Thinking out loud about my God...

[Just_me_Mike]

Should God love every sentient being He creates?

Is it fair to allow a being to experience sentience and then take that beings life away from it?

Is God guilty of malevolence if he doesn't love every sentient being, and doesn't allow them all to live forever?

Define Malevolent:

~wishing or appearing to wish evil to others; malicious
~having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred

Does God have a right to grant eternal life to those that want it on God's terms, and to deny eternal life to those that want it on terms that God deems in error, and despite further instruction they never want it on God's terms?

 

[Breathe]

And what do you think about those questions?

 

[Madhuri]

How can God not love something if God is love itself?

Depending on what you believe God's intentions are will affect the answer. Based on what Christians tell me about their God and religion, seems to me that this God is sadistic and rather unintelligent. In fact, there is actually one member of this forum who believes in that God, considers Him to be sadistic, but still worships him.

I guess a lot of people justify their belief in this God by claiming that he is 'mysterious', but imo that isn't a good enough justification. Of course there are those few who take a very independent view of this God, extracting their own symbolic meanings from the scripture, and are able to come up with more intellectual explanations, but they are few indeed.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Should God love every sentient being He creates?

Well, to me it seems natural that if "we" are created in the image of God, and it feels quite natural for us to not love all things in the same regard (even though some strive too), why would I automatically assume God must do this? So, I am not sure how I feel about this question, other than to reflect on my own nature in trying to answer it.

Is it fair to allow a being to experience sentience and then take that beings life away from it?

I suppose "fair" or "fairness" is determined by certain qualifiers. For example, if I have the power to create sentience, and that was my only purpose was to simply create sentient beings, then it would seem malevolent to destroy them, like killing ants with a magnifying glass.
If however, I create sentient beings, that are to serve a specific purpose, and then the purpose runs its course, I don't find it malevolent to the either choose to keep the being or rid of the being, as the being was not created simply to live, but to serve a purpose. To me that does not fit the definition of malevolence.
On the flip side of that, if I create some of these beings to both serve a purpose and part of that purpose is to live forever, I would think it no less malevolent, that I kept some and discarded others.

Is God guilty of malevolence if he doesn't love every sentient being, and doesn't allow them all to live forever?

I can't personally say God is guilty of this, but this is why I am making the thread, to analyze this in more detail

Does God have a right to grant eternal life to those that want it on God's terms, and to deny eternal life to those that want it on terms that God deems in error, and despite further instruction they never want it on God's terms?

Again, I am not sure I see malevolence here. What I do see at the very least, is a situation in which sentient beings that won't live forever, will naturally be upset, confused, angered, etc...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How can God not love something if God is love itself?

I am not sure that God being the personification of Love, means God will love everything. I don't think the conclusion God must love everything must or logically follows God is Love, therefor...

 

[Madhuri]

I am not sure that God being the personification of Love, means God will love everything. I don't think the conclusion God must love everything must or logically follows God is Love, therefor...

Which one does your scripture proclaim? That God is love or that God loves all? Or neither?

If God is love itself, how could he experience anything without it?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Which one does your scripture proclaim? That God is love or that God loves all? Or neither?

Well it definitely does not say God loves everything. Though it does say God is love.

If God is love itself, how could he experience anything without it?

I am not sure what you mean here.
I agree my scriptures teach God is Love, but I don't see how being Love means you must love everything. I think this becomes clearer when we also see that God is not only Love, but is also Justice, and other things that warrant being a God. Does that make some sense?

 

[Madhuri]

I am not sure what you mean here.
I agree my scriptures teach God is Love, but I don't see how being Love means you must love everything. I think this becomes clearer when we also see that God is not only Love, but is also Justice, and other things that warrant being a God. Does that make some sense?

Maybe we think about this differently because we have different understandings of what love is.

I definitely believe that Love itself is loving for all. Love cannot not love.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Maybe we think about this differently because we have different understandings of what love is.

I definitely believe that Love itself is loving for all. Love cannot not love.

CS Lewis wrote much about this.

He suggested that if such a being existed, then Justice could not be balanced. I know I will do a terrible job explaining it, but see if this makes some sense as to why I question that position of Love.

Imagine in a court of law, that Love trumped everything.
The trial is about a friend whom you love dearly, but the friend did a grievous wrong. He shot someone accidentally. Now justice determines, he must be pay a price for this wrong, and typically it would be jail time.
If we acted only by and according to love, we would consider the friends family perhaps, and children and might let him go free out of Love, and if that person goes free, why not everyone. Love might cure them of their desire to do wrongs.

Anyway the point is Love by itself, defined in such a way that excludes justice, balance, purpose etc... Renders the word love into an awkward meaning.

So while I agree, that Love cannot not love, I see no reason to conclude this means all beings must live forever.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So then, if God is Love, and most religions I know of believe this.
Does this by definition mean all beings must live forever? This seems to be a bit of a leap, and to some degree, wishful thinking on our part.
What does your religion teach on this subject? I have explained what mine teaches, at least how I read it.
What reason does your religion give for keeping all beings alive forever?

 

[Man of Faith]

Does God have a right to grant eternal life to those that want it on God's terms, and to deny eternal life to those that want it on terms that God deems in error, and despite further instruction they never want it on God's terms?

Do you have the right to only allow people to come into your home on your terms? Do you have the right to only allow people to come into your home one way, through the front door? Do you have the right to kill someone that is trying to climb into your window at night? If you have those rights, then why can't God have them?

 

[PolyHedral]

I would think that a truly loving being would give people what they want. The majority of people want to live longer. (Though may not want to live forever.)

The logical inference is quite clear, isn't it?

If you have those rights, then why can't God have them?

Because executing them isn't loving. Besides, God may not have those rights, since those people wouldn't deprive Him of anything of value.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I love my Gwynnies... now Alice... it's already getting complicated...

We prioritize; but god is eternal.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So then it becomes an exercise in defining what loving means.
Do religions teach love without justice? I am not familiar with any. What would love look like without justice?
Love can be destructive as well if defined wrong. Example if I love Madhuri so much that I follow her and bug here 24 hours a day, because after all I should get what I want, and what I want is to demonstrate my love for her 24 hours a day.

Clearly Love has qualification and qualities that from most logical minds must be met to be a sensible meaning of love.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I would think that a truly loving being would give people what they want. The majority of people want to live longer.

Really? Not only is the first sentence strange, the second is strange as well, as I hear MANY people say they don't want to live past a certain age.

 

[Reptillian]

I would think that a truly loving being would give people what they want.

If thats true, then my parents must not have loved me. Sure they weren't omnipotent, but it was certainly within their power to give me many things I desired. I think the problem is that human beings are like children who want to eat candy and ice cream three meals a day.

Before we go around accusing God of injustice and malice we should probably think about whether death is inherently evil. Whos to say death is a bad thing? To paraphrase Socrates, 'for all we know death may be the greatest thing to happen to a man, but we fear it because we fear the unknown. Fearing death is just another example of claiming to know something about which we know nothing.'

 

[fantome profane]

Well, to me it seems natural that if "we" are created in the image of God, and it feels quite natural for us to not love all things in the same regard (even though some strive too), why would I automatically assume God must do this? So, I am not sure how I feel about this question, other than to reflect on my own nature in trying to answer it.

I suppose "fair" or "fairness" is determined by certain qualifiers. For example, if I have the power to create sentience, and that was my only purpose was to simply create sentient beings, then it would seem malevolent to destroy them, like killing ants with a magnifying glass.
If however, I create sentient beings, that are to serve a specific purpose, and then the purpose runs its course, I don't find it malevolent to the either choose to keep the being or rid of the being, as the being was not created simply to live, but to serve a purpose. To me that does not fit the definition of malevolence.
On the flip side of that, if I create some of these beings to both serve a purpose and part of that purpose is to live forever, I would think it no less malevolent, that I kept some and discarded others.

I can't personally say God is guilty of this, but this is why I am making the thread, to analyze this in more detail

Again, I am not sure I see malevolence here. What I do see at the very least, is a situation in which sentient beings that won't live forever, will naturally be upset, confused, angered, etc...

I believe that in the not too distant future we will be able to create machines what will not only be capable of thinking but will be capable of suffering. If we wanted to we could create machines that we could then torture. Would that be moral? The idea that just because we created it we have no moral responsibility towards it makes no sense to me. Even if we did create them that gives us no special rights. Causing another being to suffer is immoral.

As for using another being for a purpose, it is immoral to use another being as a means to an end without giving consideration to the wants, needs and well-being of that being. And whether we create that being makes no difference to this principle. If anything the idea that we created that being increases our moral responsibility towards it, it does not eliminate it.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

As for using another being for a purpose, it is immoral to use another being as a means to an end without giving consideration to the wants, needs and well-being of that being. And whether we create that being makes no difference to this principle.
The ends do not justify the means.

So, if it is explained to the being what the purpose is, does it still must mean it is only immoral?

Thanks for the post btw, plenty to think about.

 

[fantome profane]

So, if it is explained to the being what the purpose is, does it still must mean it is only immoral?

Thanks for the post btw, plenty to think about.

Do you think that would be sufficient? If I kidnapped you, and then explained to you very clearly that I did it because I wanted you to work in my factory so I could make lots of money. If I explained clearly to you why I needed that money and what I was going to do with it does that mitigate my actions in any way? Clearly it does not. Explaining to the being how it is going to be used may be a good thing, but for it to be moral that being also has to agree to be used in this way. That is what makes the difference between slavery and employment. It is not immoral to employ someone to work.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Do you think that would be sufficient? If I kidnapped you, and then explained to you very clearly that I did it because I wanted you to work in my factory so I could make lots of money. If I explained clearly to you why I needed that money and what I was going to do with it does that mitigate my actions in any way? Clearly it does not. Explaining to the being how it is going to be used may be a good thing, but for it to be moral that being also has to agree to be used in this way. That is what makes the difference between slavery and employment. It is not immoral to employ someone to work.

So if part of the group happily agreed to the purpose, and the other half did not, is it immoral?
I would imagine it is only immoral to those that disagree, right?