Yes and Jesus said when you see Him you see the Father. So is the Father different? No.
So I think the same words of Jesus apply to the Father.
"I do not seek my own glory; there are others who seek it, not only the Son but many others too. Even that obnoxious Mitch guy sings “glory to the Father.”
Which just goes to show that those who are truly great don’t have to seek their own glory. Others will do so because their greatness is plain for all to see in how they serve others.
What is the first petition in The Lord’s Prayer?
Considering that God sets the rules…I am very glad that our God isn’t a Klingon war god. We can’t just wish ourselves to a lollipop God either
The biggest problem as far as the problem of evil is concerned is to me, that our Loving God, with foreknowledge, created Satan. I don’t know how we avoid that unless we say Satan is an evil co-existing being with God, and I think that is wrong as well.
I certainly don’t understand it, and don’t accuse me of anything, it is a deep mystery we won’t solve this side of heaven.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
There I go again. Giving glory to the Father.
Good, you remembered.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Not all are nor will be. There is condemnation for some.
I wonder where you learned it.
Your tune has changed. You don’t need to give glory to God, according to you, because he already has it. (Check out the comment you cited here):
God should allow something else besides himself to be considered the most valuable thing there is?
It is also one of the 5 solas of Protestantism. Glory to God alone.
Wrong. I worship God BECAUSE, like Jesus said, “I do not seek my own glory.” His idea of greatness matches my own idea of greatness – not found in power and glory but in love and service. It is the devil who seek seeks power and glory for himself… asking Jesus to bow down to him.
Incorrect again…
What I said is that God doesn’t need anything from us… and that includes glory.
What WE NEED is a completely different matter.
Was Jesus seeking God’s honor?
Are you trying to argue Jesus into a contradiction?
He said, “I do not seek my own glory.”
He said, " But whoever would be great among you must be your servant"
You should not be using the doctrine of the Trinity to manufacture a contradiction of Jesus’ words. That would be a misuse of the doctrine.
Who sought God’s honor in the OT?
The following excerpt from Lewis’ “Letters to Malcolm” has bearing on many of the exchanges above, and I think might somewhat also illustrate a point that @mitchellmckain is making?
Lewis writes:
Even now, even if – let’s make an impossible supposition – His voice, unmistakably His, said to me, ‘They have misled you. I can do nothing of that sort for you. My long story … is nearly over. I die, children. The story is ending,’ – would that be the moment for changing sides? Would not you and I take the Viking way: ‘The Giants and the Trolls win. Let us die on the right side, with Father Odin.’
Or some of you may remember Puddleglum’s speech to the Green witch …how even if the overland and Aslan and all of that is no more than a delusion … the delusion itself beats the so-called reality they are enticed by the witch to accept.
In short, it would seem to me that it is more important that we plant our flags … to the point of dying on that hill if need be … with the god of benevolence and goodness itself, and that if this was contrary to actual truth, i.e. if there was no god or a god who turned out to be a devil, then better to die on the losing side defending love and benevolence, defying evil to our last breath, than to submit to such evil. Lewis doesn’t really believe this is an exclusive choice, of course. As Christians we believe truth and love will ultimately be one and the same - and will be triumphant - though that triumph comes in the shape of a cross rather than a dominating army, … in the shape of a servant rather than a king.
But! If … if … one did have to choose, then the true-hearted and courageous would choose the losing, and overpowered benevolence, rather than the winning, powerful hate.
I agree and disagree at the same time.There could not be a “god” so evil .Even the pantheistic gods had some standarts.That just cannot be. The univere would not be created in a first place .Howver i do agree about your other statement
I agree with you of course … I don’t think evil creates anything, much less anything good. But I’m just tracing out basic faith commitments here … God’s goodness and love is more foundational to my faith … even than his very existence is! And that isn’t to demote the importance of his existence - which is quite important, after all! It is to show how supremely important it is that God is worthy of our trust - even when things look bleak or unjust. We trust that whatever it is that may be unjust … cannot be from the God we worship, or … if it is, then it will turn out to be loving justice when we can see and understand it all at the end.
It depends on what you mean by hell.
Christ came amongst us to heal and save; God wants all to repent and live a life of faith in Christ. This is not limited.
The rest of your comments appear to evolve around people who want to exert power and suffering - this is rejected by Christ who emphasizes service and empathy.
The argument is not about God forcing anyone, but instead would any sane person reject the Good once it is revealed in its absolute beauty? One side says no-one would reject this, and if they seem to, they would realize their sickness and ask to be healed. The other side says they have freely chosen evil and are lumped with the devil and cast into utter darkness.
The debate thus revolves around our conceptualization of human freedom and the revelation of God.
What is sanity?
Is it sane when people derive enjoyment from the pain and suffering of other people?
Is it sane when people do things which destroys their own health?
Is it sane when people give over their freedom and will to addictive drugs?
Is it sane when people pour poisons into the rivers and air?
I can go on and on and on…
People do these things which do not seem at all sane and they keep on doing them even when they know it is wrong and stupid and destructive of all that is good in the world.
Some people close their eyes to beauty and love and they call them all lies and fairy tales preferring other things like power and even things which look more like deception to other people.
I think that is kind of the whole point. It doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. Certainly I have known a great deal of people who see far more of hell in the broken ugly relationships between people at church, than in the descriptions of fire and torment by the religious. I can tell you what it means to me. To me, hell means my own self-destructive habits continuing to grow and devour my free will and everything else of value within me until I become everything I hate most.
God doesn’t mean anything in particular by it – it’s up to us to decide what it is.
We declare our faith in Christ because we believe He saves us from the insanity of sin. We are told to repent and turn to God for our salvation/sanity. I think we should examine repentance much more closely, as it is the commencement of the death of the sinner and rebirth in Christ.
I agree that some do this, and I also affirm many do not.
We human beings are a complicated lot - we are admonished to grown in God’s Grace and Knowledge.
Scripture is clear that the demonic and absolutely evil will be cast out into utter darkness, which I take to mean cut of completely from God.
This is hell.
Other terms are used to discuss death and those who have died and wait to hear the Gospel - these terms differ from the hell reserved for the demonic.
What is the incentive for someone who is well-off and comfortable to become a Christian?
For someone in dire straits?
For a paedophile?
Well… I certainly think this is true. But this hard for the non-religious to take seriously, since they do not see the value of God in the first place.
I would explain that this is because God is the source of life and to be cut off from it is to be left without that which makes an eternal existence worthwhile. Many of the non-religious can understand how an eternal existence can be more of a burden than a good thing eventually even becoming agonizing in its emptiness. So I would explain that eternal life by contrast is relationship with an infinite being with no end to what He can give – an existence in which there are always new things to learn, to experience and to become.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.