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

[Neogaia777]

We must keep in mind, in order to keep the right perspective, etc, that the reason that God in the OT commanded some killing and violence and the like, etc, in the OT, etc, was always to try and establish or re-establish God's original order and Kingdom on Earth, where none would have to kill or commit violence or evil or sin at all anymore (again), etc, and that a few lives lost in the short term, that would just go back to God anyway, was not seen as that great of a loss in the light of that, or what He was trying to do there, etc, but it just wasn't meant to be yet or at that time, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that ignoring or denying what God said is equivalent with saying we cannot know the mind of God. Or are you saying the Mind of God card is a third option people use?

You say, "...when He appears to have done something which we would normally define as immoral." --We who? and immoral for who to do? You include God with his creatures in this? It would be immoral for us to decide to wipe out another nation, but not for God to do so. Remember, he is God, and he has so far wiped out everyone who ever lived, not counting anyone less than say, 140 years old and still living at present. And it isn't looking too good for them, either, along those lines.



But even as unbelievers we know right from wrong. How does that kill any notion of us as individuals being able to determine what is right or wrong? (By 'determine what is right or wrong', I expect you mean something like, 'decide what is right or wrong', or, 'judge right from wrong' --not, 'cause a thing to be right vs wrong'.)

FWIW I agree with you about consequential actions --it concerns me, too, when people do that.



I wouldn't be surprised if you automatically believe that George Bush indeed thought God had told him to end the tyranny in Iraq. I am skeptical, not only of the notion that God had told him to do so, but that Bush claimed (or at least, thought) God had told him to do so. (Which wasn't a bad idea, btw. They should have done it old-war style, though. Go in, get the job done, get out. Quit playing 'rules of engagement'. But I digress.)

B: You must kill all those people. Men, women and childrn.
M: No way. That's obviously wrong.
God: You must kill all those people. Men, women and children.
M: Hold my beer, Brad. I'm on a mission from God.
B: But you said it was wrong.
M: It certainly appeared to be wrong. But...it's now obviously right.

 

[Bradskii]

We must keep in mind, in order to keep the right perspective, etc, that the reason that God in the OT commanded some killing and violence and the like, etc, in the OT, etc, was always to try and establish or re-establish God's original order and Kingdom on Earth, where none would have to kill or commit violence or evil or sin at all anymore (again), etc, and that a few lives lost in the short term, that would just go back to God anyway, was not seen as that great of a loss in the light of that, or what He was trying to do there, etc, but it just wasn't meant to be yet or at that time, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

By which means you can justify any atrocity. Because if you think that it's God's will (or Allah's more often than not) then it's all for the best.

 

[Mark Quayle]

B: You must kill all those people. Men, women and childrn.
M: No way. That's obviously wrong.
God: You must kill all those people. Men, women and children.
M: Hold my beer, Brad. I'm on a mission from God.
B: But you said it was wrong.
M: It certainly appeared to be wrong. But...it's now obviously right.

Problem?

 

[Bradskii]

Problem?

Yeah. If people think they've been mandated by God, then they believe that they have the moral right to commit any atrocity you'd care to suggest.

Now you may say again that God wouldn't command such a thing. And maybe God exists and maybe He wouldn't. But that is missing the point. He doesn't have to. All you need is the argument that whatever He commands cannot be evil and if you believe that He has commanded you, then you will do His bidding.

Now we may both agree that the person doing His bidding was acting under a delusion (although we wouldn't know that for a fact - @Neogaia777 thinks there are times when what we'd class as an atrocity is actually necessary and was actually commanded by Him). But there'd be what's left of a planefull of people or a bombed buiding as a result of the argument you've just used.

So yeah. I see a problem.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah. If people think they've been mandated by God, then they believe that they have the moral right to commit any atrocity you'd care to suggest.

We've got that going on all the time with, for example, Islam. Not by specific per-event command, but carte blanche. Hopefully, most of them have a bit of common sense, and likewise for any other religion. Then you have those who not for religious reasons, think they are the masters of social engineering. Hmmm. Yeah, I've heard of more than one reason to commit heinous acts that have nothing to do with religion. Madmen do all sorts of things. But you want to concentrate on Christianity.

Now you may say again that God wouldn't command such a thing. And maybe God exists and maybe He wouldn't. But that is missing the point. He doesn't have to. All you need is the argument that whatever He commands cannot be evil and if you believe that He has commanded you, then you will do His bidding.

Sure, I get your concerns.

Now we may both agree that the person doing His bidding was acting under a delusion (although we wouldn't know that for a fact - @Neogaia777 thinks there are times when what we'd class as an atrocity is actually necessary and was actually commanded by Him). But there'd be what's left of a planefull of people or a bombed buiding as a result of the argument you've just used.

Not the argument I just used. Show me where the argument I just used shows it's commanded to kill a planeful of people or bomb a building.

 

[Bradskii]

Not the argument I just used. Show me where the argument I just used shows it's commanded to kill a planeful of people or bomb a building.

In my short dialogue earlier I implied that you would obey a command from God even if you thought it immoral if ordered by someone else. And your answer was effectively 'Is there a problem with this?'

Does it only become a problem if I mention specific acts?

 

[Neogaia777]

By which means you can justify any atrocity. Because if you think that it's God's will (or Allah's more often than not) then it's all for the best.

I'd say no more people ever having to ever suffer or die anymore after that, and no more sin anymore after that, and taking us back to paradise after that, etc, is more moral in the long term, etc...

And "Allah" is not "YHWH", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I'd say no more people ever having to ever suffer or die anymore after that, and no more sin anymore after that, and taking us back to paradise after that, etc, is more moral in the long term, etc...

And "Allah" is not "YHWH", etc...

God Bless!

But it didn't work, the plans failed because people failed to obey, and have faith, etc...

It was to start with the nation of Israel, and Jerusalem, and then extend out to other nations, and cities in other nations, from there, after that, etc...

But it didn't work, and the plans failed because people failed to obey, and have faith, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

But it didn't work, the plans failed because people failed to obey, and have faith, etc...

It was to start with the nation of Israel, and Jerusalem, and then extend out to other nations, and cities in other nations after that, etc...

God Bless!

But the Father God already knew all of this, etc, and was even the cause and source of it all ultimately, etc...

Like I said, the only One who truly knew, and still knows, "all" from before anything even began, or was made, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

But the Father God already knew all of this, etc, and was even the cause and source of it all ultimately, etc...

For our God's in training, etc, God the Spirit and the God-Man Jesus Christ, etc...

And that would ultimately show us Him and lead us to Him (the Father), etc...

It was the only way the Father could, etc...

Being who He is, etc...

Already fully always knowing all He always fully knew/knows, etc...

There both is and never was no free will from that One's perspective, except for maybe only Him only, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

I'd say no more people ever having to ever suffer or die anymore after that, and no more sin anymore after that, and taking us back to paradise after that, etc, is more moral in the long term, etc...

And "Allah" is not "YHWH", etc...

God Bless!

You do know that God is omnipotent?

 

[Neogaia777]

In my short dialogue earlier I implied that you would obey a command from God even if you thought it immoral if ordered by someone else. And your answer was effectively 'Is there a problem with this?'

You should know that God in the OT spoke with a very clear voice out of thin air to those who He communicated with back then from on the outside of them, etc, so that there was no denying the voice, or the very real presence, etc...

But He no longer does that today, but His voice now comes from a knowing on the inside of us now, and comes "from us" now really essentially, etc, and He no longer commands any "immoral" acts anymore, etc, nor really even tells us what to do, or else not do, anymore now really...

He gave up His plans (because they were handed over to and finished with Christ) and gave up on, or no longer tries to "command" us anymore, etc, He's there to assist and serve us now, counsel and comfort us through our trials now, etc, and most usually not one thing any more beyond that now anymore really...

Therefore any kind of forceful voice or presence, especially one that is telling you commit immoral acts or do very bad things, is not of or from God now anymore now really, but is "something else", etc, or "someone or something else entirely", etc...

And if your truly having trouble with that now today, then you should seek out professional help as it is most definitely not God, or is ever of the True God anymore now really, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

You do know that God is omnipotent?

Which One are you talking about...?

Which God of the Trinity I mean, etc...?

God in the OT, and Jesus Christ had a great, great deal of power in and over this world, etc, over the forces of nature, and animals, and other things, etc, but I don't think could ever change a human beings choices ever, etc, which was why things sometimes/oftentimes failed, etc...

And if you want to talk about God the Father, then let me know, OK...?

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

In my short dialogue earlier I implied that you would obey a command from God even if you thought it immoral if ordered by someone else. And your answer was effectively 'Is there a problem with this?'

Does it only become a problem if I mention specific acts?

Like I said before, if it is from God, I MUST obey. But that is a hard thing to prove. I'm not superstitious, nor insane, nor given to sudden flights of fancy. I'm not going to do something God tells me to do, that if told by anyone else it would be atrocious, until I KNOW it is God. I'm 65 years old, known God as long as I can remember. He's never told me to do anything even nearly atrocious. You can rest easy concerning me and just about any other who claims to be a Christian --a lot easier than I can rest about an atheist who thinks they know what is best for humanity and intends to do something about it. God has objective standards. An atheist doesn't.

And here's an interesting thought: If an erstwhile atheist hears the supposed voice of God telling him to do something atrocious, are we safe? Not likely to happen? How likely do you think it is that Christians are going to get this wrong? What about the atheist who think he is justified in doing something atrocious? How likely do you think it is that Christians are going to get that wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

Like I said before, if it is from God, I MUST obey. But that is a hard thing to prove. I'm not superstitious, nor insane, nor given to sudden flights of fancy. I'm not going to do something God tells me to do, that if told by anyone else it would be atrocious, until I KNOW it is God. I'm 65 years old, known God as long as I can remember. He's never told me to do anything even nearly atrocious. You can rest easy concerning me and just about any other who claims to be a Christian --a lot easier than I can rest about an atheist who thinks they know what is best for humanity and intends to do something about it. God has objective standards. An atheist doesn't.

And here's an interesting thought: If an erstwhile atheist hears the supposed voice of God telling him to do something atrocious, are we safe? Not likely to happen? How likely do you think it is that Christians are going to get this wrong? What about the atheist who think he is justified in doing something atrocious? How likely do you think it is that Christians are going to get that wrong?

The problem is that we're not actually talking hypothetically. People do believe that they are doing God's will. And they will tell you that they KNOW it is God commanding them. Or their version of God anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem is that we're not actually talking hypothetically. People do believe that they are doing God's will. And they will tell you that they KNOW it is God commanding them. Or their version of God anyway.

Yes, and Hitler and Margaret Sanger can tell you they KNOW what is best for humanity. Meanwhile, Christians who 'KNOW' it is God commanding them don't often believe God is telling them to murder someone, blow up planes and buildings. But Hitler and Sanger did what they did by teaching others and introducing their ideas into Government policy.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, and Hitler and Margaret Sanger can tell you they KNOW what is best for humanity. Meanwhile, Christians who 'KNOW' it is God commanding them don't often believe God is telling them to murder someone, blow up planes and buildings. But Hitler and Sanger did what they did by teaching others and introducing their ideas into Government policy.

I think if either of those people were to join the forum then their ideas would be held to account. It's why we have democracies, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression etc. It's only when we take our eye off the ball and allow dictatorships to emerge that we end up in some strife. Whether that dictatorship is primarily a political entity in country which is almost all Christian or a religious theocracy where scripture forms the basis for the rule of law.

So are you saying that God is to be held to account as well? I doubt that. But you seem to be convinced that people don't often believe that it's actually God commanding them to commit an atrocity. I agree. But it's the term 'don't often' that has me concerned.

 

[dóxatotheó]

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 point of the “jealous” God was that He alone was worthy of love, since He was its source. The point of the exclusiveness of marriage is that its love is only valid when it is open to babies, when it recognizes that each partner has origin not in him or herself but in the divine exemplar in which each was called to be. What is begotten of this love is a life itself open to the same one love, the Trinitarian love found within the Godhead. the hebrew used in tis constant most of the time refers to zealous which in different context be used positively which i explained how it is

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think if either of those people were to join the forum then their ideas would be held to account. It's why we have democracies, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression etc. It's only when we take our eye off the ball and allow dictatorships to emerge that we end up in some strife. Whether that dictatorship is primarily a political entity in country which is almost all Christian or a religious theocracy where scripture forms the basis for the rule of law.

Agreed. I love the first amendment, and hate to see it ignored. It is there for a good reason. I am against establishment of religion, against theocracy, until it is Christ himself ruling as King. Not a substitute, not a representative, not clergy running a theocracy.

So are you saying that God is to be held to account as well? I doubt that. But you seem to be convinced that people don't often believe that it's actually God commanding them to commit an atrocity. I agree. But it's the term 'don't often' that has me concerned.

Ha! Nobody can hold God to account. But it would be interesting (to put it nicely) to watch someone try.

So you are concerned because occasionally some (I notice you left the word 'Christian' out of it) might (and some have, I agree) believe it's actually God commanding them to commit an atrocity. Why are you concerned about this instead of about those who are committed to such things as a general principle?

More to the point, why do you not separate this matter into two categories --insanity, and sanity? Why religion? And if you know of a religion where this is policy, either stated outright, or merely hinted at, as currently taught or practiced general principle or command, why lump the rest of religions in with it? If I didn't know better, I'd say you hold some kind of antagonism or bias against religion in general, and Christianity in particular.