The Law of Love

Blog

  • different golden rule standards in the bible

    are there different standards of the golden rule? or different standards for how to treat others, according to Jesus?

    Matthew 7

    “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

    Matthew 22 

    “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

    when i think of treating others as myself, i think of what is mine is theirs such as they can have everything i have. when i think of treating others as you’d have them do unto you, i think of ‘well i don’t expect people to give me everything of theirs so it shouldn’t be expected for me to give everything’. 

    these seem like different standards.

    of course, it’s possible to read one as if it’s the other, but which interpretation is best? i do know Jesus said to give away all that you own if you want to be perfect. i dont know if he was talking to just that person’s calling in life, or if it’s a standard for everyone, but it’s usually treated like a standard for everyone. so maybe ‘love as oneself’ is best? people tend to not take the ‘give it all away’ thing too seriously, and even if it’s serious, it’s temperered with the practical concern of being able to support oneself. 

  • chicken or egg came first? i argue the egg came first

    science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it?

    the lithmus test to define chicken should be that any ancester chicken that can successfully breed with a current chicken, is a chicken.

    so which came first? the egg. if you go back in time we will find the first closest relative chicken that can mate succesfully with a modern chicken. that first ancester chicken came in the form of an egg. it is impossible to know which chicken came first as we can’t for a practical matter mate all ancesters with all modern chickens, but in principle we know that there is an ‘earliest chicken’ and that it came in the form of an egg. 

  • penal substitution theory based on the bible is probably rooted in paganism

    penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don’t have to die as your sins are “covered”. 

    the problem with this idea is that it didn’t originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called “christus victor”. Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn’t orthodox. 

    what about old testament sacrifices, were they to appease God’s wrath? nope. they were a means of saying “i dedicate what i have to you, and turn myself over to you”. here is a good quote that shows the true basis for old testament sacrifices and how it ties to Jesus’ sacrifice. 

    “In all of the sacrifices, the central theme is not appeasement, but representational consecration. That is, symbolically through the offering the worshiper says “this offering represents my giving to you my life”, or as you might hear in a love song “God I belong to you, here is my heart”. It is not a statement of placation (as if God needed to be bribed into loving us), but an act of devotion, entrusting oneself to God, giving your life into God’s hands. In the case of the thanksgiving and first fruits offerings it means that all that we have comes from God and so with these first fruits we acknowledge that it all belongs to God. The passover offering was about the birth of the people of Israel and marked the time of the exodus of God’s people out of bondage, so the passover offering was about committing and aligning oneself on God’s side against oppression. Finally along with all the other sacrifices the sacrifice of atonement for sin was saying “Here is my life, I want to live it for you Lord. I die to the sinful in me and give my life to you”.

    In the same way blood was sprinkled to dedicate the temple, and dedicate the law to God. This was the case with the Passover sacrifice which originated as the people marked their house door showing their allegiance with God, consecrating their house as belonging to the Lord. Thus Jesus when he connects his death with the Passover speaks of a “Covenant” being established by his blood “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Lk22:20). It was the sealing of a promise, like signing a contract in blood. We can see here that whether a sin offering, or a thanks offering, or a dedication that in every case there is the common theme of consecration – dedicating to God. This sense of consecration is conveyed in the Latin root of the word “sacrifice” which means “to make sacred” or “to consecrate”. We give ourselves, our lives, our need, our thanks, our allegiance to God vicariously through the ritual of sacrifice.

    There is here the aspect of identification with the animal – you bring a part of yourself to the altar, in many cases laying a hand on the animal’s head before it is slaughtered. Specifically in the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement we can see also an aspect of transference as the scapegoat was sent off bearing the sin away (Lv 16:21-22). And as previously mentioned there is here a clear aspect of vicarious atonement specifically with the sin offerings – that animal that died was you. The consecration here meant that the sinner brought their broken life to the altar Yet in all of this the writers of the Old Testament are emphatic that the main object of sacrifice is not about a mechanical transaction detached from relationship, but the outward ritual effecting inner change, devotion, and repentance. As David says

    “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean wash me, and I will be whiter than snow…Create in me a pure heart, O God…” (Ps 51:7,10)

    David’s prayer here is that the outward cleansing of the hyssop would go down and cleanse his inmost being. God, David says, is not interested in outward actions, but in the state of his heart. This is a relational exchange not a legal one.

    “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:16-17).”

  • there probably wasn’t a literal world wide flood based on the bible

    just because the bible says so, and God can do anything?

    when miracles occur, i believe there is evidence for it. with the story of noah, it’s not just the lack of evidence, but evidence exists that actively discredits the story. 

    if the story of noah occurred within recent history or thousands of years, how are there so many cultures who look like they evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, when supposedly they were all wiped out recently?

    how did all the fresh water fish and life survive when all the water combined with the ocean?

    how did kangaroos and island animals get to the ark? 

    why isn’t there any fossils of the mass casualties of life on earth?

    why wasn’t there any imbreeding with only one of each animal?

    how did they fit so many animals on one boat?

    is it all just because the bible says it, and God can do anything, that we should take it as true? the new testament does talk about noah as if it was a literal story, so at least if you believe the bible is the word of God, you can’t just say the story was a metaphor. 

    i believe when miracles occur, there is evidence for them. it’s understandable when a christian doesn’t think much about these things and takes the story as true. but for those who have studied or should know better, it stands as contemptable the disdain for truth that those literalist christians have.

  • is the love of god in the bible unconditional?

    is it really conditionally unconditional love? which is really conditional love. 

    is it just unconditional if you are a christian? how far would that go? supposedly you can’t slip up if you are a christian, but then again if you started sinning seriously people would say you were never saved to begin with. so whether you look at this from catholic or protestant type thinking, there are things that can cause you to lose God’s favor. 

    even if it was unconditional as a christian, it’s still conditional on having the proper faith in Jesus. 

    is God’s love based on whether you are good or bad? 

    my personal stance is God loves unconditionally, but that the bible does not truly reflect that in an ideal way. i think you can salvage the bad depiction from the bible, by saying God loves us unconditinally, but that doesn’t man there aren’t consequences to our actions. 

    —-

    We’re asking a deeply important and nuanced question—one that sits at the intersection of theology, experience, and how we interpret the Bible. Let’s unpack this honestly and clearly.

    ❖ 1. Is God’s love unconditional according to the Bible?

    Short answer: Yes—and no, depending on what you mean by “love.”

    • Yes, in essence: Many verses affirm that God’s love is steadfast, enduring, and not based on merit.
      “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8
      “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end.” — Lamentations 3:22
      These point to an initiating, unearned love—God loves even when we’re not lovable.
    • No, if love means relational favor, blessing, or salvation: There are clear conditions attached to aspects of God’s relationship with people:
      “If you love me, keep my commandments.” — John 14:15
      “Remain in my love… If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love.” — John 15:9-10

    So: God’s love is offered unconditionally, but relationship, intimacy, and communion with Him are conditional.

    ❖ 2. Is it “conditionally unconditional”?

    That’s a sharp phrase, and it captures the tension in Christian theology.

    • Many Protestants say God’s love is unconditional, but access to its benefits (like salvation) is conditioned on faith alone.
      • But then, if someone “falls away,” it’s said they never had true faith.
      • This makes it seem like a love offered with open arms—until you fail the entrance exam.
    • Catholics and Orthodox also speak of God’s love being unconditional.
      • But salvation is synergistic—you must respond, cooperate, stay in grace.
      • Mortal sin, unrepentance, or rejecting grace can sever the relationship.

    So yes—there’s a conceptual dissonance: we’re told the love is unconditional, but much of the experience and consequence of it is filtered through conditions.

    ❖ 3. Is God’s love only for Christians?

    • The Bible shows God loves the whole world (John 3:16), and Jesus speaks of loving enemies, implying that reflects God’s nature (Matthew 5:44–48).
    • But again, the full relationship is only experienced in Christ, according to the New Testament.

    So the offer is universal, but participation is particular.

    ❖ 4. Is God’s love based on behavior?

    • If by “love” we mean God’s core posture toward humanity, then no—it’s not based on being good.
      • Jesus came for sinners, not the righteous (Mark 2:17).
    • If by “love” we mean favor, blessing, presence, or relationship, then yes, our actions matter.

    This is key:

    God doesn’t stop loving someone who sins. But sin can estrange us from the experience and fruit of that love.

    ❖ 5. Your view: Unconditional love with consequences

    Your take is both emotionally and theologically coherent:

    “God loves us unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to our actions.”

    That aligns with a parent-child analogy:

    • A parent may love their child fiercely and unconditionally,
    • Yet discipline them, grieve their choices, or allow them to suffer natural consequences.

    The Bible, unfortunately, doesn’t always clearly distinguish between God’s love, favor, wrath, and justice. It often blends them together. That’s why some depictions of God in Scripture seem contradictory or even unloving.

    ❖ Summary

    Is God’s love unconditional?

    At its root, yes—but not all its expressions are.

    Is it “conditionally unconditional”?

    That phrase accurately captures the tension in much Christian theology.

    Is it only for Christians?

    No—but full communion with it is conditioned on faith, per Christian doctrine.

    Is it based on being good or bad?

    No for God’s core love; yes for relational depth, blessing, and consequence.

    Is your view biblical?

    It’s supported by the best of biblical theology, but not always by the surface narrative of Scripture

  • federal debt may not be that bad, just an accounting thing

    i personally believe too much debt is bad. but this guy below has another argument. it’s over my head. i think there’s some truth to what he says, but i don’t know. i know there are a lot of people smarter than me here, so maybe one of ya’ll can argue with what is posted below.

    Is the natinoal debt and deficit bad?
    Nowhere do these CRFB folks define what the National DEBT is.

    They don’t know.

    Yet, they screed about it as if they do.

    Our national debt is comprised of Treasury securities purchased by individuals firms and governments domestic and foreign who wish to preserve the value of their dollars.

    Ergo, the transfer their non-interest bearing dollars from checking accounts to purchase interest-bearing Treasury securities.

    The dollars used to buy the T-securities go into reserve accounts at the Federal Reserve and the T-securities are kept in security accounts at the Federal Reserve.

    In no way can these purchases (exactly like your purchase of a CD) be construed as debt.

    Interest is credited to T-security accounts by debiting the aforementioned Reserve accounts. No tax dollars are ever involved in paying interest on these SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    The DEBT CLOCK on 6th Ave, NYC is pure fraud. It does, however, record all the dollars that have been spent by the Federal government since 1778 and not yet taxed. The $20 trillion-plus represents our National Savings.

    Government debt is a private asset. You and I do not OWE government debt, we OWN it. Indeed, the only source of net dollar-denominated financial wealth is Federal government T-securities.

    Here’s a solution. Once the federal T-security sales reach $21.1 trillion, the Treasury would be prohibited from selling any more bonds. Treasury would continue to spend by crediting bank accounts of recipients, and reserve accounts of their banks. Banks would offer excess reserves in overnight markets, but would find no takers—hence would have to be content holding reserves and earning whatever rate the Fed wants to pay. But as Chairman Bernanke told Congress, this is no problem because the Fed spends simply by crediting bank accounts. (L. Randall Wray) https://goo.gl/m9hdQW

    https://goo.gl/NCKV1E
    https://goo.gl/nTxJRH
    https://goo.gl/FQanLC

    As for the Federal Deficit, they WRONGLY believe the Federal deficit is a bad thing.

    They are completely unaware of the fact that wherever there’s a deficit there’s a surplus … balance sheets must balance. A sovereign government deficit is nothing to fear. It is simply the mirror image of the non-government sector’s saving. As the US private sector retrenched to rebuild its balance sheet, the government’s balance moved toward deficit. There is an unrecognized identity at work. Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Government Balance + Foreign Balance = 0.

    In the case of the Federal budget deficit, it is equal to the penny to net financial surpluses in the non-government sector.

    That’s money in our checking accounts.

    When the gov spends that becomes income to individuals and firms in the private sector. It’s the new money that enters the economy interest-free and is essential in its contribution to economic growth. https://goo.gl/Fq9fKD

  • solving hunger – we should promote ocean and insect farms

    ocean farming. we have vast swaths of unused ocean. sea weed, fish, mussel etc. i read that an area the size of the state of oregon could feed the world, so we have basically unlimited potential. plus sea weed captures a lot more carbon than trees do. 

    and insect farms are super energy and resource efficient and gives lots of nutritious food with high protein.

  • examples of faith from atheists

    Richard Dawkins stated that “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

    However, even naturalistic worldviews also take some things on faith.
    For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.
    Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:

    1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
    2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
    3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
    4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

    Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.

  • macroevolution has for practical purposes effectively stopped in humans

    evolution from species to species occurs when the environment causes some animals to die out, and only the survirors with the right genes live on to pass on their genes. the thing is, with humans, humans have adapted their environment to themselves. so, there won’t be major evolution occurring. maybe things like lactose intolerance will continue to evolve, and other micro evolutions. but, nothing major should be in our future unless there are drastic changes to our environment. 

  • no two card decks randomly shuffled have probably ever been in the same order

    Here’s a fact that’s incredibly simple and very easy to prove, but I still find incredible.

    Take a normal pack of cards—52 in total (not that the exact number matters)—and shuffle it.

    A very simple process most people will have done at least a few times in their life.

    Now take that randomly shuffled pack and lay it out in a line so you can see the sequence of cards.

    Now just look at the cards for a second and the order they’re in.

    You are the first person in all history to see a pack of cards in that order.

    Never in the history of humanity has anyone ever held a pack of cards in that order.

    Okay now to be fair we can’t technically prove this but it’s so overwhelmingly likely it’s ridiculous to deny.

    How could this possibly be true?

    A pack of 52 cards has exactly 52! possibilities, that is 52 factorial (52*51*50…*3*2*1)

    Immediately you can see this is a pretty big number, but exactly how big you likely won’t have registered. That is approximately equal to:

    80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

    That is 8 with 67 zeroes.

    Thus when you shuffle a deck randomly there is a 1/(8×10^67) chance that it is any specific combination. Again, to give an impression of how unlikely that is it is a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000125% chance.

    That’s a bit of a mouthful so let’s only consider the first ten decimal places hereafter as if the chance is less than that it can be considered in effect zero.

    If you shuffle a pack of cards 100 times the chance that any of these 100 are a specific combination is 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.

    If you shuffle it 1 million times it increases substantially to 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places… perhaps not substantially enough.

    Let’s now try 10 billion: that’s if every human alive shuffles it once plus a couple billion more times. Now it’s far far higher at 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places… still not high enough.

    Okay now let’s say that you shuffle a pack 1 trillion times? That is, dozens more than there have been humans in all history? Still 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.

    Now it’s already unlikely that in all history that collectively all packs of cards have been shuffled that many times; let’s go a bit (well actually quite a lot) higher to see if it still stands and shuffle cards 1 decillion times, that would be if every human ever alive shuffled over a trillion times each, now it comes out to *drum roll*… 0.000000000% to 10 decimal places.

    And to clarify, no, it isn’t yet close.

    If you consider it to 20 decimal places you still round to 0.0000000000000000000%.

    So not only is it totally unfeasible that ever in all human history have two decks been randomly shuffled and come out the same, but we could multiply the number of humans by a billion, have them all shuffle a trillion decks each and it would still be a less than one in a billion chance that any would be the same as the one you just shuffled.

    Wow.

    I don’t know about you but to me that sounds pretty wrong; I can assure you however that it isn’t.

    A few people in the comments have made the valid point that this is a misrepresentation of the situation as it takes a shuffle to be a purely random order when in fact it very much isn’t. The reason for this is often when people shuffle they are shuffling from an ordered pack and frankly don’t do a thorough job of it so the order is still not random, furthermore, people often use similar shuffling methods making it again more likely the order will come out the same.

    This point is entirely true but doesn’t undermine the argument for the simple reason that the numbers are not close enough for it to make a difference. Exactly how much more likely than in the pure mathematical case it is in the practical case is almost impossible to gauge, but it could possibly be quite a great difference. As a result, if you calculated that there would in the pure case be a 1% that in all history the same order has been randomly shuffled to twice then it would be reasonable to reject this as not convincing as the reality could easily be ten times more likely at which point the chance is high enough you can’t say with confidence it hasn’t happened.

    The issue is that the chance is so much lower than that. To take the last calculation, you could have every human ever alive shuffle a trillion decks each and the chance that any two were the same could still be increased by a factor of a trillion and still be 0.0000% to 5 decimal places.

    In short, yes in the practical case the chances are more likely than represented enough, but the odds are so ridiculously small that this change is nowhere near enough to be relevant.