Is Allah All Loving?
-
Salaam
I have been listening to a debate between William Lane Craig and Jamal Badawi. An interesting argument I heard put forth by Dr. Craig was that the Islamic conception of God was deficient because in the Quran, God is not all loving.
For example,
God does not love the al-mua'tadeen Those involved in brutal aggression.Those who are overstepping the boundaries or limits.
2190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors
Thus the argument Dr. Craig pushes is
a) The Qu'ran describes God as a 'hater' of sinners, prodigals, etc.. Thus,
appearing not to be an all-loving entity.
b) The Christian view of God is all-loving
c) God must, by definition be all-loving
d) Ergo, the Christian version of God is superior view.Here, I accept conclusion c. I understand some may think b is not a valid conclusion. Lets assume it is true though for the sake of argument. My main issue is with point A. Could Allah be all loving and still not love or hate many people? Or does God hate the sin but still love the sinner? Hopefully Quranic evidence is the basis for any view someone brings to the table. Thanks for your time.
P.S. Dr. Craig does not seem to be a Robert Spencer type polemic; he actually made a point to say that he did not mean to disrespect his Muslim audience. He was just presenting what he thought was a logical difficulty.
-
Salaam
I have been listening to a debate between William Lane Craig and Jamal Badawi. An interesting argument I heard put forth by Dr. Craig was that the Islamic conception of God was deficient because in the Quran, God is not all loving.
For example,
God does not love the al-mua'tadeen Those involved in brutal aggression.Those who are overstepping the boundaries or limits.
2190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors
Thus the argument Dr. Craig pushes is
a) The Qu'ran describes God as a 'hater' of sinners, prodigals, etc.. Thus,
appearing not to be an all-loving entity.
b) The Christian view of God is all-loving
c) God must, by definition be all-loving
d) Ergo, the Christian version of God is superior view.Here, I accept conclusion c. I understand some may think b is not a valid conclusion. Lets assume it is true though for the sake of argument. My main issue is with point A. Could Allah be all loving and still not love or hate many people? Or does God hate the sin but still love the sinner? Hopefully Quranic evidence is the basis for any view someone brings to the table. Thanks for your time.
P.S. Dr. Craig does not seem to be a Robert Spencer type polemic; he actually made a point to say that he did not mean to disrespect his Muslim audience. He was just presenting what he thought was a logical difficulty.
Actually the belief of the Christians is that God is all loving and that "God hates the sin but still love the sinner"
-
Gottcha Rev...So does God's hate of sinners make him not all loving? Since God is the greatest conceivable being, I would think that a God who loves the sinner is greater than a God who hates the sinner. Some may say that God should not love the sinner because he/she sins, but God can still hate the sin. Take the example of a parent whose kids are causing him/her massive pain because of a drug addiction. The parent still loves the child but despises the drug addiction. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Quranic doctrine.
Salaam -
Gottcha Rev...So does God's hate of sinner make him not all loving? Since God is the greatest conceivable being, I would think that a God who loves the sinner is greater than a God hates the sinner. Some may say that God should not love the sinner because he/she sins, but God can still hate the sin. Take the example of a parent whose kids are causing him/her massive pain because of a drug addiction. The parent still loves the child but despises the drug addiction. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Quranic doctrine.
SalaamBut why you think that Hub only mean love how you will say in Arabic i dont like sinners??
-
Could you expand on your point? I have very little knowledge of Arabic so I am basing my question on YA's translation that says "for Allah loveth not transgressors." Could got not "Hub" the transgessors but still love them in your definition?
Ali -
Before delving into whether the quranic conception of Allah is all-loving, can you explain logically why this statement is true "I would think that a God who loves the sinner is greater than a God who hates the sinner."
I'm just curious to hear your argument for why that is the case.
-
Could you expand on your point? I have very little knowledge of Arabic so I am basing my question on YA's translation that says "for Allah loveth not transgressors." Could got not "Hub" the transgessors but still love them in your definition?
AliHpw about this translation.
And fight in the Way of All?h those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, All?h likes not the transgressors
-
Hpw about this translation.
And fight in the Way of All?h those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, All?h likes not the transgressors
Cool...I looked at the free minds translation and saw this. Also, Muhammad Ahmed and Samira on Online Quran Project who normally give the various potential definitions of a verse said that 'liketh' could be an option. So it would seem that it could be Allah liketh not...Then Allah's loving even sinners would be redeemed by his being The most Gracious, Most Merciful, and the Loving one as in surah 1190 and surah 8514. I can not like someone, for being evil, but I could still love them. Its funny because this reminds me of what my Uncle says about certain members of my family who enjoyed insulting other members of my family. He would say that I don't like being around them but I love them to death. Further, the most extreme expression of love is the all encompassing opportunity for redemption by the merciful. Open to new thoughts as always.
Peace -
Before delving into whether the quranic conception of Allah is all-loving, can you explain logically why this statement is true "I would think that a God who loves the sinner is greater than a God who hates the sinner."
I'm just curious to hear your argument for why that is the case.
Sure...
My definition of God would be the Greatest conceivable being. I think this is a pretty standard definition among the Abrahamic faiths. A note to take would be that when I say greatest, I mean in a good way. Not the greatest conceivable being in an evil sense or in a football sense. So when someone tells me God hates the sinner, this is their definition of the greatest conceivable being. His nature could not be any better. Yet, if someone comes along and says God hates the sin and loves the sinner, that to me would seem to be a greater being than the God that hates the sinner. It is a bit arbitrary but it seems like God can still maintain his just nature by hating sin and loving the sinner. The God who loves the sinner does not seem deficient in my eyes compared to the God who hates the sinner. But, this former God loves a little more than the latter God at no cost to his Great nature. Thus the former God must be God by definition because he is the greatest conceivable being.
Peace -
Peace, you gunna eat that? eat
Honestly, i think the actor and the act is inseparable.
And honestly again, it is me who don't love myself when i sinned. There is nothing lovable about doing an act which only hurts. And who gives the chance to return to being loved again? when all people on earth can't forget your fault and can't forgive you, who'd still receive you? You, yourself? ... Actually, God is your best and only chance. You can only forgive yourself if God willed. And God will forgive you the moment you return to doing the right thing, the moment you start trying to fix what's broken, and move on to do the good things again.
God does not love the "transgressors"? ... that isn't enough to depict the situation.
Those who disbelieve will be addressed 'God's hatred is even greater than your hatred for yourself, when you were called to belief, yet you disbelieved' 4011
but what will happen when the most hated person returns? These verses is in relation to the worst people possible (Almunafiquwn -- loosely translated as the Hypocrites) which supposedly will be "in the deepest Hell"...
4146 Except for those who returned, correct themselves, hold fast with God, and are sincere in their way-of-life for God, then those will be with the believers. And God is going to give the believers a great reward.
4147 What would Allah do with your punishment if you are grateful and you are believing? And ever is Allah (The God) Grateful and Knowing.
...In the beginning, there was no sin. What is the reason behind the creation of you, of me, ... of us? Is there an explanation other than "love"? And after we sinned, what is the reason behind God's whole forgiving and acceptance if we returned? Is there an explanation other than "love"? That God wills to hate the bad (act-actor) and that God wills to love the good (act-actor) and that God wills to love the bad actors who return and do good acts (thus becoming good actors), is there an explanation other than God's "love" for everything that is "love"?
It is the sinner's choice
- the hard choice to stay in "hatred" (from "God" towards him/herself, from him/her towards his/her own self, and from others)
OR - the easy choice to return to be in "love" (from "God" towards him/herself, from him/her towards his/her own self, and from others)
And the beauty of AQ is, once a sinner returns, he/she is no longer called a "sinner". He/she will be with those whom God loves. Why should one get him/herself stuck on the word "sin" or "brutal transgressors" if he/she could just go on and read the word "good acts" and "good people" ?
This is only my opinion
God's love is the unconditional and the eternal, while God's hatred is the conditional and the temporary.
Then there is also a conditional "more than love" for those who want "more than love". And when the condition is met it is eternal.Peace
- the hard choice to stay in "hatred" (from "God" towards him/herself, from him/her towards his/her own self, and from others)
-
Peace, you gunna eat that? eat
Honestly, i think the actor and the act is inseparable.
And honestly again, it is me who don't love myself when i sinned. There is nothing lovable about doing an act which only hurts. And who gives the chance to return to being loved again? when all people on earth can't forget your fault and can't forgive you, who'd still receive you? You, yourself? ... Actually, God is your best and only chance. You can only forgive yourself if God willed. And God will forgive you the moment you return to doing the right thing, the moment you start trying to fix what's broken, and move on to do the good things again.
God does not love the "transgressors"? ... that isn't enough to depict the situation.
Those who disbelieve will be addressed 'God's hatred is even greater than your hatred for yourself, when you were called to belief, yet you disbelieved' 4011
but what will happen when the most hated person returns? These verses is in relation to the worst people possible (Almunafiquwn -- loosely translated as the Hypocrites) which supposedly will be "in the deepest Hell"...
4146 Except for those who returned, correct themselves, hold fast with God, and are sincere in their way-of-life for God, then those will be with the believers. And God is going to give the believers a great reward.
4147 What would Allah do with your punishment if you are grateful and you are believing? And ever is Allah (The God) Grateful and Knowing.
Peace
Peace San,
Why do you think the act and actor are inseparable? As you say there "is nothing lovable about doing an act which hurts" and I completely agree. Yet, why could God not hate the "doing" yet still love the doer?..Sort of like a parent who hates his kids drug habit but loves his kid.The verse 4011 that you give is quite interesting as well. I was actually reading some translations of it after I posted this thread earlier. The translation by many including Pickthall and the one you gave above do not specify what God's abhorrence is towards. It seems that taking the verse within context, the abhorrence results in hell for the disbelievers. Now, I find it completely reasonable in understanding this verse to take it as God abhorring sin. The reason I believe this is because of the following. I'm sure we can both agree that we bring hell onto ourselves through sin; it seems that is the message of much of your response. I think there is a verse in the Quran that says something of the sort that good is from God and we bring evil on to ourselves through sin. Thus, evil is the source of hell and the source of God's "hatred" in the verse. If it is the case that sin brings us our troubles, my guess would be that it is what God hates, not us.
Further, as we read elsewhere God has breathed some of his soul into us. "He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay; then produced his seed from an extract of base fluid; then formed him and breathed His Soul into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show!? (Surat as-Sajda, 7-9). This sort of coincides with the traditional Muslim doctrine that humans are born without original sin but in a state of righteousness. So it would seem that God loves us endlessly as he has breathed his soul into us and this soul from my Quranic understanding does not seem to leave us. Sure it may become clouded by sin but the soul that god breathed into us is still there deep inside of us so God still loves us because we are of him. I do not think God can hate that spirit that he put into us because that is him; it would be as if he hated himself. But, God abhors the sin that disconnects the soul he breathed into us from his mercy, benevolence, etc.
Also, a more positive argument would be that God is referred to as the benevolent, all merciful, the loving one, etc. These all indicate that God always loves us as he does not dismiss us from his mercy. He just hates when we disconnect ourself from hiss mercy, benevolence, etc by maliciously sinning without repent. Again, I think God does not like us, or hub (arabic) us, when we are sinning but he still loves us sort of like I don't like my brother when he gets angry at me, but I still love him. I do agree with your idea of God's eternal love though. Again, I am always open to new thoughts.
Peace -
Message in Subject Title
-
Peace YGET,
Why do you think the act and actor are inseparable?
At a given moment, the actor is what the act is.
The act, once done, is not changeable. The actor however, changes overtime. If he returned to God completely and continued on doing good things, he is then a good actor. The past act is no longer a burden, no longer attributed to him. That means, he is no longer the "sinner".
In your analogy of the parents, if the parents truly love their child, would they not try all their best to help their loved child recover? And when the child finally recovered, are they going to call their child an "addict", a "sinner", when the child is no longer doing such act? No, they'll acknowledge their child as a "good kid", just like previously, before the drug incident, they acknowledge the child as a "good kid".
Not even while the incident happen they should say, 'you're a sinner!'. Instead, they might just show the fact that the act is bad, and the actor, when doing the act, is bad, and how bad it would be if the actor were continuing on the bad act ... 'so why won't "you" "return" while "you" still have the chance?' 'We are trying to help you to "become good" again...'
Compare the example above to some other parents who might say to their child 'i love you anyway. Even when you are doing bad things to yourself and to us and to other people and keep on doing bad things until death--we just love you anyway and that won't change forever.'
Which kind of parents would you have, if you could choose?
Consciously i'd prefer the former, who would show me just how bad the bad things are and encourage me to keep on doing the good things ...
To continue what i'm trying to say that "an act is not changeable" both the "bad acts" and the "bad actors" are like names, variables. While the real person, the "changing", is not entitled to those names. So the real person ought to think about the names "bad actors" and "bad acts" introspectively. Am i into this "bad act"? Have i become this "bad actor"? If yes, shouldn't i return to the "good acts"? Shouldn't i return to being the "good actor" again?
When a faulty act is being performed or has been done/past, the actor is given the chance to return. This is the only thing the actor should consider. "Return". This is the main theme i understood from AQ when it comes to wrongdoing. So important that it is explicitly expressed in the AQ that "God loves the tawwabiyn". God loves the returners.
I think there is a verse in the Quran that says something of the sort that good is from God and evil is from us.
Actually you'll find what is expressed in AQ everything comes from God. This could be a reason why, we should not dwell too deeply into "guilt" (another dangerous act after sin/wrong is to dwell inside guilt as if God wouldn't ever forgive him, therefore blocking himself from "returning".
In my opinion -- when God gives us good things, those are from God for us to be thankful. And when God gives us bad things, those are from God for us to return to Him. Both are continuous encouragement and reminder for us so that we keep on doing good things throughout our life. So both the good things and the bad things are God's gifts. Even though sometimes it may seem unimaginable to us to think of the bad things as a "gift".
I cannot comment on the issue of the "soul" for fear that i would do it unjustly. However i agree with you on this
He just hates when we disconnect ourself from hiss mercy, benevolence, etc by maliciously sinning without repent.
That perhaps can be seen as doing injustice to the "soul", the "life" that is given to us. How could one keep on trying to "disconnect" from his creator, to "rip the soul apart" from the one who gives him life...
Peace )
-
Peace YGET,
At a given moment, the actor is what the act is.
The act, once done, is not changeable. The actor however, changes overtime. If he returned to God completely and continued on doing good things, he is then a good actor. The past act is no longer a burden, no longer attributed to him. That means, he is no longer the "sinner".
In your analogy of the parents, if the parents truly love their child, would they not try all their best to help their loved child recover? And when the child finally recovered, are they going to call their child an "addict", a "sinner", when the child is no longer doing such act? No, they'll acknowledge their child as a "good kid", just like previously, before the drug incident, they acknowledge the child as a "good kid".
Not even while the incident happen they should say, 'you're a sinner!'. Instead, they might just show the fact that the act is bad, and the actor, when doing the act, is bad, and how bad it would be if the actor were continuing on the bad act ... 'so why won't "you" "return" while "you" still have the chance?' 'We are trying to help you to "become good" again...'
Compare the example above to some other parents who might say to their child 'i love you anyway. Even when you are doing bad things to yourself and to us and to other people and keep on doing bad things until death--we just love you anyway and that won't change forever.'
Which kind of parents would you have, if you could choose?
Consciously i'd prefer the former, who would show me just how bad the bad things are and encourage me to keep on doing the good things ...
To continue what i'm trying to say that "an act is not changeable" both the "bad acts" and the "bad actors" are like names, variables. While the real person, the "changing", is not entitled to those names. So the real person ought to think about the names "bad actors" and "bad acts" introspectively. Am i into this "bad act"? Have i become this "bad actor"? If yes, shouldn't i return to the "good acts"? Shouldn't i return to being the "good actor" again?
Peace,
I think we are agreeing more than I am letting off but let me just press a little further. You said...In your analogy of the parents, if the parents truly love their child, would they not try all their best to help their loved child recover? And when the child finally recovered, are they going to call their child an "addict", a "sinner", when the child is no longer doing such act? No, they'll acknowledge their child as a "good kid", just like previously, before the drug incident, they acknowledge the child as a "good kid".
Would these parents tell there child they don't love him whilst he is the addict? We seem to agree that the child can redeem himself and that the parents should want this to happen and should create the opportunities necessary for this to happen. Maybe I am creating a conflict where there is none but is it fair to say that the parents can see there kid is an addict, a sinner and even dislike him for that but they should still never stop loving him. Another analogy may help because I like being repetitive. I dislike George Bush because I feel his policies as president were idiotic. Yet as a human being, I love him because he is endowed with the spirit of Allah as I spoke of in my last post.
Also (this is more of a side issue), you say everything comes from God. True...Thus, I think that when the quran says evil comes from us, it is saying that we are disconnecting ourselves from God with our free will and God does not tamper with our free will. Thus, in that sense, everything comes from God because in his omnipotence he could have shaped Qadar or the order in the universe in such a way to prevent my free will from keeping me away from God basically, he could prevent me from ever having free will so I could never choose evil (or freely choose good). Since God has the power to change the order in the universe from me having the free will to decide to do evil or good, God is the source of evil or good or more exactly, God lets it happen. Sorry for this being off topic. You don't have to deal with this.
Peace
Peace
-
Peace,
I think we are agreeing more than I am letting off but let me just press a little further. You said...In your analogy of the parents, if the parents truly love their child, would they not try all their best to help their loved child recover? And when the child finally recovered, are they going to call their child an "addict", a "sinner", when the child is no longer doing such act? No, they'll acknowledge their child as a "good kid", just like previously, before the drug incident, they acknowledge the child as a "good kid".
An analogy of parents and childs in this case should be modified to the following
If your child named "brutus" try to kill his brother named "julius", wouldn't you punish "brutus" in order to protect "julius"?
Punishing "brutus"in this case doesn't necessarily means that you didn't love him.
You do love "brutus" but due to your love to "julius" as well, you need to protect "julius" from his menacing brother "brutus".If you let "brutus" kill "julius" and afterwards let him walk away happily, wouldn't you be qualified as "not loving Julius"?
And the worst part, after killing "julius", "brutus" could also does the same thing to his sister "julia".Thus punishing "brutus" in this case does shows your love to "julius" and "julia".
You should also try to do things which could amends "brutus" behavior thus you shall spent more special attention to the bad kid "brutus" than the good kid "julius" and "julia".The Quran contains a lot of story around this kind of 'ultimatum', "REPENT OR BE DESTROYED".
That's also explains why the Quran is written in Arabic conveyed through an arabic messenger towards the arabic society, as the above ultimatum is delivered to the 'bad kids' the "barbaric arabs" in 7th century. Eventually as history told; some of them does repent and 'be saved' and also some of them does not thus 'destroyed'.
Another evidence of 'natural selection @ works'.The same story is also applicable to the "Gospel" which being conveyed through a (actually there are two) Jewish messengers towards the Jewish society in the 1st century...
"REPENT OR BE DESTROYED".Conclusion God Is All Love and ALSO All Just..
Salam / Peace
-
Thank you Jafar for the slightly more brutal children example... ;D
Now to continue the slightly tamer family tale...
I think we are agreeing more than I am letting off but let me just press a little further.
...the parents can see there kid is an addict, a sinner and even dislike him for that but they should still never stop loving him.
Then what good is for them to see their kid as a "sinner" if they really wanted to help the kid and keep on loving him? Why not see the kid as a "returner" instead?
That's why if i were one of the kid's parents i'd say, "we do not love the addict, the sinner, but we love you and all the good things you do". "The addict", "the sinner" being the conceptual entity while "you" refers to a real person.
AQ is clear on that 'God does not love the transgressors'. And that 'God loves the returners'.
So if someone argued that the God in AQ does not love "the transgressor" and he/she proceeds by entitling a real person to that conceptual "the transgressor", then it is his/her burden to fix the real person as "the transgressor". Who is he/she to say that someone (a real person) is "a transgressor"? What if the real person is actually a "returner"? Only God knows best about that real person.
Let's get back on
Thus the argument Dr. Craig pushes is
a) The Qu'ran describes God as a 'hater' of sinners, prodigals, etc.. Thus,
appearing not to be an all-loving entity.c) God must, by definition be all-loving
God must, by definition be all-loving ... and whose definition is that? what is encompassed in "all"? Does God love hell? Does God love pain and suffering? Does God love...
- Does this list make sense to you
"God loves the muttaqiyn*" *"pious/reverends" is not enough to describe this
"God loves the muHsiniyn (good doers)"
"God loves the Sabiriyn (patients/perseverants)"
"God loves the muqsiTiyn (just people)"
"God loves the tawwabiyn (returners)"
"God loves the mutaTahhiriyn (purifiers/cleaners)"
"God loves ! those who say what they do not do"
"God loves ! the transgressors"...?
the last two are actually made specific in AQ with "God does not love ..." (always important to note that "God loves the returners"
If you did something wrong, does God want you to see yourself as a "sinner" or a "returner"?
While at this, let me ask anyone who believes in "God hates the sin but still love the sinner" (Thanks in advance for your feedback!)
- Are you really going to call someone a sinner?
- Has God ever, personally, called a real living person in his/her life on earth, a sinner?"
- Which is more sound for you to say to someone who got addicted in say, drinking "we love the drinkers!" or "we love the sobers!"?
- Which is more sound "God loves the sinner" or "God loves the returner"?
- Which part of "God does not love the sinner" negates God's love for any real person?
- And just how do you know that?
Peace
-
You said
"You do love "brutus" but due to your love to "julius" as well, you need to protect "julius" from his menacing brother "brutus"."Peace Jafar,
I think we agree. You don't not love "brutus" (double negative). You hate the cause of the injustice; the sin. I think I may be confusing some folks when I say God hates the sin and not the sinner, though. THat does not mean that God is not just. Rather God is perfectly just and will punish the sinner for sinning, sort of like a parent punishes his kid for doing poorly in school. The kid is still subject to God's all econompassing justice so his/her sins are punished but never does the parent say, I don't love you, to "the kid who does bad in school."
Peace -
Thank you Jafar for the slightly more brutal children example... ;D
Now to continue the slightly tamer family tale...
)
Then what good is for them to see their kid as a "sinner" if they really wanted to help the kid and keep on loving him? Why not see the kid as a "returner" instead?That's why if i were one of the kid's parents i'd say, "we do not love the addict, the sinner, but we love you and all the good things you do". "The addict", "the sinner" being the conceptual entity while "you" refers to a real person.
AQ is clear on that 'God does not love the transgressors'. And that 'God loves the returners'.
So if someone argued that the God in AQ does not love "the transgressor" and he/she proceeds by entitling a real person to that conceptual "the transgressor", then it is his/her burden to fix the real person as "the transgressor". Who is he/she to say that someone (a real person) is "a transgressor"? What if the real person is actually a "returner"? Only God knows best about that real person.
Let's get back on
God must, by definition be all-loving ... and whose definition is that? what is encompassed in "all"? Does God love hell? Does God love pain and suffering? Does God love...- Does this list make sense to you
"God loves the muttaqiyn*" *"pious/reverends" is not enough to describe this
"God loves the muHsiniyn (good doers)"
"God loves the Sabiriyn (patients/perseverants)"
"God loves the muqsiTiyn (just people)"
"God loves the tawwabiyn (returners)"
"God loves the mutaTahhiriyn (purifiers/cleaners)"
"God loves ! those who say what they do not do"
"God loves ! the transgressors"...?
the last two are actually made specific in AQ with "God does not love ..." (always important to note that "God loves the returners"
If you did something wrong, does God want you to see yourself as a "sinner" or a "returner"?
While at this, let me ask anyone who believes in "God hates the sin but still love the sinner" (Thanks in advance for your feedback!)
- Are you really going to call someone a sinner?
- Has God ever, personally, called a real living person in his/her life on earth, a sinner?"
- Which is more sound for you to say to someone who got addicted in say, drinking "we love the drinkers!" or "we love the sobers!"?
- Which is more sound "God loves the sinner" or "God loves the returner"?
- Which part of "God does not love the sinner" negates God's love for any real person?
- And just how do you know that?
Peace
Peace
Good point. I think it would be quite fair to say that judging someone as a trangressor or a returner is God's duty. As you say, we are not "entitled" to calling someone a transgressor or returner.
So to answer your questions...
- Are you really going to call someone a sinner? I hope not
- Has God ever, personally, called a real living person in his/her life on earth, a sinner?" I don't know, Pharoah I think but thats only if you believe AQ is a divine inspiration...Not God coming down personally and saying something.
- Which is more sound for you to say to someone who got addicted in say, drinking "we love the drinkers!" or "we love the sobers!"? Both, I love them because of the spirit God, the Wadud, Ar Rahman, etc breathed into him. I still hate the abuse of alchohol, though.
- Which is more sound "God loves the sinner" or "God loves the returner"? I think God loves both yet both seem to reep different rewards or levels of enlightenment because of their proximity with sin.
- Which part of "God does not love the sinner" negates God's love for any real person? If God does not love the sinner and the sinner is a real person than God's love for a real person is negated. God judges who the sinner is. Maybe I got your point messed up.
- And just how do you know that? I don't know what this question means but I think you are either appealing to a higher level intuition that we both can not know or you are saying that I can never now whether someone is a transgressor or not. I'll respond to the latter understanding but correct me if Im wrong.
So lets modify this world where we have the problem of actually having to judge someone as God is the supreme judge. So my kid is a repentless drug addict and I don't want to say he is a sinner because I am not God and my judgement could always be wrong (at some point most parents disregard this consideration just because of the reality of the situation but just for what we're arguing, this is the case). But suddenly, God comes down and tells me, my kid is a sinner. So my worries about my arbitrary judgements are out the window. One of your questions was does God come down and tell someone they are a sinner. In my thought experiment he just did. Now I am 100% sure my kid is a sinner because God told me, yet I still love him. I hate his sin (I think I said drug addiction) but I love him. This is what I believe God would do.
You say the Quran is completely clear when it says "God does not love the transgressors," "God loves the returners." Yet, "Like" is a completely legitimate replacement for love in this situation and it maintains Gods all loving nature. Again, sure I don't like George Bush because of his past policies but I love him because he has Allah's spirit in him (I'm sounding really Christian right now).
Further you said,
Let's get back on
God must, by definition be all-loving ... and whose definition is that? what is encompassed in "all"? Does God love hell? Does God love pain and suffering? Does God love...It's my definition, which I mainly derive from Abrahamic traditions. When I said all loving in my initial post, I made the point to say that God is the greatest conceivable being in a good sense, not a football sense or an evil sense. Thus, God would not love hell or pain and suffering but he loves all humans because we have his "spirit" in us. God defined as "greatest conceivable being" would not love hell because a Christian could come along, seeing such a God who loves suffering, and would say God does not love pain and suffering. Then we are left comparing the two Gods to see which is actually the greatest conceivable being in a good sense. With my low level rationality and intuition I would say the Christian God is more all loving without losing any of his other traits like justice, etc and thus is a greater conceivable being (in a good sense) than the God who loves pain and suffering. This would make the Christian God the God. Again though, this does not detract from his just nature. He hates sin and sin disconnects you from God, which is punishment. He loves you though which is why he is always merciful, and the loving one; you have God's spirit in you. I think John Calvin coined the term sensus divinitatis. It roughly translates to Sense of God. We have God inside of us, which makes it foundationally reasonable to believe in God with or without sufficient evidence in a classical or modern foundational sense. At least thats what I think.
PeaceP.S. Definitions are generally properly basic so I prefer not to get into a definitional battle. Lets just assume my defnitions are right for the sake of this hypothetical, unless of course you don't want to.
-
Definition of 'like' from M-W
1 chiefly dialect to be suitable or agreeable to <I like onions but they don't like me>Definition of 'love' from M-W
4 a unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another as (1) the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) brotherly concern for others b a person's adoration of God