i would say no as clearly God had conditions on earning his favor
discuss, debate
is the idea of unconditional love compatible with the God of the old testament?
Posts
Total:
96
nope, unconditional love is probably not a thing apart from blood family
-->
@n8nrgmi
What is unconditional love?
-->
@Tradesecret
loving without conditions. did God love the world when he killed everyone but noah and his family? did he love them but deem it proper for them to all perish? what do you think unconditional love is, and does God do that in the old testament?
-->
@n8nrgmi
loving without conditions. did God love the world when he killed everyone but noah and his family? did he love them but deem it proper for them to all perish? what do you think unconditional love is, and does God do that in the old testament?
With great respect, your explanation is not yet helpful enough for me to respond. What is love? Is love confined only to positive things? Is it a process? Is it an outcome? For example, when I discipline my children, they don't perceive it as love. Yet if I chose not to discipline them, then I have not displayed love. Similarly, God loved the world, so he sent his son to be killed. Is that love for the world or not? And was it love towards his own son or not?
To talk about conditions - we need to know what love is. Are we talking about love in a hollywood, type fuzzy wuzzy type of emotional response or something else? Is it an action?
Without such answers to my questions - then I would simply respond that God's love for the world was TRULY demonstrated in saving Noah and destroying the rest of the world.
The Bible defines love as obeying God's commandments. We love God by obeying his commandments and we love others by obeying God's commandments. If this is the case - what would be the conditions that change or remain the same.
Is unconditional love - love without qualifications. Such as I love my children whether they kill someone or not. And what does love mean in that situation? Are we talking about loyalty. Standing beside them as they kill someone, being pleased for them as they kill someone else. Does it mean not preventing them from doing it? Does it mean condoning what they are doing? Or is that abuse?
You need to define love. And you need to define what conditions go with that. Sorry to be a bother - but otherwise - the original post just seems like a leading question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
wait??were talking about God and us??
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
I agree love is a loaded word and should be better defined. It is easy for example to claim that an abusive parent "loves" their child "deep down" no matter how badly said parent behaves toward the child.
-->
@Tradesecret
do you believe in eternal hell flame? i might be able to understand 'putting sinner's out of their misery' but still loving them or something like that, but is it possible to torture people for eternity while still loving them? does God unconditionally love the people that he's physically torturing for eternity?
-->
@Tradesecret
and to be clear, according to your idea of unconditional love, you think that God does unconditionally love the people he sends to hell?
-->
@n8nrgmi
do you believe in eternal hell flame? i might be able to understand 'putting sinner's out of their misery' but still loving them or something like that, but is it possible to torture people for eternity while still loving them? does God unconditionally love the people that he's physically torturing for eternity?and to be clear, according to your idea of unconditional love, you think that God does unconditionally love the people he sends to hell?
LOL! How can I answer that question before you properly define what love is?
BTW I have not said whether I agree with unconditional love or not. I don't actually know what you are asking.
It is impossible to answer your question properly until you define the meaning of love.
WRT to Hell, let us get to that soon. I find it a fascinating subject.
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
If I may suggest a non nebulous standard would you both accept that a good indicator of love between thinking agents is apparently genuine concern for the wellbeing of the loved one?
-->
@secularmerlin
@n8nrgmi
If I may suggest a non nebulous standard would you both accept that a good indicator of love between thinking agents is apparently genuine concern for the wellbeing of the loved one?
Thanks for the suggestion secularmerlin, it may provide a deadlock here. I do not know.
It does not define love - but provides an indicator of how humans might love each other if they demonstrate a genuine concern for the other's wellbeing. I might be able to work with this - although with respect it makes no sense at all of the love that I have for God. I have no genuine concern for the wellbeing of God. In fact I am unable even to begin to fathom love in that sense with God. I do not care about God's feelings. Or about his emotions. I have no concern for his wellbeing. He is not going to get depressed. Nor will he be hungry or thirsty or have no shelter or be unloved.
When we talk about love for God it is clearly not in the same sense of how we talk about God's love for us. I wonder why that is? If love is a genuine concern for another's wellbeing, then it is impossible to love God. That makes no sense. What concern could we possibly have for God? He is perfect. He is not lonely.
I do care about the promises of God. And his character. And his desires for humanity. But this is not because of my concern for his wellbeing - but for my own and for those I care about. I suppose I do care about his reputation - not that I worry it will be damaged by him, but rather by the misrepresentation of humans. And I care about this not for his sake, but again because I desire that people obtain the right and proper understanding of God.
This is a fascinating question and consideration of the notion of love. If our love for God is not based on our concern for his wellbeing, then is it fair to put our human understanding of love onto him? When he calls us to love him, he is clearly not asking us to care for his wellbeing. So when we consider how he loves us - is it fair to say it must be based upon his concern for our welfare, or is it possible that his love for us is to be understood differently? And if so, why? And who determines the same?
-->
@Tradesecret
So your argument if I understand it correctly is that we cannot presume to understand what would constitute an indication of love in the context of the god proposed in the old testament. In that case how can we in fact determine whether or not such love is in evidence?
-->
@secularmerlin
So your argument if I understand it correctly is that we cannot presume to understand what would constitute an indication of love in the context of the god proposed in the old testament. In that case how can we in fact determine whether or not such love is in evidence?
Not at all. I am certainly not suggesting that love cannot be indicated by a genuine concern for someone else's welfare, only that the love we show towards God is not of that nature. And given that circumstance, is it fair to presume that His love must thereby be measured or understood in the way we love as opposed to the way he declares it so.
We know that God loves the world. Yes he told us so. And clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world. A picture of self sacrifice is one picture of love described in the bible. In fact his love for the world while they were still his enemies is a mighty picture. There was no particularly just reason for him to do so. It is entirely an act of grace (incidentally, one of the numerous words interpreted from Greek into English love, namely, eros, charis, agape, philos and -----).
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love? I asked what is love? At least you provided a definition of sorts. Thanks again.
Yet like you also raised, is it possible for some one to love and to discipline their children at the same time? Some might say no. Yet I would say that a parent who never disciplines their child is an abuser. God is not just a God of love - he is a just God. If God did not bring judgment on some, then in my mind he would be a liar. If he is going to lie about those things, why would I trust him to keep his promises. I don't like the fact that people are sentenced, yet it is demonstrates his intention of honesty and integrity.
-->
@Tradesecret
We know that God loves the world.
Assuming some god(s) exist I don't actually know this about him.
clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world.
Actually the old testament (the only te t presumed by the op) makes no mention of this event so it is largely besides the point.
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love?
"Why do you make me hit you" and "this hurts me more than it hurts you"
These are stances are more often indicative of an abuser than a loving parent. Can you show the difference between the behavior of the god depicted in the old testament and the behavior of a neglectful and capriciously violent parent?
-->
@secularmerlin
We know that God loves the world.Assuming some god(s) exist I don't actually know this about him.
I take the view that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. Are you asking me to only half believe in order to answer you fully? How quaint?
Nevertheless, I accept you believe you don't know God exists. Yet I can only speak to the view that I do believe. And that it is my view as well as many others that God not only exists, but that he loves us.
clearly this love is pictured as God sending his son to this world for the welfare of the world.Actually the old testament (the only te t presumed by the op) makes no mention of this event so it is largely besides the point.
Well yes I suppose that is the position of the OP. Yet, again I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point. I do not think we can divorce the OT from the NT GOD. In my understanding they are one and the same. Anything that can be said about GOD in the Old can be said about God in the New. Yet because we are focusing on the Old, love can be demonstrated in the creation. God made the earth and placed humanity in it - providing for his wellbeing. After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin, again showing concern for his wellbeing.
The dilemma arises however because of fact that God also judges and sentences people to die and even according to some to eternal damnation in Hellfire. How is that consistent with love?"Why do you make me hit you" and "this hurts me more than it hurts you"These are stances are more often indicative of an abuser than a loving parent. Can you show the difference between the behavior of the god depicted in the old testament and the behavior of a neglectful and capriciously violent parent?
I was not talking about smacking. I was talking about discipline. Discipline is a means. Punishment is an end. Putting someone on a naughty chair. Taking away someone's ipad. Grounding someone. Not giving them their allowance. Not letting them go to the movies. All of these are forms of discipline. Each could be seen as child abuse by someone. For the record, I don't have an issue with smacking, so far as it is not abusive, leaves marks, and is confined to the hand or the bottom. No legs, no head, no other part of the body. Neither does any court I have attended either. I also don't take the view that smacking leads to assault or violence, anymore than does imprisoning someone leads to others committing violent acts or fining someone teaches people to steal.
I think there is a difference between guilt manipulation and discipline. If you are guilty, that is good. It is good to be guilty for doing the wrong thing. But making someone guilty for the sake of it - guilt manipulation is wrong.
In the OT God ALWAYS lawfully acts in justice. There are no occasions when he acts or requests unlawful killings or injustice against others. Sometimes his representatives do the wrong thing. And generally they get punished themselves. God from the beginning never just made a command. He always provided reasons for his commands and he always provided a sanction if the people did not obey. This is his prerogative as GOD. If people did not sin, there would be no need for judgment. If people did not commit treason - then humanity would not be living in a rebellious state of war against God.
This is why I can still say that God loves us. Despite our hatred and treason against him, he still managed to show love and concern for many people in this world. Was it necessary to save everyone? That is another question.
This is why I find the notion of unconditional love so unhelpful. Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.
After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin,
I suppose but why make a system of sin and punishment in the first place? Couldn't have this hypothetical god have created any world governed by any rules including scenarios beyond our ability to imagine? Why not just make a garden with no tree of knowledge? Isn't it better (read more effective) to keep guns out of reach of children than it is to admonish them not to touch? You will forgive me if the love you are attributing to this god seems indistinguishable from neglect and abuse to me. I do invite you to show some practical difference but if it is merely beyond our ability to fairly assess then it is by default impossible to make the determination whether said god feels any love or not.
I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point.
So are you unwilling or unable to entertain hypotheticals and thought experiments? If I were unable to entertain hypothetical scenarios I don't actually believe in I wouldn't even have the ability to have this discussion with you. Is there some rational reason not to extend the author of the op the same courtesy?
Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.
This is an extremely poor argument as some humans are monsters and though mentions of hell are somewhat lacking in the ot you would be hard put without changing your stance on god's need to punish sinners to claim that none do end up in juvie (or rather eternal torment and damnation).
To be clear the old testament says the wages of sin are death not eternal damnation but that is a separate discussion.
In any case the discipline of which you speak is difficult to distinguish from no action being taken for or against transgressors from the perspective of a human on earth who can observe good things happening to the guilty and bad things happening to the innocent at a rate that seems indistinguishable from random happenstance.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
nope, unconditional love is not a thing apart from blood family
Yep. I would agree that this is the best definition of love and/or unconditional love.
Other than that, love is an overused and misused epithet.....I love cycling, I love ice cream, I love donkeys etc. etc.
I love god.....How does one know if the they've never met it.....It might be a complete and utter emotionless bastard......Which it more than likely is.... Assuming that such a principle is actually pertinent.
-->
@secularmerlin
After Adam sinned, God provided clothing and atonement for his sin,I suppose but why make a system of sin and punishment in the first place? Couldn't have this hypothetical god have created any world governed by any rules including scenarios beyond our ability to imagine? Why not just make a garden with no tree of knowledge? Isn't it better (read more effective) to keep guns out of reach of children than it is to admonish them not to touch? You will forgive me if the love you are attributing to this god seems indistinguishable from neglect and abuse to me. I do invite you to show some practical difference but if it is merely beyond our ability to fairly assess then it is by default impossible to make the determination whether said god feels any love or not.
Tis true that a hypothetical god could have done anything he liked. Yet the God of the Bible did what he did. Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job. And I suspect that all of us think we could do so as well. I think that is the heart of Treason. Why did he make a system of sin and punishment? Well I suppose you could ask him one day and hopefully it won't matter when you do. I take the view that God had a reason for these things. The tree of knowledge was essentially a test of probation. It also provided an opportunity to learn about life - in the sense of limitations. I don't find it a reasonable comparison for Adam and children with guns. Adam was a fully cognizant human. He is as it were the champion of the human race. he was the best of the best. And the smartest of the smartest. His was a simple choice - not a situation of keeping children away from dangerous items. That notion is too simplistic and an insult to the writer of the book. To suggest that God is neglectful and abusive is really a naive thing to suggest.
As I said - Adam was the perfect human being. God called him Good. He was brilliant. The highest point of humanity. The champion of the race. Untainted by sin. By Greed or by anything else. This was the world God made and put man into. God gave him all he needed and God provided for him. If God had not given him boundaries then he would not have experienced freedom. This is why the tree existed. Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery. If anyone in the history of the universe was going to be able to be our representative - our champion it was going to be Adam. No one else has come close. Not Abraham, Not Noah, Not Moses, Not David. Adam - whose name means Human - was the one. Created first - by the hands of God himself.
He was not some sort of child, or naive or simple. God had educated him from the beginning. He knew good from evil. He recognized he needed a mate. He knew the difference between animals and humans. To say that God put a gun near a child just exposes the fact that you really don't understand this passage. He was the first perfect person ever made and he was amazing in every way.
I am not going to commence with a notion I don't agree with in order to make my point.So are you unwilling or unable to entertain hypotheticals and thought experiments? If I were unable to entertain hypothetical scenarios I don't actually believe in I wouldn't even have the ability to have this discussion with you. Is there some rational reason not to extend the author of the op the same courtesy?
I don't have an issue with hypotheticals. And even thought experiments. Yet to be honest - a hypothetical situation is unhelpful as a tool to change someone's mind when as part of the hypothetical situation I have to actually stop believing things that I hold to be relevant. It then only becomes a thought bubble for someone else. It provides me with no particular assistance in any instance. Yet, the OP made an assertion and asked for comment. I do not think that I have been discourteous. I have explained my position and as to how far I can extend the discussion within the parametres of my own understanding.
I find the notion that the OT God is somehow different to the NT one as difficult to maintain. Both are clearly just and holy. Both express love similarly and both express judgement similarly. To divorce the two only then serves the person who does not want to have the wisdom as expressed through Jesus. I think there is a subconscious manner to distinguish the two. We can like Jesus - but Jehovah, no he is quite distinct.
Yet - I think this is two faced.
Yet that is my opinion.
-->
@secularmerlin
Parents who love their children unconditionally do not exist. And if they did - their children would be monsters - probably living in prison or juvie.This is an extremely poor argument as some humans are monsters and though mentions of hell are somewhat lacking in the ot you would be hard put without changing your stance on god's need to punish sinners to claim that none do end up in juvie (or rather eternal torment and damnation).To be clear the old testament says the wages of sin are death not eternal damnation but that is a separate discussion.In any case the discipline of which you speak is difficult to distinguish from no action being taken for or against transgressors from the perspective of a human on earth who can observe good things happening to the guilty and bad things happening to the innocent at a rate that seems indistinguishable from random happenstance.
Wow! that is a steep call. Parents who love their parents unconditionally do not exist. I have never met one. Have you? I love my children even when they stuff up badly. But this is far different to saying I love them unconditionally. I have never seen a parent stand by their child when their child is beating up someone and say - great they deserved it. And continued to do so even at a court hearing. Generally by that time - the parent has come to realise that their child has done something wrong. And they dont agree with it. Do they love their child then? Of course - well perhaps. But it is not unconditional. Parents who never discipline their children - which is what you seem to be advocating - are teaching their children to do whatever they want - i think that is reckless and negligent. And many of these type of kids do end up in prison and juvi. I am a criminal lawyer for kids. I see a lot of this everyday and am speaking not from ideology but experience.
The OT teaches that treason is eternal damnation. It does not simply talk of death. But covenantal death. Adam was not born immortal. He was going to die as a part of normal life. His test which he failed could have given him eternal life - but he chose death. Covenantal death- kicked out of the family - for TREASON.
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.
Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job.
This doesn't actually follow from the story. According to the story they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree. They could not therefore have thought god was doing a bad job (being unaware of good and so unable to contrast the job god was doing against some hypothetical better) and indeed could not have understood their transgression. They were tricked by the serpent (not necessarily the Christian devil by the way which makes no real appearance in the old testament) and the serpent presumably was just another creation of their god.
I don't find it a reasonable comparison for Adam and children with guns. Adam was a fully cognizant human. He is as it were the champion of the human race. he was the best of the best. And the smartest of the smartest.
I'm sorry but according to the source material this is blatantly untrue. He was unable to tell right from wrong because he had not eaten of the tree of knowledge yet. Only after eating the fruit could get be expected to understand that eating the fruit was wrong.
Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery.
Firstly I m not sure that holds true. Freedom and boundaries are two different issues. When we set boundaries for our children it is not to contrast with their freedom or to provide them with choice but instead more generally it is to protect them from dangerous situations. Also the old testament god didn't seem to have a problem with slavery so I don't see why he would have a problem with Adam being his slave. In fact the relationship is not entirely different. Adam, according to genesis, was a being belonging to god for whom tasks were laid out.
I don't have an issue with hypotheticals. And even thought experiments. Yet to be honest - a hypothetical situation is unhelpful as a tool to change someone's mind when as part of the hypothetical situation I have to actually stop believing things that I hold to be relevant. It then only becomes a thought bubble for someone else. It provides me with no particular assistance in any instance. Yet, the OP made an assertion and asked for comment. I do not think that I have been discourteous. I have explained my position and as to how far I can extend the discussion within the parametres of my own understanding.
Well stated. I accept your position on this.
I think there is a subconscious manner to distinguish the two. We can like Jesus - but Jehovah, no he is quite distinct.Yet - I think this is two faced.Yet that is my opinion.
Seems a bit dissonant. Can we distinguish the two or not? Either we can and discussion of only the ot god is possible or we cannot. I accepted your stance above but this is a bit of a departure from that stance.
Wow! that is a steep call. Parents who love their parents unconditionally do not exist. I have never met one. Have you? I love my children even when they stuff up badly. But this is far different to saying I love them unconditionally. I have never seen a parent stand by their child when their child is beating up someone and say - great they deserved it. And continued to do so even at a court hearing. Generally by that time - the parent has come to realise that their child has done something wrong. And they dont agree with it. Do they love their child then? Of course - well perhaps. But it is not unconditional.
You seem to be flip flopping a lot on issues. Doesn't unconditional mean no matter what? Does love require supporting the action of the loved one? Indeed if the parent still loves the child even when they disapprove of the action the child has taken I would call that indicative of unconditional love. It may be hard to determine as outside observers but that doesn't alter definitions.
Parents who never discipline their children - which is what you seem to be advocating - are teaching their children to do whatever they want - i think that is reckless and negligent.
I am not advocating for anything and I agree with this assessment. It would also seem reckless and negligent to leave children in dangerous situations or to leave dangerous objects where children could stumble upon them.
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.
Certainly. I am addressing the problem of suffering. I seem to notice that on earth the guilty often escape justice while the innocent often suffer sometimes horribly. Indeed going back to the source material Job is supposedly a righteous man on whom all manner of misfortunes were visited for the purposes of a wager. As an unbeliever this would appear to me to be an attempt by the authors of the story to explain away the problem of suffering but in the end just colors the proposed god in rather an unflattering light. These are not the actions of a loving parent but rather a capricious and neglectful abuser.
-->
@Tradesecret
you dont need a formal definition to say that you dont love someone who you torture for eternity... everyone has an intuitive sense of what unconditional love is, and that aint it.
but okay. here's a definition. "having affection for someone and wanting what's best for them, no matter what". is this definition adequate for you? again, we can see that torturing someone for eternity isn't unconditional love.... at best the person being tortured was loved at one point, but no more... conditional love.
i would say some parents are capable of unconditional love as i defined it.... why isn't God? or, is it just your perception of God that is flawed?
there's also the concept of "agape". "unconditionally self giving and self sacrificial love". i think with this definition, we see that God was self sacrificial, but it wasn't unconditionally so with respect to the damned.
is it possible to want what's best for God? id say so. God wants all sinners to come to repentance. so i hope God gets what he wants. but the agape thing was probably more accurate and historic and academic.
-->
@zedvictor4
ok??
-->
@secularmerlin
.
secularmerlin,
YOUR QUOTE REGARDING ADAM EATING THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT: "This doesn't actually follow from the story. According to the story they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree. They could not therefore have thought god was doing a bad job (being unaware of good and so unable to contrast the job god was doing against some hypothetical better) and indeed could not have understood their transgression. They were tricked by the serpent (not necessarily the Christian devil by the way which makes no real appearance in the old testament) and the serpent presumably was just another creation of their god."
In your answer to the pseudo-christian TRADESECRET in this proposition, he always RUNS AWAY from the biblical axiom that the serial killer Jesus, as the HEBREW Yahweh God incarnate of the Old Testament, was omniscient (1 John 3:20). Therefore, Jesus knew that Adam was going to go against His command, of which EVE transgressed first (1 Timothy 2:14) , and then Adam second. Therefore, the whole initial and original sin scenario was a setup by Jesus as being an omniscient God where Eve and Adam really had no choice in the matter! That tricky ol' Jesus! LOL!
In case you didn't know, I have easily proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that ol' TRADESECRET committed the Unpardonable Sin by calling Jesus a LIAR regarding His Triune Doctrine in another thread, therefore no matter what TRADESECRET says in his posts, he will be headed for the burning sulfur lakes of Hell upon his earthly demise. Therefore his presence within this forum is moot.
.
-->
@secularmerlin
Adam and Eve thought they could do a better job.This doesn't actually follow from the story. According to the story they had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree. They could not therefore have thought god was doing a bad job (being unaware of good and so unable to contrast the job god was doing against some hypothetical better) and indeed could not have understood their transgression. They were tricked by the serpent (not necessarily the Christian devil by the way which makes no real appearance in the old testament) and the serpent presumably was just another creation of their god.
Well you see I disagree with that view. They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. Why would God punish them for doing anything that was not good or bad. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not about gaining knowledge of what good and evil was - it was about them deciding what was good and was evil. That is a different concept. You see this is what would make them like God - not the knowledge of good and evil which is hardly a divine character trait - but deciding what was good and evil. There is the rub. Of course they knew what their transgression was. God said don't eat from that tree. They were not stupid. yes, Eve was naive when it came to Satan. She gave in to the temptation placed before her. So I disagree with your premise and mind you - so do most Reformed folk.
I don't find it a reasonable comparison for Adam and children with guns. Adam was a fully cognizant human. He is as it were the champion of the human race. he was the best of the best. And the smartest of the smartest.I'm sorry but according to the source material this is blatantly untrue. He was unable to tell right from wrong because he had not eaten of the tree of knowledge yet. Only after eating the fruit could get be expected to understand that eating the fruit was wrong.
Sorry - but the information is that Adam knew it was wrong to eat the fruit which seriously contradicts your statement. The fruit was not giving him new knowledge - it was giving him the capacity to determine what was good or evil. Think about this for a moment. Prior to the eating of the fruit - God says everything is good - including Adam and Eve being naked. Now if for the sake of the argument Adam and Eve did not know what right and wrong was - then after they ate the fruit - they did, then what God had called good, including being naked - would now make sense to them. After all, according to your view, they did not know but after eating the fruit they did know. So - why then do they become concerned because of their nakedness? Why then do they now think it is wrong - despite it being good prior to their eyes being opened? Two conclusions really, one that good and evil are objective laws that even God has to abide by or that God in his capacity as God determines what was good and bad for everyone - but now Adam and Eve think they know better and decide that nakedness is not good. After all, if your argument is that "now their eyes were opened" they knew what was good and bad - then they should have known that what was good - such as being naked was still good. Yet the story shows a different picture.
Freedom without boundaries is not freedom. Freedom without boundaries is just another form of slavery.Firstly I m not sure that holds true. Freedom and boundaries are two different issues. When we set boundaries for our children it is not to contrast with their freedom or to provide them with choice but instead more generally it is to protect them from dangerous situations. Also the old testament god didn't seem to have a problem with slavery so I don't see why he would have a problem with Adam being his slave. In fact the relationship is not entirely different. Adam, according to genesis, was a being belonging to god for whom tasks were laid out.
I was not arguing against Slavery. I was making the point of the definition of true freedom. If we don't have boundaries - then our freedom becomes meaningless. The rest of your paragraph drifts into irrelevancy. My point was to provide a reason for the tree in the garden. It has many purposes - but one was to recognize they were reliant upon someone else, namely God. And that God made the rules and that they were accountable to him. Ironically enough there was only one rule.
I don't have an issue with hypotheticals. And even thought experiments. Yet to be honest - a hypothetical situation is unhelpful as a tool to change someone's mind when as part of the hypothetical situation I have to actually stop believing things that I hold to be relevant. It then only becomes a thought bubble for someone else. It provides me with no particular assistance in any instance. Yet, the OP made an assertion and asked for comment. I do not think that I have been discourteous. I have explained my position and as to how far I can extend the discussion within the parametres of my own understanding.Well stated. I accept your position on this.
Thank you.
I think there is a subconscious manner to distinguish the two. We can like Jesus - but Jehovah, no he is quite distinct.Yet - I think this is two faced.Yet that is my opinion.Seems a bit dissonant. Can we distinguish the two or not? Either we can and discussion of only the ot god is possible or we cannot. I accepted your stance above but this is a bit of a departure from that stance.
I don't think so. Jesus and the OT GOD are the same and yet they are not. The Christian position is that God is Trinity - yet Jesus was both God and Man. Yet Jesus is not the Trinity, but forms part of the Trinity. Hence - their character is the same - yet GOD is not MAN. I cannot in other words simply divorce the Trinity from Jesus - but nor can I posit that Jesus equals the Trinity. Hence we cannot distinguish the two. It is not as simplistic as are putting. God is not simplistic.
Wow! that is a steep call. Parents who love their parents unconditionally do not exist. I have never met one. Have you? I love my children even when they stuff up badly. But this is far different to saying I love them unconditionally. I have never seen a parent stand by their child when their child is beating up someone and say - great they deserved it. And continued to do so even at a court hearing. Generally by that time - the parent has come to realise that their child has done something wrong. And they dont agree with it. Do they love their child then? Of course - well perhaps. But it is not unconditional.You seem to be flip flopping a lot on issues. Doesn't unconditional mean no matter what? Does love require supporting the action of the loved one? Indeed if the parent still loves the child even when they disapprove of the action the child has taken I would call that indicative of unconditional love. It may be hard to determine as outside observers but that doesn't alter definitions.
I would have thought it meant without conditions. Does love require supporting their actions? I would say no, yet many advocates of unconditional love would say yes. In fact one might suggest that love requires discipline and even punishment when required. And sometimes this love for the person you punish is going to be weighed against the crime and equity for others you love as well. But does my love diminish for the person I punish or discipline?
Parents who never discipline their children - which is what you seem to be advocating - are teaching their children to do whatever they want - i think that is reckless and negligent.I am not advocating for anything and I agree with this assessment. It would also seem reckless and negligent to leave children in dangerous situations or to leave dangerous objects where children could stumble upon them.
I agree. Yet if the children were adults - and were given warning - over and over again - then would it be negligent or reckless to leave them there?
Respectfully can you put your last sentence in another form. It does not make sense to me. thanks.Certainly. I am addressing the problem of suffering. I seem to notice that on earth the guilty often escape justice while the innocent often suffer sometimes horribly. Indeed going back to the source material Job is supposedly a righteous man on whom all manner of misfortunes were visited for the purposes of a wager. As an unbeliever this would appear to me to be an attempt by the authors of the story to explain away the problem of suffering but in the end just colors the proposed god in rather an unflattering light. These are not the actions of a loving parent but rather a capricious and neglectful abuser.
Firstly, it was not a wager. It was a lesson for sure - to both Satan, and to us as humanity watching. It was to warn people that the cultural view of the time that wealth and blessing were signs of blessing from God and sickness and poverty was a sing of his disfavor was wrong. It was to provide wisdom that GOD makes the rules and not Satan. And furthermore that GOD is not accountable to anyone but himself. Job came to realise this truth. His faith was deeper than the wealth he had accumulated. I dont see the story like you do. In fact there are indicators in the story that even though Satan wanted to go further GOD Stopped him - and made the limits. And in any event with the greatest respect - the story is not trying to give a why to suffering - it is not trying to explain away suffering. It is saying that suffering exists - and that it is painful and that it hurts and that when you suffer - it is never going to be easy. I think that the story is a picture of the reality of suffering. That God chose to use it as a means of dispelling false theories is a matter for himself. Without this story - many well meaning religious people might well continue on believing the lie that suffering only happens to sinners.
-->
@Tradesecret
Well you see I disagree with that view.
Perhaps we had better resolve this now. When in doubt should I refer to the actual book or you when discussing the book?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well you see I disagree with that view.Perhaps we had better resolve this now. When in doubt should I refer to the actual book or you when discussing the book?
Please refer to the bible. I think it is clear. The way I discuss it is the traditional way of understanding it. I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view. It does not make sense to take that view. Adam knew it was wrong to take the fruit - God told him not to take the fruit. Adam knew he would die if he took the fruit. If Adam did not know what death meant, then this command would have meant nothing. If Adam did not know it was wrong, then it makes no sense. Why would God punish him for something if he did not know it was wrong?
The tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now while some think this means that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil before eating of it - it simply does not make sense in the context. Knowledge / knowing in Hebrew is not used in the same way as we use it today. It is a word that means something very intimate - sometimes we talk about knowing each other in the biblical sense. That can mean having sexual intercourse. Sometimes it means others things - such as covenantal knowledge between God and Human.
Quote verses if you need to. I am confident the story holds together. But I remain convinced of the position that Adam was an Adult and not a child. I remain convinced that he did know the difference between good and evil. The tree did not stop this - or give him more knowledge in that sense. What it did do - was to open his eyes to say - this is not good. Or I don't agree with God. It is this notion that gives the basis of TREASON in the OT and why what GOD did by throwing him out of the Garden - just.
If you take the view that God simply told an immature child not to do something and then when the immature child did that - to kick him and all of his children out of the garden - then that would make God seem to be vindicate and mean or whatever.
But that is the difference in the views. One sees God as holy and just and righteous. And the other sees God as being evil and vindictive. I see the former and see it quite clearly. Others don't. Stephen for instance sees it quite differently and thereby it taints or colors everything he sees in the bible. Similarly, the way I perceive God colors everything I see.