God's love

[nobspeople]

It's said god loves humanity (it's also said god hates humanity but that's for another thread). Yet, god does do some things that, to humanity, seems, well.... not very 'loving':

According to biblical stories:
- God set up mankind to fail in the garden, which condemned mankind; one could say this allowed for god's love to provide humanity an 'out' with his son's sacrifice, though I'd counter there would be no need if there was no setup to begin with
- God leveled an entire city for it being 'bad' (for lack of a better term - everyone seems to have their own terms for this that tends to alter their POV)
- God drowned an entire planet - save a handful of people
- God drowned an entire army that followed Mosses (guess the animals in this and the above case were 'collateral damage'?)

God did these things with it could have LITERALLY done ANYTHING else it wanted. But these things... these are the things it wanted to do to people it's said to love.

Does this mean (agape love aside) is god's love different than the love humanity has?
For discussion:
If god's love is different than humanity's love, how can we know for sure anything about god's love for humanity and thus, love god outside of doing so out of fear?

[JehovahsWitness]

Only that I am glad that I do not hold such views. .... ?

Duly noted although somewhat redundant; I am not here to debate you feelings.

.... Do the faithful get brownie points for pandering to Jehovah in that way?

Sorry, I do not answer loaded questions.



JW

[mgb]

So there must be good trying and bad trying. The omnipotent one seems to be in the latter category considering his alleged skill set.

Creation has the freedom to explore existence outside God's wisdom and perfection. It also has the freedom to return to God. Creation needs to learn how to be without becoming corrupt. If it will not listen to God it must go its own way and learn the hard way.

I'm sorry but I cannot make any sense out of that 'word salad'. Perhaps you could rephrase it in such a way that a numpty like myself can understand what you mean.

There are good and bad ways of being. The Tao is the way. Jesus said 'I am the way'. Buddhists speak of 'right living'. Obviously there are bad ways of being also. We are free to choose. Religion is suppose to teach us 'right living'.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to brunumb in post #19]

Do the faithful get brownie points for pandering to Jehovah in that way?

Even though they won't admit it, I'm sure many, MANY are hopeful for those point!
Otherwise, why be such jerks to others? Maybe because it makes them happy and feel superior, I suspect?

[William]

[99]

Thirteen
Open minded
Poetry
Worry
Significance
Integrate
Argument
Judgement
Accomplish
Untrue
Placebo Effect
Repudiate
God's love

[Purple Knight]

Take chess, for example. Chess has an immense number of possible games. Not all of them are good chess. But bad chess exists because chess exists. The idea is to learn how to play good chess.

I take some stock in this idea. I have wondered about all potential souls existing, both good and evil. What people say is is a soul, is not physical, meaning, it must be potential, and it would not be unreasonable then that all potentials must exist. The necessity to sort good from evil is a fair explanation then, giving each soul its chance, is a fair explanation for suffering.

I go even further down this road, speculating that it's not about the best possible universe since God would have already created it. This simply isn't it. Why? Well, what if all universes, likewise, simply must exist?

Now granted I'm taking a bit of liberty with the canon here - or rather, extending it pretty far based on what I think must happen for consistency - but I find none of it flat illogical or contradictory.

[mgb]

I go even further down this road, speculating that it's not about the best possible universe since God would have already created it. This simply isn't it. Why?

What if God is creating the best possible world? Leibniz said this is the best possible world and I understand this to mean that it is the best that can include human freedom. In other words, if the world were different it would be worse. The best possible world is not a perfect world, it is a world that contains human freedom (and the possibility of evil) but has the least evil.

Well, what if all universes, likewise, simply must exist?

I'd go back to the chess analogy - it is not necessary for all possible chess games to be played so the chess player can become a master. The chess player can become a good chess player after a few thousand games. Thereafter there is no need for bad games to be played. Equally creation can learn wisdom and goodness with only a finite risk of evil.

[Diagoras]

What if God is creating the best possible world? Leibniz said this is the best possible world and I understand this to mean that it is the best that can include human freedom.

By that logic, either ‘heaven on earth’ (after Armaggedon) is less than ‘the best possible world’ with human freedom, or else it’s ‘better’ than this ‘best possible world’ at the expense of human freedom.

Much of Christianity rests on the idea that after Judgement Day, the true believers will be rewarded with a ‘better world’.

Without freedom, such a heaven is simply a mirage.

[mgb]

What if God is creating the best possible world? Leibniz said this is the best possible world and I understand this to mean that it is the best that can include human freedom.

By that logic, either ‘heaven on earth’ (after Armaggedon) is less than ‘the best possible world’ with human freedom, or else it’s ‘better’ than this ‘best possible world’ at the expense of human freedom.

Much of Christianity rests on the idea that after Judgement Day, the true believers will be rewarded with a ‘better world’.

Without freedom, such a heaven is simply a mirage.

Freedom is not disobedience. It is the possibility of disobedience. What is needed is for creation to become wise and realize that evil is illusion and all good is in God. Why desire imperfect life when God wants to give us true, perfect life? It is like trading rotten fruit for fresh fruit. Or sour wine for good wine.

[alexxcJRO]

The best world is not the best you can imagine. It is the best that is practically possible given mankind's freedom to do evil.

You said:
"
1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;

2. God created the existing world;

3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);

4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;

5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds."

1. Exiting world is not the best of all possible worlds for I can imagine(and therefore God can too) a world in which moral evil exits and is still better then this world. That world does not include non-moral evil(cancer, genetic disease, natural disasters) which affect non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired).
2. Therefore God(omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) did not create it or God (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent does not exist.

[mgb]

1. Exiting world is not the best of all possible worlds for I can imagine(and therefore God can too) a world in which moral evil exits and is still better then this world.

But it is not what you can imagine that matters. It is what is practically possible. Is it possible to have freedom without the possibility of evil? Not until mankind becomes wise through experience.