Creator demanding love from creations?

[SnakeMauler]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

 

[Hunter24]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

As a non Christian I can kind of see where he is coming from. It seams like the Christian idea is that we were just created as yes men to validate him.

 

[TheDoctor]

When my wife and I “created” our children it was done out of love. Why? To give them life and to share our love with them. I love them unconditionally and will never stop loving them no matter what they do, but I do not force them to love me. I have taught them but their will is not mine and they are free to love me or not. They are, however, responsible for their actions.

So too when God created us. He created us out of love. Why? To love Him because by loving Him we are able to share in His love, which is eternal joy. Pretty good deal, no? God loves us unconditionally and will never stop loving us no matter what we do, but He does not force us to love him. On the contrary, He gives us free will precisely because He does not want to force us to love Him but wants us to do it on our own. Of course, like my kids we are responsible for our actions and if our actions are to reject God and His love we do so at our peril.

 

[The_Bucket]

When my wife and I “created” our children it was done out of love. Why? To give them life and to share our love with them. I love them unconditionally and will never stop loving them no matter what they do, but I do not force them to love me. I have taught them but their will is not mine and they are free to love me or not. They are, however, responsible for their actions.

So too when God created us. He created us out of love. Why? To love Him because by loving Him we are able to share in His love, which is eternal joy. Pretty good deal, no? God loves us unconditionally and will never stop loving us no matter what we do, but He does not force us to love him. On the contrary, He gives us free will precisely because He does not want to force us to love Him but wants us to do it on our own. Of course, like my kids we are responsible for our actions and if our actions are to reject God and His love we do so at our peril.

Exactly this. And keep in mind that while children grow up and mature and eventually become masters of their own destiny, we will never be anywhere close to adults compared to God. We will forever be His little children and He truly does know what is best for us, just as good parents know what is best for their young children.

 

[danserr]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

Toward the end of this video (I think it’s after the 20 minute mark), Fulton Sheen explains why Christians worship God.

He even uses a similar analogy to your friend to explain why people should worship God. It runs (briefly) like this:

A little girl goes out to pick her mother flowers from the yard and presents them to her mother. This is some minor inconvenience to the mother, she has to take the flowers, find a vase for them, and display them, but she is still happy to receive them. Did the mother need the flowers? No, the mother didn’t need the flowers. Does the child need to give the flowers? Of course! The child has been given many good things, a good home, her parents love etc. For the child not to give the flowers would mean that she would be lacking in love and affection and gratitude for her parents.

Likewise with God. God does not need our praise. We need to give it. We have been loved into existence, made for eternal happiness, and given Jesus who suffered and died for us. For us not to praise and worship God would mean that we were lacking in love and gratitude. Hence, our worship is not for God’s sake, but for ours.

So, of course God wants us to worship Him. He is simply worthy of that worship. That is just the kind of being that He is. But He wants us to worship Him for our sake, not His. He doesn’t need our worship at all.

Put it another way. We imitate the things we love. This is just a basic fact with kids, they imitate their role models. Hence, it is very important to have the right role models. Well, likewise with God. God knows that if we love Him (and knowing what He is and has done for us, how could we not praise Him), then we will try to imitate Him. In this way we will be able to enter into a loving relationship with Him. Again, God knows that this is not for His good, but for ours. And, like a loving parent, He wants what is best for us.

So, God does not want our worship for His sake, but for ours.

 

[Allegra]

If God wanted to demand that we love Him, he would have made it an inate part of human nature. Instead, He gave us free will, so that we could choose Him. We humans are the only creation on earth that can deny God or love Him of our own free will.

 

[SonCatcher]

God does neither demand nor request love from His creation. He doesn’t need it (or anything, for that matter). He has merely revealed that it is in our best interest to choose to love Him.

This is akin to a doctor revealing to his patient that it is in his best interest to eat properly, exercise regularly and avoid excess alcohol. The doctor doesn’t make demands of his patient, however strongly he may phrase it.

 

[grannymh]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

Start with the assumption that a transcendent God exists as the Creator and that there are human beings which He created. This is a fair approach since your friend has started with the assumption that a human parent exists and that there are human children which he procreated with a mate. In the theatre, this is called “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

"Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and a semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative." from link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Where I lived, this term applied to theatre goers the moment they entered the threatre.
Personally, I like the theatre application because it requires a visible stage, scenery, and props.

The trick is to make sure that the playing ground is not about the existence of both a spiritual god (lower case intended) and a human parent. In addition, there should be no intent of one person “converting” the other.

Roll this idea between your ears. If it is appealing, we can discuss it further.

As for being charitable, always remember that the human person is worthy of profound respect…regardless.

 

[TheDoctor]

Start with the assumption that a transcendent God exists as the Creator and that there are human beings which He created. This is a fair approach since your friend has started with the assumption that a human parent exists and that there are human children which he procreated with a mate. In the theatre, this is called “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

"Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and a semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative." from link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Where I lived, this term applied to theatre goers the moment they entered the threatre.
Personally, I like the theatre application because it requires a visible stage, scenery, and props.

The trick is to make sure that the playing ground is not about the existence of both a spiritual god (lower case intended) and a human parent. In addition, there should be no intent of one person “converting” the other.

Roll this idea between your ears. If it is appealing, we can discuss it further.

As for being charitable, always remember that the human person is worthy of profound respect…regardless.

I cannot speak for the OP but you have peaked my curiosity. Please contine.

 

[Neildown]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

God doesn’t “demand” our love though - it is just an essential for spiritual life, as God is the source of all life. We need water to live, but we aren’t forced to drink it - nonetheless, if we want to live, we do need to drink it. That being said, one might as well also be insulted and in denial over the fact that we have to drink water and eat food to live, because, spiritually, things are no different.

Furthermore, even on earth, love is essential if you want to be part of a safe, healthy family, group, or society. Humans are social beings - we aren’t entirely about self-interest, even though we do have natural tendencies towards that. Love is largely about appreciating one another, so why shouldn’t we appreciate God by giving Him praise?

 

[SonCatcher]

I cannot speak for the OP but you have peaked my curiosity. Please contine.

ditto

 

[snarflemike]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

God neither expects nor demands that we love him. He simply offers his love to us, and offers us the grace to love him back. Either way, he respects our choice.

 

[jschutzm]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

I would try it this way…

Ask them to spin that idea on its head… to reverse it. What IF love is not for God’s benefit but ours? – What IF love is not demanded or expected? – then what? In other words, where is their objections to THAT? - There rejection assumes a certain preconceived notions and a certain frame of reference. What if that frame of reference is wrong? - what then?

Then perhaps introduce the idea that Parents should want what is best for their children…no? And see how they answer that.

Assuming that they agreed… make the assertion that we humans tend to emulate what we desire most and/or love the most. If we love money… we become greedy. Sex - we seek that out.
If we love our parents, it is natural for us to want to be like them. (assuming a healthy relationship, of course)

If they seem to agree with this… then go one step further… as Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen put it… we should be gratious for what our parents have given us… right?
See if they are still with you. They may jump ahead and argue that they owe NOTHING to God…this shows that they understand your logic more then they want to admit.

have them answer this…

WHAT or WHOM would be better for us to emulate? a perfect God or an earthly thing?
If they kinda agree that maybe it is better for us to try and be more like God, even if we are not perfect… Ask them, and as our creator, which should he want us to do or advocate us to do? - should he knowingly tell us to seek out and emulate things which are NOT good for us OR things which ARE?
And if he happens to be the best there is… wouldn’t, as our parent, he want us to be like him? Don’t MOST parents want this, even if they are imperfect? So how much more appropriate is it for God to want us to be like him… if he is perfectly good?

See where that line of reasoning take you and them.

They may in all likelihood, see where you are going before you get there, and start arguing the details OR saying 'Well God isn’t real, so it is better for us to follow what is, what we can see with our eyes, then something we can’t prove exists" – or something like that.

But their original argument pre-supposed that God existed, so they should stick to their original premise.
You are not trying to argue that there IS a God, but merely looking at their default assumptions about him demanding love. ← that is the part you are discussing.

And if they try to say “Well what if God is NOT good and loving, not all knowing?” or something like that… then simply assert… 'well then, he isn’t THEE God then…right? Something else is… so we should logically follow THAT"

You can argue that philosophically speaking… the source of Love or the concept of Justice, compassion, charity ANY of these things we think of as ‘good’ - most likely had a source. This source of them… whatever that is… would logically be GOD or what we should seek out and show gratitude towards.

Christians identify all these sources as one, because that is more logical. Polytheists or Pantheists seen those sources as more then one.

 

[sw85]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

That’s a silly argument. A parent has every right to demand love and obedience from their children, and the children are duty-bound to give it.

I suspect your friend objects to this because he objects to the idea of duty, and is an atheist for the same reason.

 

[Nita]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children. That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

What’s your friend’s definition of love? It may well be different than what is meant by love as used in Scripture. Our love for God is to be manifested by obedience to His commands.

1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him truly love for God is perfected.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we obey His commandments.
John 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
There is a difference in the way God (parents) manifests love for humans(child) and in how humans (child) manifest love for God (parents).

 

[SnakeMauler]

Thanks for the replies guys. In coming days I will piece together a long message to send her. Continuing thoughts are welcomed!

 

[Hunter24]

It’s an odd equation, though.
We’re told God doesn’t “demand” our love and He gives us “free will”…but…if we don’t follow the specific love rules and rituals He demands, we are sinning and may go to Hell.
It’s confusing.

Lol maybe it’s just the thought that counts

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, my friend is an atheist, your typical French atheist. My friend’s greatest objection (among many) to religion is the following; that she cannot believe that a loving parent could ask to be loved back by his children.

Your friend is probably either not a parent or a really bad one. I cannot imagine a parent not wanting their kids to love them. I’d be horrified if my kids do not love me. They are babies right now, I’m terrified of the thought of how our relationship will be when they become teenagers. Anyone who says that the right thing is for parents not to expect their children to love them back has absolutely no clue about what they are talking about.

That is, a parent should not expect their children to love them back, in the context of God the all loving father demanding that his creations love him back. How do you approach this question from a charitable and gentle point of view, or at all? I have no idea what to say, I am stumped.

God created us in His image and likeness. He is a loving God, therefore our correct nature is to be loving beings. God expects us to love because that is who He is (love) and as being in His image and likeness, it is who we are as well. Sin has changed that, and thus there is this struggle to return to what we really are meant to be.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the replies guys. In coming days I will piece together a long message to send her. Continuing thoughts are welcomed!

Here are my continuing thoughts from post 8.

The loving father bit is near impossible to refute so one should first figure out one’s own goals in the discussion. Even with the best argument, the other person can always present a world with loving fathers. So, does one seek a superior argument or does one plant seeds which could lead to a world with a real God?

Being young in college (public profile) you are in an environment of openness to new knowledge. Granted, by that time, many students have already set their minds in matters of faith and the natural world. Yet, there is still major curiosity.

Start with the assumption that a transcendent God exists as the Creator and that there are human beings which He created. This is a fair approach since your friend has started with the assumption that a human parent exists and that there are human children which he procreated with a mate. In the theatre, this is called “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Instead of getting into a conversation about the existence of God, shift to what assumption means. Assumptions do not require belief. Assumptions can either be valid, not valid, or somewhere in between. In science research, assumptions are used as a reasonable explanation for some bit of data which is not completely available.

“Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a “human interest and a semblance of truth” into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.” from link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Where I lived, this term applied to theatre goers the moment they entered the threatre.
Personally, I like the theatre application because it requires a visible stage, scenery, and props.

Set the stage with your own scenery and props. Make sure that one of the conditions is that belief or acceptance is not required once one walks out the door of the theatre of the mind.

The personal goal of my brother, in any conversation, is to present the alternative or the opposite opinion. This can be very annoying as it seemed he was always attacking me. Finally, we learned to put the topic on the table and focus on it, rather than automatically thinking about how to refute each point.

What I am driving at (theatre or table approach) is to have an environment where both of you are freely learning as friends.

By shifting away from a human-human relationship, one is able to discuss the different natures of a transcendent Creator God and a human being. Of course, your friend could say that God had a selfish evil reason for creating humans. Then how did humans learn about love and experience it? The concept of love is part of our human species. Denying love and acting against love is very possible due to our free choices. However, the denial and evil actions cannot change what is in our human nature even though one buries love. You could ask --How does one see loving fathers, if there were no capability for love?

Even without belief in a real God, non-theists can recognize that love has a spirituality to it. Love is out of this world is one way to express one’s deepest feelings for her or his beloved. There is no hurry to conclude the discussion of love. Use the examples of love in other posts as a demonstration of the existence of love.

Here you could express your choice of Catholicism because it teaches about a God of love as the source, or creator of human nature. The reasoning is that because love on a human species level cannot ever be completely destroyed, its first existence had to come from some place other than a material/physical decomposing human anatomy. Since the assumption that God exists is already in place, and we know that love on a human species level cannot be completely destroyed, we can say that love originally came from a level different from that of the human species. This level is where God is.

At this point, I would suggest a break from the discussion. With both of you comfortable with a willing suspension of disbelief, give yourselves time to explore the idea that the love humans can experience came from a non-destroyable source on a different, really better level. One might throw in the idea that this better level has to be spiritual without the human personality which can bury love or restrict love according to one’s own personal expectations. Be politely careful not to get off the track of love itself. After all, love is the key in a “loving human father would do this or that”. Sometimes it is better to come back to a human species level because this shows the underlying unity of humankind even though there can be extreme differences between individuals.

I need to take a break. Will continue later, probably tomorrow.

.

 

[Nita]

It’s an odd equation, though.
We’re told God doesn’t “demand” our love and He gives us “free will”…but…if we don’t follow the specific love rules and rituals He demands, we are sinning and may go to Hell.
It’s confusing.

Think of it this way. It’s like a parent whose house is by the freeway. He loves his child, so he tells the child he must not go out on the road and “demands” the child obey him – because if he doesn’t, he will get killed.
If the child disobeys, getting killed is something that is a direct consequence of the child’s action; not something the father inflicts on the child in anger.
The father’s rule and his demand for obedience of that rule are because of his love for his child, because he doesn’t want his child to experience that death.

Hell is what is experienced when a creature is totally separated from God. Because He loves us, God tells us how to avoid this separation/hell. He tells us about Himself and His love so we will choose to trust Him and follow His directions to avoid separation.
Willful, unrepentent disobedience of God’s revelations/directives is a rejection of Him; a free choice made by one to be separated from Him. God is pure spirit; *** union and separation take place on the spirit/soul level.*** (Our body participates because it is united to our spirit.) God’s revelations are revelations of His thoughts, His will. They are revelations of Him - they are who He is. When we reject what He says and choose to act contrary to it, we are rejecting Him - separating our spirit/soul (thinking and will) from union with His. For a visual image of what’s taking place on this spiritual level, it’s like turning around and walking away from Him – like the prodigal son parable in Luke 15. And always remember, like the prodigal son story, God is waiting to welcome us back with open arms – IF we choose to repent and return to Him, and follow His ways.