|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A problem with the first commandment
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
Mark 12:29-30
The problem I have with this is that you cannot command 'love' and genuine heartfelt commitment. You can command fear and obedience, but absolute committed love?
Furthermore, love implies a free will decision, which is impossible when the failure to fulfil this condition results in an eternity of unspeakable torment. Such a threat constitutes coercion, does it not? And such coercion understandably breeds resentment and bitterness, which is hardly fertile soil for the nurturing of love and the trust which flows from it.
I am well aware of the different Greek words for 'love', but the command clearly states that we should 'love' (agapeseis - according to whatever definition) with all our being, the concept being distinguished from fear, honour or obedience.
What if someone were to say that he really did not love God, and he was only being honest about this? He just did not like various aspects of God's activity as recorded in the Bible, or perhaps as experienced - or, more likely, not experienced - in his own life, and so integrity and honesty compelled him to say that he neither loved nor even liked God. He was not prepared to indulge in phony pious love out of fear of damnation. Is such a person going to be punished brutally for all eternity for being honest?
Or perhaps such honesty is a deep form of actually loving God?
Any thoughts about this problem? Or perhaps you don't see it as a problem?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I see it as no different than needing to believe in order to share the bounty in the afterlife.
Both are ludicrous in a Christian context.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
The commandment may be internally consistent, in that the opening statement about the Lord being one could be linked to the subsequent requirement to love him with all your heart, soul etc. I.e. if there is only one god then love of god(s) need not be divided amongst many gods.
However, that doesn't get around the primary problem you have identified, which is how is it possible to love to order? How can that be genuine love? I suspect the circle can only be squared by coming up with rather novel interpretations of rather ordinary English words.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
However, that doesn't get around the primary problem you have identified, which is how is it possible to love to order? How can that be genuine love? I suspect the circle can only be squared by coming up with rather novel interpretations of rather ordinary English words.
That of course raises the question whether or not the rather ordinary English words have the precise nuance of the original Hebrew words.
(I see from the OED that the use of the word 'commandment' in English dates back to before 'command' and 'commend' were separated out in meaning.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
If the Ten Commandments are merely Ten Commendations ("I do suggest that you ought to consider whether it's really a good idea to covert your neighbour's ass.") it tends to pull out the rug from under centuries of fire and brimstone sermons.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The problem I have with this is that you cannot command 'love' and genuine heartfelt commitment. You can command fear and obedience, but absolute committed love?
Loving God and loving our neighbors are supposed to be the ends of human life. In commanding us to love him, God is not issuing an arbitrary decree, but calling us to order ourselves to our proper ends.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
If the Ten Commandments are merely Ten Commendations ("I do suggest that you ought to consider whether it's really a good idea to covert your neighbour's ass.") it tends to pull out the rug from under centuries of fire and brimstone sermons.
They're actually the Ten Expectations. They're not written in the imperative but in the future indicative.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I don't see any conflict.
We are commanded / commended / expected to love. If we find that we aren't then we need to change something (whatever is getting in the way, perhaps our view of ourselves / others / the world) until we do. When we find we are loving with all our heart, then we know we are closer to the path / truth / target / desired behavior.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
We could open up the discussion about the difference between the God of the OT versus the God of the NT.
or, for that matter, the difference between the generally-accepted set of teachings of Jesus versus the long rant of Jesus in the Gospel of John
or the difference between the God who says He is Love and the God who expects that 99% of everyone who ever lived will have to go to hell anyway because he is so P.O'd at some aspect of their non-belief in the right form of Jesus.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
A short possibly oversimplified history.
The Hebrew Scriptures imply two reasons for obeying the Law, or God's commands. The first is that they're a good and wise and just basis for a society. They are the way that lead to life. The word of the Lord is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path. (The idea that a society is founded when someone gives it laws is not at all unique to Israel in the Ancient World.) The second is that having contracted with God to be given such good laws, the people owe it to God to obey them.
Note that the Hebrew Scriptures don't contain anything about Hell or much about an afterlife at all.
Cutting a long story short: by the Middle Ages, there's a third strand, which is perhaps Platonic in origin. There are hints in Paul. The aim of human life is to achieve the mystical vision of God, to love God and enjoy God for ever. Hell is to be deprived of God. So here God's commands - at least those that go beyond the natural moral law - are training to become fitted for heaven. Hell is the permanent irrevocable inability to achieve that vision.
So there are now three slightly different reasons to live a Christian life. What then happens is largely due to William of Occam. Occam says this is all needlessly complicated. If God tells you to do something then, because he's your creator and because he can coerce you, you're obliged to do it. If that's sufficient reason, we don't need any others.
After Occam any analogue to the mystical vision drops out of ethics. Pre-Occam most moralists would say that the pleasures of the wicked are illusory pleasures. Afterwards, many thinkers assume that the difference between the pleasures of the good and the pleasures of the wicked is one of quantity only: God has set things up so that good is rewarded with more of the same. So we can get a purely secular ethics. God is irrelevant, or merely there to balance the scales a bit. (For instance, John Locke says that the happy and virtuous life consists in following reason. But because we're apt to follow immediate self-gratification against our long-term rational interests, God makes the issue clear by attaching eternal rewards and penalties to our actions.)
So the meanings of the terms and concepts, and the relations between them, have changed over time.
Of course, Christianity does say that we are incapable of properly following any of God's commands out of our own power. We need grace.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Loving God and loving our neighbors are supposed to be the ends of human life. In commanding us to love him, God is not issuing an arbitrary decree, but calling us to order ourselves to our proper ends.
But the problem concerns the idea of "God respecting our freedom". We are to love freely, from the heart, but how is this possible if the failure to do this results in a fate that is incomprehensibly horrific? Surely many people turn to God out of sheer fear, and try to effect some kind of 'love' for Him in order to avoid hell. In other words, they have failed to keep the first commandment, even though they desperately want to avoid going to hell (and who can blame them?). This is surely the very antithesis of freedom. If they were truly free, they would be honest in their attitude towards God, but then they would be punished for being honest!
I think what I am trying to say is that honesty should be understood as intrinsic to love. Someone reads parts of the Bible that describe God's judgments, say, the horrific judgment on Jericho that involved the Israelites having to put little children to the sword (what kind of mental illness would that induce in the Israelites carrying out this command?). He says in his heart: "I hate God for doing that." Or perhaps he has some problem in his life and he feels God is not attending to it, and he feels incredible anger and frustration towards God. But then he thinks that such thoughts are blasphemy and that he is endangering his eternal soul by entertaining these sentiments. So off he trots to church to worship God, and out of his mouth come all sorts of nice statements about how wonderful God is etc.. But in his heart he is raging.
He is not acting in freedom and honesty when he worships God, but out of fear of hell. Now how can this outward 'love' and worship of God really be a genuine act of obedience to the first commandment? I would have thought that an honest expression of his hatred, anger and bitterness would actually be more 'loving', because it is based on truth.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
I have myself struggled with this idea of 'loving' God. There are some days when I find it tricky to love my husband and children, who I know and like, let alone some out there entity who I don't really know. It is hard to feel warm and fuzzy towards someone who at any moment could rain fire and brimstone down on me, or alternatively give me health, wealth and happiness according to some mystical ineffable plan of theirs.
However, because I really do believe that I am a better person as a Christian and I daily choose to believe in the Trinity I have had to try and think my way around it.
I think 'love' is often an action rather than a feeling. Having been married for nearly 31 years my relationship with my husband is not the same as it was in our courting days. We do love each other but often our love is shown in ways that may not seem like romantic love. For instance, I rarely am given flowers or chocolates. I am though brought a cup of tea in bed every morning. I rarely cuddle up with my husband in front of the telly any more, although I do try to cook meals that I know he will particularly enjoy, rather than my favourites.
This then is love - to do things that will please the other rather than ourselves. We do not have to feel the warm fuzzies to love God, we do however, have to act and think in ways He would approve of.
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think I would also quibble with the idea of commanding fear and obedience. As with love, merely commanding has no guarantee of the expected outcomes.
Fear needs backing up with particular threats which can be seen as likely to be carried out. "I know where you live" would work, if I knew that person concerned had damaged others, but not if they were a small child who had demanded, but not received, an icecream. "I will spread your atoms over the universe" would not work as I have no belief that that power exists, even if the menacing person were indeed otherwise very menacing in behaviour.
Obedience needs backing up by a really good reason (which may be implicit). "Duck!" would work without explanation, as would "Run!". So would "Don't use the swing because the rope is worn." (Note Susan Coolidge reference.) If the obedience is due to fear, it may have the appearance, but not the essence of the thing, and future disobedience may be brewing. Ought to be brewing. Not the sort of obedience a benign deity would want, surely.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
There's only a problem with the first commandment if love is an emotion. Obviously you can't command emotion. But if love is actually a habitual way of action, then there is no problem.
Emotions are often of no practical use to the person being "emoted at". Your feeling of warm fuzziness may be of less importance to your child than the knowledge to them that they can rely on you to clothe, feed, and nurture them.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There is a problem if love is an action without the feeling behind it - like obedience, it could be masking very unlovely things.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There is a problem if love is an action without the feeling behind it - like obedience, it could be masking very unlovely things.
Mistakenly, perhaps. If it is intentionally doing nasty things, then it isn't love.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's only a problem with the first commandment if love is an emotion. Obviously you can't command emotion. But if love is actually a habitual way of action, then there is no problem.
quote:
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall go through the motions with the Lord your God with adequate diligence’
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Emotions are often of no practical use to the person being "emoted at". Your feeling of warm fuzziness may be of less importance to your child than the knowledge to them that they can rely on you to clothe, feed, and nurture them.
I went to an amusent park with a close friend. He fully participated in everything, but gave little emotional feedback. I had thought he had a less than stellar experience. It lessened my experience as I felt a lack of connection. I learned years later from his wife that he rated it as one of the best such experiences he'd had. So, no, the motions are not enough.
But then, why would God, as defined by Christianity, need such is beyond my ken.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
All the same, lilbuddha, I'd rather be fed without affection than have affection and starve.
I seem to recall J.H.Newman saying something about love as "acting-as-if-loving", but unfortunately I'm not in the same place as my Newman books at the moment.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If one's parenting method is affection or food, I would suggest a rethink on the idea of participating.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Here is a practical rendering by St Thomas Aquinas:
quote:
The Perfection of Love of God That is Necessary to Salvation
In another way we love God with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength, if nothing in us is lacking to divine love, if there is nothing which we do not, actually or habitually, refer to God. And a precept is given concerning this divine love.
First, man should refer all things to God as his end, as the Apostle says: "Whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31). One fulfills this when one orders his life to God's service, and thus all the things that he does for himself, he virtually orders to God, unless they are things that lead away from God, such as sins: thus man loves God with his whole heart.
Secondly, man should subject his intellect to God, believing those things that are divinely revealed, according to the Apostle: "taking understanding captivity, unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Thus man loves God with his whole mind.
Thirdly, all the things a man loves, he should love in God, and universally refer all his affection to the love of God; hence the Apostle says "whether we be transported in mind it is to God, or whether we be sober, it is for you; for the charity of Christ presses us" (2 Cor. v. 13). Thus man loves God with his whole soul.
Fourthly, man should derive all his external works, words and deeds from divine love, according to the Apostle: "Let all your things be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14), and thus a man loves God with all his strength.
This is, then, the third mode of perfect divine love, to which all are bound by the necessity of precept. But the second mode [The Perfection of Love of God That Belongs to Those Who Enjoy Beatitude] is not possible to anyone in this life, unless he is at the same time a wayfarer and an enjoyer of beatitude, as was our Lord Jesus Christ.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
'With' is the important word, I think. It's telling us HOW to love God, rather than telling us to love God.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's only a problem with the first commandment if love is an emotion. Obviously you can't command emotion. But if love is actually a habitual way of action, then there is no problem.
I think Adeodatus has hit on what this is actually about. It's a mistake to regard love, as in love of God and neighbour, as an emotion. It's a will to good and a call to action. If I love my neighbour, I can never harm him or her, and would will all good for him at all times. This doesn't mean that I have to like him. It isn't human nature for us to like all people equally. But Christian love requires us to treat all people with equal dignity and care. But we can't do it without bucketloads of divine grace. I think the same is true of forgiveness. It doesn't mean that we stop hurting from wrong which has been done to us. Just that we don't take it into account in our dealings with the forgiven. Thus divine love is restored.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Brilliant, no problem. ... Apart from how does one love God apart from loving neighbour? What habitual way of action can be taken toward God apart from that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
And using your wealth and other resources for God - 'strength' can be translated as 'resources'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not...:
Brilliant, no problem. ... Apart from how does one love God apart from loving neighbour? What habitual way of action can be taken toward God apart from that?
I agree with Gwai that prayer and devotion can be acts we perform Godwardn in part to show our love. But in Jesus command, "if you love me, keep my commandments," and His revelation that His comand is "love one another as I have loved you," he is telling us that it's mainly through love of neighbour that we show our love for God. That's why the two commandments, which don't appear together in the OT, are linked by Jesus. They're inseperable.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
But nothing in the discussion so far answers the question as to how we can love God freely if the alternative is so horrific. Unless, of course, we abolish hell, which admittedly takes some doing, biblically speaking.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, one needs to pray to love God? Directly? For its own sake? Or to be better able to love others INCLUDING self?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Seems hard to claim to love someone you never bother to try to communicate with at all.
What, like God does?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then I love God more than I love anyone.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But nothing in the discussion so far answers the question as to how we can love God freely if the alternative is so horrific. Unless, of course, we abolish hell, which admittedly takes some doing, biblically speaking.
The Israelites were invited by God into covenant relationship. They accepted as a community, and were bound by its terms in community. Through Jesus individuals of every are and creed are invited into loving relationship. If we accept, then by our free will we accept the terms, with no coercion. There would be no point in paying lip service to worship, as if God wouldn't know!
Emotion can't be separated out from love. Relationship with God is of the heart, like loving relationship between people. It results in action, as we try to please our beloved.
If we thought that God was evil, it's unlikely that we would accept the offer of any relationship with God, let alone hope for one which would last forever. Day by day we find that all God asks of us and wants from us is good for humanity. OT stories must be reflected upon in context.
As for hell, what do you imagine, and why? If some die and are not resurrected into eternal life as they refused the invitation, what's wrong with that? If everyone is judged by a perfect judge, what's wrong with that?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Seems hard to claim to love someone you never bother to try to communicate with at all.
What, like God does?
I think God does try to communicate. Sometimes we occasionally even notice and understand. To be fair, I don't think most of us spend very long listening for God. I'm not Charismatic, but I do think we hear from God more often than we think.
For instance, if you go to church stressed and go home feeling much more on top of things, maybe it was just the great guitar, but are you sure that's all it is? I don't know.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
If we accept, then by our free will we accept the terms, with no coercion.
So presumably, if there is no coercion, then if we do not accept the terms, we will not face any negative consequences?
After all, if someone asked me very politely and graciously to love him, but added that if I didn't he would gouge my eyes out, could I really say that my response to that invitation would be genuinely free?
[ 22. August 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Where have you got the idea from that your eyes would be gouged out?
If a relationship that's offered includes benefits, but you don't want the relationship, would you still expect the benefits?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
Where have you got the idea from that your eyes would be gouged out?
I was just using that as an example of the threat of torture, which isn't even really comparable to the horrors of hell, but falls far short of it.
quote:
If a relationship that's offered includes benefits, but you don't want the relationship, would you still expect the benefits?
So one of the benefits of this 'love' relationship is simply that of "not being tortured"? That seems very strange to me. It does seem very much the case that this benefit is being offered by coercion, given that the threat of torture is generally reckoned to be a tool of coercion.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So presumably, if there is no coercion, then if we do not accept the terms, we will not face any negative consequences?
After all, if someone asked me very politely and graciously to love him, but added that if I didn't he would gouge my eyes out, could I really say that my response to that invitation would be genuinely free?
Consider that God is hidden. Of course, once you do realise that God exists, and what God is and wants of you, then you are kind of coerced. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and all that. But in a quite practical way, God only appears as a potential threat to you if you already have decided to believe that He is even around. Further, I think you will find that even if you sort of believe that God exists, you do not necessarily believe in Him in a way that will make you do X and avoid Y. You can believe in God quite the same way as you believe in the Andromeda galaxy, as a distant entity. And again, in some sense it is your own mind that must bring God closer. You must start to worry about whether God wants you to do X and avoid Y. And if you are there, then again you may find that there's also Z to consider in God. But just knowing Z will not do it for you, you need to realise Z in God for yourself. Etc.
Now, all this sounds a bit mechanical and as matter of fact in the beginning it can be. And that is good. For fear of God is indeed the proper beginning of wisdom, but not its end. God doesn't throw you into the deep end, He starts you by wading into the shallow part. But this process of drawing closer to God will not work mechanically for long. If that's all there is in your mind, you will stop with God at arm's length. Or at barge pole length, more likely. But if all goes well, you might actually find it attractive to go a little further. You may start to seek God in this. And ideally this will ramp up and up until all these steps and things just fly past as you burn to reach Him. And that I think is what the Saints talk about, who literally tear through their life and being trying to remove anything that still keeps them away from God, with almost painful intensity. This then is however not "coerced", indeed, the initial threat of missing God has completely evaporated in this hot pursuit of God.
And all this, I think, is starting to look a lot like love. It even looks to me, as if it can engage the very same human passions that can drive people to extremes of romantic love (Romeo and Juliet), and release the same all consuming energies. But of course here there is a different target.
So my answer why we live fourscore in this world is that God allows us space to love Him. Love Him in a human sense, we can find God in this world. In the next, in the presence of God, we cannot find Him for He will be before us, and we cannot love Him in a human way, but only by having our vision beatified by grace. In the full blast of Divine light, you can only walk forward into the supernova or shield yourself and cower away from it. But in the twilight of this world, you can seek the light, you can try to clean your mirror so that more and more light shines onto you. This is the place where God comes to us as human, and where we can love Him as humans love a human.
Yes, it is a race for the finish, yes it is full of hurdles and we must win or be lost...
but...
But I would walk 500 miles
And I would walk 500 more
Just to be the man who walked a 1000 miles
To fall down at your door
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I was just using that as an example of the threat of torture, which isn't even really comparable to the horrors of hell, but falls far short of it.
You imagine a hell in which someone is physically tortured. Where do you get this idea from? Why do you believe it?
quote:
So one of the benefits of this 'love' relationship is simply that of "not being tortured"? That seems very strange to me. It does seem very much the case that this benefit is being offered by coercion, given that the threat of torture is generally reckoned to be a tool of coercion.
I don't and haven't associated God with torture, you have. The benefits of a loving relationship with God are many and various, but they include the hope of the gift of eternal life with God. Would you hope for that gift, if you didn't want relationship with God?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
For instance, if you go to church stressed and go home feeling much more on top of things, maybe it was just the great guitar, but are you sure that's all it is? I don't know.
Damn straight it was the great guitar!
Marvin
Church guitarist
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
But seriously, I'm not the first person to say that if God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, it wouldn't kill Him to pick up the phone once in a while.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, I'm not the first person to say that if God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, it wouldn't kill Him to pick up the phone once in a while.
He does. It's called the Bible.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, I'm not the first person to say that if God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, it wouldn't kill Him to pick up the phone once in a while.
He does. It's called the Bible.
Can you imagine a father who never actually talks to his child, but who wrote a book before the child was born full of his thoughts, laws and sentiments, and the only way the child can 'engage' with his father is to read that book?
It sounds extremely unhealthy and impersonal to me.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You know, I am not sure that love demands a free choice. I don't think I ever freely chose to love my mother, and I can't say that I am freely choosing to continue loving her. I love her because she's my mom, and she's nice and makes S.O.S. I love her because of things completely out of my control. It's the same with my wife. I didn't make her beautiful or gentle, or able to withstand my sarcasm or constant feelings of dread, but those things compel me to love her.
On the other hand, I doesn't seem to me that one cannot have free choice just because the wrong choice comes with threat of punishment. In fact, I would say refusing to grant people the consequences of the choices they make is to deprive them of agency.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But seriously, I'm not the first person to say that if God wants us to be in a relationship with Him, it wouldn't kill Him to pick up the phone once in a while.
He does. It's called the Bible.
Yes - like it is so crystal clear - not
[ 23. August 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But in a quite practical way, God only appears as a potential threat to you if you already have decided to believe that He is even around.
The message, present in Christianity from the very beginning, of "turn or burn," belies this absurd claim. When the possibility of the existence of God is wrapped up in a hermetically-sealed package with the threat of eternal torment, you (generic "you") are asking, begging, expecting, and DEMANDING that people feel threatened. You are leading with threat; you are using the threat to impel the belief. It's not "first you got the belief, then sometime later you get the threat." Christian evangelism has from Day One been in the form of a club with the words "Believe in God" in large friendly letters on the business end.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Christian evangelism has from Day One been in the form of a club with the words "Believe in God" in large friendly letters on the business end.
It's not obvious from the book of Acts that, 'You're all going to Hell; teeth will be provided,' was the major theme of Paul's preaching.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Spreading the good news of Christianity, that we all have hope of eternal life with God if we follow Christ, rather than perish, is not to offer a threat to fear but a promise to enjoy.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But in a quite practical way, God only appears as a potential threat to you if you already have decided to believe that He is even around.
The message, present in Christianity from the very beginning, of "turn or burn," belies this absurd claim.
Uhh, no? If one doesn't believe in the existence of the Christian God, then obviously "turn or burn" is a meaningless threat. As I've said in the preceding sentence which you did not choose to quote - once one does believe in God, one indeed starts with a fear of God (and certain evangelism strategies may well emphasize that). However, as the post went on, this fear is often skin deep and ... Well, I tell you what, why don't you just read my previous post if you are interested?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
