Jealousy and wrath are not emotions

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Also, if God/s didn't have any emotions, it/he/she wouldn't care about humans and caring involves emotions. Wouldn't you agree? So if God/s doesn't care, why would it/she/he need/want pleasing or not angering?

I have to say again, all these things can be expressed, in a less anthropomorphic way, in terms of his will.
It is his will that human conduct should be in conformity with his will.
It is not his will that human conduct should be out of conformity with his will.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Will is another word for want.

Why would God/s have a want if there is no emotional response to that want?

Why would humans have to follow God/s will to make it/her/him pleased? Pleased is an emotion.

originally posted by: windword
To me, this means that you're saying that the relationship between a husband and wife is the same as between God and his people.

No, what I'm saying is the other way round. My last thread was about marriage. This one isn't.

Therefore, if a wife places anything above her husband's commands and wishes, her children's needs for example, then that is the same as "idol worship" and she has provoked her husband's jealously and is deserving of being on the receiving end of his wrath. The husband is justified in that he is imitating God.
I reject that notion in its entirety.

You can reject as much as you like, because I'm not offering that notion.

a reply to: TerryDon79
You are trying to use human words to describe something which is not human.
We are like creatures dwelling in the bottom of the ocean guessing at and trying to describe the conditions of life on land.
EVERY word we use will be an analogy.
Therefore ALL the words we use will be inaccurate to a degree, so the incessant substitution of one word for another is not going to get round that.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If a speaker says to us "I created the world", AND we trust the speaker, then we are stuck with the logical conclusion that the creator of the world is capable of speaking.
We are not identifying him as the Absolute. He has identified himself as the Absolute.

Acts 7:30"When forty years were fulfilled, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. 31When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight. As he came close to see, a voice of the Lord came to him, 32'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' Moses trembled, and dared not look.
...
38This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us,
...
53You received the law as it was ordained by angels, and didn't keep it!"

Hebrews 2:2 The word spoken by ANGELS was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward.

Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serves the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by ANGELS in the hand of a mediator

In Psalm 97:7 the word "gods" is Elohim and in Hebrews 1:6 it translates to angels.

Elohim is gods or under monotheism angels.

It was not until Second Isaiah that any claim of absolute monotheism existed. Absolute monotheism is what turns a tribal/national god into the Absolute One. Not even Moses did that!

a reply to: DISRAELI

You're saying that God/s don't have emotions, but have wants/wills. You're then trying to use the argument of "you don't know" to prove your point.

YOU "don't know" that God/s don't have emotions. You're trying to describe God/s by using human words.

Basically, what you're doing, is using an argument of "lack of knowledge of God/s emotions" on the people who think that God/s might have emotions, but not using the same argument on yourself.

a reply to: DISRAELI

My last thread was about marriage. This one isn't.

From your OP

This language is associated with the kind of loyalty expected in a marriage relationship

This thread is about jealousy and wrath, emanating from God on high, and down through the relationship between God and his people. And as you clearly point out in your OP, jealousy and wrath are, therefore, applicable to the relationship between a husband and his wife, because just as God has claim on his people, a husband has claim on his wife.

Your claim in the OP is that, when jealousy and wrath are emanated by God, they are example's if God's goodness, from an unemotional aspect. However, as you also claim, the loyalty that God requires, a husband also requires from his wife. Therefore, a husband's jealousy and wrath are justified because of Godly imitation. So, if a wife places anything above her husband's needs, she is deserving of being on the receiving end if his righteous jealousy and wrath.

This is implied in your OP! This is the concept of this thread that I have a problem with; Jealousy and wrath, when applied in humans terms are always corrupt.

Any attribute that supposedly comes from a God, that can't be seen as good when emulated by humanity, CANNOT be from a good God. It's that simple.

a reply to: pthena
All you are showing, at the most, is that it took time for the people to fully understand who was speaking to them.
All these references are to subordinate agents. There is very little practical difference between "a person speaking" and "a person's voice speaking", and I don't think most of these references to angels amount to much more than that.
When the Supreme God identifies himself as the Creator of the world, he also identifies himself as the one who was doing things for Israel, and as the one who sent the subordinate agents.
If we trust him at all, then we make the same connections.

originally posted by: windword
Any attribute that supposedly comes from a God, that can't be seen as good when emulated by humanity, CANNOT be from a good God. It's that simple.

I have never said that the human jealousy and wrath are emulating what comes from God.
I have been saying that humans borrowed these words to describe what does come from God, not having anything better available.
I think I have probably given this answer before.

a reply to: DISRAELI

have been saying that humans borrowed these words

Borrowed them? Borrowed them from where, their own evil?

Can you please give me a real example of God acting for good, on his people's behalf through jealously and wrath?

a reply to: DISRAELI

There is very little practical difference between "a person speaking" and "a person's voice speaking", and I don't think most of these references to angels amount to much more than that.
When the Supreme God identifies himself as the Creator of the world, he also identifies himself as the one who was doing things for Israel, and as the one who sent the subordinate agents.

The documents of the New Testament were written after absolute monotheism had become the norm, as far as Old Testament based theology went. The New Testament writers are the ones who found it necessary to make a distinction between the One God and the angels who spoke to Moses.

Both Paul's use and Hebrews use can be shown to lead to the conclusion that progression in religion and understanding of the One God does not result from going back to the Deuteronomy paradigm of kill, destroy, isolate in order to receive the earthly blessings promised.

Any way, that's pretty much all I have in the way of substantive argument.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Here's another couple of things to ponder.

If Jesus is God (as some people believe), Jesus showed emotions (anger, compassion, love and so on), therefore God has emotions.

If Jesus isn't God, but the son of God, and was conceived by immaculate conception, God must have emotions as Jesus (the son) did.

There is of course a perfectly logical explanation to the question of why is God described as jealous and full of wrath, human emotions that a deity of omni... everything, logically would not have in common with us imperfect biological humans.

Because NOBODY has EVER met God.

Nobody knows if there even is a God.

But the ancients who wrote these stories and knew this fact needed to give "God" a personality, whatever suited the wants of the ancients became the personality of Yahweh.

He needed to be angry and scary to keep people obedient to the priests.

Yet merciful and rewarding to the obedient so that they had something to encourage them to behave in accordance with the priests wishes.

I find it hilarious that people believe that God is explainable in human terms and that people believe that these ridiculous stories are true in 2016.

originally posted by: windword
Borrowed them? Borrowed them from where, their own evil?

They borrowed the words from one language setting (daily life) in order to use them in another language setting (talking about God)

Can you please give me a real example of God acting for good, on his people's behalf through jealously and wrath?

I can take, as an example, what I described in the OP as "protective jealousy".
Something like it works in ordinary human life. You see your child being bullied by an older child. You are indignant, and you do something about the situation.
In Old Testament language, your indignation over your mistreated child could be called your "jealousy".
The action you take in response to what is happening might be experienced by the other child as your "wrath".
Your "jealousy" and your "wrath" are products of your love for your child.
In the Old Testament, the Lord is "jealous" for Israel in the same sense (e.g. Zechariah ch1 v14), and the action he takes to do something about it may be called his "wrath". That is exactly what is supposed to have happened to Egypt (Exodus ch15 v7).
The other kind of wrath I discussed in the OP was "disciplinary".
Whether the modern world can recognise the fact or not, discipline is an important and useful tool in the teaching of children, and therefore something that works for good.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Jesus is human;
Jesus is a man

Christian teaching has always been that Christ is BOTH God and man, not God alone.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I made a thread about that too. You'd be surprised how many people believe Jesus is God incarnate.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TerryDon79
Jesus is human;
Jesus is a man

Christian teaching has always been that Christ is BOTH God and man, not God alone.

Christian teaching is illogical.

You can't be your own creator, Jesus was the first Word/Logos of God, and you can not simultaneously be creator and the creators creation.

I hate to point out that this teaching is illogical but it is. If you are a begotten Son of God you were created. Not a creator.

Christian teachings need a revision so they make some kind of sense. Either Yeshua was the Son of God or God. You can not be both.

This is the first thing I noticed at catechism as a kid and I was 6 then.

Christianity wants everything. To be monotheistic yet have 3 Gods.

A Messiah who is God even though he is human.

And to be taken seriously by intelligent people even though intelligent people see through the fabrication that is Christianity with ease and grace.

At least when Muslims say that only God is God they have a legitimate Monotheistic faith.

1 God many prophets, none of who were God and human.

If Jesus was God he sure did a terrible job.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You've given me examples of human jealousy and wrath, that is (righteously) justified through the natural desire to protect those you love and the fear of the pain of experiential loss. These are all "from the bottom up" projections of man's idea of what a god should be like, like a fiercely jealous man defending his wife and family, onto his god.

I've asked for an actual example of God's jealousy and wrath being dispensed, for the good of and for the protection of "his people".

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?

Its interesting to me how the cardinal sins can be so easily explained away using a backdrop of righteousness and supreme authority. Where i live, thats called a double standard. Others refer to it as 'doublethink'. Does ignorance is strength ring a bell?

originally posted by: windword
I've asked for an actual example of God's jealousy and wrath being dispensed, for the good of and for the protection of "his people".

I was giving you the example of the Exodus, while explaining it first.
I gave you the reference alone, rather than a fuller quotation, so I will expand that now;
"I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously...
The Lord is my strength and song, and he has become my salvation...
Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea...
In the greatness of thy majesty, thou overthrowest thy adversaries; thou sendest forth thy fury, it consumes them like stubble" (Exodus ch15 vv1-7)
That is "jealousy" FOR Israel, working itself out as "wrath" AGAINST Egypt. That's how they work together.

I gave you more than you had asked for, because I also mentioned an example in Zechariah. I will spell out that one as well;
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts, I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and Zion. And I am very angry with the nations that are at ease" (Zechariah ch1 vv14-15). What God intends to do with that anger is expressed in imagery; the "four smiths" who are going to beat down the "horns" of the aggressive nations, and the four chariots sent out in ch6 for a similar purpose.