This is not necessarily a good idea. I, for instance, eat too much ice cream and don't get enough exercise. If I follow Jesus' precept, I would encourage my neighbour to become a couch potato like myself and stuff himself with empty calories, which wouldn't be doing him a favour.

I think Jesus is setting the bar too low. We should love our neighbour better than we love ourselves. I'm not saying I would live up to this - almost certainly not - but it would make more sense.

Eating too much ice cream isn't loving yourself properly...

Eating too much ice cream isn't loving yourself properly... — matt

Yes, exactly. If Jesus had said 'love thy neighbour as thou wouldst love thyself if thou wert loving thyself properly,' that would have meant not feeding my neighbour too much ice cream. But he didn't; he said 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.

If you going to consider the commandment, don't forget the one preceding it:

"You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This commandment is first and foremost. And the second is like it: You are to love your neighbor as yourself. On these commandments hangs everything in the Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 22

Pondering whether one should or can obey these directions involves keeping them together as they were given as an answer to the legal expert who asked: "Teacher, which commandment in the Law is the greatest?"

Do we must do it or no? — Artie

or Must we do it or not?

Love is hard. Loving one's self is hard. Loving someone else with the same regard we have for ourselves is hard. As hard (difficult) as it might be, love is the answer.

Love thy neighbor as thyself" Do we must do it or no? What do you think about it? — Artie

If it's experienced as a command or a self-conscious project, then I think it's highly questionable. But it also reminds me of a description of higher states of feeling. Our sense of self can expand. Yes, we are still in our body and they are in theirs, but the sense of otherness can break down. Let's say your neighbors house catches on fire and they are trapped inside. Imagine that you run in to help not because you think have to but because you feel that you have to. You want to, even if you are also scared. You feel for them. You take care of them the way you would want someone to look out for you.
(I'm not saying it would be easy for me or that I am even often so loving of neighbors. But in high states of feeling I do sometimes feel that what is good in me is the same that is good in others. My best self is no longer localized. )

I would argue that this statement is impossible to completely adhere to. It is impossible to, in any sense of the individual, love others as yourself. Man is inherently egoistic, him thinking that he ought to better himself further than any one else. This concept is what could have pushed for Jesus to teach such idea in the first place.

There are cool context if you want to dig down deeper, especially with the concept of

neighbor — Artie

Things to mind when you want to analyze The Gospel (If you don't want to sound Unknowledgeable) are :

1) It was for a specific group of people, in a specific time, for a specific purpose, in a specific culture (Reflecting the meaning at face value by inclining it with today's culture is unhelpful most of the time)

2) Most of Jesus statement is a statement full of Controversy, even in ancient Israel time. Because when you know "What is the neighbor He was talking about" and what it means to "Love", things become more cool. That Controversy may seem "Huh.... he really mean that?" to some people without proper investigation.

Now, for the verse. It's so cool to me when we ask Children (A Kid, who hasn't been influenced by view or thought) grasp from the verse. Some of the answer is cool, one of them is like this "That's mean we have to love people around us".

We human, whether you believe it or not, is "Egoistic" (Supported by ) we want good for ourselves and want us to be happy. The problem are when we use people as "Mere mean" or put aside "People happiness" for our happiness. Thus, a simple basic meaning of The Verse is "Love the People that you met. Don't view them as enemies, that is someone that you want to make sad, or don't care about their happiness". It's not about can we do it perfectly, of course not, people are not perfect. But it is a good way to live right (Supported by ). (although it have risk and consequence, in which The Gospel provide another way to fight it).

Now,

Do we must do it or no? — Artie

^ Well, not doing it can mean (In a contextual view kind of way, that mean people want the best for themselves)

1) "Don't love people like you love yourself" > This lead in a view that I can use You for my happiness which is bad.

2) "Love your neighbor, but not like you love yourself" > A View that, it is morally correct to love a person with shallow love (example, love other people, like you love a cat), which is bad.

I hope you get the gist of it :D

.

Pondering whether one should or can obey these directions involves keeping them together as they were given as an answer to the legal expert who asked: "Teacher, which commandment in the Law is the greatest?" — Valentinus

Good point, and what does this relationship hint at it concerning God? Is God a current running through all of us? If so, the words don't matter and the traditions don't essentially matter and the atheist is one with the theist. A wise 'theist' would be an 'atheist' from the perspective that an external God would be an idol and therefore a false God. The commandments can be understood as 'given' by our own higher nature. That the ones in the book are maybe not perfect for our lives today might just mean that the transcription is never perfect. It doesn't feel good to steal, to murder, to lie, etc., tho we must give sin its due. How about soft laws? Imperfectly revealed? And as descriptions of our own nature in pictorial language for less conceptually developed times?

I would guess that Jesus was aware of the gap between perfect love and the performance ordinary humans were going to give. Jesus didn't have a lot of time (assuming he had some idea of how short his future was). He didn't have time to encourage life-time growth in the disciples. Long range goals were out of the question. For jesus the time is now. "If not me, who; if not now, when?"

Of course, in the Christian scheme there is God for whom all things are possible, and if God wills it, then we can accomplish more than we might think.

We should always avoid thinking in warm fuzzy terms about love. As I said, and others have said, "Love is hard." Loving other people is not at all easy for us, but it is something we can strive toward. Jesus wasn't talking about romantic love, or mother-child love, or eros; it's agape he was talking about.

Jesus wasn't talking about romantic love, or mother-child love, or eros; it's agape he was talking about. — Bitter Crank

Agape is defined as the "highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God." This definition may be used in Jesus' first commandment, however, this type of love couldn't be used in the context of the second commandment if we strictly followed the terms:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" — Artie

I will not argue with your thoughts on Jesus' plan because I somewhat agree in his decisions. However, I was merely pointing out the rift between human performance. Put simply, I argue that:

- God is perfect and thus His plans are perfect,
- Humans are imperfect and thus our actions are imperfect,
- Humans can not fulfill God's plans perfectly for they themselves are imperfect.

So here lies the contention I discussed:
Is it possible for us to fulfill Christ's commandments? If not, why?

Man is inherently egoistic — NuncAmissa

Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Sigmund Freud wrote in his book:"All feelings and relations which we appraise in the life as: sympathy, friendship, trust and ect. Genetically related with the sexeness and start to arise only by reason of sexual attraction, more precisely by reason of attenuation sexual attraction to the object but in our subconscious it seems pure and deprived sexual feelings." On this basis, I can say that people very egoistic and doesn't can love neighbor as thyself. And I support the philosophy Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche.

^To some degree, yes. In the most perfect sense no. Because we are human, as Judeo-Christian said We are sinful. But, Kant said you can say one action is morally right if the motivation is right. Jude-Christian people agree with Kant. Even though you can't fulfill it perfectly, there's a sense of Righteousness if you try and strive to do it.

Thanks for bringing up Sigmund Freud. I haven't read him yet. I will start reading some of his works.

I concede to the notion of good intentions as stated by Aquinas, but I would need to argue that if Christ's commandment were to be a Categorical Imperative then we must uphold it in any and all situations. However, due to the reasons I have listed above, humans can not.

If, for example, a man ought to love his neighbor as himself perfectly, and he fails to do so, then the man is in grave error regardless of his good intentions. That's what Kant would have said if Christ commandment be a Categorical Imperative.

Seeing this, there can only be a simple solution: Christ's commandment be dynamic; it not obliging humans to execute the commandment in a perfect manner. And this is the idea that I gained from your concept of "Righteousness and Good Intent." This implies that even if we were not to perfectly obey the commandment, we still did the good because of our intentions.

However, this provides us with an extremely troubling idea: If I were to have good intentions in loving my neighbor as I love myself though I have caused harm onto him, then I have still done a good deed.

Take it like this:
Steve follows Christ's commandment of loving his neighbor as he loves himself.
Steve shows compassion to his dear friend Kyle, who in this time of need, seeks refuge in Steve.
Amanda, who was wronged by Kyle, demands retribution from Kyle in a lawfully just manner.
Now, Steve is now caught in a problem: Will he allow Amanda to seek lawful justice though it may cause Kyle harm, or will Steve allow Amanda to take Kyle away for a lawful trial?

Following Christ's commandment strictly:
Steve ought to protect Kyle from Amanda's retribution because he would also want Kyle to protect him in his own times of need. (Love your neighbor as you love yourself)

However, this would contradict the lawful principle Amanda is trying to uphold: Justice.

The main point of the problem above is to visualize the inherent problem in human judgement. Humans are incapable of acting perfectly in ordinance with God's law. That's why absolution is a thing. However, since good intentions have been raised, does that mean Steve has no bad deed in the first place? Is he righteous?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in man's nature and God's orders.

Is it possible for us to fulfill Christ's commandments? If not, why? — NuncAmissa

In the Christian view, nothing is possible without god, and all things are possible with god. So... yes, it's possible if god wills it -- which he presumably does.

Now, outside of the Christian view, I don't think it is possible for human beings to fulfill (that is, meet fully) Jesus's commands. There is no reason, however, for Christians to not try. There is no reason for anyone, Christian, pagan, heathen, atheist, Buddhist, Moslem, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, etc. to not try to be as decent to each other as we can be. How decent we can be is depressingly slight a good share of the time.

The kind of love we are called upon to demonstrate is, I think, agape -- selfless love. I don't find myself confused by the use of "selfless love" and Christ's command to "love your neighbor as yourself". I don't know what verb Jesus used -- it definitely wasn't agape because he presumably did not speak Greek, even Koine Greek. I presume he spoke Aramaic. Loving someone else like you love yourself means being as generous to them as you are to yourself. One has to get one's own self-focused interests out of the way to love someone else that way. We aren't asked to exist selflessly -- a flat out impossibility. We are asked to be selfless sometimes; once in a while; maybe we will be called upon to be selfless once every two years; or maybe twice a day--Depends on where we are in life.

In another passage (Matthew 24) Jesus said we will be judged on whether we assisted the sick, the prisoner, the thirsty, naked, the poor, and so forth. That if we did not it would be as if we had failed to assist Christ in his needs. Selfless love, loving the neighbor as one's self, and giving assistance to those in need all fit together.

Periodically one meets someone in actual, plain, physical need. They are ordinary people in need, not professional beggars (who, of course, have problems too). If we avoid doing anything for these people in need, then we flatly fail the tests across the board. 9 time out of 10, heroic measures are not needed. But still, we find it hard to lift a finger to help.

then the man is in grave error regardless of his good intentions. — NuncAmissa

^YES, yes, that's the reason why Judeo-Christian said to you "No matter how good you're, it is not enough" Yes!

However, this provides us with an extremely troubling idea: If I were to have good intentions in loving my neighbor as I love myself though I have caused harm onto him, then I have still done a good deed. — NuncAmissa

^In that regard, there is a need to do some meta-analysis then, "What is Good to me and for my Neighbor?"

Will he allow Amanda to seek lawful justice though it may cause Kyle harm, or will Steve allow Amanda to take Kyle away for a lawful trial? — NuncAmissa

^Well, Kyle wrongs Amanda, and Kyle want to run away from the consequence, Kyle wanted to continue to "Sin" without "payment". You can argue that by protecting Kyle from Amanda you do the "Love" for your neighbor. But, like Kant, If you love your neighbor, you LET Amanda take Kyle, but caringly guide him to be a better person.

Christ's commandment be dynamic; it not obliging humans to execute the commandment in a perfect manner. And this is the idea that I gained from your concept of "Righteousness and Good Intent." — NuncAmissa

^The problem of Doing the right thing (Following commandment even thought you fail), and the problem of "Grave Error" is a different thing (For Judeo-Christian that is).

1) You do good things by following His command is not for "Salvation" because you can't be saved. (As you said, if God command is a Must, then human are fuc**d, in which the Judeo Christian said, yep we are Fuc**d indeed)

2) You do good thing because is an "ought" (almost like Kant said, Duty is an Ought)

Then how can human be saved and not in grave error then, you got to....... [input Judeo-Christian Most Mainstream Rally here]

I like how Jesus phrased his teachings. He has never given one legalistic commandment to be followed to the letter. His words are open to discussion and interpretation.

I agree with your idea that any member of any faith should pursue his altruistic ideals. However, we must realize that not everything is possible through God. THAT was what I was trying to point out in all of my points and argumentations. I wanted to discuss that topic further because Christians have grown too idealistic in their idea that God can make anything possible.

I admire the earlier Christian theologians such as Aquinas on their method of discussing morality as following Christian codes of law, however, I regret that most contemporary conservative Christians fail to realize how impossible their standards are.

Yes, I believe religion was a good source of moral direction and guidance, however we must always be ready to counter their assumptions on human being. Just because Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and several other's moral paradigms have been deemed perfect, does not mean that humans ought to follow them without err.

I like how Jesus phrased his teachings. He has never given one legalistic commandment to be followed to the letter. His words are open to discussion and interpretation.

I agree with your idea that any member of any faith should pursue his altruistic ideals. However, we must realize that not everything is possible through God. THAT was what I was trying to point out in all of my points and argumentations. I wanted to discuss that topic further because Christians have grown too idealistic in their idea that God can make anything possible.

I admire the earlier Christian theologians such as Aquinas on their method of discussing morality as following Christian codes of law, however, I regret that most contemporary conservative Christians fail to realize how impossible their standards are.

Yes, I believe religion was a good source of moral direction and guidance, however we must always be ready to counter their assumptions on human being. Just because Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and several other's moral paradigms have been deemed perfect, does not mean that humans ought to follow them without err.

Are you implying that whatever you do, a Judeo-Christian, you are well going to be damned?

^Yep, I'm implying, according to the Judeo-Christian view, no Good Things you do, or even if you have your life marked by Good Things. That fact (the fact that you said about "Human cannot be Perfectly good") is still valid. That fact of course means that, whatever you do by yourself, you're going to be dammed

That's sad. How about those saints though? Like how they got into heaven or something? Were they not humans or where they "perfectly good"?

^Yes, it is sad, Like in court, If we sin, we need to "Pay" something so that those sin could be forgiven.

Like in real life case, if you murder someone, no matter how good you are as a person, a Righteous Judge cannot simply Forgive you (That would be Corrupt), no, You must "Pay" something. And like in real court, as long as those crime is PAID (either by prison or money) you can go free.

BUT, The problem are, God demand is too big, and God hated Sin like mad. Even if human was given the chance to do good for the payment of those sin it is still won't be enough (Because the fact that you once said). But... (This is what so weird, or stupid, or even epic with Judeo-Christian God) God loves us. and He knows, IF the only way to be Righteous is for the Price of Sin to be paid, HE is the only one who can pay that. And thus (The Judeo Christian God) is the one who are paying for human sin, He is the one who Suffer, He is the one that is in "Grave Error".

The Concept of Judeo-Christian is God Become Dammed!

So, the people who went to heaven, are not Perfect Person, they are the person in which Their crime is transferred to Jesus, and because their Punishment have been done (to Jesus) they are free. Free because of Jesus (That's why Christian people said that).

So what happened to those people in Hell? Why didn't their sins transfer to Jesus?

And here comes a problem I tackled since my Religion classes:
Why did God, who LOVES us with no known bounds, not simply remove it, but instead causes HIS OWN SON to be in pain?
Why should Mark take the blame for the sin of Matthew?

I agree with your vision of the Judeo-Christian God. He is pretty contradictory.
But the main point of this discussion was this: Why did God's laws apply to Humans? After all, they are unattainable. Yes, it is still righteous to follow this laws, but why should humans gain sin from not following Christ's commandments perfectly?

Humans are damned.

So what happened to those people in Hell? Why didn't their sins transfer to Jesus? — NuncAmissa

^That's why Philosopher, Politician, And Parent have trouble with a concept called "Freedom To Choose"

Why did God, who LOVES us with no known bounds, not simply remove it, but instead causes HIS OWN SON to be in pain? — NuncAmissa

^ To remove it, mean God will become a Corrupted God/Judge (To simple remove one fault) (Is so cool when you realized the concept modern of Court Law and Justice Theory, is really similar to The Bible who are written in ancient time. To be Right, He must ask for "Payment"

HIS OWN SON to be in pain? — NuncAmissa

^
^The Son knows he can withstand it (Again, The Bible is so weird because that Prediction of The Son will be killed already been prophecies since Genesis). It is the best decision right? Think....

1) God knows, that only Himself can withstand His own Punishment.

2) The Act of Sacrificing one son for something is Viewed as the most Unloving thing a Father can do, BUT Because of some Fuc**d Up Irony, The Christian was able to reversed that most heinous concept, into a concept that shows that God is the Most Loving Father in the Universe.

3) The Question of why is God so unloving become somewhat shallow compare to Why is God so Loving.

Why should Mark take the blame for the sin of Matthew? — NuncAmissa

^ Why shouldn't? If your friend steal something because he is poor, and he have to pay a lot of money to pay for his crime. A money that he couldn't pay. If you have a lot of money, wouldn't you asked the judge to pay for your friend crimes? (Btw, people do this all the time :D) . But if you're asking why? it is because Mark love Mathew, and Mark has CONSENTED to do this.

Why did God's laws apply to Humans? After all, they are unattainable. Yes, it is still righteous to follow this laws, but why should humans gain sin from not following — NuncAmissa

^Why shouldn't it, it really takes us back to that elusive concept of "Freedom". I think The Christian God has an ethical first problem as so.

A Being is free to choose what is right for him.

Does Forcing him to do the right thing just? No.... A Being can be free to choose what is Good and what is Evil

And it is wrong to force a being, except if that being has Consented...

But Bad things, need to be dealt with.

PS. I just Eating, so sorry for long response, there are many rabbit hole from that statement, but let's discuss that rabbit hole hahahaha

Let me respond to your rebuttals:

That's why Philosopher, Politician, And Parent have trouble with a concept called "Freedom To Choose" — diesynyang

Please elaborate.

To remove it, mean God will become a Corrupted God/Judge (To simple remove one fault) (Is so cool when you realized the concept modern of Court Law and Justice Theory, is really similar to The Bible who are written in ancient time. To be Right, He must ask for "Payment" — diesynyang

I didn't necessarily pertain to one's sin. I was pertaining to the problem of evil and sin itself. And I see no problem with God removing the sin itself to remove the suffering it entails to the future of humankind. See, I would argue that a "Corrupt Judge" is better than an idle God who allows pain and suffering to enter the world due to sin. (Theologians reasoned that pain and suffering is due to man's sin. Something Nietzsche and Descartes argued against.)

And it's not really outstanding. That "Punishment or Payment" system could be seen in other civilizations too. From the Babylonians to the Chinese. It is inherent in human social groups to have that system.

The Son knows he can withstand it (Again, The Bible is so weird because that Prediction of The Son will be killed already been prophecies since Genesis). It is the best decision right? — diesynyang

I think not. Seeing that only the Son can withstand it, that mean God's legal system as a judge is inherently shaky. After all, a morally sound legal system would only give punishments that people are capable of taking. Look, in a modern legal system, there is hope for rehabilitation. It is a fundamental pillar of Criminal Justice. But in God's law, humans can not gain this "rehabilitation" and "betterment" because they can not escape this overbearing punishment that only the Son can persevere in.

Should God not just lower it to humane standards?

Where is his compassion? A moral judge would not send Steve to work in the salt mines for the rest of eternity for simply masturbating. But apparently that is a sin and God hates sin, so to Hell Steve goes.

The Question of why is God so unloving become somewhat shallow compare to Why is God so Loving. — diesynyang

I don't understand how a murderer can be loving? He caused his own Son's suffering? Even if your son wanted to kill himself, shouldn't you, as a loving parent, stop him? Please explain?

Why shouldn't? If your friend steal something because he is poor, and he have to pay a lot of money to pay for his crime. A money that he couldn't pay. If you have a lot of money, wouldn't you asked the judge to pay for your friend crimes? (Btw, people do this all the time :D) . But if you're asking why? it is because Mark love Mathew, and Mark has CONSENTED to do this. — diesynyang

I guess that is reasonable. However, I would argue that NO human can take the punishment God throws at us for sinning. And I don't think Jesus got the whole punishment? Like, if Jesus took the punishment for our sins, shouldn't He be burning in Hell? I mean, if dying on the Cross simply cleansed all my sins, then what's stopping people to do the same? (And actually, it's happening here in the Philippines. They nail themselves to the cross. What?)

Yes! Christ consented, but only because HE is the only person who could take it. He was an altruistic guy, of course he would. We love him for that. But He should not have. I mean the poor guy, sinless and all, should have been spared. Isn't that also a problem?

Why shouldn't it, it really takes us back to that elusive concept of "Freedom". I think The Christian God has an ethical first problem as so. — diesynyang

In my perspective, Humans are damned. If they do sin, they go to hell and suffer. Humans can not NOT sin since they are imperfect. So basically, whatever we do, we are fated for Hell. Maybe God could have softened the punishment to humane levels, or maybe lower the standards of His laws to actually take into context people's beliefs and actions? Like look at cultural relativism, it's the only good thing exclusively about morality from there!

A Being can be free to choose what is Good and what is Evil — diesynyang

Umm, no? God gave us laws already. We have already determined what is morally just and what is erroneous. And they aren't free, exactly. You are FORCED to do what is good in fear of the punishments.
And yes, I understand human's free will. But don't you think Free Will in itself is the source of all evil? It allowed chaos to happen in the first place.

Basically, from what I gained in this discussion:
God planted seeds.
Humans toiled to make the seeds grow.
God has an impossibly high standard for the plant.
No human can reach God's standards.
And so, God punished all humans for not making the plants perfect.
But Jesus, took on the punishment for us.
So God allowed some of us to rejoice and some of us not to.
Humans still suffer from the effects of God's punishment before Christ coming.

And same, I am also eating here.

First define love. My take on it is - concern for the wellbeing of...another.

If, as I believe, Creator/God/Allah/Brahman etc etc (refer to it with whatever label you like) is everything, then it follows that concern for yourself is automatically concern for your neighbour and every so called 'thing', (that would include your so called enemy!)

I think "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is a veiled meaning, the real meaning being "I am you, you are me, we are one"

That makes sense. It is a good and morally sound dogma to base the thinking from. However, we must realize that the concept is virtually impossible to perfectly attain.

You can't be perfectly me. I can't be perfectly you.

To treat others as yourself is an too idealistic for any realistic person out there.

Please elaborate. — NuncAmissa

^ I elaborate, in the rebuttal below.

"Corrupt Judge" is better than an idle God who allows pain and suffering to enter the world due to sin. — NuncAmissa

^No, it would contradict God Character (The Righteous Character, and He is no God if He contradicts His Character). You can argue that "Well being a corrupt Judge in this case is the Righteous thing to do". It is a good argument, but as modern people we still haven't solve the problem with Utilitarianism with Deontology right? When Utilitarianism become the peak of Right Value, then we can argue that God is Evil because of his Categorical value.

"Punishment or Payment" — NuncAmissa

^ I agree :D

I think not. Seeing that only the Son can withstand it, that mean God's legal system as a judge is inherently shaky. After all, a morally sound legal system would only give punishments that people are capable of taking. Look, in a modern legal system, there is hope for rehabilitation. It is a fundamental pillar of Criminal Justice. But in God's law, humans can not gain this "rehabilitation" and "betterment" because they can not escape this overbearing punishment that only the Son can persevere in.

Should God not just lower it to humane standards? — NuncAmissa

^Well, 1 thing is, there is a punishment that people cannot take with 0 hope of rehab, that is the Death Punishment (People still argue about it, Fair Enough). I don't think this system is "shaky" (For me that is) Because the system gave us a way out (Even though that way out seems really unloving). If the modern system of law is sound, a system that give Death Punishment, then I think it is also sound for God System. Should God lower His standard? You mean tolerate Sin? That would mean He will contradicts Himself right (The God is without Sin, and Hated Sin).

Where is his compassion? A moral judge would not send Steve to work in the salt mines for the rest of eternity for simply masturbating. — NuncAmissa

^His compassion is in putting His own Son to dammed, but people think that is Stupid and thus we have this talk. (The problem with steve, is also about "Freedom" below)

Even if your son wanted to kill himself, shouldn't you, as a loving parent, stop him? Please explain? — NuncAmissa

^Okay, let's think about it. Sh*t happen, and people are fuc*ed because they do wrong things. A Father and a Son looks on the Fuc*d people and want to save them. The Son says "I will save them" , "but you will suffer son! (now it's not kill and it's not Suicide like dude this is God)", "It's okay, I will be fine, even though I will suffer (Not Dead) because of it, But it will be Really really painful". Now, do you see that it is Good?

And I don't think Jesus got the whole punishment? — NuncAmissa

^ The Christian believe, He indeed takes all Sins, Because that was the plan dude. He is the one that is able. Why God doesn't go to hell? Hmmmm maybe because God's value is higher than Sin value, so that He was able to pay for them, without losing all his money (You get the gist of it).

Isn't that also a problem? — NuncAmissa

^Hmmm, it's not a problem dude, that's why we have to love Him too (According to christian) :D.

But don't you think Free Will in itself is the source of all evil? It allowed chaos to happen in the first place. — NuncAmissa

^This, this is so Good, Yes, Free Will can be said to be source of our sin (Free to choose what is Good and Evil, not based on God View, but on Ourselves)

You are FORCED to do what is good in fear — NuncAmissa

^ Now this is the main problem with "Freedom", is like this

We are given a playing field, to do A which is Good or B which is Evil. If you do B, suffering come, if you do A good things comes.

God gave us that info, and the freedom to choose A or B, He wouldn't force the player to do A. Because then we would be robot, or In a state of constant UnConsented totalitarianism situation.

But, It seem people tend to do B than A. And thus, God give a Loop-hole, I can Save you. Why, because taking "Free Will" is a no no, "Tolerate Sins" is also a no no.

Humans still suffer from the effects of God's punishment before Christ coming. — NuncAmissa

^ Well, not exactly (There is a debate on this), is a view that in specific time or place, where people don't know the concept of "Jesus", "Jesus" also paid for their sins. (Like if you are a chinese who never heard of judaism concept, you are saved because you are doing your best to do good without even knowing Yahweh)

PS. maybe we should talk, with other than rebuttal per point, it's really long to post a reply hahahaha, btw i'm afk for around 1 hourish

This entire conversation is a deadlock. We can't find any problems since we are both using principles. Basically the contention is: God is unloving vs. God is loving.

So let's call it draw?

The main problem in this entire discussion is freedom. So let's discuss that solely.

But, It seem people tend to do B than A. — diesynyang

That's because God made us inherently evil! We can't be good because we are already tainted with sin. Like how Judeo-Christians explained it with the Original Sin and how Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx explained it through human drives.

Are you exactly perfectly and completely free? NO! Therefore, you aren't completely responsible for your sins. It is the implication of God's actions for allowing Free Will. He allowed us to have Free Will even if He knew that it would cause our downfall.

If we aren't inherently free, then we aren't truly sinful. Since God has some control over us, we can't be completely morally good or evil. We are just humans dude!

P.S. I agree. We really should talk other than rebuttal on rebuttal.