A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Here is a stunningly simple question in response: Why do you believe God requires a basis, beyond a decision, in order to love anyone?

    Just curious.

    You have posted things that give the impression you don't even think God exists, yet you routinely unleash venomous words directed toward . . . what? Your imagination? My imagination? Someone else's? In what context, past, present, future, or omnichronistically?

    You often infer a knowledge of both the thought processes and the motives of a person you seem to variously greatly and intensely despise or disbelieve in completely. I think your inferred claim to such knowledge is highly suspect, given the composite of your posts on the subject, but that is only my opinion.

    —AuldSoul

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Do humans have much inherent value? Not really, no.

    Love can do funny things, though. I have a teddy bear I have had since I was 21 years old. The teddy bear doesn't have much inherent value, but the circumstances under which I received it and the person/relationship it calls to mind make that bear precious to me.

    Ayn Rand would think me a disgrace, no doubt. But fortunately, not everything in life must be rationalized, or reasoned out, or make perfect sense to me, or to you, or to anyone else. What a dismal life it would be if that were the case.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog
    On what BASIS did God so Love the world?

    Only the righteous works of his Son. That's the basis for Him to love anyone. He needs no other.

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Do humans have much inherent value? Not really, no.

    If this were true, what moral norm do we have to stick to? What prohibits us to ruin our neighbor's valueless life?

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    REAL ONE -- This eternal God you describe, lived an extremely long time or forever all alone. Why did he create beings (angels, humans) whose sole purpose in life is to worship him? Is he that insecure? Does he constantly need praise? There's a word for people like that (egomaniacs), is that how your God is? If you said he created people so that they could enjoy their life, that would at least be logical.

    AULD SOUL -- Doesn't the Bible teach that without his Son as an intercessor, that God cannot have a relationship with people? So the question is why did he send his Son as an intercessor after condemning men and leaving them to lives filled with frustration? It seems like he was angry in the Old Testament and loving in the New Testament.

    Also, why are atheists criticized for questioning the validity of certain beliefs about deities such as the Bible's God? If God really created with us a brain capable of reasoning on things, surely that God would expect us to use it instead of just accepting what was written in some book or what some religious body told us.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    When atheists rant and rail against god, their target is an idol. It's a construct. It doesn't have to be real to be challenged.

    S

  • trevor
    trevor
    You have posted things that give the impression you don't even think God exists, yet you routinely unleash venomous words directed toward . . . what? Your imagination? My imagination? Someone else's? In what context, past, present, future, or omnichronistically?

    AuldSoul has a point.

    The problem with the reasoning mind is that it can attach emotion and reasoning to claims whether they are based on fact or fiction.

    The reasoning mind uses symbols and then coverts a fictional story that uses the same symbols into reality.

    While knowing we are attaching emotion and our reasoning power to a fictional scenario, we find ourselves caught up in outrage that the fictional story although not adding up is believed by others. Worse than this we too once believed it and we are out raged that we were fooled.

    We try to think our way out of the trap. We tell ourselves that we dwell on the matter for the sake of argument, which is precisely what is happening.

    The mind is caught in a trap, thinking about thinking. In such a state of mind anything is possible. Perhaps it is the anger we feel towards those who still cling to such nonsense that compels us to try to set matters straight.

    Once something is seen to be fictional it needs to be cleared out of the mind to make way for reality. Every moment spent in such an exercise is a waste of mental fuel or energy.

    Trevor

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Once something is seen to be fictional it needs to be cleared out of the mind to make way for reality. Every moment spent in such an exercise is a waste of mental fuel or energy.

    I strongly disagree. It's not because God is exposed as a (social) construction, that it suddenly becomes fiction. On the contrary, the edifice becomes more real than ever before.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    hamilcar: If this were true, what moral norm do we have to stick to? What prohibits us to ruin our neighbor's valueless life?

    What indeed? Since we do not have much inherent value, and it is only our potential value as a contributor to the whole that we treasure and preserve, what moral norm have we to stick to? More directly to the point, why do we stick to any or desire any, to begin with? Is 'morality' our natural instinct? If the atheists are right, our 'morality' and our 'morality' alone permitted all the atrocities mankind has perpetrated against one another.

    In which case, 'morality', or the inherent nature of man, or the results of these is actually the 'God' against which Terry and others truly rail, rant, and raves. Which is an odd display of self-hatred at worst, or possibly of hatred of one's own species, or at very least, hatred of the natural processes which spawned the thoughts of the species.

    gopher: Doesn't the Bible teach that without his Son as an intercessor, that God cannot have a relationship with people? So the question is why did he send his Son as an intercessor after condemning men and leaving them to lives filled with frustration? It seems like he was angry in the Old Testament and loving in the New Testament.

    That isn't the question Terry asked. But I'll be happy to answer it for you. God didn't comdemn men to lives filled with frustration. He orchestrated the means by which mankind could receive clemency from its self-inflicted frustrations.

    In response to the last sentence you wrote to me, I think men have often used the name of God to support their own personal purposes and agenda.

    Trevor: Once something is seen to be fictional it needs to be cleared out of the mind to make way for reality. Every moment spent in such an exercise is a waste of mental fuel or energy.

    On that, at least, we agree completely. The obverse is also true: Once something is seen to be genuine and real, it should be embraced as such. Every moment spent resisting that (or even arguing in favor of it) is also a waste of mental fuel or energy.

    Which is why I wonder both at those who waste energy and mental fuel trying vainly to prove the existence of God and at those who rail vainly against all things theistic. I have done so a few times on this forum and other forums, when asked, and routinely those who asked for someone to waste their time and energy on a futile exercise forget that I wasted my time and energy at their request.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Is 'morality' our natural instinct? If the atheists are right, our 'morality' and our 'morality' alone permitted all the atrocities mankind has perpetrated against one another.

    In which case, 'morality', or the inherent nature of man, or the results of these is actually the 'God' against which Terry and others truly rail, rant, and raves. Which is an odd display of self-hatred at worst, or possibly of hatred of one's own species, or at very least, hatred of the natural processes which spawned the thoughts of the species.

    Morality is not our natural instinct, but our common fate.

    Our immorality permitted all the atrocities, but since I DO cherish individual's lives, no matter their background, I have a clear moral norm according to which I act. That's the big difference with the theist: he/she imagines his neighbor being slaughtered or burning in hellfire and therefore has no moral norm to act in accordance with.

    The 'inherent nature of man' can hardly be called a God, or it must be a gnostic demiurg. Don't buy that nonsense, AuldSoul, it's very cheap!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit