They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[bahman]

and you're saying that a person who hates Allah is potentially more virtuous than one who loves Allah, if I've got you right.

The requirement is to keep God's law.

If you do that, there is no specific requirement to love God.

You can certainly love God but why would that be an obligation? What kind of love would that be anyway? If the love does not come naturally, then let it be. You are not doing anyone a favor by forcing the matter.

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love. We're not against obeying commandments, but we believe that commandments should be obeyed out of love. (For example: 1 John 5:2) We believe, furthermore, that God loves us, and even loves those who do not yet love Him (John 3:16), and that our own ability to love is purely a product of God's much greater love for us (1 John 4:19). Love is central to everything we believe is truly valuable, and is at the core of who God is (1 John 4:16).

So you'll understand that when we see somebody who thinks submission or compliance is the whole story, we can't help but feel there's something very seriously missing from that sort of a relationship. And that's the understatement of the year!

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.

So do you think that all troubles caused by God such as disasters, diseases, disabilities... are out of His love?

[Immanuel Can]

The requirement is to keep God's law.

If you do that, there is no specific requirement to love God.

You can certainly love God but why would that be an obligation? What kind of love would that be anyway? If the love does not come naturally, then let it be. You are not doing anyone a favor by forcing the matter.

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love. We're not against obeying commandments, but we believe that commandments should be obeyed out of love. (For example: 1 John 5:2) We believe, furthermore, that God loves us, and even loves those who do not yet love Him (John 3:16), and that our own ability to love is purely a product of God's much greater love for us (1 John 4:19). Love is central to everything we believe is truly valuable, and is at the core of who God is (1 John 4:16).

So you'll understand that when we see somebody who thinks submission or compliance is the whole story, we can't help but feel there's something very seriously missing from that sort of a relationship. And that's the understatement of the year!

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.

So do you think that all troubles caused by God such as disasters, diseases, disabilities... are out of His love?

It sounds like you have a picture in your mind of a large, bearded ghost grabbing and shaking tectonic plates, or sawing off legs while people sleep, or wandering through Medieval towns scattering pathogens in all directions...

Before we blame God, we'd better be sure it's His doing. So explain how you think it works.

[bahman]

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love. We're not against obeying commandments, but we believe that commandments should be obeyed out of love. (For example: 1 John 5:2) We believe, furthermore, that God loves us, and even loves those who do not yet love Him (John 3:16), and that our own ability to love is purely a product of God's much greater love for us (1 John 4:19). Love is central to everything we believe is truly valuable, and is at the core of who God is (1 John 4:16).

So you'll understand that when we see somebody who thinks submission or compliance is the whole story, we can't help but feel there's something very seriously missing from that sort of a relationship. And that's the understatement of the year!

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.

So do you think that all troubles caused by God such as disasters, diseases, disabilities... are out of His love?

It sounds like you have a picture in your mind of a large, bearded ghost grabbing and shaking tectonic plates, or sawing off legs while people sleep, or wandering through Medieval towns scattering pathogens in all directions...

We all know the causes of all these, whether it is God or nature. But God can make the world a better place. Couldn't He?

Before we blame God, we'd better be sure it's His doing. So explain how you think it works.

Why should we live in such a place? Do you have an explanation?

[godelian]

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

We are talking about someone who forces himself, for whatever reason. You seem to be subtly trying to create a straw man by phrasing it as "is forced".

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love.

That is probably based on a spurious generalization of the term "love".

Normally, the term "love" points to pair bonding between mother and child or between two sexual partners. It is the result of hormonal processes in the body. An important hormone is oxytocin in this regard, largely triggered by physical touch.

There is not such known hormonal process involved between the believer and God. If it is hormonal, it will be a different hormonal subsystem. Therefore, it is misleading to use the same term.

We're not against obeying commandments, but we believe that commandments should be obeyed out of love.

That view is not compatible with how biochemistry works.

So you'll understand that when we see somebody who thinks submission or compliance is the whole story, we can't help but feel there's something very seriously missing from that sort of a relationship. And that's the understatement of the year!

A Platonic relationship does not involve physical touch and can therefore not be based on the same hormonal biochemistry. There may not be any biochemistry at work, for all I know.

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.

Allah is not your mother, your child, or your spouse. That doesn't turn him into a tyrant.

[Immanuel Can]

God can make the world a better place. Couldn't He?

Could He? And still allow human beings freedom and genuine volition? I wonder...It doesn't actually seem all that easy to imagine, when you really think about it.

Why should we live in such a place? Do you have an explanation?

Try to imagine the alternative. What would it even look like? What sort of a place is a suitable stage for the actualization of volitional choice? Can a made-perfect world be the sort of stage where creatures can have a genuine choice to love God or not?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, love certainly cannot be forced, I agree. But what you're suggesting is that the person who is forced to submit to Allah is at least as virtuous -- and you've even said he's more virtuous, potentially -- than somebody who submits to Allah out of love.

We are talking about someone who forces himself, for whatever reason. You seem to be subtly trying to create a straw man by phrasing it as "is forced".

Not at all. In my scenario, the second man, you'll remember, doesn't come from an Islamic culture, and only knows that if he doesn't play the "good Islamist" game, he's going to be in trouble. So he's not "forcing himself" at all; he's "being forced."

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love.

Normally, the term "love" points to pair bonding between mother and child or between two sexual partners.

I don't think it is. That may be your first frame of reference, but it's not everybody's. And it's not God's, obviously: for the first commandment for true followers of Torah is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." (Mt. 22:37) The Great Prophet said that this, along with "love your neighbour as yourself," was the whole of the Torah.

A Platonic relationship does not involve physical touch

A Platonic relationship isn't love. Just ask somebody who's ever been in one.

However, if you say that's how Allah thinks about these things, then I'll take your word for it. I have to confess, though, it looks very unattractive. It makes Allah look like a cold tyrant, devoid of interest in anything more than breaking people's wills, and utterly unconcerned about where their hearts really are.

Allah is not your mother, your child, or your spouse. That doesn't turn him into a tyrant.

It does mean He's devoid of the virtues of love. That would make human beings capable of a kind of great good of which Allah is apparently incapable.

But I suggest the flow goes the other direction. Human love, including all its forms, is really a pallid and distant reflection of the love of God. And that makes more sense -- that God actually knows more about love, and has greater love, than men ever do. If that is reversed, then would not Allah have lessons to learn from mankind, who would, in that regard, be more complete and virtuous than he?

Men can love. They can love women, children, friends, pets, their nation, truth and God...all kinds of things. But Allah has no ability at any of that? If not from Allah, where did men and women get the ability to love?

[bahman]

God can make the world a better place. Couldn't He?

Could He? And still allow human beings freedom and genuine volition? I wonder...It doesn't actually seem all that easy to imagine, when you really think about it.

What does human freedom have to do with disasters, diseases, and the like?

Why should we live in such a place? Do you have an explanation?

Try to imagine the alternative. What would it even look like? What sort of a place is a suitable stage for the actualization of volitional choice? Can a made-perfect world be the sort of stage where creatures can have a genuine choice to love God or not?

Ohhhh. That old story. Love God or get punished. Don't you have a better coherent story?

[Immanuel Can]

God can make the world a better place. Couldn't He?

Could He? And still allow human beings freedom and genuine volition? I wonder...It doesn't actually seem all that easy to imagine, when you really think about it.

What does human freedom have to do with disasters, diseases, and the like?

Think about it. Imagine that human beings are part good, part bad, and with free will. What kind of a place is the kind of place where these actors can make voluntary choices? If every misdeed is immediately attended by bad effects, and every good deed immediately attended by reward, can they really choose what they want to do? Or if the environment in which they try to live is shielded from all bad effects -- a weapon turns to dust in their hands, and cruel word spoken into the air fall to the ground unheard, say -- can they actualize any moral freedom or choice?

Why should we live in such a place? Do you have an explanation?

Try to imagine the alternative. What would it even look like? What sort of a place is a suitable stage for the actualization of volitional choice? Can a made-perfect world be the sort of stage where creatures can have a genuine choice to love God or not?

Ohhhh. That old story. Love God or get punished.

No. Not that. Don't try to anticipate, or you're sure to miss the point. Just answer my previous question, if you're interested.

[bahman]

Could He? And still allow human beings freedom and genuine volition? I wonder...It doesn't actually seem all that easy to imagine, when you really think about it.

What does human freedom have to do with disasters, diseases, and the like?

Think about it. Imagine that human beings are part good, part bad, and with free will. What kind of a place is the kind of place where these actors can make voluntary choices? If every misdeed is immediately attended by bad effects, and every good deed immediately attended by reward, can they really choose what they want to do? Or if the environment in which they try to live is shielded from all bad effects -- a weapon turns to dust in their hands, and cruel word spoken into the air fall to the ground unheard, say -- can they actualize any moral freedom or choice?

Try to imagine the alternative. What would it even look like? What sort of a place is a suitable stage for the actualization of volitional choice? Can a made-perfect world be the sort of stage where creatures can have a genuine choice to love God or not?

Ohhhh. That old story. Love God or get punished.

No. Not that. Don't try to anticipate, or you're sure to miss the point. Just answer my previous question, if you're interested.

What we do out of violation has to do with disasters, diseases, and the like.

[promethean75]

Allah is more like aristotle's prime mover and much more chill than Yahweh. Yahweh is all up in everybody's cornflakes and allah is laid back as long as u don't break the laws.

[Immanuel Can]

What does human freedom have to do with disasters, diseases, and the like?

Think about it. Imagine that human beings are part good, part bad, and with free will. What kind of a place is the kind of place where these actors can make voluntary choices? If every misdeed is immediately attended by bad effects, and every good deed immediately attended by reward, can they really choose what they want to do? Or if the environment in which they try to live is shielded from all bad effects -- a weapon turns to dust in their hands, and cruel word spoken into the air fall to the ground unheard, say -- can they actualize any moral freedom or choice?

Ohhhh. That old story. Love God or get punished.

No. Not that. Don't try to anticipate, or you're sure to miss the point. Just answer my previous question, if you're interested.

What we do out of violation has to do with disasters, diseases, and the like.

Sorry...what is "out of violation," and what has it "to do" with all that? I don't understand your comment or 'answer,' whichever it was supposed to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Allah is more like aristotle's prime mover and much more chill than Yahweh.

Yeah. His followers are real "chill" as they slit throats, beat women, throw homosexuals from buildings,watch Palestinian corpses pile up for their 'cause,' shoot up civilians in public theatres, fly planes into towers and march their own children into minefields. Super "chill."

[godelian]

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love.

I think that the term "love" is mistranslated or misused in this context.

]"love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."

That is some kind of recommendation. It is certainly not wrong to do it. It is, however, not an offense against Mosaic law not to do it.

(Mt. 22:37) The Great Prophet said that this, along with "love your neighbour as yourself," was the whole of the Torah.

That is a recommendation. It is certainly not wrong to do it. It is, however, not an offense against Mosaic law not to do it.

It does mean He's devoid of the virtues of love. That would make human beings capable of a kind of great good of which Allah is apparently incapable.

Love is not a "virtue". It is a biological tool to keep families together. These hormonal systems in the body certainly have their merit.

If not from Allah, where did men and women get the ability to love?

It's a feature of the design of the human body. Keeping families together has important survival value. Ultimately, this design comes from God, like anything else in this universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

47 ٱلْوَدُودُ al-Wadūd The Affectionate 11:90 and 85:14

Attribute 47 calls Allah "The Affectionate".

So, that settles the matter in terms of Islamic doctrine.

[Immanuel Can]

This is so different from anything Christianity thinks, that I'm really struggling to process it. We believe that love for God is the highest good a human being can know; and that forced compliance by a hard heart is known by God and not acceptable as a substitute for love.

I think that the term "love" is mistranslated or misused in this context.

It's not. Lots has been written on the subject.

]"love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."

That is some kind of recommendation. It is certainly not wrong to do it. It is, however, not an offense against Mosaic law not to do it.

Jesus Christ said it's the entirety of the Mosaic Law. Mohammed said Jesus Christ is a true prophet. Why don't you listen to either of them, then?

(Mt. 22:37) The Great Prophet said that this, along with "love your neighbour as yourself," was the whole of the Torah.

That is a recommendation.

It's most certainly not. It's a summation.

The truth is that Jesus Christ not only expounded and filled-out the Mosaic Law, but summarized it much more parsimoniously than Moses ever did. His control of his understanding of it was clearly that absolute.

Are you better than Him? I'm going to suggest neither of us would be.

It does mean He's devoid of the virtues of love. That would make human beings capable of a kind of great good of which Allah is apparently incapable.

Love is not a "virtue".

Actually, you're pretty much alone in that belief, I think. Most people would say it's a cardinal virtue.

If not from Allah, where did men and women get the ability to love?

It's a feature of the design of the human body. Keeping families together has important survival value. Ultimately, this design comes from God, like anything else in this universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

47 ٱلْوَدُودُ al-Wadūd The Affectionate 11:90 and 85:14

Attribute 47 calls Allah "The Affectionate".

So now it's a virtue, now that Allah is said to have it? But then, what I was saying is true: love comes not from men, but from God; and mankind's experience of love is derivative and distant of the love (or, if you like, "affection") that God knows and has perfectly. And contsry to your view, sex or family is not the totality of what love is...for is it not said that Allah has no family, and presumably, no sexuality either? How then can he be the affectionate or have any experience of love, when the essential objects you suppose love to involve are not available to Allah?

Allah starts to look less complete than humankind. They can know love; but he cannot?

[godelian]

Jesus Christ said it's the entirety of the Mosaic Law.

That is commentary on Mosaic law. It is never used in jurisprudential rulings. Show me one jurisprudential ruling that is based on that.

Actually, you're pretty much alone in that belief, I think.

In that case, you should be able to provide a link to a jurisprudential ruling that uses this as an argument.

Judaism has an elaborate database of jurisprudential rulings. Islam has one too.

Christianity does not have one because its moral theory is not suitable for that purpose.

Hence, you can argue as much as you want using arguments from the Gospels, but it will be to no avail because the Gospels have no legal weight, not in Christianity and not outside.

As the Holy Apostolic Church so judiciously pointed out in 1521 during Martin Luther's trial:

The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heresiarch from the past has drawn his deceptive arguments.

On grounds of the authority of the Holy Catholic Church, it is therefore necessary to underline that there simply are no legitimate logical consequences that entail from arguing on basis of the Gospels.

The Gospels are not law, have never been, and will never be.