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

by dhw, Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 17:03 (4139 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

PART ONE-I had written all this before seeing hyjyljyj's reply, so there is some duplication as we clearly have similar views on the subject.-dhw: Religion is no help at all. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," commands Jesus (Matthew 22, 37). "Fear God," says Peter, his disciple (1st Epistle General, 2, 17). Can we love what we fear? Imagine being told by your father: "Love me, or I'll beat you to a pulp."-TONY: [...] the word translated as fear does not mean fear as used in common English. Ancient Hebrew is a concrete language, they had NO words for abstracts like the modern concepts of 'love', 'hate', 'fear', etc. The word translated as 'fear' literally means a 'flowing or trembling of the gut', analogous to the 'butterflies in the stomach' or violent shaking of someone that is afraid. However, it also means awe or reverence. It means being in awe of and revering God.-I will of course take your word for it as far as the language goes, but this does not mean the ancient Hebrews did not experience fear! When the young mother stood with her children waiting for God's flood to drown them, I doubt very much whether the word that entered her head meant awe or reverence. All language depends on context. My modern translation reads: "Be in fear of God." The fact is, no translation can ever be anything other than an interpretation of the original (I have had over 40 years' experience in translating texts), but with the Bible the reader is dependent not only on the subjectivity of the translator(s), but also on the authority of scholars who themselves cannot agree on the meaning of the original. Hyjyljyj and I have reacted to the translation that has been accepted for centuries and is still taught in schools and preached in churches over here (since the King James version is still standard). And frankly, if God is prepared to slaughter the innocents with his flood, I see every reason to fear him.-TONY: Love is not a feeling. Love is an action, it is something that you do. It is likened to the care shown as though for a precious gift. So, a commandment to love is not absurd, because it does not have to come from within, but must shown through action as you care for the gifts that you have been given.
 
I am bewildered by this statement. All my life I have regarded love as an emotion or feeling (and all my dictionaries include one of these words in their definitions) ... possibly the most powerful, and certainly a great motivator of action. If you do not FEEL love, i.e. if it does not come from within, you will not act lovingly. How do you "do" love?
 
TONY: See, you labor under the modern ignorant misconception that when you love something that you would never do anything to hurt it. A parent that loves their child often disciplines the child, not out of a desire to hurt the child, but out of a desire to ensure that the child grows up strong and good.-I don't think any of us would quarrel with this. But the threat I quoted (16 December at 13.00) is worth repeating in its modern version: "I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those that hate me; but exacting loving-kindness toward the thousandth generation in the case of those who love me and keep my commandments." I'd say this goes somewhat beyond disciplining a child.-TONY: Also, you might want to check some of your statements regarding their accuracy. The hellfire doctrine is not biblically sound. No where in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torment of the dead. In fact, it specifically says that the dead are conscious of nothing.-There are several quite specific mentions of hell or Hades. Here is just one (modern translation) from Luke 16, 22-25 (edited for brevity and relevance): Also the rich man died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus [...] So he called and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me [...] because I am in anguish in this blazing fire. But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you received in full your good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus correspondingly the injurious things. Now, however, he is having comfort here, but you are in anguish.' (Later, there is reference to "this place of torment.") Conscious of nothing? No torment of the dead? Why tell such an anecdote if it's not to be taken seriously?