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

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 96
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
He intentionally does not limit himself to our ways of logic 
Then any statements made about the Yahweh will by necessity be arguments from ignorance and there is no reason to continue this discussion. Anything that does not follow the law of logical necessity is by definition beyond pur epistemology. 
#92
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
you can not only make an ALWAYS assertion
It is not an assertion it is an opinion. 
#93
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Then any statements made about the Yahweh will by necessity be arguments from ignorance and there is no reason to continue this discussion. Anything that does not follow the law of logical necessity is by definition beyond pur epistemology. 
LOL @ you. 

don't squib out now, it is just getting interesting.  My point was to direct you back to the alleged flaws in Adam and Eve's character. Yet you want to speculate about God. I don't see any reason why we don't just use the source material in respect of God and who he says he is and start with those as a given in our little hypothetical.  Unless, of course there is some particular reason this does not assist your case. 

Given that the source material says God is good. And it says that the humans he created were very good.  It has been your position that since the humans fell into sin, that they were flawed. I cannot see the flaw and you have only vaguely tried to perhaps identify some, without committing to the same.  I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion that Adam and Eve were mature adults who knew what they doing and despite knowing the implications - went ahead anyway. You disagreed, suggesting they were child like, innocent perhaps, but naïve at least. Is naivetee a flaw? And is it a flaw in the design? 

Don't get distracted by the asides. 
#94
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Either we can use logic and reason to understand the Yahweh and his characteristics or we cannot understand the Yahweh and his characteristics. I have no desire to debate an unknowable. I don't have any real desire to hear your arguments either if they depart from logic and reason. If it is the case that pur logic is useless in deciphering the character in the reference we have agreed upon then discussion of the character in regards to the subject material is not going to bear fruit.
#95
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Either we can use logic and reason to understand the Yahweh and his characteristics or we cannot understand the Yahweh and his characteristics. I have no desire to debate an unknowable. I don't have any real desire to hear your arguments either if they depart from logic and reason. If it is the case that pur logic is useless in deciphering the character in the reference we have agreed upon then discussion of the character in regards to the subject material is not going to bear fruit.
We are not talking about God per se. I asked you originally where did God go wrong? You said with his creation.  That is where we at.  Not with God. 

In any event, I am not talking about the unknowable. Recently you said you were happy to go with the hypothetical. Are you changing your mind now? 

Hypothetically, let us go with what the original sources says - God is good. God created everything. Including humanity. What is the flaw? 

Why are you trying to make this about logic?  I am not opposed to logic, nor is God for that matter. But the logic issue is a distraction - a red herring for want of a better term - from what we were discussing. 

Let us talk about the alleged flaw. 
#96
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Hypothetically, let us go with what the original sources says - God is good. God created everything. Including humanity. What is the flaw? 
The flaw in your argument at least is in simply declaring things good without a specifically defined axioms of what makes a thing "good". 

We may simply be in fundamental disagreement about what that word means in this context. The Yahweh does not fit in with my opinion of what is good based on the information presented because he is responsible for a large degree of human suffering and death. I understand that you would like to focus on a single idea but the truth is I'm not sure what part of Adam and Eve or their character the Yahweh found specifically unworthy but clearly this was the case and he really has no one to blame but himself. In fact if he was going to get rid of all the wicked people and start over this would have been the opportune moment, not the flood. What not just erase Adam and Eve from existence and make better (or at least different) people if there was a particular standard that they did not live up to and killing humans for being "wicked" is morally permissible? (That it is morally permissible is another thing we disagree on by the way)