PDA

View Full Version : Is God "love"?




YumYum
10-10-2009, 07:48 PM
A non-Christian presented this question to me. He asked:

Is God “love”? The Bible says so at 1 John 4:16. There it reads: “God is love,..”

The Apostle Paul defines love at 1 Corinthians 13: 4, saying: “Love..; it is never jealous,”

So, we know that love is never jealous, and that God is love.. …..Or, is He?

Let’s see what God says about Himself at Exodus 20:5. God said: “For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father’s fault in the sons,….”

So, here we read that God says He is a “jealous God.”

Therefore, because “love is never jealous”, and “God is a jealous God”, it is logical to conclude that God cannot be love.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-10-2009, 07:51 PM
A non-Christian presented this question to me. He asked:

Is God “love”? The Bible says so at 1 John 4:16. There it reads: “God is love,..”

The Apostle Paul defines love at 1 Corinthians 13: 4, saying: “Love..; it is never jealous,”

So, we know that love is never jealous, and that God is love.. …..Or, is He?

Let’s see what God says about Himself at Exodus 20:5. God said: “For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father’s fault in the sons,….”

So, here we read that God says He is a “jealous God.”

Therefore, because “love is never jealous”, and “God is a jealous God”, it is logical to conclude that God cannot be love.

wow, nice find. let the flame war BEGIN!

ClayTrainor
10-10-2009, 07:55 PM
A contradiction in books written by men? NO! i don't believe it :p

Nice find though, Yum Yum, should be some interesting responses.

wizardwatson
10-10-2009, 08:01 PM
I got this from here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/


Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.

Danke
10-10-2009, 08:08 PM
A non-Christian presented this question to me. He asked:

Is God “love”? The Bible says so at 1 John 4:16. There it reads: “God is love,..”

The Apostle Paul defines love at 1 Corinthians 13: 4, saying: “Love..; it is never jealous,”

So, we know that love is never jealous, and that God is love.. …..Or, is He?

Let’s see what God says about Himself at Exodus 20:5. God said: “For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father’s fault in the sons,….”

So, here we read that God says He is a “jealous God.”

Therefore, because “love is never jealous”, and “God is a jealous God”, it is logical to conclude that God cannot be love.

Are you mixing old and new testaments?

YumYum
10-10-2009, 09:26 PM
Are you mixing old and new testaments?

Yes.

zach
10-10-2009, 09:37 PM
When you show love to yourself and/or others, it is the spirit of "God" you're showing.

Now what is God? Why can you only show God when you show love?

YumYum
10-10-2009, 10:18 PM
When you show love to yourself and/or others, it is the spirit of "God" you're showing.

Now what is God? Why can you only show God when you show love?

Can I show God when I am jealous?

zach
10-11-2009, 08:08 AM
Can I show God when I am jealous?

I suppose since God is also known for being jealous.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-11-2009, 08:10 AM
I suppose since God is also known for being jealous.

God is also a murderer. If I kill do I show God?

zach
10-11-2009, 08:13 AM
God is also a murderer. If I kill do I show God?

I suppose since God has also killed in the Bible.

Baptist
10-11-2009, 08:57 AM
A non-Christian presented this question to me. He asked:

Is God “love”? The Bible says so at 1 John 4:16. There it reads: “God is love,..”

The Apostle Paul defines love at 1 Corinthians 13: 4, saying: “Love..; it is never jealous,”

So, we know that love is never jealous, and that God is love.. …..Or, is He?

Let’s see what God says about Himself at Exodus 20:5. God said: “For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father’s fault in the sons,….”

So, here we read that God says He is a “jealous God.”

Therefore, because “love is never jealous”, and “God is a jealous God”, it is logical to conclude that God cannot be love.

Good thing I don't go to a liberal church with a false version of God's Word. In 1 Corinthians 13:4, God's Word (King James Bible) does not say that "love isn't jealous." No contradiction here. Thanks for pointing out another contradiction in the false liberal versions.

YumYum
10-11-2009, 09:15 AM
God is also a murderer. If I kill do I show God?

Apologists don't call it "murder". The call it "mercy killing".

LDA
10-12-2009, 06:56 AM
No, God is not love. To say that it is, is to strip both words of their meaning. Love is the emotion felt between two animals; god is some kind of supreme being with varying definitions between people.

God, if the bible is true, does not love humanity. If your only proof that he does love humanity is that he "sent his son to die for our sins," that's not going to work. Considering his son was actually him, and he didn't actually die...he was resurrected and then went to heaven...Yeah, no.

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 07:15 AM
Good thing I don't go to a liberal church with a false version of God's Word. In 1 Corinthians 13:4, God's Word (King James Bible) does not say that "love isn't jealous." No contradiction here. Thanks for pointing out another contradiction in the false liberal versions.

I don't find that in the "NIV" either.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

It amazes me that so many with no understanding or misunderstanding of the Bible love to expound on their misinterpretations. :(

erowe1
10-12-2009, 08:03 AM
I don't find that in the "NIV" either.


It amazes me that so many with no understanding or misunderstanding of the Bible love to expound on their misinterpretations. :(

I don't know what English version has "jealous" in that verse. But the thing is, the same Greek word as the one translated "jealous" in other passages is used, zelos. Of course, that doesn't really matter anyway, the whole syllogism is silly, no matter which version it's based on. Words mean different things in different contexts. Some word that is used in a negative sense and is condemned as bad in one context can be used in a different positive sense in another context (especially so in a case like this one where the two different contexts are totally different books written by different authors in different settings to different groups of people). That isn't a contradiction, it's just a natural feature of all languages. If some enemy of Christianity wants to read the Bible like a bunch of discreet statements with no context that can be treated atomistically and compared with one another so as to impugn it with being full of contradictions, then they'll have no trouble finding tons and tons of passages that meet that unsophisticated definition of "contradiction", no matter which version of the Bible they use. But they really won't have proven anything, since all they will have proven false is a bad way of reading the Bible that Christians shouldn't be using themselves anyway. The Christian way of reading the Bible, from the time of the apostles on, isn't that it's a list of disconnected universal truisms like Mao's little red book, but a coherent whole that reveals the person and work of Jesus Christ to us.

Incidentally, Paul himself, in the very same letter in which he says that love is not zelos also tells those same Christians only a few sentences later that they should be jealous (zeloo) for spiritual gifts (1 Cor 14:1), and he had only said a few verses prior, "I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy (zelos)." (1 Cor 11:2). Was Paul really cluelessly contradicting himself repeatedly in so short a span of text? If anyone thinks he was, would they honestly apply the same logic to anyone else using human language in a perfectly normal way like that in any other context outside of the Bible?

YumYum
10-12-2009, 10:08 AM
I don't know what English version has "jealous" in that verse. ?

The Jerusalem Bible; not the New Jerusalem Bible. It is recognized by scholars as the most "neutral" of all translations. 1 Corinthians 13:4 states: "Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous; love is never boastful or conceited;..." Some translations have translated it as "envy".


But the thing is, the same Greek word as the one translated "jealous" in other passages is used, zelos. Of course, that doesn't really matter anyway, the whole syllogism is silly, no matter which version it's based on. Words mean different things in different contexts. Some word that is used in a negative sense and is condemned as bad in one context can be used in a different positive sense in another context (especially so in a case like this one where the two different contexts are totally different books written by different authors in different settings to different groups of people).

According to you and other Christian apologists there is only one author: God. You are also playing a semantics game. Paul is identifying "jealous" along with other Satanic traits such as "boastful", "conceited", "rude", "selfish", and "resentful". Are you going to argue that these words also have a positive meaning when it comes to God demonstrating these characteristics? Why is it a sin when humans act this way, but when God does it: it's alright?


That isn't a contradiction, it's just a natural feature of all languages.

I disagree. It is a contradiction. So what you are saying is that the "Hebrew" definition of "jealous" is good, and Paul's "jealous" can mean both bad and good, depending on what church you belong to.


If some enemy of Christianity wants to read the Bible like a bunch of discreet statements with no context that can be treated atomistically and compared with one another so as to impugn it with being full of contradictions, then they'll have no trouble finding tons and tons of passages that meet that unsophisticated definition of "contradiction", no matter which version of the Bible they use.

The Bible is a "bunch of discreet statements", written by many different authors in different languages in different lands. That is why there are "tons and tons of passages" that contradict each other. You try to take these different books which, which were written separately and try to "squish" them together into one sacred writing. And yet, you separate them at your convenience when they contradict each other. The word "jealous" that is used in Exodus is a warning to the Israelites to not have before them any other gods or else Yahweh will punish them. This isn't a “godly”, “I am so proud of you I’m jealous” type of jealousy. God's jealously resulted in punishment and death.




But they really won't have proven anything, since all they will have proven false is a bad way of reading the Bible that Christians shouldn't be using themselves anyway.

Is there a bad way of reading the Bible?


The Christian way of reading the Bible, from the time of the apostles on, isn't that it's a list of disconnected universal truisms like Mao's little red book, but a coherent whole that reveals the person and work of Jesus Christ to us.

I strongly disagree. The Bible is disconnected. Does the global flood story bring people to Jesus? Does the Garden of Eden story bring people to Jesus? Does the teaching that God created the Earth and the Universe is six days that were literally twenty-four hours bring people to Jesus? Do all the wars and killing done in the name of God that is recorded in the Bible bring people to Jesus? What brings people to Jesus is Jesus and His teachings. He even says: "Come to me". He didn't say "Read your Bible".


Incidentally, Paul himself, in the very same letter in which he says that love is not zelos also tells those same Christians only a few sentences later that they should be jealous (zeloo) for spiritual gifts (1 Cor 14:1), and he had only said a few verses prior, "I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy (zelos)." (1 Cor 11:2). Was Paul really cluelessly contradicting himself repeatedly in so short a span of text? If anyone thinks he was, would they honestly apply the same logic to anyone else using human language in a perfectly normal way like that in any other context outside of the Bible?

1 Corinthians 14:1 says: "You must want love more than anything else; but still hope for the spiritual gifts as well,..."

No mention of "jealous" here.

1 Corinthians 11:2 says: "You have done well in remembering me so constantly and in maintaining the traditions just as I passed them on to you."

No mention of "jealous" here, either.

Paul was clueless.

torchbearer
10-12-2009, 10:12 AM
God is the smallest particle of an atom.

Bruno
10-12-2009, 10:23 AM
I suppose since God has also killed in the Bible.

This site tries to make a head count of those killed by God or in his name in the Bible.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

erowe1
10-12-2009, 10:31 AM
1 Corinthians 14:1 says: "You must want love more than anything else; but still hope for the spiritual gifts as well,..."

No mention of "jealous" here.

1 Corinthians 11:2 says: "You have done well in remembering me so constantly and in maintaining the traditions just as I passed them on to you."

No mention of "jealous" here, either.

Paul was clueless.

For 1 Cor 11:2, I meant 2 Cor 11:2.

Like I said, it's the same Greek word in all those verses. The word translated "want" in your version of 1 Cor 14:1 is the verb zeloo, which is sometimes translated to be zealous, and other times to be jealous, and is the cognate of the noun zelos, which is translated "jealous" in the version you gave for 1 Cor 13:4. You see, like many words, it can take on different senses in different contexts. And its meaning in any one context can't be determined by its meaning in some other totally different context. It's silly to twist these kinds of varying usages of multivalent words into "contradictions." You would laugh if anybody tried the same stunt of picking out two different occurrences of you using the same word out of two totally different contexts in all you'd ever written in reference to two different things and accusing you of contradicting yourself just because of that. That's not how language works. Using this kind of attack against the Bible is pointless. It's just a straw man attack against some caricature of how you think Christians view the Bible.

erowe1
10-12-2009, 10:57 AM
I strongly disagree. The Bible is disconnected. Does the global flood story bring people to Jesus?
Yes, when read as God's word, the way Jesus and the apostles did. See, for example Matthew 24:37-38; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.



Does the Garden of Eden story bring people to Jesus?
Again, yes. See Romans 5:12-21; 8:18-25; and Revelation 22:1-5.


Does the teaching that God created the Earth and the Universe is six days that were literally twenty-four hours bring people to Jesus?
Genesis 1 also points to Jesus (though various things you may say about it when you're trying to impugn it may not). See, for example, John 1:1-18 and Hebrews 4:4.



Do all the wars and killing done in the name of God that is recorded in the Bible bring people to Jesus?
Yes. See, for example, Hebrews 11:29-40.



What brings people to Jesus is Jesus and His teachings. He even says: "Come to me". He didn't say "Read your Bible".


On the contrary, Jesus directly connected coming to Him with reading, properly understanding, and believing the Bible. "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27). "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness of me....If you believed Moses, then you would believe me, for he wrote of me, but if you will not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:39, 46-47).

So, you see, if you have any interest in reading the Bible as Jesus would have you read it, and as his apostles after him read it, then you would have the answer to your question:


Is there a bad way of reading the Bible?

Of course there is. And this should come as no surprise. In fact, only by some tendentious caricature could anyone suppose that there can be no wrong way to read the Bible, just as there are wrong ways of reading the Constitution, and just as you would very justifiably accuse me of reading something you had written in the wrong way if I quoted it back to you with meanings you had never intended only for the purpose of making you look bad.

pcosmar
10-12-2009, 11:28 AM
Ah, the mental gymnastics of deniers.


"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

I really need to ignore these threads.

YumYum
10-12-2009, 11:55 AM
For 1 Cor 11:2, I meant 2 Cor 11:2.

Like I said, it's the same Greek word in all those verses. The word translated "want" in your version of 1 Cor 14:1 is the verb zeloo, which is sometimes translated to be zealous, and other times to be jealous, and is the cognate of the noun zelos, which is translated "jealous" in the version you gave for 1 Cor 13:4. You see, like many words, it can take on different senses in different contexts. And its meaning in any one context can't be determined by its meaning in some other totally different context. It's silly to twist these kinds of varying usages of multivalent words into "contradictions." You would laugh if anybody tried the same stunt of picking out two different occurrences of you using the same word out of two totally different contexts in all you'd ever written in reference to two different things and accusing you of contradicting yourself just because of that. That's not how language works. Using this kind of attack against the Bible is pointless. It's just a straw man attack against some caricature of how you think Christians view the Bible.

This is the word game that I encountered when I was in the cult. For instance, God says "I hated Esau when he was in the womb." The cult members would say: "It isn't "hate" how we as imperfect humans think of "hate", but "love" to a lesser degree." I beg to differ. God hated Esau and he meant what He said. God can "hate", God can be "jealous", God can have "rage up into His nostrils", and my favorite is how the apologists will say that God "can get angry, but He never gets mad." Why? Because a "mad" person is insane, and God is not insane. Or is He? That is a discussion for another thread. My point is, and I think that most of the people on this forum agree, is that the Hebrew Scriptures portray God as a megalomaniac, narcissist, psychopath who cares nothing for human life and demands "exclusive devotion" 24 hours a day. I don't believe that. Logic dictates that either God is all "just", but limited in what He can do in helping man (somehow His hands are tied), or He is all knowing and all capable (he could help man if He wanted to), but He won't, so He isn't "just". I want to believe that God is "just", but His hands are tied. Yet, you apologists want to make out that God can do it all; He is loving, caring and just, and He can do anything and everything, This defies all logic! If it doesn't, then why is there all the suffering in the world?

Remember, we are made in His image. That is a scary thought if all the stories about Him in the Old Testament are true. If God is "all knowing", and can see into the future, did He know that Adam would sin? If He did, why would a "loving God" create a man and give him life, knowing that the man would sin so He could sentence him to death? These are fucking questions that kids ask!! So you are getting your PhD to be able to answer these types of questions? You say I should read the whole Bible to get the whole picture. I have. And I don't like what I have read. I believe that the stories of God murdering people are lies. So did Jesus, and that is why He told the Jewish leaders who "knew their scriptures" that: "You don't know my Father". Wow! Powerful statement! So, for a thousand years the Jews misrepresented God and who He is. They portrayed Him as a murderer, which He is not. How can He be, when it says at 1 Timothy 1:11 that God is a "happy God"? He is "happy", "angry", "jealous", and is "love". The Bible creates the confusion and contradictions; I didn't.

YumYum
10-12-2009, 12:32 PM
Ah, the mental gymnastics of deniers.



I really need to ignore these threads.

John 8:32 says:"and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

What part of "truth" do you want to ignore?