In the Old Testament, we can see several places that portray God as the most gracious and the most merciful. However, when God accompanied the Israelites to their promised land, he said that he would destroy the seven nations of that area (Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites) so that the Israelites could take their place. Why does God love the Israelites so much that he can also show his mercy and love to all the other nations and people he created? Are only Israelites entitled to his love, and not modern-day Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, then why did Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses? (In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.") Are other people not worthy of God's love?

Does it mean to love others? Does it mean to pray? Does it mean reading the Bible? What are more ways I can love Him?

Jesus taught the message of ***love*** when he told the disciples to let the kids come to him for to such innocent children and child-like people the kingdom of God is theirs. Jesus was a man known to hang out with people society deemed bad like; 1. The woman caught in adultery 2. Zachaeus the Tax collector 3. He was crucified in the midst of two thieves 4. Tolerated Julius's lies, stealing, and other sins even as it directly harmed His mission and His disciples. Does His example require us and all we love to risk increase crime, sickness, poverty, homelessness, further loss of our once Trusting society, neighbors that hate our society, resent and hate us, cripple public services, drive down wages, .., for the vane disOrdered unJust unTrue destructive false display of virtue? So, when a ruler like Trump gives out an order to build a wall, is he acting out of prudence, in Protecting and Providing for the Nation as in a father-like Duty, or with a similar spirit that incited the disciples to prevent the kids from coming onto Jesus? How would Jesus guide President Trump in this issue once he takes Office? Jesus sought to welcome people from all walks of life, because he loved everyone, would He shun from erecting structures such as walls that 'seem to' divide rather than unite people? | little kids | immigrants | | -------- | -------------- | | The disciples tried to block their access to Jesus physically |leaders block their access to America by ordering a wall constructed | Provide biblical references and-or any Chrisian sect's Doctrines that best supports what is the correct response to our open-boarder situation as it stands today.

A) Scripture says no force or power can separate us from the Love of God. > "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39 B) Some Christians are more separated from the love God (i.e. they love God less than others). If nothing can separate us from God, then why are some Christians more separated from God's love? What is the deciding factor in how much we love God? I suppose the non-Calvinist response would be "our will": Our own love of sin / self-will is what separates us since God's love for us does not change. ### Possible answer(?) Some people have a different level of Faith (from God) > "as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. - Romans 12:3 and more/less Sin > "He who is forgiven much loves much" Luke 7:47 However, scripture says faith comes by hearing: > "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17 This seems to put the burden back on people to decide to "listen" or "sin more" which isn't inline with Reformed theology.

If God is omnipotent (Psalm 115:3), then God is immeasurably perfect in every way. I feel that "human" or "human-like" emotions would detract quite a bit from divine perfection, but does God also love all his creations? Romans 9:13 mentions God's hatred for evil, which he sees in Esau, whom he also hates. I understand that God did not directly create evil and sin and it was only a consequence of free will. Even so, the Bible said that God hated not only his actions but he hated Esau himself. 1 John 4:16 (ESV): > So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. God is love, but God is also the embodiment of everything, including hate and other antonyms of love. God is everything because God created everything, and everything he has created is an extension of him (Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, we can not answer the question well without defining "perfect" first. I have always thought of perfection *not* as the absence of imperfection but as the acceptance and inclusion of everything that makes it. But that is not everyone's definition, especially not how the Scriptures define it (Deuteronomy 32:4). Assuming my opinion is true, there's a straightforward conclusion to God's perfection: God's perfection would include all of his "imperfections," making him perfect but also humane. But in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), he is described as divine without human error. If God were a perfect divine being, how would he feel? Or have any emotions at all? If God is a divine being, I can't understand how he would feel, including his love. (I apologize in advance if my question isn't framed very well, i'm not very used to translating my thoughts into coherent questions 😅)

I just finished watching CosmicSkeptic's video titled [Christianity's Biggest Problem](https://youtu.be/5KDnnp0sDkI) , in which Alex O'Connor, the owner of the channel, presents the problem of animal suffering as the biggest objection to the belief in a loving God. In particular, he refers to the kind of animal suffering which cannot be attributed to a human cause, and therefore, cannot be "explained away" as the consequences of humans freely choosing to do evil against animals. The following are examples of non-human caused animal suffering: - An animal agonizing for hours before dying because a tree unexpectedly fell and broke one of its legs. - An animal burning alive due to a natural wildfire. - Animals causing suffering to each other due to predator-prey dynamics. - Animals suffering due to natural disasters in general. Are there Christian philosophers who have attempted to reconcile the belief in a loving God with the existence of non-human caused animal suffering? What would be some examples of these attempts of reconciliation?

Actually me and my girlfriend are in a relationship from 7 months. But the problem is we are from different religions. We can't lose eachother. As I know I worship the True God Jesus. According to the bible, Can i Ask God to Reveal Himself to her, Change her and save her so I can marry her? Can it be true??? Does the bible approve this kinda prayer?

In [Luke 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014%3A26&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. In [Matthew 22:39](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+22%3A39&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. My understanding is that Jesus did not hate his parents. He did not live like he taught. I have never been told to hate my parents or myself by a spiritual director. They told me the opposite. In Matt 22:39 Jesus said that we should love our neighbours as thyself. But in Luke 14:26 Jesus says that you are supposed to hate yourself. This is confusing to me. I have been told that according to St. John Paul II's Catholic Philosophy, the opposite of love is not hate but use. **How does the Catholic Church reconcile both verses?**

Looking back at church history, the Universal Church has failed miserably at keeping Christ’s command when it comes to all Christians. > A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35, ESV2016) Jesus’ statements are clear unless one seeks to put a limit to God’s love as the lawyer responding to Jesus: > But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29, 2016) To which Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, from a group the lawyer hated, and concluded: > Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36–37, ESV2016) In case that isn’t enough, Jesus said, > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,… (Matt. 5:43–44, ESV2016) We as Christians need to repent for how we have treated one another and how we have treated non-Christians, especially about our past history where Christians have gone as far as burning people at the stake for disagreeing with our particular beliefs. **While this extreme isn't present today, still the lack of love often is present today. This is a stark contradiction to the New Testament.** How will people know that we follow Christ if we do not love one another? While we as individuals are not responsible for the sins before we were born, should we not be clear to all people that we acknowledge as abhorrible those sins of the past done as a group under the same name we are under today? Those sins were stopped by government mandate rather than repentance. Some forms of fascism would like to bring some of these sins back.

OK, so to start, I searched this topic on the exchange and found no answers that were satisfying. I am not questioning God, I just have a hard time coming to terms with why bad things happen to the innocent. For instance, a mother through no fault of her own can't afford to feed her babies and has no means to do so except strip or other unsavory actions. Or, a young person who by all observable means did nothing to deserve developing an addiction to heroin. Even with charity, and the good things Christians do, people will inevitably fall through the cracks. How is this fair? I know that God given free will plays a part, but if God saw the way these people, for better or for worse grew up, how can he still put them through unspeakable hardship, when they did nothing to deserve it? I feel this question doesn't need references to prove what I am saying, all you have to do is look at the state of the world. These things happen on a daily basis. I ask because, I feel bad for these people and it is causing my faith to falter. I apologize if this doesn't meet the standards of the community, I did my best to adhere to them.

According to the hymn *The Love of God *, God's love "reaches to the lowest hell": >**The love of God** is greater far > >Than tongue or pen can ever tell; > >It goes beyond the highest star, > >And **reaches to the lowest hell** Does the Bible teach anywhere that God loves those in hell? We know that at present, God loves sinners and wants them to repent, but what if they never repent? Does the Bible ever address whether God will still love sinners even after they are cast into hell?

> Hosea (NLT) > > 1:2-3 When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he > said to him, "**Go and marry a prostitute**, so that some of her children > will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has > acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping > other gods." **So he married Gomer** daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and > bore him a son. > > 3:1 Then the LORD said to me, "**Go and love your wife again**, even > though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate > that the LORD still loves Israel, even though the people have turned > to other gods and love to worship them." Did Hosea fall in love with the prostitute or he was simply forced to marry her? Was God forcing Hosea to love her? Is it even possible? Did Hosea really fall in love with her ultimately?

Jesus was raised as a Jew in a Jewish culture. All Jewish male children, starting at age 5, were taught the Torah and were required to memorized parts of Torah, along with how to read and write. After a period of time, after the boys were familiar with the core essentials of Judaism, some of the boys would be recognized as superior in intelligence and they would continue in study, with the idea that they would become a rabbi, a teacher of Scripture. The other boys would be released to return home and learn the trade of their fathers. According to Scripture, we know that Jesus was an exceptional student and had a superior understanding of Scripture, Lk 2:40,50 and Lk 2 46-47. Since there was no "New Testament" at that time, everything Jesus knew and taught came straight from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, we see that God only loved the Jews and any Gentile that became a proselyte. There is not one verse in the Old Testament that states that God loves/loved all people. Beyond that, the Old Testament also teaches that there are certain types of people that God hates: - Psalm 5:5-6: The foolish will not stand in thy sight. You hate all workers of iniquity. You will destroy liars, He will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. - Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord tests the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares, fire and brimstone. A horrible tempest will be their portion... - Proverbs 6:16-19: the proud, liars, murderers, those who devise wicked plans, those who are quick to do evil, false witnesses and those that gossip (with the intent of causing chaos or spreading lies.) Jesus did not come and proclaim "new teaching.": - John 17:6: "...My doctrine is not mine, but he that sent me." - John 8:28: "I do nothing of myself, but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." - John 12:50: "...Whatever I speak is what the Father said unto me." - John 7:28 "...I have not come in my own authority or will..." Since Jesus only taught from the Old Testament, God never changes and there is no Old Testament teaching that God loves all people, is it even remotely possible that Jesus would introduce a completely new and strange teaching that contradicts what God clearly laid out in the Old Testament?

To some people, and even to Christians at times, it seems difficult to believe that the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos likes or feels affection for humans personally. This was the topic of a recent question addressed to the Catholic perspective. I would specifically like to ask: what is the biblical basis for the belief that God's love for people includes a genuine individual affection?

For context, I'd recommend reading first the answers to [*What exactly would count as a "positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship" between a person and a God?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105869/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. --- The phrase *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* appears in the context of the atheistic [*Argument from Divine Hiddenness*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/) : > (1) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite > persons as there may be.
(2) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves > such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite > person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a **positively** > **meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship** with S at t.
> (3) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is > at t open to being in a **positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious** > **relationship** with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and > time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of > nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
> (4) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that > S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to > the proposition that God exists.
> > ---- > > (5) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 1 through 4) > > *(Source: Howard-Snyder, Daniel and Adam Green, "Hiddenness of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. > Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = > .)* From a Christian standpoint: - Does the idea of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God align with Christian beliefs? - Is it a fundamental expectation, by principle or definition, for all Christians to cultivate a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God? - Can the notion of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* between an individual and God be articulated in a manner that better aligns with Christian theological principles and terminology? - Are there specific ways in which God is expected to *talk back* to Christians, assuming the existence of *two-way communication*? - Similarly, are there specific ways in which God is expected to *intervene in reality*, assuming the existence of a *two-way interactive relationship*?

Matthew 5:44 KJV >But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; In Buddhism, it is taught that you should love your enemies because, at some time in the infinite sequence of rebirths, it was certainly the case that your enemy was once your mother. Therefore, hating your enemy is as irrational as hating your mother. This isn't a true explanation, but it is a rational justification for loving your enemies. But in Christianity, everyone is an atom created by the Creator, completely detached from everyone else. In light of this, **why is it rational to love your enemies?**

The New Testament is _very_ clear that Christians should love their enemy and turn the other cheek. Similarly, Christians should defend others and stand up against injustice. These things are _somewhat_ at odds. An idealised Christian behaviour would be to accept mistreatment of _oneself_ over harming their enemy, and easily forgiving grievances. But what about harming "the enemy" who is mistreating someone else? As far as the end result is concerned, should a Christian harm "the enemy" attacking some other "innocent party", so as to protect the weak, or stand by, out of love for the "enemy"? Should the Christian do the minimal harm to the enemy that pushes against the immediate danger to the "third party", or go further than that, seeking more long-term security to the "third party"? Should a "Christian defender" easily forgive crimes committed against the third party out of love to "the enemy", or pursue them to correct the injustice, in favour of the "third party", causing harm to "the enemy"? Defending "the innocent party", or more broadly pursuing justice, may require doing a lot of harm to "the enemy" (think, for example, in the cases of armed robbery, or intervention in an unjust war), how should a Christian balance these responsibilities? I'm most interested in a Catholic perspective, but any Christian perspective is most welcome!

I have found it difficult to understand precisely what Reformed circles mean in the "doctrine of Limited/Definite Atonement / Particular Redemption". Descriptions or statements of the doctrine are often a bit vague, and can vary to some extent among those who identify as proponents of the doctrine; and I think the lack of clarity is not helped when theologians seemingly employ the Fallacy of Equivocation when attempting to logically justify their positions. The "doctrine of Limited Atonement" is typically expressed/summarised something like as follows: "Christ **did not die for everyone**, but only for the elect; and this death for His elect purchased for them actual redemption as opposed to the mere potential for redemption." My main question is how this vague preposition "*for*" is meant to be interpreted in the sentence "Christ did not die **for** everyone". I can think of several senses in which this could reasonably be intended, and I am wondering if it is intended to be interpreted in all of these senses. If not, then surely those who use this phrasing need to add caveats that preclude reasonable but unintended interpretations. In other words, they surely have to be willing to say that, *in some senses*, Christ *did* die for everyone. **Question:** Is the statement that "Christ did not die *for* everyone" in the typical Reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption intended to include all of the following aspects of how His death could be regarded as not being "dying *for* everyone"? In other words: How many of the following five statements would a typical self-identifying adherent of Particular Redemption be willing to affirm? **Regarding the pre-eternal plan of atonement:** 1. [Particularity in underlying motivation] The motivation behind God giving Christ as an atonement for sin (as in, e.g., John 3:16) did not include: (a) salvation-desiring love *directed to humanity as a whole*, i.e. a corporate love upon the race of descendants of Adam leading to a general desire for salvation of its members; nor (b) salvation-desiring love *directed personally to each and every sinner* that would ever live. Rather, the salvation-desiring love that motivated God's plan of atonement was exclusively in connection with His elect people throughout the world (both corporately and individually). 2. [Particularity in intended purpose] The aims that were in view in the plan of atonement did not include opening any kind of *potential* to every person to have their sins propitiated in the atonement. The aim did, however, include ensuring that all the elect would have their sins propitiated in the atonement. **Regarding the substance of the atonement:** 3. [Particularity in the actual exchange] Christ's sacrifice was of infinite value, sufficiently great to be able to pay for all the sins ever committed. Nonetheless, the wrath under which Christ suffered was not wrath against the collective sin of the human race, nor did it include God's wrath against all sin ever committed by humans. It consisted exclusively of God's wrath against all sin that was against the account of elect people. 4. [Particularity in those to whom a channel of redemption was opened] Just as Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to angels that have sinned, so likewise Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to unelected people. The only *legal possibility of justification* that was created by the atoning work is that which was also *guaranteed* by the atoning work to be realised. **Regarding the command to trust Christ for salvation:** 5. God has placed a moral obligation on all people, elect and unelect alike, to trust in Christ for forgiveness and redemption from their sins through His death. This moral obligation does not contradict the unavailability in actual substance of a channel of redemption to unelect people, since in God's design only elect people will be brought to obedience to this moral obligation. Of course, I recognise that the answer to my question will not necessarily be uniform among all those who profess to hold to Particular Redemption, or even among all those who are willing to use the phrasing "Christ did not die for everyone but only for the elect". But perhaps there is a general trend/most common position among self-identifying adherents of the doctrine? Or not? **Some additional context:** Another possible view, which I suspect that some self-identifying "five-point Calvinists" hold to, would be something like as follows. - *One major and central facet* of the atonement is that, by God's design arising from His love for the race of descendants of Adam, **Christ, in His death as a Man, died sacrificially as a Representative of mankind before God, thereby legally purchasing the availability to all men and women of having their sins exchanged for Christ's righteousness**, if they will only repent and trust in Christ. - *Another important facet* of the atonement is that **when God in eternity past set affection on all those whom He would in due course call to Himself, He designed that Christ would die as a propitiation to "buy their forgiveness" in the sense of buying for them the actuality that their sins are no longer held against them**—this forgiveness coming into effect through the repentance and faith in Christ that God in due course grants them. I suspect (but am not sure) that John Piper holds to a view approximating the above pair of points, and that he regards the earliest 'Calvinists' of the Reformation as also having held to something approximating the above pair of points. But in opposition to this, it seems that many Reformed theologians find objectional *any* concept of "payment for sin" whereby the availability of forgiveness can be purchased for people who will not ultimately be forgiven.

This question is mainly to the evangelical Christians and Bible believing Christians, who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love. The Old Testament is filled with accounts that describe how God poured out His wrath on people, including His chosen people, the Israelites. However, when we read the New Testament particularly the life, teachings and message of the Lord Jesus Christ we don't see the outpouring of God's wrath on people. Instead, we read about God's grace, mercy, and love. How do we square these two seemingly opposite manifestations of God's nature?

According to [Psalms 63:4](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/psalms/63) in the NAB: > For your love is better than life; my lips shall ever praise you! Now, according to the commentary contained therein: *For your love is better than life: only here in the Old Testament is anything prized above life--in this case God’s love.* Does anyone know if this is gloss is true? That is, is there another instance in the Old Testament where something is considered to be *better than life*? Because of some other (questionable) commentary I have seen in the NAB, I am skeptical; and so, I am posing this question. Also, it seems that the words "love" and "mercy" may be interchangeable, as the word "mercy" is used in place of the word "love" in the Douay-Rheims Bible--Psalm 62 (Vulgate numbering).