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

[Paulomycin]

I do not make the rules here but I want to respect them so I am not going to talk about it.

Then they can take it up with me personally.

This is something that can and should be discussed. It's actually an entire category of Christian apologetics itself. I'm not afraid of it. Should I be? Let's go.

 

[Paulomycin]

Uh? So if we have a fact as I proposed earlier - ending a person's life who has a painful terminal disease will end their pain earlier than allowing the disease to take it's course...that's soverign?

You're saying that your subjective interpretation of this otherwise brute fact (the "is" without an "ought") is sovereign. But if it's subjective to you, then it's no different from 7 billion other opinions on the matter. Some think it's good, some bad, some a necessity, and some are indifferent.

That makes no sense. I've just stated an objective fact. It WILL result in shortening the pain.

Your purported fact also runs on the implied assumption that humanity is purely materialistic. What if it actually prolongs and intensifies the pain instead? You wouldn't know, because you've never experienced death. Materialists wouldn't know for the same reason.

So which do you choose?

There is no objective evidence of metaphysical subjectivism. Metaphysical subjectivism is not a sovereign law of the universe.

 

[Bradskii]

You're saying that your subjective interpretation of this otherwise brute fact (the "is" without an "ought") is sovereign. But if it's subjective to you, then it's no different from 7 billion other opinions on the matter.

That's kinda the point of subjective views. They're um...subjective. Including your view on the same matter.

If it's objective then one of us is wrong. You implied earlier that you'd check with God. But also said that you received some incorrect information previously. You could explain that if you could.

But again, if God always gives you the correct info then we can skip a step and ask you. You could never be wrong.

 

[Paulomycin]

That's kinda the point of subjective views. They're um...subjective. Including your view on the same matter.

Leading to relativism, which means the point is moot.

If it's objective then one of us is wrong. You implied earlier that you'd check with God. But also said that you received some incorrect information previously. You could explain that if you could.

Why don't you just come out with it and admit you hate special revelation?

But again, if God always gives you the correct info then we can skip a step and ask you. You could never be wrong.

- God always gives the correct info.
- God's info never contradicts itself.
- Anyone can therefore independently verify the correct info from the exegetical context (outside of asking me personally).
- Exegetical interpretation = the only objective interpretation of God's info.

^ None of these are statements of faith. They are statements of fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Leading to relativism, which means the point is moot.

Why don't you just come out with it and admit you hate special revelation?

- God always gives the correct info.
- God's info never contradicts itself.

The point is moot? I don't think that means what you think it means in this context. Subjective views don't lead to relativism. That's like saying swimming leads to the existence of water.

And check my details. I'm an atheist. I can't hate sepcial revelation any more than I hate Vishnu.

And now the important bit! God always gives the corect info. No argument there. But do you always have access to that? In which case you are always right. Or do you sometimes make up your own mind. In which case I may be right (relativism!).

Thems the only two options really. Which are you going with?

 

[Paulomycin]

The point is moot? I don't think that means what you think it means in this context. Subjective views don't lead to relativism. That's like saying swimming leads to the existence of water.

What's subjectively "true" for you, but not for me, but maybe or maybe not for this other guy over here, is actually relativism.

And now the important bit! God always gives the corect info. No argument there. But do you always have access to that? In which case you are always right. Or do you sometimes make up your own mind. In which case I may be right (relativism!).

Here, you keep flip-flopping between "you are always right" as the source, vs. special revelation as the source. Shooting the messenger doesn't change this a bit.

Thems the only two options really. Which are you going with?

False dilemma. Third option: Publicly endorsing an external source doesn't make "me" always right. It makes "me" subordinate.

 

[Bradskii]

What's subjectively "true" for you, but not for me, but maybe or maybe not for this other guy over here, is actually relativism.

Here, you keep flip-flopping between "you are always right" as the source, vs. special revelation as the source. Shooting the messenger doesn't change this a bit.

False dilemma. Third option: Publicly endorsing an external source doesn't make "me" always right. It makes "me" subordinate.

Your first point? Exactly right.

Your second? No, if you get special revelation from God that something is true, then I don't need special revelation myself. You'll always be right. I can just check with you. Is that right? Can you specifically confirm that?

Third point: But if you publically endorse God's position (and can we use God instead of 'external source'? Less typing) then you endorsing that which is true. Isn't that correct. So Indon't need special revelation. I just go with what you 'endorse'. Yeah?

 

[Bradskii]

Your first point? Exactly right.

Your second? No, if you get special revelation from God that something is true, then I don't need special revelation myself. You'll always be right. I can just check with you. Is that right? Can you specifically confirm that?

Third point: But if you publically endorse God's position (and can we use God instead of 'external source'? Less typing) then you are endorsing that which is true. By your own definition. So Idon't need special revelation. I just go with what you 'endorse'. Yeah?

Edit: Gee, posted in error as well as the next one. Get a grip Bradskii.

 

[Bradskii]

Posted in error...

 

[Paulomycin]

Your second? No, if you get special revelation from God that something is true, then I don't need special revelation myself. You'll always be right. I can just check with you. Is that right? Can you specifically confirm that?

No. You are perfectly capable of reading a Bible too.

 

[Paulomycin]

[Staff Edited Quote]

In any case, God demands worship and uses threats of eternal punishment, he makes arbitrary rules and then kills those who disobey... If my husband treated me like that, wouldn't you claim he was being abusive?

Yes. The problem is that salvation by attrition (what you are presenting here) is not taught in scripture.

There's this thing in theology called, "love of attrition" vs. "love of contrition." It's one of the few things that both Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians still agree on (or at least those who still know of it). While they don't agree on the solution, they still consistently agree on the nature of the problem within the real distinction.

"Love of attrition" - is sorrow over one's sin just because they were caught. It's the same as the old analogy of the kid being caught with his hand in the cookie jar--suddenly swearing love and respect for parental authority, just to get out of a spanking.

"Love of contrition" - is sorrow for one’s sins based on the selfless motive of love for God and sorrow for having offended him.

Therefore, many professing Christians who die will be horrified to find out that they are still immediately bound for Hell, simply because they thought they had "fire insurance." They only made the profession of faith just to get out of the punishment of Hell.

God knows the heart. Thus, He knows your motives. Only the motive of contrition goes to Heaven.

Thus, "salvation by threat of force," is not the true gospel.

 

[Bradskii]

No. You are perfectly capable of reading a Bible too.

Apart from the fact that 'reading the bible' and 'special revelation' are two entirely different matters, I was asking about where you get your beliefs from. And you said God. So again (pulling teeth...) is it the case that you must then always be right?

 

[Bradskii]

For example, "Why you think a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate?"
Because it's cheating...

No it's not. 'Polyamorous is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.'

You may not like it, and it may run counter to what Jesus said, but cheating it ain't. Maybe you misspoke.

 

[Paulomycin]

Apart from the fact that 'reading the bible' and 'special revelation' are two entirely different matters, I was asking about where you get your beliefs from. And you said God. So again (pulling teeth...) is it the case that you must then always be right?

No, the Bible is special revelation. As opposed to General Revelation in nature. Do you know anything about my religion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No it's not. 'Polyamorous is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.'

You may not like it, and it may run counter to what Jesus said, but cheating it ain't. Maybe you misspoke.

In the context of the OP, we're only talking about jealousy as it pertains to God's reactions and actions toward unfaithful people. I'm not even sure why the polyamory card is being played here, but @Kylie brought it up and, for that reason, I'm disinclined to let this ride by anyone here.

So, y'all Skeptics can just BACK OFF!!

 

[Bradskii]

No, the Bible is special revelation. As opposed to General Revelation in nature. Do you know anything about my religion?

I was asking where you got your information from that led to the truth. You told me to read the bible. You might well get special revelation from it, but do you think that I will? I think not.

So...still waiting to know if the information that you get from God means that you are always right. Or whether you make your own mind up on occasion.

Let's see some cattle!

 

[Paulomycin]

No it's not. 'Polyamorous is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.'

You may not like it, and it may run counter to what Jesus said, but cheating it ain't. Maybe you misspoke.

God did not consent. It's still adultery.

 

[Bradskii]

In the context of the OP, we're only talking about jealousy as it pertains to God's reactions and actions toward unfaithful people. I'm not even sure why the polyamory card is being played here, but @Kylie brought it up and, for that reason, I'm disinclined to let this ride by anyone here.

So, y'all Skeptics can just BACK OFF!!

In the very second post, the definition of jealousy was exhibited by comparing it to a jealous husband. It's kinda difficult to discuss the matter without reference as to how the word applies to different people.

I'm sure you've been around long enough to realise that discussions often meander a little. And most of us find it difficult to give an incorrect statement a free pass. The (incorrect) point being made may well form the basis of some relevant argument downstream. Best to correct up front I say.

So thanks for the SUGGESTION!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the very second post, the definition of jealousy was exhibited by comparing it to a jealous husband. It's kinda difficult to discuss the matter without reference as to how the word applies to different people.

I'm sure you've been around long enough to realise that discussions often meander a little. And most of us find it difficult to give an incorrect statement a free pass. The (incorrect) point being made may well form the basis of some relevant argument downstream. Best to correct up front I say.

So thanks for the SUGGESTION!!

You're welcome, rationally speaking.

 

[Paulomycin]

Let's see some cattle!

You are not persuaded there are "cattle," therefore "cattle" must not exist.