Hypocrisy starts at the top?

[AlexanderG]

Or that what appear to be "vices" to us may not be in the grand overview, which we do not have.

God created us, by that God has the right to give life or take away life. God understand why something has to be done even humans can not see or understand the reason behind it.

Exactly. My point is that the "grand overview" that we can't see, or the "reason behind it" that we don't understand, could just be that your god is evil. Or he could be inexplicably good. Or be a gaslighting moral hypocrite. And you have absolutely no method to tell the difference or show the difference, to know which one it is. Maybe you think your personal hopes and intuitions count as a method, but I don't.

I think this is a problem. I can imagine an infinite array of other gods that are obviously, unambiguously good, but you're stuck worshipping one that seems extremely sketchy. The Abrahamic god's OT description reads like the fan fiction an abusive bronze age warlord would write, which in Christianity is awkwardly merged with the NT preachings of an iron age SJW commune dweller. From an outsider perspective, there's too much baggage you you have to harmonize. Too many moral contradictions.

 

[PureX]

Exactly. My point is that the "grand overview" that we can't see, or the "reason behind it" that we don't understand, could just be that your god is evil. Or he could be inexplicably good. Or be a gaslighting moral hypocrite. And you have absolutely no way to tell the difference or show the difference, to know which one it is.

And neither do you. Yet for some reason, you insist on passing judgment in ignorance, anyway, and then assuming the worst.

Whatever is responsible for existence, existing, it is clearly more powerful and intelligent than we are. And that's pretty much all we can surmise.

I think this is a problem. I can imagine an infinite array of other gods that are obviously, unambiguously good, but you're stuck worshipping one that seems extremely sketchy. The Abrahamic god's OT description reads like the fan fiction an abusive bronze age warlord would write, which in Christianity is awkwardly merged with the NT preachings of an iron age SJW commune dweller. From an outsider perspective, there's too much baggage you you have to harmonize. Too many moral contradictions.

I think the problem is that you don't know, and you can't know, but you think you should be able to know. You are a gnostic at heart. So you just don't like the traditional answer: that God is God and you are not.

It's like a mushroom growing in a damp forest passing judgment on the weather for causing a dry spell that ends it's time above ground, because it can't understand why it's happening.

 

[AlexanderG]

And neither do you. Yet for some reason, you insist on passing judgment in ignorance, anyway, and then assuming the worst.

Whatever is responsible for existence, existing, it is clearly more powerful and intelligent than we are. And that's pretty much all we can surmise.
I think the problem is that you don't know, and you can't know, but you think you should be able to know. You are a gnostic at heart. So you just don't like the traditional answer: that God is God and you are not.

It's like a mushroom growing in a damp forest passing judgment on the weather for causing a dry spell that ends it's time above ground, because it can't understand why it's happening.

I'm saying that I wouldn't have any good reason to conclude that this god is either good or evil. That's the problem. I'm not concluding one way or the other, but pointing out the dilemma as an internal critique. And as I said before, "power" and "intelligent" have no relation to being good per se.

Imagining and hoping that your god isn't evil and is in fact good, seems like a very shaky foundation upon which to base a worldview of a perfect creator or a model for objective morality. Too shaky for me, at least. If I were a mushroom and had to endure a drought, and I could clearly conceive of better weather, then why would I conclude the current drought is perfectly good or benevolent? Wouldn't malicious weather also cause a drought? Again, there would be no justification for such a belief.

Anyway, thanks for the replies!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The responses I'm getting are most either 1) I have the wrong interpretation of scripture, or 2) god gets to live by his own standard

What other kinds of answers are possible for the believer? You also got a version of "puny minds," as in man's mind is too weak to judge the deity, a form of disqualification argument - you're not fit to comment on God (or scripture).

"My God is flawed" and "my scriptures are inaccurate" are simply not an option for the believer, whatever the evidence to the contrary may lead an open mind to conclude.

You have a community of critical thinkers that decide what is true about the world by the application of fallacy-free reasoning to relevant evidence, and a contingent of faith-based thinkers, who decide what is true about reality by faith. The two cannot communicate. They cannot engage in dialectic. The faith-based thinker needs the critical thinker to relax his standards in order to believe, which the critical thinker views as an offer to an ex-smoker to have a cigarette - a request to re-enter a world that he has labored assiduously to escape. And the critical thinker needs the faith-based thinker to examine the evidence dispassionately with both the willingness and ability to recognize a compelling argument, and be swayed by it - my definition of open-mindedness. Neither of those is going to happen, and so, no ideas can be transmitted from either mind to the other in areas like this one.

I'm sure that you are aware that you have no hope of convincing anybody willing to overlook evidence who has a stake in you being incorrect - my definition of closed-mindedness.

For the faith-based thinkers reading along who think that this is an unfair characterization of how faith rejects evidence if it contradicts that which is believed by faith, here are two prominent theologians to explain to you how they decide what is true, and why no evidence or argument can possibly change their minds:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

• "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

These people are proud of the fact that their minds are closed - are impenetrable to reason and evidence. Unwavering faith is a point of pride for them. They've been convinced that it is a virtue, one they will be rewarded for. And the critical thinker just shakes his head after banging it in vain against a faith-based confirmation bias.

 

[Colt]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

When the Son of God was on earth he revealed the true character of the Father which invalidated the concepts of God in the Old Testament. Much of the OT is a vastly exaggerated fiction written after the fall of Israel, the destruction of the first Temple and the bondage of the Israelites in Babylon. The ordinary secular history books mentioned in the OT vanished.

The New Testament books should have never been added to the Jews Bible. With Jesus we were to be starting over fresh with a renewed faith in the true Father. Christianity is a compromised and philosophically inconsistent version of the original pre-cross Gospel of Jesus.

"Hell" is an ancient concept invented by shamans based on the belief that all souls awake in the afterlife. So, they invented a hell place of punishment for those who were not nice when they were alive.

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

God tells us to do as he says, not as he does. Apparently the laws of man don't apply to God.

Mary was single, but betrothed.

I have asked the same things.

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting. Do you think that being a cosmic super-intelligence that creates universes would somehow prevent that person from being evil or malicious? Or imperfect? Or hypocritical?

It depends upon what you mean by prevent. If you mean write the laws of the universe as such that no consequences for actions existed, that wouldn't exactly be any reality we could imagine. Imagine stepping off the side of a cliff, and you simply bounce back up from the rocks below like a trampoline? Does that sound like reality, or a child's fiction reality of candyland? Why would we try to imagine if there were a Creator, he'd make reality where no one could get hurt in it? Why would we imagine that if God existed, he'd look and act like the creator of candyland with its trampoline rockpiles?

As far as preventions goes, I'd say the that if anyone living in this world understood the law of consequences, that would be the ways "God" prevents us from wrong action. We suffer consequences. It may not be immediate, like stepping off a cliff, but it may be gradual and accumulative, like slowly drinking yourself to death through alcohol abuse, or isolating yourself socially through constantly stealing your neighbors stuff, or ruining your own life and dying miserably by being wholly self-centered, never gaining the rewards of being a good person and living life on its terms.

All of those consequences should be preventions from taking those courses of action, like stepping off cliffs and greeting sharp rocks below. It's the law of 'reaping what you sow'. It's acting out the Way, or the Tao. It's the law of karma. Aren't all these consequences preventions designed into the system? Aren't they already there?

As @PureX said, many Christians consider their god to be "inexplicable," and it seems any number of vices could hide within a mysterious inexplicability.

I don't believe any vices are hidden. Maybe from others, but not from ourselves or the consequences for those. If we don't like those consequences, that should prevent us from doing them. It may take awhile for us to realize the harm to ourselves through continual error, but the injury is there regardless of it being immediately visible, like cancer cells.

The responses I'm getting are most either 1) I have the wrong interpretation of scripture,

Funny thing about scripture, who is it that says there is a "right" interpretation of it? Why couldn't it be understood more like poetry and stories meant to tell meaning, rather than record dry historical facts? Is there 'correct' interpretation of poetry? Isn't the power of enduring mythologies, its ability to inspire something within ourselves to imagine something beyond ourselves? Wouldn't anyone claiming their understanding of a poem for instance, to be the one true understanding, pretty much be killing the power of the poem for all the others who are hearing something unique to themselves?

I wouldn't say you have a wrong interpretation of it. I'd suggest you are simply approaching it with a wrong idea about it. I think that's what a few of the others have said here.

or 2) god gets to live by his own standard (which would by definition entail a double standard, which to me seem like hypocrisy.) If it's bad if a human does it, then it should be bad if anyone does it.

I agree with the others that you have to consider who the audience was and where they were coming from at the time. Such images of God may seem primitive and contradictory to us, but to the original audience it was an improvement over the other gods of their understandings. Images and views of God evolves over time in scripture.

Does that shatter the literalists view of scripture as one single unified, complete and perfect revelations of God? Yes. And it should. Honestly, even Jesus indicates this very thing about how scripture says stuff that he doesn't agree with. He corrects some of those early, more primitive projections of humans upon the Divine nature.

For instance, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." He was quoting received scripture, and negating it as a voice of authority to say in essence, "listen to me instead". How very unlike the fundamentalist who takes the Old Testament law as equal in weight and authority to Jesus' teachings or revelation of God.

Even hear you see the understanding of God change in scripture. So the problem isn't scripture. The problem expecting it to fit our ideas of what we think God should look like, such as a creation with trampoline rockpiles where no one can be hurt by wrong actions, preventing error.

 

[Lain]

Even if the Bible shows its the case itself in its own writing?

Shows what in the writing?

 

[74x12]

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.

God did obey those commands as an incarnate human being. Jesus obeyed all of that. So God is not asking anything he didn't put on himself. But, God as an all knowing being must judge all things.

And you forget to mention that God eternally forgives those who offend him if they repent.

2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.

God is ultimately responsible for all death. Everyone who dies does because God appointed it to happen. Your argument is against mortality itself. People were originally supposed to be immortal but because of sin death resulted. That's why Jesus came to bring the resurrection from the dead so people can live again. Until the resurrection; we all die when it's our time to die.

3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.

Well envy is not the same as jealousy of a spouse. If your spouse cheats on you then you really do have a legitimate concern. That kind of jealousy is not to be confused with the kind of envy that is forbidden. Such as your neighbor has a beautiful wife/husband and so you are envious and wish they were yours. That's the kind of envy/jealousy which is forbidden. But I don't see where in the Bible it's forbidden to be jealous if your spouse cheats on you.

4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.

It was not sexual and she was honored and happily agreed to have the virgin birth of the Son of God.

5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

No, God loves everyone truly but if you against him then there is nothing that can be done. It's like complaining that you jumped off a high building and hurt yourself. You might as well complain about gravity as complaining about God. God can't change who or what he is. He's like a consuming fire as he says himself. Fire is both useful to people and keeps them alive. You cook your food and keep warm with it. It also serves as a light in the dark. But fire can also kill you if you don't respect it.

God is like that too and can't help himself.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

Hi AlexanderG. Good evening. I'd be happy to address some of your concerns about Yahweh. Firstly, I want to start my post by saying that Yahweh is righteous. Psalm 11:7 says: "For Yahweh is righteous; he loveth righteousness: The upright shall behold his face."

1. Yahshua says love your enemies
It's true. These are the same words Yahweh willed for His creation. Yahshua spoke for Yahweh as it is written: "that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Exodus 23:4 says: "If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his *** going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again." Yahweh's love is manifested to His enemies, time and time again. Why would Yahweh command this Law thousands of years ago, if this isn't an intrinsic part of His character? He, after all, wants to produce children that are like Him. Yahweh could wipe His enemies out, every single one of them, in a Word, He is that powerful. But He doesn't. Ever asked yourself why? Yahweh must be very loving. He must have turned his cheek many a time. But Yahweh also has also the duty to be a just Mighty One. He has to judge people when they violate His Laws. We wouldn't expect anything less from the Judge of all the earth.

I'm telling you right now, if Yahweh didn't judge when people did wrong, people would complain. Yahweh does judge, and some of those judgement are recorded in the Bible. Some of those judgments result in death. Romans 6 tells us that the wages of sin is death.

When it comes to war, that's different. That's one group of people trying to kill another. If you don't kill your enemies in war, then they will kill you. It's simple as that. Yahweh doesn't enjoy violence, Yahweh is a mighty one of peace and His city, Jerusalem, means "the city of peace". Yahweh understands that at times we have to fight to preserve our lives.

For the true worshiper who wants to follow Yahweh-Shalom, we strive for peace. Even when we are physically or verbally attacked, we don't retaliate. Yahweh would have acted exactly as Yahshua did, while He was on the earth. Yahshua didn't fight with those who wanted to put him to death. Yahweh didn't destroy those who were putting Yahshua to death. Many times Yahweh is struck verbally, or in effect, physically, by those who do and did kill the prophets. There has only been one global destruction event of this world to destroy sinners and that was Noah's Flood. One global destruction event over the thousands of years that mankind has existed. Yahweh must have therefore loved his enemies. Even in Noah's time, it was over a century that mankind had to repent whilst Noah was building the Ark.

Furthermore, Yahweh doesn't torture people for all eternity. Gehenna Fire will be used to destroy the wicked, but the fire will destroy them as we read in Malachi 4:3.

2. Yahweh says not to kill, but kills others
Yahweh doesn't simply kill people like mankind does. Yahweh judges. And His judgments are done in righteousness. After all, Yahweh knows the motivations, inner most thoughts and character of every one of his human race. He may allow evil to happen to people and by doing so, you could say he is killing people, but it would be unfair to put Yahweh in a position where he can be blamed for all the world's wrongs. Much evil that befalls people is down to people breaking Yahweh's Laws in one way or another.

As a righteous judge, I accept that when Yahweh judges it is for reasons that we as humans cannot always see or understand why He has done so. We just have to accept that Yahweh's thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9), and the reasons why He acts at times is beyond our comprehension.

Also I want to point out that Yahweh gave the right to human kind to issue the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 for the killing of another human being.

3. Yahweh is jealous
I wouldn't call Yahweh envious, but yes, He is a jealous Elohim. Jealous for His Name especially as we read Ezekiel 39:25. I believe the word Qânâ' (קָנָא, Strong's #7065) means “to be jealous; to be zealous.” It can have both meanings. And we all want to be zealous. What people don't realize is that to be zealous requires a certain amount of jealousy. I recall when Paul was at Athens in Acts 17:16, his Spirit was provoked by the idols in that city. We're instructed to be zealous in places like Revelation 3:19. So Yahweh wants His people to be zealous and jealous for His Name, and His Holy City, just as He is.

Yahweh is the only true and living Elohim. All other elohim are idols and figments of mankind imaginations. He has a right to be jealous for His exclusive worship and the use of His powerful, memorial Name rather than names which hold no power and were never intended to address Yahweh.

4. Yahweh forces himself on an unmarried girl
How do you not know that Miriam was not asking for a righteous Son? This goes back to the fact that we don't know what Miriam was praying for, what she desired, what her innermost thoughts were. But the way how she accepted that Yahshua would be born of her is testament to the fact that she wasn't forced upon.

5. Corinthians 13 describes the attributes of love, but Yahweh doesn't fulfill these attributes
Well let's look at 1 Corinthians 13:4: "Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;"
Yahweh has patiently endured the human creation, so I think we can certainly say that love suffers long with Yahweh and is kind, Yahweh gave His only begotten Son for mankind so we could recover ourselves from the clutches of the Adversary. As I said, I don't think Yahweh envies, especially when you read in the definition: "1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 2. an object of such feeling 3. Obsolete. ill will." I can say that Yahweh doesn't vaunteth himself as much as He could do. Why if you took the average human being and got them to create a Universe: planets, star systems, life-beings, trees, flowers etc and you asked them to write a book, it would be nothing but what they have achieved. Yahweh doesn't do that. As a matter of fact, the creation story is limited to just one chapter. Yahweh Has a right to be arrogant, but He isn't. He scoops down to help the meek and poor, who have no other help. What about love is not provoked? I can think of many instances where Yahweh seems to be provoked. The NIV says "it does not boast, it is not proud." Pride is a strange one. We say we are proud of our kids, or proud of this or that, in that sense it can be a term that is used loosely. But believe me, if Yahweh were proud He wouldn't want anything to do with us. For "taketh not account of evil", the NIV says, takes no scores of wrongs. Through Yahshua the Messiah we can be judged righteous. And Yahweh certainly doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness as we read in Psalm 89:14 "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne: Lovingkindness and truth go before thy face.

So you see, your idea that Yahweh's righteousness is at lesser standard for Himself that it is for humans is erroneous. Yahweh adheres to His own Laws. However, He being the all-powerful Being that He is does judge, and it's that that you have a problem with. He wants all His people to be as loving and zealous as He is.

 

[Sir Joseph]

So many issues here in this thread; I resort back to the OP on just one point.

"What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?"​

First, the creator of the universe had to establish laws in order to maintain function and order, with this including both physical laws of nature and moral laws for created beings. Is it not rational that the system's designer rightly determines the rules? In the same way that an engineer designs a computer program with right and wrong inputs, his rules for functioning within the program are certainly more than subjective; they're decisively objective. If there is an infinite, all powerful god that created the universe and governs our lives, could there be any standard other than his that qualifies as being right?

Second, there's an implied offense of hypocrisy in God's exacting moral values upon humans that he doesn't obey himself. Rather than refute the specific examples as being misunderstood, let's consider the big picture by comparing a human with his pet dog. The pet owner enjoys a wide variety of tasty foods, mobility to explore the whole world, and freedom to engage with any people he chooses. The dog however is limited to dry dog food, a life in the fenced backyard, and very few other canine engagements. Is the owner being hypocritical, or do we justify the different standards because we recognize that the human has more rights and privileges than the animal? And how much more separation is there between mortal men and an all knowing, all powerful God capable of creating an entire universe?

It's natural to dislike submission to anyone, and this is a major reason for people rejecting God. One should understand though that not liking his rules or our role in his creation does not affect the evidence for his existence. Once one accepts God's sovereignty over the world and our lives, the objections noted above become less valid. We learn that God is just and does really love us, and for those that embrace a relationship with him, the glorious eternal life he promises us is a sweet deal.

 

[AlexanderG]

If there is an infinite, all powerful god that created the universe and governs our lives, could there be any standard other than his that qualifies as being right?

The dog however is limited to dry dog food, a life in the fenced backyard, and very few other canine engagements. Is the owner being hypocritical, or do we justify the different standards because we recognize that the human has more rights and privileges than the animal?

It's natural to dislike submission to anyone, and this is a major reason for people rejecting God. One should understand though that not liking his rules or our role in his creation does not affect the evidence for his existence. Once one accepts God's sovereignty over the world and our lives, the objections noted above become less valid. We learn that God is just and does really love us, and for those that embrace a relationship with him, the glorious eternal life he promises us is a sweet deal.

1. Might makes right, in other words. Yes, I can imagine a much better standard. A standard that prioritizes the wellbeing of humans, for example, or a standard that prioritizes the least amount of involuntary violations of anyone's will, without their prior consent. There are an infinite number of better moral systems than the blood-obsessed, slave-taking, genocidal, foreskin-mongering Yaweh.

2. Eating human food and dog food is a very poor analogy. If an owner trained a dog not to poop on the rug, and then pooped on the rug himself, then the dog would be rightfully confused. If the owner tortured the dog when it didn't act excited enough to see him whenever he came home, then he would rightfully have his dog taken away or go to jail for animal abuse.

3. This is a common defense mechanism I see from theists. "You just don't want to submit to your rightful master, so you deny god's existence." Sorry, but I've never been accurately psychologized by theists. I honestly don't believe the claims because there is no evidence to support them, and I only believe claims once there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I see a lot of claims that god exists and is loving and just, but the bible or just the OT really contradict that, clearly and cleanly. This is a problem when the bible is making the actual claim. Either way, there is no evidence any gods exist

I agree with you that the evidence we lack for any god's existence does not affect the ontological fact of whether or not that actually exists. But the same is true about fairies, or Santa, or leprechauns, or any other claimed god. The time to accept a claim is when there is evidence. This proper application of the null hypothesis and burdens of proof are why we have medicine, airplanes and computers today. Because these methods reliably lead to an accurate understanding of our shared reality. And these methods do not indicate your god, at all.

 

[AlexanderG]

Hi AlexanderG. Good evening. I'd be happy to address some of your concerns about Yahweh. Firstly, I want to start my post by saying that Yahweh is righteous. Psalm 11:7 says: "For Yahweh is righteous; he loveth righteousness: The upright shall behold his face."

1. Yahshua says love your enemies
It's true. These are the same words Yahweh willed for His creation. Yahshua spoke for Yahweh as it is written: "that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Exodus 23:4 says: "If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his *** going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again." Yahweh's love is manifested to His enemies, time and time again. Why would Yahweh command this Law thousands of years ago, if this isn't an intrinsic part of His character? He, after all, wants to produce children that are like Him. Yahweh could wipe His enemies out, every single one of them, in a Word, He is that powerful. But He doesn't. Ever asked yourself why? Yahweh must be very loving. He must have turned his cheek many a time. But Yahweh also has also the duty to be a just Mighty One. He has to judge people when they violate His Laws. We wouldn't expect anything less from the Judge of all the earth.

I'm telling you right now, if Yahweh didn't judge when people did wrong, people would complain. Yahweh does judge, and some of those judgement are recorded in the Bible. Some of those judgments result in death. Romans 6 tells us that the wages of sin is death.

When it comes to war, that's different. That's one group of people trying to kill another. If you don't kill your enemies in war, then they will kill you. It's simple as that. Yahweh doesn't enjoy violence, Yahweh is a mighty one of peace and His city, Jerusalem, means "the city of peace". Yahweh understands that at times we have to fight to preserve our lives.

For the true worshiper who wants to follow Yahweh-Shalom, we strive for peace. Even when we are physically or verbally attacked, we don't retaliate. Yahweh would have acted exactly as Yahshua did, while He was on the earth. Yahshua didn't fight with those who wanted to put him to death. Yahweh didn't destroy those who were putting Yahshua to death. Many times Yahweh is struck verbally, or in effect, physically, by those who do and did kill the prophets. There has only been one global destruction event of this world to destroy sinners and that was Noah's Flood. One global destruction event over the thousands of years that mankind has existed. Yahweh must have therefore loved his enemies. Even in Noah's time, it was over a century that mankind had to repent whilst Noah was building the Ark.

Furthermore, Yahweh doesn't torture people for all eternity. Gehenna Fire will be used to destroy the wicked, but the fire will destroy them as we read in Malachi 4:3.

2. Yahweh says not to kill, but kills others
Yahweh doesn't simply kill people like mankind does. Yahweh judges. And His judgments are done in righteousness. After all, Yahweh knows the motivations, inner most thoughts and character of every one of his human race. He may allow evil to happen to people and by doing so, you could say he is killing people, but it would be unfair to put Yahweh in a position where he can be blamed for all the world's wrongs. Much evil that befalls people is down to people breaking Yahweh's Laws in one way or another.

As a righteous judge, I accept that when Yahweh judges it is for reasons that we as humans cannot always see or understand why He has done so. We just have to accept that Yahweh's thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9), and the reasons why He acts at times is beyond our comprehension.

Also I want to point out that Yahweh gave the right to human kind to issue the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 for the killing of another human being.

3. Yahweh is jealous
I wouldn't call Yahweh envious, but yes, He is a jealous Elohim. Jealous for His Name especially as we read Ezekiel 39:25. I believe the word Qânâ' (קָנָא, Strong's #7065) means “to be jealous; to be zealous.” It can have both meanings. And we all want to be zealous. What people don't realize is that to be zealous requires a certain amount of jealousy. I recall when Paul was at Athens in Acts 17:16, his Spirit was provoked by the idols in that city. We're instructed to be zealous in places like Revelation 3:19. So Yahweh wants His people to be zealous and jealous for His Name, and His Holy City, just as He is.

Yahweh is the only true and living Elohim. All other elohim are idols and figments of mankind imaginations. He has a right to be jealous for His exclusive worship and the use of His powerful, memorial Name rather than names which hold no power and were never intended to address Yahweh.

4. Yahweh forces himself on an unmarried girl
How do you not know that Miriam was not asking for a righteous Son? This goes back to the fact that we don't know what Miriam was praying for, what she desired, what her innermost thoughts were. But the way how she accepted that Yahshua would be born of her is testament to the fact that she wasn't forced upon.

5. Corinthians 13 describes the attributes of love, but Yahweh doesn't fulfill these attributes
Well let's look at 1 Corinthians 13:4: "Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;"
Yahweh has patiently endured the human creation, so I think we can certainly say that love suffers long with Yahweh and is kind, Yahweh gave His only begotten Son for mankind so we could recover ourselves from the clutches of the Adversary. As I said, I don't think Yahweh envies, especially when you read in the definition: "1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 2. an object of such feeling 3. Obsolete. ill will." I can say that Yahweh doesn't vaunteth himself as much as He could do. Why if you took the average human being and got them to create a Universe: planets, star systems, life-beings, trees, flowers etc and you asked them to write a book, it would be nothing but what they have achieved. Yahweh doesn't do that. As a matter of fact, the creation story is limited to just one chapter. Yahweh Has a right to be arrogant, but He isn't. He scoops down to help the meek and poor, who have no other help. What about love is not provoked? I can think of many instances where Yahweh seems to be provoked. The NIV says "it does not boast, it is not proud." Pride is a strange one. We say we are proud of our kids, or proud of this or that, in that sense it can be a term that is used loosely. But believe me, if Yahweh were proud He wouldn't want anything to do with us. For "taketh not account of evil", the NIV says, takes no scores of wrongs. Through Yahshua the Messiah we can be judged righteous. And Yahweh certainly doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness as we read in Psalm 89:14 "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne: Lovingkindness and truth go before thy face.

So you see, your idea that Yahweh's righteousness is at lesser standard for Himself that it is for humans is erroneous. Yahweh adheres to His own Laws. However, He being the all-powerful Being that He is does judge, and it's that that you have a problem with. He wants all His people to be as loving and zealous as He is.

I understand that the bible claims that god exists, and that he is perfect and gets to judge everyone, and gets to use physical violence to punish anyone who disobeys him, and any mistake is always our fault, never his. We should be so thankful for the love he gives us, because we're worthless without his love. But look what we make him do, sometimes, and we bring it on ourselves.

He's the model of an abusive husband.

And let's ignore that fact that there's no evidence any of this is real, because it's an internal critique. My point is that an abusive spouse's love is not perfect love, and is in fact what I would call evil. It's bad and wrong, even if the abuser is powerful, or knows more than me, or insists they are perfectly good.

You said: "How do you not know that Miriam was not asking for a righteous Son? This goes back to the fact that we don't know what Miriam was praying for, what she desired, what her innermost thoughts were."
Can you not see how grotesque this sounds? "How do you know the women didn't secretly want someone to rape and/or impregnate her?" is what you are saying. Any crime or horrific immoral act can be post-hoc justified by this flawed reasoning. And my obvious response (and point of this thread) is, "How do you know your god isn't secretly evil?"

 

[Dogknox20]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

AlexanderG You are mixed up!
God is LOVE! Only love is allowed to enter heaven! If a person has love they have God inside of them.. God would never ever put himself into hell! It's our choice if we go to hell!
God says "Do not kill!" Murder is wrong! Protecting your home from intruders is NOT murder! God protected Danial from the lions he protected the Jews from the Philistines David killed Goliath again this was NOT murder!
Envy blossoms into sin! It's for your own good to reject envy and lies!
Mary's words... "38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
God would never force anyone to bare a child... Mary said "YES"! If Mary would have said NO we would not have been saved!
Mary is the Daughter of the Father..
Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Mary is the Mother of the Son!
Because Christians are IMMERSED into the risen Body Of Jesus we are then also God' children... God has only one Son we are adopted into his holy family by our Baptism into Jesus! BECAUSE...
because I am IN Jesus God is my Father!
Because I am IN Jesus I also will live forever!
Because I am IN Jesus Mary is also my mother!

God is LOVE.... You are forced to reject the truth for the lies of the Antichrist! Satan hates you he hates all men... He is the opposite to God!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Shows what in the writing?

God breaking his own rules.

 

[Clara Tea]

What other kinds of answers are possible for the believer? You also got a version of "puny minds," as in man's mind is too weak to judge the deity, a form of disqualification argument - you're not fit to comment on God (or scripture).

"My God is flawed" and "my scriptures are inaccurate" are simply not an option for the believer, whatever the evidence to the contrary may lead an open mind to conclude.

You have a community of critical thinkers that decide what is true about the world by the application of fallacy-free reasoning to relevant evidence, and a contingent of faith-based thinkers, who decide what is true about reality by faith. The two cannot communicate. They cannot engage in dialectic. The faith-based thinker needs the critical thinker to relax his standards in order to believe, which the critical thinker views as an offer to an ex-smoker to have a cigarette - a request to re-enter a world that he has labored assiduously to escape. And the critical thinker needs the faith-based thinker to examine the evidence dispassionately with both the willingness and ability to recognize a compelling argument, and be swayed by it - my definition of open-mindedness. Neither of those is going to happen, and so, no ideas can be transmitted from either mind to the other in areas like this one.

I'm sure that you are aware that you have no hope of convincing anybody willing to overlook evidence who has a stake in you being incorrect - my definition of closed-mindedness.

For the faith-based thinkers reading along who think that this is an unfair characterization of how faith rejects evidence if it contradicts that which is believed by faith, here are two prominent theologians to explain to you how they decide what is true, and why no evidence or argument can possibly change their minds:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

• "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

These people are proud of the fact that their minds are closed - are impenetrable to reason and evidence. Unwavering faith is a point of pride for them. They've been convinced that it is a virtue, one they will be rewarded for. And the critical thinker just shakes his head after banging it in vain against a faith-based confirmation bias.

I don't worry that my mind is too weak to judge God, but I worry that the wrath of the loving God could be severe, given all of the murders and tortures in his past, and the fact that He (God) tolerates pain and suffering on earth, including the suffering of His own son on the cross. I'm not sure I could take all that love.

Every time cruelty is inflicted upon us, we must keep chanting the false mantra...."he loves me"....."he loves me"...."he loves me," for it is only through a faith of lies that we find the truth.

Columba - Wikipedia

According to the Wiki article, above, the Loch Ness Monster was first sited by Saint Columba (warrior, one of the 12 apostles of Ireland, founder of the Abby on Iona, founder of the Hiberno Scottish Mission). As a warrior, he killed a lot (everyone needs a hobby). But, he also had a lot of visions...including the Loch Ness Monster. Surely, if a religious leader, with such credentials sees a mythical beast, it must exist.

The incredible true story of Ireland's last Leprechauns | The Irish Post

Leprechaun remains (website above)...small bones found by small green suit, and a few gold coins.

Project Blue Book (UFO)

The website above is from the United States Goverment, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Project Blue Book (apparently the Mulder and Scully X-Files of the real world). The US apparently believed that aliens could exist so spent a great deal of money investigating the stories, and to this day, many of the stories cannot be refuted.

There exists far more evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns, and space aliens (Trump might deport them to Mexico), than evidence that God exists.

The proof of God that you offer is "witness of the holy spirit in my heart." But anyone could also say that they witnessed the holy spirit of the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, and space aliens in their heart.

I saw a Fred Flintstone cartoon (I was a witness that there is a Fred Flintstone, and he was actually on TV with his good friend Barney Rubble). There it is....tangible proof that cartoon character Fred Flintstone really exists. This is far more evidence than theists offer for the existence of God.

There are an infinite number of things to believe in (most are not real, some are real). To lower our standards of logic and belief, in order to accommodate the belief in God, we'd also have to, by the same logic, and same belief, accept that Fred Flintstone, et al, are all real.

But what about the hoards of people tortured into believing (and donating to the church) down through the centuries. Could that many people be wrong? Do we go with the masses and not think for ourselves? If a Black man is being lynched by an angry lynch mob that doesn't wait to review evidence, do we go with the crowd and believe as they do, or do we buck popular opinion and use logic and common sense, and get a real trial for their hapless victim?

In other words, are crowds always right? Does the opinion of a crowd trump hard facts? Are we swayed by the belief of millions of people who accepted that God was real?

 

[Clara Tea]

When the Son of God was on earth he revealed the true character of the Father which invalidated the concepts of God in the Old Testament. Much of the OT is a vastly exaggerated fiction written after the fall of Israel, the destruction of the first Temple and the bondage of the Israelites in Babylon. The ordinary secular history books mentioned in the OT vanished.

The New Testament books should have never been added to the Jews Bible. With Jesus we were to be starting over fresh with a renewed faith in the true Father. Christianity is a compromised and philosophically inconsistent version of the original pre-cross Gospel of Jesus.

"Hell" is an ancient concept invented by shamans based on the belief that all souls awake in the afterlife. So, they invented a hell place of punishment for those who were not nice when they were alive.

At the very least, Christians should attend Jewish temples to understand the roots of their religion.

Reverend Melissa Scott (wife of late Reverend Gene Scott), examines translations from original ancient texts in Latin, Greek, Hebrew (and any other relevant language). She finds translation errors, or concepts that were somehow lost. For example, the word heaven doesn't express what the Old Testament meant.

I don't think that God made a mistake and corrected it with a new testament. Rather, I think that the new testament is a new book for a different group.

Back in the days of Moses, red tides poisoned shellfish, so Jews had a dietary restriction. Ham was from pigs, who were notoriously filthy...they'd eat anything...and they were genetically similar to humans (heart transplants, swine flu), so diseases transferred easily from pigs to humans. Hence, Jews could not eat pigs. Jews had a bris ceremony to keep them from getting and spreading dangerous bacteria.

Of course, ancient men likely didn't know of DNA of pigs, or bacteria. But they did observe that not eating pigs, not eating shellfish, and getting a bris kept them healthy.

In later years, Christians came to rule the US, and had control of nukes. Recently, Hillary Clinton (hacked by Russians) threatened nuclear war. Maybe this is why God felt that it was necessary to tell Christians to turn the other cheek and not to kill? After all, Moses didn't have nukes, so he was not such a threat to world peace (and world survival).

Many religious today tell us that kids have a hard time learning the bible, but they have a "kids version" that will help them understand. The problem with different versions of the bible is that they are notoriously not the same as the original. In fact, it is necessary true that they are different that the original bible if they are easier to understand. So, what they are reading is not from God (it is from man), and it is not necessarily true. Stick to reading the real bible. Go to the earliest sources of the bible (before kings and popes changed it).

Pastors have been spreading the false idea that all versions of the bible are exactly alike (supposedly a miracle of God that the translations were right). They assert that all bibles say exactly the same things.

Take Matthew, for example, it says that we should be careful not to be influenced by Satan. This is not what the original bible said in Latin (I used Google to translate it to my Christian minister future spouse), and came up with "be careful not to be tempted by sin." Do you see the difference? One is an evil entity outside of our body, and the other is evil within us. The fact is, we have free choice (good, go to heaven....bad, go to hell), and that means that the choice is within us, not some Satan tempting us.

However, there is the story of the snake in Eden. So, I suppose that the bible also includes evil outside sources that can tempt us.

Once we understand the truest version of the bible, and the truest translation of it, we can know the will of God.

Is it the will of God to have wars (killing) and torture camps? Apparently not, yet, look at all of the Christians who support the leaders that they appointed who have made wars. It is ironic that the Religious Right is a staunch supporter of the National Rifle Association. The NRA has an enemies list, and the pope is on it. Does that mean that the pope is the enemy of the Religious Right? When politics and religion mix, one starts to worship politics, and not God. God's words (thou shalt not kill) are ignored for the sake of feeling safer, and that resulted in the deaths of a million innocent Iraqis and the wrath of God (detailed in Revelation).

 

[Clara Tea]

And neither do you. Yet for some reason, you insist on passing judgment in ignorance, anyway, and then assuming the worst.

Whatever is responsible for existence, existing, it is clearly more powerful and intelligent than we are. And that's pretty much all we can surmise.
I think the problem is that you don't know, and you can't know, but you think you should be able to know. You are a gnostic at heart. So you just don't like the traditional answer: that God is God and you are not.

It's like a mushroom growing in a damp forest passing judgment on the weather for causing a dry spell that ends it's time above ground, because it can't understand why it's happening.

I want to talk to that mushroom, and spread the news that mankind's over-use of greenhouse gases (methane and CO2) accelerates Global Warming (killing species, and perhaps killing all life including us). Usually I just talk with aplomb (and the plum just sits there without making a comment because it knows that I'm right).

 

[Clara Tea]

God breaking his own rules.

Rules for humans, not rules for God. Yet, it does seem as though He says "do as I say, not as I do."

God sees the future, so he knows the consequences of humans violating his laws.

 

[Clara Tea]

Hi AlexanderG. Good evening. I'd be happy to address some of your concerns about Yahweh. Firstly, I want to start my post by saying that Yahweh is righteous. Psalm 11:7 says: "For Yahweh is righteous; he loveth righteousness: The upright shall behold his face."

1. Yahshua says love your enemies
It's true. These are the same words Yahweh willed for His creation. Yahshua spoke for Yahweh as it is written: "that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Exodus 23:4 says: "If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his *** going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again." Yahweh's love is manifested to His enemies, time and time again. Why would Yahweh command this Law thousands of years ago, if this isn't an intrinsic part of His character? He, after all, wants to produce children that are like Him. Yahweh could wipe His enemies out, every single one of them, in a Word, He is that powerful. But He doesn't. Ever asked yourself why? Yahweh must be very loving. He must have turned his cheek many a time. But Yahweh also has also the duty to be a just Mighty One. He has to judge people when they violate His Laws. We wouldn't expect anything less from the Judge of all the earth.

I'm telling you right now, if Yahweh didn't judge when people did wrong, people would complain. Yahweh does judge, and some of those judgement are recorded in the Bible. Some of those judgments result in death. Romans 6 tells us that the wages of sin is death.

When it comes to war, that's different. That's one group of people trying to kill another. If you don't kill your enemies in war, then they will kill you. It's simple as that. Yahweh doesn't enjoy violence, Yahweh is a mighty one of peace and His city, Jerusalem, means "the city of peace". Yahweh understands that at times we have to fight to preserve our lives.

For the true worshiper who wants to follow Yahweh-Shalom, we strive for peace. Even when we are physically or verbally attacked, we don't retaliate. Yahweh would have acted exactly as Yahshua did, while He was on the earth. Yahshua didn't fight with those who wanted to put him to death. Yahweh didn't destroy those who were putting Yahshua to death. Many times Yahweh is struck verbally, or in effect, physically, by those who do and did kill the prophets. There has only been one global destruction event of this world to destroy sinners and that was Noah's Flood. One global destruction event over the thousands of years that mankind has existed. Yahweh must have therefore loved his enemies. Even in Noah's time, it was over a century that mankind had to repent whilst Noah was building the Ark.

Furthermore, Yahweh doesn't torture people for all eternity. Gehenna Fire will be used to destroy the wicked, but the fire will destroy them as we read in Malachi 4:3.

2. Yahweh says not to kill, but kills others
Yahweh doesn't simply kill people like mankind does. Yahweh judges. And His judgments are done in righteousness. After all, Yahweh knows the motivations, inner most thoughts and character of every one of his human race. He may allow evil to happen to people and by doing so, you could say he is killing people, but it would be unfair to put Yahweh in a position where he can be blamed for all the world's wrongs. Much evil that befalls people is down to people breaking Yahweh's Laws in one way or another.

As a righteous judge, I accept that when Yahweh judges it is for reasons that we as humans cannot always see or understand why He has done so. We just have to accept that Yahweh's thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9), and the reasons why He acts at times is beyond our comprehension.

Also I want to point out that Yahweh gave the right to human kind to issue the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 for the killing of another human being.

3. Yahweh is jealous
I wouldn't call Yahweh envious, but yes, He is a jealous Elohim. Jealous for His Name especially as we read Ezekiel 39:25. I believe the word Qânâ' (קָנָא, Strong's #7065) means “to be jealous; to be zealous.” It can have both meanings. And we all want to be zealous. What people don't realize is that to be zealous requires a certain amount of jealousy. I recall when Paul was at Athens in Acts 17:16, his Spirit was provoked by the idols in that city. We're instructed to be zealous in places like Revelation 3:19. So Yahweh wants His people to be zealous and jealous for His Name, and His Holy City, just as He is.

Yahweh is the only true and living Elohim. All other elohim are idols and figments of mankind imaginations. He has a right to be jealous for His exclusive worship and the use of His powerful, memorial Name rather than names which hold no power and were never intended to address Yahweh.

4. Yahweh forces himself on an unmarried girl
How do you not know that Miriam was not asking for a righteous Son? This goes back to the fact that we don't know what Miriam was praying for, what she desired, what her innermost thoughts were. But the way how she accepted that Yahshua would be born of her is testament to the fact that she wasn't forced upon.

5. Corinthians 13 describes the attributes of love, but Yahweh doesn't fulfill these attributes
Well let's look at 1 Corinthians 13:4: "Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; 6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;"
Yahweh has patiently endured the human creation, so I think we can certainly say that love suffers long with Yahweh and is kind, Yahweh gave His only begotten Son for mankind so we could recover ourselves from the clutches of the Adversary. As I said, I don't think Yahweh envies, especially when you read in the definition: "1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 2. an object of such feeling 3. Obsolete. ill will." I can say that Yahweh doesn't vaunteth himself as much as He could do. Why if you took the average human being and got them to create a Universe: planets, star systems, life-beings, trees, flowers etc and you asked them to write a book, it would be nothing but what they have achieved. Yahweh doesn't do that. As a matter of fact, the creation story is limited to just one chapter. Yahweh Has a right to be arrogant, but He isn't. He scoops down to help the meek and poor, who have no other help. What about love is not provoked? I can think of many instances where Yahweh seems to be provoked. The NIV says "it does not boast, it is not proud." Pride is a strange one. We say we are proud of our kids, or proud of this or that, in that sense it can be a term that is used loosely. But believe me, if Yahweh were proud He wouldn't want anything to do with us. For "taketh not account of evil", the NIV says, takes no scores of wrongs. Through Yahshua the Messiah we can be judged righteous. And Yahweh certainly doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness as we read in Psalm 89:14 "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne: Lovingkindness and truth go before thy face.

So you see, your idea that Yahweh's righteousness is at lesser standard for Himself that it is for humans is erroneous. Yahweh adheres to His own Laws. However, He being the all-powerful Being that He is does judge, and it's that that you have a problem with. He wants all His people to be as loving and zealous as He is.

For those who pay close attention, it is obvious that God likes to play games with words. Charles Keating (the stock market cheat) might be Carl Cheating.

Could Yahweh be backward pig Latin for "Jew?" Backward, Yahweh would be Hewhay. Converting from pig Latin to English, Hewhay becomes Hew. But, in Spanish, the J is pronounced like an H. So Hew becomes Jew. Ironically Jews can eat pigs.

If we go through the bible very carefully, we can find hidden meanings and hidden messages. But, I suppose, only a real bible (real word of God) could contain such messages.

There are computer programs that you can get for free on the internet that will find words in passages of the bible (like every third letter), or the first letter when you line up a bible verse in equal lengths.