Jealousy and wrath are not emotions

a reply to: windword

Take Job for example. God allowed Job to suffer, killing his family and his family holdings, his animals, vineyards an orchards, all to make a point to Satan. How was that God jealously protecting his people through the use of wrath?

Job is part of Wisdom Literature, specifically to serve as allegory. The main thesis is that the notion of prosperity or woe as a direct reward or punishment is somewhat faulty.

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job
Gregory W. Parsons, Copyright © 1981 by Dallas Theological Seminary.

Perhaps the most important theme is the doctrine of divine
retribution which pervades the Book of Job.
...
The principle of divine
retribution, which is operative in some portions of the Old
Testament, and which lay at the core of ancient Near Eastern
religions, became a dogma for Job's friends. Because the valid-
ity of this principle (namely, that Yahweh the righteous Judge
rewards the righteous with prosperity and punishes the wicked
with calamity) had become an unquestioned dogma with no
exceptions, it was automatically assumed that all suffering was
caused by sin.
...
Because of the friends' unquestioned acceptance of the dog-
ma of divine retribution, they were championing the view that the
basis of the relationship between God and man was "God's
impartial, retributive justice and man's pious fear of God.” As
man related to God in obedient piety, so God would bless him. As
in Satan's challenge of Job's motive for serving God, the de-
marcation between piety and prosperity became blurred.
...
Yet it is ironic
that because Job accused God of injustice in order to maintain
his own righteousness (see 40:8)--operating on the assumption
that God was punishing him for sin, though unjustly--he was
unconsciously retaining the dogma of divine retribution.
...
Although a major thrust of the Lord's speeches (38:1-40:2;
40:6-41:34) was to polemicize against all potential rivals to His
lordship over the cosmos, there is also a subtle refutation of the
dogma of divine retribution,
...
The Book of Job shows that only by dispensing with the
traditional dogma of divine retribution was it possible to recon-
cile Job's innocence with God's permitting him to suffer. The
refutation of this dogma aids in the demolition of its corollary
(which undergirds ancient Near Eastern religions) that man's
relationship to God is based on a juridical claim, Consequently, it
complements the purpose of Job which is to demonstrate the
only proper basis for the relationship between God and man.
Creation motif.

a reply to: pthena

Consequently, it complements the purpose of Job which is to demonstrate the only proper basis for the relationship between God and man. Creation motif.

I concur.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I guess one man's calamity (war) is another man's proof that his jealous and wrathful god exists. The thing is, this calamity never ceases and God's people are still without reprieve.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: pthena

Consequently, it complements the purpose of Job which is to demonstrate the only proper basis for the relationship between God and man. Creation motif.

I concur.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I guess one man's calamity (war) is another man's proof that his jealous and wrathful god exists. The thing is, this calamity never ceases and God's people are still without reprieve.

War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So how could God/s have created us "in his image" if it/she/he doesn't have an image?

E X A C T L Y



Do you get it? The Bible was written by men who said what god said to someone else who said that they heard that this and that other thing happened and some guys left notes but didn't sign their names and it was 200 years after the story started anyway so.....

The Bible is not a historical document. It is 'historical fiction' at best, and at worst an anthology of "collected belfry scribblings" from ancient monks who put bowls on their heads and walked around in burlap, smacking themselves with a whip that had bits of broken glass tied at the end.

Like broken-glass beads on a bicycle-tassel.

So - since we are not made in anyone else's "image" (including 'God's, because it remains a mystery and has no description or definition that sticks the landing), we just muddle through and hope that this time, when our bodies give out, we'll get to learn more. Like school.

Ya know.
Or - maybe you don't. Anyway, thanks for chat!

Please spend some solitary time relaxing and thinking this over. I'd enjoy hearing back from you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Did you not read my reply? Specifically the part in brackets?

I'm an athiest. I find the bible and Christian a false narrative from the get go. I have yet to see any proof that a god or multiple gods exist.

That being said, I was trying to stay on the topic of the thread with the assumption that the Christian God exists (for the sake of the thread).

I'm not here debating if God/s does or do not exist. I don't believe this is the thread for that.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm an athiest. I find the bible and Christian a false narrative from the get go. I have yet to see any proof that a god or multiple gods exist.

That being said, I was trying to stay on the topic of the thread with the assumption that the Christian God exists (for the sake of the thread).

I'm not here debating if God/s does or do not exist. I don't believe this is the thread for that.

Oh! Well, thanks for clarifying! We just weren't understanding each other's basic premise. Now I get it....
mkay? I'm one of you. I think it's undeniably myth/fiction also.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

One of me? lol

Soon someone will come a long and say we're a religion (like many other threads we get bashed in).

I just thought I would debate the subject, rather than the validity. I'm kind of fed up with the "us against them" mentality on religious/evolution threads, to be honest. It gets nobody anywhere.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well, that was kinda rude, but.....I'll respond anwyay. And for the record, I am a firm agnostic and definitely anti-theist, possibly could be considered a Deist. I get rude on here sometimes, too. I understand.

Anyway:
So, mmmmmmm.....you scoffed at the claim that I'm "one of you"? Inasmuch as I think it's all silly, yes. I'm one of you.
Insofar as thinking I know for sure - you're right, I don't think that. But you do think that. And that's where we part.

But that's fine. No need to shake hands.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I didn't mean it in a rude way. Sorry if it came across that way. You know, Internet text and all that.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well, that was kinda rude, but.....I'll respond anwyay. And for the record, I am a firm agnostic and definitely anti-theist, possibly could be considered a Deist. I get rude on here sometimes, too. I understand.

I honestly didn't mean it in a rude way.
I wouldn't say I'm anti-theist. I'm anti religious extremist/fundementalist. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of theists on here that are religious extremists and/or fundementalist.

Anyway:
So, mmmmmmm.....you scoffed at the claim that I'm "one of you"? Inasmuch as I think it's all silly, yes. I'm one of you.
Insofar as thinking I know for sure - you're right, I don't think that. But you do think that. And that's where we part.

I can't dismiss that there might be a higher being and/or a higher plain as I see no evidence to confirm or refute either idea. I'll wait and see when I die, I guess.

When I lol'd at the "one of me" comment, it was just meant as light-hearted. I just found it amusing, that's all. There wasn't any insult implied from me.

But that's fine. No need to shake hands.

I've not got a problem shaking your hand

I can agree that the whole premise of religion is fake, but I can still debate the texts. It would be like debating the most effective route for Santa to go to deliver all the presents in time. The subject is a myth, but you can still debate the questions.

Hopefully that makes sense

a reply to: windword

I concur.

I didn't know how much of that commentary to cut down and still get the point across.

The Book of Job is awfully wordy and convoluted. Easy for the meaning to get lost. The "Exodus" isn't mentioned at all, irrelevant perhaps.

So Jesus was sitting on a rock reading the Scroll of Job one day.
One of his disciples came up, "So Jesus, brought you some lunch."
Jesus doesn't hear him, he's scratching his head and flipping from one section of the scroll to another.
"Hey, I said I brought you some bread", the disciple says a bit louder.
Jesus mumbles, "Man does not live by bread alone ..."

After 10 more minutes of reading and flipping and reading, Jesus starts laughing, "Oh that's it. Oh man, the kingdom of God is like a pearl in a haystack, or something like that. Did you say something about lunch?"

Disclaimer: The story told above is just a story. I did not witness it. Neither is it claimed to be higher wisdom or enlightenment.

a reply to: TerryDon79

It does, and thank you. Sorry for misinterpreting.....it happens.
I appreciate your clarification.

*friend*

originally posted by: Rex282
Therefore what is written of the creator God in the scriptures is not literal truth because humans cannot know the true nature and character(name) of the creator God

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Another problem is that 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.

Yes.Human language in any form (especially writing)cannot accurately communicate and know what the creator God is saying(commanding) though any methods especially religious-religion which is the antithesis of knowing.That is the core of the great dilemma that religion cannot solve but only exacerbates .When man wrote the words of scriptures it is only what they believed the events were in relationship to a God.Unfortunately all of mans perception of events are not all true because of the limited sense of perception of humans (sight,sound,scent,emotions etc etc.).

If there is a creator God then it is impossible to “know” them because they would be inscrutable.It would be like(but much more extreme) an amoeba attempting to know Einsteins thoughts because they are not equipped for the task.The dilemma you are experiences in this thread is because of your theories is straddling the fence instead of getting off of it.

The dogmatic religious literalist is barking from one side of the fence and believes that their God communicates to humans by writing words and is inerrant.You are very correct when you deny their ignorance of a creator God can only be written “of” in metaphors.The non theist dogmatist thinks everything written in the scripture is meaningless however just because this isn’t true doesn’t invalidate the basic premise they have built their theory on, the scriptures were not written by a God.

However there are no words that can accurately and definitely describe any thing of a creator God because those words are one dimensional at beast and that is what the dogmatist literalist plays/preys upon.They are now free to interpret those words in a way to fit their religious agenda and be exempt from any repercussion for it's inaccuracy because they are just agreeing with their God.

You are correct in rejecting that methodology because it only leads religious delusion.On the other side of the fence the non theist dogmatist throws the baby out with the bathwater and does not perceive any dimension in what was written when the bible is clearly the most influential book(good and bad) ever written by man.

There is a very good reason why Yahoshua cherry picked the scriptures and his meanings did not match the Israelite and Jewish belief at all…because the scriptures are not to be followed rigidly like a rule book because they are very inaccurate portrayal of the truth when perceived through the eyes of religion.It is even written(unwittingly) in such a way that it is completely unreasonable to do so and history has provided ample efforts of the it’s failure.

However the scriptures is a testimony that testifies of Yahoshua(the creator God’s deliverance/salvation).The religious (Christians) believe this statement through the dogmatic filter of their religions religious elitism.They believe only those that believe as they do will be saved(and already are) however that is not what Yahoshua stated and more significantly nor is it reasonable.Yahoshua clearly stated this salvation is for ALL of mankind and it is caused 100% by the creator God and that is the main sticking point with those that oppose Christianity and reasonably resent being bludgeoned over the head with the bible.

The clear fact is Yahoshua never instructed ANYONE to propagate religious belief of ANY kind.The fact is he told his disciples EXCLUSIVELY to preach(proclaim by statement) the Good news of salvation..and they did.He never told future Christians to and as a matter of fact clearly warned the dsciples of the Christians who would be coming to deceive:

"Do not be deceive for MANY will come in my name and say they are christ [anointed] and deceive many”.

There is only one reasonable way to interpret this testimony of Yahoshuas..this group of people (eclessia..church) is Christianity.Everything in this very succinct statement is describing Christianity YET Christians cannot perceive it.The very book the religious profess to believe as Gods word testifies against them and they cannot perceive it…and that is the irony of it all.The religious propagate the bible as evidence of their “ special election” where it in reality it testifies to the opposite.Many of the non theist want to discredit the bible as not credible yet it supports many of their main arguments. This is the dilemma of the bible that is before all of mankind yet the conundrum is easily unraveled.

Get off the fence.Do not push an agenda.Morals and ethics cannot be legislated by a book when the content of the book is in confliction. It is after all just a book.If a person is going to be moral and ethical they can NEVER learn it from a book nor any other method, it is a product of their personal character.If there is a Creator God it is THEIR responsibility to clearly communicate to an individual their command of will.It cannot be communed through any other source or a methodology(especially religion).

The only reasonable thing for the religious to do with the bible is to quit arguing about it’s veracity as the “will and word of God”.That is not it’s purpose nor can it provide that service in any form because it is the antithesis of knowing a creator God because it is only a testimony that testifies that mankind CANNOT know (commune) with a creator God through their efforts of any kind.

The only reasonable thing for the non theist bible detractor to do is to quit arguing about the veracity of the usefulness of the bible even though it has been greatly abused the bible is not the source of the abuse it is the religious believer.The bible stands alone for being the most deified and vilified book by those that have no idea what truth is.In others words it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie(a metaphor).

a reply to: DISRAELI
Your reasoning makes little sense. How can a concept defined as an "emotion" not be an emotion when god uses it? That's like saying red isn't a color when god paints with it. What?

I mean I know what you are trying to do with this thread and refute the common argument that your god is a petty and emotional being represented by some of the worst of human emotions, but fancy words aren't going to change how god is written in your story book.

PS: Believing in god because we should fear the consequences is a TERRIBLE reason to believe in it. That's authoritarian no matter how you slice it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is level headed and sound reasonable thinking, a gift from God. Not Yahweh Sabaoth but whoever the true God is.

Definitely not someone that the Bible talks about. The Jews don't read the Bible literally just the Christian, while the Jew gets a chuckle out of it the Christian descends into madness creating "reasons" to explain why God gets to be an evil yacoff while we have to obey the foolishness of the Bible if we want to go to heaven. I think I will take my chances with knowledge, logic and wisdom over superstition.

Although from time to time the Bible has some logic to give, for instance:

It's better to spill your seed in a whore than to spill it on the ground.

Who could argue with that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DISRAELI
Your reasoning makes little sense. How can a concept defined as an "emotion" not be an emotion when god uses it?

Because emotions are the product of our physical nature, which God does not have.
And because the concepts defined as emotions are not accurate descriptions of what is happening. They are just the nearest words that humans could find for what are really the expressions of his will.

PS: Believing in god because we should fear the consequences is a TERRIBLE reason to believe in it. That's authoritarian no matter how you slice it.

Refusing to believe in something because it is "authoritarian" is a TERRIBLE reason for refusing to believe it. It makes no rational sense, because a belief being or not being "authoritarian" has no relevance whatever to the question of whether it is true.

The Atlantic Ocean is supposed to have the capacity to drown me if I fall into it from a great height.
I see that as a good reason for fearing the possibility of falling into the Atlantic Ocean.
Yet this belief is very "authoritarian", isn't it? It implies that the Ocean has some kind of power over me.
So what do you do about that? Do you strike a noble attitude, and declare "I am an American, I have the right to insist that nothing has power over me, and so I refuse to believe in the existence of the Atlantic Ocean"?
I think that would be an absurd example of living in self-delusion and denial.
Yet I don't see that "I refuse to believe in a God who is authoritarian" is much better.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DISRAELI
Your reasoning makes little sense. How can a concept defined as an "emotion" not be an emotion when god uses it?

Because emotions are the product of our physical nature, which God does not have.

When Jacob is still just Jacob he meets and wrestles with "God." He is then dubbed Israel which means "wrestles with God." If God isn't physical in nature he can't be touched but if one takes the story literally then God must have a physical touchable nature.

Either that or it is an allegory or plain myth and the whole religion is a lie (Christianity). You must choose one or the other or you are a hypocrite.

And because the concepts defined as emotions are not accurate descriptions of what is happening. They are just the nearest words that humans could find for what are really the expressions of his will.

All the things God is capable of accurately describing himself is not possible? Ok.

PS: Believing in god because we should fear the consequences is a TERRIBLE reason to believe in it. That's authoritarian no matter how you slice it.

Refusing to believe in something because it is "authoritarian" is a TERRIBLE reason for refusing to believe it. It makes no rational sense, because a belief being or not being "authoritarian" has no relevance whatever to the question of whether it is true.

The Atlantic Ocean is supposed to have the capacity to drown me if I fall into it from a great height.
I see that as a good reason for fearing the possibility of falling into the Atlantic Ocean.
Yet this belief is very "authoritarian", isn't it? It implies that the Ocean has some kind of power over me.
So what do you do about that? Do you strike a noble attitude, and declare "I am an American, I have the right to insist that nothing has power over me, and so I refuse to believe in the existence of the Atlantic Ocean"?
I think that would be an absurd example of living in self-delusion and denial.
Yet I don't see that "I refuse to believe in a God who is authoritarian" is much better.

God is a myth, whoever is responsible for this planet is not anything near a god, never mind God.

I mean he lets billions believe in the wrong religion, condemns them to hell for it, yet the worst of the worst of people get in to heaven just for claiming to believe in an absurd myth, i.e. rewards them for abandoning logic?

What a guy! How sound and logical!

originally posted by: Muffenstuff
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It's better to spill your seed in a whore than to spill it on the ground.

Who could argue with that?

The uptight Christians who use that passage to talk about the "evils" of masturbation...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Because emotions are the product of our physical nature, which God does not have.
And because the concepts defined as emotions are not accurate descriptions of what is happening. They are just the nearest words that humans could find for what are really the expressions of his will.

So basically you are using an undefined concept to redefine a word to suit your narrative.

Refusing to believe in something because it is "authoritarian" is a TERRIBLE reason for refusing to believe it. It makes no rational sense, because a belief being or not being "authoritarian" has no relevance whatever to the question of whether it is true.

I'll take my chances. Thank you very much. No being that gets angry for me not paying attention to it is worth my consideration.

The Atlantic Ocean is supposed to have the capacity to drown me if I fall into it from a great height.
I see that as a good reason for fearing the possibility of falling into the Atlantic Ocean.

Actually, from a great height, you'll die of being squashed before drowning. Hitting the water at around 70+ feet is like hitting concrete, but even if that happens and you survive the fall there is always swimming to prevent you from dying.

Yet this belief is very "authoritarian", isn't it? It implies that the Ocean has some kind of power over me.
So what do you do about that? Do you strike a noble attitude, and declare "I am an American, I have the right to insist that nothing has power over me, and so I refuse to believe in the existence of the Atlantic Ocean"?
I think that would be an absurd example of living in self-delusion and denial.
Yet I don't see that "I refuse to believe in a God who is authoritarian" is much better.

I avoid falling in to the Atlantic Ocean from great heights is what I do. Just like I avoid your monster/god.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right? Even though I think it is actually more about pulling out if I remember correctly, I heard it in a stand up act and thought it was hilarious.

Sexual repression is horrible for mental health, unless you're just one of the few who is not interested in pleasure of the sensual nature which happens.

Truth is Christian husbands and wives cheat on each other, abuse and divorce at the same rate as non Christian couples and the religion actually encourages male dominance and hides behind scripture as a reason.

I wish they would bring back the sacred prostitute.