Jealousy and wrath are not emotions

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I avoid falling in to the Atlantic Ocean from great heights is what I do. Just like I avoid your monster/god.

If he is everything that he is claiming to be, you don't actually get the chance to avoid him (in the long term).
Some things may be out of your control.
Your strategy (in both cases) is vulnerable on that point.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Any strategy is better than the anti- strategy of blind faith in a mythological god who has no physical nature yet wrestles with men.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Would you care to offer a reason how a God with no physical nature has an all night wrestling match with a man named Jacob, or Israel (which means wrestles with God)?

I doubt it.

Because if he can wrestle with a man he must have a touchable nature, a physical nature. And the Bible says he wrestles with Jacob and contradicts your misleading assertion that he has no physical nature.

Or it's just a myth.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If I listen to the Bible I have to conclude God HAS a physical nature, capable of physically being wrestled with and physically feeling jealousy.

If I listen to you I have to disregard what the Bible says and accept faulty reasoning i.e. God is NOT physical. Even though the Bible says he is.

If I listen to my instincts, God given, I can easily conclude that the Bible is pure myth with meaning and hidden meaning but not literal or historical.

Instinct wins.

Of course if God doesn't actually feel emotions like jealous and anger then the authors of the Bible were dirty liars.

" I am a jealous God."

How dare they lie about God, damn lying scribes who said that about the God who can't feel jealousy or any emotions because he has no physical substance.

Cursed be they who say they are prophets and put words in the mouth of God, more cursed be they who rationalize away the lies of the so called prophets with statements of no logical substance whatsoever.

If he doesn't feel jealousy then he doesn't feel anger or need to take vengeance because justice is also a human feeling.

No need for hell then.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I commend you for your interesting opening post but I struggle to understand how someone so seemingly educated and able to rationally debate even believes in any alleged gods.
The unverifiable issue of it all is obviously the major issue.

a reply to: grainofsand
That would take us beyond the chosen topic, but I can recommend this thread as a starting-point;How an atheist became a Christian

Being unverifiable makes it an issue of trust. To trust or not to trust, that is the question.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ah, okay, I'll leave you to it then, I imagine you understand my core argument/debate about such things.
I have no faith, or trust, in any unverifiable claims. We will never find agreement so me continuing would be trollish at best.
You get my perspective though I assume?

a reply to: grainofsand

I personally think that it is a look at me and how much faith I have type thing that Christianity makes so virtuous. It's actually considered righteous to abandon logic by these religious folks who are sometimes educated and otherwise rational people.

It's just when it comes to religion all logic is literally abandoned for the vainglorious hope of getting in to heaven, and the less logical you are the more faith you have. People tell you how great you are because of it and next thing you know you've been love bombed into submission.

This is when it becomes an instrument of social control as you are deprived of the initial love and will do anything to get it back.

ETA: Anything, that is, besides responding to questions that are too hard to answer as I am obviously being ignored and you are getting answers even though my questions are perfectly valid, no more or less than yours.

I just don't get answered because my questions prove the absurdity of the claim that jealousy is not an emotion and that the God of the Bible is not physical in nature.

Which is actually just as well as I already know the answer to the question I asked but wanted to see if the OP would address them.

He will not, which I find a little rude but I will get over it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Being unverifiable makes it an issue of trust. To trust or not to trust, that is the question.

I don't think I've read through that thread yet. Perhaps I should.

At some point you chose to believe in the Trinitarian God. Your creed or confession identifies the Father as the God of Torah. Therefore you are left to harmonize the Torah to your creed. Not easy.

ERV Galatians 4:1But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord of all; 2but is under guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the father. 3So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

8Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods: 9but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
...
17They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them.
...
21Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

It has been argued in many a commentary that Paul is not speaking of the Roman gods or even the native gods of the Gauls who had migrated into Anatolia, but rather by context is speaking of the Torah god along with the other gods lumped in together here as weak and beggarly rudiments.

Law given by angels(gods), a tutor for minors waiting to grow up. Any retrospective should be done by one past the Torah, so as to see just how weak and beggarly, and rudimentary it is, rather than trying to baptize it and bring it into the present as authoritative in some way.

And even Paul wrote, "come to know God, or rather to be known by Him".

originally posted by: pthena
Law given by angels(gods), a tutor for minors waiting to grow up. Any retrospective should be done by one past the Torah, so as to see just how weak and beggarly, and rudimentary it is, rather than trying to baptize it and bring it into the present as authoritative in some way.

And even Paul wrote, "come to know God, or rather to be known by Him".

Very good points.Paul confesses his condition of being the chief sinner(missing the mark of maturity) and of his religious character.In essence he was writing letters to those gentiles that were being moved to fall into the pit of religion and the Christians co-opted them and adopted him as their champion and his letters as scripture.

It should be very obvious from the tenor of his writings he was still conflicted and effected by his former Judaism beliefs however he never advocated a return to practice Judaism.He was beginning to perceive the dichotomy of what he believed (trusted through faith) and what he was beginning to know.He clearly condemned the efforts of those that tried to elevate him as a Yahoshua.

He was neither the saint Christianity paints him or the charlatan the conspiritist malign him with.He was just a man who saw the grave errors of his ways and committed his life to the effort.It is not known how many of those letters were actually written by Paul.However the bottom line is to believe they are written by the creator God is disastrous.

Just as with the old testament they are NOT the creator God’s dictums as Christianity believes even though much of them form the “good” compulsion to act morally and ethically.Again to throw the baby out with the bathwater is not wise.If not for Paul’s writings being believed as “the word of God” no telling how those who believe Christianity would act.That alone would be the wisdom to not upset the applecart.

However the great downside is the religious tendency to dogmatically believe hyperbolically.Many people need something to believe in to guide them morally and ethically or they will veer off the road and take out all that are close to them. Personally, sometimes I think debunking the whole religious mess is the only solution however it is not the right time nor can it be done by those that are trying very unsuccessfully because of their own great ignorance.Even if it could it would cause mass chaos on the level Christianity believe of THE Apocalypse which ironically is what John actually wrote of in Revelation.

Christianity believe it is the physical coming of the man/God Jesus to destroy their enemies(you damn atheist!!) where in reality it is exactly as John “saw”.The unveiling of Yahoshua(the deliverance of the creator God) of ALL of mankind from their blindness of religion.Just as Christians cannot perceive Yahoshua spoke of them as the many deceivers they are completely deceived by the unveiling of Yahoshua being for them(and all the religious..meaning everyone) but especially the great whore of Babylon…Christianity.

a reply to: Rex282

It is not known how many of those letters were actually written by Paul.However the bottom line is to believe they are written by the creator God is disastrous.

I never doubted Romans until recently. I used to think that Paul had backslidden from Galatians. But now scholars are saying that it could have been written for Corinth and someone later changed it to Rome. The tenor of the content is only superficially consistent with Galatians, in my opinion, and actually is advocating superiority of Judahites(Israel).

I've still got my copy of Luther's Commentary on Galatians, haven't read it in decades but remember that he pretty much said it's the only worthwhile standard by which to measure the other books, even though earlier in his life he considered Romans in that way.

So do you take the Gospels as authentic sayings handed down? You do refer to the sayings frequently.

a reply to: pthena
Christian creeds and confessions were drawn up by people believing in the authority of the Old Testament and the authority of that passage from Galatians, so evidently they saw no discrepancy.
The relationship is well summed up in Romans;
"We are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit"- Romans ch7 v6
The standard practice of the church since the earliest days has been to re-understand the Old Testament ("the written code") in the light of the Spirit. That covers everything from the meaning of individual prophecies to the application of the law, and even the identity of God's people. Paul's last word in Galatians is that those who live by belief in the "new creation" are "the Israel of God".
I can commend you to this series of threads for an explanation of the way that I deal with the laws of the Pentateuch;
God's law; Your patient teacher

Where the modern American fundamentalism is going wrong is that their enthusiasm for scripture leads them into a devotion to literalism which is then applied even to the Old Testament. Thus they ignore Paul's teaching and two thousand years of church practice to begin taking everything in the Old Testament literally. Including, crucially, "I will give a stretch of land to the descendants of Abraham". THAT is where Christian Zionism comes from.
As someone who believes Paul when he says that we live by the Spirit, I am not forced in that direction. The Spirit does the harmonising.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well said, but i must ask, how can we be discharged from "the law" when Jesus promoted that law, or at least thats how Christians view that ideal...

I submit again, as i've said before... Jesus was not talking about "the law" of moses... in which no one can fully keep, but he was talking about what is called "the royal law" which remains untouched...

Not a Jot or tittle

a reply to: Akragon
I think you've answered your own question.
You agree that Jesus was not committing himself to what Paul calls the "written code", the law of Moses. So there is no clash with Paul's rejection of the written code.
I think you are saying that Jesus means the basic principles behind the law, about the way we treat God and other people. James, who gave us the phrase "royal law" appears to mean the same thing. Most importantly, Paul himself believes in the same basic principles. That is what he means by "living in the Spirit".

So, to sum up;
Jesus is not for the written code, but he is for the basic principle.
Paul is not for the written code, but he is for the basic principle.
There is no disagreement.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ugh... i hate when you make me agree with Paul...

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Rex282

It is not known how many of those letters were actually written by Paul.However the bottom line is to believe they are written by the creator God is disastrous.

I never doubted Romans until recently. I used to think that Paul had backslidden from Galatians. But now scholars are saying that it could have been written for Corinth and someone later changed it to Rome. The tenor of the content is only superficially consistent with Galatians, in my opinion, and actually is advocating superiority of Judahites(Israel)......

As I stated Paul ( and Paul did also) he is the epitome of the religious person(the chief sinner) and not a “chosen one”(the disciples) that were given to “know” the kingdom of their heavens i.e..were freed of their religon.However Paul is a sent one ..and apostle (as were the disciples).However they were to proclaim the Good news to ALL of the world(which they have done) Paul was sent as a witness to the religious gentiles.These are either people that were being corted into Christianity through Judaism(James sect) or of the pagan religion's.This was Paul’s specialty .He understood the religious mindset.He wasn’t trying to create a new religious sect he was trying to prevent it.However a new religion did form and they ended up being Christianity.

There is zero indication from Paul’s writing he was in cahoots with the Romans as his detractors try to pin on him.That is so illogical it barely merits a response.Yes Paul was very zealous in his beliefs.They were just from the POV of someone steeped in Judaism religion.That was his source of reference.He did not purport the kind of Christianity the Christians came up with.It is very easy to reasonably refute what Christians believe of his letters however the dilemma is they cannot believe the truth .

Unfortunately (and fortunately..the great deliema) Paul’s writing are firmly entrenched in the roots of Christianity.They cannot be extracted.The meanings of the doctrines have been stringently set.However at the core of Paul’s letters and apostleship was the Good news. However he was such a legalist it seeped into his writings even when he was least encumbered by it.

He was “being” set free of his religion but hadn’t been yet(he even stated so many times).I am sure if he was in the present day he would disagree with the vast majority of Christian interpretations as would John(especially about Revelation) because neither wrote anything of the eternal punishment of hell yet both are sited the most for that most heinous of all Christian doctrine.

originally posted by: pthena
....

I've still got my copy of Luther's Commentary on Galatians, haven't read it in decades but remember that he pretty much said it's the only worthwhile standard by which to measure the other books, even though earlier in his life he considered Romans in that way.

That’s because Luther’s theology was unstable and vacillated accordingly to fit his religious agenda.Fortunately for all intents and purposes Luther was propagation of his religious rhetoric had a monumental influence on the division of Christianity.However I think Luther is just as clueless as what the scriptures meant as any other Christian.His theories were just his natural rebellious aversions to authority .However the upside was it did usher in a new age where people began to scrutinize the authority of the religious institution.That opened the door for many to not believe in a God because of belief in a religion as being plausible because the authority had ben knocked out of the hand of humanity(the papacy).

originally posted by: pthena
............

So do you take the Gospels as authentic sayings handed down? You do refer to the sayings frequently.

As to what I base my quotes of the new testament:As CS Lewis said if the gospels were not eye witness accounts then they way they were written was an unprecedented new form of writing fiction because nothing like it existed before by non writers like the disciles.The odds are impossible these bourgeoisie disciples would invent such a story with such intimate details and then stick with it if it was a concoction.

There were too many witnesses to deny it if it were false when they were 1st written and distributed .All the “2nd shooter” theories I have read are full of illogical holes.However that is not the reason I think they have truth in them it is because the passages I quote are reasonable to the character of the creator God and Yahoshua.

What I most strongly disagree with is the unreasonableness Christianity’s doctrines foments.As Yahoshua said it is like a seplechure that is white on the outside but inside is full of dead mans bones. However I do think that if there is a creator God they used the scriptures to proclaim the basis of the way of truth which is Yahoshua but did not use it to form religious doctrines of men.That is the sole reason why I quote from the scriptures of the “gospels” to provide evidence of the extreme ignorance of Christianity.

It should be very obvious I am not propagating Christianity or even my religion(which I do not have).All I am doing is deny ignorance with truth.That is all anyone can do.I am positive I cannot convince those who believe otherwise because it is impossible to believe what they believe is not true because of their ignorance(this is the basis of what is called the Dunning -Kruger effect).

Therefore all I am doing is proclaiming the premise of this thread .Put simply…a creator God cannot have human emotions because they are not human.All the language to describe their emotions(wrath and anger) are not human emotions they are just anthropomorphism totally unknown to the writers of the scriptures.

Therefore the scriptures(what is written) cannot accurately communicate the command will of a creator God since there is no way to accurately communicate it.That was not the scriptures purpose because it is only a witness of itself that God cannot communicate their command/ will through writing or any human communication method.

There is only way one a creator Gods can commune the truth…through individual personal revelation(the unveiling of Yahoshua the anointed…..the 1st words of Revelation).Everything else is only mans religion and is blindness.This was the crux of everything Yahoshua proclaimed…and yes it is ironic that is what is written however it is only a testimony(witness) it is NOT the communication(communing).

That is one of the most ironic mechanisms of the gospels.Yahoshua never draws attention to the scriptures as the source for communing with the creator God yet Christianity believes it is.So much so they have made the Jesus of the bible into an idol of God and the bible as his incarnation.

That is why so many Christian believers cannot be weened from the bible.They cannot distinguish it from their God, because it is the source and authority of their belief!!Talk about a conundrum.That is also why I discourage seeking a creator God in the bible.It is a very hard habit to kick once it is cast through your mind(the definition of diabolo…a demon).I see former Christians still struggle with it almost like a junkie after they quit junk but wanting just a taste but know what it will do so they like to just be around it..argue with people about it.

The bottom line is the gospel scriptures purpose was to proclaim the Good news(all of creations deliverance from Hades).I does not matter if anyone “understands” it because it is only a witness.What matters immensely more is it is true and will happen.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I avoid falling in to the Atlantic Ocean from great heights is what I do. Just like I avoid your monster/god.

If he is everything that he is claiming to be, you don't actually get the chance to avoid him (in the long term).
Some things may be out of your control.
Your strategy (in both cases) is vulnerable on that point.

What exactly is he claiming to be? Can you define this objectively so we can determine once and for all that you are correct?