Truth, justice, and love.

[Confused]

I often watch A&E for some of their documentaries. They have this commercial about some "Dog. The Bounty Hunter". Now, I am unsure what the program is about but the previews say verbatim: "Truth and Justice must prevail because love conquers all".

Personally, IMHO, these words shouldn't be in the same sentence. But having them put there, I have to admit, based on scripture, love should conquer all, so shouldn't love ensure truth and justice prevails?

So open for debate:
1) Does love help or hinder truth and/or justice?
2) Does the love of God ensure truth and justice?
3) What in the heck is that statement mean?

[r~]

1) To love all, including strangers, requires that you protect them from all that might harm them, even from those you love personally.

2) Loving our neighbors as ourselves is the way we show our love of God. Idolatrous love of God tends toward harm through judgment and condemnation of sinners.

3) It means whatever the heck they want it to mean.


Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of God and neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

ItS
Peace
r~

[QED]

1) To love all, including strangers, requires that you protect them from all that might harm them, even from those you love personally.

2) Loving our neighbors as ourselves is the way we show our love of God. Idolatrous love of God tends toward harm through judgment and condemnation of sinners.

3) It means whatever the heck they want it to mean.


Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of God and neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

I admire your words here r~ but I must confess to wondering why God needs to be mentioned at all: If I rephrase your statements by removing some references to God and replacing them with *humanity* which I'll define here as acting with compassion and justice as recognized by the consensus of all men and women:

1) To love all, including strangers, requires that you protect them from all that might harm them, even from those you love personally.

2) Loving our neighbors as ourselves is the way we show our *humanity* [strike]love of God[/strike]. Idolatrous love of God tends toward harm through judgment and condemnation of sinners.

3) It means whatever the heck they want it to mean.


Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of [strike]God and[/strike] neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

As if it wasn't enough that the inclusion of God seems only to be there because we lack confidence in our fellow humans, the God being invoked always seems to suit the particular faith of those who would invoke him. I appreciate that this is why you spoke of Idolatrous love -- but how can anyone unmistakably identify the true essence of God except by projecting their ideals from some concept of humanity?

I'm kind of suggesting that, at best, God is spurious wherever she appears in your statements above -- and at worst, somewhat dangerous.

[r~]

I admire your words here r~ but I must confess to wondering why God needs to be mentioned at all: If I rephrase your statements by removing some references to God and replacing them with *humanity* which I'll define here as acting with compassion and justice as recognized by the consensus of all men and women:

Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of [strike]God and[/strike] neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

As if it wasn't enough that the inclusion of God seems only to be there because we lack confidence in our fellow humans, the God being invoked always seems to suit the particular faith of those who would invoke him. I appreciate that this is why you spoke of Idolatrous love -- but how can anyone unmistakably identify the true essence of God except by projecting their ideals from some concept of humanity?
I'm kind of suggesting that, at best, God is spurious wherever she appears in your statements above -- and at worst, somewhat dangerous.

I understand your concerns. However, it is self-evident that the majority of men and women do not necessarily recognize or act with compassion and justice. The dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.

Trusting *humanity* does not ensure justice.

I agree that adding *God* is somewhat redundant. However, it is dangerous only because (as you would suggest) We cede the good name of God to the idolaters. I will not.

Adding *God* signifies that We must love more than just our (human) neighbors, We must also love all life in this Eden we call Earth. There is no liberty or justice on a planet plundered to Hell.

I define *God* as the force that created, controls, and is, existence.

This is the God in which I trust.

I am
ItS
r~

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

[Confused]

Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of God and neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

ItS
Peace
r~

I am unsure of this final passage. While in utopia, it might hold meaning. But in reality, doesn't love of God and neighbor seem to lead to liberty and justice for those included in the same denomination, yet purgatory and condemnation for any neighbor whose view are different? Isn't this what God alludes to frequently in scripture?

[Beto]

I define *God* as the force that created, controls, and is, existence.

This is the God in which I trust.

If God controls your existence, what does it matter if you trust Him or not? You don't have a choice in the matter. You have to "volunteer" control for "trust" to be an issue.

[r~]

Justice secures liberty for all. Liberty is the peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness. In truth, love of God and neighbor leads to liberty and justice for all.

ItS
Peace
r~

I am unsure of this final passage. While in utopia, it might hold meaning. But in reality, doesn't love of God and neighbor seem to lead to liberty and justice for those included in the same denomination, yet purgatory and condemnation for any neighbor whose view are different? Isn't this what God alludes to frequently in scripture?

In reality, there is only one God; no matter the beliefs or idolatry of a particular denomination. The spirit of good and all speaks clearly: give to government that which is government's, give to God that which is God's.

I define *God* as the force that created, controls, and is, existence. This is the God in which I trust.

If God controls your existence, what does it matter if you trust Him or not? You don't have a choice in the matter. You have to "volunteer" control for "trust" to be an issue.

My choice is I can either trust what God writes in the heavens and earth and man, or I can trust what man has written in his "Holy Book".

ItS
Peace
r~

[QED]

I understand your concerns. However, it is self-evident that the majority of men and women do not necessarily recognize or act with compassion and justice. The dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.

Trusting *humanity* does not ensure justice.

Maybe the divisions we still endure have something to do with the arbitrary nature of religious belief that people have always liked to think would unite us? We've only really ever tried this one model and at no time has it ever seemed to have worked properly.

I agree that adding *God* is somewhat redundant. However, it is dangerous only because (as you would suggest) We cede the good name of God to the idolaters. I will not.

Adding *God* signifies that We must love more than just our (human) neighbors, We must also love all life in this Eden we call Earth. There is no liberty or justice on a planet plundered to Hell.

I define *God* as the force that created, controls, and is, existence.

This is the God in which I trust.

I can appreciate your perspective, but my trust lies not in looking outward to something that can be imagined differently by different people, but in looking inwards to the process that has evidently placed us all on the end of a totally unbroken line of descent spanning billions of years. That has its own impressive sense of unity and sanctity that we can all observe and cherish together.

[r~]

Maybe the divisions we still endure have something to do with the arbitrary nature of religious belief that people have always liked to think would unite us? We've only really ever tried this one model and at no time has it ever seemed to have worked properly.

I can appreciate your perspective, but my trust lies not in looking outward to something that can be imagined differently by different people, but in looking inwards to the process that has evidently placed us all on the end of a totally unbroken line of descent spanning billions of years. That has its own impressive sense of unity and sanctity that we can all observe and cherish together.

I would believe that we differ only in the words we would use. Again, I will not cede the good name of God to idolaters. That works only to their advantage. We must speak in tongues that all might understand; even (especially?) the religious. Continue to use the words that work best for you and I will do the same.

Is it 83% of Americans that believe in God? If you are unable so far to convince them that she does not exist or is not relevant to society, is it not better to insist they understand the difference between truth and speculation or imagination or Belief? Most of humanity can understand this difference if you but use a tongue they can understand.

It is not looking inward to humanity that shows what has happened over billions of years, it is looking at and being able to read what God has written in the heavens and earth and man. It is this impressive sense of unity and sanctity that we can all observe and cherish together. We only need to teach our children to read and trust in these writings of God over the "Holy Words" of man.

ItS
Peace
r~