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

Clizby WampusCat said:

Never said it was. I don't think you need a philosophy degree to say that punishing people for crimes of their father is wrong.

Click to expand...

You're right. We don't. And we don't need a philosophy degree to understand that a faithful spouse would feel jealous (and rightfully so) if her husband trotted off and dallied with other women. We also don't need a theology degree to understand that a Holy and Sovereign Creator might feel jealous of His own people who dallied with "other gods."

But looking at your secondary point here, God probably doesn't need a degree either, so that might be why we find Moses writing in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that children being punished for their parents sin wasn't a very typical thing to happen in ancient Israel. No, if we find entire families being punished by God in these ancient narratives of the O.T., there's probably something more to it all than what a plain jane reading of but a few verses within it can indicate to us (as in Achan's case).

com7fy8 said:

Not if God is jealous. Among other things, He is not going to want to be like ones who sacrifice their children to their gods.

In the case of God, "all" means all which is good and of real love for us to discover. Many gods are not about the way of loving which is possible with Jesus and following His example . . . the way He means His example.

He is jealous for our good . . . not merely being possessive like abusive partners can be, for using someone. Love does not have us just using anyone . . . if we are all-loving the way Jesus wants. There are people who are about using people, and they pick their gods accordingly.

Click to expand...

I thought jealousy was a sin.

2PhiloVoid said:

In the context of this thread, and in association with the Biblical framework (again, as pertaining to this thread's context and not outside of it on some generalist level), and keeping in mind that it is "just" for one spouse to be jealous of her polyamorous spouse, then yes...

A polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

Just repeating the claim that a polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron doesn't explain WHY it's an oxymoron.

Kylie said:

Just repeating the claim that a polyamorous spouse is an oxymoron doesn't explain WHY it's an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

I think we're talking passed each other, Kylie. I'm implying that a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate. That's all. And I'm dropping this topic because it's off topic for this thread, unless you want to tie it into the context that I was tying it to: spousal jealousy... and/or Godly jealousy.

2PhiloVoid said:

I think we're talking passed each other, Kylie. I'm implying that a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate. That's all. And I'm dropping this topic because it's off topic for this thread, unless you want to tie it into the context that I was tying it to: spousal jealousy... and/or Godly jealousy.

Click to expand...

I'm still curious regarding why you think that. I do understand why you don't want to take this thread off topic. If you'd like, I'd enjoy continuing this discussion via private messages.

Kylie said:

I'm still curious regarding why you think that. I do understand why you don't want to take this thread off topic. If you'd like, I'd enjoy continuing this discussion via private messages.

Click to expand...

What specifically is it that you want to know, Kylie?

Clizby WampusCat said:

I understand this theology. I have never seen any support for it.

Click to expand...

OK maybe I can provide some for you. which of this do you need evidence, that God is all good or love or that Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God.

disciple Clint said:

OK maybe I can provide some for you. which of this do you need evidence, that God is all good...

Click to expand...

Who's definition of good are you using?

Bradskii said:

Who's definition of good are you using?

Click to expand...

Good= containing no evil.

disciple Clint said:

Good= containing no evil.

Click to expand...

Now you're never going to guess what the next question is going to be. Although I would have preferred you had perhaps realised it would be coming and incorprated a response into your answer.

But...who's definition of evil are you using?

The problem being (to cut to the chase) is that, using just the two of us as an example, your definition of good (and evil) will not match mine in all respects. I think it will in most, but it's not what we have in common that's going to cause the problem.

Your 'God is good' is not the same as my 'God is good'. So how do we get around this?

Bradskii said:

Now you're never going to guess what the next question is going to be. Although I would have preferred you had perhaps realised it would be coming and incorprated a response into your answer.

But...who's definition of evil are you using?

The problem being (to cut to the chase) is that, using just the two of us as an example, your definition of good (and evil) will not match mine in all respects. I think it will in most, but it's not what we have in common that's going to cause the problem.

Your 'God is good' is not the same as my 'God is good'. So how do we get around this?

Click to expand...

We are not going to get around. Have a nice day.

2PhiloVoid said:

What specifically is it that you want to know, Kylie?

Click to expand...

Why you think a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate.

disciple Clint said:

We are not going to get around. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I think that if you are going to define "good" as "Containing no evil," then defining what "evil" is will be a pretty important part of it.

Kylie said:

I think that if you are going to define "good" as "Containing no evil," then defining what "evil" is will be a pretty important part of it.

Click to expand...

OK evil is the lack of any good.

disciple Clint said:

OK evil is the lack of any good.

Click to expand...

OK. Example time!

Let's say that I think that factory farming is evil - it's cruel to animals. And you think it's good - it ensures a cheap source of food for the hungry.

If evil is the lack of good and factory farming is allowed then we live in an evil world. And you would say that it's good so we live in a good world.

If you ask me if God is good and He doesn't allow for a world with factory farming, I'll agree He's good. And if He does allow it then you would agree He's good.

Now, please don't get too tied up on this example. It's only illustrative that two people with two different world views will have two different views of God.

In some situations, the meaning of good for you isn't the same as it is for me. So how do we solve this?

disciple Clint said:

OK evil is the lack of any good.

Click to expand...

So then "good" means "not lacking good."

That's rather circular, and ultimately meaningless.

Kylie said:

Why you think a polyamorous spouse is illegitimate.

Click to expand...

Y'know, on second thought, I'm just going to decline from answering this ...

Bradskii said:

In some situations, the meaning of good for you isn't the same as it is for me. So how do we solve this?

Click to expand...

The solution is that we must necessarily step outside of our (mere) subjective opinion on morality to determine an objective source. For example, if you can determine at least one absolute truth, then you also get the advantage of at least one universal moral truth (to contrast with lies). "Buy One, Get One Free."

If an objective source cannot be determined, then one should be honest enough to admit that morality cannot be determined or does not exist. "Subjective morality" is a contradiction, because morality itself is an objective claim. Ethics are societal; morality is universal. But pop-atheists are generally afraid that if they admit this, then their particular brand of atheism won't "sell." So they push the contradiction instead.