteworthy had been accomplished. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those converts disappeared--most within a month, almost all within a year. Instead of asking whether something was wrong, the church people justified their efforts on the grounds that "If even one person turned their life around, then it was all worthwhile." While I won't argue that point, I do have to ask if we were making the wrong invitation. Did we convince them that Hell had already made its nest in their hearts and would take them over entirely if they did not flee to Christ for help, or did we just offer them a way to avoid going to a Really Bad Place when they die? The distinction between the two offers may seem a fine one, but the difference in the kind of repentance each produces (if the latter even qualifies as repentance) is huge. I suggest that the crowds came forward to receive their ticket to avoid the Bad Place. Once the transaction was made, they left. Likewise, I have noticed that some of my preacher friends, no matter what their sermon is about, conclude it by telling the listeners that they "can know beyond a doubt that, if you die tonight, you will go to Heaven." It has become the Invitation Mantra. Again I ask, if someone accepts the invitation, what are they accepting? Please note that I am not trying to debate the doctrine of eternal security. I am saying that when I compare our version of it to John 16:8--"When he (the Holy Spirit) comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment (NIV)"--something has been lost. The theology of sin, righteousness and judgment has to some extent been diluted with a theology of The Bad Place and The Good Place. I am muddling through the relevant passage of Calvin's Institutes (funny that you mentioned it!), and I assure you he did not do that. Yet some of my fellow pastors have said that such techniques are justified because they bring in more souls. Do they really? This does not mean that the preaching of sin and righteousness is neglected. Even there, however, I perceive that to a large extent we fall into the same trap the Pharisees did: we define both in terms of acts, whether wrong deeds done (sins of commission), good deeds left undone (sins of omission) or good deeds done (righteousness). This is legalism, and it takes too many forms to list here. By doing so, we lose the teaching of the whole New Testament that sin and righteousness depend upon the motives of the heart. An upright heart will of course show itself in good deeds, but the deeds themselves are not enough. A philosopher would say that they are necessary but not sufficient. Yet how often have I heard preachers list drugs, alcohol and promiscuous sex as if these things were all there is to sin? On the other hand, how often have I heard sermons motivating people to donate money (or help out in the soup kitchen) by preaching about love? Again, I'm not denying that someone may give money out of the love in his or heart; I'm asking if churches are settling for the money gift and not seeking transformed hearts? If so, unbelievers can give money as well as believers--in fact, they often give more. Another theological sticking point I see ins the nature of faith. Faith has been historically perilous to define (as discussed in the aforementioned Calvin's Institutes), and I'm sure the traditional mistakes (faith as intellectual assent, etc.) are still being made. However, there is a uniquely modern (as far as I know) heterodox notion of faith that has a powerful influence in today's protestant churches. I speak of Norman Vincent Peale's attempt to translate faith as positive thinking. The problem with this formulation in such works as The Power of Positive Thinking and You Can If You Think You Can (not that I was able to get through either work; I got too angry) is that it puts the focus on the wrong party. Instead of trying to discover what God wants and what He thinks is right, we concentrate on accomplishing our priorities. It sure seems to me that the Biblical teaching of the vast gulf between God's ways and our ways is driven underground in the process. To conclude (about time, eh?)--Put all these elements together, and you have the suspicion that people are not necessarily accepting Jesus Christ as the entry into a life of discovering the God of Life and Love Who explodes our faulty human notions of both and Whom the world depends on even while it ignores. Instead, many may be coming forward to go to the Good Place instead of the Bad Place when they die. Meanwhile they expect to live lives of good accomplishments based on good principles (given human definitions of both). Is it surprising that this results in complaints about the church parking etc.? If the Lord of Love is not sought, it is no wonder if He is not found. As always, I welcome discussion of these points, which is why I joined a discussion site. Moreover, it does seem to me that this discussion bears on the subject of apologetics, which I take to be the mission of this site. We want people to know the love of God and the God of Love. If we only convinced people that the Unmoved Mover of the philosophers exists, I would be unsatisfied. Peace in Christ, Rev. R J Long Agreement and explicit problemWell said, Rev. Long. I would direct attention toward the issue of the defection of the Bishop of Rome and the attending "division" of Eastern and Western Christendom, post-1054, as getting to the heart of the matter. "Protestantism" was the further fragmentation of Latin Christendoms acceptance of Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas' adoption of a "legal" and "juridical" understanding of God and the world. They represent the fountainhead of Western Theology. Alister Mcgrath's latest book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" points out, correctly, that the "Reformation" was not a consensus movement, but rather many movements/reforms that sprang locally throughout Europe and that were divided over substantive issues like "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist (for instance). So the movement should not be thought of as a monolith; German theology, he points out, had a much different flavor than say that of Zwingli or Calvin, even though all agreed on the intractable problems of Rome. But the "sola scriptura" doctrine, while fundamental to justifying reforms, left a greater problem over the refracting interpretations of scripture from received tradition (like the rise of the Anabaptists) with little recourse for the reformers except to point to the continuity of their understanding of scripture with the early exegetical work of the ancient Church Fathers (especially Augustine). And that merely pushes the problem back without resolving it because "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Like "scripture twisting" you can also do "father twisting". Note: A different but interesting supplement to the discussion is Charles Taylor's massive book,"The Secular Age", which attributes the rise of "secular humanism" and "atheism" in it's present form as having been seeded within the thinking of the early medieval period, particularly Augustine. His book then traces that development from there up to renaissance-reform-enlightenment-postmodern times and argues that "secularism" was a natural progression, given that starting point. John Calvin, himself an educated legal scholar, was resolute to "reform" the whole culture and society by ideas he formulates in the "Institutes" (note the "legalese" of his works' title). Where I differ from McGrath is where he whitewashes Calvin's vision of reform, and sees it as primarily ecclesiastical; whereas I see his vision as all-encompassing, in which Geneva became the exemplar, motivated primarily by his views on Divine sovereignty. But setting that aside, it was interesting that your anecdote underscores the failure of the "penal-juridical" model of theology, namely focus on escaping punishment (i.e. "hell/the bad place") a failure so noted in the spiritually empty lives of so many who come to churches today. And if your of a Calvinist frame of mind, it's easy to just say, "well, they're just not one of the elect" and proceed to proof-text scripture and continue on. I doubt that, as a Pastor, you would be comfortable with that scenario; but I have met plenty of people who are. Now, I mentioned the historical schism of 1054 because therein lies the issue. Rome adopted St. Augustine as their spiritual father, who then set the course for most of the Western agenda for theology. And since Rome mandated the papacy at this time (as a "reform"; in fact it was the first "reformation"), in order that Rome might have continuity with "tradition", St. Augustine was their "great white hope" in providing such a bridge, so to speak. And so inevitably the "Protestants" were forced to till soil that had become corrupted 500 years earlier. St. Augustine was a remarkable intellect, please don't mistake me. But his intellect is insignificant compared to his miraculous, charitable and holy life. However, it ought to give one some pause when the fact is that Augustine could not read Greek or speak Greek (proficiently) and therefore based his exegetical work on questionable Latin translations of the Greek Old and New Testament. Furthermore, his tendencies towards Neo-Platonism and the hang-ups from pagan/heretical sects had left him some problematic understandings of the "soma" Therefore, my proposal is prayer and self-examination. It is time for many of us to ask what "being a Christian" means and have the moral courage to contemplate why it is that so many of us have problems reading the Bible and then seeing the massive discontinuities between it's teachings and examples, on the one hand, and our own lives on the other; with many just giving up altogether and becoming embittered toward Christ. Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy", C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain" and essay "The Worlds Last Night", G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man"/"Orthodoxy" and James Stewart's "A Man in Christ" (not to mention some personal mentors of mine) began to awaken doubts about the spiritual status quo of the West and also to begin a quest to understand what was missing...or what was present, to account for such wide-spread hypocrisy (especially my own). In other words, to brave the "heart" over the "head". Some more agreement on God Is LoveI agree with what has been said. Moreover, though one might think that this all goes without saying among Christians, it doesn't. It struck me, Bruce, that you emphasized that there must be a reciprocal relationship with give-and-take between two persons, which implies that what one does affects the other. A one-sided relationship without that feedback isn't love but just the giving and receiving of gifts. (Let me know if I've misinterpreted you). I would put it this way: real love requires a bunch of traits with "path" in them--empathy, sympathy, compassion (same root). Moreover, I claim that it is the Bible--O. T. as well as N. T. (who can miss it in Hosea or Jeremiah?)--that has taught me to ascribe these things to God's love and to the love He wants; I didn't come up with it on my own. Unfortunately, this brings us up against the traditional church doctrine of the impassibility of God. While "impassibility" taken narrowly means that God cannot suffer (the meaning of "pascho", the root), the doctrine broadly states that nothing in the universe can affect God in any way. While this as always seemed a little wonky to me in the light of the Bible's revelation, I've never looked into it until provoked by Bruce's comments. I found 2 sites on the internet on the doctrine of God's impassibility, and I recommend them both to anyone who is curious about it. Against tradition, we have "'Only the Suffering God Can Help', Divine Passibility in Modern Theology" by Richard Bauckham (www.theologicalstudies.org_god_bauckham.html). On the other hand, Thomas G. Weinandy defends tradition in "Does God Suffer?" (www.firstthings.com/article/php3?id_article=2262). While I respect Weinandy's desire to uplift God, I have to come down on the other side. I thought I would share my reaction to Weinandy for others to discuss. A) Despite all his careful argumentation, to me his position still amounts to the notion that the Bible doesn't say what it says. I'm very, very hesitant to play that particular card from the interpreter's hand, especially when it comes to something that the Bible says over and over. B) In place of an exposition of Scripture, Weinandy builds the argument on a human definition: He defines suffering as the privation of some good. If that's the case, then to speak of God's suffering is to say that some gheood is taken away from God, which makes Him less than Perfect Good. I get that. But why should we accept the definition? Though our Lord Jesus didn't declaim much on the subject, He did say of the devil, "When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44, NIV). Taking our lead from that, can't we say (if we have to say anything about it at all)that evil is, not the absence of good, but a lie in the face of good? If, further, we say with I John 4:16 that God (perfect Good) is Love, then how does suffering take away love? Don't get me wrong. I don't care for suffering and would avoid it if God allowed. However, I have been in too many funerals to believe that grief destroys joy (another subject, I guess), and likewise I don't accept the equally shallow notion that suffering destroys love. If anything, it deepens it. Suffering at the hands of evil may deprive us of bodily health, earthly peace or human life etc., and these are gifts of the Good God, but that doesn't make any of them a Good; it makes them effects of Good. Am I chopping logic, or is this a valid distinction? C) While we're on the subject of logic chopping . . . Weinandy of course agrees that Christ suffered in the body. Since he denies that His divine nature could suffer, he has to limit His experience of suffering to His human nature with no overflow into the divinity. While he may deny that this amounts to a split personality in our Savior, and I can't prove otherwise since neither of us really knows what he's talking about on this subject, it seems awfully acrobatic to me. I distrust theological acrobatics; besides, I'm in creaky middle-age, and I avoid any acrobatics that are not absolutely necessary. D) Despite Weinandy's insistence that the doctrine makes God's love for us greater, not less, it still seems to me that the love he's talking about is what Bruce might call a one-sided giving of gifts. He does not just divorce God's love from human love; he divorces God's love from what He tells us love is in the Bible. Having said all this, I must admit that the main thing that keeps me from believing in God's love is none of this theological folderol. It is simply that I can't see Him with my eyes or hear Him with my ears. What a weak, fleshly, deceived creature I am. How much I need to be strengthened with God's power through His Spirit in my inner being so that Christ may dwell in my heart through faith. How much I need God's power to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ (Ephesians 3:16-19). My own power will never do it. It's been a few weeks since I read Weinandy's article. If I misremembered him somewhere, please let me know. God Loves You, Rev. R J Long Further thoughts on God's loveIf a person conceives of God as pure non-corporeality, then it would be understandable to question the meaning of the statement "God is love". After all, the variety of emotions we experience are responses of our biological bodies to any number of things or circumstances around us. For instance, I may feel deeply sad because a loved one died. I may also feel nearly the same way when I haven't had food for a day or two....or maybe too much in an hours time!! Yet, some may feel that the death of the loved one is the non-material self responding to an abstract notion (death-ness, let's say) which then triggers the biological response. Ok, well and good. However, a rose by any other name... My thought on this is that the physical absence of the person (their voice, appearance, smell, ect.) accompanied by the notion of not experiencing that person again is what accounts for the grief and it's biological origin. But I leave that open for further thinking on my part. But so what? Contemplation of the origin of feelings helps no one who is actually suffering "real" loss; whatever that loss might be. And a starving man cares as much about Platonic dualism as the convinced physicalist philosopher or neuro-scientist. Unless, mana from heaven were hidden in the depths of Plato's cavern. But I reserve great doubts about that. And if God remained in a completely incorporeal state then I too would despair of God being "love", whatever else His nature may be. Because His lack of knowledge-by-acquaintance (to borrow Russel's terms) of my flesh and blood existence, existence drawn out at times by suffering, loss and eventual death, God would be untouched and unable to empathize with my sufferings. He may know in an indirect way that I suffer but not what it's like to suffer. This leads to the real meat of this great topic and a great segue into mentioning Christmas. "God is love" is made tangible , fleshly and realized only by the fact that "God became man". A man who lived life breathing the air we breathe. A man who ate plants and animals that we eat. A man who was loved. A man who was hated. A man who had been sad, depressed and in lonely places. A man who got hungry, thirsty and tired. A man who had seen and lived in the presence of the unaltered love, joy and care of His Father and then came to walk a mile in our shoes...nay, many millions of miles in our shoes. And not so He would know what it's like to live in depths of misery like us...but rather, to taste this misery and then gloriously take our hands and lift us up to the heights where He is and always will be; both our body and soul. Which isn't just heaven but God Himself, who is heaven. And if we haven't experienced the love of God or the fullness of the love of God yet, then remember that Love Himself knows what you're going through. There is no feeling you have felt that He hasn't felt too. No hurt that he hasn't hurt. Anything a man can suffer, He has suffered. And when the time is right, by the mercy of God, we will experience the fullness of the love of God. And it's no wonder that Apollonarianism was condemned as heresy. For while it rightly acknowledged the divinity of Christ, it utterly abandoned the humanity of Christ, the heart and soul of Christian hope....along with humanity itself. greatgreat site increase semen volume cnc lathe gas bbq powdercnc lathe |
What is the Mars Hill Club?The Mars Hill Club is a group of Christians who meet to discuss various issues that pertain to the Christian faith. While the meetings are run and moderated by Christians, everyone of any faith or persuasion is invited to come and join in the discussions. No questions are refused or ignored. Answers In ActionRecent blog posts
Recent comments
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
|
Comment
There are many websites that advertise that they are outlets for coach purses outlet but in many cases are just selling used or imitation goods. You may be able to send them back but who needs the hassle. At the same time many sites advertise that they do not allow the selling of imitation merchandise . coach handbag has yet to be proven how they insure that the product you buy will truly be an authentic juicy bags product.