Is it a sin not to love God?

[ateista]

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

“In my house there are many rooms…” if I remember correctly. I don’t want to derail this conversation, but I think that there is a general concensus that “works alone don’t save you”. I happen to disgree with that proposition, purely on rational grounds.

No no, nothing so fantastic as that.

Ugh, I am glad to hear 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?

No, I guess I am lucky, most of my relationships ended on amicable terms, and the one that did not, I was the instigator of the breaking up. There is no fear, no love left, only a genuine desire never see that person again.

Afterwards, it isn’t uncommon to have a certain degree of fear for that person, even though you love them.

Since it never happened to me, I am unable to comment on it.

 

[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.

Very well said. My problem is with the “what if you disobey”. If the repercussions would not be “eternal torture”, which is irreversible (at least to my knowledge) then I would be inclined to accept your analysis as correct.

You see, being a nonbeliever, I do not believe in hell (in any form). To me its totally inconceivable that anyone would create an unending torture and still would want to be called “good”.

I know that there are many ways people theorize about hell, from the actual, physical place of flames (“where the fire is not quenched” - said Jesus) all the way to mere “separation from God”. Be as it may, we can agree that it is not a nice place. No one would - knowingly - elect to go there.

Anyhow, for me to love or not love God is without fear. Even if I would believe in God, I would not believe in punishment or hell. It would be truly freely given. But that does not apply to someone who believes in hell. I am sure that consciously they would all deny that their fear from hell is the motivator for their love. But I am equally certain that subconsciously that fear would influence them.

And as God, even a hint of that would “sour” the love they profess for me.

 

[elvisman]

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)

You didn’t address my parent/child analogy which pretty much sums it up - proving my suspicion about your antagonistic motives.

That makes no sense.
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.

 

[edblakes]

I think a proper definition is in order: “To Love” is a deliberate act regardless of your feelings. In fact, I would say especially in spite of your feelings. Selfless acts of kindness are the truest form of love. Not that butterfly feeling in the pit of your stomach. It is through this Love that we receive the grace of God and can hope for a seat at our Father’s supper table.

To receive salvation and be in “Heaven” is to share in beatific vision of God.

To be damned to “Hell” is be cutoff from the loving presence of God. Hell is the (super)natural consequence of choosing ourselves over our Creator/Father.

God gave us the right to freely choose goodness over evil. We do not have the right to permissiveness or license. Which is exactly what “free choice” is being subverted to by the secular world.

The Lord’s Blessings be upon you…

 

[davidv]

Very well said. My problem is with the “what if you disobey”. If the repercussions would not be “eternal torture”, which is irreversible (at least to my knowledge) then I would be inclined to accept your analysis as correct.

Here in the United States, one of the principles of the judicial system is that the punishment fit the crime. Do you agree - independent of how well it might carried out? The repercussions of petty theft are far less serious than those for an armed robbery in which an innocent by-stander is killed. We also grade offenses based the position of the person who is wronged. An assault on the president carries greater than repercussions than one on the store clerk at the local convenience store - so rank matters.

Do you know how serious our sins are on this scale? Because He is perfect, God ranks higher than any of these. Any sin that keeps us out of heaven has immeasureable greater repercussions.

 

[BlaineTog]

“In my house there are many rooms…” if I remember correctly. I don’t want to derail this conversation, but I think that there is a general concensus that “works alone don’t save you”. I happen to disgree with that proposition, purely on rational grounds.

True, but at the same time, you don’t have to know Jesus to get into heaven. It helps a whole awful lot, but no one thinks Abraham, Adam, and Moses didn’t get into heaven just because Jesus wasn’t there yet. It’s foolish in general to make suppositions about who’s going to get in and who isn’t (as I recall, there’s a bible verse about how there will be surprises for who’s in each camp), but the point of life is to strive despite unrelenting failure because it’s the striving hard that’s you choosing to let God help you.

 

[Steve40]

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

Disobedience to God is separation from God because it makes the underlying assumption that God is wrong. It implies that God is a liar. He is never wrong by definition.

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

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.

Alchoholics Ananymous (AA) has a neat solution to this and it stems from the experience of the founder. As a drunk he looked at his old drinking buddy across the table who had “found religion” and was now sober. He didn’t think his friend’s solution would work for him because he didn’t have much of a belief in God either.

Here is the excerpt from the book:

"Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn’t like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a Czar of the Heavens however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with scores of men who felt the same way.

My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said “Why don’t you choose you own conception of God? That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shodow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last.”

This is taken from the Alcoholicss Anonymous book page 21-22.

This is not making God in your own image. It is understanding God as you can where you are at. You have to start some place. In AA they refer to Him as their higher power.

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

Maybe you are right. Perhaps I meant respect more than fear. You can respect someones power without fearing it. Siminlarly I have heard term fear of the Lord described as fear of a loss of relationship or not wanting to loose the relationship.

 

[Angainor]

Is it a sin not to love God?

It is a violation of the great commandment.
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40

 

[ateista]

I think a proper definition is in order: “To Love” is a deliberate act regardless of your feelings. In fact, I would say especially in spite of your feelings. Selfless acts of kindness are the truest form of love.

Well said. Love should manifest itself in deeds, otherwise it is just a an empty word.

The trouble is that I apply this criterion also to the here and now. This is where we differ. Believers say that “salvation” is the only thing that counts, the obvious lack of caring in this world does not. This is the dividing line between our views. I say that if this love and caring does not manifest itself in this world, than it is unsatisfactory. We know that this world exists, you hope (but you don’t know) that there is something beyond it.

But even if there were another existence (in heaven) it does not negate the obvious lack of love and caring in this existence.

A simplistic analogy (not to be taken verbatim): if a father says that he loves his child, and this love will manifest itself - say - 50 years into the future, but until that time he does not support his child, then you and I would describe this “love” as mere words, without substance.

 

[ateista]

Here in the United States, one of the principles of the judicial system is that the punishment fit the crime. Do you agree - independent of how well it might carried out? The repercussions of petty theft are far less serious than those for an armed robbery in which an innocent by-stander is killed.

Up until this point I agree with you.

We also grade offenses based the position of the person who is wronged. An assault on the president carries greater than repercussions than one on the store clerk at the local convenience store - so rank matters.

Not in my eyes. The president is not more worthy of protection than a simple clerk at the grocery store. To be honest, the president is worth much less (again in my opinion) because he wanted to rule over us, and I find that desire despicable. In my opinion the only person who is worthy of wielding power over others is the one who is dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, where he will do a great job - to get time off for good behavior.

Do you know how serious our sins are on this scale? Because He is perfect, God ranks higher than any of these. Any sin that keeps us out of heaven has immeasureable greater repercussions.

Based upon my views above you will see that I disagree.

 

[ateista]

True, but at the same time, you don’t have to know Jesus to get into heaven. It helps a whole awful lot, but no one thinks Abraham, Adam, and Moses didn’t get into heaven just because Jesus wasn’t there yet. It’s foolish in general to make suppositions about who’s going to get in and who isn’t (as I recall, there’s a bible verse about how there will be surprises for who’s in each camp), but the point of life is to strive despite unrelenting failure because it’s the striving hard that’s you choosing to let God help you.

This is yet another example where I agree with you. Isn’t that a great feeling? It is for me.

 

[edblakes]

Well said. Love should manifest itself in deeds, otherwise it is just a an empty word.

The trouble is that I apply this criterion also to the here and now. This is where we differ. Believers say that “salvation” is the only thing that counts, the obvious lack of caring in this world does not. This is the dividing line between our views. I say that if this love and caring does not manifest itself in this world, than it is unsatisfactory. We know that this world exists, you hope (but you don’t know) that there is something beyond it.

But even if there were another existence (in heaven) it does not negate the obvious lack of love and caring in this existence.

A simplistic analogy (not to be taken verbatim): if a father says that he loves his child, and this love will manifest itself - say - 50 years into the future, but until that time he does not support his child, then you and I would describe this “love” as mere words, without substance.

The beautiful part is you are correct. On the Sermon on the Mount Jesus described the Kingdom Of God(Heaven) as near. The nature of this world we live in is good, but due to the original sin, it has become corrupted by our concupicence(sp?).

When the New Jerusalem arrives this will begin the reign of God on Earth and this will mark a true fullfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven. But we are commanded by Jesus to strive for that same kindom here on this Earth in our current times.

Remember, it is not success of our actions that will be rewarded, but the Faith we exercised in taking on the mission itself.

Yes, I agree I do have Hope of a better place. But this Hope stems from a deepening relationship I have with God through prayer. Faith and Hope is a gift from my Lord and Savior as a direct result of cultivating this relationship.

As for “not supporting this child”, I beg to differ. Through my Faith I have received more support then I ever could have believed possible. But they are in little ways and always in accordance with the Will of God. As Jesus has said on so many occasions “Your Faith has healed you…” If you choose not to seek the Truth, but demand to have your trials or the worlds trials lifted because it is not fair. Well I think that is a man-centric view that is not for the greater good. If we all took on a Christ-centric viewpoint, then you would see a realization of the kingdom of God in our own times.

Do not be deceived, Satan holds sway over much of the world as we know it. If you choose to stand in the dark on your own personal beliefs and viewpoints, you leave yourself vulnerable to the Father of Lies. I shall pray for your conversion and truly hope that you will seek the Truth. For Truth is not a something, but a someone!

God Bless Fr Corapi and all living saints just like him.

“Hail, Full of Grace…”

 

[ateista]

The beautiful part is you are correct.

I am glad we agree, at least partially.

As for “not supporting this child”, I beg to differ. Through my Faith I have received more support then I ever could have believed possible.

I don’t doubt your sincerity. But that is not exactly the type of support I had in mind.

There is a verse in the Bible, which says: “Man does not live by bread alone”. (I am sure it is not a verbatim quotation.) The point is the word “alone”. It does not mean that the rest are sufficient (faith, spiritual well-being, etc) in and by themselves.

Does not live by bread “alone” does not make the bread irrelevant. And there are millions of people (children, too) starving to death every year, due to the lack of rain. Just the lack of rain! No special miraculous intervention needed, just a little rain. Is that something that God cannot provide?

As we agree, love must manifest itself in actions. When I talked about the lack of actions on God’s part, I referred to such little, mundane things, a few necessary showers of rain, to keep the plants alive, and there would be no starvation.

 

[BlaineTog]

Is that something that God cannot provide?

Yes. Because you’re not asking for rain. You’re asking for happiness. If there were plenty of rain, you would want more silicon so that everyone could have computers, or more fields of grass so we could have more cows so everyone could have more meat, or more diamonds so everyone could have beautiful jewelry. The world has to be fallen, because we are fallen. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and God drew it where it is.

 

[ateista]

Yes. Because you’re not asking for rain. You’re asking for happiness. If there were plenty of rain, you would want more silicon so that everyone could have computers, or more fields of grass so we could have more cows so everyone could have more meat, or more diamonds so everyone could have beautiful jewelry. The world has to be fallen, because we are fallen.

I don’t, and I did not. I am asking for essentials of life, food, water and health. Computers, diamonds etc. and not necessary for life. Food, water and health are. That is the line in the sand. That is all am asking. None of these need special miracles.

And I am asking for them in the name of love, and caring, not greed. Is that too much to ask for?

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and God drew it where it is.

I am not demanding anything from God. If that is the line which God chose, so be it.

I am asking you, how do you reconcile your assertion that God is pure love, with the apperent lack of caring, with the lack of providing basic necessities for millions of people so that they would not die after a short, miserable, hungry and disease-ridden life.

Is this how “love” manifests itself?

assintomatico.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/hunger.jpg

 

[edblakes]

We gave up our right to live in the garden of Eden when Adam & Eve committed the Original Sin.

This is the Natural Order of Things.

What you see around you is not always good, but from those bad situations good can be derived. The exercise of virtue and Faith are Good things. This will allow God’s Grace to come into this world and a little bit of the kingdom of heaven with it.

How can you appreciate the heighth of the mountaintops if have not spent any time in the bottom of the valley.

God is a mystery and I have many questions as to why He does what He does, but I would never doubt His Will is for the Greater Good.

 

[BlaineTog]

You know, I’m going to stop preserving your font for every quote box. This isn’t anything against you, it’s just more hassle than it’s worth.

I don’t, and I did not. I am asking for essentials of life, food, water and health. Computers, diamonds etc. and not necessary for life. Food, water and health are. That is the line in the sand. That is all am asking. None of these need special miracles.

And I am asking for them in the name of love, and caring, not greed. Is that too much to ask for?

I’m saying there’s no difference, not when you’re talking about a paradigm shift like this. Man is fallen. Therefore, the world must be fallen as well. Therefore, the basic necessities aren’t always going to be available. Man should be pained on Earth. If he weren’t, he might become complacent, and the complacent man sitting on a collapsing bridge will die.

That said, no matter how much you give people, someone will always want more. So, a line has to be drawn. It’s drawn where it is.

I am not demanding anything from God. If that is the line which God chose, so be it.

I am asking you, how do you reconcile your assertion that God is pure love, with the apperent lack of caring, with the lack of providing basic necessities for millions of people so that they would not die after a short, miserable, hungry and disease-ridden life.

And I’ve been answering you. You’ve responded with, “But look at this picture.”

*Is this how “love” manifests itself?

assintomatico.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/hunger.jpg*

That’s an appeal to emotion and thus fallacious. Frankly, most of your arguments here and over in that other thread are appeals to emotion. You’re picking examples that are difficult to defend against, not because of the logic involved but because they speak to compassion. Rape? You could pick any example of pain in the history of the world, and you chose rape, possibly the fourth most horrible thing imaginable (third is genocide, second is The Fall, and first is the crucification of Jesus, but feel free to discount the first two if you don’t believe in them, for that reason)? You could have picked painful but relatively neutral things, like skinning your knee and name-calling, and the arguments both for and against would be exactly the same as widespread famine and rape, but they would lose that emotional connotation which makes me look like a monster for disagreeing with you.

And I suppose that’s really my point. You argument isn’t an argument at all, but an appeal to emotion. I’m giving you the reasons behind why the Church says what it does about God, and you’re largely responding by saying, “But oh, rape is so horrible!” Yes it is, it’s terrible, but that doesn’t change the argument itself one bit. Man has evil in him. He choses that evil. God respects our ability to chose and thus has placed us in a system where choice is a possibility. God loves us, so he tries his hardest to persuade us to choose correctly, but sometimes the best possible persuasion isn’t enough. That’s the Christian answer to the problem of pain in a nutshell, and it won’t change no matter how many pictures you throw at it, because a picture isn’t an argument.

 

[ateista]

You know, I’m going to stop preserving your font for every quote box. This isn’t anything against you, it’s just more hassle than it’s worth.

I’m saying there’s no difference, not when you’re talking about a paradigm shift like this. Man is fallen. Therefore, the world must be fallen as well. Therefore, the basic necessities aren’t always going to be available. Man should be pained on Earth. If he weren’t, he might become complacent, and the complacent man sitting on a collapsing bridge will die.

That said, no matter how much you give people, someone will always want more. So, a line has to be drawn. It’s drawn where it is.

And I’ve been answering you. You’ve responded with, “But look at this picture.”

That’s an appeal to emotion and thus fallacious. Frankly, most of your arguments here and over in that other thread are appeals to emotion. You’re picking examples that are difficult to defend against, not because of the logic involved but because they speak to compassion. Rape? You could pick any example of pain in the history of the world, and you chose rape, possibly the fourth most horrible thing imaginable (third is genocide, second is The Fall, and first is the crucification of Jesus, but feel free to discount the first two if you don’t believe in them, for that reason)? You could have picked painful but relatively neutral things, like skinning your knee and name-calling, and the arguments both for and against would be exactly the same as widespread famine and rape, but they would lose that emotional connotation which makes me look like a monster for disagreeing with you.

And I suppose that’s really my point. You argument isn’t an argument at all, but an appeal to emotion. I’m giving you the reasons behind why the Church says what it does about God, and you’re largely responding by saying, “But oh, rape is so horrible!” Yes it is, it’s terrible, but that doesn’t change the argument itself one bit. Man has evil in him. He choses that evil. God respects our ability to chose and thus has placed us in a system where choice is a possibility. God loves us, so he tries his hardest to persuade us to choose correctly, but sometimes the best possible persuasion isn’t enough. That’s the Christian answer to the problem of pain in a nutshell, and it won’t change no matter how many pictures you throw at it, because a picture isn’t an argument.

There is no reason to conduct two conversations about the same subject. Let’s restrict it to the other one in the philosopy forum.