I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me. Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love.

I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on. The attached meditation does a great job of exploring this theme.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Because, as hard as we try, pure love never dies.
From a Friend

John 3:16

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

the failed interpretation, and individualistic desires lead you to that conclusion.

God has often required things.. I am the truth, the way, and the light. No one comes to the father except through me. Jesus is the way- the blood and the body..

The trinity-- also-- resonated profoundly with the Triskelion motif of the Celts. pic.twitter.com/w2KfpqQFsy

— R.Сам 🦋🐏 (@Logo_Daedalus) March 30, 2024

CammoTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

I wonder if you might underestimate God's holiness and/or man's evil.

---

Grace has no requirement. Grace is a gift.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CammoTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

I wonder if you might underestimate God's holiness and/or man's evil.

---

Grace has no requirement. Grace is a gift.

---

Grace certainly does have a requirement. Are you familiar with John 3:16? It doesn't say "everyone shall not perish," it says "whoever believes in Him" will not perish.

---

If God is grace then God is full of grace, always forgiving and loving. If God is which is the scriptures are overwhelming witness. How can a requirement slip in?
To live fully in Christ one surely needs repentance but repentance is not a requirement of God. We are ill free will humans who sin but God's grace will abound all the more.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, so that the trespass might increase, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so grace might also reign through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CammoTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

I wonder if you might underestimate God's holiness and/or man's evil.

---

Grace has no requirement. Grace is a gift.

---

Grace certainly does have a requirement. Are you familiar with John 3:16? It doesn't say "everyone shall not perish," it says "whoever believes in Him" will not perish.

---

If God is grace then God is full of grace, always forgiving and loving. If God is which is the scriptures are overwhelming witness. How can a requirement slip in?
To live fully in Christ one surely needs repentance but repentance is not a requirement of God. We are ill free will humans who sin but God's grace will abound all the more.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man's trespass, death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so through the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, so that the trespass might increase, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so grace might also reign through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

Correct, read the last verse you just quoted. Grace reigns *through justification" (most translations say "through righteousness") leading to eternal life. Justification / righteousness is brought about through belief, which is the prerequisite to grace.

Otherwise, the passage you quoted would omit the phrase "through justification" since it would not be necessary - and John 3:16 would not include the qualifier "whoever believes in Him."

He’s alive! pic.twitter.com/eUv03bNzhJ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) March 31, 2024

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

Theology of the "pulleditouttamyass" tradition i see.

Your real goal is to one day say you are a Christian that believes nothing. I think you are getting there. Throwing out the Bible a good first step.

Porteroso said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Peter 2:24 disagrees with your first sentence

Old testiment God required blood sacrifice..

New testiment - God sacrifices Jesus and Jesus gave us communion with the blood and body of Christ

---

God requiring anything is the opposite of grace

---

Theology of the "pulleditouttamyass" tradition i see.
.

---

LOL

+ 1

Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.

— G. K. Chesterton (@GKCdaily) March 31, 2024

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

On a serious note, I don't understand your first premise. Do you reject the scripture about the wages of sin being death? That but for Christ's sacrifice, reconciliation between a man and God is impossible. Does God not set the rules of life? It would seem that God did require absence of sin or acceptance of Christ's substitutionary gift of salvation.

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

premise 1 is wrong

Martin Luther said that as God, He could not die, so He became man in order to die. On the cross, he accepted the sin of man against Himself. As a perfectly innocent man he accepted the injustice of man against man.

The Bible does not say that Jesus paid a propitiation, but that He "is" a propitiation for our sins.

Premise 2 is fairly accurate. God bears the hurt of sin in order to give mercy and forgiveness to those who believe

premise 3 -

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodto be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

He did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Might throw in Romans chapter 1 for good reading.

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

You are hilarious. When most people think of sin, they think of 10 commandants type sin - murder, adultery, theft, lying, etc. You list "the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear . . . ." You must marinate in left wing nonsense.

---

What is the Greatest Commandment and the second like unto it?

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

---

You have obviously thought about these issues a lot. Your premises seem wrong to me. Are your premises in line with the tenets of a particular denomination? Which one?

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

---

John 3:16-18:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

***

This passage makes clear that forgiveness is predicated upon belief. If it were not, why is the group which "shall not perish" limited to "whosoever believeth in him"? If we are already forgiven, why is he that believeth not "condemned already"?

Your mistake lies in thinking that God's love = forgiveness. In fact, God's love is shown in the offer of forgiveness, and the granting of free will to accept it or not.

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

---

You have obviously thought about these issues a lot. Your premises seem wrong to me. Are your premises in line with the tenets of a particular denomination?
Which one?

---

My premises seem wrong to you. What is your argument against them, particularly "God is love". Can you dispute it.

Waco1947 said:

---

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

---

You have obviously thought about these issues a lot. Your premises seem wrong to me. Are your premises in line with the tenets of a particular denomination?
Which one?

---

My premises seem wrong to you. What is your argument against them, particularly "God is love". Can you dispute it.

---

God is many things. But focusing on "God is love" can lead one to extrapolate to other conclusions that may be in error. I asked about whether you got your premises from a specific denomination or writer. Or did you come up with it on your own. Seems like an easy question to answer. Obviously, I wasn't challenging the statement "God is love," except that it is an incomplete description of God.

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Premise #1. I have never believed Jesus died FOR my sin...as a sacrifice that God required in order to forgive me.



Premise #2 Pure love always forgives, even when the person doing the harm doesn't/can't recognize how wrong their act is. And God is Pure Love. Or as I say the overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love.


Premise #3 I do, however, believe Jesus died because of sin. The same sin that exists today: lust for power and control, the inability to see people who are different than me as humans who have just as much right to think and love and believe as I do, the prioritization of some over others based on societal constructs that are completely arbitrary, the proliferation of hate and anger and fear...the list could go on and on.

So today, I will be reflecting upon my role in perpetuating the systems that continue to crucify my fellow human beings. Not as a way to wallow in guilt or shame, but to think about alternative ways of seeing and being that are more in line with the love Christ had and continues to have through us.

Conclusion: pure love never dies.

Which Premise is wrong.

---

Premise 1 is wrong because it is directly refuted by Scripture. No, from the perspective of God's love and grace the reconciliation has already taken place. Has God not already forgiven us before we even ask?

Premise 2 is misleading because it implies that God will forgive all sins of all people (universalism), while the Bible says that the sins of those who believe will be forgiven. Point out to me where Jesus said "I will forgive you but only if you are believer and before I heal you?

Premise 3 doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say that Jesus died for sin, but not my sin? Are we back to universalism? Maybe so. Again, from God's perspective we are already forgiven. Grace , a gift, has no requirements. You must address that theological and philosophical principle first.

The final statement (reflecting) is most likely wrong because Christ showed His love for people by seeking their repentance and turning back to God (their ultimate good), No Jesus never sought repentance as a condition for His love. Jesus simply loves us but the repentance of our sins means we have life more abundantly. Gratitude and turning around and works are our response to that love. In Latin a priori means "what comes first." Love comes first.

while I suspect the author of this piece believes that Christ's love means affirming people's sins (the road which seems right to a man, but the end of which is death, as set out in Proverbs 14:12). Proverbs is OT thought but Jesus teaches love is the first commandment. No one is affirming sin that's your straw man and it is wrong

---

---

You have obviously thought about these issues a lot. Your premises seem wrong to me. Are your premises in line with the tenets of a particular denomination?
Which one?

---

My premises seem wrong to you. What is your argument against them, particularly "God is love". Can you dispute it.

---

God is many things. But focusing on "God is love" can lead one to extrapolate to other conclusions that may be in error. God is love means philosophically and theologically that is no room for any other attribute except those that extrapolate God is 100% love. If God is perfect in love then what else is there?

I asked about whether you got your premises from a specific denomination or writer. Or did you come up with it on your own.
As noted I got the passage from a friend who a United Methodist pastor like me. I broke the passages up into Premises. The writer who is friend still needs to challenged as to her premises. I made the case that the premises met the standards for a correct conclusion which I included.1

a
: a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference
specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn

I use premises on this site frequently to little avail. I am thankful that you are thoughtful about them.

Seems like an easy question to answer. Obviously, I wasn't challenging the statement "God is love," except that it is an incomplete description of God. God is love means philosophically and theologically that is no room for any other attribute except those that extrapolate God is 100% love. If God is perfect in love then what else is there?

---