Convince me that God is loving

[Trailblazer]

Then don't just quote one part of a connected argument and think you have refuted it.

I don't think I have refuted any argument since I am not trying to win or refute any argument.

You've never met people that only see the down side of everything, and others that somehow manage to see a silver lining in every cloud? I think you are saying that they can't help being that way and can't change. I beg to differ.

Yes, I am saying they cannot help the way they are. Can you refute that?
I say that with one caveat. It is possible they could change their ways of thinking to some degree if they went for therapy or had faith that God could help them.

It's a matter of proportion. Are you really saying this world cannot be improved (I'm not saying made perfect)? How about simply removing one bad thing, like cancer. We're on the way to that already, with a long way to go. Wouldn't the world be better if that was so? Now remove a few more bad things, then some more. You would probably hit a limit as the way the material world works includes many things that harm us. For example, to remove hurricanes you might have to change the way air and water reacts physically, which would disturb all kinds of other things. Nevertheless, when you reached that limit, there would be a world more conducive to happiness and still material. No immaterial world required. A world completely free of the possibility of harm would probably not be material, I agree.

I agree. This world could be improved to a great degree if people set their mind to it, and many people are already doing so.
That is what the Baha'i idea of the Kingdom of God on earth (as it is in heaven) is all about.
That is also referred to as the New World Order.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

I know some people that would find something to complain about in heaven!

Those people are not the ones who will be going to heaven.

React with unhappiness. I doubt that's universally possible, given human nature. I'll relate a story though, from my days as a Buddhist. We were fortunate to have a Tibetan lama to guide us . We were having this very discussion. He told us about someone (another lama) who had fallen in front of a train and lost both legs, but was still happy. Why would he not be, he asked with genuine surprise. To him it was a given that we have control over our emotions if we want to exercise it.

I never knew you were a Buddhist. Yes, I know that is what Buddhists believe about suffering.

That comes from my feeling that endless perfection would eventually be boring. There would be nothing to strive for. No way to improve the world. No need to help others. For an eternity!!! Of course that might not be an accurate representation.

Being perfect and not having anything o do to improve ourselves would be really boring, but that is a lot of people's version of heaven, not having to work anymore. That is not the Baha'i version. We believe there will always be work to do in heaven helping other souls.

“A friend asked: “How should one look forward to death?”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá answered: “How does one look forward to the goal of any journey? With hope and with expectation. It is even so with the end of this earthly journey. In the next world, man will find himself freed from many of the disabilities under which he now suffers. Those who have passed on through death, have a sphere of their own. It is not removed from ours; their work, the work of the Kingdom, is ours; but it is sanctified from what we call ‘time and place.’ Time with us is measured by the sun. When there is no more sunrise, and no more sunset, that kind of time does not exist for man. Those who have ascended have different attributes from those who are still on earth, yet there is no real separation.” Abdu’l-Bahá in London, pp. 95-96

God made us capable of choosing evil, so bears responsibility for it.

I do not see it that way. God is not responsible for anything we choose since we have free will.

He could have made us so we were less inclined to make bad choices.

I suppose He could have done that but He didn't, so there must be a reason why He didn't.

If we were "all good" we wouldn't have chosen to be faulty.

I did not mean that humans are all-good like God is, I meant that all of us were born good.
Then some people made choices that caused them to be faulty.

You said "That makes no sense since not all humans fail".

Make up your mind.

I meant that not all humans are complete failures, but all humans fail in some ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

it's hidden alright, because it's not true, the Lord JESUS, the Son of Man is not CREATED, the Son of Man is GOD in the ECHAD of his own-self..

101G.

I do not know why some of The Hidden Words are prefaced by 4: O SON OF MAN! but I know it is not a reference to Jesus, even though Jesus is the Son on Man.

My best friend @Truthseeker is an expert in interpreting the Hidden Words so I am sure he would know.

 

[stvdv]

There is one path to God, but many vehicles to travel in. (The vehicles are among other things religious practices).

I like it
Very creative...you created this analogy?

 

[stvdv]

Paths (or the path) are not brought to us by Saints etc, they are already there. Saints just point to them for us.

I guess, again, that I fully agree with you

Because

My Religion, Sanathana Dharma says:

Sanātana Dharma (Devanagari: सनातन धर्म, meaning "eternal dharma", "eternal order") is an endonym used by Hindus to refer to Hinduism. It refers to the “eternal” truth and teachings of Hinduism. It can also be translated as “the natural and eternal way to live".

IF you follow Dharma, you follow God

IF you protect Dharma, Dharma protects you

 

[Brian2]

That doesn't sound like a god. I could do better than that, and so could you. If I couldn't create creatures incapable of avoiding behaviors of which I disapproved, behaviors they would need to repent despite my shortcomings as a creator, shortcomings that I cannot tolerate and for which I would feel the need to dispose of them in a lake of fire, I wouldn't create any at all. Of course, I can tolerate that. I have all my life, and have difficulty understanding why a transcendent being can't do at least as well.

No. Why do you ask? Is this the justification for throwing people like me, "the unbelieving," in hell? The scriptures equate unbelievers with the worst scum: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

Yes the second death. I believe that people suffer there to fulfill justice only and are consumed.
If people were those things and refused to repent then imo it would not be right for them to be allowed to remain with others who want to do what is right. Getting rid of evil has to include getting rid of evil doers if that is necessary.

A tri-omni god would be responsible if one existed. And our misdeeds are not done against the god, so it has no legitimate complaint.

God is not effected by our evil deeds but He needs to deal with the evil in His Kingdom.

That is incorrect, but they are not responsible for the urges programmed into them from birth. I attribute those to our evolutionary heritage. We have inherited the ways of multiple types of prior beasts. We still have our reptilian brain and its urges. We still have our mammalian brain and its urges superimposed on those. And we have our human brain superimposed on those. The Abrahamic creationist believes that all of those contradictory urges arise with the creation of man from dust and a rib by a tri-omni god. So why are they there?

Yes the human that was created by God is responsible because we are moral beings. But the tri omni God can judge each one of us correctly and know what we do and do not deserve.

It was then what it is now - stealing a persons freedom, humanity, labor and children. I think you mean that you look for ways to forgive the behavior and condone it like the Bible writers do.

I do look for ways to understand what is written there but not necessarily to condone it.

Then it should be easy to produce an example. I'll I've ever seen from skeptics on the topic is quoted Bible scripture. The misrepresenting I've seen is by the apologists trying to make this practice consistent with the will of a benevolent god.

It is easy to take quotes out of the context of the times and even out of the context of the rest of the Torah and so to misrepresent them in that way.
Exodus 20:15 says not to steal or kidnap a person.
Leviticus 25:44-46 says that Israel can get slaves from the nations around Israel and from the aliens in their land.
They would not steal them, they would have to buy those who were already slaves it seems and would own them as slaves. (There is always those who were POWs who also were used as slaves instead of being killed.)
There are laws about how they are to be treated as slaves and there are also laws about how people should treat others in general. No part of the Torah should be ignored in how a slave owner in Israel should treat their slaves.
We cannot totally understand and justify it these days when individual freedom is (in theory) accepted in our society and that through religious and in particular Christian teachings. (yes buying slaves is condemned in the New Testament).

There is no biblical sense for what words mean.

There is the variety of meanings that a word has and grammar and the context that all determine the meaning of a word in a particular setting................in the Bible.

So it would seem. The story is about people punished for seeking the knowledge of good and evil, which they were ordered to not do. But that is not the thing that deity is most harshly judged for in that story. Every bit of it is worthy of condemnation. Why was the serpent allowed unfettered access to those kids, especially knowing how it would turn out? Why does such a very human act the equivalent of a kid taking a cookie from a jar after being told not to - absolutely normal, harmless, tolerable human behavior - lead to such extreme punishment?

I believe I know the answer, but it is based in there being no such god. People needed an answer for why this god did not put them in paradise, since it is said to have loved them and had that power. The answer is always the same - sin, and blaming the victim. Man lives a much harder life than seems necessary and then dies. That's what that story is for.

We were made moral beings by God for a reason imo. So that we could eventually learn about good and evil and say no to the evil.
They knew not to eat the fruit but they did. They wanted to know about good and evil so badly that they would do anything for it, including risking their own lives. Then they were guilt struck.
Satan certainly had a hand in the whole thing and lied about the consequences of eating the fruit. I don't know why God allowed that but think that they should have been able to resist the temptation to eat the fruit even with someone there saying how wonderful it was. Imo it was the lie that got them in the end and that is what gave them doubts about God and His truthfulness. That was the real sin imo, to not trust what their creator had told them but to trust someone else.
Imo God knew they could resist without the lie of Satan and the fruit was there to help them grow in resisting evil. Satan pushed them over the edge with the lie and the given consequences had to be carried through with. God knew that the reason they would fail is because they would not trust Him and that would be the same with all things that He would tell them not to do. They could not be allowed to live forever and go on doing evil all that time. So even then in the first book of the Bible there is the promise/prophecy of a saviour who would kill the deceiver and tempter.
There of course are other prophecies of the consequences of what they did which have also been fulfilled.

I wrote, "If God exists, he is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent." I believe such a god would have done better. As I said, I think that you or I could have done better. I realize that you do not allow yourself to see through the eyes of a god, but I do. If I had those powers and were running the show, things would be very different and much better. This is not to vaunt myself. I think that's true in the case of millions of others as well. Virtually any kind and decent person would be more moral than godless nature. It's part of the argument that no such deity touches our lives.

How do you think you would deal with evil? Or would it start before that stage and mean making beings who would not do anything wrong and not have a choice in the matter or what?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes the second death. I believe that people suffer there to fulfill justice only and are consumed.

I asked, "Is this the justification for throwing people like me, "the unbelieving," in hell? The scriptures equate unbelievers with the worst scum: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8" Your answer was yes, and that that was just. Maybe you can understand why I don't have much regard for the morals attributed to this god. A difference between us is that I look at an act and judge the act. You judge the source, and if it's the god, the act gets a pass even if it feels immoral. You can't justify throwing a soul out for unbelief in a particular god in a world with countless gods and religions, none that present themselves, yet you just have.

God is not affected by our evil deeds but He needs to deal with the evil in His Kingdom.

You're contradicting yourself. If someone is unaffected by something, he need do nothing about it.

Yes the human that was created by God is responsible because we are moral beings.

And here's the deity getting a free pass again. Somehow, being a moral agent makes man responsible for his choices, but regarding the god, who is said to be the author of morality - no responsibility at all.

I do look for ways to understand what is written there but not necessarily to condone it.

But you do condone slavery if you don't condemn it, and so does the biblical god: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue." When you say "look for ways to understand," I read look for ways to condone, to justify, to sanitize. I look for ways to understand it, too, but not through a confirmation bias. I read the words without modifying their meaning.

It is easy to take quotes out of the context of the times and even out of the context of the rest of the Torah and so to misrepresent them in that way. Exodus 20:15 says not to steal or kidnap a person.

You just took a citation out of context - exactly what you were criticizing. Multiple scriptures contradict that one. Also, slaves can be purchased.

There is the variety of meanings that a word has and grammar and the context that all determine the meaning of a word in a particular setting................in the Bible.

And in every other literary work. The meanings of words are determined by their context. There is no special understanding of the meanings of words for scripture. Those are also most believer's rules for the holy books of others. They just read them as they're written without trying to sanitize them like their own adherents do. Both of us can easily produce Muslim scripture that is embarrassing to Muslims if understood as written, and that is exactly how we will understand it whatever the objections of the believer unless he can produce compelling evidence that his interpretation is objective, in which case he will have convinced us that he is correct. But that doesn't happen in that arena any more than it does in the Christian one. None of your responses have been convincing.

They knew not to eat the fruit but they did.

And this kid has also been told not to eat the cookie, but she probably will. What do you think her punishment should be? Banishment from paradise, a difficult and laborious life, loss of immortality, and punishment of all of her descendants in perpetuity? Let's put out her eyes, too. We simply cannot tolerate this behavior because - because - just because, that's why.

They wanted to know about good and evil so badly that they would do anything for it, including risking their own lives.

You don't have a problem with that understanding? I could say it about the little girl. If Adam and Eve hadn't beaten her to the punch, she'd be risking her life for much less than moral knowledge. She'll do it for a cookie. The Christian understanding of human nature is incorrect and counterproductive. This is normal behavior, not grounds for punishing an entire species. And this is what the Christian calls a loving god. This is a pathological understanding of love. I think we both know what kind of a person we would be dealing with if he "loved" his daughter like this god loves man. Mentally ill. Sadistic. Psychopathic.

Satan certainly had a hand in the whole thing and lied about the consequences of eating the fruit. I don't know why God allowed that

But you assume that it was for a good reason, right? God must have been performing some loving act of great kindness and value to man by unleashing a demon on him.

How do you think you would deal with evil?

As a tri-omni god, I would create them with the will to be kind, honest, loyal, etc., like just about everybody I know, none of whom murder, steal, or betray. None of us have those desires. Create people like that. It's obviously possible, since they exist.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, I am saying they cannot help the way they are. Can you refute that?
I say that with one caveat. It is possible they could change their ways of thinking to some degree if they went for therapy or had faith that God could help them.

Sure. That's the point, people can and do change.

I never knew you were a Buddhist. Yes, I know that is what Buddhists believe about suffering.

For a while, yes. I have done a lot of shopping round for religions. Buddhism remains my favorite, because it doesn't threaten or talk about reward and punishment (at a price) but offers a tested method for each individual to free themself from the suffering inherent in this world. The Buddha never claimed to be divine, just a human being that had succeeded in achieving enlightenment and a teacher and example to others.
Oops I'm preaching!

I do not see it that way. God is not responsible for anything we choose since we have free will.

And so we arrive back where we started.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Alien826]

I like it
Very creative...you created this analogy?

Hard to say where these things come from. I didn't knowingly quote someone else, but I doubt the thought is original.

 

[Alien826]

I guess, again, that I fully agree with you

Because

My Religion, Sanathana Dharma says:


IF you follow Dharma, you follow God

IF you protect Dharma, Dharma protects you

I'm familiar with the word "dharma" from my Buddhist days, where it means "teachings", roughly. I see (from Google) "sana" adds "eternal" to the meaning. All very interesting.

 

[samtonga43]

And this kid has also been told not to eat the cookie, but she probably will. What do you think her punishment should be? Banishment from paradise, a difficult and laborious life, loss of immortality, and punishment of all of her descendants in perpetuity? Let's put out her eyes, too. We simply cannot tolerate this behavior because - because - just because, that's why.

View attachment 71891

I’m interested in your comparison of this child-and-the-cookie situation with the human-and-the-fruit situation.

Does this cookie jar contain the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Trailblazer]

For a while, yes. I have done a lot of shopping round for religions. Buddhism remains my favorite, because it doesn't threaten or talk about reward and punishment (at a price) but offers a tested method for each individual to free themself from the suffering inherent in this world. The Buddha never claimed to be divine, just a human being that had succeeded in achieving enlightenment and a teacher and example to others.
Oops I'm preaching!

I had a really good friend who was a Buddhist. He really liked the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and I liked Buddhist teachings.
If I had not become a Baha'i I might have been a Buddhist.

The article below compares Buddhism with the Baha’i Faith and points out their similarities and differences.

Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Convince me that God is loving without referring to scriptures that say that.

Tell me why I should believe that God is loving.

I cannot believe God is loving since it makes no sense to me that there would be so much suffering in the world if God was loving. I am referring to suffering that cannot be tied any free will decision of the person who suffers.

I do not want to hear any religious apologetics about how suffering is for our own good. We all know that there is a lot of gratuitous suffering in the world, suffering that serves no purpose.

A person who loves someone does things to show that they love that person, and they make sacrifices for the other person. If a man tells me he loves me but does nothing to show it, why would I believe him?

What does God do to show He loves us? What sacrifices does God make?

I see no evidence that God is loving, so I have to write that off as a faith-based belief.

P.S. Whether we should love God or not is another discussion. In principle, I think we should love God and other people without expectation of getting anything in return. I do not need God’s love in order to love God. I do not need love from anyone in order to love that person because I consider that selfish.

Christians and Baha’s believe that God is loving, and I think there is a reason for that, other than what their scriptures say. Imo, they have to believe God is loving because they need to feel loved by God in order to love God. I have no idea why since I do not need God’s love in order to love God. The reason I want to know if God is loving is because I am tired of religious people saying that God is loving with nothing but scriptures to back that up.

Why did Job suffer? Can you tell me?

 

[Truthseeker]

I had a really good friend who was a Buddhist. He really liked the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and I liked Buddhist teachings.
If I had not become a Baha'i I might have been a Buddhist.

The article below compares Buddhism with the Baha’i Faith and points out their similarities and differences.

Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith

Moojen Momen wrote a whole book on Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith which I have at have at home. His real speciality, however, is in Islamic studies. I took a course on Shi'i Islam with him as one of the faculty, and we were required to read part of his scholarly book on Shi'i Islam. He was the sole faculty for a course on the Qur'an.

The Baha'i who was the faculty of my Buddhism course at Wilmette Institute was Anne Pearson.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I see no evidence that God is loving,

I see it all around me, interesting.

The reason I want to know if God is loving is because I am tired of religious people saying that God is loving with nothing but scriptures to back that up.

So you have nothing to be thankful for, huh?
You don’t find any enjoyment in life, huh?
Did what happen to Job, have those things happened to you?

Job didn’t even know who was really causing his suffering and loss — the Devil — but today, we know.

But again I ask you my cousin, Why did Job go through what he did? For what reason did Jehovah God allow it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why did Job suffer? Can you tell me?

I don't know because I don't know the Bible very well. Can you tell me why?

 

[Brian2]

I asked, "Is this the justification for throwing people like me, "the unbelieving," in hell? The scriptures equate unbelievers with the worst scum: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8" Your answer was yes, and that that was just. Maybe you can understand why I don't have much regard for the morals attributed to this god. A difference between us is that I look at an act and judge the act. You judge the source, and if it's the god, the act gets a pass even if it feels immoral. You can't justify throwing a soul out for unbelief in a particular god in a world with countless gods and religions, none that present themselves, yet you just have.

When I read Rev 21:8 and the surrounding verses it seems to be about those who call themselves Christians.
I do try to read the Bible with faith in God yes and that can give a different perspective while not being unaware of other perspectives.

You're contradicting yourself. If someone is unaffected by something, he need do nothing about it.

Maybe I am, but us doing evil does not harm God, and I think you would have known that is what I meant. But God deals with evil because it effects life in His Kingdom.

And here's the deity getting a free pass again. Somehow, being a moral agent makes man responsible for his choices, but regarding the god, who is said to be the author of morality - no responsibility at all.

It should be obvious that a moral agent is responsible for his choices, so why say "somehow"?
God is also responsible for His choices and we don't know all the reasons God has for His decisions and actions and so cannot make an informed decision about that. We can trust God to be good, hope God is good, or say that God is not good.

But you do condone slavery if you don't condemn it, and so does the biblical god: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue." When you say "look for ways to understand," I read look for ways to condone, to justify, to sanitize. I look for ways to understand it, too, but not through a confirmation bias. I read the words without modifying their meaning.

I condemn taking free people and forcing them into slavery and the Bible does also.
Buying people who are already slaves or making POWs into slaves instead of killing them or setting them free to make war on you again are different to kidnapping and forcing free people into slavery however.
And yes when I look for ways to understand I do look for ways to condone. I don't think it sanatises anything however. It just throws a better light on what God allowed in Israel.
I think I read the words without modifying their meaning also.

You just took a citation out of context - exactly what you were criticizing. Multiple scriptures contradict that one. Also, slaves can be purchased.

Yes my mistake it was Exodus 21:16 I meant, not Exodus 20:15.
And yes slaves could be purchased but they would be people who were or were going to be slaves anyway.

And in every other literary work. The meanings of words are determined by their context. There is no special understanding of the meanings of words for scripture. Those are also most believer's rules for the holy books of others. They just read them as they're written without trying to sanitize them like their own adherents do. Both of us can easily produce Muslim scripture that is embarrassing to Muslims if understood as written, and that is exactly how we will understand it whatever the objections of the believer unless he can produce compelling evidence that his interpretation is objective, in which case he will have convinced us that he is correct. But that doesn't happen in that arena any more than it does in the Christian one. None of your responses have been convincing.

I think we are talking about Isa 45:7. I thought that saying that the word could mean war or calamity in the Hebrew and the context would show the meaning was a good answer, especially when the context was in a sentence where the word should be the opposite of something like 'peace' or 'prosperity'.

And this kid has also been told not to eat the cookie, but she probably will. What do you think her punishment should be? Banishment from paradise, a difficult and laborious life, loss of immortality, and punishment of all of her descendants in perpetuity? Let's put out her eyes, too. We simply cannot tolerate this behavior because - because - just because, that's why.

View attachment 71891

The seriousness of the offence was seen in the verdict that God had told them. They would surely die if they ate it. That seemed to happen because they were kicked out of the garden and did not get to eat of the tree of life.
Why was it so serious? Because it showed no trust in God and that they would continue on that path. Because they were the parents of all of humanity and would be teaching them right and wrong when they were not fully qualified themselves in the subject.
Because they were not ready for a full onslaught of knowing what was right and wrong, they were a bit like kids in that way and needed a slow introduction.
Because the consequences of them knowing all this stuff all at once, when they could not even obey one command would be catastrophic for the human race.

You don't have a problem with that understanding? I could say it about the little girl. If Adam and Eve hadn't beaten her to the punch, she'd be risking her life for much less than moral knowledge. She'll do it for a cookie. The Christian understanding of human nature is incorrect and counterproductive. This is normal behavior, not grounds for punishing an entire species. And this is what the Christian calls a loving god. This is a pathological understanding of love. I think we both know what kind of a person we would be dealing with if he "loved" his daughter like this god loves man. Mentally ill. Sadistic. Psychopathic.

The child needs slow introduction so as to be able to resist the temptation. That slow introduction with A@E was cut short.
A@E took their education into their own hands and humans have made a mess of it morally.
The love of God is shown in His reaching out to us in all we have done and being willing to forgive and take us back into the garden.

But you assume that it was for a good reason, right? God must have been performing some loving act of great kindness and value to man by unleashing a demon on him.

I think that the demon pointing out the fruit was no problem for A@E, and I suppose that Satan was not a demon at that stage. It was lying about what God said which caused the problem.
And yes God knew that Satan would lie and knew what would happen and allowed it anyway. I think that God's knowledge of the ultimate end of it all, that it would be a very good ending, was the reason God allowed it.

As a tri-omni god, I would create them with the will to be kind, honest, loyal, etc., like just about everybody I know, none of whom murder, steal, or betray. None of us have those desires. Create people like that. It's obviously possible, since they exist.

God obviously has created us with a will to be kind etc.
That is not good enough for you (presuming you and your wonderful friends do horrible things at times) and it was not good enough for A@E.
Being moral beings they had the ability to do good and to do evil as we do.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Jesus gave His life so we could have eternal life, but God did nothing.

Huh? “God did nothing”!?
Since you’re back to quoting the Bible…
John 3:16.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2023325

 

[Trailblazer]

I see it all around me, interesting.

You see it because you attribute everything that is good to God and don't attribute anything that is bad to God.

Isaiah 45:7 NIV
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

So you have nothing to be thankful for, huh?
You don’t find any enjoyment in life, huh?

I have some things to be thankful for but I don't have them because God gave them to me. I have them because I worked for them.
No, I do not have any enjoyment in life.

But whether God is loving or not is not about me and my personal situation. That would not prove anything.

Did what happen to Job, have those things happened to you?

Job didn’t even know who was really causing his suffering and loss — the Devil — but today, we know.

But again I ask you my cousin, Why did Job go through what he did? For what reason did Jehovah God allow it?

No, the same things have not happened to me as happened to Job, but that doesn't mean I have not suffered.
I do not believe in the Devil.
I do not know the story of Job well enough to know what the reason was for his suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

Huh? “God did nothing”!?
Since you’re back to quoting the Bible…
John 3:16.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2023325

I meant that God did not sacrifice anything, Jesus did.
But God did send Jesus because of God's love for humanity.

UPDATE:
I now believe that God is loving, because I was convinced by some Baha'is on a Baha'i forum, but I do not believe that God is loving because of anything God did, because if we are going on God's track record we could just as easily say God is hateful. God is loving because loving is an attribute of God. I can accept that despite all the suffering in the world because I was able to separate the suffering from God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’m interested in your comparison of this child-and-the-cookie situation with the human-and-the-fruit situation. Does this cookie jar contain the knowledge of good and evil?

No. The cookie jar only need contain cookies, and many if not most children will reliably disobey instructions to stay out of them.

us doing evil does not harm God, and I think you would have known that is what I meant.

I assumed that it was what you said: "God is not affected by our evil deeds but He needs to deal with the evil in His Kingdom" and I answered, "If someone is unaffected by something, he need do nothing about it." You didn't contradict or correct that.

God is also responsible for His choices

God is never held responsible by believers for what they understand his choices to be because they will not judge him as anything but perfect.

I condemn taking free people and forcing them into slavery and the Bible does also.

Perhaps you read some passages as suggesting that, but there are many scriptures condoning slavery, but not everybody allows themselves to see that.

making POWs into slaves instead of killing them or setting them free to make war on you again are different to kidnapping and forcing free people into slavery however.

So what? Slavery is slavery.

yes slaves could be purchased but they would be people who were or were going to be slaves anyway.

Once again, so what? Slavery is slavery.

when I look for ways to understand I do look for ways to condone. I don't think it sanatises anything however. It just throws a better light on what God allowed in Israel. I think I read the words without modifying their meaning also.

You've modified the meaning of the scriptures on slavery. You don't see slavery there.

Why was it so serious? Because it showed no trust in God and that they would continue on that path. Because they were the parents of all of humanity and would be teaching them right and wrong when they were not fully qualified themselves in the subject. Because they were not ready for a full onslaught of knowing what was right and wrong, they were a bit like kids in that way and needed a slow introduction. Because the consequences of them knowing all this stuff all at once, when they could not even obey one command would be catastrophic for the human race.

I reject the moral values illustrated there. What's so serious is a deity willing to treat humanity with so little love, understanding, or tolerance.

The child needs slow introduction so as to be able to resist the temptation. That slow introduction with A@E was cut short.

And who allowed that?