God is Love or Jesus is Divine--But NOT Both! A short Bible Contradiction Discussed
The New Testament is filled with errors and contractions. If single verses aren't in conflict with each other’s claims then entire themes are found to be contradictorily negating each other.
For example, suppose we ask whether or not God is loving and that Jesus is divine. Christians will say yes to both, but the Christian concept of God is clearly WRONG. (Bible ignorance strikes again!) Apparently, the New Testament is quite clear on the issue, and when compared with the character of God explained in the Old Testament, we find it makes it abundantly clear that God cannot be all good if Jesus is divine, and if Jesus is divine then God cannot be good. Let me explain (emphasis mine, of course):
God is love. (John 4:16)
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4)
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God (Exodus 20:5)
So my question would be this: Is God a loving God?
Logically, considering the evidence, love is kind and not jealous, God is jealous, therefore God cannot be love, according to Paul's definition of love, and so John 4:16 is a contradiction in God's character. We know God is, and cannot, be love by the definition given by Paul, who spoke with authority via the Spirit (Ephesians 1:17, 3; 1 Corinthians 2:3-5, 12:3, 14:1, 18; Romans 8:14,16; etc.) that love is not jealous. The author of John, however, equates God as love, and we are in conflict. The problem being that God (who we've established is a jealous God by his own account) is incompatible with the definition Paul gives and is in conflict with Johns message of God being love.
So someone must be wrong here. It couldn't possibly be God (should he exist), so we'll rule out that possibility. So either Paul is wrong or the author of the book of John is gravely mistaken.
God can only be love if, and only if, we claim that John's definition of a loving God is incorrect, but this causes us a bigger problem. Why? Because the author of John claims to be speaking through revelation (Revelation 1:1), thus if his claims on the nature of love are false, then his other claims lose credence as well, including his claim that Jesus was divine. Let's not forget that the the 4th Gospel's message is clearly that Jesus was divine and co-eternal with the Father, and so Jesus too is a divine being of love, but more importantly let's not overlook the fact that this message, this theological premise is only found in the Fourth Gospel and not the Synoptics. Therefore the Christian theist has a conundrum, because of the logical conclusions one derives at given the evidence.
The strict rationalist must conclude one of two possibilities: 1) Either God is love and Jesus is NOT divine. Or 2) God is not love, and therefore has the capacity to be capricious and malevolent, and Jesus IS divine (but with the capacity to be capricious and malevolent). Finally, there is the third possibility which I waited to mention because for the Christian it will seem absurd, but might be the only viable option for those who want real answers, and that is: both Paul and John are wrong. If Paul is guided by the Holy Spirit, and John by divine revelation, then both must be right! Therefore their contradictory claims about God negate each other, and so we can know that God is NOT love.
Either way you choose to look at it the problem is inescapable and the only way to reconcile it is to forgo one and take up the other, but at the risk of losing the belief in one of Christianity’s two biggest convictions. So obviously Christians never do this, they're not prepared to, not even at the sake of making themselves into hypocrites. They want to have it both ways, so they ignore the discrepancy, accept both Paul and John's conflicting definitions against good reason, and so the Christian theist settles for the lesser of two evils: hypocrisy over unbelief.
But for the atheist, this is absurd, because to make oneself a bigot for fear that the actual truth would diminish your belief in God as being something other than a loving being, or else Jesus not being divine, is ridiculous. The truth is the truth regardless of what you want to believe, and in this case, it's plain as daylight that the basic tenets of Christianity which Christians esteem as a vital and fundamental component to establishing their faith are often times incongruous or just plain incompatible. To build a belief system on inharmonious claims, or contradictory ones for that matter, is undeniably outrageously unreasonable. Even so, such bothersome bits of discordant theology help affirm the atheist proposition that Christian doctrine and philosophy is not only faulty, but is often times undone or proved false by its own inexorable inadequacies.
(Not to mention this causes us to be highly skeptical of whether either of them is telling the God-given truth or not, because if taken at face value their words become meaningless and we are only left with doubt in any of the other incredible claims which they may have made. Furthermore, Paul claims that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). However, if God divinely reveals two opposing revelations to two different men, then this constitutes a confusion. Paul obviously had forgotten that God deliberately confused the people of Babel in Genesis 11:6-9 and Jeremiah 20:7. And all this on top of the fact that Paul states in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." How is that not stirring up confusion? God putting the blinders on so unbelievers can't find God, then how are they supposed to find God? You know what it sounds like, right? Pin-the-tail-on-the-deity. Confusing enough, if you ask me. Who are we to trust?)
Either way you choose to look at it the problem is inescapable and the only way to reconcile it is to forgo one and take up the other, but at the risk of losing the belief in one of Christianity’s two biggest convictions. So obviously Christians never do this, they're not prepared to, not even at the sake of making themselves into hypocrites. They want to have it both ways, so they ignore the discrepancy, accept both Paul and John's conflicting definitions against good reason, and so the Christian theist settles for the lesser of two evils: hypocrisy over unbelief.
But for the atheist, this is absurd, because to make oneself a bigot for fear that the actual truth would diminish your belief in God as being something other than a loving being, or else Jesus not being divine, is ridiculous. The truth is the truth regardless of what you want to believe, and in this case, it's plain as daylight that the basic tenets of Christianity which Christians esteem as a vital and fundamental component to establishing their faith are often times incongruous or just plain incompatible. To build a belief system on inharmonious claims, or contradictory ones for that matter, is undeniably outrageously unreasonable. Even so, such bothersome bits of discordant theology help affirm the atheist proposition that Christian doctrine and philosophy is not only faulty, but is often times undone or proved false by its own inexorable inadequacies.
Dear Christian, you must ask yourself, which God do you prefer? Do you want the all loving God? Or the divine Jesus Christ? Because both are IMPOSSIBLE according to Christian doctrine. If you choose both, then you've done away with the validity of your faith, and furthermore, have made all your claims unjustifiable by letting such contradictions simply lay.
*Possible Objections to my Argument*
Having been an Evangelical Christian for three decades I think I have the experience to venture some possible objections to my argument, and play devil's advocate for a moment. Needless to say, all possible objections are fairly strained and very predictable responses, and ones which I have anticipated. Let's discuss the only feasible objections and how such an obvious apologetic strategy fails logically and otherwise to defend the theist position against this devastating critique.
A Christian Objection
"You've misunderstood the scriptures because you are a (confused) unbeliever and you don't have the Holy Spirit to reveal the hidden truth to you."
According to this objection, if god confuses unbelievers then that is different than confusing believers. They will say that the scriptures look foolish to those who have not been blessed with the Holy Spirit, and I can see an apologist claiming that the scriptures are not confusing to those who dwell within Christ, subsequently what Paul said remains true, and so God is still not the author of confusion for those who have the secret insights via the power of the Holy Ghost. Since atheists and nonbelievers (supposedly) do not have this special ability, then they cannot see the truth.
Problem #1
The first problem Christians face is that the confusion is not between believers and nonbelievers, but Paul and John's author, both self-proclaimed Christians brimming with the Holy Ghost. So a Christian would be hard pressed to use the argument in the first place.
Problem #2
The second problem is that it's a non-argument. A Christian who presupposes that the Holy Spirit/Ghost (whatever that may be) reveals the truth has made the fatal error of assuming the Spirit is at all a validated piece of evidence which supports their argument. It's not.
Explanation and Conclusion
Here the problem persists, as they haven't even justified the claim that the Spirit is real, and before they establish it as support for their theory they need to prove it exists and is a quantifiable scientific fact. If they can't prove beyond a reason of a doubt that the Holy Spirit is a real entity, a real energy, which inhibits non-believers thinking but acts as a direct conduit to the mind of God for those who are in Christ (a testable hypothesis mind you), until they can establish this via blind and double blind tests as to attempt to gain any reliability what-so-ever, then I'm just afraid it's not admissible as evidence.
Therefore, the argument that believers can see certain truths and unbelievers can't because those who are in Christ have the Spirit to guide them to truth whereas all else are lost is simply invalidated by the fact that such a claim is wholly unfounded, and so lacks any credibility form the start.
Thus to actually invoke such an argument is actually a sign of critical thinking weakness. Christians would be quickly embarrassed if they even tried as much, since such a tactic is an obvious ploy to safeguard the theist's position without ever having to justify it, and this automatically makes the Christian's claims to be the participant of special revelatory messages dubious, and furthermore, because it is impervious to scrutiny (since in actuality there is nothing to scrutinize) it gets away with the sin of intellectual *dishonesty.
If pressed on the matter they will dance circles around the issue, as they will inevitably try and do, and attempt to safeguard the Spirit as evidence argument with the infamous shifting the blame game. Only by stating it's impossible for us to disprove the Holy Spirit could they even pretend to use the argument to begin with, but even so, to make the claim that they will only accept our valid criticism if we can first prove to them that something which is *nonexistent, in fact, doesn't exist at all is faulty reasoning if I ever saw it.
As we all know, this is impossible to do, and so if it's impossible to prove or disprove, then there can be no evidence of it, and again it becomes inadmissible. Ergo: it is a non-argument and it completely fails on logical grounds alone.
Consequently, I rest my case.
Tristan-
ReplyDeleteWell argued piece! It is a classic case of dithering under the influence of God. The holy spirit says X to one person and says NOT X to another. Then unbeknownst to eachothers contradictory statements, they claim to be under "divine inspiration" by means of, as you put it, "authority via the Spirit" or divine revelation.
I think you should add one thing to this argument. Paul also tells us that God is not the "author of confusion". But when faced with all these incongruous claims and statements that are present in the Bible, one always leaves feeling awkwardly confused. Which leads down the road of cognitive dissonance.
Cheers,
Devin
Veil_of_Deceit
There, I worked it in. Thanks for the suggestion. I think it enhanced my argument and showed that there is a greater contradiction than most Christian are willing to admit to.
ReplyDeleteWhile researching, I found a ridiculous apologetics website that said God only confused the language of the people of Babel, he didn't confuse their intellects. And I was like, huh? Our intellects is what gives us language! Obviously God must confuse that first to get the effects of confused language... but Christian apologists will say almost anything to work around the problem and harmonize things into a peaceful equilibrium of ignorance.
Other apologists have claimed its not the same sort of confusion. One is the confusion of godless sinners, and Paul meant the confusion of believers, but this is semantics. Confusion is confusion, no matter what you want to call it (acolyte confusion or infidel confusion--they both equate to confusion, period). So I find such an argument simply, irrational.
Good post, I like it.
ReplyDeleteI would note on the confusion piece, however, that a Xian may claim that it's not the same confusion. If god confuses unbelievers, that is different than confusing believers. They say that the scriptures look foolish to those who have not been blessed with the holy spirit, right? I can see an apologist claiming that the scriptures are not confusing to those who dwell within Christ, so what Paul said is true, in that god is not the author of confusion for those who have the secret decoder ring. It's all rubbish, but I can see the argument being used.
GCT-
ReplyDeleteYou're right, that is a very predictable response, and one I have anticipated. I may write an "possible objections" section into this article just to show the faulty logic in such an obvious apologetic strategy.
The first problem Christians face is that the confusion is not between believers and nonbelievers, but Paul and John's author, both self-proclaimed Christians brimming with the Holy Ghost. So a Christian would be hard pressed to use the argument in the first place.
The second problem is that it's a non-argument. A Christian who presupposes that the Spirit (whatever that may be) reveals the truth has made the fatal error of assuming the Spirit is at all a validated piece of evidence which supports their argument. It's not.
Here the problem persists, as they haven't even justified the claim that the Spirit is real, and before they establish it as support for their theory they need to prove it exists and is a quantifiable scientific fact. If they can't prove beyond a reason of a doubt that the Holy Spirit is a real entity, a real energy, which inhibits non-believers thinking but acts as a direct conduit to the mind of God for those who are in Christ (a testable hypothesis mind you), until they can establish this via blind and double blind tests as to attempt to gain any reliability what-so-ever, then I'm just afraid it's not admissible as evidence.
Therefore, the argument that believers can see certain truths and unbelievers can't because those who are in Christ have the Spirit to guide them to truth whereas all else are lost is simply invalidated by the fact that such a claim is wholly unfounded, and so lacks any credibility form the start.
Thus to actually invoke such an argument is actually a sign of critical thinking weakness. Christians would be quickly embarrassed if they even tried as much, since such a tactic is an obvious ploy to safeguard the theist's position without ever having to justify it, and this automatically makes the Christian's claims to be the participant of special revelatory messages dubious, and furthermore, because it is impervious to scrutiny (since in actuality there is nothing to scrutinize) it gets away with the sin of intellectual *dishonesty.
If pressed on the matter they will dance circles around the issue, as they will inevitably try and do, and attempt to safeguard the Spirit as evidence argument with the infamous shifting the blame game. Only by stating it's impossible for us to disprove the Holy Spirit could they even pretend to use the argument to begin with, but even so, to make the claim that they will only accept our valid criticism if we can first prove to them that something which is *nonexistent, in fact, doesn't exist at all is faulty reasoning if I ever saw it.
As we all know, this is impossible to do, and so if it's impossible to prove or disprove, then there can be no evidence of it, and again it becomes inadmissible. Ergo: it is a non-argument and it completely fails on logical grounds alone.
I may just have to add this in for contrast.
perhaps you should refer to the meanings of the word "jealous" in context. in the one case, it refers to God's insistence on loyalty from the Jews. we don't even need to look to another section of the Bible to determine if this command of God's is consistent with a type of love. in fact, i think it's clear that this "jealousy" is consistent with the loving Nationalistic Deity. He could not have been taken seriously otherwise, as if God could be cuckold!
ReplyDeletechck
ReplyDeleteI think if a Christian tried to claim that only people who have the "spirit" can truly discern and "divide" the word of God, makes Tristan's argument that much stronger. Because that is exactly what he is arguing about. Here he has Paul, John, and Moses claiming 3 things about God which all unequivocally contradict eachother. So a Christian will have to admit 1 or all of these men were wrong because all can not be right. Then Tristan puts the icing on the cake by saying Paul must have been wrong one last time when Paul claims God as being not an author of confusion. Which leads directly to cognitive dissonance. Which leads to the Christian having to either rationalize the problem away or admitting there is a problem. It is a win win for Tristan.
ReplyDeleteCheers T, this is a solid piece!
Devin
VoD
Mr. Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe word jealous in Exodus and the word jealous in 1cor13 is the one and the same word in greek, Zeloo. You are half wrong to say that the "jealous" in Exodus refers to God demanding loyalty from the Jews. It is also refering to possession. It is also saying your are mine and only mine. So fully this is what it should say: I am God and you are mine and I demand loyalty.
But you see this poses more problems for Moses, Paul, and John. Because what God is saying in Exodus is possessive. It is like if you have something taken away from you or someone or thing leaves you, you desire it. This is called envy or coveting. Jealous can also mean envy. God envies a "relationship" (for a lack of better word) with you. He covets what he doesn't have. This is caused by being possessive. But love according to Paul is not possessive, envious, covetous, or jealous. All things which God is according to Exodus. You see the problem?
Possessive love is borderline mental. It leads to jealousy which makes you become non compos mentis. I look at it this way. I trust my wife to make the right decision. So if she wants to talk with other men I don't become jealous. I let her make her own choices. But if it gets to the point where I feel like she is taking it to far or disrespecting me I might talk to her about it. I won't send plagues, kill her offspring or family, send her to the desert to wander, etc... If my wife makes a bad decision she made her choice. I don't become irate. I have enough pride and selfworth to walk away and find some one who will be devoted to me.
So you see Tristan is in context and 100% correct in his analysis.
My two cents,
For what its worth,
Devin
Daniel-
ReplyDeleteDevin is correct. I don't see how making it "Jewish" saves the Christian from the context that Jealousy here means the same, and is the same translation from the Septuagint.
So as far as I can tell, I've left the anomaly frittering within it's context and you've simply tried to find a harmonization to semantically change the meaning of the word, so assuming I even grant you that (although this would be a stretch in what one allows for), it may do away with the problem of God's nature/character but not of God sewing confusion via divine revelation and inspiration. My criticism remains.
No offense, but I don't see your argument as a sturdy one, simply another attempted harmonization. But I do appreciate you taking the time to comment! It's always good to get another perspective. Thanks for dropping by!
it's not a virtue to be absent of anger. so when someone supposedly loyal to you has dishonored the relationship, i would laugh at a man who simply "walked away." there is nothing noble about that kind of stoicism. in fact, anger in a partner can be a comforting sign that they take the relationship seriously. and so to God. there is nothing trivial about His jealousy; it is a manly characteristic.
ReplyDeleteDaniel-
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think you were making a reply to Devin's comment, I just had to add that anger is another human emotion, as is jealousy.
At any rate, anger is an emotion of helplessness, and because it is related to jealousy in that sense (in the context given) I don't see how such an attribute isn't an anthropromorphization of God. So that says to me that God probably didn't say it, and that likely anything attributed to God is likely man-made to begin with.
Yet taking the devotional interpretation, we may additionally know the fact that God supposedly said it to Moses directly gives it more credence than the third party revelation unto Paul or other disciples, if you are to take such an account seriously to begin with.
And that's what I tried to do here, since Christians so often refuse to accept that the skeptical argument that it was all man-made, the terms of the apologetics are restricted to the devotional Christian interpretation, and I was just attempting to show how such thinking is inadequate.
But when doing an exegesis of any material, scriptures or otherwise, you can only work with what you are given. Someone once asked me why I don't spend as much time or energy critically scrutinizing Shakespeare with the same vigor I do the Bible, and the truth is, one simply doesn't have to. Shakespeare is extremely well written, unlike the Bible. There's that much less to nit-pick about.
But in the end, that's why the Bible fascinates me, I suppose. It has all of these layers and elements which show us that it's one of humanities first attempts at philosophy, science, and literature. So although it is very poorly constructed, , and without editing or continuity a headache to read through, it is for those amateur historians like myself, it is truly fascinating.
i find your syllogism "anthropomorphization, therefore probably not" to be interesting. i would like to hear more about the premise it involves.
ReplyDeletebut then again, i don't approach the argument from the angle of whether it's provable or supportable that God said any thing. that seems to be what you're doing.
neither do i simply accept everything the bible says. i don't regard it like protestants as the infallible word of God.
what i do is consider whether a testimony of God's command or statement makes sense. and i find it makes sense that God should be like a jealous lover towards the jews, and that He also should reveal Himself as charitable love.
Daniel-
ReplyDeleteI guess my syllogism stems from the critical reading skills I gained from years of studying literary theory and getting my first degree in advanced theory and criticism, which leads one to detect root traces of story telling myth.
For example, there are discernible patterns to oral tales which later get jotted down as folklore in the written form. Phrases like "God said unto Moses..." or the alternate form of "God spake..." are often signs of a story teller informing the listener that this is the 'thing' that God said.
But this sign or oral story telling roots is different than actual recorded histories, which often read, "In the year *** the people of *** had a revelation from God."
There are also signs of literary borrowing in the old Testament. As I've discussed elsewhere, Noah's flood story is not Jewish, but simply an interpolated Mesopotamian myth with direct wordings lifted from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.
When there are word for word borrowings, this leads one to high skepticism, since the probability of it being a coincidence is unlikely. The logical conclusion is, as is with much of the Old and New Testament, there are many borrowings since plagiarism was often a sign of tribute rather than theft in those early periods.
When I see these markers when reading, I have to take the information with a grain of salt, especially when there are those who claim, as Protestants do, that it is entirely historical and factual. If so, then they have to account for verbatim copying and litterary patterns which frequently repeat and are known to have story telling origins, and a whole slew of other logical problems which arise by forcing historization.
Therefore, when the Bible gives a "human" attribute to God, as was common among the Greek deities as well, I see such as a sign of unabashed myth. But that's just a brief overview of one of the many processes I use to discern and understand a text. There's a lot more to it, of course, but to go into detail would take more in depth effort.
As for your comment about looking for the "hidden testimony" of God, or what have you, is simply what any religious person does when they interpret their holy scriptures. The Buddhist monks I have spoken with say relatively the same thing when they memorize their thousand year old scrolls, entire tomes of spiritual wisdom, and so I understand the mind set. I just don't think the "spiritual" or "revelatory" experiences carry any credible weight in establishing facts about reality or giving credibility to a far-fetched claim. I think it takes more 'evidence' than that, and even more so when there is abundant evidence pointing to the contrary.
Daniel-
ReplyDeleteI never said I wouldn't be angry. That is, like Tristian said, a "human" emotion. I would never be void of anger. That is a silly understanding of what I said. I said I would not become "irate". As a human I am not exempt of the human emotions we all display and experience. It is the way we choose to act emotionally that makes us different. I don't let my anger escilate to a point of becoming irrational. I simply bite my lip and walk away. Vindication or revenge is not a virtue.
Jealousy is a petty and trivial human emotion. But as is expected no two people will ever see eye to eye on every arbitrary response to human emotion. The way I respond is indicative to me and me alone.
Also, while anger is a vital human emotion it is also dangerous. Anger can lead to irrational thinking and decision making. Anger can also lead to violence. But we humans choose how we act. We either choose to let our anger fill us up and act with rage or we can let it fill us up with a righteous sort of anger. You see the problem with God in the Bible is that he being a "just" God is not all to just most of the time. He punishes our disloyalty by sending plagues, killing our offspring and family, flooding the world, enslaving his chosen people, etc... You see, even by human standards--which I would expect to be lower than God's--a person who lets his anger lead to killing people like Maurice Clemmens, who slaughtered 4 Lakewood Police officers while doing their morning paperwork at a Forza coffee shop all because he held anger and hatred towards Police, is deemed a criminal and dangerous to society. So yes, I see God's oh so human emotion of anger leading to murder just the same as I see Maurice Clemmens. No better than a bitter cop killing lunatic. Why couldn't God, being an all-powerful God, find a non-human way of dealing with his creation? If God is only bound to using human ways and he chose to kill to induce loyalty then he is no better than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Hussein and should be rejected.
Devin
I'm glad it was simply a silly misunderstanding. Those seem to abound in arguments like this, where opponents make nearly personal statements about themselves while stating assertions and appraisals of behavior. It is always too convenient to attempt gaining advantage in the argument by making an opponent and his judgements appear silly. I must have been off my guard against resorting to this.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, regarding emotional states, opponents could argue on and on about what is justified and what is noble in them. I would guess--and it's a wild guess, considering I have nearly no analytical Biblical scholarship--that your kind of objections have been raised since monotheology first began. After all, most ancient theologies were quite comfortable in explicitly acknowledging some diabolical maniac as their god. (The Jews, as a whole, seem not to have done this, if only not explicitly.) And with your kind of moral sense being around at that time, how many must have made the same connections you're making? I would even offer the opinion that my assertion--of the Lover's jealously--which is Biblical--was developed by prophets who were consciously offering images alternative to yours, that is to explain the same phenomena of plagues and so forth, but using the image of a lover rather than a maniac. Are you familiar with the Hendrix song "Hey Joe"? If you are, you understand what kind of image I'm trying to use. I would suggest this one instead of yours. It might be my old-fashioned style, but I can't pass Joe off as a "trivial" or "petty" lover.
To an omni-max god, all emotions would be petty and trivial, especially emotions of anger. How could an omni-max god ever become angry or jealous to begin with? He already knows everything that is going to happen and has the ability to literally make any outcome occur. Yet, somehow he still has outcomes that occur that anger him? This makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteGCT-
ReplyDeleteYou hit the point right on the head!
This is why it is an "anthropromorphization" of God's character, if we are assuming there is something to humanize.
By the Christian and Biblical definition of an all knowing all loving God, this emotional response would be IMPOSSIBLE, unless God was, of course, not all loving. A capricious and wicked deity who was quite insane might be capable of random acts of jealousy, but not a loving one. The emotion would be foreign to him.
And it's not just the OT God's temprement and emotional flair up that are a problem either. God actually appears in human form twice in the OT alongside his chosen race, and Christians never ever address how he could have taken human from before the antonment other than to say all things are possible with God.
But this doesn't do away with the inherent errors and fallacies which contradict what they love to teach about God. But if you consider it a myth, a good old fashion yarn of epic proportions, then none of the problematic bits really matter too much. You can enjoy the tale as a myth, just as the Greek pantheon of gods of old, and it can become even more meaningful--in a symbolic sort of way.
Christians want to have it both ways. But when all is considered it is just impossible.
The language of the prophets predicates emotionality to God because it is a concise format to communicate His intentions. I am going so far as to name the prophets and scribes as the originators of this language, but I will not deny their wisdom in using the words we are debating about.
ReplyDeleteThe events associated with God's jealousy very likely did occur. These events are now under scrutiny as if they were the actions of a personal deity--because it is assumed all purposeful actions may come under judgement in this forum.
However, the class of actions described by the prophets is something completely different. In this case, I believe the relevant aspect of the actions is the authority of the Performer. We regularly question whether someone has authority to do something when it is something very intrusive to do. And in this case, as the scale of the events testify (do they not?), there is authority at work well beyond the bounds of any human, except the special Christian case.
The authority is unquestionable. As for the intent of the actions--which is the source of the dubious anthropomorphization--we get a sense of that by an overall reading of the Bible, and it is debated in forums much more conservative than this.
For now, I have offered an argument to justify the actions of God, in reference specifically to the passage predicating "jealousy" to Him.
Friedrich Nietzsche said:
ReplyDeleteA god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?