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

[Bradskii]

Thank you for this comment, I expected it.

Do you think our "need to work together" is the reason for helping a child who is about to drown or fall into a well? Do you think it is the reason for making donations in the Salvation Army kettle? Do you think it is the reason for volunteering in soup kitchens?

You may be right. But in this case, atheistic evolution is doing a really incredible job, giving us compassion without an ulterior motive. We're even reaching similar standards, independently. I find it hard to imagine.

But I'm biased because I believe in a supreme loving Power, I call him God.

All down to reciprocal altruism, Andrew. And is there such a thing as a purely altruistic act? Even if we are the only one who knows that we performed the act, we still get that warm inner glow which makes us happy.

And not doing something? That's what shame is for. Shame is what you feel when you stand to one side instead of acting. Shame is not acting when you could have. And I guess you'd say that that is just our God given conscience. You might be right. But I vote for it being the result of the evolutonary process - which doesn't exclude God in any case. So we might both be right...

 

[Kylie]

Thank you for this comment, I expected it.

Do you think our "need to work together" is the reason for helping a child who is about to drown or fall into a well? Do you think it is the reason for making donations in the Salvation Army kettle? Do you think it is the reason for volunteering in soup kitchens?

You may be right. But in this case, atheistic evolution is doing a really incredible job, giving us compassion without an ulterior motive. We're even reaching similar standards, independently. I find it hard to imagine.

But I'm biased because I believe in a supreme loving Power, I call him God.

Why do you find it hard to imagine that a species that has formed social groups has developed behavioral patterns that lead to altruistic behavior? And compassion without an ulterior motive is something that is seen in other species, not just people.

 

[Andrewn]

All down to reciprocal altruism, Andrew. And is there such a thing as a purely altruistic act? Even if we are the only one who knows that we performed the act, we still get that warm inner glow which makes us happy.

This is true. Pope John Paul II wrote that true mercy is always a bilateral reality, a two-way street: As we give it, we also receive it. "An act of merciful love is only really such when we are deeply convinced at the moment that we perform it that we are at the same time receiving mercy from the people who are accepting it from us."

And not doing something? That's what shame is for. Shame is what you feel when you stand to one side instead of acting. Shame is not acting when you could have

This is, also, an excellent point. And yes, I'd say this is God-given conscience.

 

[Andrewn]

Why do you find it hard to imagine that a species that has formed social groups has developed behavioral patterns that lead to altruistic behavior? And compassion without an ulterior motive is something that is seen in other species, not just people.

Another good point. It's possible that altruistic behavior patterns developed because they are evolutionary useful or because God wants creatures to develop in that direction and that He deserves the praise of all creation as in Psalms 148 and 19.

It sounds like it comes down to our childhood bias and adulthood education and experience. But again, people with similar type of education can have a different worldview. I look around me and think, "How can someone not see God in creation?" And an atheist probably looks around them and think, "How can Christians be so deluded to think there is God?"

I guess if God wanted all people to believe a certain way, He would have given us more data. .

 

[Amoranemix]

[4] They seem very similar. The main difference is your bias.
[5] Your analogy appears false. You assume without justification that the relationship human – God is like a relationship wife – husband.

You didn't explain why the analogy 'appears' false.
Can you actually falsify it?[8]
I assert that if someone didn't love you, they wouldn't care about your infidelity.
Do you disagree?[9]

[8] You didn't explain why the analogy is good. I, on the other hand, have explained why the analogy appears false. Are you suggesting that the relationship human – God is analogous to a relationship wife – husband ? I can easily point out some important differences.
I will let you demonstrate the analogy first.
[9] I disagree. That is probably usually so, but not always. I can imagine a white slave owner being cross because of his negro sex slave's infidelity, despite not loving her.

This is my rebuttal : Do you have a better alternative ? If so, then go present it in parliament and get it passed.

You wrote "this is my rebuttal" and then left an empty space,
What rebuttal? Where is your rebuttal?

You can find my rebuttal right after the semi-colon “:”.
You seem to be expecting a detailed justification for the justice system in some country, but that is off topic and not the responsibility of atheists.

Jealousy is misguided if there are no equivalent beings.

No, but rather jealousy is unjustified when there are equivalent beings.[10] Otherwise, it is justified. I saw no indication of, "I understand where you're coming from, but. . ." or anything like that. Thus, your correction is misguided. Jealousy is equivalent to envy (in fact, they are synonyms). Envy is a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck. God has no one to envy. His jealousy is such that there are no real contenders for His place of honor. To claim there were any would be a lie. Thus, God's jealousy is justified.

[10] I suppose that even you agree that jealousy according to definition #1 of Andrewn in post 3 (envious) is misguided. Definition #2 was :
#2 Fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness.
So you claim that God's such kind of jealousy is both well-guided and justified. However, you fail to support those claims.

Probably the biblical authors thought these rival gods were real competition. God should have corrected them. Or maybe he just didn't care.

They are competition in that humans tend to lie and claim they are real. God corrects them throughout scripture. People still don't listen. The problem is the human will.

I agree that nonexistent gods can be dangerous rivals to other nonexistent gods. So, from an atheistic point of view, God's possesive jealousy is well-guided. However, only to a weak, ignorant or uninterested real god could a nonexistent god be a dangerous rival. And if God is unintersted, then he is not jealous of those other gods.

The question is not whether it is possible to make a few claims about God that are consistent. Like for Santa Claus, that is indeed possible. However, that does not imply other claims made about God (in the Bible for example) should be taken seriously.

This is an empty red herring.[11] Atheists have no consistent standard for taking anything seriously, because they don't want to be held accountable. The actual question for the atheist is what constitutes the objective standard of "taking things seriously" at all.[12]

[11] I disagree. My remark was neither empty, nor a red herring.
[12] That is a red herring. Whether the question for atheists is what constitutes the objective standard of "taking things seriously is off topic.

- Bradskii 127 to Paulomycin :
That was 'to step outside' and consult an objective morality (which is assuming that which we need to discover - but we'll let that slide).
– Paulomycin 129 :
You can't discover anything if you don't want to.
– Amoranemix 219 :
You are mistaken. I am confident that even you have made discoveries you did not want to make.
- Paulomycin 229 :
That's not the point. Belief in facts is never an "automatic" assurance of outcome. Facts can be filtered out through many prior presuppositional biases. Facts can be based on non-existent prior assumptions. That's the reason why cognitive dissonance exists. Dissonance is a conflict between facts vs. the will. It's naive to assume that everyone will simply cave-in to facts, or that you're some special exception to the rule.

Your more detailed explanation of the point you claim you were trying to make is a red herring. It could have been the prelude to a relevant point like atheists failing to discover objective morality because of that bias, a point that was made nor supported.

Jeff Bezos: All these people with more money than me! I'm so envious.
B: But there isn't anyone with more money. You're the richest guy on the planet.
JB: But my jealousy is still justified!
B: Have you been taking your meds, Jeff?

No-no, it's more like. . .
Jeff Bezos: There isn't anyone with more money than me. I'm the richest guy on the planet.
B: But there are literally THOUSANDS of people with more money than you, Jeff!
JB: You're obviously lying. If I were the jealous-type, it would certainly be justified, because making up non-existent rich people to provoke me is rather insulting.

Your scenario is more is more analogous and unrealistic (except for the ambiguous conclusion). Jeff Bezos is not threatened by all those lies about the existence of people more rich than him. He is not jealous of such people, nor should he be. Yet such an unrealistic scenario is what the Bible is trying to sell us, unless the biblical authors believed those rival gods to be real. It would be like a journalist believing that Jeff Bezos is jealous of all those people richer than him writing an article about that.

 

[Paulomycin]

[10] I suppose that even you agree that jealousy according to definition #1 of Andrewn in post 3 (envious) is misguided. Definition #2 was :
#2 Fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness.
So you claim that God's such kind of jealousy is both well-guided and justified. However, you fail to support those claims.

God is fiercely protective or vigilant of his rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Since He owns everything, and since there are no valid rivals, then His jealousy here is justified. This also answers your last response below. I hope I won't need to repeat myself.

I agree that nonexistent gods can be dangerous rivals to other nonexistent gods.

Which you are forced to admit you assume without evidence. I'm not hitting you with burden of proof, or anything like that, but you don't get to claim this with any certainty. Faux-certainty at best.

If the God of the Bible did exist, it would simply come down to an issue of self-deception on the part of idolaters.

[11] I disagree. My remark was neither empty, nor a red herring.

You need more than merely an insistent assertion. Atheists used to get away with that sort of dodge back in say, 2006 or so, when nu-atheism was "nu." But pushing double-standards on proof by assertion fallacy is getting (real) old.

[12] That is a red herring. Whether the question for atheists is what constitutes the objective standard of "taking things seriously is off topic.

Begging the question is totally on-topic. If, "Claim 'X' should not be taken seriously," and it is framed as a "just so" assertion with no rational explanation, then such statements are suspect. You're showing a pattern of consistent behavior with this fallacy.

Your more detailed explanation of the point you claim you were trying to make is a red herring. It could have been the prelude to a relevant point like atheists failing to discover objective morality because of that bias, a point that was made nor supported.

Please pay attention to the thread, since it was your claim to begin with, "I am confident that even you have made discoveries you did not want to make." It was desperately misleading and ultimately went nowhere, but I followed it anyway. I apologize for humoring you.

Your scenario is more is more analogous and unrealistic (except for the ambiguous conclusion). Jeff Bezos is not threatened by all those lies about the existence of people more rich than him. He is not jealous of such people, nor should he be.

Then Brad's scenario is cancelled out under the same terms. I'm fine with that. I shouldn't have humored him either. In retrospect, I should have gone in with something like, "False analogy Brad, because Jeff Bezos is not omnipotent."

 

[Lion IRC]

You didn't explain why the analogy is good.

I continue to maintain that if Someone didn't care about their partner's infidelity, that would suggest they didn't care about the relationship. That would be true irrespective of whether the relationship was God and Man or husband and wife.

The claim has been made that jealousy is inconsistent with love. I dont think that is true.

 

[dlamberth]

God is fiercely protective or vigilant of his rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Since He owns everything, and since there are no valid rivals, then His jealousy here is justified.

As I'm reading through this thread, it struck me that what I read here sure looks like an image of a Greek/Roman God to me. It's not a God of Infinite Love or even Infinite Divine Compassion. For a God to be fiercely protective of possessions or hold to feelings of intolerance is all Ego stuff. It's not Love. It feels sort of like an abused person making justification for their abuse.

 

[dlamberth]

The claim has been made that jealousy is inconsistent with love. I dont think that is true.

When I look inward, jealousy comes from a very different place than does Love. Different stuff bubbles up with jealously when compared to love that causes different outward reaction depending on which is out there. They very much are inconsistent.

 

[Kylie]

Another good point. It's possible that altruistic behavior patterns developed because they are evolutionary useful or because God wants creatures to develop in that direction and that He deserves the praise of all creation as in Psalms 148 and 19.

It sounds like it comes down to our childhood bias and adulthood education and experience. But again, people with similar type of education can have a different worldview. I look around me and think, "How can someone not see God in creation?" And an atheist probably looks around them and think, "How can Christians be so deluded to think there is God?"

I guess if God wanted all people to believe a certain way, He would have given us more data. .

I find it odd that you think that God would apparently want to remain hidden from us so that how we behave is a choice, yet has no problem giving us altruistic behaviors because he wants us to develop in that direction.

 

[Paulomycin]

As I'm reading through this thread, it struck me that what I read here sure looks like an image of a Greek/Roman God to me.

Which were polytheistic. That's where the confusion lies.

It's not a God of Infinite Love or even Infinite Divine Compassion. For a God to be fiercely protective of possessions or hold to feelings of intolerance is all Ego stuff.

But if it's true, then it's not ego. If God is truly 100% sovereign over every little thing, then He is under no obligation to tolerate anything. God doesn't owe anyone anything. Especially people who lie to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

 

[dlamberth]

Which were polytheistic. That's where the confusion lies.

But acting the same. There's no confusion.

But if it's true, then it's not ego. If God is truly 100% sovereign over every little thing, then He is under no obligation to tolerate anything. God doesn't owe anyone anything. Especially people who lie to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

The Love of a God of Love is not about obligations to tolerance or sovereignty. It's about being a God of Love. If God is the stuff of Love and if His followers act from a Heart filled with Love, there's nothing to tolerate or even to be jealous of. Love attracts. It's that simple. One of the reason why those first Christians were so successful in ancient Rome is because of the Love through service to those in need they gave to others. It wasn't through jealously. The same with a Loving God.

 

[Paulomycin]

But acting the same. There's no confusion.

The confusion comes when all Roman and Greek gods behave like fallible human beings compared to other like fallible human beings. That's not the model of the God I worship. Omnipotence is necessarily monotheistic. God has no other like-minded peers to contend with, and He doesn't owe anyone anything.

The Love of a God of Love is not about obligations to tolerance or sovereignty. It's about being a God of Love. If God is the stuff of Love and if His followers act from a Heart filled with Love, there's nothing to tolerate or even to be jealous of. Love attracts. It's that simple. One of the reason why those first Christians were so successful in ancient Rome is because of the Love through service to those in need they gave to others. It wasn't through jealously. The same with a Loving God.

And those first Christians were thrown to the lions or dipped in pitch and set on fire because they jealously preserved the love reserved for Christ alone in-defiance of a deified Emperor cult.

 

[dlamberth]

The confusion comes when all Roman and Greek gods behave like fallible human beings compared to other like fallible human beings. That's not the model of the God I worship. Omnipotence is necessarily monotheistic. God has no other like-minded peers to contend with, and He doesn't owe anyone anything.

The Greek/Roman Pagan gods sit on mountain tops throwing lightening bolts, doing things to people they are jealous of, destroying cities, judging those who are not obedient...the same sort of things we read about with the Christian God.

And those first Christians were thrown to the lions or dipped in pitch and set on fire because they jealously preserved the love reserved for Christ alone in-defiance of a deified Emperor cult.

It was straight up Love for Christ from which they were martyred. Period!!! No jealously preserved in sight...Love only Love!

It was that same Love in those early Christians that turned the Roman, mostly the poor people, into those first followers of Jesus.

I'm reminded of a medieval Christian woman mystic by the name of Marguerite Porete. She wrote that there are two churches. The first she called the High Holy Church. That church "preached" Love. The other church she called the Little Holy Church. That church she wrote "preached" rules, laws and order. Personally I side with Marguerite Porete on this.

A side note: Porete was burned at the stake by the Little Holy Church.

For myself, I pray to a God of Love. And it is through Love is how I know the Heart of Christ.

 

[Paulomycin]

The Greek/Roman Pagan gods sit on mountain tops throwing lightening bolts, doing things to people they are jealous of, destroying cities, judging those who are not obedient...the same sort of things we read about with the Christian God.

Yep. That's exactly your error. You've anthropomorphized the God of the Bible into equality with humanized non-omnipotent pagan constructs.

For example, the gods of Rome are often given to caprice. But the God of the Bible is never capricious, except if you're eisegetically reading your biases and personal reactions into the text.

It was straight up Love for Christ from which they were martyred. Period!!! No jealously preserved in sight...Love only Love!

Then why did they refuse to bow to the Emperor cult? Why contradict yourself?

 

[Mark Quayle]

God does not have emotions, He is the same all the time, He is impassible

I disagree. Impassible does not mean he has no emotions. It means they are part of himself. (As one of us said, his attributes are him.) Impassible means he is not changed by what happens outside himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which were polytheistic. That's where the confusion lies.



But if it's true, then it's not ego. If God is truly 100% sovereign over every little thing, then He is under no obligation to tolerate anything. God doesn't owe anyone anything. Especially people who lie to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

Now THAT is the point.

We as humans love to take a word like 'Jealous' anthropomorphically, then we swing wide the other way: "Why would omnipotence care about insignificant idols, anyway?" So we come up with "God makes no sense."

But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!

 

[Paulomycin]

I disagree. Impassible does not mean he has no emotions. It means they are part of himself. (As one of us said, his attributes are him.) Impassible means he is not changed by what happens outside himself.

This is a detail I've never considered.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Definition #2 was :
#2 Fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness.

God is fiercely protective or vigilant of his rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Since He owns everything, and since there are no valid rivals, then His jealousy here is justified. This also answers your last response below. I hope I won't need to repeat myself.

While it may not be satisfying to an atheist or agnostic to hear, there is more to this discussion that should be addressed. God's jealously and anger is justified another way --those that particularly belong to him have had the guilt and punishment lifted from them and placed on God's own Son. When these sin in the usual way, it is bad enough, but when they go after other supposed gods, as if their own Creator and Redeemer was irrelevant or non-existent compared to these idols, after God has done all this for them, it is an extra slap in the face of God.

 

[dlamberth]

Yep. That's exactly your error. You've anthropomorphized the God of the Bible into equality with humanized non-omnipotent pagan constructs.

Jealously isn't anthropomorphizing God? Anger? Vindictive? Hateful? Sitting up high passing down judgment? Just like the Greek/Roman God's? In actions, I don't see much difference.

For example, the gods of Rome are often given to caprice. But the God of the Bible is never capricious, except if you're eisegetically reading your biases and personal reactions into the text.

I'm looking at actions. That's where it becomes real.

Then why did they refuse to bow to the Emperor cult? Why contradict yourself?

As I wrote, because of their Love of Jesus. And I suspect that through Jesus they "experienced" Divine Love. Love and ONLY Love!! No contradiction there.