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

by dhw, Thursday, December 20, 2012, 15:58 (4357 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Hyjyljyj and I find little comfort in religions that order us to love a God who, according to both the OT and the NT, inflicts savage (possibly eternal) punishments on those who do not love him. Tony has mounted an impassioned defence of his version of God, and has accused us of misunderstanding the bible.-I hope that is a fair summary. I'd like to reassure my fellow sceptic hyjyljyj that Tony (b_m) is generally a pretty cool debater, and does not intend to give offence! Of course there is a major problem here for hyjyljyj and myself, in that the bible simply isn't central to our thinking (or to David's, for that matter), as it is for you, Tony. It's a collection of books by fallible humans with different stories to tell, translated and interpreted by yet more fallible humans. Had you yourself been born into a different society, you might well have adopted a totally different religion, worshipping totally different versions of a god or gods, and the sources of that religion ... whether written or oral ... would have no more and no less authority than that of the bible. This will always be a gulf between us.-Both hyjyljyj and I have given detailed responses to your first set of posts, and I'd like to follow them through, but you seem to have latched on almost exclusively to the flood story. With various analogies you try to convince us that God was quite right to destroy every man, woman and child, but at the same time he's a kind god because he said he wouldn't do it again. Nevertheless, he remains a god who orders us to "love him or else", so let me go through the details:-1) If Ancient Hebrew did not have a word for abstracts like fear, but everyone knew what it was to be afraid, I don't see how anyone can possibly verify your claim that the original meant to be in awe of/revere, which if anything is even more abstract. But the "love me or else" argument does not depend on this anyway, as the bible is full of similar threats.-2) "Love is not a feeling. It is an action...It does not have to come from within." Both of us challenged this, and you reply, referring to my wife: "How do you show your love? Do you take care of her? Do you treat her with kindness and respect?" These are actions that derive from the fact I love her. If I did not feel love within, I might not perform these actions. I think you will find you are on your own in asserting that love is not a feeling. But I can understand how important this argument is for you, since you are trying to assert that God is only ordering us to perform loving actions and not actually to feel anything for him inside. Sorry, but I find it unconvincing.-3) "If YHWH is the giver of life, then even should he kill a few so-called innocents, he has not taken anything that he could not return in better condition than he took it." In the context of the all-destroying flood, "a few so-called innocents" (why so-called?) would include every single dead child. You can only be making the huge assumption here that God is going to give them a new and better life, which raises the whole question of an afterlife, and I've asked you specifically about that on the mind-reading thread. Here, I can only express my horror at your moral shrug of the shoulders. When Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, including no doubt "a few so-called innocents", would you have accepted his actions on the grounds that there was a better life to come? (No, I'm not comparing God to Hitler, I'm challenging your dismissal of human suffering.)-4) Hell. You wrote: "Nowhere in the bible does it talk about eternal damnation or torture of the dead." Both of us have given you concrete references. You have dismissed mine as a parable, and ignored hyjyljyj's more direct quotes. Frankly, it makes no difference whether it's called hell, gehenna, tartarus, l'enfer, die Hölle, inferno or infierno, it is there in the bible. The quote from Ecclesiastes is one man's view, and Matthew, Luke and Thess. 2 tell a very different story. Do you still say there is no mention of eternal damnation/torture of the dead/hell in the bible?-5) You had accused both of us of ignorance in relation to the stories of Abraham and Job. I stand fully behind my interpretation of those stories, and as you have not responded to my comments, I remain in the dark as to what you consider to be such a gross misrepresentation.-Finally, I will ask you a question which I would not under any circumstances wish to seem offensive, as I have far too much respect for your beliefs, intellect and learning. But I will quote you on what I consider to be one of the most penetrating insights so far in this discussion: "People try to spin the bible to fit their own beliefs." Have you considered the possibility that you may be one of them?