God

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i think you're just showing an ignorance of definition here.

jealous:
a : intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness b : disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
2
: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage

biblegod certainly is jealous, he proclaims it and he's proud of it.

Ignorance of definition, are you serious? Did you really say that? and then quote some
generic definition and wave it around like some kind of tattered flag? sigh, we are
talking of jealousy in a Biblical context, how this could have evaded you I cannot say,
not only that, I provided two examples which demonstrate that in a Biblical context
jealousy can be viewed as a positive or a negative emotion. Clearly this is a much
broader definition than the one dimensional definition that you provided. Perhaps if
you had taken the time to look them up and ascertain from the context how this was so
you might have done better instead of dishing up this limp vegetable of a post. Clearly
you are out of your depth here and scratching around for something which
substantiates your prejudice, you have nothing.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm still having a hard time understanding how this one incident somehow neutralizes all the other genocide they committed.

What is there hard to understand that in the instance of the Gibeonites demonstrates
that Joshua was not without principle. He was deceived and could have easily used it
as a pretext for killing the Gibeonites, but he didn't, likewise, if the other cities had also
submitted then their inhabitants would have lived for the mandate was not to kill those
persons, but to drive them out. This is something quite different from genocide and i
think Craig makes a good point that to term it genocide is a complete
misrepresentation of the facts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is there hard to understand that in the instance of the Gibeonites demonstrates
that Joshua was not without principle. He was deceived and could have easily used it
as a pretext for killing the Gibeonites, but he didn't, likewise, if the other cities had also
submitted then their inhabitants would have lived for the mandate was not to kil ...[text shortened]... aig makes a good point that to term it genocide is a complete
misrepresentation of the facts.

Here's what I think.

Even if you give a nation a chance to leave and they don't but you kill them all anyway, down to the elderly, the women, the children, the infants and the animals - all non-combatants - it's still genocide.

And God clearly sanctioned it. The main thing that made him angry was when the Israelites FAILED to either drive out or exterminate some of the Canaanites.

Here's the mandate. It does not specifically mention killing, but I think it's nevertheless very obvious what was to be done in the event that the Canaanites refused to leave.

Num 33:50 On the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho the LORD said to Moses, 51 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.

55 “‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.’”

Originally posted by JS357
The conflict must arise due to something that urges us to take the position that our chosen proposition(s) about this G-d are "true" in a sense that we (or more accurately other people) can be wrong about them and need, at any cost to them, to be corrected. Otherwise it would be like tomato-tomahto.

I think that once the propositions about G-d are put to m ...[text shortened]... ly worded set of propositions about God, from memory, to prove his conversion was sincere.

Edit: "The conflict must arise due to something that urges us to take the position that our chosen proposition(s) about this G-d are "true" in a sense that we (or more accurately other people) can be wrong about them and need, at any cost to them, to be corrected. Otherwise it would be like tomato-tomahto."

I think the conflict arise because each individual is convinced that his own subjective view is objectively true, because he beleives that his propositions (that are based on his holy scripture) are "true" whilst any other view fails (because it is based on false ideas and/ or scriptures)
😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ignorance of definition, are you serious? Did you really say that? and then quote some
generic definition and wave it around like some kind of tattered flag? sigh, we are
talking of jealousy in a Biblical context, how this could have evaded you I cannot say,
not only that, I provided two examples which demonstrate that in a Biblical context
...[text shortened]... here and scratching around for something which
substantiates your prejudice, you have nothing.

no, what we are talking about is a jealous god and both the bible and the definition of jealousy prove that biblegod is jealous and proud of it. this is not something you can argue away despite your best efforts.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "The conflict must arise due to something that urges us to take the position that our chosen proposition(s) about this G-d are "true" in a sense that we (or more accurately other people) can be wrong about them and need, at any cost to them, to be corrected. Otherwise it would be like tomato-tomahto."

I think the conflict arise because each ind ...[text shortened]... e" whilst any other view fails (because it is based on false ideas and/ or scriptures)
😵

Yes. I am emphasizing the idea that there is "something that urges us" toward such a position. Our language is full of the results, in statements like "This ice cream tastes good" instead of "I like the taste of this ice cream."

Originally posted by JS357
Yes. I am emphasizing the idea that there is "something that urges us" toward such a position. Our language is full of the results, in statements like "This ice cream tastes good" instead of "I like the taste of this ice cream."

Clear light spills through a prism
to display an array of hues—

Then people go to war
over which is the only true color…

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no, what we are talking about is a jealous god and both the bible and the definition of jealousy prove that biblegod is jealous and proud of it. this is not something you can argue away despite your best efforts.

I am not arguing that God is not jealous, i am stating that in a Biblical context it can
have both a positive and a negative meaning, whereas the definition you have
provided makes no provision for this distinction, why not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not arguing that God is not jealous, i am stating that in a Biblical context it can
have both a positive and a negative meaning, whereas the definition you have
provided makes no provision for this distinction, why not?

it is simple what we are arguing and you can review this thread if you need a refresher. dawkins was quoted calling biblegod of the old testament jealous, along with other things.

you then decided to chime in with:

actually the term jealous in this instance means one demanding exclusive devotion,
its not to be confused with human jealousy, Dawkins is unaware of the distinctions it
seems.

well, when we look at the definition of jealousy, we see as the primary definition, one who is intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness, which oddly enough coincides with your "demanding exclusive devotion"

you claim dawkins is unaware of the distinction. there is no distinction. dawkins used jealousy correctly. biblegod it turns out is very much jealous in very much human terms that we are familiar with and he is quick to admit his jealousy, ergo dawkins is completely correct in pointing out that biblegod is "jealous and proud of it," and you have no argument.

some of the various other points you brought up are also incorrect, i can get to dismantling those once you understand that the god you worship is jealous and proud of it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it is simple what we are arguing and you can review this thread if you need a refresher. dawkins was quoted calling biblegod of the old testament jealous, along with other things.

you then decided to chime in with:

[quote]actually the term jealous in this instance means one demanding exclusive devotion,
its not to be confused with human jealousy, ...[text shortened]... o dismantling those once you understand that the god you worship is jealous and proud of it.

there is no distinction? sigh

Originally posted by JS357
Yes. I am emphasizing the idea that there is "something that urges us" toward such a position. Our language is full of the results, in statements like "This ice cream tastes good" instead of "I like the taste of this ice cream."

Yes😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no distinction? sigh

"...it ["jealous"] can have both a positive and a negative meaning...]"

I think it is more accurate to say people can have a positive or negative attitude toward it.

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-5.htm

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible [the quotes below are from Clarke, not the Bible.]

"Jealous God - This shows in a most expressive manner the love of God to this people. He felt for them as the most affectionate husband could do for his spouse; and was jealous for their fidelity, because he willed their invariable happiness."

Nowadays we see that husbands can express their jealousy in most unpleasant ways.

ibid:

"The reason of this second command, relating to the making and worshipping of images, next follows:

for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; jealous of his own honour and glory, and will not give it to another; even to graven images, nor suffer it to be given to them without resenting it; and jealousy is fierce and cruel, and breaks forth into great wrath, and issues in dreadful scenes oftentimes among men; as a man that has reason to be jealous of his wife, and especially if he takes her and the adulterer in the fact, it often costs them both their lives, being so enraged at such an insult upon him, and such a violation of the marriage bed; and thus the great Jehovah, the God of Israel, their head and husband, is represented, in order to deter from idolatry, or spiritual adultery, than which nothing could be more provoking to him: " [emphasis added]

Modern concepts would not see murder of the wife and the adulterer as righteous. It would seem like megalomania for the husband to identify a consenting-adult situation as violation as against HIM and "thus the great Jehovah"justifying killing them.

There is a segment of the population that would regard jealousy as a positive emotion, but the "positive" meaning of "jealous" has pretty much drifted away as a justification for "dreadful" treatment.

Originally posted by JS357
"...it ["jealous"] can have both a positive and a negative meaning...]"

I think it is more accurate to say people can have a positive or negative attitude toward it.

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-5.htm

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible [the quotes below are from Clarke, not the Bible.]

"Jealous God - This shows in a most expressive manner the love of Go lous" has pretty much drifted away as a justification for "dreadful" treatment.

the idea of jealousy in a Biblical context can be determined from looking at its
usage,

for example,

(Exodus 20:5) . . .You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them,
because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion*, bringing
punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon
the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me. . .

(New world translation of the Holy scriptures)

* Or, a God who is jealous (zealous); a God not tolerating rivalry.” Hebrew: El qanna, Greek: Theos zelotes.

Clearly this is quite a different usage from the vain kind of jealousy which we
associate with envy which is essentially self destructive. I tried to point this out but
to no avail, in fact one can see that the Greek term in Exodus (translated from the
Septuagint) is the same one we derive zeal from, which is quite different from the
Greek word for envy (phthonos). Sigh if only Mr Dawkins had known the difference
he wouldn't have uttered his statement.

Thanks for the Clarke commentary, it was interesting.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Wow ve disposition.

Excellent stuff!! (gues I'll just sit and wait for all the thumbs down!)

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Sheer unmitigated stupidity.

We went through this list before a couple of months ago. Now it is dusted off and re-used.

Sheer unmitigated stupidity.

This is what you get when you let a Biologist out of the laboratory to let him think he can wax eloquent on biblical theology just because he's a decent Biologist.

God Delusion Debate Biologist Richard Dawkins verses Mathematician John Lenox:


YouTube

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
...[text shortened]... d Dawkins verses Mathematician John Lenox:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE

I'll try to watch this when I get home [no youtube at work]. Hopefully this will be better than William Lane Craig. 😞