Love me or else (Part Two) (Where is it now?)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, December 21, 2012, 23:34 (4137 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: .. The difference between us is therefore not about what happened, but about our view of God's attitude. 
> -I think the more fundamental difference between us is not our view of God's attitude, but rather what rights he has as God. To illustrate the difference, you are judging God's actions(as described) based on human standards; I am looking at his actions and seeking to understand without judgement, because I do not feel it is my place to judge God any more than it is a child's place to judge their parents, and for much the same reason. My mental faculties are not suitable for judging God. My sense of right, wrong, fair, unfair, and justice are not His, and though I might try to meet His standard I know that I will always fall short. Far from being discouraging, it is motivational for me to continue to try harder in all things. -
> You say that love is not a feeling. Since Ancient Hebrew has no word for abstractions like love and fear, I'm surprised you haven't challenged this translation as well, but you have accepted it. If you think love means performing kind actions, and does not mean the emotion that leads people to perform kind actions, we shall have to agree to disagree.
> -I am always frustrated when I try to discuss this topic, because things I understand and take for granted do not translate well. I do not(did not) mean to imply that the emotions or feelings do not exists, but rather that the Hebrew language did not have a word for them as such. They were, as we are, very emotional people, and perhaps even more so than we are, based on the descriptions given. To them, though, emotions were ephemeral, much as they are to us, and because those emotions were not concrete their language could not support their expression. The Greeks were the first to use abstract words in their language, and by extension all Western languages inherited them. Language shapes our thinking patters, something that is well studied, and so their thought processes were different. -To them, the feeling was insufficient because it was not concrete. The actions by which the emotions were expressed became paramount. If you loved, you demonstrated love, or else it could not be said that you loved at all by any but yourself.-
> DHW: I do not dismiss human suffering on the grounds that there may be compensation in another life. 
> -I do not dismiss the suffering, either. I find it a tragic shame. The difference between you and I on this note is where the blame is assigned. Do you blame the judge for punishing the criminals, or do you blame the criminals for forcing the judge to judge them at all by committing crimes? Humanity has not yet learned to accept it's own culpability. Ironically, when YHWH asked Adam what he had done, he blamed his wife, and she in turn blamed the serpent, the serpent in turn(previously) had blamed YHWH. Not one of them accepted responsibility for breaking the law, even though they KNEW it was the law. ->DHW: The relevance of this to our discussion is that no matter what kind of punishment is threatened, I find no comfort in a religion that orders me to love God (my understanding of love, not yours) or an almighty power will punish me. 
>-My understanding is of course flawed. Always has been, always will be. However, if you have any sense of justice, then you must also have a sense of applicable punishment, of one form or another. Is that the case, and if so, what forms of punishment would you find acceptable? Also, if you chose to violate the laws of the UK, would you expect some form of punishment? Are they within their rights to execute that punishment?-
>DHW: I have throughout my life tried to be kind to people and not to do harmful things, and I worry if I feel I have hurt someone, but this is out of love and empathy for my fellow humans, and not out of love for God. 
>-So.. your love demands action in the form of how you treat people? If it demands action in regards to others, than why not for God?->DHW: Nevertheless, I have done wrong things, and if God exists I'm not going to blame him for my sins or for the sins of others (one of your more misanthropic arguments). .. there is no comfort to be had from religion. 
> -So, you admit that you have done wrong in your life and that you accept responsibility for it, but you think there should be no consequences for that? You find no comfort in the fact that not just your actions, but the intent behind those actions is being judged? Would you find more comfort in a government that didn't punish those that broke the law?-This brings me to the last comment on why the Hell Fire doctrine makes no sense. "The wages sin pays is death." That is the price we pay for our errors, and every man, woman, or child will eventually pay that price. There is no call for eternal everlasting punishment for our sins, because once you die you have already paid the reparations. That is the punishment inflicted by YHWH, because it is demanded by justice that when you break laws you must make amends. The fact that we get off so lightly is what amazes me.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.