• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God loves you

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Maybe I have the symptoms wrong, it's possible. I've never felt love and am probably incapable of it.

The point is that love is rationally detectable and measurable, or at least certain kinds of it are.

Any assertion that requires emotional reasoning to back up is biased and fallacious, thus I think it can be soundly rejected from evidence in the context of a debate. This includes arguments from love and arguments from faith.


Everyone is capable of feeling love, I’m as certain of that as I am of anything.

Rejecting “arguments from” love and faith, may be appropriate in the context of deductive reasoning. But to reject love and faith altogether because they appear illogical or unreasonable, seems a very high price to pay for one’s loyalty to the god of intellect.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
But doesn't God delight in death-sacrifices, and the "sweet savor" of burnt offerings?
Didn't God reject Cain's offering of produce and accept Abel's sacrifice of a sheep?
Didn't Noah sacrifice animals and birds to God upon leaving the Ark?
Didn't the Jews regularly sacrifice animals -- to the delight of God?
Apparently God loves killing things; in fact, demands it.

Doesn't the God of the old testament delight in human slaughter and genocide?
Sometimes I wish the Old Testament didn't exist. It is not an accurate history at all, written hundreds or thousands of years after the events it purports to record. This all should be taken skeptically. There were laws to sacrifice animals though, I believe, but it depends on your perspective whether that's offensive or not. Animals are killed all the time to be eaten. Some are vegetarian because they don't want that to happen, others eat meat. Religious laws evolve and change all the time. A lot of the time, religious laws are revealed according to what the people at that time are willing to accept and fit within the society they are given. We can't evaluate religious laws of the Old Testament by todays world.

Noah's ark is a symbolic story as far as I'm concerned, it didn't happen literally in history. There is a lot of archeological doubt about people being wiped out by Joshua in Canaan.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
So how do you explain the genocidal conquest of Caanan after the Israelites' 40 years in the desert -- with God as an active participant?
There's a lot of archeological doubt that any of that really happened.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
What is punishment supposed to accomplish?
Any punishment in a justice system is to discourage people from doing the same thing. God has the attribute of justice, and can also be merciful.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Everyone is capable of feeling love, I’m as certain of that as I am of anything.

Rejecting “arguments from” love and faith, may be appropriate in the context of deductive reasoning. But to reject love and faith altogether because they appear illogical or unreasonable, seems a very high price to pay for one’s loyalty to the god of intellect.

I never rejected love. I'm just too overwhelmed in my day-to-day life with apathy. Every now and then, some anxiety from my Good Samaritan Syndrome bubbles up to the surface and beats me with guilt until I'm numb again.

I was never given the option to sell my soul for logic, but logic is all I have left.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I never rejected love. I'm just too overwhelmed in my day-to-day life with apathy. Every now and then, some anxiety from my Good Samaritan Syndrome bubbles up to the surface and beats me with guilt until I'm numb again.

I was never given the option to sell my soul for logic, but logic is all I have left.


Perhaps not all…there’s always hope, is there not?
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
But isn't tht what the Bible says?
If punishment is not forever, how are sentences decided? What happens when your sentence is up?
Why "punishment?" What is punishment supposed to accomplish?

Punishment, it seems to me, is simply vindictiveness. It's not correction. It's not reparation. It's not modification. It;s just hurting someone who annoyed you.

So how do you explain the genocidal conquest of Caanan after the Israelites' 40 years in the desert -- with God as an active participant?

The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other

How to interpret the christian Bible?

I believe the Best way to interpret the Bible is to interpret it in a loving and kind way. Why?
Because it is written in the Bible that God is goodness, love, justice

And in the Bible the greatest commandment of God is:

Matthew 22:36-40
6 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Therefore I believe the logical conclusion is to is to interpret the Bible in a loving and kind way. And a loving and kind God care most about peoples heart and our actions, not which religion we follow
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
But isn't tht what the Bible says?
If punishment is not forever, how are sentences decided? What happens when your sentence is up?
Why "punishment?" What is punishment supposed to accomplish?

Punishment, it seems to me, is simply vindictiveness. It's not correction. It's not reparation. It's not modification. It;s just hurting someone who annoyed you.

So how do you explain the genocidal conquest of Caanan after the Israelites' 40 years in the desert -- with God as an active participant?
Does God Command Evil Acts in the Bible? - Ascension Press Media

This is a question that participants of The Great Adventure Bible studies frequently ask us, and it’s a tough one to answer. We know that God is all good and all loving. In fact, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). And yet, in the Old Testament, we find various scenes in which is violence.

Yikes! These do not sound like the words of a God who “is love.” Troublesome passages like this remind us why it is so important to understand how to interpret Scripture “in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 111-114). Based on this text alone, without proper context, it’s easy to see why someone might think that God commands evil. If we are to understand what is happening here, then we need to keep in mind the following criteria for biblical interpretation:
  1. Pay attention to the “content and unity of the whole of Scripture” (CCC 112). In other words, the rest of Scripture should help to make sense of this passage. So we can turn to similar passages of the Bible to help shed light on this question
  2. Read the Bible in light of the “living Tradition” of the Church (CCC 113). We have to take into account what God has revealed to us not only in the written words of Scripture, but also in Sacred Tradition. The Church’s teaching on the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” is that “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being” (CCC 2258).
  3. We need to remember that there is a “coherence of truths of the faith” (CCC 113). This means that our faith is not self-contradicting. We cannot say it was morally acceptable for the Israelites to kill innocent people then, but that it is no longer acceptable in our day.
So if God is good, and it’s never morally acceptable to intentionally destroy an innocent person, how are we to understand this? Consider what St. Augustine said about difficult passages of Scripture:

“… if in the Scriptures I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand” (St. Augustine, Ep. 82, i. et crebrius alibi).

We know it’s never morally acceptable to intentionally kill innocent persons. We also know that God is all good. So what was God asking Israel to do in this passage? Was he calling them to act in an evil way by killing innocent persons? Two other stories in Scripture should help to answer this question.

Abraham affirms that God is just, and it’s unjust to kill righteous persons. So Abraham asks God if he would spare Sodom if there were fifty, forty, thirty, or ten righteous people in Sodom. In each instance God says that he “will spare the whole place for their sake.” From this we learn that God is indeed just, and he will not kill the innocent. As the Catechism says, “God is infinitely good and all his works are good” (CCC 385). “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil” (CCC 311). The interesting thing is that God does end up destroying Sodom in Genesis 19. Does that mean there wasn’t a single righteous person among them? Were there no innocent children? Or is there something more to this scene? Let’s look at our next story and see how it can help explain what might be happening.

When we read Scripture, it’s important to distinguish between a literal and a literalistic interpretation of a text. The literalist interprets every word of Scripture as literal, historical truth; and does not distinguish among the various types of writing found in Scripture—including poetry and metaphor.

A literal understanding of Scripture recognizes that “truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing” (CCC 110). Is the author of Joshua really intending to say that every single living creature in Jericho was utterly destroyed, including innocent children? The problem with this view is that the story itself has an exception to Jericho’s utter destruction. Rahab and her family are spared (see Joshua 6:25). Is it possible that in these examples the sense of utter destruction was not meant to be understood literally, but was used as an expression? Could this refer to a great—but not total—devastation? We use similar expressions frequently. For example, if I described a comedy I really enjoyed and said “I was dying of laughter,” you wouldn’t begin thinking that I was literally dying. You know that’s just an expression for how funny something was. So too, the idea that “every living creature” in Jericho was killed is quite possibly just an expression.

We know from Abraham’s conversation with God that God does not punish the innocent. So it’s not likely Deuteronomy intended to say that God was commanding the death of everyone. In fact, Deuteronomy goes on to say, “You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Why would Deuteronomy need to forbid intermarriage with these nations if they were to be utterly destroyed? There would be no one left to marry among them. It’s more likely that the phrase “utterly destroy” was used as an expression.

Perhaps it was intended to describe a complete victory for Israel; a victory that meant separating themselves from anything that might get in the way of their relationship with God. Actually, that’s the reason Deuteronomy gives for this command, “For [the nations] would turn your sons from following me to serving other gods, and then the anger of the LORD would flare up against you and he would quickly destroy you” (Deuteronomy 7:4). This interpretation would mean that God did not command evil. Rather he commanded Israel to avoid evil by removing those temptations that might lead them astray. Christ uses a similar expression in the New Testament to describe avoiding sin:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away … And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna” (Matthew 5:29-30).

Christ is not speaking literally. He’s using an expression to illustrate the severity of what he is saying. So the lesson here is, don’t literally cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, or lay waste to a nation. Instead, remove those things in your life that draw you away from the Lord. It’s better to separate yourself from those things than to find yourself separated from God.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible is a diverse, highly edited, collection of ancient stories and folklore from unknown sources. It's not a reliable description of reality. It's folklore, hearsay and propaganda.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other

I thought that about the whole Bible - people wrote it and were wrong about gods. You must have a method for deciding which scriptures are from God and which aren't. I'm guessing from the rest of your posting is that whatever sounds loving is from God, and whatever does not was stuck into scripture by man.

How to interpret the Christian Bible? I believe the Best way to interpret the Bible is to interpret it in a loving and kind way. Why? Because it is written in the Bible that God is goodness, love, justice

You sound like a kind and decent person who naturally drifts toward the constructive and life-affirming. I don't believe that your religion is responsible for that. You bring that to your religion and decide which parts of it to accept and which to reject. But what does the scripture add to your character and disposition? I'd say nothing. I'd say that you would be the same person as a humanist. And hopefully, you're not getting your understanding of love from the example of the love of God.

Scripture defines love in terms of a blood sacrifice. A god that would reject and punish man for unbelief is not a loving god by humanist standards and probably those of the dharmic religions. A god that would build a torture chamber and stock it with demons to torment souls gratuitously kept conscious just to make them suffer to the benefit of nobody but a sadist is not a loving god. A god that would leave two children alone with a malicious serpent where temptation could be so costly is not a loving god. I'd bet that you'd never do any of those things.

Why? You're a loving person, and don't take example from scripture unless if conforms to your innate understanding of what love is.

I've just read your second post, and what I see is you bringing your innate moral sense to scripture and modifying it to conform with your conscience, not the other way around. Scripture does not tell you what is right and wrong. You tell it by modifying the meaning of the morally questionable passages.

I have a similar understanding of Mother Teresa. Here was an innately good woman who brought her goodness to the church, which had a corrupting effect on her. It taught her that suffering is Christ's kiss, a horrible thing to teach somebody running hospices. She allowed the dying poor to suffer needlessly, and allowed people to donate money to her charities that was diverted from helping these people to the Vatican treasury. This is what this religion of love added to Mother Teresa. What would she have done instead for those people if the church had not had that influence over her? You sound stronger. I bet that you wouldn't accept that needless suffering is a gift from God.
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
I thought that about the whole Bible - people wrote it and were wrong about gods. You must have a method for deciding which scriptures are from God and which aren't. I'm guessing from the rest of your posting is that whatever sounds loving is from God, and whatever does not was stuck into scripture by man.



You sound like a kind and decent person who naturally drifts toward the constructive and life-affirming. I don't believe that your religion is responsible for that. You bring that to your religion and decide which parts of it to accept and which to reject. But what does the scripture add to your character and disposition? I'd say nothing. I'd say that you would be the same person as a humanist. And hopefully, you're not getting your understanding of love from the example of the love of God.

Scripture defines love in terms of a blood sacrifice. A god that would reject and punish man for unbelief is not a loving god by humanist standards and probably those of the dharmic religions. A god that would build a torture chamber and stock it with demons to torment souls gratuitously kept conscious just to make them suffer to the benefit of nobody but a sadist is not a loving god. A god that would leave two children alone with a malicious serpent where temptation could be so costly is not a loving god. I'd bet that you'd never do any of those things.

Why? You're a loving person, and don't take example from scripture unless if conforms to your innate understanding of what love is.

I've just read your second post, and what I see is you bringing your innate moral sense to scripture and modifying it to conform with your conscience, not the other way around. Scripture does not tell you what is right and wrong. You tell it by modifying the meaning of the morally questionable passages.

I have a similar understanding of Mother Teresa. Here was an innately good woman who brought her goodness to the church, which had a corrupting effect on her. It taught her that suffering is Christ's kiss, a horrible thing to teach somebody running hospices. She allowed the dying poor to suffer needlessly, and allowed people to donate money to her charities that was diverted from helping these people to the Vatican treasury. This is what this religion of love added to Mother Teresa. What would she have done instead for those people if the church had not had that influence over her? You sound stronger. I bet that you wouldn't accept that needless suffering is a gift from God.
The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other.

Yes many parts of the Bible is from God, but some parts of the Bible is not from God

How to know what is from God in the Bible? That is simple. God is love and just. What is against love and justice is not from God. God is against killing innocent people.
 
Last edited:
Top