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

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Bible shows God judging people based on the tools they are given. I don't see this any differently for those who don't have access.

So a god wants us to be saved and wants us to have a loving relationship with him yet he cannot be clear who he is and what he has done? Makes little sense.

 

[DamianWarS]

So a god wants us to be saved and wants us to have a loving relationship with him yet he cannot be clear who he is and what he has done? Makes little sense.

that's an issue of perspective. I don't see life stopping upon death so perhaps those who weren't given the tools may still have the opportunity to enter into that relationship or reject it. but I haven't died yet so I can't really speak to that nor is it something I would recommend. none of this matters of course if there is no God but it matters a lot if there is a God. I'm not saying that to promote an insurance policy but picking at the inside matters of faith seems arbitrary when the real issue of if a God exists or not is what validates those things and gives them purpose (or invalidates them and makes them pointless). What you see as inconsistent or irrational doesn't actually disprove God.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

that's an issue of perspective. I don't see life stopping upon death so perhaps those who weren't given the tools may still have the opportunity to enter into that relationship or reject it. but I haven't died yet so I can't really speak to that nor is it something I would recommend. none of this matters of course if there is no God but it matters a lot if there is a God. I'm not saying that to promote an insurance policy but picking at the inside matters of faith seems arbitrary when the real issue of if a God exists or not is what validates those things and gives them purpose (or invalidates them and makes them pointless). What you see as inconsistent or irrational doesn't actually disprove God.

I never said anything disproves God. I see no good reasons to believe a god either exists or does not exist. When I do I will believe whichever one I have good evidence for.

 

[Bradskii]

If it is God, it is not the 'usual' human way. So not the same meaning. That 'random' internet search yield you found isn't a definition, but an assessment of motive. For example, what it says it 'consists of...' shows what jealousy 'exhibits as...'.

See, here is what a 'random internet search' yielded, when done by one who believes the Bible: "fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions."

No need for the scare quotes. And it's mosr definitely a definition of jealousy. As is yours. And I'm quite happy to use yours if you like. You could use it in relation to a man and his wife. And yes, some men consider their wives 'posessions'.

This claim that as God created us He can do what He likes with us cuts no ice with me, I'm afraid. It's a truly horrifying concept. One I utterly reject.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are assuming the first cause was an intelligence. How do you know that?

Anything else is mechanical fact, which is dependent on outside principles (at least). Thus, not First.

 

[Bradskii]

Anything else is mechanical fact, which is dependent on outside principles (at least). Thus, not First.

More to the point, you are assuming a first cause. Which is quite a reasonable assumption. But an assumption nonetheless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

More to the point, you are assuming a first cause. Which is quite a reasonable assumption. But an assumption nonetheless.

Of course it is an assumption, just as is the assumption that you assume nothing. But you are moving the goalposts, no?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No need for the scare quotes. And it's mosr definitely a definition of jealousy. As is yours. And I'm quite happy to use yours if you like. You could use it in relation to a man and his wife. And yes, some men consider their wives 'posessions'.

This claim that as God created us He can do what He likes with us cuts no ice with me, I'm afraid. It's a truly horrifying concept. One I utterly reject.

Yet it makes sense.

Or do you want a God who is nice, tame, comes when you call and mostly leaves you alone to your own devices till you need him again. One who thinks of you as an equal?

 

[Bradskii]

Of course it is an assumption, just as is the assumption that you assume nothing. But you are moving the goalposts, no?

No. Just clarifying their position.

 

[Bradskii]

Yet it makes sense.

Or do you want a God who is nice, tame, comes when you call and mostly leaves you alone to your own devices till you need him again. One who thinks of you as an equal?

I don't want a God. I'm interested in those who do and what they expect of Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't want a God. I'm interested in those who do and what they expect of Him.

Oh, I see. I shouldn't have said, "want". I meant, do you think that if God is real, this should be how he is: etc.

 

[DamianWarS]

I never said anything disproves God. I see no good reasons to believe a god either exists or does not exist. When I do I will believe whichever one I have good evidence for.

Well God can neither be proven or disproven so you will have a long wait

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, I see. I shouldn't have said, "want". I meant, do you think that if God is real, this should be how he is: etc.

If God was real then He'd be what He is. Me wanting Him to fit my notion of what He should be wouldn't be justified. It would be more what my personal interpretation of Him would be based on the evidence which I've accepted. And that's something I can't answer.

My only idea of God is what other people tell me their idea of God is. And as I'm sure you're aware, that varies considerably. When you and I talk of God, it's your personal idea of God we are discussing.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Anything else is mechanical fact, which is dependent on outside principles (at least). Thus, not First.

I have never claimed what the first cause was. I have just said there is not enough evidence to conclude that The God was that first cause.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well God can neither be proven or disproven so you will have a long wait

I don't want proof, I want sufficient evidence to believe. But, if God cannot have sufficient evidence then why should anyone believe?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God was real then He'd be what He is. Me wanting Him to fit my notion of what He should be wouldn't be justified. It would be more what my personal interpretation of Him would be based on the evidence which I've accepted. And that's something I can't answer.

My only idea of God is what other people tell me their idea of God is. And as I'm sure you're aware, that varies considerably. When you and I talk of God, it's your personal idea of God we are discussing.

Well, then, let me ask you this: What is your idea of what First Cause should be? See, if God is First Cause, (and I will accept no other), there are things we concerning him, we CAN logically extrapolate. In fact, I don't take into account much what other people think he must be like, to be God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have never claimed what the first cause was. I have just said there is not enough evidence to conclude that The God was that first cause.

Ok. I will accept no other God, but First Cause --i.e Omnipotent
. There is no point in arguing about the God of the Bible, if we have no common point of reference. Meanwhile, if you look at the classic proofs of God's existence, they sometimes say something like, "and this is what people commonly refer to as God."

 

[Bradskii]

Well, then, let me ask you this: What is your idea of what First Cause should be? See, if God is First Cause, (and I will accept no other), there are things we concerning him, we CAN logically extrapolate. In fact, I don't take into account much what other people think he must be like, to be God.

I'll assume that you din't happen upon the argument from first cause and from that realise that there was a God. That is, I'm assuming that you believed in God before you came across the argument (as does everyone else).

So...if you ask the right questions and make certains assumptions then you'll get to the answer you want. Which is the only answer you'll accept. You're not going to look elsewhere.

Aquinas wasn't looking for an answer. He knew what the answer was. He was just looking for the right questions to ask to get him there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Well, then, let me ask you this: What is your idea of what First Cause should be? See, if God is First Cause, (and I will accept no other), there are things we concerning him, we CAN logically extrapolate. In fact, I don't take into account much what other people think he must be like, to be God.

I'll assume that you din't happen upon the argument from first cause and from that realise that there was a God. That is, I'm assuming that you believed in God before you came across the argument (as does everyone else).

So...if you ask the right questions and make certains assumptions then you'll get to the answer you want. Which is the only answer you'll accept. You're not going to look elsewhere.

Aquinas wasn't looking for an answer. He knew what the answer was. He was just looking for the right questions to ask to get him there.

So, I guess you don't want to answer my question --you want to keep this about the God people believe in, so you can defeat it.

No, I know what the answer is. As according to Romans 1, the unbelieving know also. I will accept no other God than Omnipotent First Cause, because no other God makes sense to me-- not because I was taught that God was First Cause. My Arminian-leaning background did not want to go there, though they did claim an Omnipotent God.

 

[Bradskii]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Well, then, let me ask you this: What is your idea of what First Cause should be? See, if God is First Cause, (and I will accept no other), there are things we concerning him, we CAN logically extrapolate. In fact, I don't take into account much what other people think he must be like, to be God.



So, I guess you don't want to answer my question --you want to keep this about the God people believe in, so you can defeat it.

No, I know what the answer is. As according to Romans 1, the unbelieving know also. I will accept no other God than Omnipotent First Cause, because no other God makes sense to me-- not because I was taught that God was First Cause. My Arminian-leaning background did not want to go there, though they did claim an Omnipotent God.

IF there was a first cause (and that's an assumption) then I have no idea what that could be. If you believe in God then what else could it be? If you were a Hindu then it would be Brahma and you'd accept no other answer. A first cause will fit any deity in which you believe. In which case it becomes useless as a means to determine anything.