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

[Bradskii]

But he does do it. His love is perfect. It is just not the same to one person as to another. People are not God's peers. He owns us. We don't own each other, to do with as we please. God has every right to do with us as he pleases. For God to wipe out a whole society is his right to do. The right to life is endowed by the Creator --not by peers.

I am never less than constantly amazed when this argument is made. And made as if it's a good thing. Or at least as if it's something you just have to put up with. Hey ho, it is what it is...

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am never less than constantly amazed when this argument is made. And made as if it's a good thing. Or at least as if it's something you just have to put up with. Hey ho, it is what it is...

Ha! Let's see you get out of it!

On another forum site I've heard the angry retort that "God will have to answer to me!" as though there was some referee of right and wrong that is even above first cause.

 

[Bradskii]

Ha! Let's see you get out of it!

On another forum site I've heard the angry retort that "God will have to answer to me!" as though there was some referee of right and wrong that is even above first cause.

Well, there might be some kind of discussion at the Pearly Gates. There'd certainly be some questions I'd want answered. And hey, it's not like it would come as a surprise to God. I'm sure He'd be prepared for it.

I can imagine Him rolling His eyes and saying 'OK, let him in. Let's get this over with...'

 

[Soyeong]

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?

Hebrew words often have positive and negative meanings. For example, there is a healthy type of love that we should have for ourselves that is placing value on what God had created, and which we need to do in order to love our neighbors as ourselves. However, we can also be lovers of ourselves, which is narcissistic and puts ourselves above our neighbors. The problem with jealousy is that we are wishing that we were someone else, so we are not placing value on ourselves. However, there is a good type of jealousy where we are placing value on ourselves, such as when a husband feels jealousy when his wife is giving attention to another man when she should be valuing her husband.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hebrew words often have positive and negative meanings. For example, there is a healthy type of love that we should have for ourselves that is placing value on what God had created, and which we need to do in order to love our neighbors as ourselves. However, we can also be lovers of ourselves, which is narcissistic and puts ourselves above our neighbors. The problem with jealousy is that we are wishing that we were someone else, so we are not placing value on ourselves. However, there is a good type of jealousy where we are placing value on ourselves, such as when a husband feels jealousy when his wife is giving attention to another man when she should be valuing her husband.

Would it be ok if I punished the other mans children and grandchildren for my jealousy?

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me...Ex 20:5.

 

[Soyeong]

Would it be ok if I punished the other mans children and grandchildren for my jealousy?

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me...Ex 20:5.

It is strange how that is the focus when the point is to contrast that with verse 6 where God shows thousands steadfast love to thousands of generations of those who love Him and keep His commandments. The issue of what it means to say that God is a jealous God is also different from the issue of the expression of that jealousy.

 

[Amoranemix]

What is pretty obvious to you is not necessarily true.
Providing a definition is not a requirement for using it. The Bible may be using a definition it fails to provide.

So what is the problem? Is the Bible required to provide a definition?

Whether it is a problem or an advantage depends on whether you want to believe in reality or in God. The 'problem' is equivocation. When Christians and the Bible are using the same word for different meanings (definitions), then that can cause confusion, which hinders understanding of reality. However, when skillfully applied, that technique may stimulate God-belief.

Then we must both be exceptions : You don't pretend to be able to present evidence for your claims and I don't accuse Christians of eschewing any need for evidence.

Haha, clever. Your debating skills, I see, include in the ability to disorient the opponent by feint and dodge.

I don't know about dodge skills, as I rarely practice them.
You have successfully developped, like most debating Christians, your competence for deflection. I am confident most people, at this stage in the back and forth, have forgotten that you failed the challenge to support your claim.

[27] But such things almost never happen to Christians. That is why I was so surprised.
You claimed in post 288 : “But beside that, he [God] owns us”.

27 ok
What was your objection to that from 288? (I expect you meant 290) Sorry for asking but it was a long time ago for me.

Yes, sorry. That was from post 290.
My objection is that it could be false. You merely asserted it. Asserting something does not make it true. Maybe everyone owns God.

[32] You should read the Bible. You find him behaving the way probably primitive goat herds would imagine an allmighty deity would behave. It is easy to think of improvements to the way God handles things. I agree though that there are alternative possibilities. God could be weak, stupid or wicked.
[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[34] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[35] I am not suggesting a definition, but it should be relatively easy to modify a definition that only allows for one being such that it allows for more.

32 Implying I don't read the Bible? I find it rather amazing that unbelievers generally require God to act supernatural and then mock him when he does.[42] There really isn't any need to get ugly here. God would not be God, if he is weak or stupid.[43] Your words mock you.
33 Here we go again. I could say that for every assertion you make.
34 Ditto
35 Why do so? If God is God, First Cause is not a modification, but not omniscient, as though god must learn something --that's plain dead wrong, or one is no longer talking about God, but some supernatural being.

[42] You can evaluate someone, even a god, by the results and by the means. Christians tell me that the results sucks : look at the state of the world and even the world's state at the time God was present. Hence, God failed. However, was it his fault ? For that we look at the means God used. If we are to believe the Bible, then definitely it is his fault. Using his supernatural abilities better would have reduced the mess, if that is what he wanted.
[43] In that case, God would not exist.
[33] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.
[34] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man, for I have not accused you of being unable to ask whether I can prove my claims. I have asked whether you can demonstrate your assertion that First Cause is the cause of the universe. Apparently not.
[35] Definitions are meant to be useful. If you want to believe in a single god, then using definitions that exclude more than one god are useful. If you want to believe in reality, then you don't let definitions tell you what (not) to believe. In Star Trek: the Next Generation, there is collecive called the Q-Continuum, consisting of beings referred to as omnipotent.

That method has major drawbacks. For one thing, today many people don't trust the church to read and interpret the Bible for them. Today God has apparently even shifted to speaking through spokesmen as many of the new Christian churches in America demonstrate. A problem is that not everyone believes these people really are hotlines to God.

Why do you call it a problem? I have never considered spokesmen as hotlines to God. That is not Scriptural, not sensible.

My point exactly. If one uses a means of communication that is distrusted by people, then it is less effective at informing them. Of course, maybe God doesn't want people to be well-informed. I don't know God's agenda. God appears to keep fumbling, but maybe from his point of view everything is going according to plan.

There appears to be no one left willing to defend the position that God is love.

When you require 'love' to fit your thoughts on the matter, and do not allow the notion of 'God' to fit mine, what do you expect?[44] I have defended the position that God is love, perhaps poorly, but it is ludicrous to suppose that mere humans can do a better job of defining 'love' than the Creator of all things can do.[45]

[44] I have no expectations on Christians' attempts at demonstrating god is love. I however expect them to fail if they attempt demonstrating the god of the Bible is loving. So far, my expectations have been fulfilled.
I don't know your notion of God. Each Christian has their own notion of God, each of them appearing different than the one from the Bible. Hence, it requires some time to figure out what they are talking about.
You are right that the definition of 'love' matters as to whether God qualifies as being love. It is possible for God to be loving, kind, honest, empathic, good, truthful, holy, humble, just and merciful. It is just a matter of giving these words the appropriate definitions. You could also rightly say about God, as Richard Dawkins has done, that he is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. No matter what you say about God, it can all be true. Just remember, when Christians talk about God, be aware that words do not mean what they appear to mean. Regarding God, not the Christian, but the dictionary is wrong.
[45] I am confident God is capable of defining love such that it suits him. I am also confident Adolf Hitler was capable of defining love such that gassing Jews was loving.

In conclusion, like for good, God being love or loving is not evidence based. It is definition based.

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.[46] 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.

[46] That illustrates how words have different meanings when Christians use them : you are implicitly referring to God's moral standard, that strongly differs from the moral standards of most people who are not infatuated with God.

Which kills any notion of us as individulas being able to determine what is right or wrong. God pricking our conscience now and then is fine. Feeling that God wants you to help someone is great. But...if the results of what we might think is guidance from God are a lot more consequential and that guidance is used as the basis for action, then it concerns me.

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'.)

Here 'right' could be a species of plant and 'wrong' a type of furniture. Indeed. Most of us could probably tell them apart.

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...

God made a mess of it because he was incompetent, but that is off topic. What is relevant is that trying to re-establish God's kingdom is not loving. The means to establish that Kingdom were on the other hand hateful. I am using standard English, where words mean what the dictionary says.

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.

Your allegedly loving God doesn't care enough to do something about it, or maybe he is unable.

The point of the “jealous” God was that He alone was worthy of love, since He was its source.[47] 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

[47] Humility is not one of God's strengths. Narcissism is.

You gave the answer to that last question. If we have a politician or some other leader who asks us to do something that we think is immoral, then we can refuse. We can debate the matter. We can look at the arguments for and against. We can look at what the likely outcomes would be. We can hold that person to account.
But if you truly believe it's God that's doing the asking? Then none of those options are then available. The person who believes it might well say 'Nobody can hold God to account.'

And if a tyrant who occupies the office, or the Congress, does it for other reasons --such as supposed social good-- what options are available? They are a law unto themselves, they don't answer to anyone. Why pick on religion? Nobody is "holding that person to account" either.

God is like a tyrant or congress who is not accountable to anyone, i.e. not loving, but tyrannical, at least if we can believe the dictionary.

You have to read the whole bit on love. It says love does not seek it's own benefit. Does God seek his own benefit? Love does not keep an account of wrong suffered, but God of the Bible rushes to judgment. Eating of the forbidden fruit results in the ETERNAL punishment and not only for those who ate of the tree of knowledge, but for everyone after them. Is this love?

So God answers to the rules like everyone else?[48] He WROTE the rules.[49]
God is not like us. He is not one our peers, and humans are not his peers. You can't make him answer for the standards he sets for us.[50] But if you must know how love fits God, he seeks the benefit of those he loves. He does not keep record against those he loves of the wrongs they have done him.[51]

[48] No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.
[49] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[50] He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.
[51] If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

Does God not follow his own rules? If not, why do you expect to enjoy heaven? Perhaps God will torture people there worse than those in Hell. After all, God can do anything he wants and still be loving.

God is consistent. I can count on him to accomplish what he set out to do.[52] His rules for us are not his rules for himself. It kind of amazes me that so many don't really mind the two-tiered justice system in this country, yet complain when God makes rules for his creatures, to which he is not subject.

[52] Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

To say that God must obey something he has said he is, is a bit like saying that water must obey the principle of being wet.

That is a poor analogy, for water has not claimed to be wet.

So we don't have a two tier system. It's just that you think that some people feel themselves exempt from what we do have.
But God does have this two tier system. As in 'Do what I say, not what I do'.

But he does do it. His love is perfect.[52] It is just not the same to one person as to another. People are not God's peers. He owns us.[53] We don't own each other, to do with as we please. God has every right to do with us as he pleases. For God to wipe out a whole society is his right to do.[54] The right to life is endowed by the Creator --not by peers.

[52] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[53] My personal opinion is that everyone owns God.
[54] Or so you baldly assert. Asserting something does not make it true. Assertions must be supported. Go ahead!

I am never less than constantly amazed when this argument is made. And made as if it's a good thing. Or at least as if it's something you just have to put up with. Hey ho, it is what it is...

Ha! Let's see you get out of it!
On another forum site I've heard the angry retort that "God will have to answer to me!" as though there was some referee of right and wrong that is even above first cause.

It gets even better. There are people who worship someone who believes they are some referee of right and wrong.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Humility is not one of God's strengths. Narcissism is.

Hmmm your reply shows that your really redundant because if he was narcisstic he wouldn't die on the cross for humanity, he wouldn't forgive our sins he rather would just let us sin and then condemn us. He also wouldn't do miracles and sent his Holy Spirit for his people. Define your view of narcissism because it seems your more selfish and think about yourself more than God supposedly is.

Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

Not everyone believes in a literal Hell. The traditional view of Hell is full seperation from God not eternal chastisement.

Your allegedly loving God doesn't care enough to do something about it, or maybe he is unable.

IDK the context of this reply, but basically God is able to reply and can too but rather since we are deprived and made covenants not with him, he doesn't respond to ambiguous request or try to intervene in peoples eternity because they are also dead in there sins.

Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

Substantiate this premise because this isn't grounded on fact.

No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.

If God broke his perfect law he would't be omnibenevolent at all so it's safe to say God doesn't sin.

What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

1 John 1:1-20

He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.

For one to answer for a crime it has to be committed and what law has he broken? Even the justice system laws are based on Christianity Commandments, so may i ask what law hes broken?

If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

God knows all, but this premise gotta be explained more the wording is almost incoherent to me, but yes God knows every sin y(humanity) does to him because hes x(God).

 

[dóxatotheó]

God is like a tyrant or congress who is not accountable to anyone, i.e. not loving, but tyrannical, at least if we can believe the dictionary.

You clearly dk what congress is so i won't respond to that but tyrants re elected in the office and then enforce supremacy on all people like I said to the other man. God isn't a system of government so he can be God and still rule with a iron fist. Please define love because it seems you dk the bible, you question sovereignty of God not his love. I believe the dictionary its just your arguments aren't substantiated at all.

What is relevant is that trying to re-establish God's kingdom is not loving.

In what grounds?

The means to establish that Kingdom were on the other hand hateful.

Nah the reestablishment is basically in regards to us when we fall since we fallen we gonna get back in the Union with God and never have a sinful nature again because we would be glorified such as Jesus Christ.

you are implicitly referring to God's moral standard, that strongly differs from the moral standards of most people who are not infatuated with God.

Gods morals dont differ from us Strictly speaking, on the one hand, an action could be considered immoral on the basis of one rule, code, or theory and, on the other hand, be considered moral or even nonmoral on another rule, code, or theory. Our human nature is based on Gods law so what we see as immoral naturally its because the law of God is written in our hearts.

I have no expectations on Christians' attempts at demonstrating god is love. I however expect them to fail if they attempt demonstrating the god of the Bible is loving.

HAHAHA Ok

So far, my expectations have been fulfilled.
I don't know your notion of God. Each Christian has their own notion of God

Provide proof of this claim.

each of them appearing different than the one from the Bible.

Like I said proof.

You are right that the definition of 'love' matters as to whether God qualifies as being love. It is possible for God to be loving, kind, honest, empathic, good, truthful, holy, humble, just and merciful. It is just a matter of giving these words the appropriate definitions.

paternal love of God for man and of man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity. A passion without the necessity of reciprocity. tradition of loving God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving “thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). The love of God requires absolute devotion that is reminiscent of Plato’s love of Beauty , which involves an erotic passion, awe, and desire that transcends earthly cares and obstacles. God is the most rational being and hence the most deserving of one’s love, respect, and considerations.

It is just a matter of giving these words the appropriate definitions.

Define your view of love ethically so i would understand your arguments better.

ou could also rightly say about God, as Richard Dawkins has done, that he is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Richard Dawkins seriously you do better using Bart Ehrman and CosmicSkeptic instead of his weak arguments and also since you view that God has those qualities substaniate each one.

No matter what you say about God, it can all be true.

It can doesn't mean it is.

when Christians talk about God, be aware that words do not mean what they appear to mean. Regarding God, not the Christian, but the dictionary is wrong.

I understand each word regarding Gods love and the code of ethics the thing is, each word you use in regards to God should align to dictionary definition not a random belief on the word.

I am confident God is capable of defining love such that it suits him.

God can't break logic because he is logic God can't go against ethics and still be a God regardless of your superstition. God doesn't break any code of ethics because hes truly all loving and perfect.

I am also confident Adolf Hitler was capable of defining love such that gassing Jews was loving.

Comparing God to a Nazi are you purposely trying to attack our faith instead of critique it.

In conclusion, like for good, God being love or loving is not evidence based. It is definition based.

Interesting have you read the entirety of the bible, you made a conclusion without substantiation you breaking boundaries of discussion special pleading hard as heck rn.

I don't know God's agenda. God appears to keep fumbling, but maybe from his point of view everything is going according to plan.

Plan doesn't change already determined before eternity.

 

[Neogaia777]

[42] You can evaluate someone, even a god, by the results and by the means. Christians tell me that the results sucks : look at the state of the world and even the world's state at the time God was present. Hence, God failed. However, was it his fault ? For that we look at the means God used. If we are to believe the Bible, then definitely it is his fault. Using his supernatural abilities better would have reduced the mess, if that is what he wanted.

No, it both wouldn't and couldn't have, He tried that in order to stimulate the kind of faith and choices it would take by man to accomplish that, and it didn't work, etc, so it is not His fault, etc, but was part of His training that it would it take by God the Father in order to be our God, etc, who already predestined/already predetermined/determined "all", etc...

My point exactly. If one uses a means of communication that is distrusted by people, then it is less effective at informing them. Of course, maybe God doesn't want people to be well-informed. I don't know God's agenda. God appears to keep fumbling, but maybe from his point of view everything is going according to plan.

Everything is/was/always will be always going according to all the True Father God's always good plan(s) always, etc...

Who wishes all to come to be all fully informed "in time", etc...

[44] I have no expectations on Christians' attempts at demonstrating god is love. I however expect them to fail if they attempt demonstrating the god of the Bible is loving. So far, my expectations have been fulfilled.

Please don't judge God by the behavior of most of His people please, etc...

Because that kind of bias, is just straight up prejudice against Him, etc...

I don't know your notion of God. Each Christian has their own notion of God, each of them appearing different than the one from the Bible. Hence, it requires some time to figure out what they are talking about.

Well, my notion happens to the correct one, etc...

You are right that the definition of 'love' matters as to whether God qualifies as being love. It is possible for God to be loving, kind, honest, empathic, good, truthful, holy, humble, just and merciful. It is just a matter of giving these words the appropriate definitions. You could also rightly say about God, as Richard Dawkins has done, that he is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. No matter what you say about God, it can all be true. Just remember, when Christians talk about God, be aware that words do not mean what they appear to mean. Regarding God, not the Christian, but the dictionary is wrong.

Have you ever been very young and "in love", etc...? Because if you have, and especially if it didn't go so well mainly because of your wife and/or bride, etc, then maybe you can relate to God in and of the OT maybe, etc, and maybe not judge Him so coldly or cruelly or insanely or harshly, etc...

[45] I am confident God is capable of defining love such that it suits him. I am also confident Adolf Hitler was capable of defining love such that gassing Jews was loving.

I'm not even going to comment on this, etc, God, either one of the three of them, etc, was not at all like, nor ever was like, "Adolf Hitler", etc...

In conclusion, like for good, God being love or loving is not evidence based. It is definition based.

Mine is evidence based, etc, and if God in and/of the OT is the Holy Spirit like I believe He is, etc, then I would be very, very careful if I were you in your summary judgments against Him, etc, for this scripture (below), spoken by Jesus in regards to Him (I believe) comes to mind, etc...

Matthew 12:31-32- "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

God made a mess of it because he was incompetent.

I'd be very careful and watch what I say if I were you...

What is relevant is that trying to re-establish God's kingdom is not loving.

How is taking us back to where none ever suffered or died anymore ever again "not loving", etc...?

The means to establish that Kingdom were on the other hand hateful.

He (God the Spirit) had to learn just like everyone else, etc, and in this case, with trial and error in being a God, or with given God-like power and authority and abilities, etc...

Your allegedly loving God doesn't care enough to do something about it, or maybe he is unable.

What else is He supposed to do or be doing beyond what He already did or tried, etc...?

In either case, or in any case, Jesus put and end to it at a certain time, until a set future date and time, etc...

[47] Humility is not one of God's strengths. Narcissism is.

I don't think you know what true narcissism truly is, for God in the OT, at the beginning, was neither narcissistic nor truly humble yet, etc...

He just "was", etc...

But He is different now, etc...

And with the way He is now, He may just forgive you now even still, etc, because He knows you are speaking out of complete arrogance/ignorance still, etc...

And I also don't see how telling people how you feel or are feeling at the moment is at all "narcissistic" also, etc, or is "very narcissistic" also, etc...

Because He was just "not", etc...

And if you do not truly know that yet, then you do not, and are "not even close" to ever really truly and fully "knowing Him" yet, etc...

So you really don't even have room to talk or even speak about Him yet really, etc...

God is like a tyrant or congress who is not accountable to anyone, i.e. not loving, but tyrannical, at least if we can believe the dictionary.

God was not tyrannical either, He was just a being that maybe lacked a little bit of experience at first, and that had nigh all power over this world, etc...

Except power over human choices, etc...

Which was something He had to "learn" also, etc...

And who was a young male and in love, like I tried to describe to you just before this a minute ago earlier, etc... And/or also again also, etc, if you've ever been a young male and in love, but with a very very unfaithful wife, then you know what it can do to you, especially at first, or at the start, etc...

But that is not a sin or crime, etc...

[48] No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.

And are you jealous of Him because you can't, etc...?

Anyway, He tries to do that which would/will bring us all to place where none would ever have to ever suffer and die anymore, etc...

But needed help from a Man in the end to finally do and/or accomplish it, etc...

Another thing He had to also learn in time, etc...

[50] He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.

And your going to be the very one personally, to see to it your own self personally, that God answers for all His supposed "crimes", etc...?

[51] If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

Only God the Father is or ever was 100% truly and fully omniscient from the very beginning, etc, and to every ending, etc, and everything in-between from that time, etc... At or from the very beginning, etc... And is the only One who already fully predestined, or already fully predetermined, every other being, or "all", from that time, etc...

[52] Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

For those who truly don't know just exactly what Hell really truly actually is yet, or why people truly go there yet, or what the "torment" actually is yet, then I can maybe understand their great arrogance/ignorance in this matter, etc...

[53] My personal opinion is that everyone owns God.

Nobody truly owns anything nor anybody else, except only God the Father from the very beginning, etc...

It gets even better. There are people who worship someone who believes they are some referee of right and wrong.

Again, please don't be judging or trying to judge God, neither of any of the three of them, etc, just by the behavior of some people or most of His/Their people/followers, etc...

Because that kind of bias, is just straight up prejudice against Him, etc...

God Bless!

 

[ChetSinger]

Excellent question, and the problem is in the English language. The word Jealous has 2 main meanings:

#1 Feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages / hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage : ENVIOUS.

#2 Fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions / intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness.

In 1Co 13:4-7 the word translated 'jealous' is Gr 'zeloo' which has meaning #1.

In Exo 20:4-6 the word translated 'jealous' in Gr 'zelotes' in the LXX and it has meaning #2.

I think the OP was answered in this post, which was #3. So much for the OP's attempt to do exegesis of Hebrew and Greek source texts in the English language. If it matters at this point the translations I read, the ESV and the NET, both translate 1 Cor 13:4 as 'envy' instead of 'jealous'.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is strange how that is the focus when the point is to contrast that with verse 6 where God shows thousands steadfast love to thousands of generations of those who love Him and keep His commandments. The issue of what it means to say that God is a jealous God is also different from the issue of the expression of that jealousy.

So is it right for God to punish three to four generations of people if he blesses thousands of generations that love him?

 

[BigV]

God's promises don't fail. It does work that way --he who believes in Christ will do the works of Christ. You take verses out of context, ignore the meaning, style and use of the language, and beyond that, you make a claim that is patently false. You say, "...you only receive what everyone else receives." Truth is, we all receive things according to God's use for us. No two receive the same.

Matthew 21:21 fails because I can make the same promise as Jesus and it will work the same. Given same excuses you are willing to accept our powers are the same. And it’s not because I have any special powers.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Matthew 21:21 fails because I can make the same promise as Jesus and it will work the same. Given same excuses you are willing to accept our powers are the same. And it’s not because I have any special powers.

This is because we don't have faith. You make Christ as only a human.

 

[Neogaia777]

What will people do when you finally tell them and finally convince all of them that "this" is "all there is", etc...?

Because I think you should ponder that question very, very much greatly before what you say you are doing, or are trying to do, is a much more very good, and much more morally upright thing, etc...?

But and/or besides that, this is not "all there is" also, etc, because you are so very wrong on that, on so very many levels, that I don't think I even know where to begin, etc, or end, etc...

I'll just throw just one, "just one", out there for now, etc...

Just consider the great vastness and size of just all of this for one, etc, and you think this tiny little level of life is all there is in it, etc...? Because you're so very wrong, so very "dead wrong", etc...

But many people have probably already told you this, along with very, very many other points still, but you still just refuse to listen or refuse to even hear, etc...

And I think the real truth is just that you have some kind of prejudice bias, etc... That your perception has been colored or tainted by very many things that it just should not be at all tainted by, etc...

But back to my main point for a minute, etc...

Do you really think humankind is "inherently good", etc, or "more good than bad", etc...? Because I 100% guarantee you, that if you succeed in your little quest to convince absolutely all of them that this is just simply absolutely all there is, etc, then your also going to find out, very, very quickly after that, just how wrong you are, or just how much you are very, very, very much "in very great and dire error" on this point, etc...

If enough people become 100% totally and completely convinced that this is "all there is", etc, then they are all going to try to get away with just as much bad and wrong and evil they can, just so as long as they can get away with it, etc, "period", etc, "end of story", "game over", etc, and "game over" for "all of us" at that point, etc...

So how is it that you can say you're doing a very much more good or very much more right, or righteous, or more "moral" thing, etc...

Now I'm not asking people to believe a lie, but I just know that, from your perspective, and a very very limited perspective I might add, you do think it is a lie, etc, and you cannot be convinced otherwise, etc, for many have tried, and tried hard, but failed, etc...

People will never be right or good just for the sake of it, ever, etc, they need a higher and greater motivation for that, etc, like the belief in, or a belief in an afterlife, etc, where good is rewarded, and bad is punished, or meets with some pretty dire consequences, etc...

Now there is such an existence, and actually is such a place, etc, but I'm not arguing that right now here, etc, and I've already told you mainly "why", etc, because it pretty pointless and is wasted effort/energy with your type/kind, etc, because really, you've already made you mind up and are already convinced, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to change that here, etc...

But, my main point here is how everybody will all be doing as much evil as they can get away with that is in, or will be in their hearts at that point, once you convince all of them, etc, and yet you think that is a much more moral thing to do or be doing, or will lead to much more moral things in the end, etc...?

And I wondering just what kind of dumb/stupidity is making you think that really, etc...?

And like I said, I don't think any of you are being 100% totally neutral or totally objective either, and have some kind of deep seated personal issues and/or biases in your life that are causing you to be prejudice against any idea of any kind of afterlife, or anything beyond any of "just this", etc, or any kind of idea of any kind of "God/god/gods", or any kind of an afterlife, etc...

That your perception has been colored or tainted by very many things that it just should not be at all tainted by, etc...

Anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Your all destroying yourselves, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, or "What-ever-the-blank" (and you can "fill in the blank", etc) alike, etc, and I'm about to just sit back and just say "let the world burn", etc, and just watch it do so, etc...

Turn my back and just walk away from all of you, leave you to your fates, etc...

Pull up a chair and just watch the show, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Amoranemix]

[47] Humility is not one of God's strengths. Narcissism is.

Hmmm your reply shows that your really redundant because if he was narcisstic he wouldn't die on the cross for humanity, he wouldn't forgive our sins he rather would just let us sin and then condemn us.[54] He also wouldn't do miracles and sent his Holy Spirit for his people.[55] Define your view of narcissism because it seems your more selfish and think about yourself more than God supposedly is.

My alleged redundancy is off topic.
[54] You claim that God died on the cross for humanity. Please demonstrate that.
Also, something that Christians conventiently tend to forget, is that resurrection takes the sting out of death.
Moreover, if God were loving (se, standard English), he would not blame us for our sins.
[55] What evidence can you present that he wouldn't do miracles if he lacked humility and were narcissistic ?
From www.dictionary.com :
narcissism :
noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
1 seems to apply. I don't know about 2.

[52] Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

Not everyone believes in a literal Hell. The traditional view of Hell is full seperation from God not eternal chastisement.

Beliefs about Hell vary indeed. Allmost all Christians believe it is bad though and I said maybe.

Your allegedly loving God doesn't care enough to do something about it, or maybe he is unable.

IDK the context of this reply, but basically God is able to reply and can too but rather since we are deprived and made covenants not with him, he doesn't respond to ambiguous request or try to intervene in peoples eternity because they are also dead in there sins.

You quoted out of order.
You can find out the context by reading it.

[52] Maybe he set out to lovingly torture in Hell those who worship him.

Substantiate this premise because this isn't grounded on fact.

Possibilities don't require grounding on facts.

[48] No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.
[49] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[50] He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.
[51] If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

[48] If God broke his perfect law he would't be omnibenevolent at all so it's safe to say God doesn't sin.
[49] 1 John 1:1-10
[50] For one to answer for a crime it has to be committed and what law has he broken? Even the justice system laws are based on Christianity Commandments, so may i ask what law hes broken?
[51] God knows all, but this premise gotta be explained more the wording is almost incoherent to me, but yes God knows every sin y(humanity) does to him because hes x(God).

[48] You committed a straw man fallacy, for I have not accused God if sinning.
[49] Is that all ?
First, that does not seem to attempt support the claim that God owns us anymore than that we own God.
Second, what evidence can you present to support 1 John 1:1-10 ?
[50] I have not said he has broken a law. Mark Quayle implied that he could violate standards set by us.
Another way of looking a might makes right justice is, in stead of the mighty deciding who gets punished for crimes, is that the mighty decide what constitutes a crime so that they never commit one.
[51] If God is omniscient, he knows everything true. If someone does a wrong against God, then that wrong done would qualify as something true. Therefore God would know it. That knowledge qualifies as a record. It would qualify as a record against the wrongdoer, if God blames the wrongdoer for it.

God is like a tyrant or congress who is not accountable to anyone, i.e. not loving, but tyrannical, at least if we can believe the dictionary.

You clearly dk what congress is so i won't respond to that but tyrants re elected in the office and then enforce supremacy on all people like I said to the other man. God isn't a system of government so he can be God and still rule with a iron fist. Please define love because it seems you dk the bible, you question sovereignty of God not his love. I believe the dictionary its just your arguments aren't substantiated at all.

You quoted out of order and your writing is poor.
From www.dictionary.com :
love, noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
[ . . . ]
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
[ . . . ]
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.

God made a mess of it because he was incompetent, but that is off topic. What is relevant is that trying to re-establish God's kingdom is not loving.[*] The means to establish that Kingdom were on the other hand hateful.[**] I am using standard English, where words mean what the dictionary says.

[*] In what grounds?
[**] Nah the reestablishment is basically in regards to us when we fall since we fallen we gonna get back in the Union with God and never have a sinful nature again because we would be glorified such as Jesus Christ.

[*] You selectively quoted out of order.
In no grounds, as far as I know. There are to my knowledge also no grounds for trying to re-esablish God's kingdom to be loving.
[**] You missed the point. You failed to address the reason why I classified God's means as hateful.

[46] That illustrates how words have different meanings when Christians use them : you are implicitly referring to God's moral standard, that strongly differs from the moral standards of most people who are not infatuated with God.

Gods morals dont differ from us Strictly speaking, on the one hand, an action could be considered immoral on the basis of one rule, code, or theory and, on the other hand, be considered moral or even nonmoral on another rule, code, or theory. Our human nature is based on Gods law so what we see as immoral naturally its because the law of God is written in our hearts.[52]

You selectively quoted out of order.
[52] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
God didn't write in my heart that I am supposed to worship him.

[44] I have no expectations on Christians' attempts at demonstrating god is love. I however expect them to fail if they attempt demonstrating the god of the Bible is loving.[*] So far, my expectations have been fulfilled.
I don't know your notion of God. Each Christian has their own notion of God [**], each of them appearing different than the one from the Bible.[***] Hence, it requires some time to figure out what they are talking about.

[*] HAHAHA Ok
[**] Provide proof of this claim.
[***] Like I said proof.

You have again quoted out of order.
[**]www.learnreligions.com/christianity-statistics-700533
Moreover, Mark Quayle and Neogaia777 display some of their disagreements on God in this thread.

You are right that the definition of 'love' matters as to whether God qualifies as being love. It is possible for God to be loving, kind, honest, empathic, good, truthful, holy, humble, just and merciful.[a] It is just a matter of giving these words the appropriate definitions.[b ] You could also rightly say about God, as Richard Dawkins has done, that he is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[c] No matter what you say about God, it can all be true.[d] Just remember, when Christians talk about God, be aware that words do not mean what they appear to mean. Regarding God, not the Christian, but the dictionary is wrong.[e]
[45] I am confident God is capable of defining love such that it suits him.[f] I am also confident Adolf Hitler was capable of defining love such that gassing Jews was loving.[g]

[a] paternal love of God for man and of man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity. A passion without the necessity of reciprocity. tradition of loving God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving “thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). The love of God requires absolute devotion that is reminiscent of Plato’s love of Beauty , which involves an erotic passion, awe, and desire that transcends earthly cares and obstacles. God is the most rational being and hence the most deserving of one’s love, respect, and considerations.
[b ] Define your view of love ethically so i would understand your arguments better.
[c] Richard Dawkins seriously you do better using Bart Ehrman and CosmicSkeptic instead of his weak arguments and also since you view that God has those qualities substaniate each one.
[d]It can doesn't mean it is.
[e] I understand each word regarding Gods love and the code of ethics the thing is, each word you use in regards to God should align to dictionary definition not a random belief on the word.
[f] God can't break logic because he is logic God can't go against ethics and still be a God regardless of your superstition. God doesn't break any code of ethics because hes truly all loving and perfect.
[g] Comparing God to a Nazi are you purposely trying to attack our faith instead of critique it.

[a] With apropriate definitions of rational, love, respect and consideration, no doubt. But God is also the most irrational being and hence the most deserving of one's hate, disprepect and neglect.
[b ] What do my arguments have to do with an ethical defintion of love ?
[c] In exchange for what ?
[d] True. That God can be as describe in [a], does not mean he is.
[e] The same holds for you and for Christians in general. The problem is that what should be not always is.
[f] Please demonstrate that God does not break any code of ethics.
[g] You are mistaken. The former does not preclude the latter.

In conclusion, like for good, God being love or loving is not evidence based. It is definition based.

Interesting have you read the entirety of the bible [53], you made a conclusion without substantiation you breaking boundaries of discussion special pleading hard as heck rn.[54]

[53] No.
[54] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?

Next follow responses to what used to be post 450, but has vanished.

Whether it is a problem or an advantage depends on whether you want to believe in reality or in God.[a] The 'problem' is equivocation. When Christians and the Bible are using the same word for different meanings [b ] (definitions), then that can cause confusion, which hinders understanding of reality.[c] However, when skillfully applied, that technique may stimulate God-belief.

[a] HAHAHA you cannot even explain mathematically how our universe came to be. [rest of the red herring]
[b ] Christians explain the bible meaning because translation sometimes cause confusion.

[a] Your quote is selective and out of order.
Feel free to prove your dubious claims where they are on topic.
[b ] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[c] That confusion hinders understanding of reality escapes you.
Confusion is the act of confusing, the state of confused or the lack of clearness or distinctness.
Further from www.dictionary.com, to confuse :
verb (used with object), con·fused, con·fus·ing.
1. to perplex or bewilder: The flood of questions confused me.
2. to make unclear or indistinct: The rumors and angry charges tended to confuse the issue.
3. to fail to distinguish between; associate by mistake; confound: to confuse dates; He always confuses the twins.
4. to disconcert or abash: His candor confused her.

All of the above can be applied to reality. Perplexion (about a real event or thing) is a state of diminished understanding (of reality). What is clear or disctinct is easier to understand that what is unclear or indistinct. Failure to distinguish between the one or the other makes it difficult to ascertain whether the one or the other is real. An example in the dictionary illustrates that : a confusion in his mind between right and wrong, meaning he had difficulty knowing whether something was right or wrong.

[42] You can evaluate someone, even a god, by the results and by the means. Christians tell me that the results sucks : look at the state of the world and even the world's state at the time God was present. Hence, God failed.[a] However, was it his fault ? For that we look at the means God used. If we are to believe the Bible, then definitely it is his fault.[b ] Using his supernatural abilities better would have reduced the mess, if that is what he wanted.[c]

[a] Gotta explain how.
[b ] substantiate how.
[c] God doesnt abuse power or kill unjustly.

[a] Not achieving a desired result is a failure.
[b ] How is not something subject to substantiation.
[c] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

[43] In that case, God would not exist.
[33] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.
[34] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man, for I have not accused you of being unable to ask whether I can prove my claims. I have asked whether you can demonstrate your assertion that First Cause is the cause of the universe.[a] Apparently not.
[35] Definitions are meant to be useful. If you want to believe in a single god, then using definitions that exclude more than one god are useful. If you want to believe in reality, then you don't let definitions tell you what (not) to believe.[b ] In Star Trek: the Next Generation, there is collecive called the Q-Continuum, consisting of beings referred to as omnipotent.

[43] What seriously your conclusions show you really dk what your talking about.
[33] Define your views of reality.
[a] First Cause isn't just the cause of the universe.
[b ] Where in the bible does it state not to.

Your quotes are selective.
[43] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[33] In exchange for what ?
[b ] I don't know.

[42] You can evaluate someone, even a god, by the results and by the means. Christians tell me that the results sucks : look at the state of the world and even the world's state at the time God was present. Hence, God failed. However, was it his fault ? For that we look at the means God used. If we are to believe the Bible, then definitely it is his fault. Using his supernatural abilities better would have reduced the mess, if that is what he wanted.

No, it both wouldn't and couldn't have, He tried that in order to stimulate the kind of faith and choices it would take by man to accomplish that, and it didn't work, etc, so it is not His fault [55], etc, but was part of His training that it would it take by God the Father in order to be our God, etc, who already predestined/already predetermined/determined "all", etc...

[55] How is that supposed to free God from blame ?

[44] I have no expectations on Christians' attempts at demonstrating god is love. I however expect them to fail if they attempt demonstrating the god of the Bible is loving. So far, my expectations have been fulfilled.

Please don't judge God by the behavior of most of His people please, etc...
Because that kind of bias, is just straight up prejudice against Him, etc...

Judging an entity based on its followers' behaviour is not bias or prejudice. So I will keep doing it.

I don't know your notion of God. Each Christian has their own notion of God, each of them appearing different than the one from the Bible. Hence, it requires some time to figure out what they are talking about.

Well, my notion happens to the correct one, etc...

I finally found someone to tell me his views of God are true. Now all my doubts have vanished.

 

[BigV]

This is because we don't have faith. You make Christ as only a human.

You are incorrect. I’m only human. And the fact that Christ’s promises work same way as same promises made by me is a proof that Christ is not real or made up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are incorrect. I’m only human. And the fact that Christ’s promises work same way as same promises made by me is a proof that Christ is not real or made up.

Your promises that faith in God can move mountains, or faith in you? What do you mean? Up til now, I thought you were saying that God's promises actually don't work any better than if you had promised them.

But what seems to me evident here is that you suppose faith to be some sort of mechanical contrivance. (Turn this handle, flip that switch, and hope real hard). It is not.

 

[BigV]

Your promises that faith in God can move mountains, or faith in you? What do you mean? Up til now, I thought you were saying that God's promises actually don't work any better than if you had promised them.

Yep, your understanding is correct. What can faith in God do that faith in me can't?