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

[Clizby WampusCat]

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."

Never said it was. I don't think you need a philosophy degree to say that punishing people for crimes of their father is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never said it was. I don't think you need a philosophy degree to say that punishing people for crimes of their father is wrong.

You're right. We don't. And we don't need a philosophy degree to understand that a faithful spouse would feel jealous (and rightfully so) if her husband trotted off and dallied with other women. We also don't need a theology degree to understand that a Holy and Sovereign Creator might feel jealous of His own people who dallied with "other gods."

But looking at your secondary point here, God probably doesn't need a degree either, so that might be why we find Moses writing in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that children being punished for their parents sin wasn't a very typical thing to happen in ancient Israel. No, if we find entire families being punished by God in these ancient narratives of the O.T., there's probably something more to it all than what a plain jane reading of but a few verses within it can indicate to us (as in Achan's case).

 

[Kylie]

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.

I thought jealousy was a sin.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Just repeating the claim that a polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron doesn't explain WHY it's an oxymoron.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just repeating the claim that a polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron doesn't explain WHY it's an oxymoron.

I think we're talking passed each other, Kylie. I'm implying that a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate. That's all. And I'm dropping this topic because it's off topic for this thread, unless you want to tie it into the context that I was tying it to: spousal jealousy... and/or Godly jealousy.

 

[Kylie]

I think we're talking passed each other, Kylie. I'm implying that a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate. That's all. And I'm dropping this topic because it's off topic for this thread, unless you want to tie it into the context that I was tying it to: spousal jealousy... and/or Godly jealousy.

I'm still curious regarding why you think that. I do understand why you don't want to take this thread off topic. If you'd like, I'd enjoy continuing this discussion via private messages.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm still curious regarding why you think that. I do understand why you don't want to take this thread off topic. If you'd like, I'd enjoy continuing this discussion via private messages.

What specifically is it that you want to know, Kylie?

 

[disciple Clint]

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

OK maybe I can provide some for you. which of this do you need evidence, that God is all good or love or that Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God.

 

[Bradskii]

OK maybe I can provide some for you. which of this do you need evidence, that God is all good...

Who's definition of good are you using?

 

[disciple Clint]

Who's definition of good are you using?

Good= containing no evil.

 

[Bradskii]

Good= containing no evil.

Now you're never going to guess what the next question is going to be. Although I would have preferred you had perhaps realised it would be coming and incorprated a response into your answer.

But...who's definition of evil are you using?

The problem being (to cut to the chase) is that, using just the two of us as an example, your definition of good (and evil) will not match mine in all respects. I think it will in most, but it's not what we have in common that's going to cause the problem.

Your 'God is good' is not the same as my 'God is good'. So how do we get around this?

 

[disciple Clint]

Now you're never going to guess what the next question is going to be. Although I would have preferred you had perhaps realised it would be coming and incorprated a response into your answer.

But...who's definition of evil are you using?

The problem being (to cut to the chase) is that, using just the two of us as an example, your definition of good (and evil) will not match mine in all respects. I think it will in most, but it's not what we have in common that's going to cause the problem.

Your 'God is good' is not the same as my 'God is good'. So how do we get around this?

We are not going to get around. Have a nice day.

 

[Kylie]

What specifically is it that you want to know, Kylie?

Why you think a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate.

 

[Kylie]

We are not going to get around. Have a nice day.

I think that if you are going to define "good" as "Containing no evil," then defining what "evil" is will be a pretty important part of it.

 

[disciple Clint]

I think that if you are going to define "good" as "Containing no evil," then defining what "evil" is will be a pretty important part of it.

OK evil is the lack of any good.

 

[Bradskii]

OK evil is the lack of any good.

OK. Example time!

Let's say that I think that factory farming is evil - it's cruel to animals. And you think it's good - it ensures a cheap source of food for the hungry.

If evil is the lack of good and factory farming is allowed then we live in an evil world. And you would say that it's good so we live in a good world.

If you ask me if God is good and He doesn't allow for a world with factory farming, I'll agree He's good. And if He does allow it then you would agree He's good.

Now, please don't get too tied up on this example. It's only illustrative that two people with two different world views will have two different views of God.

In some situations, the meaning of good for you isn't the same as it is for me. So how do we solve this?

 

[Kylie]

OK evil is the lack of any good.

So then "good" means "not lacking good."

That's rather circular, and ultimately meaningless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why you think a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate.

Y'know, on second thought, I'm just going to decline from answering this ...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

OK maybe I can provide some for you. which of this do you need evidence, that God is all good or love or that Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God.

Both. It will not matter what I think about Jesus if I am not convinced that God is good. So if you want you can start there maybe in a different thread.

 

[Paulomycin]

In some situations, the meaning of good for you isn't the same as it is for me. So how do we solve this?

The solution is that we must necessarily step outside of our (mere) subjective opinion on morality to determine an objective source. For example, if you can determine at least one absolute truth, then you also get the advantage of at least one universal moral truth (to contrast with lies). "Buy One, Get One Free."

If an objective source cannot be determined, then one should be honest enough to admit that morality cannot be determined or does not exist. "Subjective morality" is a contradiction, because morality itself is an objective claim. Ethics are societal; morality is universal. But pop-atheists are generally afraid that if they admit this, then their particular brand of atheism won't "sell." So they push the contradiction instead.