First a little housekeeping. While I’m basically an atheist, I’m not one of those who judges Christians to be categorically stupid, evil, deluded, or insane. I can think of quite a few Christians I admire and even love (though there’s plenty who piss me off on a regular basis.) So this is not a gotcha thread. I am not going to argue that God does not exist, or that the Bible is wicked through and through, or that Christianity is a blight on humanity (if only because I judge the latter two to be untrue anyway). In fact I don’t intend to argue at all; I am simply interested in reading the answer to the question.
To reiterate: Christians (and other theists who wish to answer): When you say that God loves humanity, what do you mean?
Stipulating that God exists for the sake of the discussion, it’s clear that His love is sexual in any way; nor is (it seems to me) is it the sort of passionate involvement that a human mother has for her child. What does love mean when God is the lover?
Christians speak of God as the Father, and that’s not a bad model for what I imagine God’s love to be. If I can trot out a stereotype or two, a mother’s love is thought of as more consuming and less remote. Dad might be more willing to let his son scrape a knee learning to skatebaord, while Mom wrings her hands at the thought of her baby bleeding.
And it’s well to remember that just as a parent is an adult and can see things more clearly than can a child, not all things that appear to be terrible are. A child may dislike the bitter taste of medicine and cavil at the necessity of taking it, while the parent knows that as unpleasant as the medicine is, it’s taken for a good reason. The child might be upset at not visiting Disney; the parent knows that it’s better to be able to buy school uniforms than see Goofy.
The closest I can come to explaining it is to say that the nature of God is most easily understood by people as being the love and caring that people are capable of and have for each other.
This doesn’t really answer the OP. It’s basically a sort of an amateurish stab at a theodicy (one which is completely illogical for an omnimax deity, of course, but a common enough amateur theodicy analogy, nonetheless).
The question was really about what exactly it means to say God “loves” people. How is that word being defined? “Love,” in humans is a biochemical bonding process. Is that what it is for God, or is it something else?
The person who wrote the OP disagrees. Though I would have disagreed with Bricker even as a Xtian, I understand his meaning and intent.
(bolding mine)
Who says that love is necessarily a biochemical bonding process in humans? I sure don’t. Which is not to say that it’s never that.
I vacillate among several definitions of interpersonal love. One is that love is the state of mind in which the well-being of another person is essential to the lover’s peace of mind. In that sense I love my oldest brother (though I don’t like him even a tiny bit) quite as much as I love my best friend from college (whom I unreservedly adore). I’d give either of them a kidney if they needed it. As I think on it I probably love her more, though, since I’d do things on her behalf I’d never do for him.
Another is that love is mental state comprising the emotions of affection, lust, respect, and trust, with the intellectual state of commitment added in. In that sense I only love my wife.
A third is that love is the subjective state caused by intense sexual desire in which the company of another is strongly desired. In that sense I loved the girl I dated in the late 90s, though the I didn’t love her in either in the first two senses (demonstrated by how badly I treated her).
I don’t think any of those definitions apply to God. And since Xtians typically (though not invariably) conceive of God as being bodiless, your biochemical reaction thing can’t apply either.
That isn’t what I wrote, that’s what you wrote. And it isn’t what I meant, that is what you meant. If you wish to be obtuse, that’s up to you. The man asked a question of what Christians mean and I answered it with my understanding. If you wish to believe that I was speaking about chemical compounds in brains (and hormones, etc.) that is your prerogative and right to do with your brain chemicals as you please.
What I was talking about was “the love and caring that people are capable of and have for each other”. You might want to investigate it and put it into practice. You might find you like it. Or you might find it revolting. Please report back.
The love and caring that people feel for each other is nothing but brain chemistry. There is nothing else to it. And spare me the sanctimony. I am fully aware of what it feels like. I love my wife and kids more than anything in this world, while simultaneously being aware that those feelings are chemical. It’s not a diminshment or derogation of those emotions to simply point out the biochemical cause.
We are God’s children, very much loved on many levels. As God’s children we are as much part of God as Jesus, Son of God, who is God, or as Mary Daughter of God is God. We are the Sons and Daughters of God, we have Godly powers as shown in the scriptures.
God is one, so as Jesus is God we are also God. Children are the very heart of the parents. They are the same spiritual being, and created for one reason and one reason only, so the Love can increase forever. This is what I believe Jesus meant by saying I and the Father are one and what is possible for us all.
God Loves us as a parent loves and adores their child. As the Father Loves Jesus God Loves us.
As we are the Sons and Daughters of God, God desires us to fall in Love with God (in the other person), and as God produced children, God desires us to do likewise, both deeply loved physical children, but also in this world spiritual children (people you help find their path to Love). This is part of ever growing Love that God desires. So yes there is sexuality for us in God. The Love that flows between two lovers is the power of God and the reason for the wonderful feelings that God longs for us to have.
A rainbow is an artifact of the visible light spectrum caused by refraction.
Yet people seem to hold the position that the experience of looking at a rainbow is different from the experience of understanding the wavelengths of light in various colors.
In the same way, it’s correct to say that love is a function of brain chemistry. But it’s hardly complete.
Or to put it another way, there is no radical difference in brain chemistry between you, Diogenes, and Sarah Palin. Yet I will still assume you would like readers to believe there is substantial difference between you two in the nature and quality of your thoughts.
That he’/she/it will not end the world in flame ,water or pestilence. It is hard to say I love you but you all must die.
That would get you put in jail.
The Christian perspective on this is that Jesus (the son of God) loves everyone unconditionally. He loves us like the ideal parents - loving their children unconditionally. He loved us so much that He endured the weight of all of humanity’s sins and died for our sins.
In the Old Testament, God was shown as vengeful. If people would sin, He would punish them without forgiveness. Jesus forgives much like parents forgive their children for mistakes. All we have to do is ask for forgiveness and we shall receive forgiveness.
Now, there are debates on whether or not Jesus was truly the son of God. It is popular belief that Jesus is God in human form. God sent His only son to die for our sins. It’s pretty complicated and there are many interpretations on this. Many Christians believe that God, the Holy Spirit, and The Son are part of the Holy Trinity (all part of the same-being).
It seems people are having a debate within a debate on what love is. The debate within the debate is “what is love?” “Is love chemical or more than that?”
In the same way, it’s correct to say that love is a function of brain chemistry. But it’s hardly complete.
[/quote]
This is not an argument that rainbows are not caused by diffracted light, and it’s not an argument that “love” is not caused by biochemical processes. Subjective experience is irrelevant to cause.
Probably not as much as either of us would like to think. It still mostly boils down to “eat kill fuck,” but God doesn’t really fit into this analogy because God has no bichemical processes. Talking about God’s “love” is like talking about God’s “breath.” it can’t have a literal meaning.
Actually, it is quite reverent. If love is a chemical reaction in the brain, and God is without these chemicals (and without physical brain!), then perhaps “love” is the wrong word to use in this situation.
To show that characterizing God’s alleged “love” as identical to human love does not parse logically. I’ll reiterate the “God’s breath” analogy (or “God’s son,” for that matter). It attributes biological characteristics to an entity which is not biological. It doesn’t make sense to equate them literally.
No, the OP is asking these questions under the understanding that everyone replying has a basic concept of Christianity. Love is actually the correct word to use in this situation. Love is a commonly understood term when it comes to Christianity.