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

Amoranemix said:

Your analogy appears false. You assume without justification that the relationship human – God is like a relationship wife – husband.

Click to expand...

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

Amoranemix said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Andrewn said:

You're enjoying this discussion too much. Must be a dentist or a school teacher .

We follow our best guess based on disciplined interpretation of the Bible, under the conviction that Bible writers represented the Mind of God, who is righteous.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Andy. It's nice to get a straight answer at last.

The point of the discussion was to determine if we could nominate a particular moral act as being objective. And I have no objection of the process you use for looking for an answer. But the problem arose if someone determined that they were always correct in following your method. Because two people folowing tbe same method would reach different decisions. I note that you have answered that problem by intimating that the answer you'd get would be the best you could hope for. Your 'best guess'.

As to an objectively correct answer...there may very well be such a creature. But the question then becomes: How do we determine what it is?

If we are each using our own personal best interpretation then who can we say has the right answer? Leading to my point - which I can now get to! - which is that even if there are objective answers to all moral problems, if we can't determine what it is, then claiming that one exists is a exercise in futility.

Bradskii said:

The point of the discussion was to determine if we could nominate a particular moral act as being objective.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

even if there are objective answers to all moral problems, if we can't determine what it is, then claiming that one exists is a exercise in futility.

Click to expand...

I have to live with a certain degree of uncertainty, morally and doctrinally, because God has not yet revealed the complete objective facts. But the situation is not so dire. He has already revealed a lot of facts. As far as morality is concerned, the common denominator in all religions is massive leading, for example, to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability of human beings, including atheists, to agree to a moral code shows that they possess a common conscience that cannot entirely be attributed to atheistic evolution.

However, I cannot deny the existence of significant doctrinal and moral differences and even wars, persecutions, and genocides because some people insert supremacy doctrines in their worldview.

There are moral acts that are objective. If you and I see a child who is about to fall into a well, we'll save them. Some sick people may not and may push them into the well, but we are able to describe these people as "sick" precisely because we have a moral compass. There are objective answers to all moral problems and we approach these answers through logic, tradition, and scripture. We may not be able to determine the correct answer in every situation. But, I think, so long we struggle with God to give us the answer, we continue to be on the right side of the God-directed evolution.

Andrewn said:

I have to live with a certain degree of uncertainty, morally and doctrinally, because God has not yet revealed the complete objective facts.

Click to expand...

If/when God later tells you these objective facts, does that alone now make them 'objective'?

If He has not yet revealed such 'objective facts', but you violate one of them, is He going to still hold you accountable?

Andrewn said:

But the situation is not so dire. He has already revealed a lot of facts.

[AND]

There are objective answers to all moral problems and we approach these answers through logic, tradition, and scripture. We may not be able to determine the correct answer in every situation. But, I think, so long we struggle with God to give us the answer, we continue to be on the right side of the God-directed evolution.

Click to expand...

What happens if/when you come across His stated facts, for which you do not agree? Or, do you always agree? And if you do not agree, how do you resolve the issue?

Andrewn said:

As far as morality is concerned, the common denominator in all religions is massive leading,

Click to expand...

Does this include the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, as it is supposed to be?

Andrewn said:

There are moral acts that are objective. If you and I see a child who is about to fall into a well, we'll save them. Some sick people may not and may push them into the well, but we are able to describe these people as "sick" precisely because we have a moral compass.

Click to expand...

Sure, most could say that individual is 'sick', for pushing a small child into a well. But then you have to furnish a reason or reasons. As far as I've discovered, 'morals' are accounted for as follows:

A: personal opinion/intuition/gut feeling
B: consensus
C: consequentialism
D: god

You can pick and choose these four basic categories; or even combine 2 or 3 of them. But all seem to not lead to 'absolute' morality.

Andrewn said:

I have to live with a certain degree of uncertainty, morally and doctrinally, because God has not yet revealed the complete objective facts. But the situation is not so dire. He has already revealed a lot of facts. As far as morality is concerned, the common denominator in all religions is massive leading, for example, to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ability of human beings, including atheists, to agree to a moral code shows that they possess a common conscience that cannot entirely be attributed to atheistic evolution.

However, I cannot deny the existence of significant doctrinal and moral differences and even wars, persecutions, and genocides because some people insert supremacy doctrines in their worldview.

There are moral acts that are objective. If you and I see a child who is about to fall into a well, we'll save them. Some sick people may not and may push them into the well, but we are able to describe these people as "sick" precisely because we have a moral compass. There are objective answers to all moral problems and we approach these answers through logic, tradition, and scripture. We may not be able to determine the correct answer in every situation. But, I think, so long we struggle with God to give us the answer, we continue to be on the right side of the God-directed evolution.

Click to expand...

Well said, Andrew. Not much there with which I'd disagree.

But I don't necessarily agree with an act being demonstrably and objectively good just because the vast majority of us would agree with it (if that's what you were implying). I don't think we should effectively vote on what is good and what is bad.

Bradskii said:

But I don't necessarily agree with an act being demonstrably and objectively good just because the vast majority of us would agree with it (if that's what you were implying). I don't think we should effectively vote on what is good and what is bad.

Click to expand...

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by majority voting. The question in my mind is: Why did a majority find these articles reasonable and helpful? Why would "normal" people immediately and instinctively help the boy who is about to fall in the well?

I attribute this to a oneness of God or, at least, a oneness in morality. But this morality is essentially evolving. I say this because there have been cultures which allowed cannibalism, cultures which allowed slavery, and cultures which still practice amputation of hands as punishment for theft.

Perhaps there is such a thing like a "collective morality" that humanity might one day achieve, before those who do not share the collective morality destroy the planet with greed and supremacist ideology!

Will that evolving morality be connected to an increase in the love and worship of God?

Andrewn said:

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by majority voting. The question in my mind is: Why did a majority find these articles reasonable and helpful? Why would "normal" people immediately and instinctively help the boy who is about to fall in the well?

I attribute this to a oneness of God or, at least, a oneness in morality. But this morality is essentially evolving. I say this because there have been cultures which allowed cannibalism, cultures which allowed slavery, and cultures which still practice amputation of hands as punishment for theft.

Perhaps there is such a thing like a "collective morality" that humanity might one day achieve, before those who do not share the collective morality destroy the planet with greed and supremacist ideology!

Will that evolving morality be connected to an increase in the love and worship of God?

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with what you have written. And I would have voted for all of the articles in the UDHR myself. But...we have to be careful not to suggest that something is right just because everyone votes for it. There have to be solid arguments for it.

Amoranemix said:

Jealousy is misguided if there are no equivalent beings.

Click to expand...

No, but rather jealousy is unjustified when there are equivalent beings. 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.

Amoranemix said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Amoranemix said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is an empty red herring. 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 said:

You are mistaken. I am confident that even you have made discoveries you did not want to make.

Click to expand...

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.

Paulomycin said:

God has no one to envy. Thus, God's jealousy is justified.

Click to expand...

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?

Bradskii said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Paulomycin said:

No-no, it's more like. . .

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....

Click to expand...

P: My wife loves only me
B: But there are dozens of men she loves.
P: You're obviously lying. If I were the jealous type then I'd still be jealous.

Nope. Still nonsensical. Give it another shot.

Bradskii said:

P: My wife loves only me
B: But there are dozens of men she loves.
P: You're obviously lying. If I were the jealous type then I'd still be jealous.

Nope. Still nonsensical. Give it another shot.

Click to expand...

It's only "nonsensical" because your arbitrary verdict.

Paulomycin said:

It's only "nonsensical" because your arbitrary verdict.

Click to expand...

Makes no sense. You get one more go. Which I think I'm going to make a par for the course. Life's too short to keep explaining things or repeating questions. Two strikes and you're out from here on in.

Bradskii said:

Makes no sense. You get one more go. Which I think I'm going to make a par for the course. Life's too short to keep explaining things or repeating questions. Two strikes and you're out from here on in.

Click to expand...

You didn't explain it once, and you won't get anywhere trying so hard to control other people like that.

Paulomycin said:

You didn't explain it once, and you won't get anywhere trying so hard to control other people like that.

Click to expand...

Strike 2. Thanks for playing!

Bradskii said:

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?

Click to expand...

1. There are no other gods. Therefore, your analogy fails. I sincerely regret trying to humor you.

2. When there are no other gods, and there's just One God, He can be as possessive as He wants to be.

Bradskii said:

Strike 2. Thanks for playing!

Click to expand...

Oh. Thanks for giving me the last word.

Andrewn said:

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by majority voting. The question in my mind is: Why did a majority find these articles reasonable and helpful? Why would "normal" people immediately and instinctively help the boy who is about to fall in the well?

I attribute this to a oneness of God or, at least, a oneness in morality. But this morality is essentially evolving. I say this because there have been cultures which allowed cannibalism, cultures which allowed slavery, and cultures which still practice amputation of hands as punishment for theft.

Perhaps there is such a thing like a "collective morality" that humanity might one day achieve, before those who do not share the collective morality destroy the planet with greed and supremacist ideology!

Will that evolving morality be connected to an increase in the love and worship of God?

Click to expand...

You may attribute it to God, but I attribute it to the fact that we are social creatures that need to work together in order to live in a society. Cooperation and altruistic behavior is important for that kind of lifestyle.

Kylie said:

You may attribute it to God, but I attribute it to the fact that we are social creatures that need to work together in order to live in a society. Cooperation and altruistic behavior is important for that kind of lifestyle.

Click to expand...

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.