mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence) (06/12/91)
>In article <Jun.9.14.44.57.1991.25105@athos.rutgers.edu> kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) writes: >>He didn't want us to love him >>because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I >>personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. > In article <Jun.10.23.32.21.1991.1270@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >so instead of not giving us a choice to love him, he gives us the >ever-popular "love me or else" concept. Oh so much better to be >sure. Is love derived of fear of punishment any better than love >that is forced? > >You are still left with a petty, spiteful, God who seems more bent >on revenge and hatred than anything else... Only, perhaps, if one is bent on perceiving Him that way. I've known children who, as a result of mistreatment or bad parenting, seem to be incapable of viewing any action taken in their behalf by someone else without suspicion and distrust. A guardian of such a child could take any number of actions for the child's benefit. The child could perceive such actions as petty, spiteful, done for revenge and perhaps as an expression of hatred. On the other hand, a child secure in the love of a parent or lovers secure in their love for one another have no reason to distrust the motivations of the actions taken in their behalf. One's picture of God depends, in an essential way, on one's relationship with Him. -- mark@drd.com mark@jnoc.go.jp $B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B Nihil novum sub solem
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (06/15/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.38.16.1991.23944@athos.rutgers.edu> mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence) writes: >In article <Jun.10.23.32.21.1991.1270@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>so instead of not giving us a choice to love him, he gives us the >>ever-popular "love me or else" concept. Oh so much better to be >>sure. Is love derived of fear of punishment any better than love >>that is forced? >> >>You are still left with a petty, spiteful, God who seems more bent >>on revenge and hatred than anything else... >Only, perhaps, if one is bent on perceiving Him that way. I've known >children who, as a result of mistreatment or bad parenting, seem to be >incapable of viewing any action taken in their behalf by someone else >without suspicion and distrust. Could you blame the child for not trusting anyone? Having worked with several children who come from 'distrupted' homes (a nice way of saying their parents were unfit bastards) I've run into this a number of times. >A guardian of such a child could take >any number of actions for the child's benefit. The child could perceive >such actions as petty, spiteful, done for revenge and perhaps as an >expression of hatred. Again, what do you expect? >On the other hand, a child secure in the love of a parent or lovers >secure in their love for one another have no reason to distrust the >motivations of the actions taken in their behalf. This is a very good analogy. The child here would be us and the parent would, of course, be God. Now the abused child who would/could not trust their adult couterparts because of poor early experience would be like someone who would/could not trust/believe in God, right? That child (sinner) would go to hell. Bingo. Now you're starting to catch on! Any religious system that contains eternal punishment of any kind for any reason is inherently intollerant and dangerous... not to mention just a bit silly. Jeff Lindborg "Religion begins where intelligence ends." D.
kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) (06/22/91)
Jeff, would you not agree that one of the distinguishing characteristics of being human is the ability to make informed choices? And for every choice we make, the natural order of things dictates that there are consequences. As a christian, it is my belief that God gave humanity this ability because he didn't want "robots", but thinking, choosing beings. We should begin from the premise that we are "creations" of God, thus, we "belong" to Him. This concept of belonging is critical to understanding the christian's view of God. Getting back to choices, we believe that humnity before the "fall" was perfect in every way. We believe that the "fall" was a rejection of God's natural place in our lives, and that we chose instead to do things "our way". This is, of course, a simplified version of things, to be sure. Hell is not so much the product of a vengeful God saying "Love me - or else!", but it is the natural result of our choice. It is man separated from God. It sounds to me like you are thinking of hell in terms of a red-suited devil sitting among flames and coals. That is a bit silly, and it misses the point. (I do believe in a devil, by the way, but that's another subject). Hell is the absence of God, and in His absence, the corruption of all that we were created to be; it is the degradation of humanity. And the point that has yet to be made here is that no one has to suffer this. Would a vengeful God suffer the indignity of becoming a human infant, born among cow dung? He was despised by the very people he came to save, and paid the ultimate price for us - he gave his own life on a bloody cross in exchange for our debt. He saved us from the natural consequence of our own bad choice. There was no obligation for Him to do this. He freely chose to. Vengeful? No, I think of God as being loving without any limits. True, we have the freedom to embrace or reject that love. But being free always has a price. Kay