Philosophik: Let me ask you this: In the moment, how is it possible for god to hate sin while simultaneously BEING love? Love is love. Love cannot hate. "God is love" that's your quote from the bible.
Because according to logical rules, it isn't a true contradiction. It is only a contradiction if the bible says God is "all loving". We also must define the term, "hate". It should be understood that God hates sin because sin is anti-love. Therefore for God to hate, "not love" is actually in line with the law of non-contradiction. He hates that which comes from "not love".
So God is love, but that isn't the only thing God is. God has many characteristics, the bible isn't saying, "God is ONLY love". When God says He hates sin it is a deep displeasure and righteous anger because sin is anti-love. It would make no sense for God to love sin, and to enjoy it when people sadistically murder others for pleasure. Imagine if God was only love of all things, the feeling love. That would be terrible, that would mean he loved everything Hitler done and thought of it as fine. But like I said, God is also just, and holy and righteous, which you ignored.
Philosophik: All of it except for the hating part. And God is beyond genders. The Supreme is that which nothing can contain, and contains all. It is One.
I don't accept this saying just because you state it.
You misunderstand if you think I believe God loves all the bad stuff. No, that's not the case. God is love, and love only. God is beyond good and evil. Love doesn't know good and evil in the sense that it dwells on it before it loves something, love only knows how to love. GOD IS LOVE. You said so yourself.
No you are perversely twisting it around again. I specifically said that the bible, God's word, says that God is love, it does not say God is love, as some kind of subtance in and of itself, I explained that it means agape love in the greek, the love of God. God is love but not love only as that is your philosophy, I am stating that the bible says something else, and you are equivocating by trying to say that I am saying what you are saying. I am saying what the bible says, and it doesn't only say that God is love, it also describes many of God's characteristics as I told you before.
Philosophik: Technically, men wrote the bible too. You just give these men you've never met more credit than other men you'ver never met who don't believe the same thing. Either way, your believing that men didn't invent the bible doesn't make it so. Or does it?
But we don't accept that the bible is only the work of men. Your claim is it is just writings of men but I have shown those writings are consistent, your beliefs just seem to be contrived. It's true that you can basically argue pluralism, that one can believe whatever one believes, but we believe what Jesus Christ said and done is a true and meaningful message. We have lived the life of God the bible says is real and we can testify as witnesses that we have received from God, revelation. How could we if the bible was all made up? How could we speak in tongues or receive gifts of the spirit or be healed? All of the Christian testimonies are all congruent with each other, we all report the same things that the bible says are true, the same types of experiences. I know a man on Christian TV that describes the same type of experience of God's presence coming down upon him, that I also experienced. His was greater but we have the same experiences, basically.
Just because it is common in all of us it doesn't mean people know how to express it. As long as people are unaware of how their thoughts and feelings affect their ability to project this love, then they will be unable to express God's love with any sort of conviction especially if they feel negative towrds anything.
But this is the begging-the-question fallacy, because you are assuming the truth of your claim that love from God is in all men, by saying, "just because it is common". It isn't enough to simply SAY all people have the love of God. You said yourself, how can love hate? How can Hitler murder, how can Bundy murder? The true contradiction to love is acts of sinful hate. But God only hates evil, wickedness and sin, God Himself doesn't sin, meaning your philosophy is a contradiction, for how can people have the love of God and do things of hate? That is the true contradiction, not to hate sin.
And I say God doesn't hate anything ever. The Absolute is beyond such trivial emotions.
No offense, but who cares what you say, your aren't Jesus Christ, and don't offer salvation. You speak from guesswork, but Christ is God incarnate. He is not, hating in the sense you seem to understand, so you have committed anthropathism fallacy. God is a person, a being, a spirit, but He is not a man. We have emotions because we are made in God's image but we aren't in control of them. God is fully in control, but to say emotions are trivial is not realistic to any ideology. Emotions are real, God is not, "beyond" His own nature. If He states He is love then that love is also not merely an emotion. God's "emotions" is a simplistic anthropopathism fallacy, for what God feels is far beyond the ordinary human emotion. God is the epitome of all good things. You guess yet again, and speak as though you alone know what God is and what he feels.
Philosophik: He did ignore the sin when it came to loving the sinner. And God making Jesus pay for the sins of others by crucifying him seems to be the biggest injustice in the history of mankind! Why worship a God who thinks this is just?
Because God really is the Lord God, I know He exists and He has revealed Himself to me. It is not injust for God Himself to lay down His life as God incarnate. Funny how you say that Jesus said He was one with God and use that to bolster your philosophy, but now imply that there is some kind of disconnet between God the Father's will, and Christ's. What a silly error. Christ was one with God, and is God, He said, "I AM before Abraham". To take on the sins of the world, onto Himself is the Christian Gospel, not your error-filled interpretation of the gospel which pretends God the Father is a haete-filled tyrant Christ got bullied into obeying.
Philosophik: I never said the bible was preaching oneness. After all, man wrote the bible. I said Jesus was preaching oneness and religion watered down his message in order to form the church and collect MONEY.
I realise why people like to USURP Jesus. I get that because they think Christ was a great figure, rather than doubting Him they would instead like to USE Him in some way to fit with their false philosophy. This way you PRETEND Christ's actions and words were disparate with the rest of the bible. Yet you use Christ's words to basically quote-mine the portions of the bible you think favours your philosophy.
It doesn't work - you can't just omit the parts of the Christian gospel that don't tie in with your philosophy and say, "I know Jesus's thoughts, they were really all to do with the oneness philosophy".
Philosophik: I didn't deliberately or unwittingly omit anything. When you love the sinner and not the sin, it is implied you don't want them sinning anymore.
If you repeat a strawman fallacy it becomes argumentum ad nauseam. A double whammy. For my entire Christian life I have argued that Christ loves the sinner, making out I am saying he hates the sinner, was your own strawman fallacy right from the start. Any readers can go back and see where you committed that error if they so choose, they will never find me utter the words that Christ doesn't love the sinner.
Philosophik: Who said all acts are ok? I said if all acts are done out of God's love, then there is no sin. There is no evil. This is Oneness. Only love and gratitude for being connected to God's love in the moment, and acting upon that high vibration to create positive experiences only.
Fair enough, if that's what you believe you have freewill and I am not going to stop you from believing it.
Philosophik: Jesus wanted you to emulate him more than to have faith in him. He wanted both, but cared more that you became like him.
Again you seem to presume you know what Jesus wanted. Christians know what Jesus Christ wanted, we have obeyed His message to believe on Him, and we know His words from scripture. You put yourself in the position of knowing what Christ wanted, and you say He wanted oneness, but we don't find that in the bible, we find the Christian gospel. Nor do you have the knowledge of what Christ wants. You are basically asserting things baldly, with every statement. I don't accept oneness, and I don't accept you know what Christ wants/wanted.
P: Ted Bundy couldn't control his thoughts, that's why he delved into depravity. He entertained uglyness and perversions and thus was vibrating low and did what he did. He was undisciplined.
Codswallop. Although you are right he couldn't control his thoughts. Nor did he want to, as he was given over to his sinful, nature and was wicked. He tried to blame what he done on p*rn*gr*phy. Others try and blame it on bad vibrations, it is a DECEPTION of the enemy - who wants you to think you aren't responsible for your sins.
P: Notice who wrote those qoutes. Any of those scriptures say 'God chapter X verse X'? Nope, each verse was written by a man for the sake of expressing his interpretation of the divine.
Again, because you say so, because you say it out loud, we are to take your argument as granted. LOL. Funny how you use the bible to say Jesus wanted oneness but ditch it as men's words when it doesn't suit you. But Jesus Himself approved of the scriptures, He said the law was without fault, He referred to Genesis as history, to Abraham as history, He accepted the authority of the scriptures and preached how they taught about Him. Like I said, Christ and the Father are one.
When One awakens and becomes enlightened, sin loses meaning because a Realised man behaves according to god's love and does no wrong.
If that was true then all people of oneness would be perfect. They aren't, they have sin like everyone else, a sinful nature. Sin doesn't lose meaning because you pretend it isn't sin.
What is, "wrong" in this concept anyway? Who defines which acts are wrong? If sin loses meaning then who is to say it is wrong? How can you do no wrong, if there is no such thing as wrong?
A lot of contradictory codswaffle of the highest poppycock proportions. It seems you have proven this philosophy is a contradicting MESS, beyond all description. Sin loses meaning yet you no longer do wrong? Then what is wrong? Not wrong is it? Meaning it is also okay to sin, if it's not wrong.
Studying a course in the most basic logic, might help you to arrive at better conclusions. It seems all you have is a feeling, a "feeling" of oneness and you use the epithet, "reality" but if it's reality, then just the feeling is a real emotion, not the philosophy that comes from it, which isn't a reality.
For example I could meditate like a buddhist, and then say, "budhism is a reality" but in fact only the meditation would be reality. Yes, you have had a feeling, an experience of some sort which is subjectively real, but this doesn't mean all of the teachings you have argued are also real, for that is to conflate a REAL emotion, with a CONTRIVED creed.
Not the same thing at all, so nice try when you tried to argue that an experience you had was real, therefore your philosophy is.
You also insult Christ, because He said He lays down His "life of His own accord" yet you say he was unjustly killed, proving logically that you don't know what Christ's desires were. If Christ agrees with you, why do you disagree with Christ? So that's one massive hole in your argument that you know what Christ wants. He said He wants all men to believe, and that this is to obey, that He who believes in Christ will receive salvation and, "never die". This is what He wanted, but you have just said He was unjustly killed, meaning you are going against what Christ taught, and therefore falsely claim to represent Christ and what He wanted. When Christ returned He told the apostles to go into the world and preach the gospel of salvation, the great commission. You have just said that is false, meaning you want the opposite of what Christ wanted, His last wishes on earth. So then how can you pretend to represent what Christ wanted when you contradict everything he said?