Is it a sin not to love God?

[ateista]

In the philosophy section an interesting question came up, and I think it belongs to this forum.

We can accept (almost axiomatically) that according to the believers God’s wish is to be loved. Love must be freely given, without force or coercion, after all a “coerced love” is an oxymoron.

A poster asserted that not to love God is a sin. Actually she said that it is worst conceivable sin. Do you agree with this proposition?

Please stop here and answer the question. I would like to get your answer before you see my reasoning.

After having answered, highlight the following part for my take on the subject:

I disgree with it, on the following grounds.

1. Suppose it is a sin not to love God.
2. God commands us to avoid sin.
3. Therefore God commands us to love him.
4. A command (as opposed to an advice) is something that carries a penalty for disobedience.
5. Thus God’s command to love him is a form of coercion, since not doing it carries a penalty.

Therefore it is not a sin not to love God.

 

[MH84]

Would your belief change either way?

 

[BlaineTog]

I disgree with it, on the following grounds.

1. Suppose it is a sin not to love God.
2. God commands us to avoid sin.
3. Therefore God commands us to love him.
4. A command (as opposed to an advice) is something that carries a penalty for disobedience.
5. Thus God’s command to love him is a form of coercion, since not doing it carries a penalty.

Therefore it is not a sin not to love God.

You’re stating a tautology, as near as I can tell, but overplaying it: commands are a form of coercion, which is definitionally true, but they can be an extremely light form of coercion to the point where the definition of coercion doesn’t even fit (“persuasion” would be better). However, a command may or may not have negative consequences causally linked to the command itself. If I command you to, say, not touch a hot stove, the command is itself an attempt to persuade you into not performing an action that causes you harm.

What you’re really doing is arguing that because reality is objective, our free wills are limited, which is tautologically true, but misleading, because “free will” doesn’t mean “completelly, 100% free, free to do literally whatever we want, even free to do the impossible.” I am not free to both enter a room and not-enter a room at the same time; it is not possible for anything to do that.

 

[wow]

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

 

[Steve40]

By definition that which separates us from God is sin. Therefore if you don’t love God you are separated from Him and you sin. If you love Him you will work to get rid of the separations, get rid of sin.

You are correct in that love can not be coerced. God has given us the ability to ignore Him even though the evidence of Him is stamped in our very being.

We don’t have to believe in Hell if you don’t want to so you are not coerced to love God. However, by the time we realize that Hell does exist it will be too late and there will be no coercion. We will go to Hell and nothing we could do at that point would change it.

Fear of Hell can be a start for love of God, but it never ends there. God doesn’t let it.

 

[ateista]

You’re stating a tautology, as near as I can tell, but overplaying it: commands are a form of coercion, which is definitionally true, but they can be an extremely light form of coercion to the point where the definition of coercion doesn’t even fit (“persuasion” would be better).

I don’t see how can this be construed as a tautology. Tautology is circluar reasoning, formally: “A is true because B supports it” and “we know that B is true, because A says so”.

What I am doing here is called indirect proof. I am assuming a premise, take its negation and show that its negation leads to logical contradiction - thus proving the original concept true.

However, a command may or may not have negative consequences causally linked to the command itself. If I command you to, say, not touch a hot stove, the command is itself an attempt to persuade you into not performing an action that causes you harm.

We have to differentiate between something that is formally a command, but in reality an advice, and its opposite, which looks like an advice but it is really a command.

Even if you scream at your child: “don’t touch it”, to make sure he will not touch a hot stove, it is not a command - it is a very abbreviated advice, even if you have no time to explain why. On the other hand, saying very politely: “please, would you do as I say, otherwise I will blow your brains out” is a command, uttered “mafia-style”.

God is not famous to utter advices, rather he is pretty strong on giving commands. The Ten Commandments are not Ten Advices, are they?

If God commands something, you had better take it seriously. If God commands you not to sin, you had better follow it. Therefore if it were true that “not loving God is a sin” and God commands you not to sin, it is a coercion. That is why “not to love God” cannot be a sin.

By the way, If God came to me and commanded to jump, I might ask “how high?” but more likely I would jump first and ask the question later.

What you’re really doing is arguing that because reality is objective, our free wills are limited, which is tautologically true, but misleading, because “free will” doesn’t mean “completelly, 100% free, free to do literally whatever we want, even free to do the impossible.” I am not free to both enter a room and not-enter a room at the same time; it is not possible for anything to do that.

I have no idea where this came from. Nothing I said is even remotely related to it.

 

[ateista]

By definition that which separates us from God is sin.

I heard that sin is to disobey God. How are these two definitions compatible?

Therefore if you don’t love God you are separated from Him and you sin. If you love Him you will work to get rid of the separations, get rid of sin.

How can I love God, if I am not convinced of his existence?

You are correct in that love can not be coerced. God has given us the ability to ignore Him even though the evidence of Him is stamped in our very being.

That is not true. I would not be able (or willing) to ignore God if I would be convinced of his existence. I would soil my pants with fear - and fear is incompetible with love.

Fear of Hell can be a start for love of God…

That is impossible. From fear to love there is no road… unless you accept the last sentence from 1984: “He loved Big Brother”.

 

[BlaineTog]

I don’t see how can this be construed as a tautology. Tautology is circluar reasoning, formally: “A is true because B supports it” and “we know that B is true, because A says so”.

“A=A” is also a tautology.

What I am doing here is called indirect proof. I am assuming a premise, take its negation and show that its negation leads to logical contradiction - thus proving the original concept true.

Except you showed no contradiction. It’s a restatement of what “command” means with incorrect emphasis.

We have to differentiate between something that is formally a command, but in reality an advice, and its opposite, which looks like an advice but it is really a command.

Even if you scream at your child: “don’t touch it”, to make sure he will not touch a hot stove, it is not a command - it is a very abbreviated advice, even if you have no time to explain why. On the other hand, saying very politely: “please, would you do as I say, otherwise I will blow your brains out” is a command, uttered “mafia-style”.

I would contend that a) your distinction is irrelevant, and b) it also doesn’t apply here, since the commandment to love is akin to the former example and not to the latter.

If God commands something, you had better take it seriously. If God commands you not to sin, you had better follow it. Therefore if it were true that “not loving God is a sin” and God commands you not to sin, it is a coercion. That is why “not to love God” cannot be a sin.

You lost me. I could probably figure out what you’re trying to say, but I don’t want to risk calling you out on logical fallacies that aren’t relevant. Would you mind restating this more clearly?

*I have no idea where this came from. Nothing I said is even remotely related to it.*Hmm. It made sense when I wrote it. I suspect it still does, but I’ll wait for you to reformulate your claim that it isn’t a sin to not love God (which is patently absurd, by the way, by the very definition of sin) before I answer.

 

[BlaineTog]

I heard that sin is to disobey God. How are these two definitions compatible?

To disobey is to distance yourself. Let’s say your dad is a pretty smart fella and he tells you to go to school, but instead you skip school because you say to yourself “my old man’s an idiot, what does he know?” When your father finds out, he will be disappointed in you, and if you persist in your impudence, we might say that a rift has formed between you.

It’s the same thing with God, keeping in mind that the distance analogy is just an analogy.

How can I love God, if I am not convinced of his existence?

“That which you do for the least of your brothers, you do for me,” to paraphrase the Bible. It’s harder to love God when you don’t believe intellectually that he exists, but you can say you don’t believe in God and yet worship him with your actions just as you can say you do believe in him and reject him with your actions.

*That is not true. I would not be able (or willing) to ignore God if I would be convinced of his existence. I would soil my pants with fear - and fear is incompetible with love. *

Absolutely not. You can be terrified of your father if you know your mother is going to tell him about how you called Sally Smith a stupidhead at school as soon as he gets home and yet you still love your father. Additionally, fear (as in, the emotion) of God is not a permanent state of being; it is shed in purgatory along with your sinfulness and concupiscence.

That is impossible. From fear to love there is no road… unless you accept the last sentence from 1984: “He loved Big Brother”.

I can tell you from empirical evidence that that is not true, though I’d rather not go into it.

 

[elvisman]

In the philosophy section an interesting question came up, and I think it belongs to this forum.

We can accept (almost axiomatically) that according to the believers God’s wish is to be loved. Love must be freely given, without force or coercion, after all a “coerced love” is an oxymoron.

A poster asserted that not to love God is a sin. Actually she said that it is worst conceivable sin. Do you agree with this proposition?

Please stop here and answer the question. I would like to get your answer before you see my reasoning.

After having answered, highlight the following part for my take on the subject:

I disgree with it, on the following grounds.

1. Suppose it is a sin not to love God.
2. God commands us to avoid sin.
3. Therefore God commands us to love him.
4. A command (as opposed to an advice) is something that carries a penalty for disobedience.
5. Thus God’s command to love him is a form of coercion, since not doing it carries a penalty.

Therefore it is not a sin not to love God.

Not loving God IS a sin because HE commands us to do so.
He COMMANDS us NOT to murder.
He COMMANDS us NOT to commit adultery.
He COMMANDS us NOT to steal, and so on.
What you’re trying to do is RATIONALIZE. Trust me, that doesn’t work.

Here’s a little advice:
Don’t post in yellow unless you don’t want anybody to see what you’re talking about.

 

[ateista]

Not loving God IS a sin because HE commands us to do so.

Excellent. God’s commands (as any other command) are based upon force: “Obey or else…” .

Which is in clear contradicton with God “wanting” to be loved, freely, without coercion.

 

[wow]

**Don’t **post in yellow unless you don’t want anybody to see what you’re talking about.

Thanks for pointing that out to me elvisman! I didn’t see it before.

I don’t care how you reason it, not loving God is a sin, a mortal sin. If you have faith and believe in God and all his wonders, loving God is automatic. If you truly lived by this one commandment alone, you’d have little chance of breaking the other commandments.

 

[ateista]

“That which you do for the least of your brothers, you do for me,” to paraphrase the Bible. It’s harder to love God when you don’t believe intellectually that he exists, but you can say you don’t believe in God and yet worship him with your actions just as you can say you do believe in him and reject him with your actions.

I like your analysis, though I suspect that many people (especially of the fire-and-brimstone types) would vehemently disagree with it.

I can tell you from empirical evidence that that is not true, though I’d rather not go into it.

I figured it out. Yes, you are correct, there is a way from frear to love, and it is called the “Stockholm Syndrome” - which is a serious psychological disorder. I hope you did not go through such a horrible experience, and if you did, let me offer my deepest sympathy.

I will return to the other parts of your post later. Time to go and do my workout.

 

[wow]

Excellent. God’s commands (as any other command) are based upon force: “Obey or else…” .

Which is in clear contradicton with God “wanting” to be loved, freely, without coercion.

Well actually God gave man free will, so you can love or not. And if you choose not to love him, he still loves you.

 

[ateista]

B]Here’s a little advice:

Don’t post in yellow unless you don’t want anybody to see what you’re talking about.
It was intentional. I even pointed out how to make it readable. My intent was not to influence you with my take on the subject. As it turned out it was unneccesary.

 

[elvisman]

Excellent. God’s commands (as any other command) are based upon force: “Obey or else…” .

Which is in clear contradicton with God “wanting” to be loved, freely, without coercion.

That makes no sense.
By your logic, we shouldn’t be arrested for robbing a bank because the law says we can’t.
God CAN command as well as WANT. I tell my child NOT to talk back to me or else. That doesn’t mean that I don’t WANT that child to respect me. I command it AND I want it because of my LOVE for that child.
Face it - you’re playing devil’s advocate for the sake of ruffling feathers - not for the sake of healthy dialogue.

 

[Genesis315]

In the philosophy section an interesting question came up, and I think it belongs to this forum.

We can accept (almost axiomatically) that according to the believers God’s wish is to be loved. Love must be freely given, without force or coercion, after all a “coerced love” is an oxymoron.

A poster asserted that not to love God is a sin. Actually she said that it is worst conceivable sin. Do you agree with this proposition?

Please stop here and answer the question. I would like to get your answer before you see my reasoning.

After having answered, highlight the following part for my take on the subject:

I disgree with it, on the following grounds.

1. Suppose it is a sin not to love God.
2. God commands us to avoid sin.
3. Therefore God commands us to love him.
4. A command (as opposed to an advice) is something that carries a penalty for disobedience.
5. Thus God’s command to love him is a form of coercion, since not doing it carries a penalty.

Therefore it is not a sin not to love God.

Commands us to love Him because He loves us. Since we are by nature “less than God” we are corruptible. However, He has united His nature with ours, so that we may unite ours with His (“God became man so that man might become God.”).

Since God is love, as St. Bernard says, love is the substance of God. Therefore to love God and neighbor is to partake of and extend the communion of love by which we begin to partake of His nature–this process known as “theosis” continues after death and into the general resurrection.

So, God does not need to receive anything from us, rather it is His nature to love, and love is the giving of self, and the best thing for His beloved, us, is to receive Him and partake of Him.

 

[ateista]

By your logic, we shouldn’t be arrested for robbing a bank because the law says we can’t.

To be punished for robbing a bank is not the same than being punished for not loving God. No one expects us to “love” the law, only to obey it.

Love is not love if not freely given. To command to love “robs” it of its freedom. (Pun intended)

 

[BlaineTog]

I like your analysis, though I suspect that many people (especially of the fire-and-brimstone types) would vehemently disagree with it.

The bible’s pretty clear that there are many ways of worshiping God, is all I can say to them.

I figured it out. Yes, you are correct, there is a way from frear to love, and it is called the “Stockholm Syndrome” - which is a serious psychological disorder. I hope you did not go through such a horrible experience, and if you did, let me offer my deepest sympathy.

No no, nothing so fantastic as that. Really, I was just saying that an admixture of love and fear is not at all alien to human experience. For example, have you ever had someone break up with you? Afterwards, it isn’t uncommon to have a certain degree of fear for that person, even though you love them.

 

[Usagi]

ateista,

I suspect that most of the believers here think of God’s command to love Him as being more in the “hot stove” category. Or, since it’s a positive command rather than a prohibition, perhaps more in the “eat healthy food” category.

It’s not an arbitrary rule made because God thinks He’s so cool and will get us if we don’t agree. It’s meant to steer us toward an outcome that is good for us and away from an outcome that is bad for us.

And even though God would much rather we choose the option that’s good for us, He still lets us choose – because, as you say, forced love is no love at all.

Usagi