Christians, how does God demonstrate he "loves us", without referencing a human sacrifice...

[Neo Deist]

Considering the nature of opinion, if something can be proven it no longer qualifies as an opinion, but do you actually think all opinions, no matter what the subject, are baseless? If not then why must my opinion be so?

The problem is that you can't prove your position on free will.

 

[OnePointSix18]

Q: For what reason would God not reveal Itself to us, if It exists?
A: In order not to influence our moral/free will decisions. And if God doesn't exist, there's no potential for influence possible.

I don't understand what you're getting at in your last sentence.

Your previous reply can be broken down as such:
If god exists 1) he CREATED THE UNIVERSE, 2) his sole purpose was to spawn self-aware creatures 3) All that is why morality is innate.

My question is: If god exists you start assuming that "if this is the case" (my emphasis) then he CREATED THE UNIVERSE:
1) What makes you think he created the universe? What if the universe was always here? What if there is no god but just an extreme being? What if he's dead? What makes you think an extreme being "created" the universe? What if both the universe and god have always existed? Your statement assumes too much to leave unaddressed.

Then to the next part of your statement:
2) If god exists you go on to state HIS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SPAWN SELF-AWARE CREATURES
What method did you determine what his purpose was? This sounds so much like the theist who claims to have a unique, private, privileged and unfalsifiable connection to the creator of the universe. How do you know his purpose for creating the universe was not for spawning microbacteria in another part of the universe and we are just a unplanned consequence for which the god has no care or interest? Why do you prefer spawning humans over spawning microbacteria?

Then the third part of your statement:
3) You indicate that the previous parts of your statement [( 1) god created the universe, 2) his purpose was to spawn humans)] is support your for your claim that morality is inherent (innate).
What process did you use to determine the claim that morality is innate? Whether or not morality is innate is an empirical, scientific, question, especially for cultural anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists. It is a question for descriptive ethics. It has been shown that moral actions like compassion, altruism and reciprocal altruism are naturally evolved adaptations beneficial for survival. If morality was a prescribed duty that came from a god, then we should see a consistent moral underpinning to all our moral actions. The trouble is we don't. There are wide variations on what is considered moral and these variations are an easily delineated landscape. To observe these divergences in morality one would look for areas where there are groups with common beliefs, or common cultures and or differing circumstances. Any group of these can display a deep diversity of morality and it is these differences that demonstrate that morality comes from natural evolutionary processes. We even see a natural form of morality existent within the animal kingdom.

I look forward to your reply, thanks!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It sounds like you do not understand the point or logic of the atonement. Love involves sacrifice, and the greatest sacrifice there is ....

What is your definition of love? What is the biggest thing someone has done for you to show you that they love you?

If there was some situation (war, accident, whatever...) where it was either your life, or someone else's, and they chose to sacrifice their life in order to save you, would you feel loved by this?

Anyways, the atonement involved more than death - it involved Jesus taking upon himself all of our pain and experiences - he walked in our shoes, no one knows us better etc. etc. the biggest sacrifice was not on the cross, it was in Gethsemane.

The biggest thing to show someone loved me? That's hard. If I find it, I'll let you know.

If someone gave their life for me, I would feel loved (or at least "valued" ... unless the person was aiming for the person behind me). However, after the sacrifice is sacrificed I can still be shot, right?

I can tell you Jesus did not take all my pain. I have all my pain. Every so often God throws me a bone and it gets better. Thankfully, He also made me resourceful and creative, which helps a great deal. For the most part, though, it's like someone increased the game's difficulty level while we weren't looking at the menu screen.

Wow. I read scripture and it didnt seem like the Isrealites where god's prisioners (from a biblical/objective view not my own). God used moses to help them excape to the promise land where they started killing every man, woman, and child so they can take their rightful place on the chosen land as god's chosen people.

I personally dont see love in that. However, when they were in the desert waiting to go to the next stop, god did give them food. That giving life is an act of love no matter who does it. The problem is we dont see the act we see the person behind it. So, if hitler went to hug someone's child there would be a different meaning (from the mother's view) of this hug than it would from, say, that child's grandmother. Yet, say Hitler really meant that hug and his hug was just as genuine as the same hug that child would get from another stranger.

I mean, that's like saying the bible can be a sword (bad) in Hitler's hands and good in a Christians hands. When, I feel according to Christianity, the Bible's sacredness shouldnt depend on who holds and uses it. Hugs are the same way.

So is love.

He gave them manna, but He also suckered them into eating dead birds and many died of whatever killed off all those birds.

I read the Bible. That's why I'm not Christian.

A part from that, just reading scripture alone, the only people who died during that time period of Exodus and Ithink it goes into Leviticus is when the Isrealites were slaughtering men, women, and children for their promise land. If they died in the desert, the rest of the bible would be mute. Jesus wouldn't have a geneology. Gosh, that just takes out half the Bible there.

I haven't read any outside Christian history other than about the Church since I was a part of it. I forgot a lot of Church history; I dont care to remember the deaths of people suffered by the Church in which I immaturely chose to take sacraments in.

That aside, though, even if you are right, do you not agree that giving food to your children is giving life? Wouldn't that be an act of love no matter if you are right or wrong about whatever you posted?

It was their descendants and any people they picked up along the way who got to Canaan. The thing was everyone who left Egypt couldn't go to Canaan (for all the incessant whining, though to be fair, if I were forced by a murderous terrorist to road trip through the desert, maybe I'd whine too). Their kids could go.

You flunked math, didn't you??? The correct answer would be roughly 500 miles not 4 million, you may have been confusing feet with miles. And the distance for the earth to circle the sun is 260 million miles, not 4 million. Where do you get this math, is this what the public schools are teaching???

Via Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home
SCOTT: Don't know anything about it? I find it hard to believe that I've come millions of miles.
McCOY: Thousands! Thousands!
SCOTT: Thousands of miles on an invited tour of inspection, only to be...

Your previous reply can be broken down as such:
If god exists 1) he CREATED THE UNIVERSE, 2) his sole purpose was to spawn self-aware creatures 3) All that is why morality is innate.

My question is: If god exists you start assuming that "if this is the case" (my emphasis) then he CREATED THE UNIVERSE:
1) What makes you think he created the universe? What if the universe was always here? What if there is no god but just an extreme being? What if he's dead? What makes you think an extreme being "created" the universe? What if both the universe and god have always existed? Your statement assumes too much to leave unaddressed.

Well, to be fair, He only speaks Light into existence. He merely orders everything else (gives it structure or something, not absolutely creating it).

Then to the next part of your statement:
2) If god exists you go on to state HIS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SPAWN SELF-AWARE CREATURES
What method did you determine what his purpose was? This sounds so much like the theist who claims to have a unique, private, privileged and unfalsifiable connection to the creator of the universe. How do you know his purpose for creating the universe was not for spawning microbacteria in another part of the universe and we are just a unplanned consequence for which the god has no care or interest? Why do you prefer spawning humans over spawning microbacteria?

Maybe we're here just to save the whales like in Star Trek 4...

 

[Skwim]

Considering the nature of opinion, if something can be proven it no longer qualifies as an opinion, but do you actually think all opinions, no matter what the subject, are baseless? If not then why must my opinion be so?

NO ANSWER NO ANSWER NO ANSWER NO ANSWER NO ANSWER NO ANSWER ​

I'll take your refusal to answer as an admission that I am right: Opinions can have a basis, and that you were wrong in claiming mine had to be baseless.

The problem is that you can't prove your position on free will.

Not a problem whatsoever.
However, as it turns out I actually have proven it to others, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Twice in fact. Prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt? Most likely not, but perhaps so if I took the trouble and you listened with an open and rational mind.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your previous reply can be broken down as such:
If god exists 1) he CREATED THE UNIVERSE, 2) his sole purpose was to spawn self-aware creatures 3) All that is why morality is innate.

My question is: If god exists you start assuming that "if this is the case" (my emphasis) then he CREATED THE UNIVERSE:
1) What makes you think he created the universe?

If God exists, it must be some sort of definition of omnipotent, which would at least give It the power over us of life and death. That said, whether it actually created the universe is a moot point.

What if the universe was always here?

The Big Bang says it wasn't. And it also appears that the quantum land in which our universe is suspended, there is no time.

What if there is no god but just an extreme being?

See above.

What if he's dead?

The It wasn't God.

What makes you think an extreme being "created" the universe?

It was either created or came to be spontaneously. Can you think of another possibility.

What if both the universe and god have always existed?

See above.

Your statement assumes too much to leave unaddressed.

I only assume that the universe either was created or it wasn't. There's no evidence for or against either proposition.

Then to the next part of your statement:
2) If god exists you go on to state HIS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SPAWN SELF-AWARE CREATURES
What method did you determine what his purpose was?

God could have done anything else instantly. So why go to so much trouble here? Unaware creatures with free will can be the only answer. Again, anything else could have been done instantly.

Thiis sounds so much like the theist who claims to have a unique, private, privileged and unfalsifiable connection to the creator of the universe.

But it isn't, it's a reasoned conclusion.

How do you know his purpose for creating the universe was not for spawning microbacteria in another part of the universe and we are just a unplanned consequence for which the god has no care or interest? Why do you prefer spawning humans over spawning microbacteria?

Would you want micro-bacteria for a companion, and they sure wouldn't be a source of creative, independent thought.

Then the third part of your statement:
3) You indicate that the previous parts of your statement [( 1) god created the universe, 2) his purpose was to spawn humans)] is support your for your claim that morality is inherent (innate).
What process did you use to determine the claim that morality is innate?

Self-awareness forces us to be able to have the capacity to understand what it's like to be in someone else's shoes. And since we know we wouldn't want them to kill us, we know they don't want us to kill them. The choice between good and evil is whether we choose to ignore this inherent knowledge or not.

Whether or not morality is innate is an empirical, scientific, question, especially for cultural anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists. It is a question for descriptive ethics. It has been shown that moral actions like compassion, altruism and reciprocal altruism are naturally evolved adaptations beneficial for survival.

But we can only love others AS MUCH as we love ourselves. There's no such thing as unselfishness, but there is sacrifice.

If morality was a prescribed duty that came from a god, then we should see a consistent moral underpinning to all our moral actions. The trouble is we don't.

Exactly.

There are wide variations on what is considered moral and these variations are an easily delineated landscape.

Exactly again. All the different religions have put words in their "God(s)" mouth(S) and piled on a whole lot of BS "morality", like going to church on Sunday, tithing, etc. The ONLY actions that should be immoral (and thus legislated) are those where one individual violates the rights of another to life, liberty, property and self-defense--a more precise Golden Rule, to some version of which almost all religions give lip service. It is universal and objective and must apply equally to all. All other behavior is individually regulated. I call that virtue.

To observe these divergences in morality one would look for areas where there are groups with common beliefs, or common cultures and or differing circumstances. Any group of these can display a deep diversity of morality and it is these differences that demonstrate that morality comes from natural evolutionary processes. We even see a natural form of morality existent within the animal kingdom.

No we don't. All animals (and infants) are innocent, to which there may be only a very few possible yet unlikely exceptions. Their self-awareness would have to include understanding the universality and inevitability of death. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'll take your refusal to answer as an admission that I am right: Opinions can have a basis, and that you were wrong in claiming mine had to be baseless.


Not a problem whatsoever.
However, as it turns out I actually have proven it to others, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Twice in fact. Prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt? Most likely not, but perhaps so if I took the trouble and you listened with an open and rational mind.

The answer is no, not all opinions are baseless, depending on the subject. When it comes to my health, I take my doctor's expert, educated opinion based on test results.

When it comes to your unprovable claim that free will does not exist, I simply toss that in the trash pile because it is merely an opinion about something that is otherwise irrelevant.

 

[Desert Snake]

Christians, can you reference the bible and demonstrate how God "loves us", without referencing: 1) human sacrifice or, 2) some bible character that just claims God loves us?
What did God ever do that really proves or demonstrates his love. I have been unable to find a single act of love that didn't refer to a human sacrifice or someone just saying that God loves us. I'm not talking about Jesus but the God Jesus prayed to.

Your question doesn't make sense, unless you believe that ''humans'', ie normal humans, ascend into the air, walk on water, don't have human fathers, and are referred to as ''Creator'', and ''God'', by their adherents...


My question to you, is...


what book are you reading?

 

[rusra02]

Why do the other lifeforms on Earth have to suffer for our screw up?

God put the animal creation under subjection to man. (Genesis 1:28) I believe man's rebellion led to suffering for all that is under man's control. Humans today are ruining the earth and causing enormous suffering for themselves and the animals and plants. Happily, thus ruination will not continue much longer, IMO. (Revelation 11:18)

 

[atpollard]

Christians, can you reference the bible and demonstrate how God "loves us", without referencing: 1) human sacrifice or, 2) some bible character that just claims God loves us?
What did God ever do that really proves or demonstrates his love. I have been unable to find a single act of love that didn't refer to a human sacrifice or someone just saying that God loves us. I'm not talking about Jesus but the God Jesus prayed to.

What about the entire story of Joseph.
At every step of the way, God protected Joseph's life and saw to it that Joseph landed on his feet.

Compare the family dynamics presented in the early chapters of the House of Jacob (Joseph's father) with the family dynamics presented after Joseph was reunited with his brothers.
The results are an act of love.

(... and there is no human sacrifice involved).
[If you need it broken down further for you to make it clearer, I suspect that our Jewish members could do more justice to the nuances than I could. I just reread Genesis in November and that whole family/story jumped out at me. I can relate to growing up in a blended family.]

 

[atpollard]

According to the Exodus story ALL the Israelites that left Egypt perished in the desert! All 2,000,000 + of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. You can't make this stuff up! Almost nobody reads the bible. They are told stories that are cherry picked. Almost no one reads the bible for themselves. Of the ones that do read the bible they are most likely using or following a study guide so they reconstruct the events to maintain either their "Statement of Faith" or some particular doctrine. Anyone that sets out to critically read the bible for themselves will be shocked at the absurdity, cruelty, injustice and contradictions.

[sarcasm] ... and God kicked Adam and Eve out of that perfect nest he had built and killed them for absolutely no reason! [/sarcasm]
When I read the OP, I thought this topic was about asking an honest question.
I now see that I was wrong.
It is nonsense. It is a platform for baseless rants based on half truths and distortions.
What a waste of time.
What a disappointment.

Let's take the Exodus story as 100% fiction and a morality play, just to make you happy since those are your basic ground rules for this discussion.
Do you think the fact (in the story) that the entire generation EXCEPT Caleb and Joshua rejected the contract with God and refused to enter the Promised Land, so God ultimately raised up the next generation who DID enter the promised land ... might be worth mentioning?
But don't let me get in your way, rant on.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Midnight Rain]

God put the animal creation under subjection to man. (Genesis 1:28) I believe man's rebellion led to suffering for all that is under man's control. Humans today are ruining the earth and causing enormous suffering for themselves and the animals and plants. Happily, thus ruination will not continue much longer, IMO. (Revelation 11:18)

The belief that man is higher than the rest of the living world is a distinctly unique corruption of morals. It is the basis of much of the harm we have done to the environment.

 

[Skwim]

When it comes to your unprovable claim that free will does not exist, I simply toss that in the trash pile because it is merely an opinion about something that is otherwise irrelevant.

Yet here you are six post later still talking about it.

 

[OnePointSix18]

Your question doesn't make sense, unless you believe that ''humans'', ie normal humans, ascend into the air, walk on water, don't have human fathers, and are referred to as ''Creator'', and ''God'', by their adherents...


My question to you, is...


what book are you reading?

What makes the question I posed to Christians, senseless, unless I believe in levitation and magic?

You question the book I'm reading? Me to. The book I'm reading contains many flaws, contradictions and does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The books true sources as well as its authorship is unknown outside the book itself. It contains many known forgeries and is considered to be mythological by most historians. It's the bible.

 

[OnePointSix18]

If God exists, it must be some sort of definition of omnipotent, which would at least give It the power over us of life and death. That said, whether it actually created the universe is a moot point.



The Big Bang says it wasn't. And it also appears that the quantum land in which our universe is suspended, there is no time.



See above.



The It wasn't God.


It was either created or came to be spontaneously. Can you think of another possibility.



See above.



I only assume that the universe either was created or it wasn't. There's no evidence for or against either proposition.



God could have done anything else instantly. So why go to so much trouble here? Unaware creatures with free will can be the only answer. Again, anything else could have been done instantly.



But it isn't, it's a reasoned conclusion.



Would you want micro-bacteria for a companion, and they sure wouldn't be a source of creative, independent thought.



Self-awareness forces us to be able to have the capacity to understand what it's like to be in someone else's shoes. And since we know we wouldn't want them to kill us, we know they don't want us to kill them. The choice between good and evil is whether we choose to ignore this inherent knowledge or not.


But we can only love others AS MUCH as we love ourselves. There's no such thing as unselfishness, but there is sacrifice.



Exactly.


Exactly again. All the different religions have put words in their "God(s)" mouth(S) and piled on a whole lot of BS "morality", like going to church on Sunday, tithing, etc. The ONLY actions that should be immoral (and thus legislated) are those where one individual violates the rights of another to life, liberty, property and self-defense--a more precise Golden Rule, to some version of which almost all religions give lip service. It is universal and objective and must apply equally to all. All other behavior is individually regulated. I call that virtue.


No we don't. All animals (and infants) are innocent, to which there may be only a very few possible yet unlikely exceptions. Their self-awareness would have to include understanding the universality and inevitability of death. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I like your response. There is some common ground. You make two statements that identify your position and why you take that position.

1) "It was either created or came to be spontaneously. Can you think of another possibility."
Yes I can, as well as other theoretical physicists and scientists. You are presenting a false dichotomy. There is a third option.
The idea that space-time had a beginning argument is actually been rejected by several scientists. Earlier you pointed toward quantum mechanics as trouble for my position. However, the Hawking-Penrose theorem was the theorem that originally argued that the universe must have begun with a singularity, but both Hawking and Penrose have both agreed that this is false. It is false because quantum mechanics makes it impossible. We don't actually know that space-time itself began with a big bang we just know the observable universe we’re in began at the Big Bang. We don't know what occurred it before it therefore we can't actually establish that the universe had a beginning.

2) "Would you want micro-bacteria for a companion, and they sure wouldn't be a source of creative, independent thought."
This looks like wishful thinking to me. (If there was a god) how would you verify his purpose? And without any way to do that I find no benefit to guessing.

 

[OnePointSix18]

[sarcasm] ... and God kicked Adam and Eve out of that perfect nest he had built and killed them for absolutely no reason! [/sarcasm]
When I read the OP, I thought this topic was about asking an honest question.
I now see that I was wrong.
It is nonsense. It is a platform for baseless rants based on half truths and distortions.
What a waste of time.
What a disappointment.

Let's take the Exodus story as 100% fiction and a morality play, just to make you happy since those are your basic ground rules for this discussion.
Do you think the fact (in the story) that the entire generation EXCEPT Caleb and Joshua rejected the contract with God and refused to enter the Promised Land, so God ultimately raised up the next generation who DID enter the promised land ... might be worth mentioning?
But don't let me get in your way, rant on.

Merry Christmas.

Don't be discouraged. My question was genuine. However, so far no Christian has offered a single example of God's demonstration of love without invoking a human sacrifice or just pointing to a verse that overtly states, "that god loves you". It says that God IS love, but it is likely impossible to point to a biblical text where God (Yahweh) performed a specific act of love for someone. I would expect many examples of a God of love, a God that IS love, to have straightforwardly shown direct evidence many times over of his love. Something where there is a win win for everyone. Not military victories, that boastfully award virgins among the great plunder.

 

[Lyndon]

You haven't been reading the responses, have you???

 

[OnePointSix18]

You haven't been reading the responses, have you???

So far no Christian has offered a single example of God's demonstration of love without invoking a human sacrifice or just pointing to a verse that overtly states, "that god loves you".

Please direct me to the specific demonstration of love you allude to.

 

[Lyndon]

There have been quite a few, go back and read the thread, you must have missed them??

 

[OnePointSix18]

There have been quite a few, go back and read the thread, you must have missed them??

I think I've read everything posted that was responding to me. Are you are referring to the couple of verses where rain falls on the just as well as the unjust? If so, then maybe you'd like to tell me why you think that specifically address the question. Without further explanation I cannot accept that as an answer. I have a little higher threshold for convincing evidence.

 

[atpollard]

Don't be discouraged. My question was genuine. However, so far no Christian has offered a single example of God's demonstration of love without invoking a human sacrifice or just pointing to a verse that overtly states, "that god loves you". It says that God IS love, but it is likely impossible to point to a biblical text where God (Yahweh) performed a specific act of love for someone. I would expect many examples of a God of love, a God that IS love, to have straightforwardly shown direct evidence many times over of his love. Something where there is a win win for everyone. Not military victories, that boastfully award virgins among the great plunder.

Let's take a look at the life of Joseph, starting with his family, the 12 sons of Jacob (later called Israel):
[Again, for your benefit, we will treat this as a work of fiction and focus on any lessons about human nature and character development.]

(Genesis Chapter 29 through 35) - feel free to read it for yourself
Jacob loves Rachel, tricked to marry Leah … Leah has sons, but no love … Rachel has love, but no sons.
1. (Leah) Rueben “behold a son” … will her husband love her now.
2. (Leah) Simeon “hearer” … the Lord heard her tears.
3. (Leah) Levi “attachment” … hope of a relationship with her husband.
4. (Leah) Judah “praise” … she praises God.
5. (Rachel’s slave) Dan “judgment” … Rachel views the child of the flesh as vindication and lifting of her own judgment by human power.
6. (Rachel’s slave) Naphtali “wrestle” … child openly named in commemoration of the power struggle in the house between her and her sister.
7. (Leah’s slave) Gad “troop” … just a number, more pawns in a fight.
8. (Leah’s slave) Asher “happy” … not for the child, for the status symbol.
9. (Leah) Issachar “reward” … believes God rewarded her for having her husband bed her slave.
10. (Leah) Zebulon “dweller” … she still longs for her husband to live with her and love her.
11. (Rachel) Joseph “may he add” … God granted a miracle, but Rachel can only see Leah is still ahead.
12. (Rachel) … Rachel died in childbirth – Ben-Oni “son of sorrow” – Jacob changed his name to Benjamin “son of my strength”.

So the basic situation, Jacob has two wives. His first wife is unloved and spends her entire life attempting to win her husbands approval (which I don't think she ever gets).
The second wife is a trophy wife who has her husbands love but bears the shame of infertility.
From the names, the children appear to be little more than pawns in this power struggle between 'their mother' and 'that other woman'.

(Genesis Chapter 37) - feel free to read it for yourself
Gen 37:4 "When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him."

Joseph was Jacobs pampered favorite and hated by his brothers. Imagine growing up in a family so dysfunctional that your older brothers hated you and wanted you dead.
Joseph had a proud heart that needed to be softened if he was to be of service to God.
The brothers attempt to kill Joseph, but God spares his life and he ends the chapter in Egypt ... which is where God needs Joseph to complete his training, soften his heart and save God's people.
ACT OF LOVE #1: Whether Rachel ever appreciated it or not, God gave her a son. God also set in motion a plan that would change this ugly family dynamic forever. God was not responsible for the problem, but in love, he was committed to the cure.
ACT OF LOVE #2: God spoke to Joseph in dreams. This revealed hints of God's plan to Joseph so that he would recognize that God's hand was behind everything in the end. God also revealed the reality of himself to Joseph in a special way that would help him through the hard times.
ACT OF LOVE #3: God protected Joseph and placed him where he needed to be to become both great and a servant of God.

The story goes on with far more acts of love, but I have done enough of your homework ...