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?

[1213]

You can love someone without liking them. ...

Yes. In Biblical point of view love means caring without conditions. And in practice it means I dont do anything evil to others, even if I dont like them.

Can this concept be attributed to God as well?
Why or why not?

I think God loves all and it means He doesnt do anything evil to others.

[brunumb]

I think God loves all and it means He doesnt do anything evil to others.

God's love is conditional. He commands that you love him, but if you don't he certainly won't act lovingly in return. The mass drowning of people, fire bombing an entire city, ordering the killing of a population of people and their livestock, killing all the first born of a country in order to win a battle of wits, are not acts one associates with love, but are acts one associates with evil.

[1213]

He commands that you love him, but if you don't he certainly won't act lovingly in return. The mass drowning of people, fire bombing an entire city, ordering the killing of a population of people and their livestock, killing all the first born of a country in order to win a battle of wits, are not acts one associates with love, but are acts one associates with evil.

In Bible, love God means that you love other people.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. Hiscommandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

If you dont love others and do evil things to others, it also shows you dont love God. And if you do evil things and make life of others miserable suffering, would it be loving to allow you to continue doing so? I dont think so.

Do you think God should allow evil to continue forever? Would that be loving?

[brunumb]

He commands that you love him, but if you don't he certainly won't act lovingly in return. The mass drowning of people, fire bombing an entire city, ordering the killing of a population of people and their livestock, killing all the first born of a country in order to win a battle of wits, are not acts one associates with love, but are acts one associates with evil.

In Bible, love God means that you love other people.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. Hiscommandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

If you dont love others and do evil things to others, it also shows you dont love God. And if you do evil things and make life of others miserable suffering, would it be loving to allow you to continue doing so? I dont think so.

Do you think God should allow evil to continue forever? Would that be loving?

It is very telling that God only picks and chooses what apparent evil he decides to eradicate, usually in a very brutal, barbaric and unloving manner. Counteracting evil with evil is not a justified means to an end. Too bad if innocents get caught up in the rampage. Evil has persisted throughout history, so your God is either very incompetent at weeding it out or these stories are all just accounts of humans justifying their own evil acts or attempting to explain catastrophic natural events based on their primitive superstitions.

[bluegreenearth]

Do you think God should allow evil to continue forever? Would that be loving?

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. However, are these two competing perspectives representing a false dichotomy? Consider a logically and theologically possible scenario where humanity is divinely created with the freewill to commit good or evil actions but with limitations on the consequences of their evil actions such that the harm resulting from them are only at the minimum levels necessary for God to distinguish the people who love him from those who don't. Is it reasonable to expect that it would be more loving for an omnibenevolent God to have placed humans in this less harmful scenario rather than in the scenario where we find ourselves?

After all, is it not the case that limitations on our capacity to commit evil acts already exist? For instance, no one has the capability of causing other people to experience physical pain by merely choosing to direct evil thoughts at them. If this restriction on our ability to inflict physical pain on each other by our thoughts alone does not prohibit our freewill to choose between good and evil thoughts or make it impossible for God to distinguish the people who love him from the people who don't, then is it reasonable to expect that an omnibenevolent God would have instituted additional and greater restrictions on the ability of our freely chosen evil actions to result in unnecessary or excessive harm? If we can be negatively judged for using our freewill to merely think evil thoughts without us having to actually act upon them or without us having to succeed in our attempts to act upon them, then what would be a reasonable justification for an omnibenevolent God to institute only some limitations on the capacity of our evil choices to cause harm?

[nobspeople]

You can love someone without liking them. ...

Yes. In Biblical point of view love means caring without conditions. And in practice it means I dont do anything evil to others, even if I dont like them.

Can this concept be attributed to God as well?
Why or why not?

I think God loves all and it means He doesnt do anything evil to others.

Does allowing evil to happen to some (and not others) equate to the same as 'doing evil to'?

[1213]

Does allowing evil to happen to some (and not others) equate to the same as 'doing evil to'?

I dont think it is evil that God allowed us to have this lesson about good and evil.

[1213]

Consider a logically and theologically possible scenario where humanity is divinely created with the freewill to commit good or evil actions but with limitations on the consequences of their evil actions such that the harm resulting from them are only at the minimum levels necessary for God to distinguish the people who love him from those who don't. Is it reasonable to expect that it would be more loving for an omnibenevolent God to have placed humans in this less harmful scenario rather than in the scenario where we find ourselves?...

I think that is the case we have. In Biblical point of view this "life" is like Matrix. Soul experiences things through body and nothing of this world can destroy our soul. "Material" world is only like virtual reality, it is only a short lesson. And those who learn well, become righteous, can go back to true life.

[bluegreenearth]

I think that is the case we have. In Biblical point of view this "life" is like Matrix. Soul experiences things through body and nothing of this world can destroy our soul. "Material" world is only like virtual reality, it is only a short lesson. And those who learn well, become righteous, can go back to true life.

If this life is like a virtual reality, would it have been logically possible for our virtual reality to have been programmed such that the consequences of our freely chosen evil actions only resulted in the minimum virtual harm necessary for God to distinguish those souls who love him from those who don't?

[brunumb]

Does allowing evil to happen to some (and not others) equate to the same as 'doing evil to'?

I dont think it is evil that God allowed us to have this lesson about good and evil.

Believers find many ways to whitewash their God. One of them is to sweep his evil deeds under the carpet and pretend that nothing he does is evil.