I have grown weary of hearing that “love is love” and we should just accept the phrase (and its ramifications) as it is. The use of the Bible to support the Alphabet People’s propaganda is even more tiresome. They glean passages from the NIV Bible and then wonder why some consider the argument false. The use of this propaganda has led to lesbian women presiding over the pulpit. This is unacceptable for many reasons, but the narrative and argument are built on a false premise.
The Alphabet Peoples of the world have fundamentally distorted the relationship of love and God. I have heard the argument many times of, “How can you deny that these two individuals love one another? Would you deny them love?” This is usually followed up with the Bible verse, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” (1 John 4:8 KJV). I will usually respond with something along the lines of adultery can be considered “love” under the same rules, but it is still a sin. There are several paths the conversation can take from there, but that is possibly for another article. There have been many arguments made for allowing sinful nature in the Church based on the misunderstanding of what love is.
I will admit that many of the statements regarding love and God in the Bible would confound me as a child, because I thought as a child. Even in my teens and early adulthood this bothered me. I could not understand how God created the flood and also the concept of love. When I became a father, I began to understand this concept on a much different level. As a father, it is my duty to correct my children, and this came from a place of love. Loving them is making sure they have what they need and not what they want. I didn’t stop loving my children because I punished them; I punished them because I loved them and needed to teach them how to behave. This small revelation alone starts to change one’s thinking of what love is.
The next two statements are the same passage in the Bible, but one is from the New International Version and the other from the King James Version. While they mean the same thing, they are not read or interpreted the same. This is the beginning of the issue:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 NIV
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.
1 Corinthians 13:4-5 KJV
In Greek, there are many words that are approximate to the modern, English-version of “love.” “Agape” is brotherly love, fraternity, and charity. As Thomas Aquinas put it: to be good to one another. “Eros” is intimate love or the sexual feeling of love. “Phila” is love between equals or could also be considered respect. “Storge” is an indication of natural, familial love. “Philautia” is self-love or taking care of yourself. Finally, “xenia” is guest love or hospitality. None of these ancient terms mean a blanket expression of universal approval.
So, with six different words combined into one word, it is obvious that it can be misunderstood. Not to mention that the majority of the arguments from the Alphabet People equates love to a simple, ambiguous feeling, and not as a defined verb or noun. This is why their argument is false. This is the myth that they live under and the way they try to make others feel guilty for their nonacceptance.
Do not fall for this trickery, the false interpretation of the Bible is why no one should feel bad for not accepting their false “unions.” They should feel shame for their sin, just as other people do or should. This is not discrimination or bigotry. These are simple facts, as I pointed out earlier, I have grown weary of the misinterpretation of “love” being used as a justification as to why their opinions should be accepted.
Teach a man to fight, he can win a battle.
Teach a man to write, he can win a nation.
No offense, but KJV-Onlyism is retarded. And the NIV is a better translation than the KJV. Especially because it relies on the superior majority text, rather than the TR, which is flawed. You can make an argument against the “love is love” idiocy. But using KJV-onlyism to do it is pure absurdity.
Sage you call the Bible retarded.You go and believe your modernist NIV gender neutral product of the Jew loving evangelicals.Do you kiss your NIV each night and thank it for telling you that the Satanic Jews are the chosen people.You make me sick.You are either a Catholic,Holy Roller or Israel worshipping evangelical.I’ll stick with my King James Bible just like all my Protestant kin have for centuries.”Oh my NIV is so modern and magical,its so Jewish and hip”
I didn’t advocate onlyism, what I did say is a false argument is built on a misunderstanding of love, the quotes used come from NIV. I read NIV because it is easier, I study in the KJV because it is correct. I also pointed out the Greek definition of love. NIV really allows for many misinterpretations, due to combined meanings.
Don’t worry about the troll Mr Aldrich,the Tel Aviv hasbaras are just putting in a little overtime.Excellent article and I would just add that God gives us discernment so that even if we cant find the right words or reference we know in our hearts what is right and wrong.This Jew society is 100 percent evil,everything they push is filth and in opposition to God.I see these modern churches with their weird music and spooky lighting and background and effeminate pastors with muscle shirts and I know without a doubt that it is not right.We all know feminist women and people fawning over pets is not the society God ordered.We must trust our discernment,it is God’s gift to us.I reject and condemn all of this stuff that is forced upon us by the enemies of the Cross.We must not lose heart even when it seems hopeless.Christ is King and the victory is already won.
The Christus states that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin… end of debate.
As a father, it is my duty to correct my children, and this came from a place of love. Loving them is making sure they have what they need and not what they want. I didn’t stop loving my children because I punished them; I punished them because I loved them and needed to teach them how to behave. This small revelation alone starts to change one’s thinking of what love is.
I arrived at this place many years ago. But I must ask the question that became evident to me: How can the Good Father (surely a better Father than I) consign His very own to an endless tormenting torture forever and ever and call it “punishment” (and a teaching experience) and still call that Love?
Me, as a Father, would never under any circumstance torture my child.
Nor would my Father.
Maybe people should also do a deep dive into the 3 Greek words (all meaning different things in the Greek) for “hell”, or the words for “everlasting”, “forever and ever”, etc. Maybe even look up the word that Jesus used when he said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me” and see how the Greek word for “draw” is used in every other instance (it is no ‘wooing’ as some seem to claim, but a direct actionable word more aptly translated as “drag”).
I believe I have an answer, but please expound on your question.
Are you referring to Hell as the forever and ever punishment?
My question is really rhetorical, because I know the answer.
Standard preacher-eze says that if we don’t “accept” Christ Jesus as Savior, we will suffer an endless torment in “hell” (Arminianism). Calvinism claims that God chooses (the Elect) whom go to heaven or hell (this is certainly NOT a ‘Good Father’ who would do to His children what I would NEVER do to mine.
At least Arminianism gives a guy a chance. Calvinism makes God out to be a monster, in my estimation. Jonathon Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a very old Calvinistic writing. Edwards, to me, is a monster in the image of his monster God.
The third basic theology contained is Universalism, in which God sent Jesus to be the ‘Savior of the World’ and, by God, He succeeded. It is why I point out the difference in ‘helkuo’ (the Greek word normally used as “drag” or “draw”, as in drawing a sword from a scabbard: ie, the sword has no choice) but is watered down when it comes to what Jesus was meant to do.
Even when you look at the words that are translated forever, ever and ever, etc. They are all adjectives from a word that has a beginning and end (an ‘aion’). Yet they transform the adjective to endlessness.
It is really basic grammar stretched for the fear factor.
So, does God consign His children to an endless tormenting suffering in ‘hell’ because they didn’t choose Him (or worse, because He elected some and others He created for torture in the end)? Or did God, Omniscient, Omnipowerful, and Omnipresent have a plan that fails for most of His creation?
I have been kicked out of churches for asking these questions. I’ve been told by my own mother that I will go to hell because I ask these questions. She is obviously a Christian, but as I have explained to her judgmental ass that if being a Christian means I have to be like her, I would rather be a heathen.
Protestantism is retarded and the Protestantism Reformation lead to the Enlightenment and then the Secularization and death of God in the West. If you disagree with that then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
There’s an element of truth in what you say that has even been conceded by some thoughtful Protestants without surrendering an intent on their part to destroy the social fabric of the West. Groen van Prinsterer in “Unbelief and Revolution” wrote:
“The basis of church polity [was] that, according to immutable divine ordinance, jure divino, the Christian community of saints must have the supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs. [This] was extended, especially where the church was exposed to persecution by the state, to the proposition that the community of the saints, the people of God, possess the God-ordained supreme power in general, hence also in the civil order, and therefore have the right, nay the duty, to depose, bring to trial, and punish kings who resist God’s commandment. To this extent it is plausible that Calvinism, or Protestantism, contributed to that “practical turn of energy” whereby natural law ended in the doctrine of Rousseau and of the Revolution.”
@German Confederate, thank you for that sir. This is why I’m glad I’m Eastern Orthodox in our tradition we had neither a reformation or enlightenment. God Bless !!
So after capitalist infiltration got all the peasents riled up in Russia for their workers paradise and obliterated the Russian nobility and the Orthodox Church, and replaced both with Jews or Jewish shills, like the first metropolitan of England after WW2 Anthony Bloom, whom Russian emigres called Commisar in disgust, for fighting for the Reds in WW2, and you think your church was never reformed? The Catholic Church of Spain was never reformed outside of becoming a Christian Nationalist nation, where the Spanish clergy led the charges against those Red demons in the Spanish war, with no small help from Germany and Italy.
The enlightenment brought us to this point to be sure, along with the orthodox churches, whom are corrupt to the core as all the different denominations, held together by globo homo or using Christ as a commissar himself for a controlled burn and for all sorts of nefarious reasons to hold power.
The enlightenment brought us the declaration of the rights of man whom our ancestors here on ID fought and died for to bring the City of God into the future, don’t blame the enlightenment on our troubles, the fact remains, Orthodox Christianity failed east and west, because the occidental people were not Christian, at least a major segment of their populations were dissatisfied with their station in life.
I Don’t mean to punch right, but the enlightenment was inevitable.
Love is Health, God Bless the South.
LOL nice deflection bro. You clearly don’t know what the hell your talking about. I’ll stand by my statement the Protestant reformation was the opening of Pandora’s box which in turn led to the Enlightenment, which in turn led to the secularization of the West. It’s been downhill since the Reformation. The bottomline is the reforms was schism and sinful, and the West has suffered ever since. Per declaration of rights and City of God is Secular Protestant BS. The only form of government approved by God is an absolute Monarchy. The divine system is Symphonia like the Byzantine Empire was. That is the only divine model for church and state. Anything less is a wast of time.
https://youtu.be/i3JFNn7ESbM
https://youtu.be/HyHWa_6-t1M
https://youtu.be/0rt4V3JQ8Yc
https://youtu.be/1BqKe5M9mEw
The city of God I referred to is a famous book written by St. Augustine of Hippo.
What was Peter the Great doing rubbing elbows with the Reformers in Holland?
All I said was the Russian church was certainly reformed.
As above as below. Divine right kings. I get it. Heaven on Earth.
I’m not deflecting anything, and obviously you don’t know $#!+ from shinola, The city of God was written by St. Augustine of hippo around 400 AD. Not the shiny city on the hill you hear braying all the time by Yankee jackass politicians.
All I said was Holy Russia was in fact reformed, why was Peter the great in Holland rubbing elbows with the Reformers? Czar Paul 1 and his trading company? Alexander 2 and Russian ships protecting Yankee harbors during the second revolutionary war?
As above as below, divine right kings, I get it.
I learned several new words just now: Storge, Philautia, and Xenia.
Printing this article up