Convince me that God is loving

[Brian2]

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.

So on some level evil does effect God and He acts, even if the evil does not harm God specifically.

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.

Being responsible and being held responsible are 2 different things, and being held responsible is deferred until more evidence is available.

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

I suppose using a system and getting some good from it is there in the Bible. In that respect it is condoned and allowed. But the overall system of taking free people and making them slaves is condemned.

So what? Slavery is slavery.

Yes it is slavery but it is a better alternative all round than killing the POWs or freeing them to make war again or having a big prison system to cope with it imo.

Once again, so what? Slavery is slavery.

So you are making slavery into an absolute evil when it is not always that black and white.

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

Slavery is slavery.

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.

Maybe the whole thing is a lot more serious than taking biscuits from a jar and maybe A@E were more sophisticated than a child or certainly were expected to be when we see the judgement on eating the fruit.

And who allowed that?

God allowed that and allowed the alternative path as the necessary way to go, because of the decisions and actions by Adam and Eve, which they did not need to make, but did.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

Be glad to… (although the reasons are outlined in Job 1 & Job 2:1-6.)

It was two challenges, made by Satan, as to whether Job would stay faithful to Jehovah, even if he met adversity, first, by losing his children & all his belongings, then second, by having his health destroyed, and therefore his very life was threatened.

Satan contended that people would stop worshipping Jehovah God, if they met with enough adversity.

Notice vs.4: “ “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life.” ” (NIV, New International Version.)

You see that? Satan’s challenge went beyond Job! Satan included everyone! He didn’t say: “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “Job ….”
No, he said, “a man…” His challenge went from Job to include every individual!
Satan even tried with Jehovah God’s son, Jesus.

Best wishes, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When I read this, I had to comment….

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

With regard to A&E, Were those cookies — that tree — the only one around? No. The account tells us there were many others. They weren’t being denied anything beneficial.
(Now, you might say, “Yes, they were denied the “knowledge of good & bad.” ” But was what they recognized - that they were naked - beneficial? No… it only made them feel ashamed. That’s why they hid. There’s nothing shameful about the human body. Only for humans thinking with imperfect minds….and due to their rebellion, that’s what A&E became.)

Perfection vs. Imperfection is what we’re talking about here.

Since there are currently no perfect people to observe, we probably shouldn’t make judgment calls on how they would act.

Take care.

You too, @Trailblazer

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are making slavery into an absolute evil

Owning people is immoral.

it is slavery but it is a better alternative all round than killing the POWs or freeing them to make war again or having a big prison system to cope with it imo.

You're assuming that slaves are only acquired by subduing external aggressors, and that all were enemies before being enslaved. Some were the victims of Hebrew aggressors. Some were just purchased from slavers.

Maybe the whole thing is a lot more serious than taking biscuits from a jar and maybe A@E were more sophisticated than a child or certainly were expected to be when we see the judgement on eating the fruit.

Or maybe the story just doesn't make sense and apologists are trying to find a way that these choices like what the deity did to the kids (or owning slaves) are actually kind.

With regard to A&E, Were those cookies — that tree — the only one around? No. The account tells us there were many others. They weren’t being denied anything beneficial.

They weren't thinking in those terms. They were denied what they wanted, and we all know what kids are like when you tell them not to do something and then leave them unsupervised.

 

[samtonga43]

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

In my opinion, this scenario (child and cookies /Eve and apple) is an example of false equivalence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

… you attribute everything that is good to God and don't attribute anything that is bad to God.

Originally, at their creation, both A&E had nothing to fear.

I hope you’ll be able to understand the following reasoning:
how many people do you know, that would approach a talking snake? Most would run! Why? Because today, people usually fear snakes. Eve didn’t, because prior to that incident, there had been nothing that would harm her. Not any harmful animals, because their food was vegetation. So when the snake began speaking to Eve, it was something that aroused her curiosity, not her fear.
In fact, the Bible tells us that “all green vegetation” was the food for humans & land-based animals (Genesis 1:29-30). So, based on what God’s Word says, we can also conclude that there were no toxic or harmful plants existing back then.

Is that the case today? Not at all! Now, we have harmful plants and animals.

WHY?

Meditating & reasoning on the description of the rebellion in Genesis 3, where the issue / challenge to Jehovah’s sovereignty is revealed, it needed to be settled once and for all time. Oh, Jehovah protected His people, ie., worshippers, where necessary.… but for the most part, He’s left humans to their own experiments of self-rule, without interfering; He has also allowed this planet Earth to function solely with natural forces…again, without His complete control over them.
So evolution through natural selection and other processes has continued without complete Divine intervention.
That’s why, now, many species of plants & fungi are dangerous.

But evidently it wasn’t always so.

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

But it doesn’t say, He “created disaster / evil / calamity”, does it? No. The verb is present tense for that time period. The context of Isaiah 45 is about the Babylonians: disaster against them.
So Jehovah did not create evil, in the sense you’re implying.

I have some things to be thankful for but I don't have them because God gave them to me.

You breathe air….you can smell wonderful fragrances….you can eat tasty food….you can enjoy beautiful scenery.. God gave these things to us, free. Men may charge us for them, not Jehovah.

I have them because I worked for them.

Again, because man requires payment; but not Jehovah God.

No, the same things have not happened to me as happened to Job, but that doesn't mean I have not suffered.

I know…I’m very sorry you’ve suffered so much. I know Jehovah will heal all those who suffer, at His appointed time. (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 29:11; Revelation 11:18) I believe it is coming soon, due to people’s attitudes and world conditions (since 1914). — 2 Timothy 3:1-5

I do not believe in the Devil.

Then, who was Jehovah talking to, in Job 1 & Job 2? Who was testing Jesus in Luke 4:3-13;Matthew 4:3-11? Please read the account at Revelation 12:9-12… it’s about a real being / person, thrown out of heaven, and he’s got “great anger”! Why? Because he “knows” he has a short period of time! Only an intelligent being has “anger”, and “knows” things!

If you don’t even think he’s real…then no wonder, then the only person / being you have left to blame, is Jehovah God!

Satan’s got a great scam going on, working invisibly and letting people blame God for many of these bad conditions!

Please read Malachi 3:16. Remember, the Divine Name Yahweh (English, “Jehovah”) was there.
Let me ask you this: if Jehovah wants people to “think about” His name….. do you really think He would want His name removed from His Own book, over 6,800 times?!

Satan’s influence is quite obvious to me.

Also, please read Proverbs 18:10. The name of Jehovah can’t be a “strong tower”, for people who aren’t taught & don’t know it because it’s been removed!

I hope you’ll have a pleasant day.

 

[Revelation 21:4]

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

I may not convince you ( which is ok) , but , would it be possible to be open minded and reasonably share / exchange information with each other?


You may have been told, heard or read yourself that God is love. (1 John 4:8)


How does God communicate with humans? He uses the Bible. To take it away or remove it, isn’t it like saying, I’d like you to talk to me, but don’t use your voice? Are you willing to give him an opportunity to speak to you?


Please, let him speak !!!


Each of us is valuable to God.

He knows the amount of hairs on your head.
Matthew 10:30
But even the hairs of your head are numbered.

Most Humans have the ability to reflect his qualities, if they
have the desire, (to love, to be treated with justice, ready to forgive,
show compassion, tender affection, patience, mercy, … )
elevating us above the rest of physical creation and putting us
in charge of the earth / animals.

Creation - Variety of plants and animals.
Humans - with different skin colors, shapes and sizes.
We’re all equal in his eyes. No prejudiced attitude or favoritism.

We have been created in a way that we can enjoy life
(plants, animals and each other)
We’re able to see in color and not only in black and white.
Our taste buds - we’re able to enjoy different flavors.
Our senses, our brain - learning and reasoning ability,
create art and crafts, compose music / dance, just to mention a
few.

Yes, we are wonderfully made!

Psalms 139:4. I praise you because in an awe-inspiring way I am
wonderfully made, your works are wonderful, I know this very well.

Even after Adam sinned, God (will reveal his name later) continued to value humans so highly that he gave his beloved Son, Jesus, as a ransom for our sins.

John 3:16-17
16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send his son into the world (of mankind) for him to judge the world (mankind), but for the world (mankind) to be saved through him.

1 John 4:9-10. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our
case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so
that we might gain life through him.
10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but
that he loved us and sent his son as a propitiatory sacrifice for
our sins.

God invests time / effort to teach and educate us. No lies! Only the truth!

Before mankind discovered that the earth was hanging upon nothing, God
already revealed it.
Isaiah 40:22 “There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”

Job 26:7 “He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the
earth upon nothing.”
(Animals were not mentioned, which carried the earth, unlike human beliefs)

The water cycle: Ecclesiastes 1:7
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the
place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to
flow again.”

He also gives instructions on

Cleanliness: Deuteronomy 23:9-14

God will apply the benefits of the ransom and will resurrect those who died due to Adam’s sin. A future hope!

Acts of the Apostles 24:15 “ … there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and
the unrighteous. “

Those are just some examples that show that God loves you and me and all mankind.

Let’s please put a name with the title “God” .

Wouldn’t you agree that it is more personal to use his name instead of a title !?

We like to be called by our name within the family, … , or when we are an author of a book, painting, …. .

God’s name is Jehovah! Psalm 83:18 “May people know that you, whose
name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”

Jehovah is reaching out and wants to help / hold our / your right hand, if you let him. At Isaiah 41:10 he’s inviting everyone
10 Do not be afraid, for I am with you.
Do not be anxious, for I am your God.
I will fortify you, yes, I will help you,
I will really hold on to you with my right hand of
righteousness.

This is what I experienced in my life (assurance, comfort, hope, … ) and I believe not only what has been revealed about the past but also what will happen in the future.

Revelation 21:3-4 God will be with mankind, … will wipe out every tear…
death will be no more… nor pain … the former things have
passed away

Proverbs 2:21-22. The upright will reside in the earth …
The blameless will remain in it.
The wicked will be cut off from the earth, and the treacherous
will be torn away from it

The earth will be a paradise and many will enjoy the peace and security Jehovah promised.

Psalms 34:8. Taste and see that Jehovah is good;
Happy is the man that takes refuge in him.


Everyone is invited !

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I may not convince you ( which is ok) , but , would it be possible to be open minded and reasonably share / exchange information with each other?

You may have been told, heard or read yourself that God is love. (1 John 4:8)

With all due respect, I asked to be convinced without referring to scriptures that say that God is loving.
Scriptures are not going to convince me that God is loving.

God might be loving but God is not love. It is not logical to say that God is love, what does that even mean?

However, I have been convinced that God is loving since I posted this thread, after I posted a similar thread on another forum and got responses from other Baha'is that made logical sense. Before I could believe that God is loving, I had to separate God from all the suffering in this world, and I had to realize that loving is simply an attribute of God, and there is no reason WHY God is loving, not any more than there is a reason why God is omnipotent.

How does God communicate with humans? He uses the Bible. To take it away or remove it, isn’t it like saying, I’d like you to talk to me, but don’t use your voice? Are you willing to give him an opportunity to speak to you?

God does not only use the Bible to communicate to humans, God also uses other scriptures.
The religion I adhere to says that God is loving in its scriptures. Below are verses where God is speaking to man.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

But that did not convince me God is loving. I had to use my own reason to come to that conclusion.

Of course, you have
Please, let him speak !!!

Each of us is valuable to God.

He knows the amount of hairs on your head.
Matthew 10:30
But even the hairs of your head are numbered.

Most Humans have the ability to reflect his qualities, if they
have the desire, (to love, to be treated with justice, ready to forgive,
show compassion, tender affection, patience, mercy, … )
elevating us above the rest of physical creation and putting us
in charge of the earth / animals.

Creation - Variety of plants and animals.
Humans - with different skin colors, shapes and sizes.
We’re all equal in his eyes. No prejudiced attitude or favoritism.

We have been created in a way that we can enjoy life
(plants, animals and each other)
We’re able to see in color and not only in black and white.
Our taste buds - we’re able to enjoy different flavors.
Our senses, our brain - learning and reasoning ability,
create art and crafts, compose music / dance, just to mention a
few.

Yes, we are wonderfully made!

Psalm 139:4. I praise you because in an awe-inspiring way I am
wonderfully made, your works are wonderful, I know this very well.

Even after Adam sinned, God (will reveal his name later) continued to value humans so highly that he gave his beloved Son, Jesus, as a ransom for our sins.

John 3:16, 17
16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

17 For God did not send his son into the world (of mankind) for him to judge the world (mankind), but for the world (mankind) to be saved through him.

1 John 4:9, 10. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in our
case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so
that we might gain life through him.
10 The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but
that he loved us and sent his son as a propitiatory sacrifice for
our sins.

God invests time / effort to teach and educate us. No lies! Only the truth!

Before mankind discovered that the earth was hanging upon nothing, God
already revealed it.
Isaiah 40:22 “There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”

Job 26:7 “He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the
earth upon nothing.”
(Animals were not mentioned, which carried the earth, unlike human beliefs)

The water cycle: Ecclesiastes 1:7
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the
place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to
flow again.”

He also gives instructions on

Cleanliness: Deuteronomy 23:9-14

God will apply the benefits of the ransom and will resurrect those who died due to Adam’s sin. A future hope!

Acts 24:15 “ … there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and
the unrighteous. “

Those are just some examples that show that God loves you and me and all mankind.

Let’s please put a name with the title “God” .

Wouldn’t you agree that it is more personal to use his name instead of a title !?

We like to be called by our name within the family, … , or when we are an author of a book, painting, …. .

God’s name is Jehovah! Psalm 83:18 “May people know that you, whose
name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”

Jehovah is reaching out and wants to help / hold our / your right hand, if you let him. At Isaiah 41:10 he’s inviting everyone
10 Do not be afraid, for I am with you.
Do not be anxious, for I am your God.
I will fortify you, yes, I will help you,
I will really hold on to you with my right hand of
righteousness.

This is what I experienced in my life (assurance, comfort, hope, … ) and I believe not only what has been revealed about the past but also what will happen in the future.

Revelation 21:3, 4 God will be with mankind, … will wipe out every tear…
death will be no more… nor pain … the former things have
passed away

Proverbs 2:21, 22. The upright will reside in the earth …
The blameless will remain in it.
The wicked will be cut off from the earth, and the treacherous
will be torn away from it

The earth will be a paradise and many will enjoy the peace and security Jehovah promised.

Psalm 34:8. Taste and see that Jehovah is good;
Happy is the man that takes refuge in him.

Everyone is invited !

You can cherry-pick verses that you think mean that God is loving, but that does not work to prove that God is loving because I can find as many verses that show that God is vengeful and full of hate, and that is why scripture cannot be used to prove that God is loving.

 

[Brian2]

Owning people is immoral.

So you are making slavery into an absolute evil even though morality is a human construct.
Our employers have been sold our lives for part of the week. They own us in that time and can tell us what to do, within legal boundaries of course and the definition of your job. OK that does not correspond exactly with slavery but it is a matter of degree, so the principle is accepted these days.

You're assuming that slaves are only acquired by subduing external aggressors, and that all were enemies before being enslaved. Some were the victims of Hebrew aggressors. Some were just purchased from slavers.

Those that were purchased from slavers sounds borderline when kidnapping people is forbidden. However it could be justified in the sense that they were slaves and would continue to be slaves. I don't know what the lawyers of the day would say about that practice.
I don't think there was much Hebrew aggression into areas that God had not given the Jews for their possession. If it happened then I would say it would be kidnapping and banned.

Or maybe the story just doesn't make sense and apologists are trying to find a way that these choices like what the deity did to the kids (or owning slaves) are actually kind.

I don't really know what apologists are doing. I just read the story.
And yes I suppose the slave laws could be seen as being concerned for the slaves as well as the owners, and defining roles.
And yes I suppose something of God's kindness and love can be seen in the story of A@E.

 

[Muffled]

There is no logical entailment that God must be loving. Assuming we have a clear cut definition of what "loving" means.

A hating God. Or a God Who does not care, are equally plausible.

For this reason, the arbitrary attribute of "loving" people label God with, appear to be more like an instance of wishful thinking, than the product of logical inference.

Ciao

- viole

I believe if one had no evidence one could say that but I believe the Bible is evidence that God loves us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you are making slavery into an absolute evil even though morality is a human construct.

Slavery is immoral in every case, and if you grant that morality comes from man, what do we need with gods or holy books to decide right behavior?

Our employers have been sold our lives for part of the week. They own us in that time and can tell us what to do, within legal boundaries of course and the definition of your job. OK that does not correspond exactly with slavery but it is a matter of degree, so the principle is accepted these days.

That's not even close to slavery. Can you go home at night? Can you be whipped? Are you paid? Are your children sold?

it could be justified in the sense that they were slaves and would continue to be slaves.

No, it cannot be justified that way, and it's unfortunate that your religious beliefs have you trying to justify it.

I don't know what the lawyers of the day would say about that practice.

What difference would it make?

I don't think there was much Hebrew aggression into areas that God had not given the Jews for their possession.

The Old testament is filled with Hebrew aggression, much sanctioned by the deity according to scripture, with slaves taken

I don't really know what apologists are doing.

Sure you do. They're trying to justify their religious beliefs, such as trying to make slavery seem acceptable because the Hebrew deity condones it.

I suppose something of God's kindness and love can be seen in the story of A@E.

That, too, is apologetics. I see the opposite.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe if one had no evidence one could say that but I believe the Bible is evidence that God loves us.

What evidence is there that the Bible came from God?

 

[Brian2]

Slavery is immoral in every case, and if you grant that morality comes from man, what do we need with gods or holy books to decide right behavior?

I don't grant that morality comes from man. I was pointing out your inconsistency to say something is absolutely wrong when you say that morality comes from man.

That's not even close to slavery. Can you go home at night? Can you be whipped? Are you paid? Are your children sold?

That's true, Biblical slavery is ownership of a person, having bought that person. One of the concepts that is in mind that effect other Biblical laws about the treatment of slaves is ownership. Another would be the concept of love for your neighbour and another would be the idea that if a person harms their slave they are harming themselves and their own income.
But you are still treating slavery as an absolute wrong when morality for you is a human construct and the needs and justifications of the past are different to what they would be these days.

No, it cannot be justified that way, and it's unfortunate that your religious beliefs have you trying to justify it.

It's unfortunate that you have a lack of religious beliefs but are intent on condemning slavery, no matter what sort of slavery, when it should not be an absolute for you.

What difference would it make?

It would make a difference to how the law was seen to operate in practice. We read a law and have ideas about it, but those who know the ins and outs of the law would probably see it in a completely different light.

The Old testament is filled with Hebrew aggression, much sanctioned by the deity according to scripture, with slaves taken

The main wars in the OT are defensive wars against those who were harassing Israel and who were in Israeli God given territory and needed to be kicked out. And yes slaves seem to have been taken and this was probably better all round than killing them or setting up big prison system.

Sure you do. They're trying to justify their religious beliefs, such as trying to make slavery seem acceptable because the Hebrew deity condones it.

I have not read much of that however.
But even if what they say is true, it is not accepted by people who want to condemn the Bible God no matter what.

That, too, is apologetics. I see the opposite.

Of course.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was pointing out your inconsistency to say something is absolutely wrong when you say that morality comes from man.

I wrote, "Slavery is immoral in every case, and if you grant that morality comes from man, what do we need with gods or holy books to decide right behavior? "I see no inconsistency in saying that slavery is always immoral and that that is my human judgment. There is no inconsistency or internal contradiction there.

the needs and justifications of the past are different to what they would be these days.

Are they? People always benefit from stealing the labor of others, and the justifications I'm seeing for it in this thread seem like the same ones we might have heard from the ancients.

the concept of love for your neighbour

It's pretty antithetical to owning slaves.

The main wars in the OT are defensive wars against those who were harassing Israel

Sure they were, just like Putin's war on Ukraine is a defensive war to resist NATO aggression. All American wars have been just as well, always defensive, always provoked, and always in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Just ask them.

who were in Israeli God given territory and needed to be kicked out.

Sure, if you believe that a god gave you, chosen people, the land, then you need to kill and enslave others living there. That's only fair. Who do they think they are living in the land the Hebrews believed was given to them by an invisible god?

slaves seem to have been taken and this was probably better all round than killing them or setting up big prison system.

Slaves weren't taken out of kindness to them. Their value is the same as farm animals and business machines. They work for you, and all you need give them is what it takes to keep them operational. And when they are no longer serviceable, you discard and replace them.

even if what they say is true, it is not accepted by people who want to condemn the Bible God no matter what.

I don't know any critical thinker that wants to condemn the Bible no matter what. I don't. I simply reject it as a source of science, history, moral instruction, life advice, or even entertainment, and all for good reason. What critical thinkers condemn is belief by faith. They exclude it from their thought processes to the best of their ability by learning the rules of interpreting evidence so as not to believe wrong or "not even wrong" ideas. Because that's one heck of a slippery slope that can have one trying defend war as god ordained and slavery as an act of brotherly love. I choose not to go there. I think one can do better with humanist values, which esteems reason over faith, and which deems slavery always wrong, since he has no faith-based belief that makes him feel like he needs to justify the practice as consistent with a good god, since he has believed based in the words of other men that the god exists and commanded him so, and that makes it good.

Humanists operate under the Golden Rule. Others give it lip service, but continually to treat others shabbily anyway, trying to suppress their votes, trying to expunge their embarrassing history, trying to marginalize and demonize those who they feel live outside of their god's commandments like atheists and LGBTQ+, treating women as inferior, trying to take their reproductive rights from them in service of an imagined god that wants more babies to be born on an overpopulated planet, and the like.

Why do you think so many people dislike this religion? They don't dislike humanism unless their religion teaches them to. They don't dislike the polite religions, often polite because they are disempowered (I wouldn't trust the Jains or the Druids either if they had the cultural hegemony of the Christians in the West). It's because it's so intrusive wherever it can be. That's hardly Golden Rule material. But it is easily rationalized away simply by noting that it one wasn't already a saved Christian, he would hope that somebody would try to make him one.

The religion sees itself as unfairly persecuted because it sees itself as doing God's work, but take that away, which is the case with the skeptics who reject the religion and its god, and all that's left is a mindless juggernaut of a religion trying to reshape the lives of people who simply don't want in their lives. Golden Rule, remember? Not very neighborly. And resenting and resisting it is not persecution. You're part of it. You're doing some of its work here, trying to make it all seem kinder and more reasonable than it is. You asked what apologetics is. That's apologetics.

 

[Brian2]

I wrote, "Slavery is immoral in every case, and if you grant that morality comes from man, what do we need with gods or holy books to decide right behavior? "I see no inconsistency in saying that slavery is always immoral and that that is my human judgment. There is no inconsistency or internal contradiction there.

The inconsistency or internal contradiction seems to be that someone can make up morals and then claim they are absolutely right or wrong in every circumstance.

Are they? People always benefit from stealing the labor of others, and the justifications I'm seeing for it in this thread seem like the same ones we might have heard from the ancients.

People benefit from having others help with their work, even if it costs them to do that.
The people who are helping in this case are also benefiting in getting probably a better life than they would in a prison or being killed.
Society benefits by the work also and not having to build a prison system.
But if you want to call it stealing the labor of others (and I imagine others derogatory things) that is probably a good pov but may not take into consideration the needs of that day and age.

It's pretty antithetical to owning slaves.

I mentioned loving your neighbour as something that the slave owners were to live by in how they treated their slaves.

Sure, if you believe that a god gave you, chosen people, the land, then you need to kill and enslave others living there. That's only fair. Who do they think they are living in the land the Hebrews believed was given to them by an invisible god?

That's the story of the Exodus and Conquest. I can see that anyone who does not believe that story or believe in that God would have a different pov to Israel claiming the land that they see is theirs. And when Israel seems to be doing a similar thing these days then the controversy grows.
Who is the aggressor these days? It is hard to tell.

Slaves weren't taken out of kindness to them. Their value is the same as farm animals and business machines. They work for you, and all you need give them is what it takes to keep them operational. And when they are no longer serviceable, you discard and replace them.

Slaves weren't taken out of kindness to them but we are talking about the Law of Moses and why it was not pure evil to allow slavery with laws to govern it.

I don't know any critical thinker that wants to condemn the Bible no matter what. I don't. I simply reject it as a source of science, history, moral instruction, life advice, or even entertainment, and all for good reason. What critical thinkers condemn is belief by faith. They exclude it from their thought processes to the best of their ability by learning the rules of interpreting evidence so as not to believe wrong or "not even wrong" ideas. Because that's one heck of a slippery slope that can have one trying defend war as god ordained and slavery as an act of brotherly love. I choose not to go there. I think one can do better with humanist values, which esteems reason over faith, and which deems slavery always wrong, since he has no faith-based belief that makes him feel like he needs to justify the practice as consistent with a good god, since he has believed based in the words of other men that the god exists and commanded him so, and that makes it good.

Humanists operate under the Golden Rule. Others give it lip service, but continually to treat others shabbily anyway, trying to suppress their votes, trying to expunge their embarrassing history, trying to marginalize and demonize those who they feel live outside of their god's commandments like atheists and LGBTQ+, treating women as inferior, trying to take their reproductive rights from them in service of an imagined god that wants more babies to be born on an overpopulated planet, and the like.

Why do you think so many people dislike this religion? They don't dislike humanism unless their religion teaches them to. They don't dislike the polite religions, often polite because they are disempowered (I wouldn't trust the Jains or the Druids either if they had the cultural hegemony of the Christians in the West). It's because it's so intrusive wherever it can be. That's hardly Golden Rule material. But it is easily rationalized away simply by noting that it one wasn't already a saved Christian, he would hope that somebody would try to make him one.

The religion sees itself as unfairly persecuted because it sees itself as doing God's work, but take that away, which is the case with the skeptics who reject the religion and its god, and all that's left is a mindless juggernaut of a religion trying to reshape the lives of people who simply don't want in their lives. Golden Rule, remember? Not very neighborly. And resenting and resisting it is not persecution. You're part of it. You're doing some of its work here, trying to make it all seem kinder and more reasonable than it is. You asked what apologetics is. That's apologetics.

Nevertheless if humanists were around in the days of Moses and Moses and Israel were humanists who had escaped slavery in Egypt and were looking for a place to settle and everyone was wanting to make war against you, I wonder if they could think of something better than being aggressors and taking over a place to settle and taking slaves etc.
We're talking about different times and circumstances and you are judging as if it is these days.
There is plenty of persecution of Christians in the world (and of others also of course) but what Christians experience in the West these days is not real persecution, it is just the argy bargy of competing world views in politics and Christians losing an ascendancy they once enjoyed but in which we did as you say and still want to make laws which reflect Christian morals and which will get votes in a predominantly Christian country.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The inconsistency or internal contradiction seems to be that someone can make up morals and then claim they are absolutely right or wrong in every circumstance.

Sorry, but I still don't see a contradiction. My moral judgments come from me. I consider slavery wrong in every case. Maybe you could write out the two statements you think I imply that contradict one another.

The people who are helping in this case are also benefiting in getting probably a better life than they would in a prison or being killed.

Slavery is a worse life than being a prisoner. That's why adding hard labor to a prison sentence makes it worse. Every slave is a prisoner doing hard labor. You're rationalizing a hideous way to treat people. That's apologetics as well. Are you seeing the pattern?

I mentioned loving your neighbour as something that the slave owners were to live by in how they treated their slaves.

And here's more of that, and another nice illustration of the problem with divine moral theory, or the idea that whatever the deity says or does is moral by definition. Look at how you use the word love. Owning a slave is not loving that slave. This is not how a humanist thinks at all. What use is a religion that sees this as love? Is this what Christians mean by love one another? Is it what you mean? It doesn't come close to my definition of love.

if humanists were around in the days of Moses and Moses

They'd quickly be stoned to death. Not good times for free thinkers or rational ethicists.

We're talking about different times and circumstances and you are judging as if it is these days.

It's funny how the Bible is said to be timeless truth when that suits the believer, but something different when that suits him. Humanist values don't fluctuate like that. The Golden Rule was the right way to treat people in biblical days and is still the right way to treat people.

Think how much more confident and comfortable you could be if you were defending the natural side of this argument like I am and could take the position that slavery is immoral, which we all understand intuitively even by those who don't mind being immoral. Imagine living a lifetime of always being able to argue one's own conscience rather than needing to contrive some convoluted argument about why what is clearly wring is actually right. I've thought about that with attorneys, too. What does a lifetime of arguing in defense of immoral (criminal) behavior do to a person? That feeling you have that I'm right - that arguing the other side of this matter would be much more comfortable and cause much less cognitive dissonance - is your conscience speaking to you from under a pile of dogma that it really cannot reconcile. The religious like to speak of the still small voice, and how quiet one must make the chatter in his mind to hear it. That voice is not the one allegedly giving commandments in the book. I would say the same, but not attribute that voice to gods, but to one's own conscience and inherent moral intuition. That's how in my opinion one leads a moral and upright life - being consistent and true to himself and his inherent understanding of good and right.

 

[samtonga43]

Sorry, but I still don't see a contradiction. My moral judgments come from me. I consider slavery wrong in every case.

Maybe we should all turn to you when we want to know what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but I still don't see a contradiction. My moral judgments come from me. I consider slavery wrong in every case. Maybe you could write out the two statements you think I imply that contradict one another.

So you don't think your judgements on slavery are absolute moral standards, just your opinion. OK that's fine.

Slavery is a worse life than being a prisoner. That's why adding hard labor to a prison sentence makes it worse. Every slave is a prisoner doing hard labor. You're rationalizing a hideous way to treat people. That's apologetics as well. Are you seeing the pattern?

You might be right about the hard labour, but I don't think you are completely right. But maybe the allowing of slavery was more for the benefit of the Israelites than the benefit of the slaves, but I imagine the alternative would have been to kill them, and slavery would probably be a better alternative unless you had a master who was a real ******* and did not follow the teachings of the God.

And here's more of that, and another nice illustration of the problem with divine moral theory, or the idea that whatever the deity says or does is moral by definition. Look at how you use the word love. Owning a slave is not loving that slave. This is not how a humanist thinks at all. What use is a religion that sees this as love? Is this what Christians mean by love one another? Is it what you mean? It doesn't come close to my definition of love.

Again you are twisting what I said to make it look as if I am saying that owning slaves is a loving practice.
Straw man argument.
I already answered your misunderstanding in order to correct it and you basically repeated the misunderstanding.

They'd quickly be stoned to death. Not good times for free thinkers or rational ethicists.

That was an interesting pick and choose of what you would answer.

It's funny how the Bible is said to be timeless truth when that suits the believer, but something different when that suits him. Humanist values don't fluctuate like that. The Golden Rule was the right way to treat people in biblical days and is still the right way to treat people.

The Golden Rule was also part of the Law of Moses and slave owners were to treat their slaves under that rule.

Think how much more confident and comfortable you could be if you were defending the natural side of this argument like I am and could take the position that slavery is immoral, which we all understand intuitively even by those who don't mind being immoral. Imagine living a lifetime of always being able to argue one's own conscience rather than needing to contrive some convoluted argument about why what is clearly wring is actually right. I've thought about that with attorneys, too. What does a lifetime of arguing in defense of immoral (criminal) behavior do to a person? That feeling you have that I'm right - that arguing the other side of this matter would be much more comfortable and cause much less cognitive dissonance - is your conscience speaking to you from under a pile of dogma that it really cannot reconcile. The religious like to speak of the still small voice, and how quiet one must make the chatter in his mind to hear it. That voice is not the one allegedly giving commandments in the book. I would say the same, but not attribute that voice to gods, but to one's own conscience and inherent moral intuition. That's how in my opinion one leads a moral and upright life - being consistent and true to himself and his inherent understanding of good and right.

I have learned that at that time in history slavery could be the best alternative even if my initial reaction was to wonder how God could allow it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe we should all turn to you when we want to know what is right and what is wrong?

Is this you objecting to some freethinking upstart trying to usurp the role of God in his life as moral lawgiver by arrogantly assuming that role himself? You seem to resent my independent thought deciding what is right and wrong for myself. I am pleased with the result. My moral code is benevolent and internally consistent. I feel no cognitive dissonance when I make moral choices, nor regret afterward. I am at peace with my world and have no enemies. I don't require more from a code of behavior.

But still, I'm not offering moral advice. These rules are for me to live by.

you are twisting what I said to make it look as if I am saying that owning slaves is a loving practice.

While defending the practice of slavery, you wrote, "I mentioned loving your neighbour as something that the slave owners were to live by in how they treated their slaves" and I responded, "Owning a slave is not loving that slave." How is that not you calling keeping slaves love?

The Golden Rule was also part of the Law of Moses and slave owners were to treat their slaves under that rule.

By my standards, once you've taken a slave, you've violated the Golden Rule.

I have learned that at that time in history slavery could be the best alternative even if my initial reaction was to wonder how God could allow it.

Then you have made the transformation that is expected of you. You are asked to find ways to accept whatever it is you believe that God has sanctioned. The unbeliever has no reason to do that, and so doesn't and continues to reject slavery as immoral.

 

[viole]

I believe if one had no evidence one could say that but I believe the Bible is evidence that God loves us.

Usually, evidence does not need to be believed in. If it does, it is not evidence.

Ciao

- viole