Loving but not liking

[nobspeople]

You can love someone without liking them. They may be a good person at heart, but you don't like how the talk to others, their political views, their style....whatever.

Can you love God without liking him?

You may be able to love God for what or who he is, but not like what he's done to people in the past (or what he's doing or allowing currently). Or not?

[JehovahsWitness]

It is fine if you don't accept a premise you do not agree with, but it would have helped for you to provide an explanation for your objection.

My objection is that God did indeed create a situation where he could (in the case of Adam and Eve) and does (in the case of humanity) distinguish the people who freely love him from the people who don't without placing them in a position of {quote} "unnecessary or excessive harm".

.. the question we are attempting to answer is if it is possible for God to distinguish the people who freely love him from the people who don't without the need to place unnecessary or excessive harm (virtual or otherwise) ....

Explaination (which applies to both groups ) already provided.
viewtopic.php?p=1026797#p1026797

Now that you have been provided with the proper context, would you like to provide a relevant response?

I presume your question was relevant and I have adressed the question asked (see above).



Regards,


JW

[Purple Knight]

I can't love a god whose morality lets him condone slavery, advocate killing practicing homosexuals, and sees no injustice in killing innocent women and children.

I could if God was a very attractive female, but that attests to what I think love is and what I think like is (though I think this topic somewhat proves my definitions correct).

What most people call lust, I call love.

What most people call love, I call like.

That doesn't mean you can't have love for someone like an abusive father in my thinking; it's a part of the same basal, emotional attachment that lust is.

I say, if the attachment is emotional, it's love. If the attachment is about sharing the same values, interests, and enjoying talking together, it's like.

Understood, but the question we are attempting to answer is if it is possible for God to distinguish the people who freely love him from the people who don't without the need to place humanity in a situation where unnecessary or excessive harm (virtual or otherwise) results from granting them freewill. So far, there is no indication that your God couldn't have accomplished this objective, and we should reasonably expect an omnibenevolent god to have that objective and the ability to accomplish it. Therefore, why do we experience the types and levels of harm we do from freely chosen evil decisions when such conditions are not necessary for us to make freewill decisions and not necessary for God to distinguish those who freely love him from those who don't?

A test doesn't test anything if it doesn't mean anything.

[bluegreenearth]

A test doesn't test anything if it doesn't mean anything.

I didn't intend to imply that the test wouldn't involve an allowance for any harm at all. The question is whether the objective of the test could have be achieved if there were additional and greater limitations on the ability for evil decisions to cause harm.

[bluegreenearth]

My objection is that God did indeed create a situation where he could (in the case of Adam and Eve) and does (in the case of humanity) distinguish the people who freely love him from the people who don't without placing them in a position of {quote} "unnecessary or excessive harm".

Then, according to your logic above, it would not be possible for God to distinguish the people who freely love him from those who don't if the harm that occurs from their choices to commit evil actions were reduced by even the slightest amount. However, God is claimed to have the capacity to judge people by their freely chosen thoughts alone, whether they act upon those thoughts or not. So, how do you reconcile those two ideas?

[brunumb]

Some skeptics argue that an omnibenevolent God would not have permitted evil to exist in the first place while some theologians counter with an apologetic claiming God's desire for humanity to have freewill compelled him to permit the choice between good and evil.

How do you have that choice when you are denied the knowledge of good and evil? To gain that you have to eat forbidden fruit for which there are the direst of consequences, not just for yourself but for all of humanity. It's a lose-lose situation.

[William]

Some skeptics argue that an omnibenevolent God would not have permitted evil to exist in the first place while some theologians counter with an apologetic claiming God's desire for humanity to have freewill compelled him to permit the choice between good and evil.

How do you have that choice when you are denied the knowledge of good and evil? To gain that you have to eat forbidden fruit for which there are the direst of consequences, not just for yourself but for all of humanity. It's a lose-lose situation.

Yes - the whole story of humanity according to popular ideas of The Creator as presented by the Abrahamic religions, show clearly that each and every one of us are born into a game that The Creator has already won.

Checkmate.

[Purple Knight]

A test doesn't test anything if it doesn't mean anything.

I didn't intend to imply that the test wouldn't involve an allowance for any harm at all. The question is whether the objective of the test could have be achieved if there were additional and greater limitations on the ability for evil decisions to cause harm.

I'm just arguing from charity here but my thinking is perhaps not. I don't think whether people will make small sacrifices to buy a little insurance is a good test of whether they're genuine. The Jobe test was a great test of whether he was genuine. He was. There's no question of that. The question in my mind at that point is whether he ought to have been.

It's only when people are faced with horrible inconceivable losses that you find out what they really believe.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm just arguing from charity here but my thinking is perhaps not. I don't think whether people will make small sacrifices to buy a little insurance is a good test of whether they're genuine. The Jobe test was a great test of whether he was genuine. He was. There's no question of that. The question in my mind at that point is whether he ought to have been.

It's only when people are faced with horrible inconceivable losses that you find out what they really believe.

That seems to be a reasonable perspective if we presume the god lacks an ability to just read someone's mind. Would the ability to read someone's true inner thoughts change the type of test the god would use?

[Purple Knight]

That seems to be a reasonable perspective if we presume the god lacks an ability to just read someone's mind. Would the ability to read someone's true inner thoughts change the type of test the god would use?

I'm not sure. Perhaps it's about what people would do, not just what they think they would do.

You might be surprised how many of the worshipped crusaders of good might actually fail when it's crunch time, though they didn't think they would. They were 100% certain they'd do the right thing... and then they didn't.

And me? Well I honestly expect to fail the important tests about good and evil. But who knows? Maybe when it's crunch time I surprise myself. And God.

This may be the magic, so to speak, of free will.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure. Perhaps it's about what people would do, not just what they think they would do.

You might be surprised how many of the worshipped crusaders of good might actually fail when it's crunch time, though they didn't think they would. They were 100% certain they'd do the right thing... and then they didn't.

And me? Well I honestly expect to fail the important tests about good and evil. But who knows? Maybe when it's crunch time I surprise myself. And God.

This may be the magic, so to speak, of free will.

Just for fun, let's throw in the claim that the god also has foreknowledge. If this doesn't change the type of test the god would use, would it change the need for the test to be carried out in full?