God vs Human Rights

Algor

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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?
 
Last edited:

Whateverman

Well-known member
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".
 

Howie

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You gave no context for the quote.
What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?
 

Howie

Well-known member
What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?
As i said, you gave no context for the quote ... until now.
 

rossum

Well-known member
I have a question for you, were those pregnant women upstanding and upright according to the law, or were they lawbreakers, deserving of death?
I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?
 

Howie

Well-known member
I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?
Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.

Scripture is consistent.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
The issue here is that most people agree that freedom of religion is a human right
most people do not know what freedom is.
- even if it is a human notion.
If freedom is a human notion then humans would be free to do whatever they please.
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.
I don't see how what most people consider has to do with what God does.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.

Scripture is consistent.
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.
 

Howie

Well-known member
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.
Scripture says He is without sin. (Heb 4:15)
 
Top