Why God is inherently right

I have recently come to realize the wickedness of my sinful ways. I have realized that I was inherently wrong in the thread Why God is inherently wrong. I have confessed to a priest, become reborn, and now walk in the light of Jeeesus.

Just kidding… no, this thread is sort of a flipping of the aforementioned thread–a look into God’s love rather than God’s cruelty.

It was inspired by this quote by Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias:

So the question for this thread: What is God’s love? And what does it mean that no other love can be defined until that love is properly understood?

The only love almost all people know is “CONDITIONAL LOVE” …

I will love you IF … (insert here)

…the immature, child’s version; “I’ll love you IF you love me … but not otherwise.” = “Me, me, me,…”

Perhaps like how first love changes and progresses or regresses, there is a journey and some can find true love. If you first understand Gods love, then you will know when there is true love I.e. between you and a given individual. Like the wise and foolish virgins.

God’s love is his mercy, if you repent sincerely for your sinful ways then forgiveness is continually granted, provided you actually think your behavior is wrong in some way…if not,then you can do whatever you want…


All your responses point to one thing: that you think you know God’s love… just kidding, what they point to is: unconditional love. Is that what we’re saying? That if we understand unconditional love, then we can begin to define other kinds of (conditional) love? Amorphos, your point seems to be that if you can know what it is to love somebody unconditionally, then you simply have to look for that thing (emotion, state of mind, way of regard another) when it arises under certain conditions and say: yes, that’s the same thing.

So then what is unconditional love? ← And if we define this, does it make sense to say the same definition carries over to conditional love.

Depends what you mean by God, if you’re going by the Abrahamic tradition, then it seems pretty fucking conditional to me…

One gets loved, forgiven, and saved by arranging that “The Savior” is one’s Situation (hence The [Organized] Church).

The better question is…why did God create all of this, the sinful people, hell etc when he knew what was going to happen anyways prior to creation. You can say well they had freewill, but he STILL knew what was going to happen despite the freewill.

Seems kind of sadistic

You have the free will to call Reality a sadist if you like, but seriously … where is the good in that?

Never called reality a sadist, but God’s behavior seems kinda sadistic…

so anyways, back to the question…why would God create something that he already knew he was going to punish and then blame it on the creation…

Yes. look and know or intuit it, as if an emotion reflected in each others mirror of the soul. I assume [because I didn’t learn love this way, and so learned only how it goes wrong lol] that a love for a third party which has no conditions, nor added elements which ensue with physicality, that that love would give you the pure thing? So you’d at least get a measure of it as set against that e.g. a lady would intuit when a gentleman’s ‘love’ is not pure or is unbalanced or misdirected. Kind of like it would be the measure perhaps?

A. … you may have just explained why the Biblical Solomon’s ‘Song of Songs’ was written with such erotic implications. Solomon was trying to describe the (un)describable in language the people of his day … and today for that matter … could understand and relate to.

Sounds a lot like a very popular … very very popular … ‘scapegoat’.

In the OP “Who Are You” I wrote …

To “lean against” leads to the same result as to “lean on” … both are obstacles to the process of individuation.

Let me say it one more time:
God == Reality.

Well, let’s not be too rash here. The Abrahamic God certainly seems pretty sadistic, but if we’re comparing this to a God that seems merciful and compassionate, one has to wonder if there’d be any need for punishment or forgiveness at all. If such a God’s love is defined an unconditional, does that mean it’s not even conditional on if we sin? On if there is a need for punishment/forgiveness?

It seems obvious that a parent will sometimes need to impose consequence on a child for their actions, but this is not the same as withholding love from them on the condition that they continue to misbehave. Could the cruelty we see in the Abrahamic God simply be God imposing certain consequences for the misbehavior of man though He still loves us unconditionally. (Still seems pretty harsh though, I’ll admit).

That’s an excellent, though a bit worn out, question. The only ways I’ve ever come up with to answering it are twofold:

  1. Something among the big “omni” words has got to yeild: either God is not omniscient (so he didn’t know), not omnipotent (so he may not have been able to help it), or not omnibenevolent (he really is just a sadistic prick).


  1. God’s “love” is not the simple animalistic love that only a hedonist can understand. God doesn’t show his love by just making everybody happy (getting rid of all disease, war, prejudice, starvation, etc.). Instead, it is a higher form of love that is expressed in something more sophisticated or refined. For example, to give someone the experience of a lifetime, or to entertain someone with a profound tragedy. ← Both of these would be rather dull, at best, and defeat the purpose, at worst, if they didn’t involve some pain, some adversity. Or to allow someone their freedom of choice, even if that means making bad choices. ← This may not seem like love if one could know how horrible the choices will be and how much pain and suffering they will cause, but this is part and parcel of being a higher form of love from hedonistic love.

Then again, if a hedonist’s paradise is good enough for God’s love, then the gains may outweigh the costs after all–it depends on if we all get to go to Heaven in the end anyway–if Heaven really is eternal, then strictly logically speaking, it outweighs pretty much any torment you could put someone through. This is contingent, of course, on the answer to Why God is Inherently Wrong in that many of the questions asked in that thread received potential answers along the lines of: Hell is not eternal. If Hell is eternal, and some souls go there, we may still be able to argue a case for the hedonist’s paradise (that is, if more people end up going to Heaven), but it would be a dampened case.

Which reminds me, I wonder what counts as “unconditional”. I like to think my love for my children is unconditional. Although one can entertain certain scenarios that put this to the test: what if I find out one day that my daughter really isn’t mine, that maybe my ex. cheated on me, got pregnant, and simply let me believe the baby was mine. If I found this out about my daughter, would I love her any less? I hate to say it, but knowing this might effect my love for her. I doubt it would mean I would stop loving her, but maybe a little less? Or maybe not (thank God, I’ve never been in that situation, so I wouldn’t know).

Or maybe this: I love you for who you are. ← Is that unconditional love? What if the person changes, like most of us do over time? Doesn’t love require something to love? Some condition, some attribute. Or can we love something/someone for absolutely no reason (just because they’re there)? And if so, is it possible for that thing/person to change in such a way that they cease to be that thing/person, as though they might as well have ceased to exist, in which case the original thing you loved isn’t there to be loved anymore? ← This is starting to become the ship of Theseus problem. :laughing: ← But that may just answer the question: God’s love is so unconditional that it applies to anything that exists period–just because it exists (which might include suffering).

The sun shines on the evil and the good.

God gives you a life, a place with abundant resources and the freedom to decide what to do with it. You can embrace God. You can reject God. You can be a nasty asshole. You can accumulate wealth. You can help people. You can build relationships. You can betray friends and family.

But He also sends messengers who explain that some choices are better for you than other choices. Choices which make this life better, not an ‘afterlife’.

Still, you are free to ignore them.

It’s up to you.

In the context of Exaltism, ‘God’ and ‘deities’ attribute to the forces of nature - particularly the ones that let you survive. That is God’s love to me. The room for everything, our star, our galactic black hole, all of it which fits into the puzzle that allows you and everybody else around you to exist. If God’s love was absent, you could not possibly exist. Of course, one might argue that physical things like a star, a black hole, and more cannot love, and to that I would agree, but these unintentional consequences is what led to you be a living thing. We are the Universe’s way of observing itself. Life exists because nature inherently wants freedom to exist. The ability to be free is the key characteristic of being alive. Having a choice. Life is a right, like nature is a right, like God is a right.

So, as I said before, God/s cannot intentionally love anyone or anything. But it was God that created the forces of nature that ultimately allowed us to love. God cannot love its creation, but the creation can love its God. Like what Patrick Haley says in his book, “The Spiritual Essence of Religion and Science”, we all seek a harmonious loving union with God or the Omniverse. Doing so at this time is futile, as we do not know how to properly develop order and reason in the fundamentals of this being. With that being said, however, I’m sure they’ll be environmentalists 500 years from now saying something like, “save the Omniverse!”

To me, God cannot be right nor wrong. It just is. It’s impersonal, such as a distant star is to Earth. Its love is unintentional, so it really cannot be called love. If it were, it could only be considered inherent love, which is probably the most primal type of love there is. Inherent love is love that is already obvious from the start. Knowing that all that exists the way it exists could only come from a celestial body like the Omniverse - where all realities could potentially exist - is enough grounds for veneration and worship. God cannot love but without meaning, life can only love with meaning. Life is what gives this a meaning, a purpose, a drive to do something better. God loves innately; life loves intently.

Okay … that’s all I got for now. :laughing:

If I may, I suspect that what God’s love means is wrapped up in what Zacharias is calling the embrace of “welcome home”. ← That seemed to be the crux of what he’s getting at in the quote above.

I’ve had visions of the role that life plays in the universe that may shed some light on this:

Evolution is the only process we know of that comes close to microcosms coming out of the macrocosm. It is a process whereby parts of the universe attempt to individuate themselves from the rest of the universe. Every form of life is an individual being acting in semi-independence from its environment. Plants are the only thing that come to mind which are least individuated since they are reliant on being rooted in the ground for survival.

As a pantheist, I see this as a form of escape–a part of God trying to escape itself, to become independent of itself, to be “other”.

“Welcome home” must be the experience of death–the experience of being reunited with the source. The biological organism ceased to be the individual it has striven all its life to maintain and returns to dust, scattered back into nature. As a pantheist, I imagine this experience is like something, not a black nothingness than atheists and materialists believe in. If this experience is captured in those two words: “welcome home”, and if those two words capture God’s love (according to Zacharias), then one can only know God’s love in the unification of the self with the universe upon death.

It might be like the love of mother back when we were children, living care free in the safety of home, knowing nothing of the harshness and cruelties of the dog-eat-dog world that our parents went out in it to toil, compete, and sacrifice in order to make the comforts of home possible. It might be like returning to that, a remembering of whence we came, of how things once were.

This comes as a light vision and a dark vision. The darker vision asks the question: why did God want to escape himself in the first place. Is it really that horrible being God? I once said in another thread:

Why would life put in so much effort unless the alternative was so much worse? But then what does that say about the state of being God?

^ But that’s the dark vision. In all likelihood, the light vision seems right: deaths seems like an incredible calm, not a struggle. Rocks, lakes, mountains… those parts of the universe which do not evolve… seem at peace. And when we are in the grave, laying there motionless, we too will be at peace.

This speaks more to our place in evolution than it does to our individual selves. According to this view, we–our conscious selves–are just going along for the ride. None of us actually chose to evolve out of the universe and become the individuate being we experience ourselves to be. And if we were to choose to return to nature by way of suicide, we most likely couldn’t do it. Instincts which we have no control over, which were built into our biology long before we even existed, will typically stop us. We–the conscious mind–only comprises maybe 50% of the brain (at most)–but the organism that evolution has worked arduously over eons to create is the whole body–90% of us is unconscious ← and that’s the part that persistently chooses life over death. ← That’s the part that God awaits, ready to embrace with open arms and say “welcome home”.

If that’s what God’s love is, then above all else, we cannot say we even remotely understand it. What is the experience of being one with the universe like? Can anyone here honestly answer that? It might be like returning home to mama, it might be like remembering where we came from, it might be like recalling why there isn’t a need to struggle in the game of individuation… but these are surely only shoddy metaphors at best.

But this does give us a bit of insight: God’s love seems to have a lot to do with being itself–just existing–of being united in the whole. But as for what it is, it seems too far beyond my ability to comprehend.


Alternatively we could say we are all adoptive entities [as we don’t participate in the making of our bodies], and your daughter does not belong to you or the mother, ever. so you should love whomsoever comes into your life in the manner of a daughter e.g. same for an orphan as for ‘your own’ daughter. I wouldn’t expect that of people of course.

I can get past a lot of aesthetic flaws in a woman if I loved her, but I have limits. Perhaps your concern is a matter of adaptation, we kinda freeze-frame people in the minds eye, and we have ideals and standards before we even met them. So we have a kind of distilled manakin of them and how they should be. Thus when they change beyond that mental model, you think they have changed or they are not the thing you loved. That’s just the aesthetics, personalities are more ambiguous and at no time set, you meet a new situation and you must react differently such to engage it. So how do we know how we are going to act, and hence how can we know what we or others are in any singular sense? People often decide someone has changed, when in reality an event has made them act differently.

  • so people are fluid and not rigid.