God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Kylie]

not the way that an abusive boyfriend or husband is jealous

I dunno, seems to me that God saying, "How could you worship other gods, I should be all the God you need and you should be satisfied with worshipping me! I'm going to punish you for worshipping other gods!" isn't much different than a husband saying, "How could you love other men, I should be all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me! I'm going to punish you for loving other men!"

 

[GDL]

I dunno, seems to me that God saying, "How could you worship other gods, I should be all the God you need and you should be satisfied with worshipping me! I'm going to punish you for worshipping other gods!" isn't much different than a husband saying, "How could you love other men, I should be all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me! I'm going to punish you for loving other men!"

And in God's place, the punishment is to let you go your own way and experience life outside His blessings and protection from the evils she's going to be attacked with. This is something these discussions don't usually get into - His punishment includes just letting us go our own way and letting the world have at us - since this is what we think we want.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did kind of stray. My main point is that the bible says that God is love and jealous. The bible also says that love is not jealous. So if the jealous in both passages mean the same thing then how can this be. In both contexts I would say that they are both a negative emotion.

Justice is not punishing people that do not commit the sin.

Everyone does wrong. But it is also wrong to punish people for other people actions.

I am not talking about consequences of idolatry to future generations but that God actively punishes the future generations. How come you only want us to take in other verses when you disagree with what it plainly says. Why when it says God is love is it never questioned based on the full context of the bible to change the clear meaning?

I understand that this upsets you, but the idea that corporate punishment is wholly wrong is simply an outcropping of today's popular notions about ethics and morality. This wrongness you're alluding to isn't written by nature on any rock and it isn't something that, say, that the animal kingdom recognizes even on a cursory scale.

Additionally, consider that when Achan and his entire family were punished for Achan's sin, his family was constituted of "three or four generations" all living at the same time, not subsequently.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did kind of stray. My main point is that the bible says that God is love and jealous. The bible also says that love is not jealous. So if the jealous in both passages mean the same thing then how can this be. In both contexts I would say that they are both a negative emotion.

Also, I already explained above how Paul doesn't contradict the Old Testament, and I think what I've said previously in this thread needs to be kept in mind as you read and interpret the Bible. I'm not asking you to like what I have to say, but I am asking you to keep in mind what I say collectively as we go along.

Justice is not punishing people that do not commit the sin.

Entire books in Axiology exist about "Justice," Clizby. If you want to read one with me and discuss the various viewpoints that float around about "justice," I'm willing to do so. It's not all just easy clear cut as you imply.

And for you to define justice isn't to establish anything specific but rather to simply express what you think you'd like for it to be within utterly human bounds, and without a God looking over our shoulders about it. So, this whole thing about "justice" --being whatever justice is--- is contingent upon whether there is a biblical God or not. Moreover, even if there is no god, and even if you're being rational, then that in and of itself is no guarantee that you've hit upon any kind of exacting, real thing called "justice." If anything, it'll be more emotive in nature than objectively perceived.

p.s. ... I do 'get' what you're saying. I'm not oblivious to the apparent harshness of God's judgements in the Bible. But I didn't write the bible, so all I can do is attempt to explain it while I, like you, live existentially today in a Modern, pluralistic, democratically driven Western society that injects notions of right and wrong into us from birth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Didn't he threaten the children and the children's children for the sins of the father?

No, He didn't threaten. In the biblical narratives, we read that God has at times actually killed (executed) entire families for the sins of one member. Of course, on the other hand, we also find God forgiving entire families and providing salvation paths for ... entire families. So, it goes both ways.

This is how the notion of "Covenant" is different that the simple idea of a Modern Social Contract.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not talking about consequences of idolatry to future generations but that God actively punishes the future generations. How come you only want us to take in other verses when you disagree with what it plainly says. Why when it says God is love is it never questioned based on the full context of the bible to change the clear meaning?

Actually, I think I was the one who brought in additional verses that you didn't consider. And I'm sure others can be brought in too. As I've explained in the trail of this thread, there is "Godly jealousy" which isn't evil, and there is also "carnal jealousy" which is evil. Are we clear on this yet?

So, please, dispense with this reverse psychology thing where you blame me for the very thing that you're doing.

 

[Bradskii]

No, He didn't threaten. In the biblical narratives, we read that God has at times actually killed (executed) entire families for the sins of one member. Of course, on the other hand, we also find God forgiving entire families and providing salvation paths for ... entire families. So, it goes both ways.

This is how the notion of "Covenant" is different that the simple idea of a Modern Social Contract.

There's no doubt He did say, more than once, that he'd punish a family 'even unto the third and fourth generation' for the sins of the father (although I'll grant that there are passages where that is contradicted).

But you have admitted that He would punish people not for what they did but for what others did. And if we want to be literal, then the command to spare no-one in regard to tbe Caananites fakes it to another extreme. I won't even mention the flood...

 

[Lion IRC]

Disclaimer - Not a tu quoque argument.

When (secular) governments punish criminals they too are invariably also punishing the families of those criminals.

Capital punishment clearly deals a devastating blow, creating widows and orphans. Incarceration deprives many families of their sole bread winner. The legacy of a criminal record is an albatross around the neck of more people than just the convict.

What is the secular rebuttal and justification for this modern version of visiting the sins of the father on the sons? Its much the same as the theological apologetic rationalization.

Namely, that it is the sins of the father, which are the primary and sole cause of what ensues, not the punishment itself. The courts and the legal system may very well warn potential criminals of such long term consequences, (as a deterrent,) but the legal system is not accused of being unjust or deliberately inflicting these consequences on the families of criminals.

There's many a 'deadbeat dad' whose sins get visited upon his children.

Frank Gallagher - Shameless (TV series)

 

[Kylie]

And in God's place, the punishment is to let you go your own way and experience life outside His blessings and protection from the evils she's going to be attacked with. This is something these discussions don't usually get into - His punishment includes just letting us go our own way and letting the world have at us - since this is what we think we want.

I have a good job, a husband who loves me and a wonderful daughter. I also have a decent job, as does my husband, so we are financially secure, and we are paying off a mortgage. In short, our life is pretty good. Some punishment.

 

[Bradskii]

Disclaimer - Not a tu quoque argument.

When (secular) governments punish criminals they too are invariably also punishing the families of those criminals.

Capital punishment clearly deals a devastating blow, creating widows and orphans. Incarceration deprives many families of their sole bread winner. The legacy of a criminal record is an albatross around the neck of more people than just the convict.

What is the secular rebuttal and justification for this modern version of visiting the sins of the father on the sons? Its much the same as the theological apologetic rationalization.

Namely, that it is the sins of the father, which are the primary and sole cause of what ensues, not the punishment itself. The courts and the legal system may very well warn potential criminals of such long term consequences, (as a deterrent,) but the legal system is not accused of being unjust or deliberately inflicting these consequences on the families of criminals.

There's many a 'deadbeat dad' whose sins get visited upon his children.

Frank Gallagher - Shameless (TV series)

Congratulations. You are this weeks winner of the Long Bow Award (polite applause in the background).

Well done!

 

[Lion IRC]

I'll take that.

 

[GDL]

I have a good job, a husband who loves me and a wonderful daughter. I also have a decent job, as does my husband, so we are financially secure, and we are paying off a mortgage. In short, our life is pretty good. Some punishment.

Sound like a life with some blessings. Very good! And, in context of the discussion, if you wanted to leave those blessings and protections, maybe your husband, like God, would let you go and find out that the world would not provide the blessings you now have. And maybe your children and theirs would be affected by your decision and actions. And, maybe, if you repented of your rejection, you'd be welcomed back into the blessings.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's no doubt He did say, more than once, that he'd punish a family 'even unto the third and fourth generation' for the sins of the father (although I'll grant that there are passages where that is contradicted).

But you have admitted that He would punish people not for what they did but for what others did. And if we want to be literal, then the command to spare no-one in regard to tbe Caananites fakes it to another extreme. I won't even mention the flood...

I don't disagree with you on this. That's what's in that there Bible ...

... but if God doesn't exist, then I have to wonder why there's so much griping from skeptics about all of the ethical and moral issues they see. The griping seems moot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dunno, seems to me that God saying, "How could you worship other gods, I should be all the God you need and you should be satisfied with worshipping me! I'm going to punish you for worshipping other gods!" isn't much different than a husband saying, "How could you love other men, I should be all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me! I'm going to punish you for loving other men!"

... well, what kind of spouse actually then goes ahead and beds down with 40 other lovers ... and then has the gall to act surprised that the faithful spouse is jealous?

Should the faithful spouse put up with that? I think not.

 

[com7fy8]

I dunno, seems to me that God saying, "How could you worship other gods, I should be all the God you need and you should be satisfied with worshipping me! I'm going to punish you for worshipping other gods!" isn't much different than a husband saying, "How could you love other men, I should be all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me! I'm going to punish you for loving other men!"

One item >

"all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me!"

One guy can not be "all", but God can.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why does anyone need anyone to be all?

 

[Kylie]

Sound like a life with some blessings. Very good! And, in context of the discussion, if you wanted to leave those blessings and protections, maybe your husband, like God, would let you go and find out that the world would not provide the blessings you now have. And maybe your children and theirs would be affected by your decision and actions. And, maybe, if you repented of your rejection, you'd be welcomed back into the blessings.

But your analogy doesn't work. I've left a life with God (I never had it, really) and yet I still have those blessings. It would be like me leaving my husband and still having all the good things about being married.

 

[Kylie]

... well, what kind of spouse actually then goes ahead and beds down with 40 other lovers ... and then has the gall to act surprised that the faithful spouse is jealous?

Should the faithful spouse put up with that? I think not.

A polyamorous spouse.

 

[Kylie]

One item >

"all the man you need and you should be satisfied with loving me!"

One guy can not be "all", but God can.

Then God should be those other gods that the people wanted to worship as well. I mean, if God is ALL, then surely that ALL includes the other gods.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A polyamorous spouse.

... A polyamorous spouse sounds an oxymoron.