Debate God

Noted but to say Constantine created Christianity is just ignorant.

 

See Systematic Theology.

Now, as per the bible's infallibility I presented this argument. The following is from an email I sent to Jpec07 and deals with the contradiction of love in the Bible.

Jpec07 opening volley:

Spoiler

Hey Nitrous, Jpec07 here...



Two things:

Not sure what you mean.

...okay, a few things wrong with that, but since you were kind enough to locate the scriptures for me, I think I'll systematically refute your argument. At the beginning, though, let me point out that the main flaw in your reasoning is the fact that you're incorrectly interpreting the scriptures, but I hope to correct that.

Making me go back into the Greek - something not many people have been able to do, so I commend you. In 1 John 4:8, the Greek phrase reads (word-for-word translation, now), "the God love I am." Now, from the rest of John's writings, it can be deduced that this is a reference to the old Hebrew Tetragrammatron (i.e. the name God gave to Moses). This singular name, in and of itself, is a very interesting thing to study, but sparing you pages upon pages of long detail, I'll basically lead to the conclusion (wherein I actually do have the research to back it up) that the name of God, YHWH is future-tense Hebrew, meaning that God will be what God will be. Typically, when the phraseology is used elsewhere in Hebrew texts, it's pointing to the independence of God from obligations to beliefs held by man: God will be what God will be. It's also good to note that there are several instances where we see YHWH used in conjunctions with other words, indicating further titles that describe God's character and who He is. Examples include YHWH Tzevaot, YHWH Yireh, YHWH Nissi, YHWH Shammah, and a great deal more, which all speak of different aspects of God's character.

John the Apostle really liked referring to that name, as he portrays Jesus making seven distinct "I am" statements (which YHWH is commonly translated to). Doubtless his intentions are not to equate God's entire being to the Pauline description of love. You're essentially taking a beautiful statement of God's love nature by John and turning it into an is of equation (where all aspects of the one are true of the other). It is, in fact, closer to an is of identity.

And as to Paul's description of love to the Corinthians, it can hardly be argued that it was ever meant to be a comprehensive, exhaustive list of all of the attributes of love. It's fairly easy to say that love is good, and yet such a statement is suspiciously absent from his list.

And who's to say that love can't be jealous? Assuming you have a girlfriend, it's probably a safe bet to say that you love her quite a lot. And yet, if you found her in bed with another guy, it's probably just as safe a bet that, no matter how you might hide it on the outside, you would be jealous. Jealousy is nowhere dictated as a bad thing in the Bible. All of the verses you might point to are, in fact, talking about envy. This is where the line must be drawn. While envy is very clearly a sin (tenth commandment), jealousy very clearly cannot be a sin, as it is something attributed to God. Moving on.

Now here's where you present a very interesting argument that I'll admit to having not considered before (which excites my intellect with the prospect of learning). In fact, this is a contradiction I have yet to see pointed out within the the scriptures, but I do have an answer for it. Allow me, if you will, to follow a rabbit trail (as I guarantee it will lead back to the main point).

Theologically speaking, the work done on the cross should be enough to prove God's love for humanity--that he should take upon himself the consequence of their sins. Indeed, as so many Christians will quickly point out (often ironically so when you look at their lives), the wages of sin is death. It's a motif that you can see reflected all throughout the Pentateuch, through the various codes. Death made things "unclean" (as all those things unclean were regularly in contact with and around death), and the heart of the law was to drive death out as much as possible. This is because death and sin are tied together.

Now, it's interesting to note that love is not God in the sense that every attribute of love is always and entirely true of God. Indeed, there are many attributes of God: love is one of them (and is at the very core of His being, which I'll explain in a moment). It can be said that most of the rest of his attributes actually flow from His love, such as his righteousness and his holiness, as His love is entirely and completely pure - deeper and more whole than anything comprehensible or conceivable by human intuition or intellect.

Such a love wants only the best for those it is directed towards. This was the heart of the law: that mankind through it might be reconciled unto God from the fall. The law provided a means for atonement between God and mankind, giving an answer to sin (which leads to emptiness and death - which God wanted nothing of for those He loved). Of course, mankind agreed to this, and it was God's good pleasure that they should follow, that they not be given to the depravity, emptiness, and worthlessness that sinful lives would leave them with. The law was a means for Him to be with them and for them to be with Him, because it cleansed the people of their sin - the one thing that God hates, because it gets in the way of His ability to love people.

Mind you, I didn't say that God hated sinners, I just said that God hates the sin. And this follows logically from his love-nature, because sin opposes the love of God by causing the ones He loves to turn their backs on Him, thereby making his love unrequited. This doesn't make it any less potent, but it makes it so that the ones He loves will fall away into Hell - that is, eternity apart from the love of God. It is God's will that no man should perish, but that all men should be saved through Christ. And yet He loves us enough to not force us to love Him in return. Kinda like how sometimes parents will let their kids say they hate them, no matter how much it actually hurts them. But then the joy of repentance is so much greater...I digress.

The Lord's anger is a touchy subject, to say the least. Indeed, passages that deal with it are some of the hardest ones in the Bible to approach without taking the rest of it into account. Note, though, that the anger of the Lord is always kept in restraint. There are a few times in the scriptures where the Lord turns from the actions he'd assigned for himself to do. On all but two of these occasions, it was from a position of anger and judgment to a position of grace and forgiveness. And even when he nahamed towards anger or judgment, it was because the failure(s) of a man or of men had driven his people further away from him, and He never dealt wrongly with one who sought to right their relationship with Him.

In regards to Paul's passage in Corinthians, the expression, "is not provoked," while appearing in most translations, has been described in many a commentary to mean that love is not itself angered, and so provides an ample means by which anger, no matter how severe or righteous, can be tempered and reigned in. The Bible actually says elsewhere that the anger of the Lord lasts a moment, while His favor lasts a lifetime. Due to the overwhelming love in his nature, any anger he has is quickly subdued. Mind you, He is a person (not human, but our person-hood is modeled after him according to my philosophical, theological beliefs), and as a person he is capable of the full range of emotions that we are. It's just that, with love at his very core, those emotions are better checked and better held in line.

One commentator also noted that "anger cannot reside in the bosom where love reigns." Since sin angers God so, and since it is so rampant in the world, it makes good sense with that mindset that God cannot hold onto that anger within himself for very long (yet he bears it for our sake). Thus he would have to pour it out on humanity, his righteousness punishing for sin (out of love that sinners might repent), and ultimately drawing those He loves back to himself. This was done through Jesus. God himself became man (the mystery of the trinity, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around), lived a perfect life as both fully God and fully human, was offered up by humanity for their sins to die on a cross, where he took the entirety of his righteous anger onto himself that we might not bear it, died as a result of the iniquities he'd taken upon himself, and raised to life again on the third day, proving his sacrifice all-sufficient and all-encompassing.

So then, yes, I will say that God, in His most fundamental nature, is love. I will also say that "provokations" against God are based in the loathing he has for sin, and that His desire is to purely and completely love all mankind.

I do hope I've made myself clear. I tend to be quite wordy at times, and so my main points often tend to be muddied in the rhetoric I am so fond of producing.

I look forward to your response. ^_^

My rebuttal

Spoiler

Sorry for the wait. Let's skip the forward, shall we?

The Bible. The infallible, inspired word of the living god. The Bible says love is not jealous, if god is jealous then he is not love. Screw the other definitions. Screw an infinite amount of ways that could have been used to describe love. God must meet ALL requirements to be love and if he doesn't meet one, though he may be a good representation of love, he isn't love. Which wouldn't be a problem if the Bible didn't state that god is love.

Regardless, tell me how envy =/= jealousy.

From Dicitonary.com

Envy
1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 2. an object of envious feeling: Her intelligence made her the envy of her classmates. ​

Jealous
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his rich brother. 2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage,
​

Covet1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property. 2. to wish for, esp. eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted. ​

Now I will be so bold as to say that when we see the change from envy to covet and jealousy to covet that god still represents that definition. It is wrongful and inordinate to be so jealous of the minds of mortal men that you bring them to slaughter. Forty years in the desert and the absolute slaughter of non-Jewish blood, to name a few, are examples where the people didn't admire and praise god as he wished them to so instead of turning the other cheek he either obliterated them or tortured them. Those people, whether they are right or wrong, have a right to worship their god so long as it does not harm others. Would you agree?


I would also be so bold to say that the definitions of envy and jealousy are not different, so the objection that jealousy and envy are two different things needs to be shown.

It doesn't matter. I am what I am and I am not what I am not. That is the law of non-contradiction. If god is love and love is not provoked to anger and god is provoked to anger then he is not love. You brought up the point that god could show love and he did by sending his son. You can call that love if you want but the simple act of showing love does not qualify you as the embodiment of love. This is a common misconception of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and a very childish interpretation of the english language.

Have you ever told a lie? That makes you a liar. Have you ever stolen something? That makes you a thief. This arguement tends to continue until Mr. Comfort will declare there are none good but god and he will forgive you if you put your trust in Jesus. That all seems well and good but if one act of X makes you the embodiment of X, then by the same reasoning you can prove you are god. There are none good but god, perform a single act of good and you are good, since you are now good you are now god. I don't know if that's where you were going with that arguement but I figured I'd nip it in the bud.

...

I will not be addressing the bulk of what you said because the bulk of what you said is of no consequence to the arguement.

 

It includes all relevant information.

No...of course not. It means nothing to god but it should mean a hell of a lot to you.

 

You need to talk to Rusty because that's his thing.

 

And I'm telling you I don't know because Rusty only briefly went over it with me.

Let's do this.

It is often proposed by the true believer that for good to exist evil must as well, as though good and evil were a yin and a yang constantly in flux but always balancing the other out. The multitude of problems can be summed into one argument to rule them all and all other subsequent arguments that I could propose would only be footnotes and irrelevant if the first argument is to succeed. It is proposed that god is the alpha. God is also proposed to be good. If god is good then how can we know she is good or how could she have been good if there were no evil to compare her beside? God cannot be good if god cannot be evil.

Fairly short argument. There are a lot of problems with the general statement that for good to exist, evil must exist as well but we'll work this argument first and then move to that one.

No. Laws are often the epitome of immorality and cruelty for the sake of efficiency.

It is important to note that Tom is punished without knowing his crime. I'm sure he knows he's being punished. But this is relation to a human and imperfect justice system and no person can say with certainty that killing people is wrong by nature's standards. But one can say that the collective does feel that murder is wrong and by this collective judgment they execute the proper punishment for that crime. This is not an absolute; for instance if Tom were to be a child or were so insane that he did not realize he was killing but petting imaginary colors in his mind he would not be punished. Rather the child would be re-educated and the insane man would be given medication and institutionalized.

When you say Tom does not know killing people is bad you do it under the connotation and the assumption that he does in fact know that killing is wrong and that he can be punished for it because you take the tone in your writings that he is an educated adult. You don't however say that Tom doesn't know killing is wrong (because he's only four years old) and is punished capitally even though he doesn't know. Under your original statement it would seem you claim justice but under my statement it would seem I claim injustice, murder, mob brutality and vengeance.

It is shameful, cruel and hateful for a divine being to proselytize itself with full knowledge that by relinquishing this fact that these people will go to hell and they will stay there for an eternity. It is selfish for a person to proselytize to another under the assumption that people who have not heard the word of god do not go to hell when they die.

Oh, you meant defined. Of course, of course. See I thought you said,

"The opposite of something is required for something to exist. If there's no such thing as natural how can something be super natural? You probably see where I'm going with this."

Silly me. I now see the error of my ways. Wait...you said exist, not defined... Your giving me mixed messages. If you say defined then I have already won the argument but if you say exist then I must respond.

So tell me. Which do you choose?