Regardless of whether or not we look at it from a theist's POV, I think we can still agree that one refers to a supernatural being in human terms and one refers to natural beings in human terms.
Well, it's certainly dependant upon the notion that the bible is god's word, dictated by god, from god.
If it is, and I was a believer, then I would trust that god's ancient Hebrew was fluent enough for him to be able to convey exactly what he intended to convey. A religious man does not dismiss "thou shalt not kill", because it's just 'human terms'. Who knows, maybe god meant something completely different, like "thou should kill frequently", but we just couldn't understand what he was saying.
If he wants to say: "I am jealous", a believer should trust that he is competent enough to realise that what he is saying is for the 'benefit' of the humans and thus needs to be readily understood by their understanding.
It's like reading a Shakespeare novel to a dog. It would be meaningless. As a result you talk to it on a level that it can understand. The smart and appropriate method with which to dictate to a 'lesser' being is by communicating on it's level of understanding.
If he had have meant to confuse humans he would have just used "god words" like: akbnkbnriobeirbibrkebkrjbkjb instead of talking to them in their human language.
When god says: "I am jealous", a believer should trust that he wants to convey a feeling that he has that can be understood by humans, appreciated by humans, and indeed, (if we are made in his likeness), shared by humans [although perhaps to a lesser degree].
When people say "love", you could state that humans have love, and god has love. Believers would state that god's love is far above ours, so would not the same be true of every other kind of emotion? When a man loves, god loves more, to a higher degree, when a man has wrath it cannot in any way compete with the god version of wrath, and as a logical addition to that: man's jealousy is only a fraction of what god's jealousy is. It doesn't make the emotion different, just greater.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
It's all good, forget about it
The problem is you are looking at God as if he is a man like you. God is, well God he is not human, Its not like He is an increadably advanced being and where just not as advanced as Him. No He is God.
Tell me something, am I permitted to use this quote any time you say god is loving, or that god cares, or that god 'wants' man to love him?
What you've broken this down to is that none of us have the slightest clue, and that any mention of god, (in any manner), is utterly worthless.
I mean c'mon, god is not a man, love is bloody meaningless. It's just a bunch of chemical reactions that man "suffers" from. No godly being would suffer from such petty emotions.. right?
But of course not, you'll happily describe god down to a T, but the minute someone describes something that you don't personally like or agree with, we fall back on the lame argument of: "god is above you, he's not human, you can't talk about him in human terms".
As a result: god is meaningless. You might aswell just say woojooboojoo, because it means just as much from a human point of view.
However, as a believer you should trust in your god's ability to communicate on a human level whereby humans can fully understand what he's getting at. (I don't see you complaining about the ten commandments - oh no, he said that in perfectly understandable ancient Hebrew).
From now on don't even bother claiming god is loving or caring, or wants this or that.. You're just giving me 'human term' gibberish.
Now God can be Jealous without a problem, He can Kill without a problem, Because He is God.
While you can use that excuse, it is quite sickening to hear. Heart has pointed this out, but all you're saying is that you have the right to squash a worm because you're above him. While some would happily agree with that statement - and proceed to squash some worms, it is indeed very very sickening - and shows the level of god to be far below that of man, (most men).
We where not originally designed to have this knowledge we have.
Well of course we were, unless you're happy to claim that god fucked up? He planted the tree, (knowing man would eat), he planted the snake, (knowing man would listen to it) - he
must have designed man to do it, and thus gain the knowledge he supposedly didn't want us to have. I know, you'll say "free will", but then who planted that free will, (to act as it does), in humanity?
Besides which, I consider it a very worthwhile thing to have.. I can't speak for you, but I'm very happy to understand that murder is wrong. I'm very happy to understand that homosexuality is wrong, (etc etc). Without that knowledge we would have no morals whatsoever. We could fart in god's face without understandable consequence and so on.
You guys would have no reason to listen to jesus - because it simply wouldn't mean anything. You guys wouldn't appreciate that you're sinners - because you wouldn't understand sin.
Without that knowledge you would be an animal. There would be no difference between you and a lion, you and a frog, you and a tyrannosaurus rex.
It's strange to see a person who most likely considers man as "important", wanting to be on the same level as a hedgehog or pubic louse.
So God is not a man and Men are not Gods therefore God can justly handle the knowledge of Good and evil, we cannot.
So what you're saying is you would rather be back in the position of not understanding good and evil? A position whereby murder has no consequence, where theft doesn't mean anything, where love has no value?
Therefore we need to follow His guidance to limit our damaging impact on others and ourselves.
What guidance would that be exactly? I mean, are we free to just choose what guidance to follow and what to ignore? If yes - the laws become meaningless, if no - we should all be stoning our naughty sons, prostitutes and Sunday workers to death. Tell me, in that instance how does gods guidance limit our damage to others?
Exactly, you see God in "human terms" your understanding is trapped. Because you do not believe in God.
Everyone would have to see god in 'human terms', because we're all humans - regardless to religious or non-religious views. As such all our understanding is 'trapped'. Loving, caring, wanting, all go out the window aswell as anything else man has ever inferred about a god being.
Just as a bird watches over her eggs from predetors, God also watches over his children in his nest protecting them from predetors - other gods.
Let's look at your quote: A bird watches over her eggs, (young), from
predators. By the same token you would have to state that, (if "god" works to this analogy), that god watches over his children from those against his children. Instead, our analogy would turn out thus:
A bird kills its own young when they don't do exactly what he says. If the young bird flaps it's wings incorrectly, the father bird swiftly decapitates it.
Jenyar, I won't speak for you personally, but in general a persons offspring are not his predators. The predators are the ones trying to harm your offspring.
Take a look at the ten plagues issue. The Egyptians had the jews as slaves. God killed them all, (even though purposely keeping his children as slaves for longer just to inflict pain). That is parenting: Protect your children from enemies, (although it would stand to reason that Egyptians were as much his children as the jews were).
Not kill your own children when there aren't any enemies.
Here's a reality for you Jenyar whether you accept it or not: The christian/jewish god has killed more humans than any other being in the history of mankind. Nothing else even comes close. This you cannot debate against.
Does that sound like: "a bird protecting it's eggs" to you?
If so you must know very little about birds.
Further to which, your last sentence is kind of meaningless. You state that god is protecting us from non-existant beings, (by killing us). That equates to you slaughtering your child because he has an imaginary friend.
You know the 'friend' is not real, and to protect him from what is not real, you give him plague and kill him.
Dude, your analogy sucks.
