is the idea of unconditional love compatible with the God of the old testament?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 96
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
 is idea of unconditional love compatible with the God of the old testament?

No. And  one only has to read it - the OT - to understand why.  Strange isn't it, that we humans for the better majority do love our children unconditionally and can forgive them for almost anything?  Yet,  when we come to  " our  father in heaven " the self confessed jealous god of war there is hardly any compromise. .

And this is where you will notice the apologists steer clear of the point that according their own dogma, Jesus is the god from the beginning and always has been i.e. the god of the Old Testament.  
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
  What is love? Is love confined only to positive things? Is it a process? Is it an outcome? For example, when I discipline my children, they don't perceive it as love. Yet if I chose not to discipline them, then I have not displayed love. Similarly, God loved the world, so he sent his son to be killed. Is that love for the world or not?  And was it love towards his own son or not? 

Typical, of the apologist to pose five billion questions of his own as if this somehow addresses the question of the op. 

#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
->@Tradesecret wrote :  What is unconditional love?  [3]  What is love? Is love confined only to positive things? Is it a process? Is it an outcome? For example, when I discipline my children, they don't perceive it as love. Yet if I chose not to discipline them, then I have not displayed love. Similarly, God loved the world, so he sent his son to be killed. Is that love for the world or not?  And was it love towards his own son or not? #5



Typical of the apologist to pose five billion questions of his own as if this some how addresses the question of the op.


#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view.
So just to clear this up too before we continue should I refer to some Christian(s) or to the book itself when discussing the book?
#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I have never met a Christian who thought Adam did not know it was wrong to eat the fruit. I do not know any Christian who would take that view.
So just to clear this up too before we continue should I refer to some Christian(s) or to the book itself when discussing the book?

The book please. and quote it in Hebrew please. 
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't speak Hebrew. Sorry to disappoint
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't speak Hebrew. Sorry to disappoint
Ok then. Well I do so I suppose that is a bonus. 


#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Is the book improperly translated? Can the text as is not be trusted to convey the Yahweh's character in the english translations in popular usage? 
#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Is the book improperly translated? Can the text as is not be trusted to convey the Yahweh's character in the english translations in popular usage? 
Translation is a complicated matter. All translators have to weigh up how to communicate thoughts to another language. Do they translate as closely as possible to the literal letter and meaning of  the words or do they translate as to convey the meaning of the ideas presented. Each of the various English translations are somewhere on this line somewhere between the two points.  I am comfortable with our English bible translators and their attempts to convey the right balance as they understand it. Nevertheless, sometimes it is almost impossible to convey certain concepts properly. Two other difficulties that translators have is that they have to translate from a time zone some thousands of years ago to day. They also have to try and convey from that particular culture which is also foreign from ours to our own.  All I am saying is that at least reading the Hebrew allows me to appreciate some of the difficult concepts and ideas that translators have to resolve when translating. I think they do a good job. I just always reserve the right to refer to the Hebrew than get stuck in the nuanced meaning of an English word. 

So on that basis I think it is fair to say that as best they are able to - I think that the translators do their best job with good intentions. I do not think there is any attempt to deceive - but that does not mean that their own culture does not get in the way sometimes.  

For our purposes - I am happy to use English. 
#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
For our purposes - I am happy to use English. 
Then why even bring up hebrew?
#41
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Because sometimes the Hebrew is useful especially when we get stuck in a knot over the nuance of an English word. 

The question is do Adam and Eve know whether anything is good or not prior to eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? 


#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Well the overall picture painted of the Yahweh's character in the old testament so far as I can tell from the english translation is of a vain,  self absorbed, jealous, misogynistic, vengeful, genocidal thug. Must be translation errors. 
#43
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
So let me repeat the question: 

Is there any evidence that Adam and Eve knew what was good and evil before they ate the fruit? 

I think the issue is not translation but interpretation. 
#44
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
There is no reason to think they understood the consequences adequately to make any informed decision. 
#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
That does not answer the question.

Do you think 3:6 takes place before she ate the fruit?
#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
The entire book of genesis has a confusing time line. Like the fact that the order in which every thing was created is listed differently in different passages. 
#47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
So are you going to answer the question or not? 


#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you tell me what you think and why it even matters? I think it would save time.
#49
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I could tell you what I think. Easy peasey. But I would prefer you to work the logic with me. That way we cant accuse each other of not understanding. 

You suggest that Adam and Eve were children, if not in body, at least mentally. And that they dont have the capacity to make informed decisions. 

If you are correct, then consistent with thought - God may well be as you seem to interpret. 

I on the hand think that God acted properly and justly and even very mercifully and with tremendous grace.   And that these adults as they were created - knew exactly what they were doing - and knowing full well the implications for them and their entire human race - and went ahead and did it anyway.  And if this is correct, then God may well be the way I understand and indeed seem him. 

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your view. 

Hence I think that we need to examine both Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit to see if they knew what was going on - and particularly if they knew before they ate the fruit things was is good or not. And then we need to see if afterwards, that is after they ate the fruit - you know after their eyes were opened,  whether this meant that they suddenly knew good as it was portrayed before the fall or evil for that matter, or whether what they knew to be good before the fall - now is something else. 

It seems to me that you indicated that the tree gave them the understanding to know good and evil.  Well I just want us to test your theory with the evidence or data in the text. 
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I would prefer you to work the logic with me.
To what purpose? So that we can then move on to the next questionable thing in the bible in regards to the Yahweh's character and then the next and the next and the next and you can excuse genocide and immoral moral pronouncements? I think instead I'd rather tell you a story.

I have a friend and once we were discussing the scene from the Empire Strike's Back where Han Solo is frozen in carbonite. I don't know if you remember it but he has his hands cuffed behind his back when he is lowered into the apparatus but the stage prop of the frozen Han has his hands up as though to ward off some horror. 

I was amused by the continuity error but he was not. In fact he insisted that it wasn't a continuity error at all because "in the extended universe" Han was taught the art of escape. I don't remember how or by whom honestly but you sort of remind me of that. Trying to explain away things that don't fit your image of Yahweh's character with post hoc rationalizations when such inconsistencies are just to be expected in a work of fiction. 
#51
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok that is a lovely story.  And thanks for that thought. But pardon me if I don't think you are now trying to find an honorable way of getting out of the predicament you are in. 

I know you have just indicated that you think I am trying to rationalise things. I am not. The Bible is clear from my point of view. God created the world - and man rebelled intentionally.  When we start with this position - GOD is good and there is no rationalisation required from my end on this occasion or any future one. It all sits on you then. 

When you start with your view that man was childlike in intellect, then it puts God in a terrible position. Obviously then you would think that I have to rationalise. Yet if you can prove that man is so childlike that he had no lawful capacity to intentionally sin then I would have to fall on my sword. Hence I dont think that I will have to rationalise anything.

I don't see what you have to lose. I certainly don't think the rationalisation is going to be from my side. 
#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I think you have things in reverse here. You are the one who has to explain why the bible as translated into english paints such a negative picture of the Yahweh's character. I'm just not especially interested in your explanation. No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser. 
#53
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you have things in reverse here. You are the one who has to explain why the bible as translated into english paints such a negative picture of the Yahweh's character. I'm just not especially interested in your explanation. No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser. 
But that is the thing. I don't think it paints God's character in a negative manner.  I think it paints humanity in a bad light.  And God in a wonderful light who has gone beyond what any human would do for someone who has treated him so badly. 

Hence, why I don't agree that I have things in reverse. You and others constantly say - look how bad this situation is. I say - sorry it makes sense to me that God would do that. It is lawful and just or gracious and merciful. Yet you or others continue to miss these things concentrating on what you perceive to be the negatives. 

I think part of the reason is because you start with the idea that God is a nasty piece of work and thereby this colors everything you see in the bible. On the other hand I start with the fact that God is good and just and this colors everything in the bible for me. I do find it amazing that despite all of the nasty things you see God doing - you always omit to commend the good things that he does do.  Surely there is a reason for that if it is not  a bias you have.   I have a reason for the nasty things you think God does - I call it justice - lawful acts of a God who acts justly. 

On the other hand, you see nasty things and think cruel and vindictive. Yet - then you never consider God in his gracious light and in the lovely and kind and merciful things he does.  You just conveniently omit these things - pretend they don't exist. Yet to do so I think is intellectually dishonest. But the thing is - if you do start to consider these things -then you will have to start asking yourself other questions - and that I think is part of the reason you don't want to address it. 

So for the record - I don't feel any need to justify or rationalise the bible. I really don't.  Yet I think you do. And you do it constantly because when people like me say God is good and holy and just and merciful it gets up your nose. And when we point out the selfless acts he does - such as sending Jesus - (himself ) to die for people who hate him - rather than see the good - you just think nasty thoughts. 

Hence why I say I dont have to rationalise things. The onus is on you - not me.  You need to be able to articulate why God does anything nice to anybody. And since the bible is full of such examples, that is a lot of rationalising if you really do think he is a mean and vindictive God. 
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think it paints God's character in a negative manner.  I think it paints humanity in a bad light.
In other words the bible is engaged in victim blaming and the enabling of an abuser, though in all likelihood only a fictional one thank goodness.
#55
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser. 
I missed that when I was replying to the rest of your comment. I think that is a problematic comment.  And false. 

It is like you begin with your assumptions and then just work it out to the end. 

God made man and gave him a beautiful garden to  live in.  Man told God to F O.  Who is the abuser? Who is the victim? 

The prisons are full of innocent people, aren't they?   

Adam and Eve are not the victims here.  They did the crime - intentionally.    That is the nuts and bolts of it. 
#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
LOL! yes it does paint humanity in a bad light next to God.  IT also paints many good pictures of humanity as well - as they get their act together and do the right thing.

Turning this into a victim blaming thing is the essence of leftist foolishness. 
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you claiming that an all powerful all knowing invincible entity was somehow victimized? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. 
#58
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I think using this the victim card is pointless. I don't think God is a victim. But nor do I think humanity is either. In fact in the biblical picture it is humanity who is the perpetrator of evil and violence.  So for it to be used and likened to a victim is simply Absurd - as I said - the prisons are full of innocents? Victims? 


#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Well that is excusing god for  condoning, ordering and even perpetuating genocide. I think you and I are just fundamental in disagreement about what constitutes an immoral act. Adam and Eve aside and condoning rape and buying and selling people as though they were property aside I just can't justify killing an entire population of people including dashing the babies upon the rocks with the notable exception of taking the virgins as spoils of war. That is abominable and if you disagree then you are in my opinion also immoral and I can't conceive of an argument that would change my mind.
#60
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
God never condoned rape. How absurd? The  commandments clearly forbids rape. Adultery and fornication were forbidden. Genocide is a vexed question. Yet one the progressives in society advocate today by wanting to destroy culturally any fascists and any good things in their history. It is  no different in substance. In any event - God never said to wipe out any nation for the sake of wiping them out. It was always because that nation was particularly evil. God never condoned slavery in the sense of kidnapping. Slavery in the OT is not the same as slavery in other societies. It firstly was built on the premise that each person owned their own body and as part of that ownership - the ability to sell their body. Secondly, there were time limits on the length of that slavery. Thirdly, until the 18th century - every culture practised slavery of some form.  It is remarkable that the rules in place in the OT are far more merciful than others. Fouthly, it was the Christian teaching that - promoted and brought about the abolition of slavery. Without the Christian religion - slavery would still be rife in ever culture in the world. 

Taking virgins as a spoil of war. ??? Do you have any concept of war? And in those times? What society which lived in those times did not rape and murder or take the woman as slaves? Come on? How many of those cultures told their soldiers not rape the woman? Nor to not commit adultery? You have no concept of history. This is one reason you find things so bad in the Bible. You should compare how humane it was compared to EVERY other nation at the time? 

You live in a very soft 21st century where parents hover over their children in case they get dirt on their fingers or where they will be scarred for life if someone says something that offends them.  This culture is the pathetic one which every years murders babies. It is one where we go to war against the weak and the poor and the vulnerable in the name of progress.  You think the bible times were bad - well wake up and have a look at the one you live in - and probably condone.