TheUnbeliever

So, this one really straddles the fence between BC&H and EoG, but I thought I'd post it here because it relies entirely on two principles:

1. Logic, specifically the "law" of non-contradiction, and
2. Scripture.

Here we go:

1. That which is self-contradictory cannot exist. (P1)
2. God is love. (P2) Representative verse(s): 1 John 4:8
3. God is fearful (meaning "frightening"). (P3) Representative verse(s): 1 Chronicles 16:25
--> 4. God is both fearful and love (from P2 and P3).
5. God does not change (that is, God is always love and always fearful). (P4) Representative verse(s): Malachi 3:6
--> 6. God is both fearful and love at the same time (from P2 - P5).
7. There is no fear in love; that is, love and fear are mutually exclusive (P5). Representative verse(s): 1 John 4:18
--> 8. God is two mutually exclusive things at once (from P2 - P7).
--> 9. God is self-contradictory (from P8).

C. God (as described in the Bible) cannot exist (from P1 and P9).


Text of verses quoted (from the NKJV):

1 John 4:8—"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (Emphasis mine)
1 Chronicles 16:25—"For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is also to be feared above all gods." (Emphasis mine)
Malachi 3:6—"For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Emphasis mine)
1 John 4:18—"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (Emphasis mine)

These verses are only meant to be representative; there are a slew of verses in support of God being loving and loving God, and just as many (if not more) in favor of God inspiring fear and advocating that we fear God.

Finally, I have anticipated the objection that I may be equivocating on the verb "to fear," as it may mean "to be in awe of" in some instances. I would like the input of any forum-goers here who understand enough Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to see how true this claim is. As far as I can tell, if I am guilty of using "to fear" to mean "to be in awe of," there is nothing to indicate that this meaning of "to fear" is not maintained throughout, and so the argument stands regardless.

Thoughts?

thedistillers

It belongs in EoG.

The argument presupposes biblical inerrancy. There is no reason to think the Bible is inerrant. Or it presupposes the Bible accurately describes God. There is no reason to think that.

Anyhow, it's a silly argument but I'll let others comment on it.

TheUnbeliever

The argument is aimed at those who support biblical inerrancy as a way of highlighting contradictory material in the Bible.

I argue with silly people.

gstafleu

There is a hidden assumption here: the type of logic you use (propositional logic) applies to the bible. Just rejecting that premise scuttles your argument. What you (may) have shown is that the bible is inconsistent with propositional logic, but that can hardly be surprising. Harry Potter is likely also inconsistent with propositional logic.

Gerard Stafleu

Hippocampus

I consulted J Random Christian, and without even stopping to think, he said “A loving father does not hesitate to chastise his children if they misbehave. We are God’s children, and it is for our own good in the long run, even if we cannot always understand the reasons for it. Naturally we fear this chastisement. So, we are right to fear God’s justice, but we must never doubt that his love for us is boundless and eternal, and that whatever He does is for the best.”

Seriously though, trying to use propositional logic on philosophical truths is like building a tower out of jellyfish. It just collapses out of sheer wobbliness. In this case the wobbliest jellyfish in the pile is P2 (God is love) , which is almost meaningless.

d-ray

I think your argument is weak from the beginning: That which is self-contradictory cannot exist. "Self-contradictory" can mean a lot of things, and we're all quite often self-contradictory: generous at times and stingy at times, sometimes accomodating and sometimes impossible to deal with, etc. I have personally seen people who were kind towards all children except their own. So if you want to insist on this point, I think you need to explain exactly what you mean by it.
In any case, I don't think this argument will impress too many believers. The Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and if they want to, they can find ways to ignore all them. So I don't think they'd be too bothered by this sort of word game.

elevator

If you search the web for "How can I love and fear God at the same time" you will see that this problem has been argued for and against for a long time. The weakness of the argument in my mind are the definitions of "love" and "fear". I see that you recognize that "fear", for example, may be understood in different ways. Billy Graham (yes, I know... :banghead: ) for example has said: "To fear God is not to shrink back from Him in terror. To fear God is to have a deep reverence for Him, and to stand in awe at His holiness and majesty and power and love. Only then will we love and serve and worship Him as we should."

Statements like these make it hard for the non-believer to claim that love and fear is self-contradictory when applied to God (at least in conversations with believers).

So the argument is useful only in the sense that both parties in the argument agrees on the definitions of the terms.

PirateFaafy

Except that John 4:18 clearly states otherwise - and since we're working from biblical standards and all... :huh:

storytime

The "we" is not intended to mean all people. Only Israel is accounted as "a people" of God. The fear factor is aimed at Israelites. "Those who are called by my name", "my namesake". These God loved and chastised. Other people had their own gods and of which the god of Israel commanded his people in Israel[sons of Jacob] not to worship.

"For God is great and great to be praised". Again for Israelites. Other people praised and worshiped their own gods.

God of Israel hated other people and commanded they be slaughtered and their gods destroyed. This hatred from Yahweh did not invalidate the greatness of other gods to other people. The prophets who wrote about their Israelite god commanded that He be worshipped excluding all other gods.

"Love" is within the framework of Israel, its god, its people, sons of Jacob-Israel. Evil is attributed to all other people and their gods.

Israelites were to fear their god. Other people did not give a shit about the Israelite god as they considered their own god more authoritative.

"To fear" the Israelite god had meaning in obedience to his commands. Commands of Yahweh to the Israelites was to kill and slaughter other people because Yahweh did not love other people. Yahweh even hated their animals, hated their yet-to-be born children. Yahweh was not a universal god, he was a tribal psychopath with a twisted mind[of man]. A jealous overlord, constructed from "the mouth" of prophets, priests, crazed zealots who were for the most part "a terror" in the middle east[land of Canaan].

1. Logic - the law of non-contradiction = Israeli law, Jewish law.

2. Scripture - belongs to the Jews. Malachi:3:16-18

"Then they that feared the Lord spoke often one to another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels, and I will spare them as a man spareth his won son that serveth him.

Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not."

The judging of Israel by the god of Israel. The pre-destined plan.

elevator

Since you highlighted a particular sentence I wrote I assume you are suggesting that John 4:18 somehow makes it abundantly clear that love and fear is contradictory when applied to God? First of all I don't see how John 4:18 is even relevant so please elaborate. Second; all the believer has to do is to redefine the terms much like Billy Graham did in the quote above. I am not saying it is right; all I am saying is that this is how the believer explains away apparent contradictions like the ones presented in the OP. The notorious ambiguity of biblical interpretation is what makes this possible. The usefulness of the argument is evident only as far as the person you are presenting it to believes the bible is inerrant and subject to literal interpretation and that you agree on the definition of the terms (here: love and fear).