In contrast, if everyone is only thinking of themselves they only reap what they are able to give to themselves. It’s the Scrooge who has no friends on Christmas for he was only concerned with himself. When he was given a look at his life and the harm he was causing to others and the condition of his own life as a bitter lonely old man he comes to realize that he wants to be apart of community life. Selfishness never benefited him. Everyone else understood something he didn’t and he was missing out on life.
Jesus said that anyone who wants to keep his life must give it away. Love is sacrificial for it is the only way it is experienced in full. Love of oneself alone is not real love at all. Giving is always better than receiving. It proves true time and again. It does not seem logical to give away what you want to keep, but it is the way that works. Consider others better than yourself. . . Consider such a world where people value others more than themselves.
I think its fear that often holds us back. We don’t really believe. We think if we hold on to our money tightly it will go better for us than being cheerful givers. We think if we make sure our own needs our provided we will be happy and are left unsatisfied. We think that love is about making ourselves happy and we give up on anyone who doesn’t make us happy resulting in great anguish. In reality, the only love that benefits us is the kind we give away. We must give. We must relinquish the fear and trust the truth. The truth needs to move from our head to our actions.
Give and it will be given back to you. Lay down your life for His sake and you will gain life everlasting. Consider others greater than yourself and you will never lack for friends. It’s all possible in Him. We can do all things through Christ who gives us strength.
36 comments:
I help and give to others cheerfully because there are people that need help and I have the resources to help them. Not because there is some guy in the sky telling me that I have to in order to avoid punishment and reap rewards.
Here is a link that will help you understand http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html#part5:dce
or for even more about morals you can read the whole article http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html
Karla, good blog. Love makes the world go round and God is Love. Jesus is the perfect example of sacrificial love. Great seeing you Christmas Eve. May God Bless and prosper you in 2009.
Hi GW. I really don't want to refer to you as Godless, even if you see yourself that way.
If you have been reading my blog you will find I never have spoken of a God who punishes us if we don't do good things. I know that is a stereotype that is sometimes true of the way some theists and some Christians see God. But it is not the God of the Bible. I don't need an ebon muse article about why such a God is a bad idea for I don't serve such a God. The God you speak of isn't God.
We are called to love because God's love flows through us. Not out of religious compulsion, not to avoid some punishment, not to gain reward. But simply because our hearts are coming in line with His heart and His heart is love.
You don't have to do a thing to earn His love. He already loves you just as you are. You are fearfully and wonderfully made.
"We are called to love because God's love flows through us. Not out of religious compulsion, not to avoid some punishment, not to gain reward. But simply because our hearts are coming in line with His heart and His heart is love."
Because god is love, and presumably you "know" that god is love, correct? Well, I just so happen to know that you are wrong and that god is not love. Now what?
Anonymous, if you don't believe God exist how can you make claims about His nature? You have to first accept His existence to make statements about His nature.
Karla said...
You have to first accept His existence to make statements about His nature.
An 'If God exists' statement can cover that.
If god does not exist, then god is not love by definition. But, hey, how do you know that I haven't been converted and believe in a different god than you? Maybe I know that this god exists and that this god is not love. In fact, I do know that god is not love, so there. Now what will you do? You can assert all you like that god is love without sufficient basis, but I can simply counter-assert and we are back to square one. You have no basis to make these assertions, especially not in the authoritative manner that you do.
A statement means nothing if you don't trust the experience/knowledge of the one making the statement.
Then why shouldn't I say that your statement that god is love means nothing?
My statement was agreeing with yours. That if you don't trust my experiences and my knowledge it's difficult to prove any statement to you especially that one.
And you aren't seeing the issue here?
Your whole entire blog may as well not even exist, considering it is entirely based on your opinions about your subjective experience/"knowledge." IOW, you've just admitted that your blog is not worth the bandwidth that you are using.
Most of what I write isn't based solely on my experience. Yet I have also experienced it. Many millions of others have too. But there is a certain degree of trust needed to believe anything at all. If you are skeptical about everything you will never be certain about anything. You will never trust any knowledge whether it be regarding God or any other information. I would take it if you want to know about the Christian God you talk to Christians. If I want to know about what atheists believe, (and I do) I talk to atheists.
And if you feel my blog is such a waste of space, why persist in reading it? No one is forcing you to.
"And if you feel my blog is such a waste of space, why persist in reading it?"
Um, no, you seem to think it's a waste of space based on your comments. Of course, you don't actually think that, so why do you make comments like the ones you did? Because you don't even understand what it is that you are talking about, as per usual.
It doesn't matter how many people think they've experienced the Xian god, because that's an argumentum ad populum. Even the most popular idea can be wrong. And, your appeal to my hyper-skepticism is misplaced in this discussion. I'm now contending that I know you are wrong, just as you claim to know that I am wrong. Now that I'm answering your certainty with my own certainty, I thought you might see the absurdity of your own statements....apparently not.
Anonymous, I can have certainty of knowing something exits. I only have to know that. You on the other hand would have to know all things to prove that God doesn't exist. So it is possible for me to be certain, but logically impossible for you to be. Albeit, my certainty does not offer proof to you, but it is logically possible. My argument cannot rest solely on my experience for your sake. Which is why I speak of more than my experience, but I include my experiences because it is truth that is able to be experienced. I can't experience the existence of George Washington for I can't meet him, so all I can rely on is historical accounts, but with Jesus I have both historical accounts, and personal experience.
I was heretofore agreeing with you that my experience only helps my case if you have reason to trust I am not lying or delusional. Hard facts can be discussed without that trust, and I have given those as well, even though you haven't accepted them. I think it possible for me to establish that I am honest and trustworthy, but maybe that is my being too optimistic.
"Anonymous, I can have certainty of knowing something exits. I only have to know that."
Um, wrong. You are claiming that not only does god exist, but that god is love. I know that you are wrong about this just as you claim to know that you are right. You STILL can't see the absurdity?
"You on the other hand would have to know all things to prove that God doesn't exist. So it is possible for me to be certain, but logically impossible for you to be."
If another theist claims to know that you are wrong in your estimation of god, what then? Will you claim that this person can't be certain but that you can? Again, it's absurd.
"Albeit, my certainty does not offer proof to you, but it is logically possible."
If we stretch logic to include omni-max entities, etc. then yeah, it's as logically possible as many other highly improbable things. So what? You aren't claiming possibility but certainty.
"Which is why I speak of more than my experience, but I include my experiences because it is truth that is able to be experienced."
I have yet to see you do this. Where are your logical, rational arguments? Where is your evidence?
"I was heretofore agreeing with you that my experience only helps my case if you have reason to trust I am not lying or delusional."
Or mistaken or any number of other things that would discount your testimony. But, you still don't get it. Even if you aren't delusional or lying, your claim to certainty is easily destroyed by my counter-claim to certainty.
"Hard facts can be discussed without that trust, and I have given those as well, even though you haven't accepted them."
Such as? I don't recall any hard facts that point to god or god being love.
"I think it possible for me to establish that I am honest and trustworthy, but maybe that is my being too optimistic."
Even the most honest and trustworthy people can be spectacularly wrong about something they believe is true. Do you really not understand that?
BTW, are you claiming that I am not honest or trustworthy? If so, on what grounds do you claim this? If not, then why would you not take my testimony as evidence? You seem to think I should believe in your testimony if I think you trustworthy and honest, but you wouldn't extend the same courtesy in the other direction now, would you?
”Um, wrong. You are claiming that not only does god exist, but that god is love. I know that you are wrong about this just as you claim to know that you are right. You STILL can't see the absurdity?”
So my certainty of God being love is what you are disputing not my certainty that He exists? So I can know that He exists, but not that one of his attributes is love?
”If another theist claims to know that you are wrong in your estimation of god, what then? Will you claim that this person can't be certain but that you can? Again, it's absurd.”
What evidence would prove to you that a father loves his children? How can that be proven to another? If a child says I know my daddy loves me to a person not in relationship with his father, what evidence would you accept that supports that? Or do you see that as falling under uncertainty as well and thus unsupportable?
”Or mistaken or any number of other things that would discount your testimony. But, you still don't get it. Even if you aren't delusional or lying, your claim to certainty is easily destroyed by my counter-claim to certainty.”
How so? You don’t even believe God exist how can you be certain as to his nature? If your grounds for his not being loving are based on his non-existence then I understand why you cannot agree to the attributes of an in your mind imaginary figure. But if you are investigating Christianity as a whole then that includes a loving God. He has proven his love through Christ. But if you reject the whole package than I understand that would be rejected too. But I haven’t seen a good reason to reject it all.
And no I don’t think you are being dishonest. I think you have not experienced the existence of God as you say. But your non-experience doesn’t counter my experience. If you had never experienced the taste of chocolate that would not mean that negates my having thoroughly enjoyed its reality.
Also "love" is only one attribute though all His attributes work together so even in His justice He is still love. One of my links on the side of my blog is to a blog of A.W. Tozer's writings on the Attributes of God. You may be interested in looking through that.
Is the existence of hell the only reason you think He can't be a God who loves?
"So my certainty of God being love is what you are disputing not my certainty that He exists? So I can know that He exists, but not that one of his attributes is love?"
For the purposes of this discussion, I was focusing on your claim that god is love. Don't take that as license to put words in my mouth.
"What evidence would prove to you that a father loves his children?"
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Again, what will you say if another theist comes up to you and says that they know that your god is not the true god and that god is not love as you claim? Your only counter to that is to say, "Well, I know that you are wrong," which only sets off a circular argument where you both claim divine knowledge that the other is wrong. This is absurd, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised that you can't see that.
"How so? You don’t even believe God exist how can you be certain as to his nature?"
Or any other theist that does believe in god. Regardless, my claim that I don't believe in god does not invalidate my "argument" that I know you are wrong any more than your belief in god validates your "knowledge" of what you claim to know. If you can make unevidenced, uncritical, and unbacked assertions about some mystical knowledge, so can I. What matters is what you can back up and you have spectacularly failed at backing up your assertions.
"But if you are investigating Christianity as a whole then that includes a loving God."
A "loving" god that commits genocide you mean? Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm simply claiming to know that you are wrong because I have certain counter-factual knowledge. That you can't see the absurdity of the situation and interpolate (extrapolate?) it back to your own position Is simply ridiculous.
"He has proven his love through Christ."
Says you and your opinion. I, however, happen to know that your opinion on the matter is wrong, so therefore you are wrong.
"But if you reject the whole package than I understand that would be rejected too. But I haven’t seen a good reason to reject it all."
You don't need a reason to reject it, you need a reason to accept it. If you need a reason to reject it, then you should believe in every god that's ever been formulated since none of them have been conclusively disproven. You should also believe in fairies, Santa Claus, leprechauns, etc.
"And no I don’t think you are being dishonest. I think you have not experienced the existence of God as you say."
So, I could be mistaken is what you are saying, or simply ignorant? But, you're not willing to say the same about yourself are you?
"But your non-experience doesn’t counter my experience."
Sure it does. If you can make reaching statements about what you know based on what could be incorrect sensory perception, then I can make counter-statements and they cancel each other out. Are you claiming that your certainty is more valuable or more certain that anyone else's? If you don't like thinking about my certainty, think of the certainty of other theists, like those who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up for their faith. Are they not as certain as you are? Are you willing to die for your cause?
"If you had never experienced the taste of chocolate that would not mean that negates my having thoroughly enjoyed its reality."
If you couldn't produce evidence of this thing called, "Chocolate," then your statement would be analogous to saying that you've thoroughly enjoyed the reality of "ghurthgind." I'm well within my rights to say that you've done no such thing.
"Also "love" is only one attribute though all His attributes work together so even in His justice He is still love."
And, I happen to know that you are wrong.
"One of my links on the side of my blog is to a blog of A.W. Tozer's writings on the Attributes of God. You may be interested in looking through that."
I have. It's dreck.
"Is the existence of hell the only reason you think He can't be a God who loves?"
No, and you haven't been paying attention, nor are you up to date with your Bible and all the genocides, disease, etc. or the state of the modern world with all the genocides, disease, etc.
It doesn't come down to simply personal experience about one aspect of God. To compare Christianity to other theists beliefs one would need to compare the entire package. The whole worldview, not just one aspect. If you pull out an aspect and try and disprove it without looking at the whole package it simply doesn't work that way.
My question about fathers loving their children is completely valid. How is love demonstrated? If I am going to show you that God loves we would have to be in agreement on what love looks like. So I took it down to the human level. What is love? What is the evidence of love? etc. are all valid first questions to build up to a good discussion about the nature of a loving God.
"It doesn't come down to simply personal experience about one aspect of God."
It comes down to simply personal experience, period!
"To compare Christianity to other theists beliefs one would need to compare the entire package."
Irrelevant.
"My question about fathers loving their children is completely valid. How is love demonstrated?"
It doesn't matter. I (or another theist) happen to know that you are wrong when you say that god is love. If you are basing this "knowledge" on some father/child comparison, I happen to know that you are wrong about that as well.
"If I am going to show you that God loves we would have to be in agreement on what love looks like."
We can be in full agreement, and we are probablly close enough...you're still wrong.
"What is love? What is the evidence of love? etc. are all valid first questions to build up to a good discussion about the nature of a loving God."
You mean the nature of an un-loving god, because you are wrong that god is loving or love.
How do you know I am wrong? What gives you that certainty?
How do you know that I am wrong or that another theist is wrong?
Anonymous, do you really want a discussion? All I keep hearing you say is that I'm wrong. I have not spoken this way to you. I have simply stated the Christian answers to the questions I have received. I have written many post on the topic and discussed it repeatedly in comments. Honestly, you don't have to accept any of it as truth. That's fine with me. It does seem like your major contention with God is that you think Him to not be good. I'm not sure what you think a good God would be. I'm not sure what you think true love is. If we can't discuss the nature of love on a human father-child level how can I possibly discuss it with you on a heavenly level? I am willing to have these discussions and go to whatever length you are willing to as long as its a real discussion and not simple bantering.
Can you quote a theist for me who doesn't believe God is good? And give me the reference for the quote?
"All I keep hearing you say is that I'm wrong."
Oh, you want me to say it in a different way? I know that god is not love.
"I have not spoken this way to you."
Yeah, you have.
"I have simply stated the Christian answers to the questions I have received."
You speak for all Xians?
"I have written many post on the topic and discussed it repeatedly in comments."
And, they all boil down to you asserting your opinions as fact and something you know to be true. I happen to know that god is not love. In one sentence, I've countered all your assertions.
"It does seem like your major contention with God is that you think Him to not be good."
No, it's that god doesn't exist. A non-existant being can't be good or evil.
"If we can't discuss the nature of love on a human father-child level how can I possibly discuss it with you on a heavenly level?"
Maybe by discussing morality and justice and fairness and not simply making tautological statements that what god does is just, moral, etc. Oh, and also, you could stop asserting that god is love without backing it up. Evidence would be good please. Add to that how you know that a human father-child relationship is appropriate in this context.
"I am willing to have these discussions and go to whatever length you are willing to as long as its a real discussion and not simple bantering."
Harumph. You most certainly are not. When I ask you questions, you simply say that you know what you know. When I disagree, the subtext is that you are right and I am wrong.
"Can you quote a theist for me who doesn't believe God is good? And give me the reference for the quote?"
There are theists out there that believe in Jesus and think he's a POS - that he's evil, etc. But, why should I have to supply anything to you when you don't supply anything to me? I've asked many times how you know god is good and you've never provided any sort of evidence. You think saying that you know it is true and the proselytizing is enough.
Yes I do indeed start with the presuppositional statement of God's goodness and nature of love as well as his justice, holiness, and righteousness . . . I don't deny that. But from there I have discussed why this makes sense. I have written numerous posts about it--which I assume you have read.
Love. Justice. Goodness. What do they mean if there is no place to find their meaning? All they can ever be is abstract terms which only have whatever meaning humans choice to ascribe to them. Why can't we get away from them in our ethics, language, stories, laws. We want to have meaning in love, justice and goodness, but if their foundation is denied so is there concrete existence. How can you know what evil is if you don't first know what good is? All you have is human intuition and feelings and reasoning all developed from a Godless nature that seems to have a personal design to want to preserve life and meaning when in reality there is no meaning. So what's the deal? Does that make more sense than a Creator that endowed life with meaning, good meaning that became corrupted by the creation, but is being set to rights by the Creator? To me it does not. If you want to continue to insist all I have stated is merely opinion without any substance then so be it.
"Yes I do indeed start with the presuppositional statement of God's goodness and nature of love as well as his justice, holiness, and righteousness . . . I don't deny that. But from there I have discussed why this makes sense. I have written numerous posts about it--which I assume you have read."
It makes "sense" because you define god as good and then say, "god is good." This is a tautology and logically fallacious.
"Love. Justice. Goodness. What do they mean if there is no place to find their meaning?"
That's what we have dictionaries for.
"We want to have meaning in love, justice and goodness, but if their foundation is denied so is there concrete existence."
You keep asserting this, but are completely unable to back it up. In fact, the existence of moral systems that don't rely on god is evidence against your position - evidence that I add you continually ignore or deny.
"How can you know what evil is if you don't first know what good is?"
Is this supposed to be an argument? We create terms to represent what we sense in the world and how we interact with it. There's no need for god to exist for these things, nor for god to be good. Are you even trying to argue that god is love, or are you just throwing out any cliched argument you can think of because you are completely unable to actually defend your position?
"Does that make more sense than a Creator that endowed life with meaning, good meaning that became corrupted by the creation, but is being set to rights by the Creator?"
If you think that an unevidenced fantasy about some creator that is all powerful but somehow stupid enough to leave a piece of fruit lying around that would mess up his whole creation then decides that the only way he can forgive us for his failings is to kill himself off in a horrible way makes more sense that actually studying the real world and coming to a conclusion about what has happened based on physical evidence...well I have no response for that.
"To me it does not."
Fortunately, not all of us are so irrational.
"If you want to continue to insist all I have stated is merely opinion without any substance then so be it."
Well, that's all you've done. The above is nothing more than your assertions with no basis. There is no evidence for your position in the above. None. Nada. Zilch. Actually, it's worse than that, because some of your assertions are based on ideas that are contrary to the evidence that we actually have as I've continually pointed out to you - yet you continually ignore.
So the dictionary is the standard for all truth. That's a new one.
No, it's a standard for how we define words. But, hey, thanks for trying to misunderstand.
Defining a word use, doesn't explain a principal or the substance conveyed by the use of the word. We can say what we mean when we use the word "love" but that doesn't necessarily include how such a thing came into being or its nature of being.
"In fact, the existence of moral systems that don't rely on god is evidence against your position - evidence that I add you continually ignore or deny."
The existence of adherence to morality apart from "belief" in God does not in any way prove that God isn't behind that morality. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not. So if the reason we have moral reasoning is that God gave it to us, that will remain true even to a person who says they don't believe in God.
"Defining a word use, doesn't explain a principal or the substance conveyed by the use of the word."
You asked what the words mean; the dictionary tells you that.
"We can say what we mean when we use the word "love" but that doesn't necessarily include how such a thing came into being or its nature of being."
You say these things came from god, I say they didn't.
"The existence of adherence to morality apart from "belief" in God does not in any way prove that God isn't behind that morality."
But, that's not what we are talking about. We're talking about moral systems developed with no mention or appeal to any sort of god or entity that creates moral laws or bestows them upon us.
"Truth is truth whether you believe it or not."
Right back at ya.
"So if the reason we have moral reasoning is that God gave it to us, that will remain true even to a person who says they don't believe in God."
Let's see some evidence for your position? You've argued that morality has to come from god, but when presented with moral systems that don't come from god, you have ignored and run away. Now, your tactic is to claim that they come from god anyway? Where's the beef?
What moral systems do not come from God?
Many, including humanism, objectivism, utilitarianism, etc. Are you really ignorant of these things?
I am familiar with those world views. I thought you were indicating there were particular morals that were "proven" to be man's idea and not God's. Not that there were worldviews that claimed that morality didn't come from the existence of God. I am well aware there are plenty of such worldviews.
Again I do not advocate that apart from the Jewish Law that God has given a concrete list of do's and don'ts. There are some things that are set forth in the Bible. But as a whole it was never about following a list of things that we are to do that are good while avoiding things that are bad. That is a simplification and a misrepresentation of man that has brought such an idea about. Christianity teaches that as come to know Jesus and encounter His love that we begin to take on His likeness and His heart. That is why Scripture says if you hate your brother you don't know Christ for the truth is not in you. Because an encounter with the living God changes the heart and when we are truly in relationship with God we begin to take on a new nature. It isn't about doing good things to earn God's favor. It's about knowing Him and experiencing the righteousness, peace, and joy that comes from His goodness. In that sense following a moral law for the sake of morality is man's idea. For that isn't what God is looking for. That isn't what God has imposed. Our moral understanding is there to protect us from the things that are against our nature and harmful to us and to protect us from the path that leads away from Him. But it wasn't there to be a way to earn His favor, for He already love us and demonstrated that to us.
"I thought you were indicating there were particular morals that were "proven" to be man's idea and not God's."
No, but they are moral systems that have been developed independently of any god.
"Not that there were worldviews that claimed that morality didn't come from the existence of God."
They didn't.
"But as a whole it was never about following a list of things that we are to do that are good while avoiding things that are bad."
This is your opinion, based on your interpretations. You do not know this to be true.
"Christianity teaches that as come to know Jesus and encounter His love that we begin to take on His likeness and His heart."
Your interpretation of it does.
"That is why Scripture says if you hate your brother you don't know Christ for the truth is not in you."
It also tells you to hate your family.
"Because an encounter with the living God changes the heart and when we are truly in relationship with God we begin to take on a new nature."
Yet you fully admit that this is not an evident change, considering that Xians are on the whole no more or less moral than anyone else. IOW, the effect of this "changing the heart" is more of an exercise in you counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
"In that sense following a moral law for the sake of morality is man's idea. For that isn't what God is looking for."
Again, that's your opinion. Although I happen to agree that that is not what the Xian god is looking for. The Xian god is looking for obedience to his will, not morality.
"Our moral understanding is there to protect us from the things that are against our nature and harmful to us and to protect us from the path that leads away from Him."
Your opinion again...and not necessarily true. Sometimes doing what is moral may not be something that keeps us from harm.
"But it wasn't there to be a way to earn His favor, for He already love us and demonstrated that to us."
Except that he doesn't love us, as I've already told you.
Post a Comment