God vs Human Rights

[rossum]

Not that. That He forfeits the claim to being loving.

So when the Bible says "great love for us" it does not mean "great love for us". Isn't theology wonderful, words don't mean what they say, but what the theologian wants them to say. That is why all theologians everywhere always agree on what the Bible says. NOT!

 

[Howie]

So when the Bible says "great love for us" it does not mean "great love for us".

Depends on the context. I would imagine the context of that quote is the church and not Christ rejecting Buddhists, murderers and thieves.

Isn't theology wonderful, words don't mean what they say, but what the theologian wants them to say.

Context is everything, rossum

That is why all theologians everywhere always agree on what the Bible says. NOT!

If you say so ...

 

[rossum]

Depends on the context.

Thank you for confirming that the Bible is not the absolute truth. It cannot be absolute because what it say depends on the context. An absolute truth is true whatever the context. Hence the Bible is not absolute truth.

 

[Dizerner]

So when the Bible says "great love for us" it does not mean "great love for us". Isn't theology wonderful, words don't mean what they say, but what the theologian wants them to say. That is why all theologians everywhere always agree on what the Bible says. NOT!

It seems to me the objection that love is not love if it has other non-negotiable values, means that love is only love if it fits my personal desires and preferences.

Why can't love have conditions? Why can't love punish? Why can't love have moral values that are greater than just making things feel happy? Love is the sincere desire for something's well-being, not the assurance of bringing that well-being at all costs, sacrificing all other virtues just to make something feel happy.

It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.

 

[Algor]

It could be, but not necessarily, but it could have been to encourage more people to worship him. To be frank, that makes more sense than Jesus giving his life for mine. What does that actually mean? People die just as much after Jesus was crucified as they did before. There was no effect on physical death. God could defeat Satan, forgive sins, etc. without Jesus dying. So why did Jesus have to die?

If God is all-powerful, why did he need Jesus' death to do something? The nly purpose I can see that actually makes sense is that it was a spectacle designed to draw attention to Jesus' message, which was to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.

I think the way that makes the most sense to me is that the crucifixion can be seen as a gesture of solidarity with human suffering. When one goes to a play, the simple fact that actions are portrayed can be a source of comfort and catharsis and carries the communication that somehow the spectator is understood and is connected to other people. I think this is related to the attraction of humanism, and of many collectivist political movements as well: actions carried out on the theme of shared experience have a binding, comforting and healing effect.

 

[rossum]

It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.

You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.

 

[Algor]

It seems to me the objection that love is not love if it has other non-negotiable values, means that love is only love if it fits my personal desires and preferences.

Why can't love have conditions? Why can't love punish? Why can't love have moral values that are greater than just making things feel happy? Love is the sincere desire for something's well-being, not the assurance of bringing that well-being at all costs, sacrificing all other virtues just to make something feel happy.

It seems all the objections really just dissolve if you examine them closely enough.

Its a matter of degree. Love can certainly punish, but there is a point where punishment becomes abuse. It is a matter of judgement, isn't it?

 

[Howie]

Thank you for confirming that the Bible is not the absolute truth. It cannot be absolute because what it say depends on the context. An absolute truth is true whatever the context. Hence the Bible is not absolute truth.

Oh, brother ...

You asked, "So when the Bible says 'great love for us' it does not mean "great love for us."

Again, it depends upon the context. You gave no context for the quote.

Tell me, to whom is the speaker speaking? It's important to know that because God doesn't love everyone. He hates sinners. You're unbelief identifies you as a sinner because unbelief is a sin. So, in the quote you gave, "great love for us," you are not in the group, "us."

Context ...

 

[Howie]

You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.

I have a question for you, were those pregnant women upstanding and upright according to the law, or were they lawbreakers, deserving of death?

 

[Dizerner]

You will have a stretch to justify a mass drowning of pregnant women, thus killing their unborn children, as an act of love.

No, I don't.

I have to justify it as an act compatible with love.

 

[Dizerner]

Its a matter of degree. Love can certainly punish, but there is a point where punishment becomes abuse. It is a matter of judgement, isn't it?

And who decides what that degree is.

You?

 

[Whateverman]

It seems to me the objection that love is not love if it has other non-negotiable values, means that love is only love if it fits my personal desires and preferences.

That's one way to spin it, yes. Another is to point out that love cannot be love if (for example) it entails hatred; that's not really an issue of personal preference, but of blatant linguistic contradiction.

A blanket can't be red if there are green patches on it; a meal can't be vegetarian if there's meat in it; a person can't be dry if they're dripping wet. Words have well-established meanings - and if I may be blunt: Christian apologists routinely change the meanings of words to suit their apologetics.

You can't love a person and torture them.

Period, full stop.

That is a simple fact, independent of my "desires".

 

[Dizerner]

You can't love a person and torture them.

I think you could if you knew it were the right thing to do, and you loved moral virtue more than making people happy.

What if you had a being that you (theoretically somehow) knew was pure hate and would never change. This being of pure hate has only one desire: to cause suffering to the maximum amount of other beings it ever possibly couldl.

Would you sacrifice yourself for this being? Would you feel guilty harming this being? Would you feel morally obligated to give this being everything it demands to make it itself happy?

You see, underneath all this "love" talk is really just selfishness, pride and independence from any higher or ulterior standards.

Personal preference becomes ones "God" and one just acts on whatever subjectively "feels" right for the situation or moment. There is no ultimate virtue or accountibility in a system like that. It's just an ethical hodgepodge of untraced valuations, which in the end, will put the importance and value on something arbitrary and always other than the Being that created all things.

 

[Howie]

That's one way to spin it, yes. Another is to point out that love cannot be love if (for example) it entails hatred; that's not really an issue of personal preference, but of blatant linguistic contradiction.

A blanket can't be red if there are green patches on it; a meal can't be vegetarian if there's meat in it; a person can't be dry if they're dripping wet. Words have well-established meanings - and if I may be blunt: Christian apologists routinely change the meanings of words to suit their apologetics.

You can't love a person and torture them.

Period, full stop.

That is a simple fact, independent of my "desires".

You hate.

 

[Algor]

And who decides what that degree is.

You?

Everybody has to make up their own mind. Nobody can do that for you.

 

[Newbirth]

I am curious how Christians relate this to the idea that "God is love".

I am curious how you arrive at God is against human rights when the people who wrote article 9 also believe God created humans.

 

[Howie]

Everybody has to make up their own mind. Nobody can do that for you.

Are murderers guilty of death?

 

[Howie]

I am curious how you arrive at God is against human rights when the people who wrote article 9 also believe God created humans.

What's article nine?

 

[Dizerner]

Everybody has to make up their own mind. Nobody can do that for you.

So we are to leave the judgment of the standard of ultimate virtues and morals to each of our own arbitrary whims.

Sounds like a very reliable system.

In the Bible there is a phrase "And every man did what was right in his own eyes."

The problem is, our eyesight is not the greatest.

 

[Algor]

So we are to leave the judgment of the standard of ultimate virtues and morals to each of our own arbitrary whims.

Or you have to leave the decision of whom to defer to, to each of our own arbitrary whims. Sooner or later, it is up to you.

(Parenthetically, I do not think careful, reasoned assessments are "arbitrary whims". I think people make their calls as best they can, with the knowledge that they can be in error. )

Sounds like a very reliable system.

In the Bible there is a phrase "And every man did what was right in his own eyes."

The problem is, our eyesight is not the greatest.

That would extend to our choice of whom and what we should trust, too, as far as I can see.