Does God Love Humans

[idav]

Your premise is based on a liberal worldview, where everything is decided by groups or as a whole. You come off that a bit in the text, but I'm here to say, first off that we're damned or saved completely on an individual basis. And further, if there is a Hereafter, we will be our own judges firmly
ensconced in the judgement seat, bathed in the undeniable Light of Truth.

Maybe, it is a view like God loves humans or he doesn't. I do completely think it is on an individual basis though. I've not considered that God would pick and choose who to love. or that gods love could suddenly stop for one creation. That's not how I understand Gods love for Cain, he would have just obliterated him and called it a day.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Maybe, it is a view like God loves humans or he doesn't. I do completely think it is on an individual basis though. I've not considered that God would pick and choose who to love. or that gods love could suddenly stop for one creation. That's not how I understand Gods love for Cain, he would have just obliterated him and called it a day.

Yeah, I don't believe we can love anyone more than we love ourselves, or hate anyone more than we hate ourselves. I don't guess God hates evil people, but is more like just sad for them.

 

[idav]

Yeah, I don't believe we can love anyone more than we love ourselves, or hate anyone more than we hate ourselves.

Tris is possible by making people generally less culpable than the self instead of more culpable which would breed hate. Equal culpability is fair though, no more and no less.

I don't guess God hates evil people, but is more like just sad for them.

This seems more like a God that curses human beings instead of nurturing and leading them the right way. Some people look at this world and see evidence that it's cursed. Is that what you see?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Tris is possible by making people generally less culpable than the self instead of more culpable which would breed hate. Equal culpability is fair though, no more and no less.

???

This seems more like a God that curses human beings instead of nurturing and leading them the right way. Some people look at this world and see evidence that it's cursed. Is that what you see?

God must not interact, at all. Therefore, It doesn't curse or bless, it only watches, if It exists. This is a test, and any interaction would exert influence on our otherwise free will.

 

[idav]

???

I'm just saying that people sometimes hold others to a higher standard than themselves, hats where hypocrisy comes when we start picking certain types of sins, as if our own individual sins are less so. Maybe hey are maybe they aren't but holding people accountable to there same standard as you would yourself seems fair to, to a point. We can't expect people to just always act like ourselves.

God must not interact, at all. Therefore, It doesn't curse or bless, it only watches, if It exists. This is a test, and any interaction would exert influence on our otherwise free will.

I see where your coming from. It certainly could be a test, life tests my patience plenty, I don't know about you all.

 

[Bird123]

So then you disagree with Christian doctrine? The god of the Christian Bible has conditions for loving human beings. He needs their worship and obedience, without which one incurs His wrath.

As I see it, the Christian view of God is not reality. It seems to be based on what some people think God should be. Stories and Beliefs are far from Reality. God has to be much more Intelligent and at a much Higher Level.

 

[PureX]

I told you that I am content.

I understand, but I don't think it's all about how you feel.

No, I do not harm others in any way. Au contraire. I have no enemies or detractors, and am very involved socially. Why would you assume otherwise?

Well, you are human, and we humans are selfish, short-sighted, egotistical, ignorant, arrogant, and indifferent to the harm we cause each other, most of the time.

And I do not desecrate the physical world. What is your carbon footprint? We have more solar panels on our roof than we need, and not only is all of our electric unrelated to greenhouse gases, 3/4 of our former propane need is met by a solar water heat next to the panels. We send green power to the utility to give to others, reducing their use of fossil fuels electrifying the region.

You participate in a human society that is destroying it's own habitat, that allows it's fellow humans to die of disease and starvation that it could cure, that imprisons and enslaves itself to greed and stupidity, willfully, just as we all do. You are not rendered innocent by your indifference. None of us are.

You simply keep insisting that I am defective and need help from a spirit. You refer to arrogance, perhaps because I told you that I don't need religion to feel complete, to have a sense of purpose in my life, or to discern right from wrong.

There is more to your existence as a human being than how you feel about yourself.

Regarding inadvertently harming others, how would any irrational belief positively impact that? What does your religion teach you to help you not inadvertently harm others?

Well, to start with, it could teach you how to care. How to see yourself in others, and them in you, so that you could afford their well-being some sense of value.

You assume so much about what others need and what your advice can do for them - advice that implies that you think that all people are defective and want and need that advice. That idea that many Christians espouse that we are all broken sinners in need of salvation for some imagined moral crime is not one that resonates with me.

Yes, I can see that. But it is true, nevertheless. And sooner or later in your life, this will be made apparent. We'll all get our 'dark night of the soul', sooner or later.

Sorry, but I am at peace with my surroundings and with myself. Do you really assume that that is impossible? It's not.

If only this were the 'Universe of You'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand, but I don't think it's all about how you feel.
Well, you are human, and we humans are selfish, short-sighted, egotistical, ignorant, arrogant, and indifferent to the harm we cause each other, most of the time.
You participate in a human society that is destroying it's own habitat, that allows it's fellow humans to die of disease and starvation that it could cure, that imprisons and enslaves itself to greed and stupidity, willfully, just as we all do. You are not rendered innocent by your indifference. None of us are.
There is more to your existence as a human being than how you feel about yourself.
Well, to start with, it could teach you how to care. How to see yourself in others, and them in you, so that you could afford their well-being some sense of value.
Yes, I can see that. But it is true, nevertheless. And sooner or later in your life, this will be made apparent. We'll all get our 'dark night of the soul', sooner or later.
If only this were the 'Universe of You'.

I have never said that it's about how I feel. I merely said that I am satisfied with my choices and who I am. I live with a clear conscience. I think that you object to that.

You've spun that sense of self-contentment with how I interact with others into selfishness, and seem to be saying that I am guilty by association with the human race of allowing others to starve and die of disease, that I need to learn to care and begin to value people. You have no idea how much or little I care or do for others, You just assume that it isn't good enough, and presumably need to make philosophical and behavioral changes. That's a little presumptuous.

Or maybe it's what I usually refer to as Christian misanthropy, the doctrine that depicts man as sin-infected, failed, utterly dependent, and hopeless except through the church's exclusive dispensation of salvation. This is the position that assumes that everybody out there needs some kind of spiritual rehabilitation.

I understand. That is one of what I call the many very bad ideas promulgated by Christianity, and it is widely held among Christians. The reason for teaching it is obvious: The church has created a sickness that it alone holds the cure for.

But that is all pessimistic, nihilistic, wrongheaded thinking to my humanistic perspective, which sees man as having great potential and the only possible source of making the world better.

I had a similar discussion with a female Jehovah's Witness in Australia well-known to many RF posters. When I told her how dark and undesirable I found her world view - that I saw the human race as a mozaic of depravity and nobility - she chastised me for having any positive view about humanity whatsoever.

That's coming through from you in this discussion as well.

I told her what I told you: I don't want what she is offering, that I am content with what I consider the superior values and core tenets of humanism, that I felt that I was living life well with them, that she had nothing to offer me, and that I wasn't interested in joining her.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think life is better lived this way, and that it's the Christian that could benefit from joining us,

But I never posted that to her and won't to you, either. I'm not selling anything here. It's the Christians that are selling doctrine that I find unreasonable, undesirable, and have no use for or any reason to believe - a position that is routinely criticized. You both told me that I need to feel more guilt for the bad things that happen in the world.

Sorry. Regret and empathy is all I can find. I'll leave the pointless shame, regret, guilt, and self-loathing for being human to others.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm just saying that people sometimes hold others to a higher standard than themselves, hats where hypocrisy comes when we start picking certain types of sins, as if our own individual sins are less so. Maybe hey are maybe they aren't but holding people accountable to there same standard as you would yourself seems fair to, to a point. We can't expect people to just always act like ourselves.

But that's exactly what we all must do to each other. The problem comes when we take the four only sins that follow from the Golden Rule (violating the rights of others to life, liberty, property and self-defense) which are all universal, and start lumping in all kinds of subjective "sins" which are victim-less crimes and up to the individual to determine. Sins/evil are only those four violations of rights, which are inter-individual acts, and the only thing that should be legislated.

I see where your coming from. It certainly could be a test, life tests my patience plenty, I don't know about you all.

God or not, we're all tested, even Tom Brady, but some more than others, which is where "Life ain't fair" comes from. And whenever we try to legislate fairness, it always makes things worse--ALWAYS. If this is a test we're here to do one thing, pursue the Truth, the aspects of which are knowledge, justice, love and beauty--purely objective blending to the purely subjective.

 

[Super Universe]

A hurricane happened in Houston? Is there really a President?

 

[PureX]

I have never said that it's about how I feel. I merely said that I am satisfied with my choices and who I am. I live with a clear conscience. I think that you object to that.

You've spun that sense of self-contentment with how I interact with others into selfishness, and seem to be saying that I am guilty by association with the human race of allowing others to starve and die of disease, that I need to learn to care and begin to value people. You have no idea how much or little I care or do for others, You just assume that it isn't good enough, and presumably need to make philosophical and behavioral changes. That's a little presumptuous.

Or maybe it's what I usually refer to as Christian misanthropy, the doctrine that depicts man as sin-infected, failed, utterly dependent, and hopeless except through the church's exclusive dispensation of salvation. This is the position that assumes that everybody out there needs some kind of spiritual rehabilitation.

I understand. That is one of what I call the many very bad ideas promulgated by Christianity, and it is widely held among Christians. The reason for teaching it is obvious: The church has created a sickness that it alone holds the cure for.

But that is all pessimistic, nihilistic, wrongheaded thinking to my humanistic perspective, which sees man as having great potential and the only possible source of making the world better.

I had a similar discussion with a female Jehovah's Witness in Australia well-known to many RF posters. When I told her how dark and undesirable I found her world view - that I saw the human race as a mozaic of depravity and nobility - she chastised me for having any positive view about humanity whatsoever.

That's coming through from you in this discussion as well.

I told her what I told you: I don't want what she is offering, that I am content with what I consider the superior values and core tenets of humanism, that I felt that I was living life well with them, that she had nothing to offer me, and that I wasn't interested in joining her.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think life is better lived this way, and that it's the Christian that could benefit from joining us,

But I never posted that to her and won't to you, either. I'm not selling anything here. It's the Christians that are selling doctrine that I find unreasonable, undesirable, and have no use for or any reason to believe - a position that is routinely criticized. You both told me that I need to feel more guilt for the bad things that happen in the world.

Sorry. Regret and empathy is all I can find. I'll leave the pointless shame, regret, guilt, and self-loathing for being human to others.

That's a real nice speech, but the foolishness of misunderstood and misapplied religion, and of the various confused religionists you've met in the past do not make you right, nor superior, nor do they justify you.

 

[idav]

A hurricane happened in Houston? Is there really a President?

What are you trying to say about Gods love for humanity? God hates us, is he dead, does he only like non-beach dwellers?

 

[Super Universe]

What are you trying to say about Gods love for humanity? God hates us, is he dead, does he only like non-beach dwellers?

Do parents love their children?

Do those parents who love their children give their children everything they want?

 

[idav]

Do parents love their children?

Do those parents who love their children give their children everything they want?

Your speaking in question again. Is this
Jeopardy?

Let's look at Cain and Abel. Do you allow the murder, what wrong would Cain have done if you stop him?

 

[Super Universe]

Your speaking in question again. Is this
Jeopardy?

Let's look at Cain and Abel. Do you allow the murder, what wrong would Cain have done if you stop him?

Does God allow murder? Yes.

Would you prefer to not have free will? How could you be responsible for anything if you don't have free will?

Oh, you want a universe, life, AND you want a God who guards you and provides you with everything your heart desires. The earth is not heaven. Heaven has to be earned. You have to earn it even when every primitive instinct is telling you to do whatever you have to do to survive and be successful.

 

[idav]

Does God allow murder? Yes.

Would you prefer to not have free will? How could you be responsible for anything if you don't have free will?

Oh, you want a universe, life, AND you want a God who guards you and provides you with everything your heart desires. The earth is not heaven. Heaven has to be earned. You have to earn it even when every primitive instinct is telling you to do whatever you have to do to survive and be successful.

I don't know what all this "you want" stuff is, like you I just asked a question.

Hard to understand what I am saying when I answer in the form of a question? Obviously God would have to allow the murder or Cain actually did no wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does God allow murder? Yes.

Many of us judge that as unacceptable:

• "You have a God who either sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

Would you prefer to not have free will?

Why wouldn't I want a will that always exhorted me to do the right thing, and why wouldn't I want everybody else to only want to do what is kind and just?

What we have are primitive urges that once served our ancestors survive and reproduce, which manifest in us today as urges to rape, steal, and murder. Today, we pit our sense of reason and our moral compass against these urges, but sometimes, in some people, the animal prevails and manifests as what are now considered crimes. Is that really something an intelligent designer would create, or something that a blind process would generate as man transitions from a savage state to a civilized one over millennia, and cultural evolution superimposes itself on the result of earlier biological evolution.

Christianity deals with this by saying that God gives us free will and implies that it is a gift even though it is the downfall of many people - alcoholics, pedophiles, con men, etc. - and according to Christianity's own doctrine, will result in most souls burning forever. That's hardly a gift.

I've spent decades trying to put the latter in charge of the former, and to help my children do the same for themselves. If I could turn a dial and set the will to only want the good in them or me, I would - what many Christians derogatorily refer to as being a robot. Such a person would be happy, making that the gift, not free will. A god that wanted the to be good and happy would have given us that gift, not the freedom to act on destructive urges.

So, we do the next best thing and try to condition ourselves and our children to want to conform to a narrow set of desires. It's the closest that we can come to making them good, happy, "robots."

How could you be responsible for anything if you don't have free will?

You wouldn't, not in the Christian sense of retributive justice, which says that bad behavior should lead to suffering, which, with the doctrine of free will, is said to justify eternal torture for unwashed sin.

A more enlightened approach says that such people should be removed from the streets if they are a danger, should lose their freedom as a disincentive to not repeat the crime and to others to not commit it in the first place, and where possible, rehabilitation. The ideas of responsibility and retribution don't enter in it - just minimizing crime and maximizing public safety.

 

[idav]

Many of us judge that as unacceptable

Are you sure, most people I talk to are against punishing for thought crime? So are we to wait for the crime to happen or should God have stopped Cain from killing Abel, before he even did anything wrong(aside from Cains lousy sacrifices).

 

[Super Universe]

Many of us judge that as unacceptable:

• "You have a God who either sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

Why wouldn't I want a will that always exhorted me to do the right thing, and why wouldn't I want everybody else to only want to do what is kind and just?

What we have are primitive urges that once served our ancestors survive and reproduce, which manifest in us today as urges to rape, steal, and murder. Today, we pit our sense of reason and our moral compass against these urges, but sometimes, in some people, the animal prevails and manifests as what are now considered crimes. Is that really something an intelligent designer would create, or something that a blind process would generate as man transitions from a savage state to a civilized one over millennia, and cultural evolution superimposes itself on the result of earlier biological evolution.

Christianity deals with this by saying that God gives us free will and implies that it is a gift even though it is the downfall of many people - alcoholics, pedophiles, con men, etc. - and according to Christianity's own doctrine, will result in most souls burning forever. That's hardly a gift.

I've spent decades trying to put the latter in charge of the former, and to help my children do the same for themselves. If I could turn a dial and set the will to only want the good in them or me, I would - what many Christians derogatorily refer to as being a robot. Such a person would be happy, making that the gift, not free will. A god that wanted the to be good and happy would have given us that gift, not the freedom to act on destructive urges.

So, we do the next best thing and try to condition ourselves and our children to want to conform to a narrow set of desires. It's the closest that we can come to making them good, happy, "robots."



You wouldn't, not in the Christian sense of retributive justice, which says that bad behavior should lead to suffering, which, with the doctrine of free will, is said to justify eternal torture for unwashed sin.

A more enlightened approach says that such people should be removed from the streets if they are a danger, should lose their freedom as a disincentive to not repeat the crime and to others to not commit it in the first place, and where possible, rehabilitation. The ideas of responsibility and retribution don't enter in it - just minimizing crime and maximizing public safety.

You think it's unacceptable that God allows murder? You can think whatever you wish, it's not going to change the universe.

God doesn't simply watch and say "When you're done I'm going to punish you". God is the victim, and the guilty person as well. Sentient beings allow God to experience things He could not experience as the all knowing and all powerful Creator of the universe.

Why wouldn't you want a will that tells you and others to do good things? You very well might want that but it's not your universe. If you and others are incapable of making bad decisions then that is not free will, that is personality control, and that is in violation of the purpose of the universe to exist.

Is the primitive evolutionary system something an intelligent designer would create? Yes, if the goal is to experience many personalities while exploring a universe that another part of you creates.

Things were supposed to be different. The angels were supposed to institute a breeding program in primitive humans that would have removed psychopathic and other bad genes from us but Lucifer rebelled and things did not go as planned. That's on the angels, not God. God does not interfere.

Souls don't burn forever. There are two options, heaven or you cease to exist. That's it. When Jesus was warning about "hell" He was giving a warning to Lucifer, not humans. Even Lucifer won't burn in hell forever, when judged he will be destroyed by a type of energy best described to humans as fire.

Can you teach a class of students if one of the students is constantly disruptive? You can't. That one student will ruin it for everyone in the class. You have to have a way of removing those who do not wish to follow the rules.

If you could set the dial and control your children to make them only good, you would? Then they would not be able to earn a thing and they would not be responsible for their actions and they could not become Universal Beings and ascend to heaven. You have to choose to be good, not be forced into it.

We try to conform to a narrow set of desires? Uhhh, what? Never mind. Please don't explain this.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A hurricane happened in Houston? Is there really a President?

Yes and yes.

Do parents love their children?

Do those parents who love their children give their children everything they want?

No. It's up to parents to raise their progeny. It's up to adults to be moral to others no matter what they're told by their parents, pastors or politicians.

Many of us judge that as unacceptable:

• "You have a God who either sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

Then there would be no free will and thus no purpose for having a universe. It's easy to judge God for not intervening, but we're talking a blink vs. eternity. What many of you judge via shortsightedness is irrelevant.

Why wouldn't I want a will that always exhorted me to do the right thing, and why wouldn't I want everybody else to only want to do what is kind and just?

Those desires wouldn't be possible if you didn't have free will.

What we have are primitive urges that once served our ancestors survive and reproduce, which manifest in us today as urges to rape, steal, and murder. Today, we pit our sense of reason and our moral compass against these urges, but sometimes, in some people, the animal prevails and manifests as what are now considered crimes. Is that really something an intelligent designer would create, or something that a blind process would generate as man transitions from a savage state to a civilized one over millennia, and cultural evolution superimposes itself on the result of earlier biological evolution.

The difference between us and animals is animals are innocent, while we have self-awareness which compels us to make rational moral decisions. But there will always be evil ones who fail the test.

Christianity deals with this by saying that God gives us free will and implies that it is a gift even though it is the downfall of many people - alcoholics, pedophiles, con men, etc. - and according to Christianity's own doctrine, will result in most souls burning forever. That's hardly a gift.

There is no free will in Christianity, re: the Book of Life written from the beginning, etc. ANY religion that claims divine revelation and interaction, denies free will automatically.

I've spent decades trying to put the latter in charge of the former, and to help my children do the same for themselves. If I could turn a dial and set the will to only want the good in them or me, I would - what many Christians derogatorily refer to as being a robot. Such a person would be happy, making that the gift, not free will. A god that wanted the to be good and happy would have given us that gift, not the freedom to act on destructive urges.

Dogs can be happy, but they don't have free will and self-awareness, and thus the ability to put themselves in the paws of another and still chose to harm them, or not.

So, we do the next best thing and try to condition ourselves and our children to want to conform to a narrow set of desires. It's the closest that we can come to making them good, happy, "robots."

Setting the dial makes their moral choices for them.

You wouldn't, not in the Christian sense of retributive justice, which says that bad behavior should lead to suffering, which, with the doctrine of free will, is said to justify eternal torture for unwashed sin.

Again, under Christianity, there is no free will. And eternal damnation is the vision of some power mongers looking to quench an unquenchable sadistic thirst. In reality, there's no need for anything but a fulfilling reward in the Hereafter, or oblivion. Why would God and the heavenly host want to listen to or know about all that suffering for eternity/

A more enlightened approach says that such people should be removed from the streets if they are a danger, should lose their freedom as a disincentive to not repeat the crime and to others to not commit it in the first place, and where possible, rehabilitation. The ideas of responsibility and retribution don't enter in it - just minimizing crime and maximizing public safety.

That's fine for this world. It's the most we can do