(2) At what point...

[Rippon]

Agedman: I have fully answered all your vain attempts to overturn Scripture.
You want God in your own image and it isn't working out for ya.'

You can take your "loved-less" theological mess and join up with your local United Methodist Church.

 

[agedman]

What I am saying is there are literalists on here. They'll say...
--1,000 years means a literal 1,000 years as in the millienial kingdom
--love means love because God IS love
--free will means free will...

Then when confronted with...
--hate does not mean hate, just loved less
--wrath does not mean wrath, just indignation...when in reality you can't have indignation without having anger/wrath
--death in spiritual death is not death but is merely being separated from God. But nekros means dead as in corpse
--then you explain free will and show them the unregenerate are bound, slaves to sin, they say free will is not really free will, but rather, libertarian free will

That's why it's impossible to debate these people. They continually move the goal posts.

I understand trying to pin someone down who changes the field of play.

So the readers don't misunderstand:
I don't recall ever posting that the wrath of God was not controlled anger, that death means a separation either to everlasting torment or to heavenly blessing.
Also, I don't consider "soul sleep" an accurate and supportable Biblical doctrine, so I take "nekros" literally to mean no physical life and also as one who has no spiritual life. One dead spiritually is unable to respond by devotion to God. The word (nekros) is also used for comparison to those of God and those without God.

As you know, I am certainly not a "free will" advocate.

I completely agree, that there may be those that change the rules of the game, certainly. To me, such are not certain of the solid footing of their views, and more often seem to wander and sway in what they agree and disagree upon based on the popularity of, or who taught, or some emotion of constipation at the time.

I am a "literalist" in the sense of taking as much of the Scriptures as literal, and only when there is clear indication that it is using some allegorical, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, or some other tool often used in poetry do I take that statement in a non-literal meaning, but never-the-less a meaning of application.

 

[agedman]

Agedman: I have fully answered all your vain attempts to overturn Scripture.
You want God in your own image and it isn't working out for ya.'

You can take your "loved-less" theological mess and join up with your local United Methodist Church.

Honestly thought you might in some measure come to terms with the inaccuracy of your thinking. Holding your intellect in the terms of one teachable, there was hope that you would gain by the discussion.

After:

Giving you solid information and declarations of the Scriptures,
Encouraging you to search the Scriptures for support of your view and to report the numerous and abundant Scriptures that you could find.
Properly rendering the language so you might gain a bit of insight to the nuance of the wording.
Spending time with what little of Scriptures you did offer and show how they were to be aligned and how they supported a more accurate portrayal of the attribute of God.​

It is a bit baffling that you resort to comments such as "your loved-less theological mess" rather than becoming aware of assigning an inappropriate and inaccurate attribute to God.

Such entrenchment does not make a view valid nor Scripturally supportable.

You are correct in the statements that God's thinking and ways are far above humankind. Humankind have perverted and corrupted attributes that God gave as part of His image. Love became lust, wrath became hate, jealousy became resentment, knowledge became foolishness, wisdom became foolishness, righteousness became pride, and so forth.

 

[OldRegular]

... does God start to love people?

NO!

 

[Rippon]

After:

Giving you solid information and declarations of the Scriptures,
​

I have given you solid evidence for my position from God's Holy Word. You have an inability to be honest about what they declare. You resort to philosophy and sentiment and a good deal of traditionalism

Encouraging you to search the Scriptures for support of your view and to report the numerous and abundant Scriptures that you could find.

You deny Bible truths by the boatloads.

Properly rendering the language so you might gain a bit of insight to the nuance of the wording.
Spending time with what little of Scriptures you did offer and show how they were to be aligned and how they supported a more accurate portrayal of the attribute of God.

Your reliance on "nuance" is null and void. Your "loved-less" scheme is exactly a liberal slant that a United Methodist would employ.​

You are correct in the statements that God's thinking and ways are far above humankind.

That includes your revamping ploys.

Humankind have perverted and corrupted attributes that God gave as part of His image. Love became lust, wrath became hate, jealousy became resentment, knowledge became foolishness, wisdom became foolishness, righteousness became pride, and so forth.

Again, you are man-centered in your approach. I have been speaking of God's hatred of certain ones --not man's hatred or jealousy or anything else. Stay focused.

 

[Greektim]

NO!

The question was, at what point does God start to love people? I only ask b/c the other thread asked when he stops loving people. Seemed a far thing to inquire about.

 

[agedman]

I have given you solid evidence for my position from God's Holy Word. You have an inability to be honest about what they declare. You resort to philosophy and sentiment and a good deal of traditionalism


You deny Bible truths by the boatloads.

Your reliance on "nuance" is null and void. Your "loved-less" scheme is exactly a liberal slant that a United Methodist would employ.​

That includes your revamping ploys.

Again, you are man-centered in your approach. I have been speaking of God's hatred of certain ones --not man's hatred or jealousy or anything else. Stay focused.

Rippon,

Go back through the thread and then post that list of truths that I denied "by the boatloads."

List the Scriptures (the abundant ones) you have posted in which I have "the inability to be honest."

Make that long list of Scriptures that you claim to have given as "solid evidence."

You have moved from discussion of the topic to laying false claims against my character and my handling the Scriptures.

These are serious statements that you need to prove.

So, rather than blustering about what I have or have not done, prove it.

Go back through the thread, generate those lists of Scriptures that support your claims, and remember, the result must be a huge, long, extensive list.

You stand as an accuser of a brother of using falsehood, denying Scriptures, and of placing human thinking above that of God's.

Frankly, given the accusation, if you can provide the proof, then this old man should no longer be a member of the BB. If you cannot provide the proof, then you should have the same consequence.

 

[Rippon]

I was just speaking factually --staying true to the Bible.

Listen to what you have said:"The thinking that God hates is not found in Scripture." That is foundationally false.

Listen to what you have said:"Be careful to not attribute to God what is an attribute of that which is evil."

Now that, my friend, is an evil charge against God coming from your keystrokes. God hates. It is as indisputable as God loves. You are insisting that if God hates then he does evil in your view. I said everything He does is good, right, holy and perfect.


You have no right to expunge that which you deem unacceptable.

Listen to what you have said:"Hate always brings excess and over indulgent excuse begging for the excess of retribution."

You are man-centered. There is no fault in God. He is perfect and holy as I have emphsized numerous times. Yet you just don't get it. Or rather, you stubbornly refuse to admit it.
When mortals hate, it is rarely righteous hatred. But God is God and not a mortal. He does not and cannot sin. He is perfect and holy in all He does.

The Lord is said to be a jealous God. When a human being is jealous it is sinful. But when God is said to be jealous it is a holy jealousy. The same principle applies to hate. When God hates some people as the Scriptures often declare --it is a holy hatred.

When Scripture declares that God hates Esau you have no right to maintain that it means loved less. That's stinkin' thinking on your part. It's just as unsound as to say that God hated Jacob less than Esau.

From post #58 of mine.

 

[agedman]

From post #58 of mine.

Repeating a post does not provide proof of being right, Rippon.

I ask again, prove by Scriptures, and you have offered nothing that was not refuted by Scriptures.

You have accused me of denying Scriptures, of being evil, of being dishonest, and demeaned my character.

You have offered nothing of proof to any charge, but a repeated post.

I considered you a scholar, one who knew the Scriptures and the languages of the Scriptures.

I considered you a person of integrity who would grow in understanding when challenged with the truth.

I considered you one that was teachable and capable of discernment.

You have not provided because you cannot provide.

The Scriptures do not support what you have placed on this thread. If they did, you would have been able to produce the "abundant," the "enormous" (or whatever hyperbole you would use) number of Scriptures to validate your statement.

Because you seem weak in understanding of how the word "hate" is used throughout the Scriptures here is a bit of information that I copied from BibleHub in which you are welcome to verify. I have taken the privilege of highlighting some areas with bold print.

The revelation of hate and hatred in the Scriptures:


The ATS (American Tract Society) Bible dictionary has this to say about the word hate:

Often denotes in Scripture only a less degree of love, Genesis 29:30,31 De 21:15 Proverbs 13:24 Malachi 1:2,3 Luke 14:26 Romans 9:13. God has a just and perfect abhorrence of sin and sinners, Psalm 5:5. But hatred in general is a malevolent passion, Galatians 5:20, and no one who is not perfect in love, can hate without sin.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says this about hate:

hat, ha'-tred (verb, sane', "oftenest," saTam, Genesis 27:41, etc.; noun, sin'ah; miseo): A feeling of strong antagonism and dislike, generally malevolent and prompting to injury (the opposite of love); sometimes born of moral resentment. Alike in the Old Testament and New Testament, hate of the malevolent sort is unsparingly condemned (Numbers 35:20 Psalm 109:5 Proverbs 10:12 Titus 3:3 1 John 3:15), but in the Old Testament hatred of evil and evil-doers, purged of personal malice, is commended (Psalm 97:10; Psalm 101:3; 139:21, 22, etc.). The New Testament law softens this feeling as regards persons, bringing it under the higher law of love (Matthew 5:43, 14; compare Romans 12:17-21), while intensifying the hatred of evil (Jude 1:23 Revelation 2:6). God himself is hated by the wicked (Exodus 20:5 Psalm 139:21; compare Romans 8:7). Sometimes, however, the word "hate" is used hyperbolically in a relative sense to express only the strong preference of one to another. God loved Jacob, but hated Esau (Malachi 1:3 Romans 9:13); father and mother are to be hated in comparison with Christ (Luke 14:26; compare Matthew 10:37)

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Among the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:20). Altogether different is the meaning of the word in Deuteronomy 21:15; Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26; Romans 9:13, where it denotes only a less degree of love.


Strongs places the Greek NT word in this context:

3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).

[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]

Strongs places the Hebrew use of the word in this context:

Sane: hate used as these words with the number of occurrences - detest (1), enemy (3), enmity (1), foes (1), hate (78), hated (28), hated her intensely (1), hates (19), hating (2), hatred (1), turned against (1), turns against (2), unloved (7).

In each cast the hate/hatred is human generated toward other humans or toward God.

Hatred is considered a work of the flesh:

Galatians 5:20-25
20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.


Trust you will gain wisdom on this matter of hate as it relates to God.

 

[Rippon]

how the word "hate" is used throughout the Scriptures

Most of your diatribe concerns itself with man's hatred. And, as you very well know, this thread is about God and his hatred. As such, you are merely spinning your wheels oldman.

Trust you will gain wisdom on this matter of hate as it relates to God.

I trust you will get back on track and focus on God's hatred.

Your "loved-less" mantra is such that it reeks of a United Methodist viewpoint.

You have tried your best to rend the meaning. But you have not bothered to see the futility of your logic. If, as you claim, that God only loved certain persons less then it would also make sense to say that He hated certain ones more ---which is patently absurd.

 

[agedman]

Most of your diatribe concerns itself with man's hatred. And, as you very well know, this thread is about God and his hatred. As such, you are merely spinning your wheels oldman.


I trust you will get back on track and focus on God's hatred.

Your "loved-less" mantra is such that it reeks of a United Methodist viewpoint.

You have tried your best to rend the meaning. But you have not bothered to see the futility of your logic. If, as you claim, that God only loved certain persons less then it would also make sense to say that He hated certain ones more ---which is patently absurd.

Perhaps you didn't read the post with understanding and need to return to it and read it again.

I quoted from sources as to the use of the word, "hate" throughout Scriptures. This done so that the readers might not misunderstand that there are Scriptures concerning BOTH the human to human/God use and that which concerns God.

Here is what was given in that post:

1. The definition of the word and the application of the appropriate definition use in the Scriptures
2. The original language of the Scriptures and the applicable meaning.
3. The source of both so that you can look over the information for yourself and see that what I presented is not unfounded, not some denial of the truth, and was certainly accurate.

Now it is your responsibility to take the original language and deal with proving your view. Perhaps you lack the skill or the willingness.

It is your responsibility to show by Scriptures that what I have posted is in error. Perhaps you lack the skill or the willingness.

Have you the ability to take (you can use the resource material I gave as a start) and truly address the issue presented?

Or are you content with abiding in throwing out unfounded charges, demeaning my character, and assigning me to some group that satisfies your perspective only.