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

[Neogaia777]

The Father God is/was not ever jealous, and God the Spirit used to be jealous until Jesus.

They are either, all each love now, after Jesus, etc, or very soon will be very soon in the future, etc.

Doesn't mean Jesus will not come back in judgement and to judge the world first though, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Andrewn]

IF there was a first cause (and that's an assumption) then I have no idea what that could be.

There has to be a first cause. Even for an atheist the 1st cause is the Big Bang or whatever caused it, no?

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.

God is One. He may be worshipped with different forms and different mythologies but He is still One. Perhaps in ancient times some cultures did not realize God's Oneness and worshipped the forms themselves but at some point pagan Greeks came to believe in the Godhead, pagan Hindus came to believe in Brahman, and pagan native Americans came to believe in the Great Spirit: God without form.

Note 1: In Ancient Egypt, Amun, Ptah, and Re are regarded as a trinity who are distinct gods but with unity in plurality. "The three gods are one yet the Egyptian elsewhere insists on the separate identity of each of the three." This unity in plurality is expressed in one text:

"All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, whom none equals. He who hides his name as Amun, he appears to the face as Re, his body is Ptah."

Note 2: There are Satanists who intentionally worship evil spirits for gain or to appease them. But this is a different issue.

 

[Bradskii]

There has to be a first cause. Even for an atheist the 1st cause is the Big Bang or whatever caused it, no?

If you believe in God then He must be the first cause. By definition. It beats me why an argument is even needed. It cannot be any other way. God is defined as the creater. Is there any point in developing an argument which is meant to be an honest search for the first cause when you already know what it is?

And God is actually Brahma? My Indian friends will be amazed.

 

[Andrewn]

If you believe in God then He must be the first cause. By definition. It beats me why an argument is even needed. It cannot be any other way. God is defined as the creater. Is there any point in developing an argument which is meant to be an honest search for the first cause when you already know what it is?

And God is actually Brahma? My Indian friends will be amazed.

Usually you read messages carefully before responding but I realize it's late in Australia .

First, I wasn't asking about the 1st cause for Christians but rather the 1st cause for scientists.

Second, I didn't say that for Hindus God is Brahma but rather Brahman.

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: Beliefs

 

[Bradskii]

You usually read messages carefully before responding but I realize it's late in Australia .

First, I wasn't asking about the 1st cause for Christians but rather the 1st cause for Atheists.

Second, I didn't say that for Hindus God is Brahma but rather Brahman.

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: Beliefs

Late it is. But I already responded to the first cause question: I have no idea (although I've been checking out the conformal cyclic cosmology recently) . And I would have thought you'd have gone with Brahma, being the creator part of the triune. Although I'll admit that the Christian version makes as much sense to me as the Hindu one: none. But it seems a common theme, many versions predating the Christian trinity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Brahma is just one of the Hindu gods, though one of the main ones. Thus, not THE God. Subject to other principles, not Omnipotent. Also, he is of definite form, thus not Omnipotent. He is self-made, (a logical nonsense).

First cause logically has many attributes, probably the most obvious being, Omnipotence. This, then, rules out almost all other supposed gods, (see? --no scare quotes!) It even rules out the 'God' proposed by many believers, who must, uh, uhm, well, let's say, 'respect', the 'trailing end' of free will. (Do the scare quotes help there?)

So you can have a pretty useful idea of what First Cause can be, and even MUST be like. As far as I have seen, no other supposed god fits the logical attributes of First Cause nearly as well as the Bible God.

 

[Bradskii]

Brahma is just one of the Hindu gods, though one of the main ones. Thus, not THE God. Subject to other principles, not Omnipotent. Also, he is of definite form, thus not Omnipotent. He is self-made, (a logical nonsense).

First cause logically has many attributes, probably the most obvious being, Omnipotence. This, then, rules out almost all other supposed gods, (see? --no scare quotes!) It even rules out the 'God' proposed by many believers, who must, uh, uhm, well, let's say, 'respect', the 'trailing end' of free will. (Do the scare quotes help there?)

So you can have a pretty useful idea of what First Cause can be, and even MUST be like. As far as I have seen, no other supposed god fits the logical attributes of First Cause nearly as well as the Bible God.

I don't want to get into a 'my god is bigger than your god' discussion. Suffice to say that I think that the claim that all religions are actually worshipping the same god but only by a different name - they just have the details wrong, is mind numbingly inane. Notwithstanding that it's effectively saying to all other religions 'Hey, just thought I'd let you know that you're actually worshipping my God'. Maybe that's what missionary work is for. To explain to the rest of the world that they're on the right track but if they just sit and listen for a while you can explain where they've gone wrong. The chutzpah rating is off the scale.

And 'self made' is nonsensical but 'always existed' isn't? Sorry, were we talking about the universe there? It seems to fit.

And the smallest of acts can have the largest of consequences. There's no need even for an example. It's the Blue Touch Paper concept. Strike a match and then leave. Or even stay and be destroyed by the consequences. As in 'My work here is done'. Exit stage right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't want to get into a 'my god is bigger than your god' discussion. Suffice to say that I think that the claim that all religions are actually worshipping the same god but only by a different name - they just have the details wrong, is mind numbingly inane. Notwithstanding that it's effectively saying to all other religions 'Hey, just thought I'd let you know that you're actually worshipping my God'. Maybe that's what missionary work is for. To explain to the rest of the world that they're on the right track but if they just sit and listen for a while you can explain where they've gone wrong. The chutzpah rating is off the scale.

It's not a matter of 'my god is bigger than your god'. It's a matter of Omnipotence. I agree about the claim that all religions are actually worshiping the same god. That's ludicrous. There's a time to say things that may be taken that way, such as Paul referencing the Unknown God in Athens, and quoting the philosophers. But Paul wasn't talking about Zeus.

No, that's not what missionary work is for. I'm an MK. No, it's not.

And 'self made' is nonsensical but 'always existed' isn't? Sorry, were we talking about the universe there? It seems to fit.

Self-made is nonsensical because one would have to exist in order to bring oneself into existence. God is not self-made. He did not create himself. But they claim Brahma did.

"'Always' existed" is a deferment to human understanding. There was no time, 'before' God 'invented' it. (Those aren't scare quotes --they are identifying the human way of thinking. Even in the Bible, human understanding is talked down to.)

And the smallest of acts can have the largest of consequences. There's no need even for an example. It's the Blue Touch Paper concept. Strike a match and then leave. Or even stay and be destroyed by the consequences. As in 'My work here is done'. Exit stage right.

Of course small acts can have large consequences. Why bother saying so? I don't know why you say this, or what your point is.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok. I will accept no other God, but First Cause --i.e Omnipotent

So are you talking about the first cause of our universe or the first cause of everything? Either way asserting it must be omnipotent is circular reasoning and smuggling in a being. You cannot possible know that. I believe the universe had a cause that I don't know what it is. As far as why anything is here I don't know either but it could be that nothing cannot exist. But you have no good reason to believe why things exist at all is from a god.

. 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."

And these are just assertions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So are you talking about the first cause of our universe or the first cause of everything? Either way asserting it must be omnipotent is circular reasoning and smuggling in a being. You cannot possible know that. I believe the universe had a cause that I don't know what it is. As far as why anything is here I don't know either but it could be that nothing cannot exist. But you have no good reason to believe why things exist at all is from a god.

First Cause of everything. No. I could have said that the Omnipotent is necessarily First Cause, or vice versa --it makes no difference. I will accept no other. This is not a god. It is THE God. There can be only one. But perhaps you can show me how First Cause need not be omnipotent. It's actually pretty obvious. There's no point in arguing a lesser god.

It's not circular reasoning if it is only part of the definition. I have been told by atheists that infinite regress of causation is not circular reasoning. May as well accuse me of the God of the Gaps and of begging the question, while you're at it. Lol, all that high-brow talk doesn't relinquish anyone of the responsibility to use good sense.

And these are just assertions.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

First Cause of everything. No. I could have said that the Omnipotent is necessarily First Cause, or vice versa --it makes no difference. I will accept no other. This is not a god. It is THE God. There can be only one. But perhaps you can show me how First Cause need not be omnipotent. It's actually pretty obvious. There's no point in arguing a lesser god.

It's not circular reasoning if it is only part of the definition. I have been told by atheists that infinite regress of causation is not circular reasoning. May as well accuse me of the God of the Gaps and of begging the question, while you're at it. Lol, all that high-brow talk doesn't relinquish anyone of the responsibility to use good sense.

You are making a claim that the first cause happened and that it had to be omnipotent. So far you have not back up those claims. Like I said I believe there was a cause that started the universe to expand, I don't know if a first cause was even needed for something to exist. It is possible that nothing cannot exist. Even if a first cause was needed for something to exist, you have not shown that it was The God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are making a claim that the first cause happened and that it had to be omnipotent. So far you have not back up those claims. Like I said I believe there was a cause that started the universe to expand, I don't know if a first cause was even needed for something to exist. It is possible that nothing cannot exist. Even if a first cause was needed for something to exist, you have not shown that it was The God.

Then you've pretty obviously got no explanation for the existence of anything. Furthermore, you either invoke infinite regression of causes, or you reject the chain of cause-and-effect, either of which actions indicate lack of logic.

I don't need to show that God is Omnipotent First Cause. I am simply unwilling to consider any alternative. As far as showing that First Cause is God, all I need to do is show intention, in creating. It was not an accident, as 'chance' has no determining ability.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not a matter of 'my god is bigger than your god'. It's a matter of Omnipotence. I agree about the claim that all religions are actually worshiping the same god. That's ludicrous. There's a time to say things that may be taken that way, such as Paul referencing the Unknown God in Athens, and quoting the philosophers. But Paul wasn't talking about Zeus.

No, that's not what missionary work is for. I'm an MK. No, it's not.

Self-made is nonsensical because one would have to exist in order to bring oneself into existence. God is not self-made. He did not create himself. But they claim Brahma did.

"'Always' existed" is a deferment to human understanding. There was no time, 'before' God 'invented' it. (Those aren't scare quotes --they are identifying the human way of thinking. Even in the Bible, human understanding is talked down to.)

Of course small acts can have large consequences. Why bother saying so? I don't know why you say this, or what your point is.

The point about everyone's god being God was in response to @Andrewn: "God is One. He may be worshipped with different forms and different mythologies but He is still One. Perhaps in ancient times some cultures did not realize God's Oneness and worshipped the forms themselves but at some point pagan Greeks came to believe in the Godhead, pagan Hindus came to believe in Brahman, and pagan native Americans came to believe in the Great Spirit: God without form."

And the point about small acts having huge consequences is a shot across the bows of omnipotence. If there was a creator there was no requirement for it to be omnipotent. Or to remain after lighting tbe fuse.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Then you've pretty obviously got no explanation for the existence of anything.

Correct.

Furthermore, you either invoke infinite regression of causes, or you reject the chain of cause-and-effect, either of which actions indicate lack of logic.

Show me this is true.

I don't need to show that God is Omnipotent First Cause. I am simply unwilling to consider any alternative.

This indicates a lack of logic and an admission that you don't have good reasons for this belief.

As far as showing that First Cause is God, all I need to do is show intention, in creating. It was not an accident, as 'chance' has no determining ability.

This is just more assertion. This is not how logic works. You need to demonstrate intent. How do you know intent and chance are the only possible answers? You continue to ignore the possibility that nothing may be impossible.

 

[Bradskii]

You continue to ignore the possibility that nothing may be impossible.

This I like.

 

[Amoranemix]

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.

Identifying which fallacy an opponent made is a matter of interpretation.
You had not supported your claims. They were mere bald assertions that seemed false as they treated everyone as the same (hastily generalizing). Your new premise attempts to support those claims from post 257. However, it is insufficient. The hasty generalization is a prerequisite for those claims. Otherwise you committed a non-sequitur fallacy.

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 268 :
[24] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[25] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Mark Quayle 274 :
[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.

[24] Without support your claim is merely a bald assertion.
[25] OK. We merely witnessed two Christians using each other as echo chamber.

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"

I wonder whether Christians also etymologise and reavaluate the meaning of translated words when that places God in a worse light.

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.

So, in stead of (or in addition to) having his holy scriptures written by people in Hebrew, God should have written them himself in English.

Why would God let it be translated Jealous and make us have to learn multiple languages and cultures to understand His word? This would lead most people astray that do not have access to this kind of education.

Most people at the time were illiterate. Hence, even 2 millennia ago the form of communication God used was unsuitable.

So on Biblehub for Exodus 20:5 32 of 39 translations use the word Jealous....

You should check out Exodus 34:14 it says God's name is Jealous....

Apparently we would need to study Hebrew first.

Does He demand all our love? I thought He did. How would you describe that?

That's his first of the great commandments. We fail daily. What's your point?

You imply that God's commandments are great. What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
I too can think of many failures God commits.

It describes a jealous God.

Ok, so what is the problem? He is not us. He deserves every bit of anything we can give him, and all our love.[26] But besides that, he owns us.[27] We are his creation. Devotion and worship is the default state of his creatures. (Before, or apart from, sin.)

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

Why would God allow His word to be confusing or lead people to wrong conclusions? Assuming you are correct.

I guess it's perspective because I don't get the same sense that you do. to start I don't think anyone thinks (or anyone should think) a translated ancient text is going to come out perfect and there's going to innately be a lot of challenges being interpreted into a modern abstract language. If a translation invokes some sort of doubt or question then I think that warrants a deeper study. I still haven't applied what I originally said to the text and I'm still leaving that up to you to decide how it will fit, I just defined the word in an ancient mindset.

First, likely many people are unaware of the potential problem.
Second, many people believe God is wise. Hence it would be reasonable to believe he made sure the translations are accurate.
Third, many people are lazy and can't be bothered studying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to better understand a boring book.

Well put. It seems like whenever a scripture seems to say something Christians don't want it to say we get into the Hebrew or Greek languages and translations all of a sudden are not accurate. I have never had a conversation like this for 1 Jn 4:16, God is love for example.

Since the Bible being a work of propaganda, it plausible that the authors only tried to say nice things about God. Where exegetical analysis is more likely to work against the Bible, is on topics regarding historic and scientific accuracy.

This is just special pleading.

Is it not self-evident that First Cause is not like us? You think the notion of First Cause should come with no obvious corollaries?

Clizby WampusCat was talking about Yahweh, the god of the Bible, not about First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Show me this is true.

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑ "Furthermore, you either invoke infinite regression of causes, or you reject the chain of cause-and-effect, either of which actions indicate lack of logic.")

Show you what is true --that you invoke infinite regression or reject causality, or that either action indicates lack of logic?

This indicates a lack of logic and an admission that you don't have good reasons for this belief.

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑ "I don't need to show that God is Omnipotent First Cause. I am simply unwilling to consider any alternative.")

Really? It is simply the only definition I am willing to entertain for God. I have no use for and no reason to defend a lesser definition.

This is just more assertion. This is not how logic works. You need to demonstrate intent. How do you know intent and chance are the only possible answers? You continue to ignore the possibility that nothing may be impossible

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑"As far as showing that First Cause is God, all I need to do is show intention, in creating. It was not an accident, as 'chance' has no determining ability.")

Yes, of course it was assertion. I was not attempting there to prove intention. If anything, it was an introduction.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Identifying which fallacy an opponent made is a matter of interpretation.
You had not supported your claims. They were mere bald assertions that seemed false as they treated everyone as the same (hastily generalizing). Your new premise attempts to support those claims from post 257. However, it is insufficient. The hasty generalization is a prerequisite for those claims. Otherwise you committed a non-sequitur fallacy.


[24] Without support your claim is merely a bald assertion.
[25] OK. We merely witnessed two Christians using each other as echo chamber.


I wonder whether Christians also etymologise and reavaluate the meaning of translated words when that places God in a worse light.


So, in stead of (or in addition to) having his holy scriptures written by people in Hebrew, God should have written them himself in English.


Most people at the time were illiterate. Hence, even 2 millennia ago the form of communication God used was unsuitable.


Apparently we would need to study Hebrew first.


You imply that God's commandments are great. What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
I too can think of many failures God commits.


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


First, likely many people are unaware of the potential problem.
Second, many people believe God is wise. Hence it would be reasonable to believe he made sure the translations are accurate.
Third, many people are lazy and can't be bothered studying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to better understand a boring book.


Since the Bible being a work of propaganda, it plausible that the authors only tried to say nice things about God. Where exegetical analysis is more likely to work against the Bible, is on topics regarding historic and scientific accuracy.


Clizby WampusCat was talking about Yahweh, the god of the Bible, not about First Cause.

All claims are assertions, in the end. Those that can boast back up --the back up claims are assertions, and so on. That is what you are doing.

You assert I am asserting. You try to back it up, and I can do like you do, claim those too are mere assertions. Big deal.

The fact is that existence exists. You have no explanation. You have no defense for your position. You refuse to consider explanations --they are assertions.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑ "Furthermore, you either invoke infinite regression of causes, or you reject the chain of cause-and-effect, either of which actions indicate lack of logic.")

Show you what is true --that you invoke infinite regression or reject causality, or that either action indicates lack of logic?

Can you show that an infinite regress is impossible? Can you show me that there had to be a beginning? How do you rule out the possibility that something has always existed?

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑ "I don't need to show that God is Omnipotent First Cause. I am simply unwilling to consider any alternative.")

Really? It is simply the only definition I am willing to entertain for God. I have no use for and no reason to defend a lesser definition.

Ok, but you are smuggling in a god to your argument by calling the first cause omnipotent. It becomes circular then. What you are saying is The First Cause must be omnipotent, god must be omnipotent so the First Cause is my definition of God. See the problem?

(Mark Quayle had said: ↑"As far as showing that First Cause is God, all I need to do is show intention, in creating. It was not an accident, as 'chance' has no determining ability.")

Yes, of course it was assertion. I was not attempting there to prove intention. If anything, it was an introduction.

Ok. How do you show intention then?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can you show that an infinite regress is impossible? Can you show me that there had to be a beginning? How do you rule out the possibility that something has always existed?

First Cause (and only first cause) can be said to have 'always' existed, though the notion of time before time is not quite applicable there.

Infinite regress of causes is impossible because it is itself mechanical fact. Mechanical Fact cannot cause itself; it would first have to exist to cause anything, yet not be existing if it needs caused.
Mechanical Fact cannot be self-existent; it is governed by causes/ principles from outside itself.

Ok, but you are smuggling in a god to your argument by calling the first cause omnipotent. It becomes circular then. What you are saying is The First Cause must be omnipotent, god must be omnipotent so the First Cause is my definition of God. See the problem?

No. I see no problem. God is Omnipotent. First Cause is Omnipotent. One and the same. I need not go through a thought process that shows the two separately being Omnipotent so that one may deduce they are one and the same. Omnipotence and First Cause are necessarily one and the same. YOU make it circular, by saying I have to prove First Cause and God are one and the same. You are the one supposing God to be just one of millions of 'gods' but somehow (according to me) special. To me it is just simple definition.

Ok. How do you show intention then?

If not intention, then mechanical fact. Mechanical fact is governed by and subject to principles and rules from outside itself. It is 'programmed'. Also, as I said before, if no intention, then accident. If accident, mere chance. And chance has no determining power, no ability to cause. "Chance is only a placeholder for 'I don't know'." Yet even if chance did cause this supposed mechanical-fact-first-cause, CHANCE would be first cause. And, again, it is self-contradictory to say that chance can cause anything, so chance cannot be first cause, nor any cause. So we are left with intention.

There are also other avenues: for example, the supposedly proven notion of this all being a simulation. If simulation, then simulator/programmer. Intention.

I don't know if you are familiar with the classic 'Five Ways' but here is a short review of them, which should be enough to demonstrate (even with objections) that IF First Cause, then, With Intent.