General questions about the Christian idea of God and love

[Drich]

@ 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.

What I am discussing is not about us nor what we have commanded to do. My whole argument centers around the fact that no where in the bible does it say God loves everyone unconditionally. That passages I pointed out clearly states that there are those in whom God hates. Therefore the doctrine of Omni benevolence is a biblically unsupported one.

Again not disputing the fact that we are to love our enemies. Nor that, act is Christ like to a degree. (Don't forget his actions with the money changers, not a whole lot of praying went on that day.)

The actions taken with the money changers shows that God knows there are some of us beyond redemption. Those who are have been deemed wicked.

This bit supported my view I thought:
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

Again you seem to be confusing our commands with the limits of God's hatred toward man. One has nothing to do with another.

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

to which I identified as being incorrect by providing 3 points of verifiable legitimate biblical reference material.

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

Sorry, but wiki does not trump actual Greek lexicons.

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.

for some their are no second chances.
Numerous scriptures refer to believers being chosen (Matthew 24:22, 31; Mark 13:20, 27; Romans 8:33, 9:11, 11:5-7, 28; Ephesians 1:11; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9; 2 Peter 1:10). Predestination is the biblical doctrine that God in His sovereignty chooses certain individuals to be saved.

The question is how, and who. Because in these passages of scripture it says over and over that we can not seek Him unless he calls us.

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

again you go too far. I did not say we are to practice a ministry of hatred. I simply pointed to scripture in which God exercises the power to hate those who revel in evil.

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

What translation did you check in? Here is the kjv linked with the orginal Hebrew, with word by word break down and the word defined:

If you are serious about 'finding a legitmate translation that identifies God hate toward the wicked then simply click on the link provided.:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...onc_489005

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

more than happy to.
For this all one must do is go to a lexicon of your choice and type in sin and evil.
Here is what the vines had to say:
http://studybible.info/vines/Evil,%20Evil-doer

Now contrast the definitions in evil with sin:
http://studybible.info/vines/Sin%20(Noun%20and%20Verb)

Two words, two totally different meanings. Yet 'modern translations' give these two words one meaning.

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

Again you go too far with what I have said. What I have provided is scripture that shows the doctrine of Omni benevolence to be invalid. That's it. It does not change the nature of God Himself.

Just how we think of Him.

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.

So?

Did the rich young ruler fall into the category provided by psalms 11? Again another example of you trying to take what I have pointed out I. The scripture to an unwarranted extreme. Christ did not hate the SINNER because he was caught in sin. As Psalms 11 states God hates evil doers and is all to ready to judge them. Christ displayed this level of distinct and anger toward the money changers. He also sharply and harshly rebuked the Pharisees and makers of the law. He even said 'one's righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees to enter heaven.'

---

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?

Click on the link I provided from the blue letter bible. The word and it's usage is clearly defined. The word sane' only means to hate in the English. The example is given "to hate one's enemies.'

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

What will change in your estimation if God can hate?

---

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

what I have said repeatedly is we as Christians have the freedom to build whatever picture of God we can fathom so long as this picture is continually evolving to match that picture found in the bible.

That is why we have so many different legitimate denominations.

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

well maybe string a few together and start a thread, and we will see if we can't take care a few of those for ya.

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".

who am I to judge who is ready for a deeper understanding and who is not? My task is to simply provide clarity when asked.

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.

who says? I have pointed out frodo is well with in his rights to be at whatever level of understanding he is at, as a Christian. It is only the wicked who need fear the wrath of God.

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?

Please explain your logic there.

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

that statement is proof positive that you do not understand basic biblical Christianity.

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.

are you really so ignorant of history you do not know of the propaganda campaign hitler under took to dehumanize the Jews? It may have started out in anger, but the nazis quickly fabricated/provided fact and reasoning to justify their final solution. It started with 'natural selection/Darwinian' arguement that say they were a genetic throw back/cave man who was holding the Arian race down and keeping it from being a world power to the reason Germany lost the First World War, to the reason Germany could never afford to pay all the reparations for loosing the war, to their economic situation. The Jews had to go and it was every red blooded Germans moral obligation to ensure that not one Jew was left.

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.
Facts have nothing to so with truth. Facts are statement that can be proven or disproven. The German people were overwhelmed with 'facts.'

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

actually no. Interpretation of a definition has no bearing on whether or not the definition is well defined.