GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 11:31 AM by Anjele.)
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 11:21 AM)Anjele Wrote:  How can someone be described as loving when they cause pain and suffering (an in the case of a god, the threat of eternal damnation) and the only relief from that pain is through them?

This is commonly known as an abusive relationship.

- It's your fault that I hurt you.

- It is only through me you will get relief.

- If you turn to anyone else for help, I will cause more hurt.

- You are nothing without me.

edited to add - No one will love you like I do.

God is an abusive bully with a shit ton of co-dependent followers.

Later we can talk about Stockholm syndrome.

Sorry for the double - hit reply when I meant to edit. My bad.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
29-08-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 10:24 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As Chas said, the idea of "perfect love" is borderline nonsensical.

Yet, imperfect love is not non-sensical. I love my wife, my parents and siblings, but my love for them is entirely imperfect. I nowhere near love them as they deserve to be loved, even though I love them a great deal.

But in order for me to conceive my love as deficient, as lacking, it requires a directional sense of what it means for it not to be lacking, to not be deficient, for it to be whole. To be perfect as opposed to imperfect. I may never be able to love them perfectly, but that sense of it, is part of a internal striving.

As a believer this all has pictorial reality. The man that I desire to be, and far from being, and perhaps will never be, is the one who carries the weight of those whom he loves on his shoulders, to carry that thing reserved for them, upon himself. Yet the man I am, is one that wants to only love that which is easy, which is burdenless. A love that requires no crosses, or sacrifices, just a mutual tolerance and space.

If you want to suggest the sort of love I aspire to is not an ideal, then I want to know what is? And if Christ is not representative of that form of love, than who is?

Quote:And you're completely misstating why we think the God of the Bible is a megalomaniacal psychopath.

The only God that I believe in is the God of the cross. And if you’re talking about some other God, than the Christ of the Gospels, than I don’t believe in him. When I speak of love, I’m speaking of Christ’s love. And when I speak of a God of Love, it’s that love, and no other. That bold and profound sort of love that exists, that once seen, that one has no choice but to believe all of creation exists for the sake of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 10:24 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As Chas said, the idea of "perfect love" is borderline nonsensical.

Yet, imperfect love is not non-sensical. I love my wife, my parents and siblings, but my love for them is entirely imperfect. I nowhere near love them as they deserve to be loved, even though I love them a great deal.

But in order for me to conceive my love as deficient, as lacking, it requires a directional sense of what it means for it not to be lacking, to not be deficient, for it to be whole. To be perfect as opposed to imperfect. I may never be able to love them perfectly, but that sense of it, is part of a internal striving.

As a believer this all has pictorial reality. The man that I desire to be, and far from being, and perhaps will never be, is the one who carries the weight of those whom he loves on his shoulders, to carry that thing reserved for them, upon himself. Yet the man I am, is one that wants to only love that which is easy, which is burdenless. A love that requires no crosses, or sacrifices, just a mutual tolerance and space.

If you want to suggest the sort of love I aspire to is not an ideal, then I want to know what is? And if Christ is not representative of that form of love, than who is?

Quote:And you're completely misstating why we think the God of the Bible is a megalomaniacal psychopath.

The only God that I believe in is the God of the cross. And if you’re talking about some other God, than the Christ of the Gospels, than I don’t believe in him. When I speak of love, I’m speaking of Christ’s love. And when I speak of a God of Love, it’s that love, and no other. That bold and profound sort of love that exists, that once seen, that one has no choice but to believe all of creation exists for the sake of that.

So you don't believe in God the Father and God the Son?

I don't think I understand having faith in a character called Jesus Christ without having some allegiance to God the Father.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 10:24 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As Chas said, the idea of "perfect love" is borderline nonsensical.

Yet, imperfect love is not non-sensical. I love my wife, my parents and siblings, but my love for them is entirely imperfect. I nowhere near love them as they deserve to be loved, even though I love them a great deal.

But in order for me to conceive my love as deficient, as lacking, it requires a directional sense of what it means for it not to be lacking, to not be deficient, for it to be whole. To be perfect as opposed to imperfect. I may never be able to love them perfectly, but that sense of it, is part of a internal striving.

As a believer this all has pictorial reality. The man that I desire to be, and far from being, and perhaps will never be, is the one who carries the weight of those whom he loves on his shoulders, to carry that thing reserved for them, upon himself. Yet the man I am, is one that wants to only love that which is easy, which is burdenless. A love that requires no crosses, or sacrifices, just a mutual tolerance and space.

If you want to suggest the sort of love I aspire to is not an ideal, then I want to know what is? And if Christ is not representative of that form of love, than who is?

Quote:And you're completely misstating why we think the God of the Bible is a megalomaniacal psychopath.

The only God that I believe in is the God of the cross. And if you’re talking about some other God, than the Christ of the Gospels, than I don’t believe in him. When I speak of love, I’m speaking of Christ’s love. And when I speak of a God of Love, it’s that love, and no other. That bold and profound sort of love that exists, that once seen, that one has no choice but to believe all of creation exists for the sake of that.

That has to be one of the saddest and most pathetic things I have ever read.

The church really did a number on you.

Personally, I dislike the idea of pity. But you do generate pity in me.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
29-08-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 10:24 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As Chas said, the idea of "perfect love" is borderline nonsensical.

Yet, imperfect love is not non-sensical. I love my wife, my parents and siblings, but my love for them is entirely imperfect. I nowhere near love them as they deserve to be loved, even though I love them a great deal.

They don't deserve anything. They're just people. However, you're very fond of them, and so you feel as if they deserve to be adored. Okay, and great! But recognize it for what it is. I'm not just playing word-games; this is an important distinction. You are programmed by your neurochemistry to feel such bonds for family, mate, children, etc, because this is essential to evolutionary survival in a social animal. You then confuse the strength of your feelings for reality.

(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But in order for me to conceive my love as deficient, as lacking, it requires a directional sense of what it means for it not to be lacking, to not be deficient, for it to be whole. To be perfect as opposed to imperfect. I may never be able to love them perfectly, but that sense of it, is part of a internal striving.

See above. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a directional sense of what it means to not be lacking", but I'm going to assume you mean that you notice the actual ability of people to express selfless devotion to our family/mates/etc conflicts with our selfishness. This is not a philosophical revelation. What confuses me is why you think it should be possible to wholly let go of one's selfishness, since that is an evolutionary survival instinct as strong as any. The fact we are able to do it at all is what I find amazing about humanity, even as I recognize its roots in our hunter-gatherer evolutionary (social/tribal) heritage.

(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  As a believer this all has pictorial reality. The man that I desire to be, and far from being, and perhaps will never be, is the one who carries the weight of those whom he loves on his shoulders, to carry that thing reserved for them, upon himself. Yet the man I am, is one that wants to only love that which is easy, which is burdenless. A love that requires no crosses, or sacrifices, just a mutual tolerance and space.

If you want to suggest the sort of love I aspire to is not an ideal, then I want to know what is? And if Christ is not representative of that form of love, than who is?

Christ, being God and therefore omniscient, would have known he would come back from the dead and ascend into heaven. Hell, if I KNEW that I would be able to come back to life and go to heaven, I might try it myself just for the experience of it! But he did not sacrifice anything because there was nothing to sacrifice; he was an immortal. I can't remember who said it originally, but it applies here:

"Jesus had a pretty bad weekend for your sins."

Almost every soldier who ever died in defense of his tribe/city/nation has suffered on behalf of others more than your "perfect love" example. Particularly since the reason for the death-sacrifice was to substitute-atone for a sin-system he created, instead of simply forgiving us or recognizing our evolutionary heritage and the way our brains are wired. In short, Jesus loved no one because he failed to understand the true nature of humanity (of course, Jesus wasn't real; it was the ancient Hebrews and the later Christians who failed to know how neurochemistry and evolutionary science worked, and explained everything in terms of magic and gods), and offers what is not a free gift but is in fact an "accept this or I will burn you for all eternity for offending me" deal... that is not love, that is rape.

If you want to look at real love, by the definition you're trying to use, watch a mother rabbit attacking a snake ten times her length because it is trying to eat her children. But it's still selfish, in actual fact, in that she's obeying her instincts that have evolved to protect her bloodline (DNA).





(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:And you're completely misstating why we think the God of the Bible is a megalomaniacal psychopath.

The only God that I believe in is the God of the cross. And if you’re talking about some other God, than the Christ of the Gospels, than I don’t believe in him. When I speak of love, I’m speaking of Christ’s love. And when I speak of a God of Love, it’s that love, and no other. That bold and profound sort of love that exists, that once seen, that one has no choice but to believe all of creation exists for the sake of that.

I'm speaking of the God of the Bible, commonly referred to as Jehovah, YHWH/Yahweh, El Shaddai, Adonai, and a few other appellations.

You know, the one used to completely deny evolutionary biology by 48% of the US citizenry, to attack homosexuals and atheists, to fear the equality/leadership of women, and to teach children to close their minds to critical inquiry and rational thinking. The one that says if we don't worship him "freely" we'll burn in a place of torment he created. That God.

If you want to clip the Gospels out of the Bible and pretend that's all there is... um, okay. But don't pretend that's the normal view.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
29-08-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 11:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 10:24 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As Chas said, the idea of "perfect love" is borderline nonsensical.

Yet, imperfect love is not non-sensical. I love my wife, my parents and siblings, but my love for them is entirely imperfect. I nowhere near love them as they deserve to be loved, even though I love them a great deal.

But in order for me to conceive my love as deficient, as lacking, it requires a directional sense of what it means for it not to be lacking, to not be deficient, for it to be whole. To be perfect as opposed to imperfect. I may never be able to love them perfectly, but that sense of it, is part of a internal striving.

To have direction toward loving better requires neither a definition of perfect love nor the existence of perfect love.

Quote:As a believer this all has pictorial reality. The man that I desire to be, and far from being, and perhaps will never be, is the one who carries the weight of those whom he loves on his shoulders, to carry that thing reserved for them, upon himself. Yet the man I am, is one that wants to only love that which is easy, which is burdenless. A love that requires no crosses, or sacrifices, just a mutual tolerance and space.

If you need a definition of perfect love, you will have to create it for yourself. You appear to be attempting that.
Your concept of perfect love likely does not align with everyone else's who has a definition, it may even not align with anyone else's. It's your ideal.

Quote:If you want to suggest the sort of love I aspire to is not an ideal, then I want to know what is? And if Christ is not representative of that form of love, than who is?

It is your personal concept of an ideal.

Quote:
Quote:And you're completely misstating why we think the God of the Bible is a megalomaniacal psychopath.

The only God that I believe in is the God of the cross. And if you’re talking about some other God, than the Christ of the Gospels, than I don’t believe in him. When I speak of love, I’m speaking of Christ’s love. And when I speak of a God of Love, it’s that love, and no other. That bold and profound sort of love that exists, that once seen, that one has no choice but to believe all of creation exists for the sake of that.

As has been shown and agreed to, Christ's love was not perfect.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-08-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 12:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  As has been shown and agreed to, Christ's love was not perfect.

What seems to be agreed upon by you and Rocketsurgeon, and perhaps some other atheists, is according to you, the concept of “perfect love” is nonsensical, or in other words to say that anyone love's is perfect, let alone Christ’s would be speaking gibberish.

Quote:It is your personal concept of an ideal.

Perfection implies an ideal. But you don’t think think an ideal is nonsensical. And you also think an ideal is a personal concept. So in that regard if I were say the sort of love Christ had is an ideal, I wouldn’t be wrong, just like I wouldn’t be in saying that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world.

Quote:Your concept of perfect love likely does not align with everyone else's who has a definition, it may even not align with anyone else's. It's your ideal.

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t even know what you and others think is the ideal, you seem more comfortable saying what’s not, but not what is. You don’t seem to see yourselves as representing whatever that ideal is either.

Quote:To have direction toward loving better requires neither a definition of perfect love nor the existence of perfect love.

It doesn’t. At the very least it requires a vague sense of what it means to love “better”, and a sense that one’s own love is deficient. If I say my love is inadequate, it involves at least a vague conception of what it means to love adequately. If I say my love is incomplete, it requires a vague sense of what it means to be complete, though I may never be able to put my finger on what being complete is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2015, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 30-08-2015 01:00 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(29-08-2015 12:14 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm speaking of the God of the Bible, commonly referred to as Jehovah, YHWH/Yahweh, El Shaddai, Adonai, and a few other appellations.

You know, the one used to completely deny evolutionary biology by 48% of the US citizenry, to attack homosexuals and atheists, to fear the equality/leadership of women, and to teach children to close their minds to critical inquiry and rational thinking. The one that says if we don't worship him "freely" we'll burn in a place of torment he created. That God.

If you want to clip the Gospels out of the Bible and pretend that's all there is... um, okay. But don't pretend that's the normal view.

I’m not trying to clip out the Bible or the OT, I’m trying to clip your interpretation of the Bible, to combat any sort of fundie evangelical inclinations they might be derived from, and the frequent tendency to try and associate those with my own. Or in other words, I’m trying to avoid, a long irritating defense as to why I’m not a fundie evangelical, or explaining my own views, which are consistent with Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline protestant views and perspectives. The question being clipped out here, is how do I reconcile the God of OT, and the God of the Gospels, because for sake of this discussion it’s entirely irrelevant (think of it along the lines of your hesitancy to use the word "believe" among theist.).

A typical atheists perspective involves seeing a distinction between the OT God and the God of the Gospels, hence why Dawkins can say all that regarding the OT God, yet hold some esteem for Jesus. It breaks down to some sort of Godless Marcionism, no point that I’ve made requires resolving this heresy, or the relationship between the OT and NT.

I’m not speaking of the God of the Bible according to Rocketsurgeon, but the God of Christianity. The God who revealed himself in Christ.

Quote:They don't deserve anything. They're just people. However, you're very fond of them, and so you feel as if they deserve to be adored. Okay, and great! But recognize it for what it is. I'm not just playing word-games; this is an important distinction. You are programmed by your neurochemistry to feel such bonds for family, mate, children, etc, because this is essential to evolutionary survival in a social animal. feelings for reality.

No I’m not very fond of them. Just like I don’t think you’re very fond of Q or COWT, or even myself for that matter. Sometimes I’m fond of them, sometimes I’m not, and sometimes they may be extremely difficult, that it would hard to describe me as fond of them at all. People are messy, siblings are messy, so are fathers and mothers. Perhaps you imagine the world as occupied by Q and COWT on one end, and KC’s on the other. When in reality people are some combination of both, sometimes to be fond of, sometimes to detest.

Maybe you occupy a space in which those whom you love, are easy to be fond of, like puppies, and stuffed dolls. For me, those that I love the most, are the one’s most difficult to love, both serving as one’s joy and one’s noose.

If a man were to abandon his children, to pursue his own selfish desires and carnal interest, perhaps because he didn’t feel as fond of them any longer. Those children that he left deserved to be loved by him. If he were to tell me “hey man, they didn’t deserve to be loved, my neurochemistry just stopped me from being fond of them, and that you're just mistaking your feeling for a reality”. It wouldn’t be who distorted reality, but him. It would be him, attempting to replace a truth that he well knows, with a lie.

Quote:See above. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a directional sense of what it means to not be lacking", but I'm going to assume you mean that you notice the actual ability of people to express selfless devotion to our family/mates/etc conflicts with our selfishness.

No, that’s not what I mean. I’m speaking of that sense of something being aimed for. Like a man who desires to be a good basketball player, that he has some directional sense of what it means to be a good basketball player, some sense of an ideal, and end goal that he’s striving to obtain. That when see himself as flawed, or not playing well enough, it is in light of this ideal, this thing which he is aiming for.

I’m not even talking about ability here, just a desire, even if a man does not achieve the thing in which he desires. My wife’s younger cousin, whose in his 30s, is a total fuck up, a loser, unable to be anything other than selfish and self-centered, whose life will end in either jail or being killed. But even he desires not to be this way, but cannot find it in him to not be this way. He wants to be a good son, a good brother to his younger sister, and not hurt them the way he’s always done his entire life. And perhaps he’ll be buried never even remotely achieving that thing which he so longed for.

That’s what I mean directional, that a man sees something that he should be, but he’s not, a road paved in front of him, which he knows he should walk, even if he can’t bring himself to walk it.

Quote:What confuses me is why you think it should be possible to wholly let go of one's selfishness, since that is an evolutionary survival instinct as strong as any.

What competes with the Good life, is a strong as any. In reality we often feel a variety of strong things at the same time. A man may have dropped his wallet, and my selfish desire to keep the money in it for myself may be strong. Perhaps I’m short on funds, and I really want a new iPhone, but I find myself competing with another desire at the same time, like empathy, a consideration for the man who lost his wallet. I can also be thinking of how it’s wrong to steal, that it wouldn’t be right for me to keep this man’s wallet.

Maybe I’ll keep it and feel guilty about it, maybe I can assuage my guilt by believing it to be merely a neurochemical reaction, that will subside eventually. The sense of wrongness, and rightness all just another set of culturally induced neurochemical reactions. That will subside eventually.

Or maybe I’ll just give it back to him. My empathy, my sense of right and wrong, winning over my selfishness and greed.

Quote:Jesus loved no one because he failed to understand the true nature of humanity

And what is the true nature of humanity? I’d wager that a novelist like Dostoevsky, knows more about the true nature of humanity, than all the writings found in a science journal could provide. Take a man who lived his life among the breathe of humanity, among the poor and oppressed, among the privileged and content, amongst the shit of the earth, and the suburban malls. And a man who lived his life just reading science books. The man whose likely knows what the true nature of humanity is not the latter.

The poor widow next door knows a great deal more about the nature of humanity, than Richard Dawkins ever will.

But what is the true nature of humanity you speak? That it all breaks down to a series of neurochemical reactions governed by the laws of physics? That humanity is nothing more than an endless assembly line of moist robots? That your daughter is nothing more than just molecules in motion?

But perhaps you don’t actually believe in such a reality, maybe you just think it’s a compelling and viable explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
(30-08-2015 10:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And what is true nature of humanity?

A trite, clichéd non-phrase that sounds somewhat impressive without actually meaning anything.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
30-08-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: GOD IS LOVING AND MERCIFUL
duplicate post (was meant to be a slight edit of the previous reply to RS)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: