How to love God

[davidv]

As to not derail another thread the following statement was made

What they failed to explain is, HOW could I love God, whose very existence I do not believe? And if I DID believe in God’s existence, I would have a very low opinion about him - based upon my experience in the world.

In what manner is it just to demand the “love” for God, if there is no actual (and factual) evidence that he exists? Maybe someone can explain this to me…

“they” refers to Catholics, who have unanimously asserted that not loving God is a sin.

This is my attempt at explaining “HOW”.

Premises:

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus instructed that those who love Him will keep His commands
3. The first command was to love God
4. The second was the first’s equivalent - that being love your neighbor

Therefore, HOW one loves God is to love ones neighbor.

In this context, love is not a feeling. Instead it is a exercise of the will to desire and to do what one is able to unselfish do what is needed for ones neighbors well being.

The “demand” is just because God loves us first. Justice require an in-kind response.

 

[ateista]

This is my attempt at explaining “HOW”.

Premises:

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus instructed that those who love Him will keep His commands
3. The first command was to love God
4. The second was the first’s equivalent - that being love your neighbor

Therefore, HOW one loves God is to love ones neighbor.

In this context, love is not a feeling. Instead it is a exercise of the will to desire and to do what one is able to unselfish do what is needed for ones neighbors well being.

The “demand” is just because God loves us first. Justice require an in-kind response.

Thanks for the analysis.

Now for the fun of it, let me shorten it down a bit:

God - as Jesus - commands us to love God. (Comes from your premises 1, 2 and 3.) Isn’t that a bit strange? But it gets worse.

Those who disobey God by not loving him, (the sinners) will be cast into the “eternal fire”. So God gives us “free will” to love or not to love him, and at the same time he punishes the “deviants” with eternal torture. This sounds life a mafia-style of extortion or demand: “love me, or else!”.

Now, let’s talk about loving our neighbors. It is simply a non-sequitur that “if one loves one’s neighbors, then one loves God”. Our neighbors (naturally not just the people who live next door) are other humans. God is not a human. Therefore loving our neighbors does not necessarily include loving God.

You also mention that God loves us first. Apart from the fact that I see no supporting evidence for this claim, God can only “desire” to love him back, not “command” it. That would be extortion…

 

[Philthy]

Now for the fun of it, let me shorten it down a bit:
God - as Jesus - commands us to love God. (Comes from your premises 1, 2 and 3.) Isn’t that a bit strange?

Strange compared to what? You didnt explain this basis for your question “Isnt that a bit strange?” Are you declaring it is strange or are you asking for an opinion? If you are declaring it strange why not tell us why you think it’s strange.

So God gives us “free will” to love or not to love him, and at the same time he punishes the “deviants” with eternal torture. This sounds life a mafia-style of extortion or demand: “love me, or else!”.

Its not mafia style at all: He has our best interests in mind when He issues the command.

Now, let’s talk about loving our neighbors. It is simply a non-sequitur that “if one loves one’s neighbors, then one loves God”. Our neighbors (naturally not just the people who live next door) are other humans. God is not a human. Therefore loving our neighbors does not necessarily include loving God.

Jesus became human. God created all of humanity in His likeness. He loves every single human being with a love purer than anything you or I can understand. How we treat other people is indeed a reflection of how we treat God.

God can only “desire” to love him back, not “command” it. That would be extortion…

I dont think you understand the context of what is meant by “love” you neighbor. If you did, it would make perfect sense that God both desires AND commands that we love our neighbor. You are confusing emotional love (which cannot be commanded) with agape love (which can be commanded). They are different. This is very basic stuff.

 

[ateista]

Strange compared to what? You didnt explain this basis for your question “Isnt that a bit strange?” Are you declaring it is strange or are you asking for an opinion? If you are declaring it strange why not tell us why you think it’s strange.

I am asking. In my opinion (for whatever it is worth) it is either illogical or coercive. If we would have a reason to love God (meaning that he would be helpful in our times of need) then it would be illogical (unnecessary) to command it, since it would come naturally, at the very least out of gratitude.

Its not mafia style at all: He has our best interests in mind when He issues the command.

Our best interest? I would say that our best interest would be to be with him, in eternal bliss and happiness. Of course that is based upon the Christian faith. My opinion of “best interest” is very different, but my opinion does not count.

If God would have our “best interest” on his mind, he would not create us at all in this world. And that happens. A huge percentage of fertilized eggs (and you believe that a fertilized egg is already a human being with a soul) never gets implanted in the wall of the uterus. They get simply “flushed out”.

Now these “creatures” obviously did not commit any evil, lacking the capability to do so. Therefore it follows form Christian belief that they will go directly to heaven (don’t pass “Go”, do not collect 200 dollars). That is the fulfillment of our best interest. And God does not do it. So don’t talk to me about God having our best interest on his heart. It simply does not wash.

Jesus became human. God created all of humanity in His likeness. He loves every single human being with a love purer than anything you or I can understand.

In the light of what I said above, this statement is false. The love you talk about in “invisible”.

How we treat other people is indeed a reflection of how we treat God.

Nope. I do not “treat” God in any way. I treat my fellow human beings according to what I think they deserve. Good people I treat with love, respect. Not good people I simply avoid.

I dont think you understand the context of what is meant by “love” you neighbor. If you did, it would make perfect sense that God both desires AND commands that we love our neighbor. You are confusing emotional love (which cannot be commanded) with agape love (which can be commanded). They are different. This is very basic stuff.

Oh, but I do. However we cannot do anything for God - self-sacrificial or not. After all God lacks nothing, needs nothing. So we can only offer emotional love for him, not “agape” type of love. And that has to be earned.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for the analysis.

Now for the fun of it, let me shorten it down a bit:

God - as Jesus - commands us to love God. (Comes from your premises 1, 2 and 3.) Isn’t that a bit strange? But it gets worse.

What is strange about “commands”. They are natural and necessary part of our existance. E.g., parents command their children. Armed forces officers command their troops.

Those who disobey God by not loving him, (the sinners) will be cast into the “eternal fire”. So God gives us “free will” to love or not to love him, and at the same time he punishes the “deviants” with eternal torture. This sounds life a mafia-style of extortion or demand: “love me, or else!”.

Based on this, every command of parents and military officer would be classified as extortion. These commands are not extortion and I reject your analysis of God commands on that basis.

Now, let’s talk about loving our neighbors. It is simply a non-sequitur that “if one loves one’s neighbors, then one loves God”.

Not true. Jesus, in giving these commands, made them equivalent.

Our neighbors (naturally not just the people who live next door) are other humans. God is not a human. Therefore loving our neighbors does not necessarily include loving God.

Again, not true. In the person of Jesus, He became human.

You also mention that God loves us first. Apart from the fact that I see no supporting evidence for this claim, God can only “desire” to love him back, not “command” it. That would be extortion…

Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean its not there.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Those who disobey God by not loving him, (the sinners) will be cast into the “eternal fire”. So God gives us “free will” to love or not to love him, and at the same time he punishes the “deviants” with eternal torture. This sounds life a mafia-style of extortion or demand: “love me, or else!”.

God is love. Once this premise is accepted, everything else follows. If you reject it, then of course, your reasoning is correct. But bear with me for a while.

The physical flames of eternal fire are incidental. The nature of Hell is the complete remove from God-- the complete remove from love. It is not a matter of “love me, or else!”, but rather a matter of “love me, or you will have no love”… which only follows logically if God is love.

As for the rest of it, I must admit that I have no arguments in me because all I have is a sense of wonder. I am no great logical thinker, and I am no great scholar or scholastic, but I am always perplexed by the line of reasoning where:

1. God is ominscient/omnipotent/love
2. But God does not conform to what I think omnipotence/omniscience/love should entail
3. Therefore there is no God; God is not omnipotent/omniscient/love

Is this accurate? If not, what’s missing? What’s superfluous? Meanwhile, I cannot really counter that thinking because I do not understand it. Hopefully, through dialogue and questions, I will get a bit of it. In the meantime, I will try to share what I learned, and perhaps conceivably help myself or others.

 

[Evan]

If God would have our “best interest” on his mind, he would not create us at all in this world. And that happens. A huge percentage of fertilized eggs (and you believe that a fertilized egg is already a human being with a soul) never gets implanted in the wall of the uterus. They get simply “flushed out”.

Now these “creatures” obviously did not commit any evil, lacking the capability to do so. Therefore it follows form Christian belief that they will go directly to heaven (don’t pass “Go”, do not collect 200 dollars). That is the fulfillment of our best interest. And God does not do it. So don’t talk to me about God having our best interest on his heart. It simply does not wash.

How do you know any fertilized eggs never get implanted? Speculation?

You need to learn your Catholic theology… There is no definitive teaching on the ultimate desination of the unbaptized. There is speculation, theories, and pius hopes. But no definitive teaching.

 

[Todd_Easton]

…Catholics … have unanimously asserted that not loving God is a sin.

My :twocents: …

The non-believer has a valid argument; the assertion of those Catholics, that “not loving God is a sin,” must be qualified.

Knowledge must precede love. Therefore, not loving God is a sin for the person who knows or believes in God but the person who does not believe in God does not sin by not loving Him.

However, even the non-believer can sin when he fails to act according to his conscience.

Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:17)

Therefore, the just demand on the non-believer (and the believer) is to always act according to his conscience.

 

[ateista]

What is strange about “commands”. They are natural and necessary part of our existance. E.g., parents command their children. Armed forces officers command their troops.

Based on this, every command of parents and military officer would be classified as extortion. These commands are not extortion and I reject your analysis of God commands on that basis.

But they are extortions. Every command which is based on force is an extortion. A convincing argument, which will result in seeing the validity of a suggestion would not be an extortion.

Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean its not there.

I accept it. But I wait - in vain - to see a rational explanation.

 

[ateista]

God is love. Once this premise is accepted, everything else follows.

Very true. But this is a highly dangerous “axiom”. From it would follow, that anything and everything that God permits is somehow “good”.

Usually it is stated that everything is part of God’s plan.

So, if I would kidnap a child and would torture her to death, then that would be part of God’s plan, and therefore “good”. Or, if I would learn that someone is planning such an act, and would choose to prevent it, then that would be part of God’s plan. Alternately, if I would choose not to prevent it, than that would be part of God’s plan.

Your argument allows to call any and all atrocities committed by anyone to be considered “good”, since God chose not to intervene, and thus “permitted” it. Do you see how this reasoning would negate the concept of “good” and “evil”? Whatever God allows us to do, is “good”, because God “allowed” it, and since God is love, these acts are part of that “love”.

If you reject it, then of course, your reasoning is correct.

Thank you. To be more precise, I don’t reject it out of hand, I simply consider it a suggested, but unproven hypothesis.

But bear with me for a while.

You bet.

The physical flames of eternal fire are incidental. The nature of Hell is the complete remove from God-- the complete remove from love. It is not a matter of “love me, or else!”, but rather a matter of “love me, or you will have no love”… which only follows logically if God is love.

Well, I doubt that anyone can speak about hell with authority. It was also stated that God is distinct from our existence. Therefore we are separated from God, and yet this existence is not full of misery, hopelessness and despair. Though in the Middle Ages the temporal existence was called a Vale of Tears.

As for the rest of it, I must admit that I have no arguments in me because all I have is a sense of wonder. I am no great logical thinker, and I am no great scholar or scholastic, but I am always perplexed by the line of reasoning where:

1. God is ominscient/omnipotent/love
2. But God does not conform to what I think omnipotence/omniscience/love should entail
3. Therefore there is no God; God is not omnipotent/omniscient/love

Is this accurate? If not, what’s missing? What’s superfluous? Meanwhile, I cannot really counter that thinking because I do not understand it. Hopefully, through dialogue and questions, I will get a bit of it. In the meantime, I will try to share what I learned, and perhaps conceivably help myself or others.

Your reasoning is very accurate. There are many ways which try to reconcile God’s power and love with currently observable state of affairs. I saw them, and find all of them lacking convincing power.

There was a great book about this problem, written by a rabbi named Kuschner, its title was “When bad things happen to good people”. He gives a good analysis. I highly recommed it to everyone.

 

[ateista]

How do you know any fertilized eggs never get implanted? Speculation?

No, it is a well known biological fact. Most fertilized eggs are flushed out. Quite a significant part of the implanted ones result in spontaneous abortions.

You need to learn your Catholic theology… There is no definitive teaching on the ultimate desination of the unbaptized. There is speculation, theories, and pius hopes. But no definitive teaching.

Why not? It is an important question.

Of course I can see the conundrum.

Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father. That is a definitive teaching of the Bible. From that it would follow that the unbaptized would go directly to hell. But that is such a cruel concept that people (and the clergy) are reluctant to subscribe to it. Therefore they say: “it is a mystery” (how conveeeenient!) and pretend that the question does not need an answer,

 

[ateista]

My :twocents: …

The non-believer has a valid argument; the assertion of those Catholics, that “not loving God is a sin,” must be qualified.

Knowledge must precede love. Therefore, not loving God is a sin for the person who knows or believes in God but the person who does not believe in God does not sin by not loving Him.

However, even the non-believer can sin when he fails to act according to his conscience.

Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:17)

Therefore, the just demand on the non-believer (and the believer) is to always act according to his conscience.

Triple cheers to you for your excellent post! I agree with every word you wrote! :tiphat:

 

[Philthy]

ateista;:

I am asking. In my opinion (for whatever it is worth) it is either illogical or coercive. If we would have a reason to love God (meaning that he would be helpful in our times of need) then it would be illogical (unnecessary) to command it, since it would come naturally, at the very least out of gratitude.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of mankind? The concept that people do what is right “naturally” is not what the record of history reveals. This is a ridiculous claim on your part. You actually speak of “good” people and “bad” people later in this post. Do the bad people do what is “natural” to them or is something causing them to be - in YOUR words - “bad” people?

Our best interest? I would say that our best interest would be to be with him, in eternal bliss and happiness. Of course that is based upon the Christian faith.

Absolutely.

If God would have our “best interest” on his mind, he would not create us at all in this world.

Perhaps you are assuming there is another way?

Now these “creatures” obviously did not commit any evil, lacking the capability to do so. Therefore it follows form Christian belief that they will go directly to heaven

This is a gross error on your part. Please provide a reference for this made up doctrine which you purport “follows Christian belief”. I wont hold my breath waiting.
Hint: entrance into Heaven is not predicated upon the absense of having **committed **a sin.

So don’t talk to me about God having our best interest on his heart. It simply does not wash.

As I have shown above your “logical” conclusions are predicated upon error and remain invalid. Interestingly, however, you also sound angry. Is that a natural response? Are you angry at God because He doesnt operate according to your rules? Are you the potter or the clay?

The love you talk about in “invisible”.

This is a meaningless statement.

Nope. I do not “treat” God in any way. I treat my fellow human beings according to what I think they deserve. Good people I treat with love, respect. Not good people I simply avoid.

So how do you interact with people you dont know - like the suffering children in Africa? Do you avoid them as well? I dont see how your system allows for action in a situation where you encounter someone in need whom you do not know.

However we cannot do anything for God - self-sacrificial or not. After all God lacks nothing, needs nothing. So we can only offer emotional love for him, not “agape” type of love.

Hat trick! This is your third logical error in a single post. The fact that God does not need anything from us does not mean that we cannot do something for Him.
Futhermore, if God unites himself to humanity (through Christ) then it is indeed possible for us to do something for God. It is outside our ability to understand this completely but that does not negate the reality (within Christian belief) that we are the mysical body of Christ and that whatever we do to the least of our brothers that we do unto Him.

And that has to be earned.

I have no idea how this comment relates to your statement leading up to it or the entire preceding discussion.

 

[fewnotmany]

Please provide a reference for this made up doctrine which you purport “follows Christian belief”.

Hint: entrance into Heaven is not predicated upon the absense of having **committed **a sin.

Perhaps the reference was to the ‘Babies don’t go to hell’ Doctrine?

 

[Philthy]

Perhaps the reference was to the ‘Babies don’t go to hell’ Doctrine?

Perhaps, but the word Hell wasnt included in his claim - Heaven was. I’ll be waiting for the doctrine to support the “aborted embryos go to Heaven” claim. Then I’ll be waiting for the “aborted embryos that go to Heaven equally enjoy the Beatific vision that Saints enjoy”. As I said, I wont be holding breath…

 

[catholic1seeks]

No, it is a well known biological fact. Most fertilized eggs are flushed out. Quite a significant part of the implanted ones result in spontaneous abortions.

God cares for the one who, as you say, “gets flushed out,” to the one who lives to 101 years old. Time is definatley something we finite creatures seem to put emphasis on. God doesn’t put more value on the one who lives the life of many adventures to the one who gets aborted or dies a few days after he or she is born. God gives the chance for everone to live with him in ETERNAL HAPPINESS, which is Heaven. I deeply believe that those little ones who die before getting baptized are with the LOVING God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[fewnotmany]

With respects to ‘doctrine to support the “aborted embryos go to Heaven” claim.’, I have no comment. I too, await the original posters explanation.

When I read the post however, 2 Samuel 12 chapter came to mind.

It tells the story of the death of David and Bathsheba’s illegitimate child. Of which David makes a vague reference to the baby being in Heaven (v. 23).

This thread seems to be ateista’s soap box, I’ll continue to view it from save distance.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Very true. But this is a highly dangerous “axiom”. From it would follow, that anything and everything that God permits is somehow “good”.

Usually it is stated that everything is part of God’s plan.

So, if I would kidnap a child and would torture her to death, then that would be part of God’s plan, and therefore “good”. Or, if I would learn that someone is planning such an act, and would choose to prevent it, then that would be part of God’s plan. Alternately, if I would choose not to prevent it, than that would be part of God’s plan.

VERY WRONG.
Though I do believe some Christians believe some form of this—that God has predetermined every event in the future—the orthdox, true, Catholic faith does not.

I can do something that is contrary to God’s plan. This is exactly why, in the Bible, Jesus tells us to pray “Thy will be done”. We do not have to do God’s will; we don’t have to participate in God’s plan. Even you claim that Christians believe in free will.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, it is a well known biological fact. Most fertilized eggs are flushed out. Quite a significant part of the implanted ones result in spontaneous abortions.

Why not? It is an important question.

Of course I can see the conundrum.

Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father. That is a definitive teaching of the Bible. From that it would follow that the unbaptized would go directly to hell. But that is such a cruel concept that people (and the clergy) are reluctant to subscribe to it. Therefore they say: “it is a mystery” (how conveeeenient!) and pretend that the question does not need an answer,

If Christ were to descend to hell, like he did before, and take them, who would/could stop Him?

No conundrum. The Lord’s hand is not shortened that He cannot save. The Church is bound by sacraments, but God isn’t. Notice, for instance, the baptism of blood.

 

[Philthy]

VERY WRONG.
Though I do believe some Christians believe some form of this—that God has predetermined every event in the future—the orthdox, true, Catholic faith does not.

I can do something that is contrary to God’s plan. This is exactly why, in the Bible, Jesus tells us to pray “Thy will be done”. We do not have to do God’s will; we don’t have to participate in God’s plan. Even you claim that Christians believe in free will.

In addition we have this specific reference to doing something contrary to God’s plans:

Luke 7:30

RSV: but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

New Jerusalem Bible: but by refusing baptism from him the Pharisees and the lawyers thwarted God’s plan for them.