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

[Kylie]

... A polyamorous spouse sounds an oxymoron.

How so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How so?

You would have to ask this just as I'm about ready to close down for the evening and jump into bed, wouldn't you?

 

[Bradskii]

You would have to ask this just as I'm about ready to close down for the evening and jump into bed, wouldn't you?

Well Islam allows for it. But only in one direction. Gender equality isn't their strong suit.

 

[Kylie]

You would have to ask this just as I'm about ready to close down for the evening and jump into bed, wouldn't you?

Then I can wait until morning.

 

[GDL]

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.

Sorry, I didn't read your "atheist" position. My error!

To this I would point out a few things:

- With all the talk about polyamory now, I'll tread lightly, but it sounded earlier like you are woman in a committed marriage with a male husband and have children. This is a God designed institution that carries some of His blessings.

- There is Scripture I believe in Ecclesiastes that speaks of a man enjoying the wife of his youth (so not the typical current concept of a lot of playing around before marriage) and living a life in the blessings of marriage. At the end of a life of rejecting God, though, is the eternality of what I'll just call damnation.

- Along with this life of blessing for living in a God ordained institution, there is all kind of language about God, because of who He Himself is, providing the natural blessings of rain, sun, etc., for all, no matter if they accept or reject Him. And there are counteracting Scriptures that speak of judgments as and when He determines for rejections He chooses to address.

- So, your blessings can well be for some of the above purposes, but you can also be living a deceived existence that will end in a non-blessed state. And in living this deceived existence you can be passing on this eternal non-blessed existence to your posterity and find that you actually were one of those that the Scripture under discussion is speaking of.
​

Moral of the story: It's not over yet. Today is not tomorrow. Enjoy what you have while you have it. If (not necessarily when) tragedy strikes, you'll have questions like most do under such circumstances. When your days here are all done, you'll still have a consciousness able to think about what you did and passed on to those you love.

There's a lot in the Text for all of us to choose to accept or reject. This is part of what Faith is.

​

 

[Kylie]

- With all the talk about polyamory now, I'll tread lightly, but it sounded earlier like you are woman in a committed marriage with a male husband and have children. This is a God designed institution that carries some of His blessings.

Two comments. One, Christianity did not invent the concept of marriage, so to call it a "God-designed" institution is not correct. Secondly, why do you think polyamorous relationships are not committed?

- There is Scripture I believe in Ecclesiastes that speaks of a man enjoying the wife of his youth (so not the typical current concept of a lot of playing around before marriage) and living a life in the blessings of marriage. At the end of a life of rejecting God, though, is the eternality of what I'll just call damnation.

And? That kind of attempt at instilling fear is not going to work with me. Threatening me with a punishment I don't believe in is not going to be effective.

- Along with this life of blessing for living in a God ordained institution, there is all kind of language about God, because of who He Himself is, providing the natural blessings of rain, sun, etc., for all, no matter if they accept or reject Him. And there are counteracting Scriptures that speak of judgments as and when He determines for rejections He chooses to address.

The fact that people speak about God is not evidence that God exists.

- So, your blessings can well be for some of the above purposes, but you can also be living a deceived existence that will end in a non-blessed state. And in living this deceived existence you can be passing on this eternal non-blessed existence to your posterity and find that you actually were one of those that the Scripture under discussion is speaking of.

Or maybe I was right all along.

​

Moral of the story: It's not over yet. Today is not tomorrow. Enjoy what you have while you have it. If (not necessarily when) tragedy strikes, you'll have questions like most do under such circumstances. When your days here are all done, you'll still have a consciousness able to think about what you did and passed on to those you love.

There's a lot in the Text for all of us to choose to accept or reject. This is part of what Faith is.

​

In other words, all you've got is Pascal's Wager. It's not convincing.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

Not if God is jealous. Among other things, He is not going to want to be like ones who sacrifice their children to their gods.

In the case of God, "all" means all which is good and of real love for us to discover. Many gods are not about the way of loving which is possible with Jesus and following His example . . . the way He means His example.

He is jealous for our good . . . not merely being possessive like abusive partners can be, for using someone. Love does not have us just using anyone . . . if we are all-loving the way Jesus wants. There are people who are about using people, and they pick their gods accordingly.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The answer to your question requires that you study and accept Christology. Jesus is one person with two natures, one nature is 100% human and the other is 100% God. God can love because God is nothing but Good or love if you will it is His nature and it does not change.

I understand this theology. I have never seen any support for it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I agree. But human moral systems cannot be extended to other animals or vice versa. When we work out human ethics and moral systems we can show that pushing innocent people is detrimental to a society that has a goal of well being etc. Do you support punishing children for their fathers crimes today?

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.

Ok, It is still wrong to punish people that did not perform a crime.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I understand this. I just disagree with your take on it.

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.

Looking back on history and seeing where we can make improvements in human systems is a good thing. I understand there was a context to the system but do you advocate for that kind of justice system today?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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?

I am not convinced tis is true. We will have to leave it at that.

 

[GDL]

In other words, all you've got is Pascal's Wager. It's not convincing.

I don't try to convince atheists, nor instill fear. I just pass on what the Book says and discuss what it means. The same Book tells me atheists are self-made after rejecting what God has made certain they know about Him. It also tells me He's [likely] turned you over to your own mind which is without value in what truly matters. Honestly I don't care anymore about your beliefs or arguments than you care about mine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. But human moral systems cannot be extended to other animals or vice versa. When we work out human ethics and moral systems we can show that pushing innocent people is detrimental to a society that has a goal of well being etc. Do you support punishing children for their fathers crimes today?

Obviously not. Why would I?

Ok, It is still wrong to punish people that did not perform a crime.

... it is, unless you're an omniscient God who sees the many social, psychological and spiritual confluences that are taking place in and among whole communities.

Unfortunately, we being merely human wouldn't have this expanded advantage. And this is probably why God tells His Church to "leave vengeance" for Him to discern and to met out ... because we can get our judgements wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand this. I just disagree with your take on it.

Alright. That's fine. It's not like I have some political investment in all of this. All I'm trying to do is explain how I understand the 'meaning' of the ethical framework of the Bible---I'm not advocating a Theonomic or Dominionist view of it.

Looking back on history and seeing where we can make improvements in human systems is a good thing. I understand there was a context to the system but do you advocate for that kind of justice system today?

Nope.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How so?

In the context of this thread, and in association with the Biblical framework (again, as pertaining to this thread's context and not outside of it on some generalist level), and keeping in mind that it is "just" for one spouse to be jealous of her polyamorous spouse, then yes...

A polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Alright. That's fine. It's not like I have some political investment in all of this. All I'm trying to do is explain how I understand the 'meaning' of the ethical framework of the Bible---I'm not advocating a Theonomic or Dominionist view of it.

Nope.

Got it. But why don't you?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Obviously not. Why would I?



... it is, unless you're an omniscient God who sees the many social, psychological and spiritual confluences that are taking place in and among whole communities.

Unfortunately, we being merely human wouldn't have this expanded advantage. And this is probably why God tells His Church to "leave vengeance" for Him to discern and to met out ... because we can get our judgements wrong.

In my opinion God has got His judgements wrong too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Got it. But why don't you?

Because.... I believe the New Covenant era is a different dispensation and a different spiritual economy under Jesus Christ, where Mercy and Grace are offered first and foremost before judgement.

That, and the fact that I'm not Jewish ...

No, I'm just a lingering Existential Gentile floating in the ether, trying to make sense of it all (like many others). And politics, therefore, ain't my bag.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because.... I believe the New Covenant era is a different dispensation and a different spiritual economy under Jesus Christ, where Mercy and Grace are offered first and foremost before judgement.

That, and the fact that I'm not Jewish ...

No, I'm just a lingering Existential Gentile floating in the ether, trying to make sense of it all (like many others). And politics, therefore, ain't my bag.

So it seems you don't have your own thoughts on what good justice is? As long as it is what God said it is good justice?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So it seems you don't have your own thoughts on what good justice is? As long as it is what God said it is good justice?

No. I think we've already covered this in the past. I do have some thoughts on "justice," it's just that justice is a little different within various frameworks and I'm hesitant to commit myself to any one human framework. You have to rember, I have a degree in Philosphy and I've read a lot.

So, I'd say that on a human level, justice is not just some "one thing to rule them all."