Can God Hate?

[Astralinre]

 

 

Christianity doesn't have a unique God either. It is shared by all 3 abrahamic religions, just in different names.

 

 

 

I thought that too until either Ghost proved me wrong or John lied.

 

 

 

He didn't prove you wrong. He fed you what the church feeds him. That all the beings are one "because God has the power to be down like that". :roll:

 

 

 

Tigra, I realize you refuse to try to understand Christianity so that you can flame it more, but here's something that might help you understand the concept of the Trinity, insomuch as that is possible for a finite being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good many people nowadays say, 'I believe in a God, but not in a personal God'. They feel that the mysterious something which is behind all other things must be more than a person. Now the Christians quite agree. But the Christians are the only people who offer any idea of what a being that is beyond personality could be like. All other people, though they say that God is beyond personality, really think of Him as something impersonal: that is, as something less than personal. If you are looking for something super-personal, something more than a person, then it isn't a question of choosing between the Christian idea and the other ideas. The Christian idea is the only one on the market.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

You know that in space you can move in three waysÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Quinchles]

can god hate... hmmm, I think he can, but if he did he wouldnt be god anymore. He wouldnt be himself - See, im a christian, and if god is loving and he never changes, then if he did change... he would be breaking a promise and he'd not be himself, he wouldn't be god. anyways, that's my opinion, and i hope it doesnt offend any1.

[bull912000]

I will put it simple.... why would god make man just to hate him? The only thing he hates is sin. I'm not even sure if he DOES hate sin. I have no clue if he hates satin, but since he made him to be that, I would doubt it.

[rushrock]

I will put it simple.... why would god make man just to hate him?

 

 

 

Agreed. I'm not going to bother to read this entire thread, but if a God made people, why on Earth would He hate them? Seriously...

[warri0r45]

bull912000 wrote:

 

 

 

I will put it simple.... why would god make man just to hate him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. I'm not going to bother to read this entire thread, but if a God made people, why on Earth would He hate them? Seriously...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:twisted: what if satan created the universe :twisted:...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and created us just to hate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i sure hope not :shock: :anxious: :anxious: :anxious:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks for all the input by the way.

[rushrock]

 

bull912000 wrote:

 

 

 

I will put it simple.... why would god make man just to hate him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. I'm not going to bother to read this entire thread, but if a God made people, why on Earth would He hate them? Seriously...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:twisted: what if satan created the universe :twisted:...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and created us just to hate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i sure hope not :shock: :anxious: :anxious: :anxious:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks for all the input by the way.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but Satan didn't create the universe. :XD:

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

Christianity doesn't have a unique God either. It is shared by all 3 abrahamic religions, just in different names.

 

 

 

I thought that too until either Ghost proved me wrong or John lied.

 

 

 

He didn't prove you wrong. He fed you what the church feeds him. That all the beings are one "because God has the power to be down like that". :roll:

 

 

 

Tigra, I realize you refuse to try to understand Christianity so that you can flame it more, but here's something that might help you understand the concept of the Trinity, insomuch as that is possible for a finite being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good many people nowadays say, 'I believe in a God, but not in a personal God'. They feel that the mysterious something which is behind all other things must be more than a person. Now the Christians quite agree. But the Christians are the only people who offer any idea of what a being that is beyond personality could be like. All other people, though they say that God is beyond personality, really think of Him as something impersonal: that is, as something less than personal. If you are looking for something super-personal, something more than a person, then it isn't a question of choosing between the Christian idea and the other ideas. The Christian idea is the only one on the market.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

You know that in space you can move in three waysÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Satenza]

Would he have the capacity to hate? Well depends which God you beleive in. The God of the philosophers i would think does not, as he is all the omni's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However if we talk about people's opinions an atheist would probably say yes, some religious people would say he is vengeful ect. While some would say he didn't have the ability to hate (such as those people who when New Orleans was hit by Katrina said that it strengthened their love, and Gods love in them).

[Astralinre]

That...changes nothing? It's like you're trying to prove an entire religion and it's God's exsistence based on how it's possible to be three entities...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it was impossible. If there was a God, yes, that would obviously be possible. But there is no God. The Bible has too many contradictions and is obviously written by humans in all of human's violent nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thou shalt not kill, but thou shalt stone everyone to death for doing the most pety things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to prove the truth or existence of anything; I was showing that the doctrine of the Trinity is a logically consistant view, not some ridiculous dogma that the Church shoves down everyone's throats, and that it makes the God of Christianity substantially different from Allah. And yes, you have said it was impossible; in fact, I think I recall you calling it "bullcrap."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for "Thou shalt not kill," many laws have justified exceptions or qualifications. For example, "honor your parents, in the Lord." (Obey your parents, unless they tell you to break the law.) If the Bible says not to kill, but later says "Do kill in this situation," then it's logical to assume that's an exception to the rule.

[Tigra00]

 

That...changes nothing? It's like you're trying to prove an entire religion and it's God's exsistence based on how it's possible to be three entities...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it was impossible. If there was a God, yes, that would obviously be possible. But there is no God. The Bible has too many contradictions and is obviously written by humans in all of human's violent nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thou shalt not kill, but thou shalt stone everyone to death for doing the most pety things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to prove the truth or existence of anything; I was showing that the doctrine of the Trinity is a logically consistant view, not some ridiculous dogma that the Church shoves down everyone's throats, and that it makes the God of Christianity substantially different from Allah. And yes, you have said it was impossible; in fact, I think I recall you calling it "bullcrap."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for "Thou shalt not kill," many laws have justified exceptions or qualifications. For example, "honor your parents, in the Lord." (Obey your parents, unless they tell you to break the law.) If the Bible says not to kill, but later says "Do kill in this situation," then it's logical to assume that's an exception to the rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except...The Bible says it's okay to kill pretty much everyone, lol. Women, children, elderly, it really doesn't matter. If they do X, you can kill them. Most of "X" are extremely pety things. You talked back to your parents? DEATH! You stole? DEATH! People make mistakes, and the Bible says in one part to forgive these people, and in another to straight-up kill them without question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also says it's cool to keep slaves. So long as you don't beat them to the point of death...So it's okay to beat them, just not to death? Okay, thanks for that tip, all-forgiving God. Sounds more like Satan talking to me. Hmm. That'd be the greatest thing ever. Satan wrote the Bible to trick people into being le' ebil. Ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, no thanks. I'll just live my life how I want to. I don't particularily want to kill a man for having sex with another man. That's his choice.

[Astralinre]

Except...The Bible says it's okay to kill pretty much everyone, lol. Women, children, elderly, it really doesn't matter. If they do X, you can kill them. Most of "X" are extremely pety things. You talked back to your parents? DEATH! You stole? DEATH! People make mistakes, and the Bible says in one part to forgive these people, and in another to straight-up kill them without question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also says it's cool to keep slaves. So long as you don't beat them to the point of death...So it's okay to beat them, just not to death? Okay, thanks for that tip, all-forgiving God. Sounds more like Satan talking to me. Hmm. That'd be the greatest thing ever. Satan wrote the Bible to trick people into being le' ebil. Ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, no thanks. I'll just live my life how I want to. I don't particularily want to kill a man for having sex with another man. That's his choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God giving a specific command in a specific context to kill a group of people does not make it universally acceptable to kill that group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there isn't any contradiction between being told to give people the death penalty, then later being told to forgive those people instead. There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

[Tigra00]

 

Except...The Bible says it's okay to kill pretty much everyone, lol. Women, children, elderly, it really doesn't matter. If they do X, you can kill them. Most of "X" are extremely pety things. You talked back to your parents? DEATH! You stole? DEATH! People make mistakes, and the Bible says in one part to forgive these people, and in another to straight-up kill them without question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also says it's cool to keep slaves. So long as you don't beat them to the point of death...So it's okay to beat them, just not to death? Okay, thanks for that tip, all-forgiving God. Sounds more like Satan talking to me. Hmm. That'd be the greatest thing ever. Satan wrote the Bible to trick people into being le' ebil. Ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, no thanks. I'll just live my life how I want to. I don't particularily want to kill a man for having sex with another man. That's his choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God giving a specific command in a specific context to kill a group of people does not make it universally acceptable to kill that group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there isn't any contradiction between being told to give people the death penalty, then later being told to forgive those people instead. There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohhhh, okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God first said it was cool to stone people for such things (there is no context for it to be taken out of, either. It's flat-out 'do this, die' stuff), then Jesus came and said "Whoa, whoa. Cut that out." And Jesus is God, so God was wrong at first and wanted change. And God is infallible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense now that you put it that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...No. It's still pretty dumb.

[BlueLancer]

While I'm not sure of God's 'context specific' killings you're talking about, the Bible does contain straight-out kill orders to people who work on sundays for example (that's just one example)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also contains some pretty cruel instructions for priests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

[Astralinre]

 

 

Except...The Bible says it's okay to kill pretty much everyone, lol. Women, children, elderly, it really doesn't matter. If they do X, you can kill them. Most of "X" are extremely pety things. You talked back to your parents? DEATH! You stole? DEATH! People make mistakes, and the Bible says in one part to forgive these people, and in another to straight-up kill them without question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also says it's cool to keep slaves. So long as you don't beat them to the point of death...So it's okay to beat them, just not to death? Okay, thanks for that tip, all-forgiving God. Sounds more like Satan talking to me. Hmm. That'd be the greatest thing ever. Satan wrote the Bible to trick people into being le' ebil. Ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, no thanks. I'll just live my life how I want to. I don't particularily want to kill a man for having sex with another man. That's his choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God giving a specific command in a specific context to kill a group of people does not make it universally acceptable to kill that group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there isn't any contradiction between being told to give people the death penalty, then later being told to forgive those people instead. There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God first said it was cool to stone people for such things (there is no context for it to be taken out of, either. It's flat-out 'do this, die' stuff), then Jesus came and said "Whoa, whoa. Cut that out." And Jesus is God, so God was wrong at first and wanted change. And God is infallible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus didn't just come and say "Cut that out."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the beginning, man disobeyed God and became sinful. (In Christian theology, this is known as the Fall.) The Law was sent to govern God's people until he redeemed them from this sin. If someone broke the law, he took the punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christ came to die for the sins of mankind. Think of it as paying a debt - in sinning, man created a debt to God which he could never pay back. Christ paid that debt for us; he took the punishment for our sins. Therefore, under the new covenant in Christ, the punishment for our sin has already been done - He took it for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, God is not contradicting himself, nor changing his will. The sins which were once punished with death are still punished with death - only now, Christ has taken the punishment upon himself.

[Tigra00]

Umm. Right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God is up in heaven flogging himself with stones because his creations dunno' how to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie. Whatever you say. There is still no free-will. You're never truely free until you give God the finger and say it's all crap. Heck, even I haven't gotten to experience that freedom. As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

[BlueLancer]

As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unrational fear can be removed. I don't really fear anything, like a "God" punishing me for not worshipping him, and never have. As a kid you'll probably buy into the stuff that "you'll burn in hell if you do this and that" because you don't question people older than you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at other religions though, which combined have more followers than christianity. Most of them don't "fear" God, they "respect" it/them. Still I think it's just a cultural remain from ages ago even in their countries.

[Astralinre]

Umm. Right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God is up in heaven flogging himself with stones because his creations dunno' how to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie. Whatever you say. There is still no free-will. You're never truely free until you give God the finger and say it's all crap. Heck, even I haven't gotten to experience that freedom. As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him.

[Tigra00]

 

Umm. Right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God is up in heaven flogging himself with stones because his creations dunno' how to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie. Whatever you say. There is still no free-will. You're never truely free until you give God the finger and say it's all crap. Heck, even I haven't gotten to experience that freedom. As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God failed, and Jesus isn't the Messiah at all. A great majority of people DON'T listen and they DON'T obey. Isn't a wonder then why Jews believe he wasn't the Messiah. 'Sides...Jesus' death wasn't that bad. People have been killed in much, much worse ways than what he got. His was like a 7 on a scale of 1-10, and that's if you count the pre-flogging, if that even happened. I haven't read enough of the Bible to know, but I watched The Passion of the Christ and it did...Could have just been for dramatic effect. ANYWAYS, if you don't include that, it was like a 5. Man, people nail themselves to crosses for FUN nowadays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueLancer, I'm aware it can be taken away. I don't fear going to Hell as much as I do missing out on Heaven, if such places exsist. I'd feel like a total dork-bag if I missed out on Heaven just 'cause I didn't ever say "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior."...It's kinda' easy. :P

[Astralinre]

 

 

Umm. Right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God is up in heaven flogging himself with stones because his creations dunno' how to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie. Whatever you say. There is still no free-will. You're never truely free until you give God the finger and say it's all crap. Heck, even I haven't gotten to experience that freedom. As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God failed, and Jesus isn't the Messiah at all. A great majority of people DON'T listen and they DON'T obey. Isn't a wonder then why Jews believe he wasn't the Messiah. 'Sides...Jesus' death wasn't that bad. People have been killed in much, much worse ways than what he got. His was like a 7 on a scale of 1-10, and that's if you count the pre-flogging, if that even happened. I haven't read enough of the Bible to know, but I watched The Passion of the Christ and it did...Could have just been for dramatic effect. ANYWAYS, if you don't include that, it was like a 5. Man, people nail themselves to crosses for FUN nowadays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said so that they could, not that everyone would. Christ himself said that few will choose life in Him over rebellion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I don't believe it matters whether or not crucifiction was the most painful possible death, but it's still pretty bad. Just look up a medical report of what happens to the human body during those hours on the cross. Ugh.

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

Umm. Right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So God is up in heaven flogging himself with stones because his creations dunno' how to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okie dokie. Whatever you say. There is still no free-will. You're never truely free until you give God the finger and say it's all crap. Heck, even I haven't gotten to experience that freedom. As much as I think the Bible is crap, unfortunately, society has brain-washed a fear of God into everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God failed, and Jesus isn't the Messiah at all. A great majority of people DON'T listen and they DON'T obey. Isn't a wonder then why Jews believe he wasn't the Messiah. 'Sides...Jesus' death wasn't that bad. People have been killed in much, much worse ways than what he got. His was like a 7 on a scale of 1-10, and that's if you count the pre-flogging, if that even happened. I haven't read enough of the Bible to know, but I watched The Passion of the Christ and it did...Could have just been for dramatic effect. ANYWAYS, if you don't include that, it was like a 5. Man, people nail themselves to crosses for FUN nowadays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said so that they could, not that everyone would. Christ himself said that few will choose life in Him over rebellion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I don't believe it matters whether or not crucifiction was the most painful possible death, but it's still pretty bad. Just look up a medical report of what happens to the human body during those hours on the cross. Ugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would think blood loss and dehydration would be about right. Not too bad. Plus, modern medical science tells us it was impossible to be crucified in such a fashion.

[Sir_Alex85]

For once I'd like a god/religos topic that doesn't feature the flying spaghetti monster. It's getting just a weetsy bit old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the spam, but I just want to say that I laughed when I read it. >.>

[BlueLancer]

 

For once I'd like a god/religos topic that doesn't feature the flying spaghetti monster. It's getting just a weetsy bit old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the spam, but I just want to say that I laughed when I read it. >.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rocketman089, the thing is flying spaghetti monster does exist actually, so stop trying to deny it. They have charts to prove it.

[warri0r45]

(such as those people who when New Orleans was hit by Katrina said that it strengthened their love, and Gods love in them).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

man, that really annoys me. :evil:

[insane]

 

 

For once I'd like a god/religos topic that doesn't feature the flying spaghetti monster. It's getting just a weetsy bit old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the spam, but I just want to say that I laughed when I read it. >.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rocketman089, the thing is flying spaghetti monster does exist actually, so stop trying to deny it. They have charts to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh. You're so funny.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

For once I'd like a god/religos topic that doesn't feature the flying spaghetti monster. It's getting just a weetsy bit old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the spam, but I just want to say that I laughed when I read it. >.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rocketman089, the thing is flying spaghetti monster does exist actually, so stop trying to deny it. They have charts to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh. You're so funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You fail to see the funniness you're creating by loathing my opinion, thinking of your imaginary buddy as more real than mine. Except mine *has* charts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, the number of followers doesn't matter. A religion isn't more credible if it has lots of followers. Otherwise, go tell all the members of religions with 0.5% or less followers they'll all burn in hell. They can be just as correct as I am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Islam and hinduism by the way already have more followers than christianity, not to mention the buddhists, taoists, etc. so their odds of 'being right' are good as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need to come back with a rebuttal, because you can't prove your beliefs because they're beliefs. Ok, so I may not prove my FSM either, but I can try to figure out something from the evidence and hope for the best, and read His philosophy. And heaven help if I'm correct, my heaven has beer volcanos.