"And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse."

[Age]

Gary, God is the One objective law of the universe.

Let's assume that is a partial definition of God and correct. It doesn't mean that the various subjective creatures running around on earth understand this deity correctly, and given their differing senses of what his objective laws are and how they should be applied in practice and in specific, it seems clear that at least most of the various theists are incorrect about God's objective law much of the time.

Not only theists, no one can comprehend the ultimate truth.

WHO TOLD 'you' 'this'?

Plato also said, “I know that I know nothing,” therefore everyone has to believe in something, atheists, for example, believe in atheism.

1. Is "plato" so WIZARD/God OF 'knowledge', and thus 'knowing'?

2. SAYING and CLAIMING that, 'I know that I know nothing', for the UNINITIATED, IS AN OXYMORON and A SELF-REFUTATION.

3. HOW does it 'logically follow and conclude', to 'you', that IF 'I know that I know nothing', THEN I MUST BELIEVE IN some 'thing'?

[Gary Childress]

God is like your bodyguard or something--your weapon of mass destruction before modern technology came up with extremely powerful ones. Maybe God wants the Palestinians killed, women and children too, like the Amalekites. Kill or be killed. What a "divine" world your creator Yhwh made.

No thanks. Let's not run around killing people. Maybe abstinence from killing will catch on and others will follow a similar sentiment.

WHY are 'you' SO CONCERNED 'now' about just some people in "palestine" "garry childress"?

'Before', 'you' were SO CONCERNED about some people in "ukraine", which, as far as I am aware, 'you' have NOT mentioned for a while 'now'.

Also, WHY do 'you' NOT seem SO CONCERNED about the KILLINGS men, women, and children in the ACTUAL country/place that 'you' are residing in 'now'?

A quick search might show that there are MORE KILLINGS by the USE of WEAPONS in 'that country', in a year, then there are in ANY other country/place.

I just respond to people who are defending military violence. People I respond to are usually discussing the most current war in the news. Therefore I respond to those specific wars that they are defending. Would you prefer I not respond to them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'd still be interested in knowing that.

I’ve been thinking about it. I am swamped with other things and it might take a day or two or three.

[Age]

God is like your bodyguard or something--your weapon of mass destruction before modern technology came up with extremely powerful ones. Maybe God wants the Palestinians killed, women and children too, like the Amalekites. Kill or be killed. What a "divine" world your creator Yhwh made.

No thanks. Let's not run around killing people. Maybe abstinence from killing will catch on and others will follow a similar sentiment.

WHY are 'you' SO CONCERNED 'now' about just some people in "palestine" "garry childress"?

'Before', 'you' were SO CONCERNED about some people in "ukraine", which, as far as I am aware, 'you' have NOT mentioned for a while 'now'.

Also, WHY do 'you' NOT seem SO CONCERNED about the KILLINGS men, women, and children in the ACTUAL country/place that 'you' are residing in 'now'?

A quick search might show that there are MORE KILLINGS by the USE of WEAPONS in 'that country', in a year, then there are in ANY other country/place.

I just respond to people who are defending military violence.

Do those people defend 'military violence', or, defend 'justified', to them only, 'military use'?

People I respond to are usually discussing the most current war in the news.

Which, to me, seems like having an extremely narrowed and/or extremely short-sighted view of 'things'.

Therefore I respond to those specific wars that they are defending.

Okay, so are 'you' now SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' ARE SO CONCERNED about the usually talked about 'most current' war in the news?

Would you prefer I not respond to them?

I do NOT care one iota either way.

Would you prefer I do NOT respond to you when you 'try to' defend Wrong 'things'?

[Gary Childress]

Would you prefer I do NOT respond to you when you 'try to' defend Wrong 'things'?

Are you saying that you are responding to me now because I am/was defending the wrong thing?

[Age]

Would you prefer I do NOT respond to you when you 'try to' defend Wrong 'things'?

Are you saying that you are responding to me now because I am/was defending the wrong thing?

Yes.

[Gary Childress]

Would you prefer I do NOT respond to you when you 'try to' defend Wrong 'things'?

Are you saying that you are responding to me now because I am/was defending the wrong thing?

Yes.

What was the wrong thing that I was defending?

[Age]

Are you saying that you are responding to me now because I am/was defending the wrong thing?

Yes.

What was the wrong thing that I was defending?

The 'wrong thing' that you have been 'trying to' defend here is that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS of God were right and correct.

[Immanuel Can]

Janoah, in your original post, the quotation from Genesis:

Who is the "I" of which you speak?

And what does it mean "bless" and "curse"?

Is this saying supposed to incentivize/disincentivize some behaviour? What behaviour?

Most importantly, if the Almighty cannot intervene in the natural world, in what sense can He "bless" or "curse" anybody, and what reason do they have for finding that incentivizing?

[Janoah]

Most importantly, if the Almighty cannot intervene in the natural world, in what sense can He "bless" or "curse" anybody, and what reason do they have for finding that incentivizing?

history also proceeds according to natural Law, and so does the human mind.
It is said that 'goodness is rewarded'.
In what manner? In a natural way.

[Immanuel Can]

Most importantly, if the Almighty cannot intervene in the natural world, in what sense can He "bless" or "curse" anybody, and what reason do they have for finding that incentivizing?

history also proceeds according to natural Law, and so does the human mind.

Natural law has no opinion about whether Israel has title to the Land or to Jerusalem. But HaShem does.

It is said that 'goodness is rewarded'.
In what manner? In a natural way.

"It is said?" "It is said by whom?"

Who will "bless"? Natural law does not "bless." Natural law just does whatever it does; and that's as likely to be causing death as life.

[nemos]

... Natural law just does whatever it does; and that's as likely to be causing death as life.

Natural mechanisms even try hard to encourage us to do the right things and not to do the wrong things. By punishing us with hunger if we forget to eat and blessing us with endorphins if we do, overeating is similarly punished with nausea. I am not talking about how much nature tries to encourage us to exchange different bodily fluids to maintain succession.
It's just that humans are terribly cunning and have learned to use the mechanisms of nature to reap rewards without doing the work - which is also reflected in the biblical deadly sins.

To sum up, the laws of nature should also be the laws of god, if we believe that god created the world with all its laws. And accordingly, to live according to the laws of nature is to live according to god.
So if someone uses the concept of god or 'common sense' to encourage you to resist nature - be careful they are trying to distract you from god.

[Immanuel Can]

... Natural law just does whatever it does; and that's as likely to be causing death as life.

To sum up, the laws of nature should also be the laws of god,

Well, they should be, but they clearly aren't.

For to identify "nature" with "God" that would have to mean that the two were on the exact same project. Of course, the Biblical account is that nature and its laws, like "survival of the fittest" or "entropy" are fallen and damaged, as a consequence of the disobedience of nature's chief steward, mankind. If so, we are not experiencing nature as nature was created and intended to be, but something considerably short of that.

What we do see, right now, for sure, is that many of the "laws" of nature simply issue in death. The mortality rate around here is 100%. Everything dies.

[nemos]

... If so, we are not experiencing nature as nature was created and intended to be, but something considerably short of that.
... The mortality rate around here is 100%. Everything dies.

1. What about the laws of the invariance of matter and energy ? Nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes anywhere, only transforms from one state to another. In my understanding man is part of nature and as such cannot be separated from it - so your statement sounds to me like nature has corrupted nature. It may be that humans are nothing more than another mistake of nature, with overdeveloped brains, and they will suffer the fate that befell the dinosaurs, with overdeveloped bodies.

2. Death is an integral part of life, because it is only through the endless cycle of death and life that life is able to evolve, including adapting to changing environmental conditions.

[Immanuel Can]

... If so, we are not experiencing nature as nature was created and intended to be, but something considerably short of that.
... The mortality rate around here is 100%. Everything dies.

1. What about the laws of the invariance of matter and energy ?

There is no such law. Matter and energy vary all the time. If you have something in mind, you'll have to pin it down to more than that.

Nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes anywhere, only transforms from one state to another.

I'm not seeing how that helps.

Man is born. Man dies. Man becomes dust. That's three states, but it's still death.

In my understanding man is part of nature and as such cannot be separated from it - so your statement sounds to me like nature has corrupted nature.

No, man has caused the corruption of nature. In falling away from the Creator, man has severed himself from the Source of life. With him, his home, his place of existence has also fallen...because, of course, man still needs a place to live, act, choose, and die, so God allowed nature to fall with mankind.

It may be that humans are nothing more than another mistake of nature, with overdeveloped brains, and they will suffer the fate that befell the dinosaurs, with overdeveloped bodies.

That's a different narrative. That's the Materialist-Evolutionist narrative. And yes, if that narrative were true, that's plausibly all we are.

2. Death is an integral part of life,

It's not, actually. It's the cessation of life, by definition.

And while the Evolutionist story will have to insist that the trials of life and inevitable death are all that can ever be, the Biblical account tells quite a different ending.