God vs Human Rights

[Whateverman]

Some one - in every age - has defined love like this.

You're welcomed to try to provide a reference for this claim.

You wont be able to, though. You might find some piece of text that suggests something you disagree with, but that text wont contain a definition of love.

 

[ferengi]

God vs Human Rights​

false dichotomy -

 

[Mr Laurier]

Some one - in every age - has defined love like this.

Only the most illogical of people would do so.

 

[Dizerner]

Only the most illogical of people would do so.

And they seem to post a lot here for some reason.

 

[Mr Laurier]

And they seem to post a lot here for some reason.

The ones who post here, seem to take the opposite view.

 

[Dizerner]

You're welcomed to try to provide a reference for this claim.

You wont be able to, though. You might find some piece of text that suggests something you disagree with, but that text wont contain a definition of love.

The ones who post here, seem to take the opposite view.

If the original poster makes the objection:

Furthermore, many Christians seem to believe that anyone who fails to love and worship God will feel his wrath and will be punished by suffering in hell.​

He is utilizing the logic that love, by definition, must support and allow certain actions he deems acceptable, that is, love, to be love, must enable and support people who don't love God with no negative consequences. If, in fact, you both reject the following definition:

It is the modern age that defines love as enabling one to do whatever one wants with no consequences. ​

​

Then you can no longer utilize the logic in the original post, for love is allowed to to mete out consequences for evil actions.

 

[Whateverman]

If the original poster makes the objection:

Furthermore, many Christians seem to believe that anyone who fails to love and worship God will feel his wrath and will be punished by suffering in hell.​

He is utilizing the logic that love, by definition, must support and allow certain actions he deems acceptable

That's an unreasonable interpretation of what he wrote, given that he too objected to the idea of love being defined as you say. He called such a definition illogical.

that is, love, to be love, must enable and support people who don't love God with no negative consequences. If, in fact, you both reject the following definition:

It is the modern age that defines love as enabling one to do whatever one wants with no consequences. ​

​

Then you can no longer utilize the logic in the original post, for love is allowed to to mete out consequences for evil actions.

You're trying very hard to twist the language into support of your claim, but you should stop, because your real point might actually be worth discussing: someone can love someone else yet still punish them for wrongdoing.

That's what you want to be arguing, not the frankly silly idea that people are redefining the word "love".

 

[Mr Laurier]

If the original poster makes the objection:

Furthermore, many Christians seem to believe that anyone who fails to love and worship God will feel his wrath and will be punished by suffering in hell.​

He is utilizing the logic that love, by definition, must support and allow certain actions he deems acceptable, that is, love, to be love, must enable and support people who don't love God with no negative consequences. If, in fact, you both reject the following definition:

It is the modern age that defines love as enabling one to do whatever one wants with no consequences. ​

​

Then you can no longer utilize the logic in the original post, for love is allowed to to mete out consequences for evil actions.

The problem is, that the religious fundamentalists want punishment for good and neutral actions.
And for non-actions.
They want to punish me for sleeping with my girlfriend. And for not believing their claims of superiority. And for being born to parents who were not "racially pure".
That's not love.

 

[Howie]

Hilarious you capitalised "Trump" there.

I get what you are saying. God is all-powerful, and if he wants to torture people for not worshiping him, who is going to stop him, right?

Correct.

But really, that misses the point. The issue here is that most people agree that freedom of religion is a human right - even if it is a human notion. I am pointing out that what most people consider to be a human right is diametrically opposite to what the Christian God supposedly does, which indicates the Christian God is the worst human rights abuser in history.

In truth, you have no rights with God. You're a slave, either to God, or to Satan.

God is kind of in a way love, to some degree. Got it.

No, you don't. Sailed right over your head.

That is how he can torture billions for failing to love him.

See. Right over your head.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

That is how he can torture billions for failing to love him.

Still coming up empty-handed finding a Bible verse stating that God tortures? Oh, that' right, the Bible doesn't say it, "Christianity"does, so let me rephrase that: Still coming up empty-handed finding a single CARM Christian stating that God tortures?

 

[Furion]

Still coming up empty-handed finding a Bible verse stating that God tortures? Oh, that' right, the Bible doesn't say it, "Christianity"does, so let me rephrase that: Still coming up empty-handed finding a single CARM Christian stating that God tortures?

There is empirical evidence the OP uses torturous logic.

 

[The Pixie]

It is the modern age that defines love as enabling one to do whatever one wants with no consequences. Love is not an enabler of evil, as 1 Cor. 13 says, "Love does not rejoice in iniquity."

Is it love to protect and enable someone to harm another person? Would you say no? But why not, if they cry, "You don't love me if you don't enable my ability to abuse!"

"Because that's not how I define love."

"Yea, but, you are talking about God abusing others!"

"Is it abuse to stop abuse? If not, why not? You could define abuse that way if you wanted to get what you wanted regardless of consequence!"

So you think telling someone to do something, and torturing them if they fail to do so is compatible with love? I think you need to take a long hard look at your own relationships, and see if there is abuse there. I am not saying you abuse your partner, you may well be the victim, and have normalised his or her abusive behaviour. Here are a couple of web sites that might help you.

Signs of an abusive relationship

It’s not always obvious that you’re in an abusive relationship. Learn some of the key signs to look for.

au.reachout.com

Emotionally Abusive Relationships Can Be Hard To Recognize. Here's Why

"Was I overreacting?" I asked myself. "Was I being too sensitive? Was he right that I was acting crazy?"

www.healthline.com

I say this because torturing someone is not love, and if you think it is, there is something seriously wrong.

It is simply how you define abuse, as inflicting suffering on another for reasons you find insufficient. God has sufficient reasons. He is not harsh, he is severe... his love has qualifications...

No. Again, look at those web sites. It is not okay to abuse your loved one. Saying they deserve it does not make that any better.

Whether God has sufficient reasons is highly dubious, but even if he does, then the loving thing to do is to unconditionally forgive. Holding a grudge is not loving. Venting your anger on someone is not love.

Torturing someone for eternity because they chose not to love you is the antithesis of love.

God has the right to value himself above humans. God has the right to impose rules upon humans. God as the right to punish humans.

None of which relates to love.

When he uses that to excuse torturing people, that is not love.

The differentiation between harshness and severity, is that harshness does not desire the well-being of the subject, nor give any effort to attempt to help the subject. If God could in any way be more "cruel" than he is, that is, he could maximally inflict suffering, then he has to have at least "some" love and goodness even by your warped standard that makes humans not suffering the exalted and supreme value over God.

Torturing someone for eternity does not help the subject (I am assuming the usual Christian view here).

But the reason we can logically argue God is indeed, maximally good, is because he is maximally good within the framework of righteously and justly exalting himself.

Not if he tortures people for eternity, and says they deserve it for failing to love him.

There is nothing morally wrong with not loving God. That is part of the human right to freedom of religion - it recognises that worshiping any god, or none, is morally acceptable.

As you say, the crime here failing to exalt God, because all God cares about is people worshiping him. Again, the antithesis of love. Taking, not giving.

Considering the argument that might makes right—who is to say God would be "unloving" even if he is harsh; when one could describe love as ennoblement to do evil, if one so wanted, any action at all could be deemed unloving. I could argue you are not "loving" God by harshly criticizing God's actions.

I am not sure what your point is.

You seem - in your post in general - to be trying to redefine love to mean something it is not. Love is certainly not "ennoblement to do evil" - no one thinks that. We all know what love means, at least approximately. When Christians say "God is love" then either they mean God can be identified with the concept of love as it is conventionally understood, or they are just playing the Humpty Dumpty game, and it is, in essence, a lie.

God could be defined as a bully if God had no desire for or effort to help the well-being of his subjects.

But he does.

So tell me how torturing his victims for eternity helps them.

 

[rossum]

God is love.

Those who stand against love have gotsta go.

I stand against drowning pregnant women, and their unborn children, wholesale, as God did.

Why do you expect me to respect a God who does something like that?

 

[Furion]

I stand against drowning pregnant women, and their unborn children, wholesale, as God did.

Why do you expect me to respect a God who does something like that?

I expect nothing from you.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

So tell me how torturing his victims for eternity helps them.

Still coming up empty-handed finding a Bible verse stating that God tortures? Oh, that' right, the Bible doesn't say it, "Christianity"does, so let me rephrase that: Still coming up empty-handed finding a single CARM Christian stating that God tortures?

 

[rossum]

I expect nothing from you.

Since I do not owe you anything, that is only to be expected. I do expect better behaviour from a God who claims to be "loving" and yet kills unborn children wholesale.

 

[ferengi]

The problem is, that the religious fundamentalists want punishment for good and neutral actions.

How do you know what good is objectively?

 

[ferengi]

Since I do not owe you anything, that is only to be expected. I do expect better behaviour from a God who claims to be "loving" and yet kills unborn children wholesale.

Better? How do you differentiate between better and worse objectively?

 

[Furion]

Since I do not owe you anything, that is only to be expected. I do expect better behaviour from a God who claims to be "loving" and yet kills unborn children wholesale.

You can take up the charge, sure. Be a good lawyer and gird up, pal. You'll need it. I might rather enjoy you shaking your fist while you do it.

Interesting though, I believe God retains the right to the life He gave you, and can revoke it at...any time.

 

[rossum]

You can take up the charge, sure. Be a good lawyer and gird up, pal. You'll need it.

Interesting though, I believe God retains the right to the life He gave you, and can revoke it at...any time.

Yes He can, but by doing so He forfeits the claim to be "loving". I do not think "I love you, and I killed you, your wife and your unborn child" is going to win him many friends.