If God Loved everyone !

[mondar]

I agree, Hugo, . . . It is a slam against humanity, this idea that "no one would do good, but actually DESIRE to do evil". I don't!

Yes, I agree that the scriptural teaching on the sinfulness is a slam against humanity. Of course I think it is a just slam. And that is the dividing line.

You think there is not real issue of sin and rebellion (how rebellious of a view!) and I think the scriptural "slam" on man is a correct view. We need deity to justify the ungodly.

Shrug, maybe we christians are the bad guys saved by grace? You do not need God forgiveness and so you will not receive what you do not need.

But God is there, and God is just and will judge.

 

[Orion]

mondar, I just don't see any ethics with how you see your god. I see it AS small, . . . a man made notion of "having to get revenge for a wrong". The "wrath of god needing to be satisfied". He, of course, ultimately satisfied himself when he sacrificed himself for his appeasment. Of course we are all human. We have faults, . . . but that's what makes us who we are. I would never want to spend an eternity with a deity who would squash me at any moment for anything I did that was considered wrong in his eyes. If, in heaven, people's propensity to sin is taken away, will they even BE who they were on earth? I doubt it. . . . but if it were all just so that a deity could have humans praise him, what's the glory in that? Angels do that.

You're right that we probably won't agree on much, here. If there is a god out there, I can only hope that he/she has a much more advanced way of dealing with issues than "kill it".

Oh, and as for "no such thing as an innocent baby, because in Adam, all are unrighteous", . . . I've already stated the lack of ethics in such a way of thinking. And that's the issue. Your god made that ruling so that, when he kills them, he doesn't have to pay for the sin of murder. Well, my ethics are greater than that. I don't hold offspring guilty by definition, based upon what a parent does. If your god does, . . .then he's unethical, regardless of the "loophole of original sin". He's guilty still. And the only reason WHY he can do what he wants, . . . is becaues "might makes right". Ethics don't matter. The one with all the power makes his own ethics and there is nothing we can do about it. Job figured it out long ago.

 

[mondar]

mondar, I just don't see any ethics with how you see your god. I see it AS small, . . . a man made notion of "having to get revenge for a wrong". The "wrath of god needing to be satisfied". He, of course, ultimately satisfied himself when he sacrificed himself for his appeasment. Of course we are all human. We have faults, . . . but that's what makes us who we are. I would never want to spend an eternity with a deity who would squash me at any moment for anything I did that was considered wrong in his eyes.

So would you accept a god willing to look the other way and not judge Hitler, Stalin, and Jack the Ripper? So there is no depravity, no degradation, no level of moral filth to which the created can stoop that god will not look the other way? If God excuses any sin, must he not excuse all sin? So he is to draw some arbitrary line at just the right place to excuse you from your sin, but not the guy next to you? You cannot believe in my God, but I cannot fathom accepting your arbitrary whimpy god.

If, in heaven, people's propensity to sin is taken away, will they even BE who they were on earth? I doubt it. . . . but if it were all just so that a deity could have humans praise him, what's the glory in that? Angels do that.

People will not loose their identity in heaven. Did Christ loose his identity in the resurrection before his ascension? No! The issue is not just getting a group of Angels or men to praise him. The issue is to manifest his glory. Christs atonement did nothing for angels, but the crosswork of Christ manifest God's love, God's grace, God's goodness, and God's justice. God received glory from the manifestation of his attributes in action. Angels can praise him, human's can praise him, but both angels and men will recognize his glory in the crosswork of Christ.

You're right that we probably won't agree on much, here. If there is a god out there, I can only hope that he/she has a much more advanced way of dealing with issues than "kill it".

"Issues" is that what you call it? So it is merely some small minor issue between God and man? We not only see differences between the nature of man, the nature of God, but we also see differences in the nature of sin. You see it as an "issue." I believe I have used the word "rebellion" more. We go about to set up our own little empires in defiance of the one who created us. We are mere creatures, who are we to have issues with God?

Oh, and as for "no such thing as an innocent baby, because in Adam, all are unrighteous", . . . I've already stated the lack of ethics in such a way of thinking. And that's the issue. Your god made that ruling so that, when he kills them, he doesn't have to pay for the sin of murder. Well, my ethics are greater than that. I don't hold offspring guilty by definition, based upon what a parent does. If your god does, . . .then he's unethical, regardless of the "loophole of original sin". He's guilty still. And the only reason WHY he can do what he wants, . . . is becaues "might makes right". Ethics don't matter. The one with all the power makes his own ethics and there is nothing we can do about it. Job figured it out long ago.

OK, well I dont know much about the eternal destiny of babies. I know this, God is not guilty of murder when a baby dies. The text on original sin does not say "God kills babies." The "loop hole of original sin" simply means we all die. It is not God that brings death but sin brings death. If you want to refer to Romans 5, lets work on the text, but what you say is a distortion of Romans 5. Death is not Gods fault, but man who sins.

And God is not guilty because he created man with sin... he did not, he created man innocent, and then man fell. Yes God knew it would happen, and wanted it to happen, but he is not responsible for mans sin. God did not magicly wave a wand and make Adam sin. God did not participate in that sin, or in any sin in any way.

 

[Orion]

So would you accept a god willing to look the other way and not judge Hitler, Stalin, and Jack the Ripper?

Why is it that these guys always come up? Of course they shouldn't be "let off the hook", but you're putting people who may have only said a small lie, once, and place them in the same torture chamber and same punishment. Again, . . . NOT justice.

"Issues" is that what you call it? So it is merely some small minor issue between God and man? We not only see differences between the nature of man, the nature of God, but we also see differences in the nature of sin. You see it as an "issue." I believe I have used the word "rebellion" more. We go about to set up our own little empires in defiance of the one who created us. We are mere creatures, who are we to have issues with God?

As I see it, . . . there isn't much difference between us and god. He just apparently has more power and therefore can do whatever he wants with no consequences. An ISSUE of "someone who can't accept a concept as 'a personal savior' because no evidence exist for it" is not rebellion. It is being true to who the person is. And that's me.

OK, well I dont know much about the eternal destiny of babies. I know this, God is not guilty of murder when a baby dies. The text on original sin does not say "God kills babies." The "loop hole of original sin" simply means we all die.

You misunderstood me, I think. The "loophole" IS "original sin", thus no one, not even babies, are innocent, thus if they die in a global flood, or via maurading Hebrews on order from their god, . . . it means that "god is off the hook for their deaths". I don't agree with that, though, because it has that "issue of the unethical 'guilt by birth' that your theology believes".

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar says:

If God loves all men, he does not love them equally.

There is no if about it, God does not Love all Men..rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[Orion]

How many times are you going to post that verse, savedbygrace?

So, according to you, your god chose the majority of creation to hate, purposefully, without anything they could do to prevent it, sends them to a torture chamber {Hell}, and you're good with that? You don't see that as being unethical?

 

[glorydaz]

OK, my opinion is that yes, the difference between God and us is for to great for us to complain about anything, in anyway, ever. However, the very idea of complaining is evidence that we do not properly understand the distance between God and ourselves. We are a simple creation, and in now way equal with the creator, the uncreated. In essence, we have no rights.

This is especially true since from Adam, we have inherited human nature that is naturally in rebellion against the creator. We devise ideas that justify our rebellion. We attack God. We wrestle with God and make him the bad guy and ourselves just and good. (Is this not what you are doing right now). This is normally based upon the concept that our rebellion is not as bad as it seems.

Orion, your a fairly sophisticated, smart person. Surely you have observed the difference between some Calvinists and our Arminian counterparts. You use the same arguments as they do. There are 2 great differences.
1---The great difference is not how we view God (as a just divine judge) but how we view man. In Arminianism man does bad things, but is not an evil creature. In Calvinism, we not only do bad things, we are bad. We are evil. In Calvinism, God would be just even if he sent all creation to hell. And God will manifest his justice nearly in that way. But he also manifests his glorious love.
2---The other difference is that God has made creation completely for his own Glory. It is for his glory to manifest his justice (by judging sinners) and by manifesting his love (in the salvation of the elect). Some Arminians might claim to believe that creation is solely to manifest the glory of God, but then will put forth the glorious free will of man. To Calvinist ears, the free will of man will always sound like a denial of the sinfulness of man. It will always sound like man sharing in Gods glory.

Well, now I am expecting a straitforward denial that God cannot be so great as to deserve all the glory. He cannot be so far above his creation as to have the right to do with it as he pleases. I admit, I think this does not make God an ogre, but it makes him the sovereign majestic glorious God that he is.

God made man to have fellowship with Him. God is love.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

 

[glorydaz]

mondar says:

If God loves all men, he does not love them equally.

There is no if about it, God does not Love all Men..rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God hated Esau's sin. Too bad you don't know God.
If you did, you'd know this.

 

[glorydaz]

glory says:

Oh my...that's a horrible thing to believe.

Thats because you reject the True God..

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar says:

If God loves all men, he does not love them equally.

There is no if about it, God does not Love all Men..rom 9:

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God hated Esau's sin. Too bad you don't know God.
If you did, you'd know this.

Thats not what the scripture said..

 

[mondar]

So would you accept a god willing to look the other way and not judge Hitler, Stalin, and Jack the Ripper?

Why is it that these guys always come up? Of course they shouldn't be "let off the hook", but you're putting people who may have only said a small lie, once, and place them in the same torture chamber and same punishment. Again, . . . NOT justice.

So by what standard can you justify "the small lie, once" and not judge Jack the Ripper. Where do we draw the line? What about the guy who tells 2 small lies, or three small lies, or one big one and 3 small ones......... and on and one until you make it to jack the ripper.

The only standard by which you are judging is by your own created ethic. You judge by the standard of your own behavior. Of course Hitler and Stalin did the same thing. Hitler was going to do great things for the German people because they were the most superior race. This great race was going to benefit humanity. Certainly Hitler justified his actions as only "one small lie."

In otherwords, without a divine centered ethic, your ethic becomes totally subjective. By whose standard is there a "small" lie?

"Issues" is that what you call it? So it is merely some small minor issue between God and man? We not only see differences between the nature of man, the nature of God, but we also see differences in the nature of sin. You see it as an "issue." I believe I have used the word "rebellion" more. We go about to set up our own little empires in defiance of the one who created us. We are mere creatures, who are we to have issues with God?

As I see it, . . . there isn't much difference between us and god.

BINGO!!! I believe we struck paydirt!!!! You do not see the divine creator as any different then a man. Your begin with this presupposition, that God is on the same level as a mere man, and then when you begin with this presupposition and your theology does not make ethical sense you conclude that Christianity, especially Calvinistic Christianity is irrational, especially morally irrational. If you began with a different presupposition (that God is God) it might be different.

****With your concept of God being a mere man, just a little more powerful, no wonder you say that sin is a mere "issue."

He just apparently has more power and therefore can do whatever he wants with no consequences. An ISSUE of "someone who can't accept a concept as 'a personal savior' because no evidence exist for it" is not rebellion. It is being true to who the person is. And that's me.

No evidence? It is not that there is no evidence, but your presuppositional system only allows a man sized deity who allows a subjective system of sin in which each man justifies himself on the basis of his own ethic.
With such presuppositions of of a man sized Deity, non-offensive sin, and the virtues of man, of course you cannot possibly even conceive of any "evidence." The presuppositions of your world view filter out any possible evidence. Its not that evidence does not exist, its that your world view and presuppositions from your world view will not allow it to exist.

Certainly if you do not see your self as a sinful rebel, you will not see any need for God's forgiveness in the atonement (crosswork of Christ). I would certainly agree that a mere "issue" with some minor little deity would be an insufficient reason for judgment. Of course I do not believe that this pictures reality at all. God is much more then some little mexican dude that is quick with a few card tricks. He created the universe and is totally sovereign over it. We have rebelled against an absolutely sovereign creator to whom we owe all as creator. We have rebelled against such a grand God that he satisfies his own demand for righteousness.

Again, the issues here are at the presuppositional level. I think if you reread the thread you will see that you cannot conceive of a concepts of God in which he is sovereign or has any more rights then a mere part of his creation? What makes man so great that he can be on Gods level? What universe has man created? He pollutes the universe God made. Man will destroy himself if left to his own devices. We would leave this world a nuclear waist. No, God is not a man, and man has rebelled against a holy God.

OK, well I dont know much about the eternal destiny of babies. I know this, God is not guilty of murder when a baby dies. The text on original sin does not say "God kills babies." The "loop hole of original sin" simply means we all die.

You misunderstood me, I think. The "loophole" IS "original sin", thus no one, not even babies, are innocent, thus if they die in a global flood, or via maurading Hebrews on order from their god, . . . it means that "god is off the hook for their deaths". I don't agree with that, though, because it has that "issue of the unethical 'guilt by birth' that your theology believes".[/quote]
No, I dont think I misunderstood. You see infants as innocent and having done nothing wrong. Therefore they do not deserve to die from natural disasters. I am approaching the subject not with the concept that infants "did anything wrong" but that they are already evil by nature. Therefore death is not unethical. If this hypothetical baby were in Adams shoes, they would have done the same thing Adam did. Now they have inherited Adamic nature. The baby with this Adamic nature is thus is born guilty by his nature, and is then by nature subject to death. Why is that unethical. There is no chance for a real innocence in the infant. The same thing is found in nature. A deer fawn is limited to being coyote prey by his nature and the nature of his birth. Death has come to the whole world because of Adams sin. Human nature is sinful, thus subject to death. The issue of death is not what we have done, but what our nature is, and a babies nature is evil like any other adult human.

Yet even if what I say is not true, God still does not kill babies. It is the curse of sin, not the direct action of God. Also, this curse of sin found in Christianty is unethical because infants die, why is that any different from your ethic. In secular atheism babies do not die?

 

[mondar]

Atheistic ethics.

Orion,
Let's also start something on your ethic. We will make these comments different from my defense of the Christian ethic. How about if you defend your ethic in this conversation.

So tell me, how do you know that there even is a right and wrong at all?

 

[Orion]

So by what standard can you justify "the small lie, once" and not judge Jack the Ripper. Where do we draw the line?

Sanctioning the mass murder of millions is truly awful. What do we do with such people? We keep them locked away for the rest of their life so they can't influence or harm others. However, they aren't tortured during their time. A person who tells a small lie may face consequences for it, usually in what they get back in return, here, on earth. But there is a huge difference between these two people. There should be a FAIR judgment. . . .but not one based upon vengeance. I don't have any specific plan, . . . but I DO know that "punish them all together, the same exact way" is NOT justice.

BINGO!!! I believe we struck paydirt!!!! You do not see the divine creator as any different then a man.

Let me clear up what I am saying. I do not see the bible as an accurate depiction of any specific deity, but that which came from the mind of man . . . . .in all his good characteristics and failures. I see man when I view the bible's depiction of its god. I would hope that any awesome divine being would be hard to press into human language.

He just apparently has more power and therefore can do whatever he wants with no consequences. An ISSUE of "someone who can't accept a concept as 'a personal savior' because no evidence exist for it" is not rebellion. It is being true to who the person is. And that's me.

We have rebelled against such a grand God that he satisfies his own demand for righteousness.

Again, the issues here are at the presuppositional level. I think if you reread the thread you will see that you cannot conceive of a concepts of God in which he is sovereign or has any more rights then a mere part of his creation? What makes man so great that he can be on Gods level? What universe has man created? He pollutes the universe God made. Man will destroy himself if left to his own devices. We would leave this world a nuclear waist. No, God is not a man, and man has rebelled against a holy God.

I can conceive it. . . I lived a Christian life for a few decades. I just believe that even a sovereign god must, by definition, yield to morality and ethics, and it is unethical to condone slavery, call for mass genocide, lose control of something he made and become so enraged as to kill every living thing with water, . . . do you not see the hand of man in this thinking? The “I’ve been wronged and will get my revenge�

BTW, man does not pollute god’s universe. . . true, the earth somewhat, but what does god care? Doesn’t he have a plan to destroy it himself and make a new one anyway? And most of those who “destroy themselves, if left to their own vicesâ€, will be destroyed by god anyway. So, . . . god wants the joy of doing it himself?

No, I dont think I misunderstood. You see infants as innocent and having done nothing wrong. Therefore they do not deserve to die from natural disasters. I am approaching the subject not with the concept that infants "did anything wrong" but that they are already evil by nature. Therefore death is not unethical.
In secular atheism babies do not die?

I’m not a secular atheist.
Regardless, what you have stated is what I’ve been talking about. The very Unethical notion that babies are “evil by natureâ€. I apparently will not convince you that this is highly unethical, and you will not convince me that they are evil just for being born. THAT is the “loophole†that gives god the “way out†of responsibility. If babies were INNOCENT/pure, until they actually did something, ON THEIR OWN, that is wrong, . . . their death would be unethical, immoral, and a crime. Guess what, . . . . they ARE innocent, regardless of your theology.

 

[savedbygrace57]

All babies are guilty by nature because of their Head, they sinned in their Head, thats how God concludes it..for example, all those in adam, before they were born, sinned in Him rom 5:

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

How could all have sinned when sin entered into the world through adam, unless God included all them in Him..

which we know He did from gen 1:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

To deny this and speak otherwise, takes away the very foundation of biblical Faith..

 

[mondar]

So by what standard can you justify "the small lie, once" and not judge Jack the Ripper. Where do we draw the line?

Sanctioning the mass murder of millions is truly awful. What do we do with such people? We keep them locked away for the rest of their life so they can't influence or harm others. However, they aren't tortured during their time. A person who tells a small lie may face consequences for it, usually in what they get back in return, here, on earth. But there is a huge difference between these two people. There should be a FAIR judgment. . . .but not one based upon vengeance. I don't have any specific plan, . . . but I DO know that "punish them all together, the same exact way" is NOT justice.

So there is no real line. That is my point. You have no basis for any ethic.

BINGO!!! I believe we struck paydirt!!!! You do not see the divine creator as any different then a man.

Let me clear up what I am saying. I do not see the bible as an accurate depiction of any specific deity, but that which came from the mind of man . . . . .in all his good characteristics and failures. I see man when I view the bible's depiction of its god. I would hope that any awesome divine being would be hard to press into human language.[/quote]
God cannot figure a way to reveal himself through the vehicle of human language? I would have agreed if your proposition was that exhaustive knowledge of God is not found in the scriptures. God is so infinite that we will spend all eternity learning of his glories. Even in eternity, after 10,000 years, we will only just have begun to learn of his glories. While the human mind will learn more and more of the infinite God throughout all eternity, we will never exaust infinity. There is always more to God and his glory. This does not mean that absolutely nothing about God can be comprehended through the vehicle of human language and writing. The full glory of God might not be "pressed into human language," but this does not mean that nothing of the glory of God can be known through human language. God made man finite, but he made man for his fellowship and glory.

He just apparently has more power and therefore can do whatever he wants with no consequences. An ISSUE of "someone who can't accept a concept as 'a personal savior' because no evidence exist for it" is not rebellion. It is being true to who the person is. And that's me.

We have rebelled against such a grand God that he satisfies his own demand for righteousness.

Again, the issues here are at the presuppositional level. I think if you reread the thread you will see that you cannot conceive of a concepts of God in which he is sovereign or has any more rights then a mere part of his creation? What makes man so great that he can be on Gods level? What universe has man created? He pollutes the universe God made. Man will destroy himself if left to his own devices. We would leave this world a nuclear waist. No, God is not a man, and man has rebelled against a holy God.

I can conceive it. . . I lived a Christian life for a few decades. I just believe that even a sovereign god must, by definition, yield to morality and ethics, and it is unethical to condone slavery, call for mass genocide, lose control of something he made and become so enraged as to kill every living thing with water, . . . do you not see the hand of man in this thinking? The “I’ve been wronged and will get my revenge�

Because you kept a few Christian ethics for a few decades you claim to understand Christianity. Orion, I could not disagree more on how you present Christianity. If your present speech relates to your past understanding of deity, no wonder you because an Atheist. You most likely began with presupositions that were flawed, and it took a few decades for you to reject Christianity based upon your flawed presuppositions.

Why does slavery present a flawed ethic? Certainly the western concept of slavery was evil, but true biblical slavery was not the same thing. We could discuss the biblical OT institution of slavery if you wish, my guess is that you are not representing it correctly. The rights of slaves were defended in the law. Slavery was a temporary thing until the year of jubilee of course. The rights of slaves were demonstrated. The redemption price was always available. The scriptures does condone a certain specific institution of slavery, but that has nothing to do with the abusive, degrading, and evil modern versions of racial slavery.

Picturing God as so enraged that he cannot control himself, and then breaks out in a vengeful destruction is so far from the Biblical position it is ridiculous. I am astonished that you claim to be a former christian with such a shallow understanding of the biblical revelation. I apologize in advance if this sounds like I am trash talking your former Christianity, but I am truly surprised to hear you think that such a flawed understanding of the biblical revelation is even remotely related to what the text is actually expressing.

BTW, man does not pollute god’s universe. . . true, the earth somewhat, but what does god care? Doesn’t he have a plan to destroy it himself and make a new one anyway? And most of those who “destroy themselves, if left to their own vicesâ€, will be destroyed by god anyway. So, . . . god wants the joy of doing it himself?

Orion, are you serious, or are you now engaged in trash talking? I do not have the time to respond here, I must go. God's cleansing of the world should not be placed on the same level as mans polluting of the world.

Gotta go.

No, I dont think I misunderstood. You see infants as innocent and having done nothing wrong. Therefore they do not deserve to die from natural disasters. I am approaching the subject not with the concept that infants "did anything wrong" but that they are already evil by nature. Therefore death is not unethical.
In secular atheism babies do not die?

I’m not a secular atheist.
Regardless, what you have stated is what I’ve been talking about. The very Unethical notion that babies are “evil by natureâ€. I apparently will not convince you that this is highly unethical, and you will not convince me that they are evil just for being born. THAT is the “loophole†that gives god the “way out†of responsibility. If babies were INNOCENT/pure, until they actually did something, ON THEIR OWN, that is wrong, . . . their death would be unethical, immoral, and a crime. Guess what, . . . . they ARE innocent, regardless of your theology.[/quote]

 

[Drew]

On the matter of what it really means for God to “hate†Esau from Romans 9. Is this a hatred of Esau the individual, in the sense we normally think? Not likely.

Here is the Malachi material from which Paul is quoting:

An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Malachi is talking about how God works in history at the level of nations - Malachi is talking about the cursing of the land of Edom and not a hatred that is specifically focused on Esau the individual.

If the issue were “personal†why does Malachi say:

You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel

Malachi is clearly talking about Edom as a nation and used Esau as a symbol for the nation as a whole.

And Paul then invokes the Esau-Jacob issue in Romans 9 in service of an argument about God’s treatment of the nation of Israel, not a treatment about specific individuals (no doubt, we some will disagree here).

I think it is exceedingly shaky to read the bit in Romans 9 about Esau and conclude that God “hates†specific human individuals. Paul is invoking the Malachi story where the issue is God “hating†nations in the sense of visiting judgement on them. And. of course, individuals in those nations suffer as result. But this does not really mean that God “hates†those individuals. Although I will not argue the point here, there is, I suggest, a meaningful distinction between the nation level and the individual level (and please - I fully understand that “nations are made of individualsâ€. Knowing this, I still think there is a distinction.)

 

[Orion]

So there is no real line. That is my point. You have no basis for any ethic.

Is that what you got out of what I said? Ethics describes what happens to those who go against it. But ethics would never include a "torture for all eternity regardless of the severity of the "sin" clause".

Because you kept a few Christian ethics for a few decades you claim to understand Christianity. Orion, I could not disagree more on how you present Christianity. If your present speech relates to your past understanding of deity, no wonder you because an Atheist.

My current way of thinking is current, . . . NOT how I thought when I was a christian. You have no place to judge how I was then. I believed pretty much as you do, if you must know. However, when I started considering it [not too long ago] that's when I could no longer see it as the acts of a GOOD god, but the beliefs of bronze age primative men trying to understand what they did not. There are some good things found in the bible. There are also some very unethical beliefs that come from it. You provided some of them here. . . . . . . . .that "babies are guilty by birth". . . ."justifying any type of slavery as good" . . . .

It seems we will have to do that "agree to disagree" thing. Good talking with you.

 

[RND]

So there is no real line. That is my point. You have no basis for any ethic.

Is that what you got out of what I said? Ethics describes what happens to those who go against it. But ethics would never include a "torture for all eternity regardless of the severity of the "sin" clause".

From the pen of Inspiration:

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been widely taught and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom. Said a learned doctor of divinity: "The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are." Another used these words: "While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!"

Where, in the pages of God's word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage? No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God. Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men, but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11. -- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, page 535, Chapter 33 - The First Great Deception

 

[Orion]

That's a pretty good thought from her, RND.

 

[RND]

That's a pretty good thought from her, RND.

I thought you'd like it. Try not to pay any attention to those that think God is an unmerciful taskmaster.