Jealousy and wrath are not emotions

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Don't be such a legalist.
It's very regrettable that you should allow this legalistic obsession of yours to get in the way of presenting God to the world.
It prevents you from doing things for God that really matter.

Just a quick response to the title, here, DISRAELI.

Yes, they are.
The Bible translations might not use the terms correctly as emotions, but they are, in modern language, and in the human experience. They are both emotions, and powerful, dangerous ones. Anyway - I don't mean to interrupt, just wanted to clear that up semantically. Just don't want your readers to think otherwise.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Okay now I read the OP and a later post of yours and I see that is what you are getting at anyway...
From the OP:

The “jealousy” of God is really his declared intention to preserve what belongs to his authority.
The “wrath” of God is really the action that he takes to reclaim what belongs to his authority.
They are not emotions, but the operations of, and the expressions of, his conscious will.

we are trying to describe in human words something for which no words can exist, so the words will be inaccurate and potentially misleading.
In tis case, they are misleading because they are anthropomorphic, assigning human emotions to one who does not feel human emotions.

This part I agree with. It's just that your title is declarative only and not relating to the Bible in itself. Misleading title.
That's my pedantism. You know my opinion of the Bible - and I see exactly what you're saying. It's a perfect example of the problem with translation. Well said.

Except the title.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Quite, but the title was clarified and corrected in the final sentence of the OP, and the fact that the claim was being limited to statements about God was evident from the first sentence onwards. Nobody would have been confused for long.
Some people, noticing that it was posted in the Religion forum, would have guessed my intentions in advance.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Never assume!!

a reply to: DISRAELI

At the same time, the purpose of the relationship is that he wants to teach them his ways, which offers another metaphor.
If we think of the God of Israel as the teacher of his people, then what he is demanding is the same kind of sole attention that a good teacher demands from a class.
Then the danger of the other gods is that they present a serious distraction which undermines what he is attempting to teach.

I wonder if you would possibly identify which school of thought regarding Old Testament you subscribe to, or favor.

Here is a summary of Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future , Ben C. Ollenburger, Apr 1, 2006, which I take to be the textbook for Old Testament Survey at Denver Seminary.

Also, I found an article published by The Guardian written by retired Anglican Vicar, David Bryant.

God is unknowable – stop looking for him, and you will find faith

If we envisage God as a person clothed with epithets such as powerful, loving, just, fear-inspiring and omnipotent we are creating a manmade image. Sigmund Freud points this out in his book, The Future of an Illusion. "Religion comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality." In other words we have an innate tendency to invent the particular God that suits our needs.

Would you read the article, and perhaps comment upon it?

a reply to: pthena
I can't really identify with any particular school of thought. I'm in the process of working out my own school of thought without reference to others.
My starting point is the premise which I put into my definition of God (in several places on this site), that the Biblical God is not only a Creator, but one who communicates.
There is direct communication, coming to a climax in the Incarnation.
But the key to the Biblical strategy is that direct communication is supplemented by indirect communication. People are expected to tell others what they have been told.
A process of indirect communication, by necessity, has to have a starting-point, a first point of contact.
The Old Testament is the story of a society being established and trained up to be, in principle, the first point of contact for communication with the rest of the world.
The real point of the teaching is always about the two issues which Jesus identified as the chief commandments, viz. their relation with their God himself, and their relation with each other.
But it's a long and patient process, partly because the pupils are slow learners and not good at listening, partly because the class is always in danger of disintegrating or being broken up by outsiders. These things have to be guarded against.

Believing in a God who communicates, I have never favoured apophatic theology.
If God is saying something to us, our task is to listen to it and understand it as best we can, remaining aware of the limitations in our understanding. As long as we are listening, we don't create our picture of God, except in the sense that our understanding distorts what we are hearing.
(The "psychological need" theory is a double-edged weapon. I think the human ego has a very powerful "psychological need" to escape external restraints, and the Freudian theory is pandering to that need by its claim that the authoritarian God is a human construct which can be safely ignored.)

This is partly about the difference between Idealism and Pragmatism.
Idealism says "Perfection, or nothing". In this context, as in that Guardian article, if we can't get a perfect understanding of God, we might as well not try.
Pragmatism says "if we can't get perfection, we do the best we can with what we've got". In this context, allowing our limited understandings to make what they can out of what is being communicated.
On matters of evidence, lawyers tend towards Idealism, historians tend towards Pragmatism.
It seems to me that the Biblical God treats the human race with Pragmatism. An Idealist would have given up on us ages ago.

P.S. Perhaps "Have you found God" was the wrong question, though.
I've just remembered hearing a local evangelist crying "You won't find God! But he'll find you!"

a reply to: DISRAELI

A process of indirect communication, by necessity, has to have a starting-point, a first point of contact.
The Old Testament is the story of a society being established and trained up to be, in principle, the first point of contact for communication with the rest of the world.

I would characterize my Biblical upbringing to be along the lines of George Ernest Wright, God Who Acts, Biblical Theology as Recital (1952). The basic thesis being that the Biblical deity is superior to the other deities of antiquity in that he is seen as active within the historic process as opposed to merely relegated to mythological creation epics.

To put it simply:

In ancient Sumerian religion when one city state gained superiority the creation myths were re-written in order to reflect that the new top deity of the dominant city had a higher position than the former chief deity of the subject city. The rituals changed slightly, the ethics not so much.

The superior historically active deity chose a group of tribes to make a nation of. He directly intervened in history by bringing plagues upon Egypt, and killing all the first born in Egypt. He directed this newly created nation into the desert to receive the rituals of honor to the deity and the ethic which they were to follow.

The ethic was to enter a geographical area, kill all the inhabitants, destroy all cultic objects, and eradicate from memory any knowledge of any other deities who were known of, and then to remain completely separate from all other peoples in the World. If they succeeded in this ethic they would be blessed by never having plagues, drought or famine. They would be living in paradise. When the other peoples of the World inquired as to the source of their prosperity, they could then tell them about the superior deity.

If, on the other hand, they failed by not killing all the inhabitants, by not destroying all cultic objects, by not erasing the memory of other deities, by not keeping themselves separate from the World, they would be ejected into the World and hounded relentlessly throughout the historic process in such a way that the nations would be appalled and ask "why is all this horror happening to these people?" The people would answer "It's this superior deity we have, we failed ethically and this is him punishing us. But since you ask, would you like to worship our superior god?"

Any way, that's pretty much the whole of the Old Testament in a nut shell.

ETA

Disclaimer: That's not quite the way Dr. Wright put it. My simple views do not reflect his views which took hundreds of pages in order to make the stark contrast not so stark.

a reply to: pthena
Since both our presentations are grounded in the attitudes we have chosen to adopt, there is no way to resolve the difference by argument alone. We have reached an impasse there.
I will continue offering presentations of the Biblical God not grounded in hostility, just to show that it's possible.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: pthena
Since both our presentations are grounded in the attitudes we have chosen to adopt, there is no way to resolve the difference by argument alone. We have reached an impasse there.
I will continue offering presentations of the Biblical God not grounded in hostility, just to show that it's possible.

Possible maybe. It's easy to have a civil debate.

However, it is pretty hard to deny the violent psycopathic nature of the literary invention you tell people is God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I am not a legalist. I have led more people to the Lord than you will in your lifetime on ATS. And it is not an obsession it is faith in God keeping his word.

I simply believe by faith God has kept his promise to preserve his words of all generations forever as found in Psalm 12:6, 7. It is a matter of faith. Seeing the Bible I hold in my hand and is available any where in the world has all the verses in it, can define any word in it by its context, and supernaturally cross-references words, terms and verses within it self. I by faith believe this is it. And so far I have not been disappointed.

Jesus said, and I believe his questioning was correct, he was seeing the lack of faith in God and his power even in his day. Only in this day is there more of a lack of faith and more trust in man's intellect than any other before.

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

It is such a shame that many do not believe God is powerful enough to keep his words just as he gave them in the originals unto this generation. Seeing such a lack of faith exists it is a sign that the Lord is soon to return.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

It is such a shame that many do not believe God is powerful enough to keep his words just as he gave them in the originals unto this generation. Seeing such a lack of faith exists it is a sign that the Lord is soon to return.

No. You are idolizing a book written by men. Period.
And "the Lord" is not soon to return.

I'm dismayed as well. It is such a shame that you have persuaded "more people than" anybody else ever will here or anywhere. If even two people were convinced by your rhetoric, they have been sadly infected. Sorry, but I truly believe that.

Jealousy and wrath are human emotions. God is not human. God is beyond words or comprehension, and is not a he, or a she. Not thinking and judging and hating and jealous and mean and petty and intolerant and cruel. Those are "man" things.
Jealousy and wrath are ugly. God is not ugly.

Sorry for interrupting, DISRAELI.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Do you have any thoughts relating to the topic of the thread?

a reply to: Muffenstuff

It's easy to have a civil debate.

However, it is pretty hard to deny the violent psycopathic nature of the literary invention you tell people is God.

The debate boils down to a question of authority. Does a creation myth written as historical event (eg. Exodus) offer a legitimate claim of authority over the lives of people and a nation, and by extension, over all people and all nations? That's the root debate.

Corollaries would be: As retrospective: Did Josiah's reforms drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive reform and glory to the deity? Did Ezra's reforms drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good? Did Maccabean reform drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good? Did Judean rebellion against Rome drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good?

Is any reform drawn upon the Exodus mythos likely to result in positive good? If not, then perhaps it should be rejected as authority. That's the nature of the debate. And spelling out the nature of the debate is as far as I wish to go. I don't particularly wish to actually engage in the debate.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well if your not accepting the words as found in the preserved words as being correct. No I don't have anything to add to it. Except you are wrong in some of your conclusions.

But when you label me something I am not I will respond. There is a difference between being zealous for the preserved word of God and being a Legalist. The label is so misused and is often used by those to try and humiliate and belittle rather than foster a spirit of mutual respect. I believe Jesus was the only one to ever use it correctly.

While I read your threads I am often taken back by your lack of faith in God's ability and power, while at the same time placing more faith and trust in your own understanding of so called better translation or so called more accurate versions, and in your ability to understand Koine Greek (a dead language) and Hebrew from copies of text that have no ability to be verified because the original autographs are unavailable for comparison.

Do you believe God kept is word to preserve his words to all generations as found in Psalm 12:6,7?

Don't you think you should at least settle that issue before trying to teach the word of God?

Do you believe he has preserved his words for us today?

If you think he did it in a plethora of English Versions and Translations, you would be causing more confusion and distraction. Something God did not ever intend and is not the author of. The very version you quote is missing words and verses in it that are found in the preserved word of God, the Holy Bible. The version you call more accurate changes words and creates confusion. This in turn leads men to trust in lexicons, Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries and other man made tools rather in the God of the word to teach them the truth. I could be more specific but you did not even give the courtesy to your readers by naming the version you are using.

So where do you stand on this issue of God's preservation of his words to all Generations as found in Psalm 12:6, 7?

Are you standing on one side with all the so called godly educated scholars and the many books and twisting of God's word to theirs and their readers destruction?

Or on the other side where the few are persecuted for their view of God preservation of his words? Where many call us, uneducated, legalist, simple minded, haters, beside ourselves and much more.

Remember Jesus and Paul were on the later.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
No I don't have anything to add to it. Except you are wrong in some of your conclusions.

Which ones?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Muffenstuff

It's easy to have a civil debate.

However, it is pretty hard to deny the violent psycopathic nature of the literary invention you tell people is God.

The debate boils down to a question of authority. Does a creation myth written as historical event (eg. Exodus) offer a legitimate claim of authority over the lives of people and a nation, and by extension, over all people and all nations? That's the root debate.

Corollaries would be: As retrospective: Did Josiah's reforms drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive reform and glory to the deity? Did Ezra's reforms drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good? Did Maccabean reform drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good? Did Judean rebellion against Rome drawn upon the Exodus mythos result in positive good?

Is any reform drawn upon the Exodus mythos likely to result in positive good? If not, then perhaps it should be rejected as authority. That's the nature of the debate. And spelling out the nature of the debate is as far as I wish to go. I don't particularly wish to actually engage in the debate.

I don't see very much of anything positive coming from the religion of pre Christian Judaism, the Bible doesn't even pretend this is the case.

Anything that has emerged from the tribe of Judah has led to tragedy out of stubbornness and superstition. Christianity adopted this scourge of a religion and nothing but more bloodshed followed the attempted reform of Judaism. Even though it's namesake was a pacifist leader the religion of Paulianity replaced the teachings of Yeshua and Rome shed more blood in the name of Christ in real life than Israel did in the myths of the Bible.

That's not much of a reform at all.

I envy Jews for their dedication to intellectual pursuits and education, I believe that they have reformed the religion of Judaism today in their acknowledgement of the allegorical nature of the Tanakh.

Bad Jews exist don't get me wrong, but I find for the most they are a great people and that if Christianity encouraged acknowledging reality in that the Bible is not a literal history of the Jews but a book of faith, that no man was born of a virgin or God in the flesh, that would be a proper reform.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Men and women are humans, so obviously they have human emotions. I am talking here about the words "jealousy" and "wrath" when they are being applied to God himself. The point is that they are being used as an approximate analogy, so their normal meaning is applicable only in a limited way.

The problem that I have with your theory, is that jealousy and wrath, when translated within a husband and wife relationship, is never a positive thing. If jealousy and wrath are key characteristics of supreme goodness that emanate from the "One True God", like love, patience and long suffering, why do they become corrupted as soon as they touch human realms?

I can understand the concept of jealousy and wrath being unemotional when coming from a governing authority against an outside interloper, trying to beat down the proverbial walls of civil protection. But it's also way too easy for jealousy and wrath to be used against the very patrons of said governing authority, triggered by some perceived slight, and become destructive and emotionally abusive, as it translates from "On High" down through degraded human realms.

Therefore, in my opinion, your theory that jealousy and wrath are unemotional affects, when emanated from God on high, and can be positively reflected through a husband, who "has claim on his wife", doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

originally posted by: windword
If jealousy and wrath are key characteristics of supreme goodness that emanate from the "One True God", like love, patience and long suffering, why do they become corrupted as soon as they touch human realms?

That is not really what I am saying.
My case is that God is describing how he needs to treat certain situations, and that gets translated into human language with words like "jealousy" and "wrath", because those are the nearest words that people can find.

Therefore, in my opinion, your theory that jealousy and wrath are unemotional affects, when emanated from God on high, and can be positively reflected through a husband, who "has claim on his wife", doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

I haven't even been discussing whether jealousy in marriage is a good thing. For the purposes of this topic, what matters is that it has enough real existence to be available as a metaphor.
(Incidentally, nobody suggested that "wrath" was part of the marriage metaphor)

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well seeing you ignored my further questions and observations, I don't feel obligated to even respond.