Convince me that God is loving

[Brian2]

While defending the practice of slavery, you wrote, "I mentioned loving your neighbour as something that the slave owners were to live by in how they treated their slaves" and I responded, "Owning a slave is not loving that slave." How is that not you calling keeping slaves love?

By my standards, once you've taken a slave, you've violated the Golden Rule.

In the world we live in that would be the case.
In the world of the Old Testament that was not the case always.
And both the OT and NT teach that abducting people to force them into slavery is not right.

Then you have made the transformation that is expected of you. You are asked to find ways to accept whatever it is you believe that God has sanctioned. The unbeliever has no reason to do that, and so doesn't and continues to reject slavery as immoral.

You and I reject slavery in these times. I have found out that slavery in a proper context and with appropriate laws around it has been OK in the past and you see your moral standards as absolute for all times and places.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the world we live in that would be the case. In the world of the Old Testament that was not the case always.

I had written, "By my standards, once you've taken a slave, you've violated the Golden Rule." We obviously have different moral standards. Keeping one captive, stealing his labor, stripping him of his dignity, beating him ad lib, and selling his children was never moral.

It's interesting that you understand intuitively that such behavior is immoral now, yet have found a way to believe that it was not in the past.

both the OT and NT teach that abducting people to force them into slavery is not right.

The Old Testament condones slavery. It does not teach that it is immoral. And your comment indicates a consciousness of guilt on the part of the writers of those scriptures regarding the practice of slavery, although I don't see the moral difference between abducting and buying slaves somebody else abducted.

You and I reject slavery in these times. I have found out that slavery in a proper context and with appropriate laws around it has been OK in the past and you see your moral standards as absolute for all times and places.

Yes, we differ here, but I would disagree that you found out that slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was moral. As best I can tell, you decided that it must be moral if the god you worship condoned it, since you have offered nothing better than an argument that being a working captive (slave) is better than being a nonworking captive (prisoner). If you were right, you could convince unbelievers, too.

 

[samtonga43]

Is this you objecting to some freethinking upstart trying to usurp the role of God in his life as moral lawgiver by arrogantly assuming that role himself?

I don’t think of you as a freethinking upstart; those are your words, and I have no doubt that you enjoy portraying yourself as such.

The thing is, I don’t think you are thinking freely.

You have tied yourself to the belief that slavery is always wrong, in whatever societal circumstances, at whatever time and place. You are not ‘thinking freely’ because you are dismissing the possibility that slavery may in OT times have been preferable to what was happening to the individual in her/his alternative situation.

You seem to resent my independent thought deciding what is right and wrong for myself.

Resent? On the contrary. I am all for independent thought.

However, I believe that black/white statements about the rights and wrongs of how people lived thousands of years ago do not do justice to that far-off society (or to those in today’s society who are certain they are ‘thinking freely’).

I am pleased with the result. My moral code is benevolent and internally consistent. I feel no cognitive dissonance when I make moral choices, nor regret afterward. I am at peace with my world and have no enemies. I don't require more from a code of behavior.

I am happy for you, that you are so satisfied with yourself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are not ‘thinking freely’ because you are dismissing the possibility that slavery may in OT times have been preferable to what was happening to the individual in her/his alternative situation.

What you are describing is closed-mindedness if what you mean is that the claim was dismissed without being considered. The claim was considered and rejected. What I believe you mean by thinking freely is joining those willing to believe by faith and simply accept that the Bible represents the will of a good god despite condoning slavery. Free thinking as you use the term actually means suspending critical judgment and one's own moral intuitions and conforming to religious dogma instead. Free thinking is the opposite of that.

I believe that black/white statements about the rights and wrongs of how people lived thousands of years ago do not do justice to that far-off society

You have to. You're a religious apologist. Being a free thinker, I can deviate from religious dogma and say that I believe that stealing a person's freedom, dignity, labor, and family is always immoral. Your job is to find ways to make slavery into a gift to slaves from a good and loving god. Though religious apologists routinely chastise what they call moral relativism when condemning the humanist method for deciding such things, in this context, moral relativism suits the apologist, and he's the first to tell you how these things change over time and to condemn taking a strong moral stance against slavery as too black-and-white.

I am happy for you, that you are so satisfied with yourself.

You're happy for me? That's not credible. You were sarcastically suggesting that others should turn to me for moral advice. I am explaining how well those principles served me. Would you have preferred that taking that path led to the sorrow that scriptures and priests constantly warn will follow to demonstrate the wisdom of your faith and scriptures? If so, it didn't turn out that way.

 

[Brian2]

I had written, "By my standards, once you've taken a slave, you've violated the Golden Rule." We obviously have different moral standards. Keeping one captive, stealing his labor, stripping him of his dignity, beating him ad lib, and selling his children was never moral.

Sounds like a worst case scenario from someone who was not trying to live by the Law of Moses, and the worst way to describe what it meant to be a slave then.

The Old Testament condones slavery. It does not teach that it is immoral. And your comment indicates a consciousness of guilt on the part of the writers of those scriptures regarding the practice of slavery, although I don't see the moral difference between abducting and buying slaves somebody else abducted.

I also don't see the difference and would suggest that there is none.

Yes, we differ here, but I would disagree that you found out that slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was moral. As best I can tell, you decided that it must be moral if the god you worship condoned it, since you have offered nothing better than an argument that being a working captive (slave) is better than being a nonworking captive (prisoner). If you were right, you could convince unbelievers, too.

Actually I said that being a working POW is better than being killed. as a POW.
I don't think the setting up of a big prison system was practical in those days.
So slavery was the better option and I don't know what what you would say about that.

 

[Muffled]

I sure hope so, even if there is no proof of that.
Otherwise I am going to be in the dog house.

There are reasons why I am willing to believe that God is Forgiving and Merciful, but question whether He is Loving.

I believe there is proof which is Jesus on the cross.

 

[Muffled]

I said:
Convince me that God is loving without referring to scriptures that say that.

I believe He saved me from sin and delivered me from Covid-19.

 

[Muffled]

I absolutely don't believe that. Why should God get the credit for what humans do?
Meanwhile, God is not doing jack squat.

I believe I would not be loving you if it were not God in me doing it. Credit goes to the one doing it and it aint me.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe He saved me from sin and delivered me from Covid-19.

But what about all the other people who were not saved from sin or delivered from Covid-19?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I would not be loving you if it were not God in me doing it. Credit goes to the one doing it and it aint me.

I think you have that backwards.
If you love me, you deserve the credit for loving me. God does not deserve the credit for you loving me.
The fact that you would not be loving me if it were it not for your belief in God is irrelevant.
Credit goes to the one doing it and it is you.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I believe He saved me from sin and delivered me from Covid-19.

What about all the other Christians who died of COVID-19 or some other deadly virus or disease? Why didn't God deliver them too?

 

[samtonga43]

You have to. You're a religious apologist. Being a free thinker, I can deviate from religious dogma and say that I believe that stealing a person's freedom, dignity, labor, and family is always immoral.

I can assure you that there is nothing I ‘have to believe’. How silly. Nothing stops me from thinking, investigating, wondering etc.

I think freely, using all of my senses, all of my intelligence. I regard doubts as encouraging and healthy. I am not required to have perfect, flawless, indestructible faith.

But I can see how fond you are of black/white categories. Oh the irony!

Your badge states “I am a freethinker!”
My badge says “I am a religious apologist!”

Neither is accurate, but you do love your little boxes, don’t you? Do you put people into boxes in real life? Do you really believe that slavery in O.T. times always meant stealing a person's freedom, dignity, labor, and family? If you do, you are not thinking freely (or clearly, actually)

You're happy for me? That's not credible.

Yes, I probably ought to have developed my thoughts on your stance more than I did. I apologize. I am happy that you feel satisfied. It is good to feel satisfied. Can you feel a ‘but’ coming along?
Here it is: I would advise you to apply yourself to thinking broadly rather than ‘freely’. You come across as quite narrow at the moment. In my opinion, of course.

 

[samtonga43]

What about all the other Christians who died of COVID-19 or some other deadly virus or disease? Why didn't God deliver them too?

He did.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think freely, using all of my senses, all of my intelligence.

You have chosen to believe by faith. You embrace dogma. For a discussion and proper definition of freethinking, see below.

Do you really believe that slavery in O.T. times always meant stealing a person's freedom, dignity, labor, and family?

Always is your word, not mine. A better question (to you) would be, Do you really believe that slavery in O.T. times never meant stealing a person's freedom, dignity, labor, and/or family? If not, then one is condoning that practice when he condones biblical slavery.

Your badge states “I am a freethinker!”
My badge says “I am a religious apologist!”
Neither is accurate

You're being a religious apologist now trying to mitigate the enormity of biblical slavery. This is exactly what it looks like. Here, you just tried a verbal sleight-of-hand by changing my comment to imply that maybe sometimes, slavery wasn't always as bad as that, which you stated earlier with: "you are dismissing the possibility that slavery may in OT times have been preferable to what was happening to the individual in her/his alternative situation."

But this is a hopeless task for any apologist trying to explain to people who understand why slavery is immoral that it's not really always all that bad. It's as hopeless a task as that of the apologists trying to argue that macroevolution or abiogenesis are impossible to people who understand that they are not.

I would advise you to apply yourself to thinking broadly rather than ‘freely’. You come across as quite narrow at the moment. In my opinion, of course.

Free thinking doesn't mean undisciplined thinking. It means thinking free from dogma, or "forming your own opinions and beliefs, especially about religion or politics, rather than just accepting what is officially or commonly believed and taught." The latter - "just accepting" - describes belief by faith. If I were giving unsolicited life advice, it would be to learn and apply critical thought whenever evaluating claims and evidence. Just how valuable a skill is that? It's the only defense against indoctrination, or the passive, uncritical acceptance of the idea of others as if they are downloading a zip drive into you.

And empiricism is the only path to truth about how the world is and works. There is no place for faith in that process. This is the kind of thinking commonly criticized by faith-based thinkers, generally with some dismissive reference to materialism or scientism, often with a call to be more "open-minded" (translate: less rigorous in deciding what is true), since it rejects their beliefs and how they came by them. I rejected those ideas as well. They're simply bad ideas.

Also, I'm not looking for life advice, thank you. I'm content with my current beliefs, methods, and values - my worldview - which are the result of the application of reason to the evidence of the senses and the intuitions of the conscience over the decades since I left religion. I have been tweaking that belief set for decades, keeping those that produced desired results and modifying or eliminating those that didn't, and still do, but now it's just small stuff, like remembering to introduce people who come up to our restaurant table when we're with other people (I forgot to do that twice recently, and am making a deliberate effort now to not do that again), or making an effort to remember names when I hear them.

That's self-actualization, or becoming the deliberate and conscientious sculptor of one's life. Look at how many people can't see how they constantly shoot themselves in the foot and unwittingly work against their own interests, making the same mistakes time and again for lack of insight. Think about that word - literally - looking inside oneself from the outside in as others see one. There's a great metaphor from marine biology. The plankton are the creatures that float in currents and thus go where they are taken. The nekton are the ones that swim, dig, walk, or crawl. They choose a destination.

So, really, with all due respect, what are you offering with your advice? I understand it as passive-aggressive, not constructive. You're offended by my brusque manner and message, which you experience as arrogance - but are likely constrained by the role you feel you need to play as a Christian in a public venue. But if it's the latter, perhaps you can demonstrate that by explaining the benefits you imagine will ensue for making the changes you suggest. What do you mean specifically by broadening thinking if not what I suggested, and how will that make my life choices and my life better?

 

[Revelation 21:4]

With all due respect, I asked to be convinced without referring to scriptures that say that God is loving.

Scriptures are not going to convince me that God is loving.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.


Respectfully, I am wondering why you use and quote Baha’i scriptures but not accept Bible scriptures?

If you feel that the Bible contradicts itself, we can discuss this further.

I can guarantee you if people think that there are contradictions in the Bible, then that means that they were simply taught wrong interpretations of it.

For a quick example: Many people think that the earth will be destroyed, because of the words in 2 Peter 3:7 .

Then they read Ecclesiastes 1:4, which says that the earth “abideth forever.”

And they say, “Ah, contradiction!”

But is it?

Well, earth can mean ‘people’, as in Genesis 11:1…
“Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words.” (Is earth here, the planet, or people on it? It’s sort of obvious: it’s the people.)

When you reason on these scriptures you can see the need why one scripture has to be compared with other scriptures in order to understand the context. We can’t pick and chose, but it takes effort, and we must recognize that it’s Jesus’ Father Jehovah who gives understanding.

Luke 10:21 quotes Jesus words:

“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.”


It’s His book!



I’m agreeing with what Jesus said above, and we praise his Father Jehovah too. In fact, Jesus called his Father Jehovah, “My God”!

John 20:17 says:

…. I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God”. (Jesus was talking to Mary, an Israelite who worshipped Yahweh / Jehovah.)

Did not Jesus call his Father “the only true God” ? (John 17:3) And as Jehovah’s Witnesses we only worship his Father. (And we strive to live by His standards, expressing love and concern for others).

That’s why I believe Jehovah’s Witnesses have the best understanding of His Word, i.e, the truth.



I was raised a Lutheran, born in Germany, and had so many unanswered questions ever since I was five years old. No one could answer them to my satisfaction, only Jehovah’s people, using only His Word the Bible through reasoning of its entire context.



That is what I believe and experienced.

 

[Trailblazer]

Respectfully, I am wondering why you use and quote Baha’i scriptures but not accept Bible scriptures?

Because the Baha'i scriptures are simple and straightforward, unambiguous.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

How much simpler can you get? Some Bible verses are easy to understand, but more often than not they are in the language of the spirit which needs to be deciphered.

If you feel that the Bible contradicts itself, we can discuss this further.

The Bible seems to contradict itself, but if you understand what the verses mean they are not really contradictory.

The salient problem is that there is more than one possible interpretation of the same verses and Christians do not interpet verses the same way so they do not agree what they mean.
Why is one Christian correct and another incorrect, just becaue they say so? Who gave ayone the authoriy to interpret the Bible?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Convince me that God is loving without referring to scriptures that say that.

Tell me why I should believe that God is loving.

I cannot believe God is loving since it makes no sense to me that there would be so much suffering in the world if God was loving. I am referring to suffering that cannot be tied any free will decision of the person who suffers.

I do not want to hear any religious apologetics about how suffering is for our own good. We all know that there is a lot of gratuitous suffering in the world, suffering that serves no purpose.

A person who loves someone does things to show that they love that person, and they make sacrifices for the other person. If a man tells me he loves me but does nothing to show it, why would I believe him?

What does God do to show He loves us? What sacrifices does God make?

I see no evidence that God is loving, so I have to write that off as a faith-based belief.

P.S. Whether we should love God or not is another discussion. In principle, I think we should love God and other people without expectation of getting anything in return. I do not need God’s love in order to love God. I do not need love from anyone in order to love that person because I consider that selfish.

Christians and Baha’s believe that God is loving, and I think there is a reason for that, other than what their scriptures say. Imo, they have to believe God is loving because they need to feel loved by God in order to love God. I have no idea why since I do not need God’s love in order to love God. The reason I want to know if God is loving is because I am tired of religious people saying that God is loving with nothing but scriptures to back that up.

Perhaps "loving" is the problem. God loves you, He loves me, He loves butterflies, anteaters, and dung beetles, He loves termites, crab grass, and bread mold, etc., etc... ad infinitum.

A god who (literally) loves everything is for all intents and purposes no different from a god who loves nothing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps "loving" is the problem. God loves you, He loves me, He loves butterflies, anteaters, and dung beetles, He loves termites, crab grass, and bread mold, etc., etc... ad infinitum.

Yes, perhaps that is my problem, loving.

A god who (literally) loves everything is for all intents and purposes no different from a god who loves nothing.

If God literally loves everything I guess that means that God loves atheists as much as believers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, perhaps that is my problem, loving.

If God literally loves everything I guess that means that God loves atheists as much as believers.

And the believers won't stand for that, will they?

For far too many people, the whole point of a religious institution is to promote inequality -- The saved vs. the sinners, The chosen vs. the unchosen, The faithful vs. the infidels -- and to bribe, cajole, and bootlick their way onto the "better" side...

 

[Stevicus]

If God literally loves everything I guess that means that God loves atheists as much as believers.

I can see a case being made for God taking a more neutral and impartial view, as one might expect from a judge. As an agnostic, if I say "I don't know," that's a true, genuine, sincere statement. If there is a God and I get called to account for my agnosticism (or "weak atheism" as some might call it), then at least I can say I was honest.

Apart from that, if God's purported "love" is to be measured and perceived through His Creation, such as the Earth and the mechanisms of nature by which all known life operates, then I would say the only thing we can assume about that which created this place is more "indifference" than any indication of "love." Nature in the raw is pretty harsh and unforgiving, so there is no love in any of that - even if it does provide some nice scenery from time to time. So, maybe God doesn't care either way. If we're talking about someone who's been presiding over an entire universe for billions and billions of years, then God has probably seen and heard just about everything by now. Nothing fazes Him anymore. He's probably gone numb.