Does God Have Human Emotions?

Damocles said:
God=Love | Given: 1 John 4:16 (among others)
Love =/= Jealous| Given: 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
God = Jealous| Given: Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14, Joshua 24:19-20, Deuteronomy 4:24, 2 Corinthians 11:2 (among others).

All three of these things cannot be true.... The transitive properties tell us that if God is Love he cannot also be Jealous, but according to the very Bible that tells us that this God is Love and that Love is not Jealous, God is Jealous.... Logic is not a property of religion, but this is a glaring inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you’re referring to two different gods, even though many don’t wish to acknowledge it. The OT god, which was more or less the end, but not quite, of the polytheist pantheon of gods was jealous, angry, vengeful, as well. Full of nasty ass punishments.

Then, the redefinition. So, who redefined that god? God himself or our rendition of him?

Still, the reality of unnecessary suffering among his creatures remains a real problem for those who wish for that omni-everything god.
 
domer76 said:
Obviously, you’re referring to two different gods, even though many don’t wish to acknowledge it. The OT god, which was more or less the end, but not quite, of the polytheist pantheon of gods was jealous, angry, vengeful, as well. Full of nasty ass punishments.

Then, the redefinition. So, who redefined that god? God himself or our rendition of him?

Still, the reality of unnecessary suffering among his creatures remains a real problem for those who wish for that omni-everything god.
Click to expand...
All powerful and totally impotent to prevent suffering. Makes no sense.
 
domer76 said:
Obviously, you’re referring to two different gods, even though many don’t wish to acknowledge it. The OT god, which was more or less the end, but not quite, of the polytheist pantheon of gods was jealous, angry, vengeful, as well. Full of nasty ass punishments.

Then, the redefinition. So, who redefined that god? God himself or our rendition of him?

Still, the reality of unnecessary suffering among his creatures remains a real problem for those who wish for that omni-everything god.
Click to expand...
Actually I referenced new testament verses for all of them, as well as the Exodus reference.
 
Hume said:
All powerful and totally impotent to prevent suffering. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I don't think we would be authentic human beings without the virtues of self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, empathy -- which are responses to adversity and grief.

Please explain what humans would look like in a perfect, ideal world that has no suffering, adversity, or obstacles to overcome.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think we would be authentic human beings without the virtues of self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, empathy -- which are responses to adversity and grief.

Please explain what humans would look like in a perfect, ideal world that has no suffering, adversity, or obstacles to overcome.
Click to expand...
Needless suffering is the issue, not merely suffering. Of completely innocent creatures.
Adversity and obstacles are different issues.
 
domer76 said:
Needless suffering is the issue, not merely suffering. Of completely innocent creatures.
Adversity and obstacles are different issues.
Click to expand...
I don't think earthquakes or floods are evil. They are part of a natural and neccessary cycle of nature

All the first humans and nomadic people almost never died from earthquakes or floods , because they didn't choose to build congested cities, or lived permanently on flood plains.

A lot of diseases we have, cancer, heart disease, pandemics are results of human lifestyle choices, industrial toxins, or the relationships we have developed with nature.

Humans have free will. Hitler didn't act alone. Millions of people chose to support Hitler or turn a blind eye. A supreme diety could strip us of our free will, and force use to live a certain way. But I don't think a lot of people want their free will stripped from them.
 
domer76 said:
Obviously, you’re referring to two different gods, even though many don’t wish to acknowledge it. The OT god, which was more or less the end, but not quite, of the polytheist pantheon of gods was jealous, angry, vengeful, as well. Full of nasty ass punishments.

Then, the redefinition. So, who redefined that god? God himself or our rendition of him?

Still, the reality of unnecessary suffering among his creatures remains a real problem for those who wish for that omni-everything god.
Click to expand...
Assuming divine Providence gave us a type of rationality and free will other animals do not possess (I'm not saying the assumption is true) a lot of catastrophic natural disasters, diseases, crimes against humanity are a result of our choices to manipulate nature and choices to inflict harm on others.

I don't think it's necessarily the best argument to blame divine Providence for our choices or for the way we exercised free will, unless are prepared to ask that our free will be stripped away from us, and we be forced to act a certain way.
 
Hume said:
Why not have a less powerful but caring god who cannot prevent suffering? They have a bad theology.
Click to expand...
It's always been a good question that's led to centuries of profitable debate. I don't think there's ever going to be a definitive answer.

Voltaire blamed God for the suffering caused by the Lisbon earthquake.

Rousseau's response to Voltaire was that maybe God did not intend for us to manipulate nature and build congested and fragile cities; the first humans hardly ever died from earthquakes.

It is quite understandable that some Jews abandoned God after the Holocaust. But then, Solzhenitsyn thanked the Gulag for forcing him to change his perspective on the meaning and purpose of life.
 
domer76 said:
Needless suffering is the issue, not merely suffering. Of completely innocent creatures.
Adversity and obstacles are different issues.
Click to expand...
Christian fundamentalists think god is perfect and--truly are scared of god.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think we would be authentic human beings without the virtues of self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, empathy -- which are responses to adversity and grief.

Please explain what humans would look like in a perfect, ideal world that has no suffering, adversity, or obstacles to overcome.
Click to expand...
You completely ignored the content of my comment.
 
Cypress said:
Assuming divine Providence gave us a type of rationality and free will other animals do not possess (I'm not saying the assumption is true) a lot of catastrophic natural disasters, diseases, crimes against humanity are a result of our choices to manipulate nature and choices to inflict harm on others.

I don't think it's necessarily the best argument to blame divine Providence for our choices or for the way we exercised free will, unless are prepared to ask that our free will be stripped away from us, and we be forced to act a certain way.
Click to expand...
The assumption is weak, at best. I don’t buy the free will argument at all.

But I’m not merely referring to crimes against humanity. I’m referring to all innocent, sentient creatures. And I’m not referring to natural catastrophes either
 
Hume said:
Like original sin. Blame humans for what god did.
Click to expand...
This source I was listening to posed “What WAS the original sin?” Merely following human curiosity and disobeying a simple “don’t do this”? And for that, humankind is tainted by that forever? What the fuck kind of childish notion is that?

Eating from the fruit gave man a sense of conscience, opened his eyes to the reality of the world, gave him judgement between right and wrong. Made him more godlike. (“Like one of us”, said the Lord).

What in the heck is wrong with those notions?
 
domer76 said:
This source I was listening to posed “What WAS the original sin?” Merely following human curiosity and disobeying a simple “don’t do this”? And for that, humankind is tainted by that forever? What the fuck kind of childish notion is that?

Eating from the fruit gave man a sense of conscience, opened his eyes to the reality of the world, gave him judgement between right and wrong. Made him more godlike. (“Like one of us”, said the Lord).

What in the heck is wrong with those notions?
Click to expand...
As Hannah Arendt said, monotheism is totalitarian. Obey and stop asking questions.
 
domer76 said:
The assumption is weak, at best. I don’t buy the free will argument at all.

But I’m not merely referring to crimes against humanity. I’m referring to all innocent, sentient creatures. And I’m not referring to natural catastrophes either
Click to expand...
You're right, if you don't believe in free will, then humans can't be ever held accountable for decisions, choices , crimes, cruelty.

I'm not sure what kind of suffering of innocent animal lives you are talking about. I blame humans, not God, for cruelty to domesticated and farm animals. Human harm to the environment I see as a consequence of deliberate human choice.
 
Cypress said:
You're right, if you don't believe in free will, then humans can't be ever held accountable for decisions, choices , crimes, cruelty.

I'm not sure what kind of suffering of innocent animal lives you are talking about. I blame humans, not God, for cruelty to domesticated and farm animals. Human harm to the environment I see as a consequence of deliberate human choice.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
You're right, if you don't believe in free will, then humans can't be ever held accountable for decisions, choices , crimes, cruelty.

I'm not sure what kind of suffering of innocent animal lives you are talking about. I blame humans, not God, for cruelty to domesticated and farm animals. Human harm to the environment I see as a consequence of deliberate human choice.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy the free will argument by Christians as a weak explanation and excuse for needless suffering. Humans are and should be held accountable, not by any deity. By the codes of conduct in their own societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top