how can God be Love?

[Vladimir]

Here is how Paul (inspired by God of Love?) defines Love:

NASB 1 Cor. 13: 4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

Contrast this with God's statements about himself:
Exodus 20:5 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, ...

As far as arrogance, Cambridge dictionary defines arrogance as:

arrogance

1. the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:"

Does God have these qualities? Isn't God more important than anyone?

Here is a bit from Albert Moeler:

The Divine Egotist—Is God Arrogant, Selfish, or Megalomaniacal?

Is the God of the Bible the supreme egotist? That question arises when human beings contemplate the meaning of the truth that God does everything for the sake of his own glory. Is God then a megalomaniac?...

albertmohler.com

Does this make God a megalomaniac?

Our starting point for answering this question is the perfection of God. As the only perfect being, all that God does is perfect. He perfectly seeks to display his perfection. He is even jealous of his own glory. As John Calvin reminds us, "God is called jealous, because he permits no rivalry which may detract from his glory." In a human this attitude would be ugly and contemptible. In God it is perfect and holy.

As Herman Bavinck expressed this truth, "God can rest in nothing other than himself and cannot be satisfied with anything less than himself. He has no alternative but to seek his own honor." Similarly, though from a very different theological perspective, Karl Barth defined God's glory as "his dignity and right, not only to maintain, but to prove and declare, to denote and almost as it were to make himself conspicuous and everywhere apparent as the One he is."

So, if love doesn't brag, is not jealous is not arrogant, doesn't brag, why is God considered "loving" when he himself doesn't fall under this definition?
Also, love doesn't keep an account of wrongs. Again, this doesn't apply to God who records everything and judges everyone at the end.

So, shouldn't the definition of love change when it comes to God?

 

[Mike McK]

It's funny how atheists always try to hold God to human standards and act surprised when it doesn't work.

 

[bigthinker]

It's funny how atheists always try to hold God to human standards and act surprised when it doesn't work.

It doesn't go so well when God is held to God's standards.
And it's even worse when we hold God to the Christian's standards.

 

[Mike McK]

It doesn't go so well when God is held to God's standards

Please cite those verses you believe contain those standards, as well as those verses you believe give you the authority to judge God.

And it's even worse when we hold God to the Christian's standards.

Christians don't judge God.

 

[bigthinker]

Please cite those verses you believe contain those standards, as well as those verses you believe give you the authority to judge God.

Christians don't judge God.

My authority to judge God is inherent, it isn't given by any verse.
Christians do in fact judge God. They judge God positively.
Which isn't surprising given that God reflects the Christian's own morals and values.

 

[Mike McK]

My authority to judge God is inherent, it isn't given by any verse.

Well, that's why the Bible calls atheists fools.

Christians do in fact judge God. They judge God positively.

Then they need to repent.

Which isn't surprising given that God reflects the Christian's own morals and values.

Actually, it's the other way.around. It's the Christian who is to reflect God's morals and values.

 

[Whatsisface]

Well, that's why the Bible calls atheists fools.

What counts is not that the Bible calls atheists anything, but the reasons it gives for doing so. What reasons does the Bible give for this?

 

[bigthinker]

Well, that's why the Bible calls atheists fools.

And that affects me how?
It's not as if the Bible is authoritative on such matters.

Then they need to repent.

Yeah agreed. And not just for that.

Actually, it's the other way.around. It's the Christian who is to reflect God's morals and values.

Actually it isn't. Gods are the believers idealized self image.
This is why there are so many different Gods, each of which totally agrees with it's believer.

 

[positive atheist]

And that affects me how?
It's not as if the Bible is authoritative on such matters.

Yeah agreed. And not just for that.

Actually it isn't. Gods are the believers idealized self image.
This is why there are so many different Gods, each of which totally agrees with it's believer.

This is why there are so many different Gods, each of which totally agrees with it's believer.

Outstanding point that I have never heard brought up. Why is it that every religion has believers that just "by coincidence" agree with everything their god says and does? Where is the religion where believers find the god lacking, or think the god has gone overboard, or where believers disagree with the god's judgement, or where believers think the god could have done a better job writing the sacred book, or where believers think the way the god set up the whole universe, heaven, hell, salvation, eschatological plan, etc. could be improved upon?

Why are there no gods that encourage believers to think for themselves, question, be skeptical, or doubt or try other religions? If the religion is true wouldn't that lead believers to the truth?

Just "by coincidence" every religion has believers all who agree their god has done everything perfectly?

Sounds highly doubtful on it's own. When you consider all the different world religions and even different sects it becomes almost absurdly doubtful.

 

[bigthinker]

Outstanding point that I have never heard brought up. Why is it that every religion has believers that just "by coincidence" agree with everything their god says and does? Where is the religion where believers find the god lacking, or think the god has gone overboard, or where believers disagree with the god's judgement, or where believers think the god could have done a better job writing the sacred book, or where believers think the way the god set up the whole universe, heaven, hell, salvation, eschatological plan, etc. could be improved upon?

Bingo!
It also explains the variances in Gods;
a judgy person tends to believe in a "just" God.
The God of gracious people is believed to be merciful.

Why are there no gods that encourage believers to think for themselves, question, be skeptical, or doubt or try other religions? If the religion is true wouldn't that lead believers to the truth?

Just "by coincidence" every religion has believers all who agree their god has done everything perfectly?

Sounds highly doubtful on it's own. When you consider all the different world religions and even different sects it becomes almost absurdly doubtful.

yep.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Contrast this with God's statements about himself:
Exodus 20:5 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,

Since you're not a Jew wandering in the wilderness sixteen centuries before Christ's death and resurrection inaugurated a New Covenant, and since you weren't living in an age and a locale when and where fallen elohim were being worshiped to the detriment of the worshipers, you do not need to worry. He loving warning against such worship is not specifically meant for you. I seriously doubt for example that you worship Molech or Baal. His jealousy is a result of His protective love.

 

[Tiburon]

Since you're not a Jew wandering in the wilderness sixteen centuries before Christ's death and resurrection inaugurated a New Covenant, and since you weren't living in an age and a locale when and where fallen elohim were being worshiped to the detriment of the worshipers, you do not need to worry. He loving warning against such worship is not specifically meant for you. I seriously doubt for example that you worship Molech or Baal. His jealousy is a result of His protective love.

LOL. A new covenant that was also for the peoples of Israel and Judah. Are you one of those?

 

[Harry Leggs]

Here is how Paul (inspired by God of Love?) defines Love:



Contrast this with God's statements about himself:
Exodus 20:5 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, ...

I don't get what you are saying here about jealousy which would be a normal human reaction in the case of a loved one possibly involved with another lover. It is not necessarily negative. God is jealous because He loves us and it is not always returned? It would seem if God did not care one way or another, there would be no jealousy.

As far as arrogance, Cambridge dictionary defines arrogance as:

arrogance

1. the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:"

None of this disproves God. It is a negative assessment from a relativist meaning opinion which is mostly worthless.

Does this make God a megalomaniac?

God having Godlike qualities?

Our starting point for answering this question is the perfection of God. As the only perfect being, all that God does is perfect. He perfectly seeks to display his perfection.

Display? Where? Conditions here are not what they were meant to be. Humans screwed that up. Either way we live better than kings of old who never had cars and cell phones for example. It could all end tomorrow but you know what. Overall i have had a good life and got more than i deserved. It could always be worse. What exactly do you think God owes you since in theory every breath you take can be taken away?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

LOL.

You're not even laughing to yourself, much less out loud. There's nothing humorous occurring here, just your humorless ignorance about dispensations.

A new covenant that was also for the peoples of Israel and Judah.

Yep, for all mankind.

 

[bigthinker]

I don't get what you are saying here about jealousy which would be a normal human reaction in the case of a loved one possibly involved with another lover. It is not necessarily negative. God is jealous because He loves us and it is not always returned? It would seem if God did not care one way or another, there would be no jealousy.

None of this disproves God. It is a negative assessment from a relativist meaning opinion which is mostly worthless.

God having Godlike qualities?

Display? Where? Conditions here are not what they were meant to be. Humans screwed that up. Either way we live better than kings of old who never had cars and cell phones for example. It could all end tomorrow but you know what. Overall i have had a good life and got more than i deserved. It could always be worse. What exactly do you think God owes you since in theory every breath you take can be taken away?

We expect nothing from your God, which is appropriate since it delivers nothing.
Regarding the story about humans "screwing it up"
That's either because humans are more powerful than God or because it's how God intended the conditions to be.
But that's just within the context of the story.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

We expect nothing from your God, which is appropriate since it delivers nothing.

And He will continue to deliver nothing to big thinkers who consider Him an "it."

 

[Harry Leggs]

We expect nothing from your God, which is appropriate since it delivers nothing.

You do not know that. You simply assume that is the case. In theory, you would not exist or have life absent God. Do you have a horrible life? Even if you have a computer and a roof over your head, you have it made relative to your ancestors many of whom probably had nothing. What about your female ancestors? What did they have relative to what you have? Go back 200 yrs in your ancestry. What did your female ancestors have relative to what you have today? How bout health care? Smallpox? Do you have to worry about smallpox? Because your ancestors certainly did. You live once, you die and then are judged. As is it sounds like you are living in relative paradise and still have a chip on your shoulder. You really do not have a lot to complain about. I know i don't.

Regarding the story about humans "screwing it up"

Right. Humans screwed up. If the bank repos your house or car, it is not the fault of the bank. It is your fault for not keeping up with payments.

That's either because humans are more powerful than God or because it's how God intended the conditions to be.

God's intent was paradise and provided with all they needed. What does God owe you?

But that's just within the context of the story.

No lesson there for you to learn or glean?

 

[bigthinker]

You do not know that.

We know from extensive personal experience and through observation.

You simply assume that is the case.

We've experienced and observed for ourselves.

In theory, you would not exist or have life absent God.

This is a mere (empty) assertion.

Do you have a horrible life? Even if you have a computer and a roof over your head, you have it made relative to your ancestors many of whom probably had nothing. What about your female ancestors? What did they have relative to what you have? Go back 200 yrs in your ancestry. What did your female ancestors have relative to what you have today? How bout health care? Smallpox? Do you have to worry about smallpox? Because your ancestors certainly did. You live once, you die and then are judged. As is it sounds like you are living in relative paradise and still have a chip on your shoulder.

This is just your rationalization.
What you interpret as a chip on the shoulder is impatience with believers who assert things they cannot and will not substantiate and yet continue to make empty assertions.

Right. Humans screwed up. If the bank repos your house or car, it is not the fault of the bank.

A bank that knows it will have to repo the car is responsible. Perhaps even intentional and predatory.
Doesn't make your god look like the good guy here.

God's intent was paradise and provided with all they needed.

So God failed?

What does God owe you?

God owes nothing. How could it?
I've explained this already, yes?

No lesson there for you to learn or glean?

Absolutely there is something to learn: religion is for the gullible.

 

[Harry Leggs]

This is a mere (empty) assertion.

You have no counter explanation for life here that would beat Genesis.

We've experienced and observed for ourselves.

Have not experienced everything and was not present for most of history

This is just your rationalization.

If you conced you have a good life in relative paradise then that would be a fact, not a rationalization. It probably means judgment will be harsher for you as opposed to your ancestors who were in poverty(?), had no rights, and were subject to horrible diseases with no known cure. No gratitude at all. That is really negative. Also, your unbelief may have negative effects on your offspring, in effect cursing your offspring so to speak. So it is not just you. Your offspring may ask why they have to suffer on account of your unbelief. I know humans do that with Adam and Eve. Why should we suffer? There are all sorts of negatives here.

What you interpret as a chip on the shoulder is impatience with believers who assert things they cannot and will not substantiate and yet continue to make empty assertions.

The assertion with Christians is bodliy resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact backed by evidence. An objective event in time-space. That means it is not an empty claim. It is a historical claim. Cricufied by Pilate which is considered historical and bodily resurrected is rejected not on account of evidence but on account of philosophical conivctions.

A bank that knows it will have to repo the car is responsible. Perhaps even intentional and predatory.
Doesn't make your god look like the good guy here.


So God failed?

Not any more than the bank failed in repossessing your car or house. That is why i put the analogy up there in the first place.

God owes nothing. How could it?

So you admit God owes you nothing yet seem to believe (via blind faith) is not the primary cause of life here including yours. Earth must be your maker according to your model which is more blind faith.

I've explained this already, yes?

Missed it

Absolutely there is something to learn: religion is for the gullible.

I was referencing the Bible, not religion. You are free to your opinion or in this case your convictions that are not moved by evidence. You can go thru life and it will end. The Bible promises judgment on the other side. You have no fear of God which is why you would throw Hebrew male infants into the Nile if Pharaoh commanded. You fear Pharaoh more than God. For moral relativists, killing infants would be the only rational thing to do. Your underlying includes the strong can kill the weak (atavistic & regressive) whereas in Christianity the strong are morally obligated to protect the weak. It is progressive and superior and was promoted via the Bible thousands of yrs ago. Seems you prefer Stone Age. Just sayin

 

[bigthinker]

Or a fact.

It might be if there were evidence but you have presented none. As such it is indistinguishable from mere assertion. That YOU believe it to be fact means nothing to us.

You have no counter. The assertion of God-caused life beats anything you have offered.

It beats everything except the scientific evidence.
There is no evidence that God even exists, let alone created anything.

The God's explanation is not falsified because you do not like it or thru opinion.

There is no "God's explanation".
It's not falsifiable because it is mere belief and not testable

The assertion with Christians is bodliy resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact backed by evidence. An objective event in time-space.

Right, mere assertion of evidence. None provided as of yet, however.

Not any more than the bank failed in repossessing your car or house. That is why i put the analogy up there in the first place.

Its a good analogy: if the bank writes a bad loan, the bank is also responsible.
There is simply no way that your God gets a pass here.

So you admit God owes you nothing

Correct, just as Batman and Santa Claus owe me nothing.

yet seem to believe (via blind faith) is not the primary cause of life here including yours.

I have no evidence that a God -who's very existence has yet to be factually established, had anything to do with the cause of life.
You're making some HUGE assertions here.
On what do you base your assertions? Belief?

Earth must be your maker according to your model which is more blind faith.

Must it?
Based on what?

I was referencing the Bible, not religion.

It matters not to me.
I don't care what you believe about the Bible.

You are free to your opinion

Yep.

or in this case your convictions that are not moved by evidence.

Right. My lack of faith and belief in your story is based on the lack of evidence supporting your story and beliefs.

You can go thru life and it will end.

Yes.

The Bible promises judgment on the other side.

And Santa promises toys for all the good little girls and boys.

You have no fear of God

Correct.

which is why you would throw Hebrew male infants into the Nile if Pharaoh commanded.

no. Why would that be the case?
What an ignorant and absurd thing to say.
Surely you don't believe such nonsense?

You fear Pharaoh more than God. For moral relativists, killing infants would be the only rational thing to do.

There is a story in the Bible about your God drowning ALL the infants, children and unborn.
You have no moral ground to stand on.