Convince me that God is loving

[ppp]

Huh?

Hmmm?

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you think it means to inherit the kingdom of God? I think it means to go to heaven. I don't think that sexual immorality alone is enough to bar a person from heaven. Remember that Jesus said there is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

All sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29)

Frankly, my dear, as Scarlett O'Hara might have said, if a person commits immorality without repentance and changing, that's a story.

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh?

Lol it doesn't matter what someone's reaction is.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you think it means to inherit the kingdom of God? I think it means to go to heaven. I don't think that sexual immorality alone is enough to bar a person from heaven. Remember that Jesus said there is only one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

All sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29)

I realize you don't believe what the Bible says. One person I spoke to who said he was a Christian believed he could continue committing adultery and fornication in heaven. Lol.

 

[Trailblazer]

Frankly, my dear, as Scarlett O'Hara might have said, if a person commits immorality without repentance and changing, that's a story.

In order to be forgiven, of course there would need to be repentance and changing one's ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

I realize you don't believe what the Bible says. One person I spoke to who said he was a Christian believed he could continue committing adultery and fornication in heaven. Lol.

Nobody can continue committing adultery and fornication in heaven since there is no sex in heaven since we won't have physical bodies in heaven.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody can continue committing adultery and fornication in heaven since there is no sex in heaven since we won't have physical bodies in heaven.

Where did you learn that? Not that I disagree, but how do you know that?

 

[ppp]

Where did you learn that? Not that I disagree, but how do you know that?

In your religious beliefs, do you have free will in heaven?

 

[Truthseeker]

*OPTIMISTIC* (regarding the consultation)

Like I said in a later post "Unfortunately, he would not stop. He does seem to have a lack of boundaries. He does have ego, but don't us all?"

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did you learn that? Not that I disagree, but how do you know that?

It is a Baha'i teaching that the next world (heaven) is a spiritual world so there isn't anything physical there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If so, she just blindly assumes that her suffering us somehow God's responsibility.

She believes that her god is all-powerful and all-knowing, and therefore knows about her suffering, has the ability to end it, but chooses not to. Morality is about minimizing collective suffering and promoting collective well-being. This god isn't a moral god. It's an indifferent (or worse) god. Maybe it prefers the suffering.

Then why is she holding onto it?

She answered that for us. Her intuition that this god exists warts and all is apparently irresistible.

Her God-belief does not sound very comforting.

Agree, but so does she.

Seems a better reason to find a God-ideal that does bring one comfort.

She's different from you that way. You've both been pretty clear. You want a god belief that is comforting and don't care if it's correct, and she wants a god belief that is correct and doesn't care if it's not comforting. In a sense, she's taking the position of the empiricist, who wants to follow evidence to its logical conclusion whatever that might be, and she claims to have that evidence. Where she and her critics disagree is whether that evidence justifies her conclusion.

 

[CG Didymus]

Where she and her critics disagree is whether that evidence justifies her conclusion.

Hmmm? There's evidence for a particular belief in a God? Part of that belief includes that this God is all-loving. And there's evidence that this God is not all-loving? That seems like a very small step to questioning whether that God is even real.

 

[Muffled]

What action? What are the 'good' actions of God, allowing myriad humans and animals to suffer every day?

I believe God is not willing for any to be lost. That requires giving them the opportunity to be saved.

 

[Muffled]

God is inside everything/everyone. Relatively God is inside every action.

God does NOT perform love. God itself is Love/energy. And that love/energy is blind.

Because love is blind possibly an action/actions may appear, or NOT appear good.

I believe God is not inside the actions that ae evil.

 

[Muffled]

Good point. Maybe God loves to rip us to shreds so we can barely function, and then call that love.
The shredded humans might have a different definition of love.

I believe the punishment of evil is a good thing but the evildoers most likely don't think so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm? There's evidence for a particular belief in a God? Part of that belief includes that this God is all-loving. And there's evidence that this God is not all-loving? That seems like a very small step to questioning whether that God is even real.

Let me ask you a question. If, let's say, a person murders someone, perhaps a child who didn't even know the murderer -- how sorry do you think the family members would be if the murderer was put to death?

 

[PureX]

She believes that her god is all-powerful and all-knowing, and therefore knows about her suffering, has the ability to end it, but chooses not to. Morality is about minimizing collective suffering and promoting collective well-being. This god isn't a moral god. It's an indifferent (or worse) god. Maybe it prefers the suffering.

She answered that for us. Her intuition that this god exists warts and all is apparently irresistible.

Agree, but so does she.

She's different from you that way. You've both been pretty clear. You want a god belief that is comforting and don't care if it's correct, and she wants a god belief that is correct and doesn't care if it's not comforting. In a sense, she's taking the position of the empiricist, who wants to follow evidence to its logical conclusion whatever that might be, and she claims to have that evidence. Where she and her critics disagree is whether that evidence justifies her conclusion.

Once we believe we're right, we're stuck with it unless we're able to overcome our own biased ego. And few of us are. I don't believe I'm right so I don't have to overcome a biased ego to change my mind if I need/want to change my position. Neither does anyone else if they will just forgo the whole "I believe it" business.

The real problem here is that belief is a fundamentally dishonest course of reasoning. And it's just as dishonest for an atheist as it is for a theist or for anyone else. And the same problems will result because of it. We trap ourselves by choosing to "believe in" things that we can never actually know to be so. And then we end up auto-defending our own internal deceits so we can hold onto it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm? There's evidence for a particular belief in a God? Part of that belief includes that this God is all-loving. And there's evidence that this God is not all-loving? That seems like a very small step to questioning whether that God is even real.

What does all-loving mean anyway? Christians and Baha'is believe that about God because of their scriptures, but do they know what it means?
I gave up trying to figure it out since I cannot know, and I don't really care either, since I don't believe in God so I can feel loved.

Even if God was not all-loving He could still exist so that doesn't eliminate His existence.

Peoples' ideas of what God would do if God was all-loving are only ego projections so they mean nothing.
For example, if God was all-loving God would not allow so much suffering. Who says? Why not?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe God is not willing for any to be lost. That requires giving them the opportunity to be saved.

I agree. They all have the opportunity but they don't al take it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once we believe we're right, we're stuck with it unless we're able to overcome our own biased ego. And few of us are. I don't believe I'm right so I don't have to overcome a biased ego to change my mind if I need/want to change my position. Neither does anyone else if they will just forgo the whole "I believe it" business.

The real problem here is that belief is a fundamentally dishonest course of reasoning. And it's just as dishonest for an atheist as it is for a theist or for anyone else. And the same problems will result because of it. We trap ourselves by choosing to "believe in" things that we can never actually know to be so. And then we end up auto-defending our own internal deceits so we can hold onto it.

You believe that people who hold religious beliefs cannot overcome their own biased ego. That is a belief that you hold strongly and never relinquish.
Do you even realize that you did that you just expressed a 'belief' about which you think you are right. Why is that not biased ego?

You 'believe' that religious belief is a dishonest course of reasoning and I believe it is honest if one 'honestly' believes what they believe.
Some believers do know that what they believe is true. Just because you cannot know the way we know does not mean we don't know.
Just becaue one cannot prove something as a fact that does not mean thye do not know it. There are many ways of knowing.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW