Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[MAGSolo]

So I need to ask a question now. Why is there such a noticeable lack of cohesion in what believers actually believe or understand? Earlier when I was talking about the issue of God getting angry and striking Uzzah down for touching the ark, both PaulSacremento and Byblos said very authoritatively that God does not get angry or jealous, that these are mere humans describing God in a way that they can understand. Nobody spoke up to question this notion so I assume that to mean that most here are in agreement with this assertion. Im reading this book that Jlay asked me to read and in it he specifically says that God does get angry and jealous and he explains why he does so and why its good. So how does stuff like this happen. Is Paul Copan not familiar with whatever interpretation or exegesis methods that PaulSacramento and Byblos used to determine that God doesnt really get jealous or angry? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you cant even agree on seemingly simple things like this? If I read the bible and it says that God gets angry and jealous and then people on a message board assertively claim that God does not get angry or jealous and then I am reading a book that is supposed to be explaining things about God and the author is explaining why its reasonable and logical for God to get jealous, how am I supposed to know who to believe?

[MAGSolo]

Also Jlay, Id appreciate it if you could respond to the last post I made to you that was addressing some things you said.

[PaulSacramento]

So I need to ask a question now. Why is there such a noticeable lack of cohesion in what believers actually believe or understand? Earlier when I was talking about the issue of God getting angry and striking Uzzah down for touching the ark, both PaulSacremento and Byblos said very authoritatively that God does not get angry or jealous, that these are mere humans describing God in a way that they can understand. Nobody spoke up to question this notion so I assume that to mean that most here are in agreement with this assertion. Im reading this book that Jlay asked me to read and in it he specifically says that God does get angry and jealous and he explains why he does so and why its good. So how does stuff like this happen. Is Paul Copan not familiar with whatever interpretation or exegesis methods that PaulSacramento and Byblos used to determine that God doesnt really get jealous or angry? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you cant even agree on seemingly simple things like this? If I read the bible and it says that God gets angry and jealous and then people on a message board assertively claim that God does not get angry or jealous and then I am reading a book that is supposed to be explaining things about God and the author is explaining why its reasonable and logical for God to get jealous, how am I supposed to know who to believe?

In which book does Paul Copan state that God gets angry and jealous like we humans do?
I have his " Is God a Moral monster?" and at least in that one, I don't recall reading that...

[RickD]

Mag, I think the issue you are confused about, has to do with Anthropomorphism. See what it means, and it might make more sense. In this case, I believe it's the attributing of human emotions, to God.

[MAGSolo]

So I need to ask a question now. Why is there such a noticeable lack of cohesion in what believers actually believe or understand? Earlier when I was talking about the issue of God getting angry and striking Uzzah down for touching the ark, both PaulSacremento and Byblos said very authoritatively that God does not get angry or jealous, that these are mere humans describing God in a way that they can understand. Nobody spoke up to question this notion so I assume that to mean that most here are in agreement with this assertion. Im reading this book that Jlay asked me to read and in it he specifically says that God does get angry and jealous and he explains why he does so and why its good. So how does stuff like this happen. Is Paul Copan not familiar with whatever interpretation or exegesis methods that PaulSacramento and Byblos used to determine that God doesnt really get jealous or angry? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you cant even agree on seemingly simple things like this? If I read the bible and it says that God gets angry and jealous and then people on a message board assertively claim that God does not get angry or jealous and then I am reading a book that is supposed to be explaining things about God and the author is explaining why its reasonable and logical for God to get jealous, how am I supposed to know who to believe?

In which book does Paul Copan state that God gets angry and jealous like we humans do?
I have his " Is God a Moral monster?" and at least in that one, I don't recall reading that...

If you indeed read it, you either skimmed through it or read it or just have very bad recall. Chapter 4, a few specific quotes:

God's jealously isnt capricious or petty. God is jealous for our best interests
When we apply this to God's jealousy, we can say that its aroused not just to protect a relationship...
God's jealousy and anger spring from love and concern, not from hurt pride or immaturity
God gets jealous or angry precisely because he cares

Please dont sit here and now tell me that he doesnt mean that God literally gets jealous or angry. Nowhere does he indicate in the least bit that Gods anger or jealousy isnt literal or that its a figurative manifestation of mans notions of God. He plainly explains specifically why God gets angry and jealous.

[RickD]

Please dont sit here and now tell me that he doesnt mean that God literally gets jealous or angry. Nowhere does he indicate in the least bit that Gods anger or jealousy isnt literal or that its a figurative manifestation of mans notions of God. He plainly explains specifically why God gets angry and jealous.

Mag, I haven't read that book, so I can't comment on that. But, this conversation, about the idea of God's emotions, has come up before. I guess the idea that God reacts to things we do, isn't the same as when I react with emotion to something someone does. First, God knows what we will do, before we do it. So He doesn't have the same "reaction" that we have, to something someone does. I think that's part of where the problem is. God's jealousy isn't an emotional kind of jealousy.

I'm not sure if I helped, or just confused you.

[RickD]

Mag, here's what Byblos said on another thread, about anthropomorphism:

It's called anthropomorphism. We ascribe human qualities to God in order for us to relate to and make sense of Him. It does not mean God is actually angry, disappointed, or surprised in any way.

Mag, I assure you, if you're patient, and open, there are answers to all your objections. All of your questions have been dealt with before. You are asking good questions. You are digging deep, and are skeptical like me.

[jlay]

Mag,

Several issues at play here.
Does God GET angry? In one sense yes, and in another, no.
Obviously, we understand anger as well....we understand anger. Anger for us, is an emotional response. A person's switch is flipped for some reason or another. In other words, the person wasn't angry and then became angered. That response may be justified, or it may not. In another sense we may have a constant anger or hatred towards certain things. Personally, I have a hatred towards people who are cruel to animals. My anger may be aroused when I see an example of such cruelty, but the source of it is based in my character. The difference however in myself and God is well... a lot. I lack several traits.

If God is omniscient and immutable, then God already knows everything that you and I, and Uzzah will do, and nothing can change that. The Bible says that God is angry with the wicked everyday. Immutable means He doesn't change, that being that he is not subject (contingent) to anyone or anything.
God is a jealous God (Deut.6:15) So, if a believer says that God is NOT angry or jealous, then they are ignoring the plainest reading of scripture. The real question is this. Is God's anger and jealousy like ours? The answer is no. There are some old threads we can probably dig up on this. Anthropomorphism, and does God experience emotion.

Now, obviously mankind will experience the anger and wrath when he trangresses God's boundaries. God will "pour out" His wrath. His anger will be "aroused." But we have to understand the use of these terms in that they are designed to speak to people so that they can apprehend God's intentional involvement in the world, and how He is dealing with mankind. I gave several examples earlier in the thread. For example, the electrical line that constantly has current running through it. It is 'aroused' when someone touches it, and they ground the current. The analogy isn't perfect, because I don't want to make it seem as if God is arbitrary, as He isn't. I only use this analogy to show that man's perception of things is often described different than they actually are in reality. For example, when I say I watched the sunset today, I am not making a claim that the sun is orbiting the earth, or that the sun actually sunk into the horizon. It is a phrase that describes things from our perspective. In turn the Bible is written with men, and with those perceptions in mind. If I wrote down in my journal that I watched the sunset, and then 500 years later, that term had fallen out of usage, the reader may think, "that superstitious moron. He actually thinks the sun moves around the earth." What it doesn't change is the reality that I observed an actual event, in which there was a real sun, a real earth and a real me.

Regarding Uzzah. The text provides us with some specific words.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God
We can know from reading this that God does in some sense have anger. It can be brought upon man based on his actions. Uzzah's death was the direct result of Uzzah transgressing the nature and rule of God. That is exegesis. We can also bring in Eisegesis. This is when we go beyond the words, not based on exploring the culture and language, but based on, SELF. Example: Since I experience anger a certain way, then I can ASSUME that God is like me or other people. 1)Ignorant of future events. 2)Flippant. 3)Not in control of my emotions. Sadly, most people (including myself) do this when they are reading. They make assumptions and most of the time without even realizing it. This is exactly the problem I see based on some of your early comments. You were dead set convinced that you weren't adding your personal bias to the text, but I'm sorry to say, you were. You were totally sold that the text blatantly said something, but the fact is the text itself doesn't say anything beyond the words that I quoted above. The rest is your eisegesis.

I was under the impression that the bible was intended to be the word of God for all mankind, not a select few people in one time period. This is the point of me asking repeatedly about the bible being inspired by God and thus having divine authority. As I said earlier, these are issues we expect from mortal men writing to a time constrained audience. I would not expect issues like this if God played any major role since he would understand the importance of the bible having the need to transcend the time frame or language of any individual audience. The bible has problems that you would expect a book completely conceived and written by men to have. How do I write a book that will encompass and transcend all time and language with no problems of context, idioms, vernacular, region, time, and etc? These are issues that you expect men to have great difficulty overcoming, not an omnipotent and omnipresent God.

To put it bluntly, your impressions were wrong. The Bible certainly doesn't make that claim. The Bible was written to a specific people at a specific time. Now, that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't also have a broader purpose. But specifically, when a book is addressed to a certain people, relating to events at a specific time, we should probably not assume otherwise. If a part of scripture says, "Here ye O' Israel..." why would we ignore what it plainly says?
As far as the problem, it is man's problem, not God's. The bible has lots of problems. The first problem was when Adam and Eve rejected God's clear instruction. And the problems have been going on ever since. The Bible deals in reality, not fantasy. It deal with real people and real problems, and it doesn't try to white wash over the difficult things. You do understand that man is not perfect? Do you also understand that an eternal, immutable, omniscient being cannot create eternal, immutable, omniscient beings.

My main issue with that is that I have not seen anything authoritative, no consensus agreement that your interpretation is factually correct. Youve simply stated that using a particular method you interpreted it a certain way. I have not seen anywhere else where there is any kind of agreement that God didnt actually just strike him down in anger as the bible says. If you can show me where there is some kind of unanimous agreement or even a strong majority consensus then your argument would be a little more compelling. You havent provided a single source that supports your claim that the way you have interpreted it is the correct way. So Im having a hard time seeing it as anything but your personal interpretation that you are trying hard to push as widely agreed upon fact

I never said God didn't strike down Uzzah in anger. I am simply saying your conceptions of anger are constrained by your individual eisegesis. You are drawing in your own presuppositions and agenda to analyze an ancient text. If you think there is any source to support that, then I'm all ears.
As far as agreement. Truth is not determined by popularity poll. If a class of students fail to answer "4" for the problem, "what is 2+2," it doesn't change the fact that there is a correct answer. I've learned enough to know that I can be wrong. You can reject my interpretation. But, I feel there is far more reason to reject yours.

Kudos on reading the book. I think Copan does an excellent job addressing a lot of issues, while helping the reader to understand cultural norms, language issues, etc. that are often ignored or dismissed, and therefore lead to objections, or apparent contradictions. That doesn't mean he will bat .1000, but overall, it is a strong book, and I think you'll be better for having read it.

[PaulSacramento]

So I need to ask a question now. Why is there such a noticeable lack of cohesion in what believers actually believe or understand? Earlier when I was talking about the issue of God getting angry and striking Uzzah down for touching the ark, both PaulSacremento and Byblos said very authoritatively that God does not get angry or jealous, that these are mere humans describing God in a way that they can understand. Nobody spoke up to question this notion so I assume that to mean that most here are in agreement with this assertion. Im reading this book that Jlay asked me to read and in it he specifically says that God does get angry and jealous and he explains why he does so and why its good. So how does stuff like this happen. Is Paul Copan not familiar with whatever interpretation or exegesis methods that PaulSacramento and Byblos used to determine that God doesnt really get jealous or angry? How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you cant even agree on seemingly simple things like this? If I read the bible and it says that God gets angry and jealous and then people on a message board assertively claim that God does not get angry or jealous and then I am reading a book that is supposed to be explaining things about God and the author is explaining why its reasonable and logical for God to get jealous, how am I supposed to know who to believe?

In which book does Paul Copan state that God gets angry and jealous like we humans do?
I have his " Is God a Moral monster?" and at least in that one, I don't recall reading that...

If you indeed read it, you either skimmed through it or read it or just have very bad recall. Chapter 4, a few specific quotes:

God's jealously isnt capricious or petty. God is jealous for our best interests
When we apply this to God's jealousy, we can say that its aroused not just to protect a relationship...
God's jealousy and anger spring from love and concern, not from hurt pride or immaturity
God gets jealous or angry precisely because he cares

Please dont sit here and now tell me that he doesnt mean that God literally gets jealous or angry. Nowhere does he indicate in the least bit that Gods anger or jealousy isnt literal or that its a figurative manifestation of mans notions of God. He plainly explains specifically why God gets angry and jealous.

I don't have the book in front of me, but going on memory, I recall that Paul was also make it clear the difference between HUMAN jealousy and anger and God's.
He used the same terms for simplicity sake of course, but by reading what he wrote in context with what he is saying, Paul is stating that God's is a "righteous and divine" "jealousy and anger" and not the type of anger and jealousy associate with humans.
So, now, I do NOT think that God gets "literally" jealous and angry like we humans do and yes I believe that these are human attributes given to God to help in our understanding of God.
And I am sure Paul would agree with me.
You can ask him of course on his facebook profile.

[MAGSolo]

So what do you think of Gods love? What kind of love is it?

[jlay]

Mag,

That might be a topic for another thread.

Mag, I also question some of your objections. For example.
Paul said, "In which book does Paul Copan state that God gets angry and jealous like we humans do?
I have his " Is God a Moral monster?" and at least in that one, I don't recall reading that..."

I haven't found anything in this thread where paul says that God doesn't have anger or jealousy.

You then sayPlease dont sit here and now tell me that he doesnt mean that God literally gets jealous or angry. Nowhere does he indicate in the least bit that Gods anger or jealousy isnt literal or that its a figurative manifestation of mans notions of God. He plainly explains specifically why God gets angry and jealous.

But just prior, you quote Copan who says,

God's jealously isnt capricious or petty. God is jealous for our best interests
When we apply this to God's jealousy, we can say that its aroused not just to protect a relationship...
God's jealousy and anger spring from love and concern, not from hurt pride or immaturity
God gets jealous or angry precisely because he cares

Now, I have read the book, and Copan also has more to say on the issue. I think Paul, Byb, and myself would agree on the main point with Copan that God's anger and jealousy are NOT like man's. The quote you provide doesn't create a problem for anything that I could find regarding Paul or Byb's comments. (If I missed something please help) The quote says that God's anger and jealousy AREN'T capricious or petty. Obviously that is not all that Copan says on the subject.
So, I'm very curious why you think this quote presented a conflict?

[MAGSolo]

Jlay I asked specifically: Does God not get angry or jealous?
Paul specifically said this:

Why would he?
Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being get angry at something that doesn't anger Him or get jealous of what?
These are just ways of the writers trying to make their audience understand.
Same as writers do now.

Byblos specifically said this:

No. These are attributes that WE assign to God in order to understand him better. It is called anthropomorphism. God does not get jealous or surprised or angry or any of those that attribute potentiality in God for God is pure actuality, pure existence, in fact he IS existence. Read up on divine simplicity

.
It is on page 16 of this thread and I have better things to do than to accuse people of saying things they didnt actually say.

[PaulSacramento]

Jlay I asked specifically: Does God not get angry or jealous?
Paul specifically said this:

Why would he?
Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being get angry at something that doesn't anger Him or get jealous of what?
These are just ways of the writers trying to make their audience understand.
Same as writers do now.

Byblos specifically said this:

No. These are attributes that WE assign to God in order to understand him better. It is called anthropomorphism. God does not get jealous or surprised or angry or any of those that attribute potentiality in God for God is pure actuality, pure existence, in fact he IS existence. Read up on divine simplicity

.
It is on page 16 of this thread and I have better things to do than to accuse people of saying things they didnt actually say.

Fair enough, we didn't make it clear that we were speaking of the human attributes given to God.
I should have said " Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful being get angry and jealous LIKE US?"
It seems obvious that the writers were infusing human qualities on a deity to make him and his will better understood by their readers.
So, when the bible writer says that God was angry and cursed the hebrews ( for example) we should understand that God was upset with what was done and acted with "righteous indignation" against them.
He was NOT "red faced" and screaming and irrational and stomping his feet, he was NOT angry in the human sense, but angry in a way that humans can relate to/understand.

[MAGSolo]

Paul, is that how you act when you get angry? Do yo stomp your feet and scream when you get angry?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, is that how you act when you get angry? Do yo stomp your feet and scream when you get angry?

Nope, but i know a lot of people that do, LOL !
I am not sure why you h ave such issues with understanding the qualities of "anger, jealousy" and such as simply human traits imposed on God by the human authors so that their audience could better grasp what they were reading.
We do that still at times, even with natural disaters and such, when we say the "sea was angry" do we mean ANGRY? no, of course not.
When we use descriptive language we are doing they to describe something and using a human "feeling" that all can relate to is very common.
Of course if one chooses to interpret those things as a literal AND concrete expression of God emotional disposition at the time, they are free to do so.