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

[Paulomycin]

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.

Anthropomorphisms are meant to condescend to us; for our understanding. It's not meant to literally reduce God to anthropomorphic form. That's the error.

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

You're looking at effects and inferring motive from those effects.

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.

Then it was a jealous love that was 100% unwilling to include any Emperor worship. Thanks for playing.

 

[disciple Clint]

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.

Emotions are caused by what happens outside of ourselves.

 

[Andrewn]

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.

I can't pretend to fully understand God's reasoning. He could have chosen to reveal Himself in a certain sign in the sky that people have to salute every morning. If they don't then their house would burn down. The next day if they don't salute God they lose their right eye. The following day they lose their left eye, and so on.

God doesn't do this, instead after appearing to Thomas He said to him:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

Rom 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things.

God wants people to believe without seeing Him. He is patient for humanity to gradually develop at its reasonable pace. But He occasionally interfering in history as He did in Jesus' incarnation and in revelations he gives to saints.

At least, this is the way understand God.

 

[Kylie]

I can't pretend to fully understand God's reasoning. He could have chosen to reveal Himself in a certain sign in the sky that people have to salute every morning. If they don't then their house would burn down. The next day if they don't salute God they lose their right eye. The following day they lose their left eye, and so on.

God doesn't do this, instead after appearing to Thomas He said to him:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

Rom 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things.

God wants people to believe without seeing Him. He is patient for humanity to gradually develop at its reasonable pace. But He occasionally interfering in history as He did in Jesus' incarnation and in revelations he gives to saints.

At least, this is the way understand God.

So, to be clear about this, you're falling back on "God works in mysterious ways," right?

 

[Andrewn]

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.

You do understand the God of Jesus. There are no other gods to be jealous of. You know that Exodus 20:5 is figurative speech directed at people who thought there were other gods, the gods of other nations.

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.

You’re absolutely right.

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.

But you and I know that that is not the Christian God.

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.

Very true. Thank you for telling this sad story.

 

[Andrewn]

So, to be clear about this, you're falling back on "God works in mysterious ways," right?

No, not at all. We can't reach the conclusion that God has to reveal himself in a sign in the sky or to be working in mysterious ways!

I attempted to explains my understanding of ways that God reveals himself in post #263 . For about 2/3rd of human population this revelation is sufficient. For the rest, it's not.

Perhaps @dlamberth, @Mark Quayle, @disciple Clint and others may choose to comment on this.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I didn't get that at all from what Andrewn said, but he didn't exactly deny it in his next, so maybe Kylie's right. Nevertheless, I see no implication from what Andrewn's talking about, that God would want to remain hidden so that behavior is a choice. It is a choice either way, in my estimation. (Not that Kylie said otherwise, come to think of it.)

I can't pretend to fully understand God's reasoning. He could have chosen to reveal Himself in a certain sign in the sky that people have to salute every morning. If they don't then their house would burn down. The next day if they don't salute God they lose their right eye. The following day they lose their left eye, and so on.

God doesn't do this, instead after appearing to Thomas He said to him:

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

Rom 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them: ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things.

God wants people to believe without seeing Him. He is patient for humanity to gradually develop at its reasonable pace. But He occasionally interfering in history as He did in Jesus' incarnation and in revelations he gives to saints.

At least, this is the way understand God.

I'm guessing you mean, '...this is the way *I* (Andrewn) understand God'. I expect you would think my understanding of God would imply God if petty and mean.

To me, God cannot be a God of simple Fideism, though to be honest, though many believers cling to it, I think it is not all there is to any of them. So I think God puts more than enough evidence out there so that nobody has an excuse not to believe. Yet they WILL not to believe, (which to me is more evidence --call it confirmation bias --I don't mind), Thus more data won't do the job either. But I'm talking about intellectual assent, thus far --not faith, the faith that comes of being born again. While I have seen (and conceivably can myself be dependent on) the fact that intellectual assent of the existence of the Almighty, consideration of Omnipotence being compelling and mind-raising in itself, also implies, perhaps intuitively, other things, such as submission of Creatures to this Creator.

But anyhow, all that to say, intellectual assent is not salvific faith, and can't of itself, or even by the will of the thinker, produce salvific faith. God uses both.

So, to be clear about this, you're falling back on "God works in mysterious ways," right?

No, he wasn't, but I am, sort of. God doesn't have the plans we would imagine him to have. And he doesn't yet reveal himself to the point that every knee will bow. As CS Lewis said, "When the author walks onto the stage, the play is over." So much for more data.

No, not at all. We can't reach the conclusion that God has to reveal himself in a sign in the sky or to be working in mysterious ways!

I attempted to explains my understanding of ways that God reveals himself in post #263 . For about 2/3rd of human population this revelation is sufficient. For the rest, it's not.

Perhaps @dlamberth, @Mark Quayle, @disciple Clint and others may choose to comment on this.

I think it's the other way around. 1/3, at the most, and probably more likely 1/10. But I heard one preacher say he expects when he arrives in Heaven to be very surprised who did and who did not make it there, and most surprised that *he* did. I can identify with that.

 

[dlamberth]

Thanks Andrew for the invitation to participate in this thread, but most here may disagree pretty majorly with what I have to say. But here goes...

Kylie said: ↑
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.

I come from the perspective that God is not hidden at all. And that this physical world is a manifestation of God. I'd also go so far as to say that there's a place within this Creation where spirit and matter meet and that this physical world would not exist say for the Light of God manifesting it.

When we look at the spirituality of indigenous people, it looks like it's only been in the past 2000 years or so that we Human Beings have lost the spiritual eye that sees the Divine in this Creation. There's a lot of reasons for this, but suffice it to say that for some of us Lovers of God, everywhere we look, there God is. Some even go so far as to say that the Word of God can be found in every leaf from a tree. Another perspective is that this Creation is the first body of Christ. That's the Light of God part that I referenced in the previous paragraph.

So the bottom line for myself is that I don't understand the hidden God concepts and can't really comment on that.

 

[Amoranemix]

[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.[13] Since He owns everything, and since there are no valid rivals, then His jealousy here is justified.[14] This also answers your last response below. I hope I won't need to repeat myself.

[13] No one appears to dispute that.
[14] That is a different matter. That God owns anything is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Please demonstrate it.
While you are at it, also prove that God's possessive jealousy is well-guided.

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

Which you are forced to admit you assume without evidence.[15] 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.[16]
If the God of the Bible did exist, it would simply come down to an issue of self-deception on the part of idolaters.[17]

[15] You are mistaken, for I am not forced to admit that.
[16] I must have mistunderstood. You claimed that nonexistent gods could be rivals to an omnipotent existent god (a claim for which you provided no evidence) and now you are disputing that nonexistent gods can be rivals to another nonexistent god ?
[17] Unless the other gods they worshipped also existed.

– Paulomycin 229 :
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.
- Amoranemix 245 :
[11] I disagree. My remark was neither empty, nor a red herring.
- Paulomycin :
You need more than merely an insistent assertion.[18] 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.

[18] So you claim without providing a shred of evidence as if somehow that makes it true. I don't recall a time I let Christians get away with that, but they never learn. They just want to keep on believing in God.

[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.[19] You're showing a pattern of consistent behavior with this fallacy.[20]

[19] Maybe if an atheist had done that (and I am sure you wish one had) then you could have built a case that your complaint is relevant. It would still be addressed to the wrong person, as I have not made such statement.
[20] Or at least, so you baldly assert.

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."[21] It was desperately misleading [22] and ultimately went nowhere, but I followed it anyway. I apologize for humoring you.

[21] Your statement is vague – you would have added the accusation 'deliberately' – as you failed to specify what 'it' refers to. Apparently some mysterious 'it' was my claim. Maybe so, but your claim “You can't discover anything if you don't want to.” preceded it.
[22] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

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.[23]
The claim has been made that jealousy is inconsistent with love. I dont think that is true.

[23] You are claiming that a particular piece of evidence (God not caring about infidelity) against the idea the God cares about people, is missing. However, that is a straw man, as no one is disputing that.
The issues are whether God is loving and whether love is compatible with jealousy.
That piece evidence A against belief B is missing is irrelevant to whether belief C is true and whether C is compatible with D.

The claim has been made that God is love. I don't think that's true.

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.

But if it is false, then it is big ego. If everyone is truly 100% sovereign over God, then he is under obligation to tolerate anything. No one owes God anything. Especially people who tell the truth to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

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

So was Joan of Arc.

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!

The we who is doing the loving (the biblical authors), the we doing the swinging (who does that?), the we doing the making (Christians) and the we doing the complaining (skeptics) are all different we's.

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 [24] --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.[25]

[24] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[25] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

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.

Anthropomorphisms are meant to condescend to us; for our understanding. It's not meant to literally reduce God to anthropomorphic form. That's the error.

If God existed, I would blame him for not having written the Bible himself to avoid those errors.

I can't pretend to fully understand God's reasoning. He could have chosen to reveal Himself in a certain sign in the sky that people have to salute every morning. If they don't then their house would burn down. The next day if they don't salute God they lose their right eye. The following day they lose their left eye, and so on.

God doesn't do this, instead after appearing to Thomas He said to him:
[ . . . ]

A gazillion other God's don't do that either.

I attempted to explains my understanding of ways that God reveals himself in post #263 . For about 2/3rd of human population this revelation is sufficient. For the rest, it's not.

You are mistaken. 90% of the human population is dead.

 

[Paulomycin]

[13] No one appears to dispute that.
[14] That is a different matter. That God owns anything is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Please demonstrate it.

You conceded #13, so why the sudden flip-flop? An omnipotent being naturally owns everything. You claiming some kind of cosmic "finders keepers," or something?

[15] You are mistaken, for I am not forced to admit that.

You are in-fact forced to admit it if you don't claim the ability to disprove the existence of God. <-- Before rushng to reply, please note the careful wording here. I'm not asking you to do this. I am clearly saying that if you don't claim to be able to disprove God, then you are forced to admit "nonexistent" without evidence and faux-certainty.

[16] I must have mistunderstood. You claimed that nonexistent gods could be rivals to an omnipotent existent god (a claim for which you provided no evidence) and now you are disputing that nonexistent gods can be rivals to another nonexistent god ?

Human projections of imaginary "gods" are in-fact rivals if everyone bought into the belief that they're real, yes. This deceptively projected zeitgeist generated by a collective population would be the rival "god" in-question. No one honestly wants to get up on Sunday morning and claim they're going to sincerely worship an imaginary god. Thus, the level of self-deception can be pretty strong, yes. That's why external evidence of an omnipotent being is necessary. Because purely fideistic and subjective circular reasoning could very well be wrong. Yes, I do realize I'm throwing the majority of pop-christianity under the bus here. If fideism was the only kind of faith there was, I'd still be an atheist.

[17] Unless the other gods they worshipped also existed.

Omnipotence only allows for One omnipotent being in all possible worlds. I'm not playing equivocation games with the word "god" here.

[18] So you claim without providing a shred of evidence as if somehow that makes it true. I don't recall a time I let Christians get away with that, but they never learn. They just want to keep on believing in God.

This reply doesn't appear to follow from your numbered footer. What exactly did I claim without a shred of evidence?

[19] Maybe if an atheist had done that (and I am sure you wish one had) then you could have built a case that your complaint is relevant. It would still be addressed to the wrong person, as I have not made such statement.

This statement:

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.

^ As I stated before: 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 were just trying to get away with some easy snark about claims of God in the Bible without paying.

[21] Your statement is vague – you would have added the accusation 'deliberately' – as you failed to specify what 'it' refers to. Apparently some mysterious 'it' was my claim. Maybe so, but your claim “You can't discover anything if you don't want to.” preceded it.
[22] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

You stated (quote): "I am confident that even you have made discoveries you did not want to make."

But the actual point is that many people make discoveries they don't want to make and would likely never admit to. That's where flat-earthers and atheists are similar. Both groups prioritize their incredulous will over discoveries they really don't want to admit to.

But if it is false, then it is big ego. If everyone is truly 100% sovereign over God, then he is under obligation to tolerate anything. No one owes God anything. Especially people who tell the truth to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

No finite being is sovereign over an omnipotent being. You've overextended your rhetoric here. No one's going to put any real effort into worshipping a god they themselves believe is invented. Maybe a cult leadership, if there's some profit to be made on the side for deceiving the followers, but not a rank and file believer.

My initial point was that, if an omnipotent being, then there's no "ego." There is no undue pride, because God is truly perfect. The simple act of saying, "I am perfect," would not be due to any arrogance at all, but it would simply be telling the truth about Oneself. It's only ego if one is thinking more highly than one ought to. Humility is admitting that you're not perfect. Unlike God.

If God existed, I would blame him for not having written the Bible himself to avoid those errors.

Now you're getting desperate. I stated, "Anthropomorphisms are meant to condescend to us; for our understanding. It's not meant to literally reduce God to anthropomorphic form. That's the error."

^ The context meaning the reader's error. Not the writer. Nice try.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The we who is doing the loving (the biblical authors), the we doing the swinging (who does that?), the we doing the making (Christians) and the we doing the complaining (skeptics) are all different we's.

We humans. Humanity.

You are mistaken. 90% of the human population is dead.

Haha ....cute.

 

[Andrewn]

A gazillion other God's don't do that either.

There is only One God, there were never any other gods.

In the ancient world, and still in some oriental religions, some people venerate forces of nature, ancestors, objects, places, and different creatures. They think that appeasing these would make them happy.

In the modern world, they may be attached to money and possessions, power and control, or sex and gluttony. They think obtaining these would make them happy.

 

[Amoranemix]

[13] No one appears to dispute that.
[14] That is a different matter. That God owns anything is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Please demonstrate it.

You conceded #13, so why the sudden flip-flop? An omnipotent being naturally owns everything. You claiming some kind of cosmic "finders keepers," or something?[26]
While you are at it, also prove that God's possessive jealousy is well-guided.

I concede that the Bible appears to portray God that way. No matter how God deals with (threats to) his rights or possessions, that does not imply he has any.
[26] Ownership, as sovereignty is an opinion. Not all opinions are equivalent, so a case can be made that God owns certain things and that case can be disputed. For example, you could argue that God owns everything because he is the mightiest and smites everyone who disagrees with him. That would be might makes ownership, which is indeed a natural state of affairs. However, that kind of ownership is unsuitable as an excuse for abusing people.
The question is whether ownership is compatible with love. God may be of the opinion that he owns everything, but that shouldn't stop him from relinquishing it, if he is love.
If you really love your sex slave, then you are not jealous of the imaginary boyfriends she sleeps with. If you love her, you free her. But that would be a different god than the one depicted in the Bible.

You declined demonstrating your claim.

[15] You are mistaken, for I am not forced to admit that [nonexistent gods can be dangerous rivals to other nonexistent gods].
[16] I must have mistunderstood. You claimed that nonexistent gods could be rivals to an omnipotent existent god (a claim for which you provided no evidence) and now you are disputing that nonexistent gods can be rivals to another nonexistent god ?

[15] You are in-fact forced to admit it if you don't claim the ability to disprove the existence of God. <-- Before rushng to reply, please note the careful wording here. I'm not asking you to do this. I am clearly saying that if you don't claim to be able to disprove God, then you are forced to admit "nonexistent" without evidence and faux-certainty.

[16] Human projections of imaginary "gods" are in-fact rivals if everyone bought into the belief that they're real, yes. This deceptively projected zeitgeist generated by a collective population would be the rival "god" in-question. No one honestly wants to get up on Sunday morning and claim they're going to sincerely worship an imaginary god. Thus, the level of self-deception can be pretty strong, yes. That's why external evidence of an omnipotent being is necessary. Because purely fideistic and subjective circular reasoning could very well be wrong. Yes, I do realize I'm throwing the majority of pop-christianity under the bus here. If fideism was the only kind of faith there was, I'd still be an atheist.
[17] Omnipotence only allows for One omnipotent being in all possible worlds. I'm not playing equivocation games with the word "god" here.

[15] You are ambiguous about what you claim I am forced to admit. Your argument initially appears to be the following :

P1. Amoranemix does not claim to be able to disprove the existence of God.
P2. Everyone who does not claim to be able to disprove the existence of God is forced to admit that nonexistent gods can be dangerous rivals to other nonexistent gods.
C. Therefore, Amoranemix is forced to admit that nonexistent gods can be dangerous rivals to other nonexistent gods.

However, it unlikely you really believe that. In the end you indicate you mean a different conclusion, but it is unclear which one.

[16] The scenario the Bible is describing can only happen with God's acquiecense. Imaginary rulers are almost never rivals of real ones. Almost no one self-deceives into believing an imaginary president is the head of the country. If there is no real ruler, then one will rise and his realness will give him a big advantage over the competition. Yahweh on top of that has superpowers that give him a huge advantage. So apparently, for whatever reason, that is the way Yahweh wants it to be. As long as believing in false God's doesn't harm anyone, it may be compatible with love, but if Yahweh punishes them for their erring, then he is guilty of willful negligence. If you love someone, you don't punish them for going astray, but keep them on the right path.

[17] You and I were talking about the God of the Bible, Yahweh, not about omnipotence.

[18] So you claim without providing a shred of evidence as if somehow that makes it true. I don't recall a time I let Christians get away with that, but they never learn. They just want to keep on believing in God.

This reply doesn't appear to follow from your numbered footer. What exactly did I claim without a shred of evidence?

The claim that I am referring to, that you made in post 246 and that I quoted in post 269 right before my response [18] is : “You need more than merely an insistent assertion.”

[19] Maybe if an atheist had done that (and I am sure you wish one had) then you could have built a case that your complaint is relevant. It would still be addressed to the wrong person, as I have not made such statement.
[20] Or at least, so you baldly assert.

This statement:

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.

^ As I stated before: 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 were just trying to get away with some easy snark about claims of God in the Bible without paying.

In the bald, red, underlined section I did not claim what you pretend I did. Maybe you are misinterpreting 'does not imply' as 'implies that no'.

[21] Your statement is vague – you would have added the accusation 'deliberately' – as you failed to specify what 'it' refers to. Apparently some mysterious 'it' was my claim. Maybe so, but your claim “You can't discover anything if you don't want to.” preceded it.
[22] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

You stated (quote): "I am confident that even you have made discoveries you did not want to make."
But the actual point is that many people make discoveries they don't want to make and would likely never admit to. That's where flat-earthers and atheists are similar. Both groups prioritize their incredulous will over discoveries they really don't want to admit to.

[21] That point you had not made. You suggest that atheists have discovered objective morality, but refuse to admit it. You have however provided no evidence to substantiate that possibility. Moreover, people can make false discoveries, leading them to be delusional.
I understand you are very worried about the trunk in the flat-earther's eye, but before worrying about the splinter in the atheist's eye, you should worry about the plank in the Christian's eye.
[22] I thought so.

But if it is false, then it is big ego. If everyone is truly 100% sovereign over God, then he is under obligation to tolerate anything. No one owes God anything. Especially people who tell the truth to themselves and others that God should be more tolerant of other gods the people invented.

No finite being is sovereign over an omnipotent being.[27] You've overextended your rhetoric here. No one's going to put any real effort into worshipping a god they themselves believe is invented. Maybe a cult leadership, if there's some profit to be made on the side for deceiving the followers, but not a rank and file believer.[28]

My initial point was that, if an omnipotent being, then there's no "ego." There is no undue pride, because God is truly perfect.The simple act of saying, "I am perfect," would not be due to any arrogance at all, but it would simply be telling the truth about Oneself. It's only ego if one is thinking more highly than one ought to. Humility is admitting that you're not perfect. Unlike God.[29]

[27] Obviously, but if an omnipotent being existed, why not ? And why would an omnipotent being be truly 100% sovereign over a finate being, let alone all finite beings ?
[28] First, I was arguing under the assumption of a real god or of a god and worshippers in a fictional world. Even for a false god, having invented it also gives a sort of sovereignty or ownership.

[29]First, Yahweh seems to have ego. For example, he seems to find himself more worthy of worship than anyone else. Moreover, that Yahweh is omnipotent and perfect, are your claims, not mine. Perfection is also ambiguous. Some people may see imperfections in Yahweh's personality. Humility, like recognizing one is not perfect, may be seen as a perfection and some Christians claim God has that character trait. Yahweh may find himself perfect – he does seem to have the required arrogance – but that does not help reconcile love with jealousy.

If God existed, I would blame him for not having written the Bible himself to avoid those errors.

Now you're getting desperate.[30] I stated, "Anthropomorphisms are meant to condescend to us; for our understanding. It's not meant to literally reduce God to anthropomorphic form. That's the error."
^ The context meaning the reader's error. Not the writer.[31] Nice try.

[30] You wish.
[31] Of course you didn't mean that God made errors – God forbid – and no doubt readers made and still make errors. That does however not imply God failed to make any. If the whole class fails, then no doubt the students made errors, but so did the teacher and the direction who assigned an incompetent teacher. That is assuming the goal was to make the students succeed. If the goal was to make them fail, then the teacher or director may have made no errors.
So if god wanted people to worhip rival gods and readers to see him as a personal god, then he may have made no errors. Although that hypothesis may save god from error-making, it undermines the position that he is love.

The we who is doing the loving (the biblical authors), the we doing the swinging (who does that?), the we doing the making (Christians) and the we doing the complaining (skeptics) are all different we's.

We humans. Humanity.

You are committing a hasty generalization fallacy. You are assuming that humanity acts and decides as a single entity or assuming that all humans believe and behave the same. Those assumptions are false.

[24] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[25] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[no response]

[24] I thought so.
[25] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.

A gazillion other God's don't do that either.

There is only One God, there were never any other gods.

That does not prevent all those other gods from failing to exhibit the behaviour you described, exactly like your god. The similarity is striking.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are committing a hasty generalization fallacy. You are assuming that humanity acts and decides as a single entity or assuming that all humans believe and behave the same. Those assumptions are false.

Well, not quite. I am claiming that each individual human has habits in common with all other humans.

Mark said: 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 [24] --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.[25]

Amoranemix said:
[24] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[25] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Mark: (no response)

[24] I thought so.
[25] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.

[24] I have no intention of trying to prove something that is drawn from the Bible alone. As I said, it will not be satisfying to the atheist to hear this. To prove this, one would have to prove the existence of God to the atheist's satisfaction.
[25] Simple reasoning, but presuming the existence and relevance of God, and that, according to Scripture. I have no intention of proving it to atheists. I wrote it to Paulo, not to you.

 

[DamianWarS]

How are all three of these verses true at the same time?

7 Beloved, let’s love one another; for love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. ~ 1 Jn 4:7-12, NASB.

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. ~ 1 Cor 13:4-7 NASB

4You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing favor to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. ~ Exodus 20:4-6 NASB

God is love,
Love is not jealous,
God is a jealous God.

How then can God be love and jealous at the same time?

The Hebrew word is only used with God. So the Hebrew text is identifying this as a God characteristic where the Greek text is identifying a human characteristic. It changes the meaning because it changes the context of the word. So perhaps it would better to look at it as a noble or majestic jealously.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Hebrew word is only used with God. So the Hebrew text is identifying this as a God characteristic where the Greek text is identifying a human characteristic. It changes the meaning because it changes the context of the word. So perhaps it would better to look at it as a noble or majestic jealously.

How does it change the meaning of the word? What is the meaning if not jealous?

 

[DamianWarS]

How does it change the meaning of the word? What is the meaning if not jealous?

Because the context has changed to exclusively God so whatever it is, it's not human jealously. Reverse translating it starting from English "jealous" and then superimposing this over God doesn't work because the English word jealous doesn't fit this unique context the Hebrew does. To start the word is better translated as "zealous".

Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and English an extremely abstract language so they don't really fit that well. The word in question is קנא (QNA) (vowels are formed by the addition of accents on the characters). All words have a 2 character root and the root in this word is קנ (QN). The 2 character root froms the meaning of the word. From there each character in ancient Hebrew is a pictograph that carries meaning, combining together they form concepts. The pictographs is from the characters QN. The N is a pictograph of a sun on the horizon also meaning the gathering of light. The Q is a pictograph of a seed. NOTE: modern Hebrew uses a the aramaic square script (what I've copied and pasted) where the pictographs are not clear, you need to look at a Paleo Hebrew or Phoenician script to see the pictographs

So 2 letter root of QN has the abstract meaning of zealous and has the concrete meaning of a nest. The parent bird gathers materials to raise their seeds (eggs) in. So zealous here is a passionate devotion towards its own.

The child word QNA adds the pictograph of an ox with abstract meaning of strength (so it's like adding to the meaning as a strong nest). Together the word is formed under the concept of a parent bird will guard over and protect the nest and eggs from predators. Man can guard over the family, wife, possessions in a positive way (protect, from an enemy) or in a negative way (by not trusting or a desire to have anothers possessions).

This forms the meaning of the word in Hebrew where in English there is an probably a concrete etomology to the word but in practise the word is an abstract and has no concrete connections with it and we just associate a very specific action/feeling over it. In Hebrew there is a lot of information that gives meaning to the word that we loose when we just superimpose an English word over it that only study will reveal.

The NT word is in Greek which is also an abstract language (or more abstract than Hebrew) and to get to its meaning you will have to study the Greek to see if the English covers the meaning well. I just expanded the Hebrew to show that it's more than what we associate with in the English even if the translation still is appropriate.

 

[Bradskii]

Because the context has changed to exclusively God so whatever it is, it's not human jealously. Reverse translating it starting from English "jealous" and then superimposing this over God doesn't work because the English word jealous doesn't fit this unique context the Hebrew does. To start the word is better translated as "zealous".

Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and English an extremely abstract language so they don't really fit that well. The word in question is קנא (QNA) (vowels are formed by the addition of accents on the characters). All words have a 2 character root and the root in this word is קנ (QN). The 2 character root froms the meaning of the word. From there each character in ancient Hebrew is a pictograph that carries meaning, combining together they form concepts. The pictographs is from the characters QN. The N is a pictograph of a sun on the horizon also meaning the gathering of light. The Q is a pictograph of a seed

So 2 letter root of QN has the abstract meaning of zealous and has the concrete meaning of a nest. The parent bird gathers materials to raise their seeds (eggs) in. So zealous here is a passionate devotion towards its own.

The child word QNA adds the pictograph of an ox with abstract meaning of strength (so it's like adding to the meaning as a strong nest). Together the word is formed under the concept of a parent bird will guard over and protect the nest and eggs from predators. Man can guard over the family, wife, possessions in a positive way (protect, from an enemy) or in a negative way (by not trusting or a desire to have anothers possessions).

This forms the meaning of the word in Hebrew where in English there is an probably a concrete etomology to the word but in practise the word is an abstract and has no concrete connections with it and we just associate a very specific action/feeling over it. In Hebrew there is a lot of information that gives meaning to the word that we loose when we just superimpose an English word over it that only study will reveal.

The NT word is in Greek which is also an abstract language (or more abstract than Hebrew) and to get to its meaning you will have to study the Greek to see if the English covers the meaning well. I just expanded the Hebrew to show that it's more than what we associate with in the English even if the translation still is appropriate.

Excellent post, Daniel. Many thanks for the info.

That said, I think arguments arise between people like myself and Christians who treat the word as if it means what we accept it to mean in English. The Christian will then try to fit the image of God to the meaning of the word as opposed to explaining (as you did) that the translation is not as it seems. In which case, there'd be no argument.

 

[DamianWarS]

Excellent post, Daniel. Many thanks for the info.

That said, I think arguments arise between people like myself and Christians who treat the word as if it means what we accept it to mean in English. The Christian will then try to fit the image of God to the meaning of the word as opposed to explaining (as you did) that the translation is not as it seems. In which case, there'd be no argument.

I'm also not telling you want it means for God per se only that Hebrew and English should not be treated as mirrors and if we question a word then we need to study the text (or learn how to study the text) better. this is an ancient language (it's not modern Hebrew) in a ancient world that is not going to translate well into a modern abstract world and we need to recognize that. Translations are a help but they have limits.

The word may have a positive and/or negative slants to it, the Hebrew text also only uses it for God so I think this would implicly look to the positive toward God but I will leave that for your own judgment.

 

[JohnClay]

It seems like the following verse hasn't been mentioned:

Exodus 34:14
Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.