God is love or we Get Infinite punishment for our finite sins

[Doreen]

no, i'm not, and i don't think god is either. i don't know what happens when we die, and neither do you, and neither does anyone else. you don't know what that door opens up to.

Look at the following exchange....

Originally Posted by Hapsburg
Assuming hell exists, which I don't believe at all.
Either way, it's absurd to punish people for simply not being Christian.

You...

to not participate in a way to abolish sin? when sin is what causes a condition like hell?

Here he says it is absurd to punish people for simply not being Christian and you disagree since they must be not participating in a way to abolish sin.

 

[Doreen]

If bad did not exist, and by the will of the creator, there would be no need for laws and there would be no good. There is bad and there is good - asnd these are differentiated only by sacred laws. Love is based on laws.

That's certainly one of the main old excuses for the problem of evil.

 

[Doreen]

I'm not talking about people accepting other religions. I mean their respective god won't allow it. And that is in fact true at least for the ones I mentioned here. And also, of course atheists freak them out, all the religions have at least one thing in common: They are all based on some super natural stuff, except the atheist. He/she believes that all and any of that is untrue. You can't convert an atheist (at least not one who became one by reason).

I don't know what the Torah says about other religions. I think you are correct about Islam and Christianity. But I was pointing out that people do not all seem to buy this even if their leaders do - those that do - and even if their scriptures seem to say this.

 

[elvinatom]

Not for me it isn't. Guilt isn't love. Obedience isn't love. Very few mothers need a law to love the baby placed in their arms. When I was a kid I loved other kids regardless of race or anything else. Certainly we can withhold love from people who deserve it, but even then a law is a silly way to go about it. Might as well make laws for people to love both chocolate and vanilla and, horrors, butterscotch. Love is based on experiences outside law, always. Even if they happen to align with someone's law.

Yes you're right - you can make laws about anything you please, but what someone feels can not be controlled by any law. That's just silly.

 

[Doreen]

I refer to moral. ethical, judiciary, environmental, womens and animal rights laws. The whole kaboodle, each has its place. It is contrasted by lawlessness and self serving alternatives. The law, when accepted, must be equally impacting on all. The entire universe is based on majestic laws and none are above the law - not even God, based on the premise of truth and rightiousness..

You need to consider the possibility that some people do not need laws to treat others with respect and even love. The confusion between guilt and love is so huge that most people think guilt is love.

 

[John99]

You need to consider the possibility that some people do not need laws to treat others with respect and even love.

What percentage is that?

The confusion between guilt and love is so huge that most people think guilt is love.

HA...I dont know anyone who thinks that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not for me it isn't. Guilt isn't love. Obedience isn't love. Very few mothers need a law to love the baby placed in their arms. When I was a kid I loved other kids regardless of race or anything else. Certainly we can withhold love from people who deserve it, but even then a law is a silly way to go about it. Might as well make laws for people to love both chocolate and vanilla and, horrors, butterscotch. Love is based on experiences outside law, always. Even if they happen to align with someone's law.

if you have a lawmaker on whom who's existence reality is derivative (including our selves and our experiences) you have an argument for a type of law that is all encompassing.
Of course our experience of law tends to make us not think love in such a fashion, but you could talk of the obedience love instills in a person (by obedience I mean the requirement to act in a particular way in order to manifest love ... IOW there are certain acts or qualities that prohibit the manifestation of love)

 

[elvinatom]

What percentage is that?



HA...I dont know anyone who thinks that.

But I do plenty

 

[Doreen]

What percentage is that?

I didn't say abolish laws. But read what I was responding to. He said that LOVE only comes from laws. Is that true for you John? Would you only love someone if there was a law telling you to?

HA...I dont know anyone who thinks that.

John, I mean they confuse guilt with love. They are nice to people because they think they are suppposed to. I do not mean that they would say 'guilt is love'. What they think is love, is often actually guilt.

 

[Doreen]

if you have a lawmaker on whom who's existence reality is derivative (including our selves and our experiences) you have an argument for a type of law that is all encompassing.
Of course our experience of law tends to make us not think love in such a fashion, but you could talk of the obedience love instills in a person (by obedience I mean the requirement to act in a particular way in order to manifest love ... IOW there are certain acts or qualities that prohibit the manifestation of love)

Can you love without having a law telling you to love, LG?

Note what I was responding to.

 

[John99]

Would you only love someone if there was a law telling you to?

I dont think anyone would. Would you treat them with respect and dignity if there was a law? Yes.

John, I mean they confuse guilt with love. They are nice to people because they think they are suppposed to. I do not mean that they would say 'guilt is love'. What they think is love, is often actually guilt.

At that point love becomes a meaningless word. This type you are referring to can be replaced by a number of different words.

 

[Doreen]

I dont think anyone would.

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean no one would love anyone if there was no law?Do you only love people because of some law, John?

Would you treat them with respect and dignity if there was a law? Yes.

But the question is John, would you stop treating people with dignity and respect if there was no law? Is the only reason you treat people with respect because there are laws? Then you are a person who needs laws to control him?

At that point love becomes a meaningless word. This type you are referring to can be replaced by a number of different words.

I agree. That is precisely my point.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you love without having a law telling you to love, LG?

Depends how you want to clarify the "telling" aspect, since we are dealing with an entity that underpins reality. IOW its the nature of such laws to contextualize our existence and what is "natural" or even achievable.

For instance suppose you were trying to fall in love with my next door neighbor (someone whom you know practically nothing about). Even if you got behind this idea with every ounce of determination, do you think you would ever be successful (without falling back on a corrupted usage of the word eg - "I love the sunshine" etc)?

IOW love is dictated by something greater than ourselves since no amount of "telling" by our own authority can make it manifest.

 

[Doreen]

Depends how you want to clarify the "telling" aspect, since we are dealing with an entity that underpins reality.

For instance suppose you were trying to fall in love with my next door neighbor (someone whom you know practically nothing about). Even if you got behind this idea with every ounce of determination, do you think you would ever be successful (without falling back on a corrupted usage of the word eg - "I love the sunshine" etc)?

IOW love is dictated by something greater than ourselves since no amount of "telling" by our own authority can make it manifest.

If you mean a law as a principle, a force underlying reality which I am under the sway of, that seems like a whole different thing. Perhaps that is what he meant. But even then it is odd. The bad people he is referring to do not love. They are somehow immune to this fundamental principle. So it doesn't seem like a law. It seems like a possible current, I suppose, that someone could go along with or not. But even then I see no reason to separate myself from such a law and I find the use of the word 'law' unhelpful.

Further, you are using an extreme example as if this were all cases. It kind of evades the question. And while I might not fall in love with your neighbor, I might very well love her in a less let's get intimate kind of way.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Depends how you want to clarify the "telling" aspect, since we are dealing with an entity that underpins reality.

Then that would come under the rubric, effectively, of physical law, wouldn't it? A part of what defines/ orders existence.

 

[Lori_7]

Look at the following exchange....


You...

Here he says it is absurd to punish people for simply not being Christian and you disagree since they must be not participating in a way to abolish sin.

if the punishment is actually the consequence of sin, and christ is the only way to abolish sin...and if someone never finds that way, because they don't even believe it's possible...then wouldn't they stay in sin and continue in the consequence of it?

 

[IamJoseph]

You need to consider the possibility that some people do not need laws to treat others with respect and even love. The confusion between guilt and love is so huge that most people think guilt is love.

Maybe - but they can change if dependent on their own whims. And my history lessons say those who flaunted the laws commited the worst attrocities. So I rather that laws be enshrined - just in case. And who knows what one means when the word LOVE is so easily tossed about - love according to who's criteria?

 

[lightgigantic]

Then that would come under the rubric, effectively, of physical law, wouldn't it? A part of what defines/ orders existence.

probably not in the sense you are familiar with

 

[IamJoseph]

If you mean a law as a principle, a force underlying reality which I am under the sway of, that seems like a whole different thing. Perhaps that is what he meant.

Should you mean, what Moses meant, if your talking laws?

Never ceases to amaze.

 

[Doreen]

Maybe - but they can change if dependent on their own whims.

If all that is keeping them from switching on a whim, it is not love.

And my history lessons say those who flaunted the laws commited the worst attrocities.

The worst atrocities were made by people who made laws. Do you need laws to keep you from committing atrocities? If you do, please follow those laws.

So I rather that laws be enshrined - just in case. And who knows what one means when the word LOVE is so easily tossed about - love according to who's criteria?

Fair question.