@ genkaus: because I think there's a distinction between punishment and hate. God angers, is justly angry and serves justice. God cannot harbour hate as that would contradict his nature. You cannot interpret the biblical statement that 'God is agape' in John to mean that God is not also agape, in my mind.

(September 14, 2014 at 4:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ genkaus: because I think there's a distinction between punishment and hate. God angers, is justly angry and serves justice. God cannot harbour hate as that would contradict his nature. You cannot interpret the biblical statement that 'God is agape' in John to mean that God is not also agape, in my mind.

So, you are saying that Drich is wrong because he confused anger with hate?

Yes that is my assumption

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: Why would God send those He loves to Hell? Appearently some 'atheists' really can't grasp the concept that God does not love everyone.

Perhaps theologians regularly touting God's omnibenevolence and infinite love or his "divine word" itself emphatically proclaiming that "God is love" has something to do with our confusion.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?

—Matthew 5:43-46, RSV

I am not trying to break your understanding of the nature of God. Your entitled to build any picture you need to. Further more I believe God will support you where you are right and forgive you where you are wrong, just as He supports me where I am right and give me forgiveness where I am wrong. God has given us the freedom to both be wrong, so long as we both keep seeking the truth, and do not become luke warm in our beliefs.

Quote:In loving your enemies you are mimicking God who loves his enemies.

this is not what the passage says.

It clearly says we are to pray for those who persecute us, why? Not because God loves his enemies, no the verse being discussed says nothing about God's enemies. It states we are to pray for our enemies so that we both may become sons of our Father in Heaven. Meaning just because we are at odds with someone else does not mean God is to be at odds with them as well.

(Just because we hate someone does not mean God hates them.)

Quote:"Unconditional love" is a modern translation of the word 'agape'. A being who's prime attribute is love can't hate.

Taken from the vines:
"Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, Romans 15:2, and works no ill to any, 13:8-10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith,' Galatians 6:10. See further 1 Cor. 13 and Colossians 3:12-Colossians 3:14." * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 105.]

(Opportunity denotes condition)
http://studybible.info/vines/Love%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)

Taken from the blue letter:
of persons
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
of things
to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...=G25&t=KJV

And on the same page is an excerpt for The thayer's lexicon from which the orginal word is taken and translated. (Click on the drop down.)

You will note, that no where once is agape, agapao, or any variation of the root, is 'Agape' ever translated "unconditional love."

This is a tag, pop Christianity has placed on God. We know this to be a pop Christian addition because nothing but a denominationally specific bible (one printed with in the last few decades) ever mention the phrase 'unconditional love.'

Again, in John 3:16 there is an undeniable condition to God's love. It's belief. In order to receive God's love and eternal life, one must first believe. If not that person will know the wrath of God in Hell. Otherwise we all would enter heaven no matter what we believed. That is not what Christ taught.

Quote:“But God demonstrates His own (agape) love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8)

If we were still sinners then he hated us and condemned us to hell. If he didn't condemn us to hell, then he didn't hate us.
[/quote]
You are confusing two concepts.

First you must understand their is a line between sin and evil.
(Sin is anything outside the expressed will of God. We are all born to sin. That we can not help, it is to this God offers redemption.
Then Their is Evil, is a willful endulgence or delight in being outside the expressed will of God. This and these who practice it are who God hates.)

Next you must accept what psalms 7 starting at verse 10 says, in what God HATES the wicked, and psalms 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

In both instances where God is showing hate towards man, it is for those who seek out and enjoy their sin, those who endulge their evil spirits.

God forgave/forgives those who seek forgiveness and turn from sin. God has no mercy for the evil men of this world. This is according to scripture, and not a pop Christian doctrine.

That is why those who are forgiven are forgiven and why those who are not get to goto Hell.

---

(September 14, 2014 at 4:16 pm)genkaus Wrote: According to Frodo - "because its somehow the just thing to do"

well, frodo is right, it is the thing to do. And the bible explains in great detail why. Christ himself took quite a bit of time explaining those reasons in the book of Matthew in parable form. The parables of the wheat and chaff, the wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, all explain why there is a separation between those in whom God desires and those whom God is going to cast out where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Quote:No, atheists are fine with the idea that your god is a misanthrope.

you seem to be confused with the defination of that word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misanthrope

A misanthrope hates all of human kind. God simply hate evil men. Who among us can not say the same, even if we may differ on the identification of who is and is not evil?

Quote:Its the Christians who keep saying that he loves everyone.

Not true the op is not Christian and as I pointed out 1/2 the questions asked were based on the idea that God is Omni benevolent. This defination is one many of you support, but at the same time like to use the paradox found in the doctrine of Omni benevolence.

It is to that failed doctrine of Omni benevolence that most of you no longer believe in God. Because you see evidence of the contrary. I agree there is much evidence to the contrary, to the point it can not be reconciled or explained. That is why I took a closer look at what the bible actually had to say, and guess what, this doctrine of Omni benevolence is also not supported by the bible. Which makes it a simple failed doctrine of man, and not an actual description of the God of the bible.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: There are those whom God hates.

Quote:Care to convince Fr0d0 of that?

frodo like the rest of us are only responsible to what we have been given over to understand. If he needs to worship an all loving God, then the God of the bible is forgiving and loving enough to forgive him for it IF he is wrong.

Quote:Are you saying that Saumuel 15:3 doesn't count because it wasn't issued to Christians?

of course not. Sam 15, was a command issued in one specific instance to one specific set of OT Jews under king Saul. We know this because this was not the m/o everytime the Jewish army conquered a rival nation. Each and everytime this sort of thing happened their was a special command given.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: God is not the cause of these acts,

Quote:Given the very question of his existence - I'd agree.

finish your thought.

If God is not responsible, then who is? Man. If man is not bound to God then he is free to justify any act he so chooses.

Quote:Actually, that would be absolutist, irrational and authoritarian morality - that is what the Germans and Chinese and Russians rallied behind. And guess what, your god's morality is absolutist, irrational and authoritarian. You are the one who rallies behind them.

I love it went you guys make a charge like this and do not support it with any evidence. That makes my job easier. I can simply dismiss your comment by saying you have confused Christianity with Islam.

Quote:Not if its rational.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word rational.
It means to simply have a reason.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

By this definition the extermination of nearly 7 million Jews was a rational act by hitlers germany.
Why because they had a reason for doing what they did.

Again with out God pop morality is subject to what the mob wants to indulge in.
Just look at our taboo lists, and how the list keeps on shrinking. What was one generations taboo, is another's right.

Quote:Yes, god's/biblical morality is subjective and open to interpretation and any actual right and wrong would require an objective morality.

again no proof for your statement. Dismissed as biblical righteousness is well defined.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: "Biblically unsupported platitude."

Quote:Is that a correction? Because you did say "empty" before.

not a correction, clarification. Biblically unsupported makes it empty.

---

(September 14, 2014 at 4:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes that is my assumption

No need to assume just ask.

Psalms 11:5 'God hates the wicked.'

The word here in psalms 11:5 that is translated into hate is the Hebrew word sane'
Outline of Biblical Usage
to hate, be hateful
(Qal) to hate
of man
of God
hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)
(Niphal) to be hated
(Piel) hater (participle)
of persons, nations, God, wisdom

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...8130&t=KJV

As you can see it literally means to hate.

If you are trying to build a biblically accurate picture of God you must include this emotion. There is no getting around it. The bible clearly states that there are those of us in whom God hates.

So what.

What does that change other than more of our biblically unsupported doctrine?

---

(September 14, 2014 at 4:54 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: Why would God send those He loves to Hell? Appearently some 'atheists' really can't grasp the concept that God does not love everyone.

Perhaps theologians regularly touting God's omnibenevolence and infinite love or his "divine word" itself emphatically proclaiming that "God is love" has something to do with our confusion.

God is love, where is the confusion?

Can't you love someone and hate another, without collapsing into an endless paradox?

God loves his children, and hates those who do evil towards them or others. Any parent can relate to this what is the big mystery here?

@ Drich: I agree with you that the term I used is modern and sloppy. But I knew what was meant by it.

The verse wasn't talking about hate, but enemies. To love your enemy is to be like Christ.

This bit supported my view I thought:

Quote:Love seeks the welfare of all, Romans 15:2, and works no ill to any, 13:8-10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men

Quote:You will note, that no where once is agape, agapao, or any variation of the root, is 'Agape' ever translated "unconditional love."

Of course it isn't. It's a modern translation of the Greek

Wikipedia Wrote:Agape (/ˈæɡəpiː/[1] or /əˈɡɑːpeɪ/; Classical Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē; Modern Greek: αγάπη IPA: [aˈɣapi]), often translated "unconditional love"

I am certainly not advocating that salvation is unnecessary. God loves the unsaved which is how they end up saved. Because he still loved them. And God loves the sinners such as the prostitute and tax man. Those engaged in sin, he still loved and still saved. If he harboured hatred, there would be no second chance.

Moreover, hell should be consistent with this. An agape God cannot change his nature with regard to those in hell after death. Eternity understood as an infinite length of time is not an accurate translation of the original text.

John 12:32

Quote: when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

A ministry of hatred is not something I recognise. It is inconsistent with my belief.

I checked your psalms references and couldn't find a translation that stated that God hates.

You mention the difference between sin and evil. Could you provide references for those please.

All are forgiven if they accept it. Only by refusing it do you earn a place in hell. It is never withheld.

Quote: Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him.

(September 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Drich Wrote: Appearently some 'atheists' really can't grasp the concept that God does not love everyone.

Atheists don't believe in god. Silly

Quote:There are those whom God hates.

It aids the bias, yes?

Another one Drich.. (I see the hatred line is psalm 11) hatred in this sense, referring to long lasting defiance, I take to mean an ongoing anger. That is, not an unjustified state of condemnation. Rather an extended version of the short and sharp measure usually dealt. What do you think?

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: well, frodo is right, it is the thing to do. And the bible explains in great detail why. Christ himself took quite a bit of time explaining those reasons in the book of Matthew in parable form. The parables of the wheat and chaff, the wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, all explain why there is a separation between those in whom God desires and those whom God is going to cast out where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Except for the "just" part.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: you seem to be confused with the defination of that word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misanthrope

A misanthrope hates all of human kind. God simply hate evil men. Who among us can not say the same, even if we may differ on the identification of who is and is not evil?

Hey, its your fantasy. You can go around saying that he hates everyone or only evil or only good or that he hates randomly - I'm fine with all of that.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Not true the op is not Christian and as I pointed out 1/2 the questions asked were based on the idea that God is Omni benevolent. This defination is one many of you support, but at the same time like to use the paradox found in the doctrine of Omni benevolence.

Its the definition that mainstream Christianity supports. Are you saying that all those people who call themselves Christians are not Christians?

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: It is to that failed doctrine of Omni benevolence that most of you no longer believe in God.

No, there are a multitude of other logical problems as well.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Which makes it a simple failed doctrine of man, and not an actual description of the God of the bible.

Then it should be easy for you to convince your fellow Christians of that and get them change their definition and stop spouting shit like "god loves you".

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: frodo like the rest of us are only responsible to what we have been given over to understand. If he needs to worship an all loving God, then the God of the bible is forgiving and loving enough to forgive him for it IF he is wrong.

But if Frodo needs to worship an all-loving god, which according to you, your god isn't, then clearly Frodo isn't worshiping your god - which is something your god does not forgive.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: of course not. Sam 15, was a command issued in one specific instance to one specific set of OT Jews under king Saul. We know this because this was not the m/o everytime the Jewish army conquered a rival nation. Each and everytime this sort of thing happened their was a special command given.

So, your god's command in this instance was contrary to his morality?

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: finish your thought.

That was it.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: If God is not responsible, then who is? Man.

Or no one is.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: If man is not bound to God then he is free to justify any act he so chooses.

He is still bound by reality.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: I love it went you guys make a charge like this and do not support it with any evidence. That makes my job easier. I can simply dismiss your comment by saying you have confused Christianity with Islam.

Both of you supposedly worship the same god - so no confusion there. Your biblical morality is as absolutist and authoritarian as the Islamic one.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word rational.
It means to simply have a reason.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational

Please read the definition you provided:

"based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings".

So when I say a rational morality, I mean a morality that is based on facts and reasonably derived and not one based on emotions of feelings.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: By this definition the extermination of nearly 7 million Jews was a rational act by hitlers germany.
Why because they had a reason for doing what they did.

No, by this defintion, since their so-called justification was not factual but emotional, their actions were not rational.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Again with out God pop morality is subject to what the mob wants to indulge in.

A mob morality would be as irrational as your god's - one is based on appeal to popularity, the other on appeal to authority.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Just look at our taboo lists, and how the list keeps on shrinking. What was one generations taboo, is another's right.

Something to be expected when you start letting go of irrational morality.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: again no proof for your statement. Dismissed as biblical righteousness is well defined.

Different Christians interpret your biblical morality differently - therefore, not well-defined and open to interpretation.

(September 14, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Drich Wrote: not a correction, clarification. Biblically unsupported makes it empty.

Okay.

(September 14, 2014 at 6:43 pm)genkaus Wrote: But if Frodo needs to worship an all-loving god, which according to you, your god isn't, then clearly Frodo isn't worshiping your god - which is something your god does not forgive.

Well I lol'd