Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who would have thought that two people who take God seriously would discuss Him thoroughly. Unbelievable!

[Kidlicious]

Actually your last post wasn't that bad. My only point has benn that you do in fact have to be obedient. Of course you have to love as well. That is a rule as well. But to be honest nobody loves everyone and can't. But you can treat them as though you do. I think loving someone is a way you treat them, not a feeling. I do things for strangers, not because I love them, but because that's what God commands. I don't tell them that I love them either. I tell them that God loves them.

[Elok]

You two talk way too much. Again, "If you love me you will obey my commands."

Elok, you're just an idiot. The issue was whether or not God was a rule maker. Period you moron. You seem to have read a bunch of other things into it. You're a ****.

pssst: nuance!

[Elok]

I think in the Bible, Israel gets obedience part down, but also shows how it falls short. Without loving first, obedience ends up being useless because the heart isn't it. It is only in loving first does one decide to be obedient because they WANT to be obedient. If you don't want to follow then you look for loopholes.

So I would disagree. I think Jesus arrived after humanity came to the conclusion that obedience by itself wasn't doing the proper thing (ie, when they were ready for the teaching that love is first).

The thing is, Israel prospers when it does obey, and fails when it falls away (er, rhyme not intended, honest). They have failed in obedience countless times by point of the Incarnation. Now, this may be because they only have the first part. Obedience is necessary but not sufficient, you might say. But they've learned to do the first part at least some of the time.

Also, WRT loopholes, I wouldn't say the Pharisees' behavior is loopholes so much as an indifference to the actual intended purpose of the Law

[kentonio]

My only point has benn that you do in fact have to be obedient.

Freudian slip?

[Elok]

I also think Kid is partially right in his last post insofar as love is an action as well as a feeling. I think a lot of our conception of love in the modern US is rooted in the soggy leftovers of the medieval ideal of Courtly Love (which tends to focus on the ephemeral, confused state of sexual infatuation rather than what should properly be called love), and has little to do with the NT idea.

[loinburger]

The idea of obedience out of love also makes obedience a moral act, instead of an amoral or immoral act. "I obey God (or whoever) out of love" provides an answer to the question "what if God (or whoever) ordered you to do something that is immoral" (e.g. murder your son) - if you obey out of fear then you won't worry about the moral implications of obeying an immoral command, whereas if you obey out of love then it's likely that you'll reassess your relationship with the person/entity issuing the immoral command rather than blindly obey.

In other words, the answer to "would you obey an immoral command" is probably "yes" if obeying out of fear, and is probably "the person/entity I love wouldn't issue that command" if obeying out of love.

[Elok]

I actually thought of Machiavelli while writing that first bit up there, and his quote about fear trumping love because love (as he thought of it, a fleeting feeling of mixed adoration and gratitude) would melt away due to humans' short memories and ingratitude, while the fear of violent reprisal always remained. And I think you may be right there, Loin, though love often comes with an equal measure of trust; you don't understand why you're supposed to do it, but you trust that your beloved has a reason. However, such a bond can become strained by such testing, where fear will stay there regardless.

But I think love is primarily an action, and the feelings we think of as love are just surface ripples from a deeper motion below. Love is a struggle--St. Paul talks about running the race which has been set before us--because people are rarely lovable, and we aren't always in a charitable mood. As Ivan says (yeah, I've rediscovered Dostoevsky and I won't shut up about him), it's much easier to love humanity than to love individual people. Humanity's always there as a shining figure in the imagination, like a Norman Rockwell painting of our species we can have warm feelings about. Then you get down to seeing the actual neighbor you're supposed to love, and you're cold and tired after a day at work and wouldn't you know it, the ****er went and dumped his leaves in your backyard again when you've asked him not to three damned times! You can only love under such circumstances by obedience, by acting in a loving way and trusting the feeling to grow after. Feelings don't last, but duty is always there as a pilot light to help you fire them up again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually your last post wasn't that bad. My only point has benn that you do in fact have to be obedient. Of course you have to love as well. That is a rule as well. But to be honest nobody loves everyone and can't. But you can treat them as though you do. I think loving someone is a way you treat them, not a feeling. I do things for strangers, not because I love them, but because that's what God commands. I don't tell them that I love them either. I tell them that God loves them.

That is actually a very good post. You do have to treat others as if you love them, even if you don't know them or don't like them at all. However, that is done because you love God and thus in loving God you want to do things for God and since God loves everyone and wants everyone treated kindly, you do the same because of your love for God. Thus obedience follows love.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The thing is, Israel prospers when it does obey, and fails when it falls away (er, rhyme not intended, honest). They have failed in obedience countless times by point of the Incarnation. Now, this may be because they only have the first part. Obedience is necessary but not sufficient, you might say. But they've learned to do the first part at least some of the time.

Also, WRT loopholes, I wouldn't say the Pharisees' behavior is loopholes so much as an indifference to the actual intended purpose of the Law

I think Israel's story backs what I have been saying. Israel kept turning away from God because the focus was obedience for obedience's sake and not because of a deep abiding love for God. The Book of Judges demonstrates this - Israel always turns back to God when they need help, but as soon as they are delivered, they go right back to worshiping other gods. However, if you truly love God, then how can you even think of going to other gods for worship? And that love will compel obedience because you want to please God.

As for the second point, that's probably a better way to put it. I doubt the Pharisees themselves were looking for loopholes, but I'd imagine ordinary Jews may have been. People who aren't fully invested tend to try to find ways out of doing things they should.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I also think Kid is partially right in his last post insofar as love is an action as well as a feeling. I think a lot of our conception of love in the modern US is rooted in the soggy leftovers of the medieval ideal of Courtly Love (which tends to focus on the ephemeral, confused state of sexual infatuation rather than what should properly be called love), and has little to do with the NT idea.

Agreed. Love is an action, but it springs from, well, not necessarily a feeling, but something else. Maybe a deep seated desire? Though that is a feeling, but not what we really think about in modern Western culture when we think about "in love".

[Lorizael]

How much of the Bible have you actually read?

All of it several times. Not that I'm bragging, but you asked.

To be honest I haven't a clue about a good deal of the Bible.

[BeBMan]

If I ever convert to Christianity I blame Imran and Elok for their patience of a saint shown in this thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's just say I was never this patient before I was a Christian (as I guess posters here can attest to). I still have a ways to go, though, of course.

[Kidlicious]

I've never had my patience tested so much as with Elok. He's the stupidest jackass on the internet. That said, nothing that he said in this thread made any sense.