Jesus Loves Me - This I Know

Love, isn't it wonderful? Jesus loves me. That's awesome. Of course it is, but what is love?


What does "Jesus loves me" really mean? The word "love" gets tossed about quite a bit in this culture, and it doesn't always get used correctly.

In his book, "The Four Loves," C.S. Lewis discusses four greek words for love: Storge, Phileo, Eros, and Agape. Each are different, of course, and each are very valid. Storge is basically natural affection, phileo is brotherly love, eros is romantic love, and agape is the type of love that we are to have for everyone. Although each type of love is different, they must have some commonality to be called love at all. There may even be more types of love than this, but it also must have the core components of love to be correctly entitled love.

I would say that the core component of all the different types of love is agape love. If there is a type of love which does not include agape, then it is a cheap imitation, and not true love. For instance, if a man rapes a woman because he eros-loves her, then he does not really love her. Obviously, a person who agape-loves someone would not violate that person like that, and therefore that man, who lacks agape-love, also lacks true romantic love.

Now, love is probably one the most complex topics of all time. There is no way to fully describe love with words. I do not claim that I can fully describe love. However, I do think that it ought to be possible to describe some sort of working definition of love. It is possible and reasonable to be able to claim that "this is love" and that "that is not."

As a side note, I would love for you to all first read this blog: (Link) I wrote this blog about love, and it gets more in-depth than I will right now. Right now, I will chose to mention only a minimal set of core requirements for love:

_______________________________________________________________
What is love?

To love someone is to delight in them.

Proverbs 3:12
"For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights."

To love someone is to want what's best for them.

Romans 10:1
" Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved."

To love someone is to actively help them get what is best for themselves.

James 2:16
"And one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

To love someone is to show tough love, not just spoiling them.

Proverbs 13:24
"He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

That's right, when I speak of love, I'm not talking about some sort of wishy-washy liking of someone that prompts one to spoil them. No, I am talking about that intense, fearful, powerful love that God has for us when He insists that we cannot come to come heaven as we are, but must die and be reborn. I am talking of a love that everyone wants, but no one wants to experience. You must even love yourself enough that you don't let yourself slip into sin and accept your own excuses. [Important note: just as a father who disciplines a son should challenge him, and keep him accountable, he is not to be verbally abusive or overly harsh.]

Love fights to defend the loved one from harm:

Isaiah 1:17
"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow."

To love someone is to teach and guide them.

Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it."

To love someone is to be concerned with their physical well-being.

Matthew 25:44-46
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’"

In this sin-cursed world, love suffers:

John 11:35-36
"Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, 'See how He loved him!'"

Love does not harm to neighbor:

Romans 13:10
"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

_________________________________________________________________
All of this is pretty obvious and straightforward. Those who love you and gentle in rebuke when they can be. When we love someone a lot, we delight in their presence when we can; when we cannot, we wish that we could. We want what is truly best for those that we deeply care about: we are not apathetic when they get themselves into trouble. We provide help, and not just wishes, when we really love someone. True love is when you defend people against the sin in their lives, rather than just sit idly by. It is a very known principle that tough love is love, while enabling is not. If someone loves you, they will defend against those who try to hurt you. Someone who loves you will, if push comes to shove, give you the coat off their back. When someone claims to love you, and then does you harm, it's obvious that they are not being loving.

Finally, love wants betterment and closeness even when it's obvious that it will never happen - yes, love often is irrational to "want" something it knows it will not ever see. If I saw a robber getting ready to hurt or kill you, I would not want you to hurt or die, even those I might know that I could not stop him.

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell." - C.S. Lewis

_______________________________________________________________
And now at last, we reach the questions that I brought up at the beginning.
Does Jesus love me?
Or, of more importance to this discussion, does Jesus love you? Does Jesus love everyone who sings that song? Does Jesus love everyone? Does the Bible really say so?

1. God loves all people
   

   John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
   

2. God doesn't just love... God IS love. God cannot NOT love.

   1 John 4:8 "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

3. To love someone is to want what's best for them.

   1 Timothy 2:4 "Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

4. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life...

   1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

5. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung...

   Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

_______________________________________________________________
Yes. Jesus loves each of us. The Bible DOES tell us so...
"And anyone who says otherwise is selling something..."

Now, there is this particular theory going about nowadays that Christ did not die for everyone: that not just anyone can be saved, that God offers salvation to save, and not to others, that God created some people as vessel of destruction to condemn them to hell. What determines if God died for you, or made you to burn? Some "unconditional" reason, whatever that means. These people will say that God condemns people to hell justly for sin and for unbelief, while claiming that they were unable to anything but sin and disbelieve.

These people will say that:

• * God condemns people to hell for not achieving the impossible.
• 
  
• * God could save extra people at no additional cost to Himself, but for no obvious reason, decides not to.
• 
  
• * God created some people and decreed that they sin, so that He could punish them, and thereby demonstrate His awesome wrath and justice.
• 
  
• * People, who you love enough to give your life for, are going to be burned alive for eternity, because of nothing they have control or influence over.
• 
  
• * God does this out of true and sincere love for those people

I understood it all until that end part. See, me personally, I would call burning people alive for not achieving the impossible "NOT love." The reason I would call it not love is because I have carefully defined love from the Scripture, and that does not seem to fit the definition at all. If anything, it seems the opposite of love. Even in human terms, if a parent slaps a kid for not achieving the impossible, we would not call that love. It would be abuse. If a fireman ran into a burning building, because two people were in there, and only rescued one of them when he could have easily saved both, no one would call that love. It would be even worse if the president had decreed that they should be in that building, and then told the fireman not to save both. And yet, we are told that God does this? And that it still counts as love?

God Forbid!

Love seeks the betterment of the person being loves, even tough love does. How is condemning people without a chance seeking their betterment? Like I said, from the Scriptures: Jesus loves each of us. Really and truly, not in some mystical "burning people alive is a beautiful example of love, it's just a different kind of love" way.

[Note: I do believe in hell. I also believe that Christ bled and died so that people would not have to go there. To twist His character and say that He was not willing to die for them, or even to offer a bit of grace, but rather decrees that they should burn, according to His good pleasure, is unbiblical nonsense. Love seeks the betterment of the person loves. Christ loves us and sought our betterment.]

God Hates People !?

God Loves Everyone

It seems quite clear that God loves everyone from no matter which way you look at it. For instance, I love my brother, my neighbor, and my enemy.

Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you..."

Is it possible that I love anyone more than God does? I would say that it can't be! He is love, and all love that I have comes from him.

1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

If there is someone that, because of God's command, I love enough to give my life for, is it possible that God loves them less than I do? Do I have love more powerful or perfect than God's love? Of course not! In my last blog, I also put forward several verses which say that God loves everyone.


___________________________________________________
Now let's put forward a shocking fact: God hates people.




That's right. I didn't say that God "loves the sinner, but hates the sin," I said that God hates some people. I'm not making this up; check out these verses:

Romans 9:13 "As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”"

Psalm 11:5 "The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. "

Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look, A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren."

In those verses, God says through His Word that He does not just hate the sin, He also hates false witnesses, Esau, and those who love violence. God's Word cannot lie. Notice, though, that unlike the hatred that we often have for people, God only supports perfect hatred:

Psalm 139:21-23
"Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies."

___________________________________________________
What is this hatred?
What is this perfect hatred? Why is David allowed to have perfect hatred, if we are to love both our neighbor and our enemy? Isn't that impossible? Is the Bible contradicting itself?

Some would put forward the idea that "hatred is opposite of love." I don't think that definition holds much truth. I heard just the other week, in a sermon, that "the opposite of love is not hatred, it's apathy." I would have to agree with that. Apathy is not love; it is not anywhere near love...

1 John 3:17 "But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

Whereas "love-hate" relationships are quite easy to find. God loves the world, and God hates the wicked, but nowhere does the Bible say that God is apathetic about any of them. If the Bible said that God loved all, and was apathetic about some, then that would perhaps be a contradiction. But that is not what the Bible says.

When we say "hatred," often we mean "a lack of love mixed with animosity and hostility toward another person; a desire to harm them." I admit that this is an oft-used definition. However, is that really the type of perfect hatred that God has? That would definitely contradict the passages about God loving people.

Let's look at the Bible at face value, and look at the implications:

• Fact: God loves the world. (John 3:16)
• Fact: God hates some people. (Ps. 11:5)
• Logical conclusion: God's perfect hatred can happen at the same time as love.

The idea that hate and love perfectly can, and must, walk hand in hand may seem odd or strange to you, and so before going on with more arguments, scriptures, or proofs, I will take a moment to paint a word picture for you. A picture painted by G.K. Chesterton which shows this unique relationship being seeming opposites.

"Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing--say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful...

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises--he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things. What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world...

No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself."

___________________________________________________
Examples:

I really do relate to that one line: "Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?" This really is what God does, and has done. Let me give an example:

1. God hates the wicked.

   Psalm 5:5 " The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong."

2. I was one the of the wicked.
   

   Romans 1:30 "...backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents..."

3. In His hatred, He also loved me enough that He was willing to die to me so that I would no longer be one of the wicked.

   Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

In our own humans minds, we may see some sort of contradiction here. If you hate someone for being wicked, how could you also love them enough to die for them? That is God's perfect and gracious love for us. If God loves people enough to die for them, how could He condemn those who choose to remain wicked to hell? That is God's perfect hatred. There is no contradiction. The cross is where God's perfect mercy and justice were both perfectly fulfilled. Is it so hard, then, to see that God's perfect love and hatred could both be perfectly fulfilled?



Example: As christians, we are commanded to love all. We also commanded to hate some. Logical conclusion: Biblical hatred can happen at the same time as love.

Romans 13:8
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

[Also see Luke 10 for clarification about who our neighbor is; who we are to love]

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

The common interpretation of this "hate" is that Jesus is saying your love for Him must be so great that your love for others seems closer to hate in comparison. Notice that this hatred can and should happen at the same time as love. For he who does not love his brother is in the darkness until now.


Another Example: David was a man after God's own heart, and thereby we infer that he followed the two greatest commandments, and also hated people with "perfect hatred" without being reprimanded. Logical conclusion: Biblical hatred can happen at the same time as love.

Acts 13:22
"And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’"

I maintain that although the Bible says that God loves and hates, it does not contradict itself. I maintain that as christians, we are told to love and hate, and yet are not commanded a contradiction. I could be entirely incorrect and confused here, but it seems to me that we are called to love God above all, and to hate(love less) people while loving them enough to give our lives for them. It seems to be very possible for David or God to hate the wicked with a perfect hatred while loving them passionately. It seems to me that God hates the wicked with passionate hatred, while loving them (including me here) enough to die to pay their penalty, and make them into a new creation.

God Hates People !? [Part 2]

In a recent blog, I put forward the idea that God agape-loves everyone. In my most recent blog, I put forward the idea that God agape-loves the people that He perfectly hates. But, some people will say, if God loves those who He hates, what about the vessels of wrath? What about Esau? God never seemed to want their betterment, did He? What of the infants who God commanded the Israelites to kill? How can you call that love? Does that not prove that God not only hates, but also does not love some people?

Well let's take a look at each set of verses... _____________________________________________________________
"Jacob I loved, Esau I hated."

This verse is obviously painting a contrast here, but there are several biblical interpretations which put forward the idea that God still agape-loved Esau.

1 - The word for hated, in this case, means 'loved less,' as in the case where Jesus told us that we must hate our father and mother, wife, etc. He clearly did not mean that all married christian men should stop agape-loving their wives, but rather that our love for them should pale to hate in comparison for our love for Him. That was a comparison, a contrast, similar to the one in this verse. We take things in context, and do not forget about God loving the world, not wishing for any to perish, and being the very essence of love. Esau was "hated" and yet was lovingly blessed by God in an amazing way, as we read in Genesis 36:

“Esau took his wives and sons and dautghters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all he other animals and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan, and moved to a land some distance from his brother Jacob. Their possessions were too great for them to remain together; the land where thy were staying could not support them both because of their livestock. So Esau (that is, Edom) settled in the hill country of Seir.”

2 - Esau was "hated" and not preferred. His line was not the chosen line to bring Christ into the world. That is clear. However, there is no Scripture that states that He was among the non-elect. Like Lot and Ishmael, he did not receive the promise and did not settle in the promised land like God’s chosen had. God hates the wicked, and yet some wicked are saved. God hated Esau, and yet who is to save that Esau was not, in the end, saved?

3 - God loved Esau, as He loves the world, and yet hated Esau for not even valuing the things of God. (EI - He did not value His birthright, etc) God blessed Esau, and offered him the birthright, out of love, yet hated him and did not pick him to father the Christ. Perfect love and hatred go hand in hand and there is no contradiction.

I will not say that one is correct and another is incorrect. I feel that based on other passages about Esau, interpretation number two is less likely than the others, but I do not know for sure. However, each of these interpretations lines up with other scriptures about God's love, and therefore I believe that they are more likely to be correct than interpretations which seem to directly contradict God being love.


_____________________________________________________________
Infants were killed by God in the flood. God killed the first born sons of all of Egypt. God commanded the killing of women and children by Israel.

I'd like to add three comments to these facts:

1 - Do infants who die go to heaven or hell?
Some would say that all infants are in sin, and therefore all aborted babies go to hell. Others say that if a child is too young to believe, he is too young to disbelieve or reject the work of Christ and is covered by the blood of His sacrifice. A third theory is that before or during death, God mercifully and supernaturally grants infants enough awareness and understanding for them to decide for themselves whether to trust Christ or not. (This theory also extends to children and adults who are so mentally retarded that they can never understand the gospel on their own)

I am not affirming any of these theories at the moment, although I do tent to believe that either the second or the third seems more in line with God's revealed loving character. However, this does lead me to believe that the infants lost in the flood, like the infants today, were not neccesarily doomed to hell. Considering that the pre-flood society only thought of evil continually, odds are that those children would have been abused in many ways, and it is very arguable that God taking the lives of said infants was an act of mercy on them.

2 - To destroy wicked societies was an act of deserved judgment on the last itself, and an act of mercy toward the other societies, including His own people. God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell.

Genesis 15:16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society.

3 - God said He would not destroy Gomorrah if there were but ten righteous people there. He's not into hurting innocent people for fun. Another notable example of this principle is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed. God was completely patient and just in condemning those cities, He saved even gentiles out of those cities who believed, He waited until they were intensely wicked, and then destroyed them as an act of mercy to the rest of the world, not necessarily condemning the babies to hell. Based on that, I would say that those verses do not prove at all that God does not love some people. Rather, I think it proves that God is not some sort of wimpy nice guy, but a consuming fire of good. I maintain that the Bible says that God loves the world, and getting rid of perverse societies like Sodom and Gomorrah that tried to rape any visitors does not prove that God is not loving. If anything, it would not have been loving for Him to let those bad guys continue to exist and hurt other people.


_____________________________________________________________
Why did Jesus deliberately NOT pray for "the world" if God loves it so?

There can be many theories here. I mean, the fact is, Jesus didn't tell us specifically why He prayed only for the elect.

However, one cannot contend that this verse proves that God does not love the world. For instance, suppose I kiss my husband, and do not kiss other guys. That would not mean that I do not love other guys enough to run into a burning building to rescue them. It merely means that I love my husband more, in a different way, and that I am focusing on him. Suppose I buy gum for Lizzy, and not for Marcos. Does that mean that I do not love Marcos? No, but I enjoy Lizzy's company more, and the action of buying gun is specifically for Lizzy because Lizzy loves gum. Suppose I jump in front of a bullet to protect Linda, and as I do so, I am thinking about how much I love Linda. Does that mean that I do not love David? Of course not. It merely means that as I was risking my life to protect a person I loved, I was thinking about that person in particular.

Jesus was about to die, and He prayed especially for those who He knew would benefit from His death. This does not at all prove that He did not love them or want them to be saved, on the contrary, we know from 1 Timothy 2:4 that He desired that all men should be saved. It may suggest that He enjoys hanging out with elect more, that He loves the elect more or in a different way, or that He is focusing on the positives of the whole painful death senario.

Hebrews 12:2 "...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Jesus died for everyone (2 Pet. 2:1), but the joy set before Christ was the salvation of the elect. He set His mind on that, while sweating blood. No surprise there. If I were about to die for people, I would definitely choose to focus on the ones who would actually benefit from it, and who would hang out with me forever later. Christ died to provide salvation for all, but only to procure salvation for the elect.


_____________________________________________________________
And what about the "vessels of wrath made for destruction"?

Alright, first let's read the vessels of wrath verse with the comparison verse also:

Romans 9:22-24 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory."

Here you may notice that God actively prepares the vessels of mercy. The ones that "He had prepared." In contrast, in relation to the vessels of wrath, all God does is endure them for a reason. "Now in the Greek you have two serious distinctions here in the Greek tense and you must recognize them. I should say in the Greek voice which is similar to English. You realize the difference between active and passive? In active, the subject does the acting and in passive the subject receives the action. Now notice, verse 22 is a passive, vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. God is not the subject. The verb is passive. Verse 23, vessels of mercy which He had prepared to glory. God, there, is the subject and the verb is active." The vessels are wrath are prepared, but not by God. God endures these dreadful vessels. Why does He endure them rather than destroying them instantly? So that He might make known the riches of His glory!

These verses do not at all suggest that God makes people, and then prepared them for destruction, and then enacts His fearful wrath on them. Rather it suggests that God endures these dreadful vessels, which are prepared by themselves and/or the devil, because He has a greater plan in mind.


_____________________________________________________________
Doomsday:

Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. "

This is quite similar to the above verses, except that the subject is God's active creation. Why did God create the wicked? He could have easily foreseen all who would pursue wickedness and reject the offer of salvation, and just not create them! The world would be a better place! Why didn't He? God, knowing the wicked, still choose to create them along with the rest of us. Why? He did not make them for us, but for Himself. He allows the actuality of wickedness so that wickedness will finally be punished. He created the wicked, but He did not cause them to be wicked. Jesus died for all, and yet knows who will reject the offer of salvation. This verse offers insight into why God, knowing what they would do and choose to be, would still create them at all.


_____________________________________________________________
In conclusion, I love all these verses. I think that each is true, and very important. However, I believe that the point of each of these verse is not the idea that God does not love some people. I do not see that any of these verses prove that God does not love everyone.

Nothing is Unconditional

I woke up the other morning with the thought it my mind that nothing is truly unconditional. Nothing has no conditions at all. Same with the word "all;" it always means "all within these certain parameters." Think about something unconditional. Let's suppose that I say that I unconditionally love everyone. That would simply mean that I love people with who meet these conditions:

• -They must exist
• -They must be people
• -I must be aware of their existence

Wow - three conditions! Whatever happened to having no conditions? Can anything truly have no conditions whatsoever? I cannot think of anything that has no conditions whatsoever. If any of you can, then I'd love to hear about it.

So then, if nothing actually has no conditions whatsoever, then what is the difference between conditional and unconditional? How could we define the terms so that we can practically use them? It would be pointless to define a word as something that does not exist. In fact, that is why I object to defining "free" as something more than even God has, for He is the most free being of all. What is the actual difference between what we call unconditional, what we call conditional, and what we call random?


_________________________________________________________
Unconditional: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is enacted for all those who are eligible, whether or not any other conditions are met.
Example: Unconditional love
Core Conditions to determine eligibility:

• -Must Exist
• -Must be Human
• -I must know of their existence.

I will love everyone who fulfills these conditions, and will not cease to love them because of any other conditions.



Random: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which are designed to be most like non-conditions.
Example: A raffle
Core conditions to determine eligibility:

• -You must exist
• -You must be human
• -You must be at a certain event
• -You must be capable of getting a raffle ticket
• -You must choose to get a raffle ticket
• -You must obtain said ticket before the raffle begins
• -You must not get caught cheat

When all those conditions are met, perhaps twenty people have raffle tickets, but perhaps there is only one prize. I must select only one of the eligible people, so I add some more conditions, which are similar to non-conditions.

• -You must have a ticket that does not have the same number as any one of the first seven tickets I pull out of my hat and rip up
• -You must have a ticket that does not have the same number as the next five tickets that I burn
• -You must have a ticket that has the same number as the ticket on the top, right-most section of my hat that I pull out

If you meet all those conditions, which are designed to be arbitrary and unlike meaningful conditions, then you will get a prize!

This is what we call random. Programmers also design "random number generators" which cannot actually generate a number based on no condition whatsoever, but can be programed to pick different and unpredictable numbers every time by programming several conditionals which are dissimilar to normal meaningful conditions.



Conditional Based on Factors You Cannot Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which they cannot determine.
Example: Racism
Core conditions to determine eligibility:

• -You must exist
• -You must be human
• -I must know of your existence

There are many people who fulfill these core conditions, but I don't want to persecute all of them. So here are some added conditions to narrow it down; conditions which they have no influence or control over fulfilling:

• -You must be mainly a different race than I
• -You must obviously be that race
• -I must have a feeling against that race in particular

If an eligible person fulfills those conditions, through no power of their own, they will receive free persecution from me.

Now, as an added note here, not all offers that are Conditional Based on Factors You Cannot Determine are morally wrong. For example, I only date guys. That is condition based on something people have no control over, and yet it is morally right and fine. It only becomes unjust or unkind when the offer is negative or hurtful. For instance, if I punch every guy I meet, that would not be right anymore.


Conditional Based on Factors You Can Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which they can determine. [Yes, this operates under the assumption that a person can determine stuff. A person is a free agent and determines his or her own choices]
Example: A Sale
Core conditions to determine eligibility:

• -You must exist, be human, etc
• -You must be selling a product that I want
• -You must not be charging more than I am willing to pay
• -I must not be aware that you are untrustworthy

Still, even if I want to buy something from you, and am willing, based on those conditions, I will not give you money until you fulfill a certain additional condition that you can control:

• -You must give me the merchandise

Only if you choose to fulfill that condition will I give you money.

As an added note: Not all conditional offers are just and kind either. If I shoot everyone who gives me merchandise, that it conditional based on something they can control, and yet is not just or kind.


Conditional Based on Factors that I Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which only I can determine.
Example: Hypnosis Show
Core conditions to determine eligibility:

• -You must exist, be human, etc
• -You must be attending my show

Now there are a lot of people attending my show, but I only want to hypnotize some of them. So I choose that I will only hypnotize the ones that fulfill this one final condition:

• -They must be pointed at by me

And only if they meet that condition will I hypnotize them. The problem with this type of conditional offer is that it doesn't actually tell us anything. It only begs the question: What were the conditions I used to choose who I picked?



_________________________________________________________
So there you have it. Those are the four true types of offers, and one false type. It's all very interesting to be sure, and I hope I didn't make it too confusing.

So now the question of the day:
Which category does the offer of salvation fall under?
Which category does election fall under?
Hmm....

Murphy’s Laws (and other universal rules)

1. Nothing is as easy as it looks.
2. Everything takes longer than you think.
3. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
4. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.
   
5. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
6. If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
7. If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
8. Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
9. It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
10. Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
11. Every solution breeds new problems.

• Opportunity always knocks at the least opportune moment.

1. The other line moves faster.
2. Don't try to change lines. The other line -- the one you were in originally -- will then move faster.

1. An object in motion will be heading in the wrong direction.
2. An object at rest will be in the wrong place.

• The number of people watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your action.

1. If you keep anything long enough you can throw it away.
2. If you throw anything away, you will need it as soon as it is no longer accessible.

• If everything seems to be going well, you've overlooked something

1. All's well that ends.
2. A penny saved is a penny.

1. No mission is impossible for the officer doesn't have to do it himself.
2. In any mission, once you have exhausted all possibilities, lost most your men, and failed, there will be one solution, simple and obvious, highly visible to everyone else who wasn't there at the time.
3. Allies come and go; enemies accumulate.

1. Those who have the shortest distance to travel invariably arrive latest.
2. No matter how long or how hard you shop for an item, after you've bought it it will be on sale somewhere cheaper.
3. The longer ahead you plan a special event, and the more special it is, the more likely it is to go wrong.
4. The distance you have to park from your apartment increases in proportion to the weight of packages you are carrying.
5. In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.
6. In the fight between you and the world, back the world.
7. Men and nations will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted.
8. After a salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you had before.
9. The more a recruit knows about a given subject, the better chance he has of being assigned to something else.

1. You can throw a burnt match out the window of your car and start a forest fire, but you can use two boxes of matches and a whole edition of the Sunday paper without being able to start a fire under the dry logs in your fireplace.
2. Children have more energy after a hard day of play than they do after a good night's sleep.
3. The person who buys the most raffle tickets has the least chance of winning.
4. Good parking places are always on the other side of the street.
5. Those whose approval you seek the most give you the least.
6. And lastly, after all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done!

Patience is Happiness

Patience is a virtue

I am quite sure that many of us have at some point been impatiently waiting for something, and then been informed that we should be more patient, that "patience is a virtue." Patience is a virtue, of course. This is particularly meaningful to me because I know that virtues are good, and that good things are generally awesome. Good things are not usually just barely scraping by as good. When properly understood, good things are obviously seen to be the most useful, most enjoyable, and most exciting things out there!

This is especially true when it comes to the virtue of patience. Now, many times, the idea of patience doesn't sound very awesome. Patience brings to mind lines, traffic jams, and painful people situations that we are somehow supposed to get through, gritting our teeth, without complaining. All of which does not sound at all enjoyable or amazing. The way I see patience, in general, gritting teeth is a lot more like impatience!

Let me share a hypothetical example:

Jenny and Jane are both standing in a long line at the post office, and Jane is ahead of Jenny in line. Now Jane is standing there, very aware of the seconds ticking by, trying very hard to be patient. She keeps trying to be patient. She continues to try to be patient about this. She is having a hard time not feeling just a bit impatient, considering that the post office employee is moving particularly slow today. Jenny ponders whether she will somehow become a more patient person because of having to practice all this patience in this trying situation. Finally, it's her turn, and she is happy.

Jane is texting her friends while standing in line. She's texting at least three of them: two girl friends and one guy friend. She is enjoying herself immensely and inadvertantly laughs at one of the messages, causing other people to stare at her breifly. Jane doesn't really mind at all, and texts back an equally amusing message. Suddenly she realizes that she has to stop texting because it's her turn at the counter, and so she puts away her phone and switches her attention to the post office situation.

Which person would you say was more impatient? I would say Jenny. But how can that be, since she was trying so hard to be patient? Well, I'll explain my thesis in a moment, first I will give my own personal definition of patience:

"Patience is happiness NOW. Impatience is putting off happiness until I get what I think I want."

Read that again. It always sounds funny and confusing the first time. Patience is having happiness right now. Patient people are generally pretty happy. Things just don't get to them the same way. They see rush hour traffic as an excuse to relax and listen to their music before getting home to more work. They enjoy the motions of doing dishes - it really isn't that stressful, and actually can be quite therapudic! They focus on what they have, not what they don't have, and that focus allows them to be happy, because they always have great things! What do I mean by that? I mean that as christian, we have everything we need! God is taking care of us. We also have His love and presence, which means that if we don't have a cell phone and we are standing in a line, we can chat with God!

Focus on the future of the future is pretty awesome too. Knowing that no matter how badly this life goes, we have heaven, we can always switch our focus from what we think we want to what we already are promised. To me, it never gets tiring to think about heaven. I am definitely going to ask God to set up an awesome paintball field and play paintball with me and some friends. Of course, I'd also like it if He agrees to have some handicaps so that the game lasts longer than 2 seconds. Think of a cat, patiently stalking the hideout of some mice. The cat is unaware that he is being patient; he's way too busy thinking about those little mice...

An impatient person, on the other hand, is generally unhappy. That kind of person equates what they want, or the future, with happiness, and refuses to feel happiness until they reach that goal or that point in time. What is the point of that? There is no point! I think the only reason they do that is because they do not know a better way. Either that or perhaps they are too lazy to go to the effort of finding happiness now. It isn't always the most natural thing to do, you know. That reminds me, I should definitely mention that when I say that patience is happiness, I do not only mean happiness in the brittle and insubstantial sense of the word. When a situation is very trying, one generally needs the type of happiness that is only found in God - a happiness that is better described as a deep-seated peace and piles of true and contagious joy.

______________________________________________________________

I realize that adventure is slightly off-topic, but at the same time, it is somewhat related. What is a true, exciting adventure? Doesn't it usually involve some sort of danger? Doesn't it usually contain some sort of trying circumstance? Doesn't it sometimes involve fear or pain? Peaceful circumstances that are completely under our control, have no danger, and require no toughness generally don't count as adventures. At all. Adventures are pretty awesome: they are exciting to live through, and they make a great story later on! One time, me and mom defined adventure, unofficially, as this:

"An adventure is when you have an absolutely miserable day, but when you get home, it makes a great story!"

Now notice very carefully that I did not say that all miserable days are an adventure. Some are just miserable. It is the miserable days that later make great stories that are true adventures. An adventure usually also requires skill, determination, or intelligence - it tests just what you are made of. Most people don't really enjoy the test at the time, but later love to look back and see that they were tested and had what it took to survive! Those are the miserable days that make great stories. Those are the adventures of a lifetime! When I get into tough situations that require loads of patience, I think of them as adventures. I think of being in the future and looking back at them as adventures. We can all think ahead to being in heaven and looking back at the adventures of today. Speaking of which, I wonder if, while in heaven, we'll be able to watch the alternate endings... hmm...

______________________________________________________________
Anyway, patience and perseverance are virtues.
Therefore, I exhort you all to go out! Live life! Enjoy yourself! Be present in the moment! Be truly and deeply happy! Pursue joy and peace! Go and have the adventure of a lifetime!

Don't forget to thank God for the adventures, the troubles, the patience-producing situations. Then, if you are having a hard time not complaining, then pray and ask God to infuse your life with an extra measure of grace, patience, joy, and peace. He's the one who makes life awesome, and He loves to help those who ask for it! God Bless!

"Objections to Calvinism" By R.S. Foster

[The following is an excerpt from "Objections to Calvinism as it is," published in 1849. This is taken from the conclusion of the second chapter.]


7. I object to the system further as involving, by inevitable consequence, a most dreadful aspersion of the character of God. It gives me no pleasure to prefer such a charge as this against a system, many of whose advocates I dearly love and greatly admire; and I will say, much less does it give me pleasure to find so much evidence that the charge is well founded. But I do so, Doctor, that you may see how other minds view your system, and that you may disabuse them if in error.

(1.) The system holds, as I think has been clearly shown, that God is the sole, original, voluntary author of sin, that he chose its existence when as yet it did not exist, and decreed it when, but for his decree, it never could have been, thus declaring that he preferred some sin to universal holiness--if, indeed, his own decree was his choice--thus insulting the purity and holiness of God, making him not, indeed, the most holy, but the only unholy being in the universe, the cause and source of all impurity as he is the cause of all creatures.

(2.) It asperses the goodness and benevolence of God and invests him with all the attributes of sheer cruelty and maliciousness, because it holds that he made the universe as it is, and, for his own pleasure and glory plunged it himself into all the miseries, temporal and eternal, which it endures or is to endure. It will not do to tell me that these miseries are the just punishments of sins, for you told me he caused the sins; and if he caused them and damns the universe for them, it renders the cruelty more revolting.

(3.) It asperses the justice of God, for it tells me that God will destroy many of his creatures in hell forever with unimaginable torments for not performing absolute impossibilities and for doing acts which were utterly unavoidable--acts which he himself caused. What would be the difference between consigning innumerable beings into hell forever who had never put forth a wrong volition or performed a wrong action, and making them by omnipotent agency first perpetrate these wrongs, and then, upon this pretense, damn them, as supposed in the former case? Can this be just?

(4.) The system asperses the truthfulness and sincerity of God, making him to pretend to be of one mind, when he is precisely of an opposite--clothing him with all the loathsome proofs of trickery, and hypocrisy, and duplicity for the purpose of deceiving his hapless creatures as to his own character and the reasons of his conduct in respect to them. It arrays his secret and his revealed will in unavoidable and open conflict, the one in unmitigated opposition to the other. He commands one thing, and wills precisely another, enjoins upon certain creatures to do those things, which he not only knows they cannot do, but, also, what he does not will they should do---nay, what he wills they should not do. It puts in his mouth the language, "I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," when, in fact, they die for his pleasure--makes him to plead and remonstrate with them as if he would dissuade them from their sin and ruin, when in fact he is the very being who urges them irresistibly on to sin and ruin. He commands one thing and decrees precisely the contrary. He commands the sinner to repent, but decrees he shall not.


8. "God, from all eternity, freely and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Now look at this: If true, then God foredetermined, purposed and appointed when as yet there was nothing, and when nothing ever could be without his decree, all the events, acts, volitions, and things of every kind, that ever have been from the foundation of the world or ever will be throughout eternity--all things, great and small, true and false, consistent and absurd, bad and good, pleasant and disgusting. No contradiction, but what he decreed it. He appointed in a way that the event must answer the decree, and so because decreed, that all the contradictory views extant in the world should be entertained just as they are--that there should be Atheists, pantheists, Deists, infidels, Jews, Mohammedans, Pagans, all grades of idolaters and errorists, all varieties of Christians, and sects of philosophy. And these cannot but be, because they were decreed from eternity. One man was to pray, another blaspheme, another lie, another rob, another murder, another steal, another commit arson, incest, adultery--one deceive, another be deceived, and all because it was decreed from eternity. All thoughts, all words, all desires, all purposes, all volitions, all acts from first to last were decreed by God, and in such a way that the event must answer the decree. Now, all this is true, or else Calvinism is false; for Calvinism says, "God, from eternity, freely and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass." Everything was included in God's plan and brought about by his decree. Doctor, do you believe this?


_________________________________________________________________
Amazing book! Very long, and very clear. If these sentiments do not seem to make sense, it is only because I have taken them from the conclusion of a very long chapter which clearly covered the points in much more detail earlier. It does employ some old-fashioned language, but it well worth the read. This guy is a hundred times more logical, precise, and clear than I am. Also, he constantly quotes calvinist books, so that it is plain to see that he does not misrepresent their position, while I haven't read half of what he has.
Objections to Calvinism