I'm not bitter about it. I just see you making meaningless distictions trying to distance yourself from Phelps, when in reality you say the same things. Phelps believes that God punishes the innocent along with the good.

You take issue with the word hate, but you'll just ignore it when I post scripture that says God, indeed, does hate PEOPLE, not just sin.

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

There are others, too. But, you'll say that such is a problem with translation, or that I just don't "understand". Then, you'll glory along with your counterparts at Joshua's campaign of genocide in the OT.

You say God doesn't hate the world, but you condemn things that are "of the world". I've heard you do it. I've heard you excuse the idea that God smites whole nations because of the evil of a few, or even one in the case of David above, or even because they are of a different religion.. That's all Phelps is saying, that because of the worldly wickedness of America, we are suffering these problems.

Well, you believe the same thing. Why not own up to it? You want to worship a God that commits genocide on people of other religions, and either sends natural disasters or turns a deaf ear during them because of our "sinfulness". Why not just be honest?

I should have said that the BIBLE says God hates people. I don't believe God does any such thing. Then again, I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, either. KFC does.



Christ was painted by the early Church, not me. They're responsible for that source material, Christ wasn't around. They as a hand puppet for all the apocalyptic crap just as they used Him for everything else. If you want to believe whatever they say, fine, but when I see something that runs counter to everything I know in my heart to be good, I refuse to tar Jesus with it.

Anyway, I quote Shakespeare, and I can learn alot from it. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a prophet.

You say God doesn't hate the world, but you condemn things that are "of the world". I've heard you do it. I've heard you excuse the idea that God smites whole nations because of the evil of a few, or even one in the case of David above, or even because they are of a different religion.. That's all Phelps is saying, that because of the worldly wickedness of America, we are suffering these problems.

I'm sure you're well acquainted with John 3:16. I'm so sure I'm not even going to post it for you.

You don't understand scripture Baker, ie God's hatred against evil doers because you've already set your bias against scripture. Instead of searching it out and going deeper you would much rather make up your mind against it. You're not being logical here, because I can give you many things in scripture like John 3:16, like "no stone will be left on another" in Matthew 24 etc. and you'd have to agree that you would take that literally right? So why pick and choose? Why take some scriptures literally and others dismiss because you can't wrap your mind around it?

Let's look at the whole hatred thing. I know from your past comments you're struggling with this. If this is what's stopping you from believing in the inerrancy of God I'll take a stab at it.

We need to remember that God's ways are not our ways. Too many times we try to put a human spin on terms that are not meant for God. How can a God of love and mercy be categorized as one who hates?

Scriptural talk about God's hatred involves an idiom that does not suggest a desire of revenge. Why would God feel any need for revenge when he's God? Our problem with any description of God's displeasure with wickedness is that we define this anger against it as retaliation.

A third century church father Lactantius defined God's anger or hatred as a correct definition of Godly anger as "a motion of the soul rousing itself to curb sin." It's ok to get angry at sin, wickedness or evil as long as it's defined with the second definition, not the first. An example would be Christ clearing out the temple of the moneychangers and their ilk.

We know the problem with anger can be dangerously close to evil when left unchecked and uncontrolled right? Who could charge God with any of these common human faults? That's why we often object upon being told that God is angry or hates our sin and that he absolutely hates wrongdoing, violence and sin. Our concept of anger and our experiences with it have all too frequently involved loss of control, impulsiveness and sometimes temporary derangement. No wonder we don't want to link this kind of thought with God.

God's anger toward sin is never explosive, unreasonable or unexplainable. It's never a force that controls him rather it's an instrument of his will. His anger has not shut off his compassion, Psalm 77:9.

God cannot and will not remain neutral and impassive in the face of injustice, evil or any sin. He will eventually unleash his anger and wrath against all sin.

One thing you forget Baker is that scripture pictures his anger as lasting only for a moment in contrast to his love which is much more enduring Ps 30:5. His love remains Jer 31:3, Hos 2:19 while his anger passes quickly, Isa 26:20, 54:7-8, 57:16-19. Yet, why do you fixate on his anger and not his great love?

Are you a follower of Marcion Baker? His view was that God never took offense, was never angry and remained entirely apathetic. Is that where you're coming from? I'm at the point where I'd be surprised if you said no.

God's anger or hatred against sin or evil is measured and controlled by his love and his justice. Expressions of his outrage against evil perpetrated on earth ae actually signals that he continues to care deeply about us humans and about our good.

That's why I believe God loves the world. His anger/hatred is for our protection out of his great love for us.

Anyway, I quote Shakespeare, and I can learn alot from it. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a prophet.

Yes, but you can learn more about life from Scripture than you ever will from Shakespeare. But, If you read Shakespeare, you'd see that he quotes scripture.

I sat there talking to my father the day Falwell died, and he made (what I considered) a funny statement."I would love to see the look on old Jerry's face when he gets to the other side and sees just how misled he was."

You know SC what the diff between me and you is?

I would never have said such a mean thing to you about your Momon leaders or prophets even tho I could easily say the same thing. I do believe hell is truth seen too late. You know, how I felt about Jerry and yet you had enough hatred to put down this statement? Was that a nice thing to say?

As a matter of fact, you know I know much about the Mormon church yet I have decided not to say anything derogatory against it out of respect for those like yourself who adheres to their doctrine.

I don't think it's funny at all to tell you the truth.

I have no problem with the inerrancy of God, KFC, I don't believe the work of men can be though. You correctly point out that in one spot it says that God loved the world, and in other places derides the world vehemently. That isn't God's confusion, that's ours.

I don't believe for a moment that God is apathetic, but I don't believe God is less than we are. We have moved beyond the caveman mentality of liquidating the inhabitants of a place because they choose to worship other gods. Have we become more good than God?

Nope, but we hold endlessly to a bronze age view of an angry God striking down anyone who differs with Him with plagues. We would never, ever murder all the firstborn of a nation because of the evils of its leaders, especially when it is in our power to destroy the leader himself. Are we better than God? Nope, God was never that evil.

But here we are, thousands of years later, praising God for doing things that we would call crimes against humanity. Worse, we wag our fingers at people we disagree with when there is tragedy, blaming their behavior for the fact that it happened. Then, we claim to be different than Phelps.

Why? Because we are too tactful to TELL people that we believe they are causing the deaths of their sons and daughters? That isn't the problem. The problem is the awful frame of mind that poses the idea that God would smite an area with a hurricaine because we tolerate homosexuality.

Falwell did that, too. So does Pat Robertson. You may not say it out loud, but you believe God capable of it, since you believe God DID it, and that God will do it again in the end. So in the end this isn't really about whether or not you scream it at a funeral or think it silently to yourself. It's about the ugliness of a religion that would worship a God that isn't much better than Hitler.

(And before you express your distaste at the comparison, Hitler murdered people because of their race and religion and sexual orientation. You don't need me to show you numerous places in the Bible where God did the same thing. I won't worship such a beast.)

I would point out that Falwell added to his apology:



Which to me is basically apologizing by saying the same thing again. Whether you believe God sent the hijackers, or just watched and did nothing is immaterial. In the end you believe in a God that would allow bad things to happen out of vindictiveness over some people who sin, punishing the guilty and innocent alike.

That's Phelps' sick ideology in a nutshell. In the end, the Bible says, in black and white, that God sometimes intends evil, and even repents of doing evil. If you believe that, then you can't really believe in a perfect God.

Who said anything about vindictiveness? Not me. Yes God allows everything good and bad to happen but not because he's vindictive. Only he has the control to stop it once the ball starts rolling. But many times he lets us receive the logical consequences for our actions. Saul is an example. The people wanted a king because all the other nations wanted a King. It was God's desire to be their King. There was no need for the Nation to have an earthly King or Kingdom, but God allowed this to happen. If you know anything about the whole Kingdom Stage, you'd see much wickedness. It wasn't God's desired will but he allowed these things to happen to a stubborn and hardhearted people. They needed to learn the hard way.

I believe it's the same with our Nation today. It's not God's desire that we kill the unborn or that men are having sex with men. When we have things happen to us as a result of logical consequences, I don't blame God but I do think he allows these things to happen and he could stop it if he wanted to. So in many minds it's as if God is doing these things.

It's as though he takes his hands of protection off us and says...ok, have it your way.

Ok let's look at God repenting.

We do know from the getgo that God's essence and character, his resolute determination to punish sin and to reward virtue are unchanging. These are absolute and unconditional affirmations that Scripture everywhere teaches. But this does not mean that ALL his promises and warnings are unconditonal. Many turn on either an expressed or an implied condition.

Since you didn't give an example I'll give one. Jer 18:7-10:

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned represents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if he does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

This principle clearly states the condition underlying most of God's promises and threats even when it is not made explicit say as in the case of Jonah. So whenever God does not fulfill a promise or execute a threat that he has made, the explanation is obvious; in all of these cases the change has not come in God but in the individual or nation.

I'm not sure where you mean that God intends evil so I can't respond to that because I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Well actually it's in much more than one spot. Now you know the Phelps gang doesn't point this out right? So again, like I said, I'm not related at all physically or spiritually to Phelps and his possee.

Romans 5:8 says:

"But God commendes his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The extent of God's love is shown in the fact that Christ died for men in whom there was nothing that evoked that love. Now that....love.

1 John 4:9 says:

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

We know that he loved us, even tho we were enemies at the time. The question isn't why God unleashes his wrath from time to time as he sees fit. The question is why he didn't unleash his wrath on all of us instead of allowing his Son to die for us in the first place. Why didn't he just start all over?

The only reason that I can think of is God's greatest attribute is Love. God desires us to love him as he loves us. He is long in patience, longsuffering and love.

Good grief, you most certainly do, I've pointed it out in other discussions. It's up there in the scripture I quoted, too.



It's also in Jonah:



You'll say that they just mean "bad things" or something, but evil IS the appropriate word for what was going on there. God killed seventy THOUSAND people because of a sin that David, alone committed. Sounds evil to me. To bad for the rest of the world at that time, given he wasn't apt to repent if your people are Egyptian, Canaanite, etc.



It's vindictive by definition:




If a leader has a problem with a part of his country, and during a natural disaster decides not to send help because of it, I'd call that vindictive, wouldn't you? I'm not saying God is vindictive, you are. Phelps is. Falwell did.

Do you have any idea how arrogant and self-righteous this is? This single statement epitomizes the Pharisees perfectly. No wonder Jesus was so pissed at them.

KFC, I never said he was in Hell. I never would - I don't believe that's my decision to make.

If you're so acquainted with Mormon doctrine as you supposedly say you are, you know that I believe he's in the spirit world right now, finding out things are quite a bit different than how he envisioned it. I didn't say he was in Hell, or even a spiritual prison - just a very different circumstance than he thought - no clouds, no harps, no wings, none of that.

You invented vitriol where there was none to be found.

I covered this when I said:





oh, well I was just responding to what you said in #21 not way back up in #12. I didn't know when you said what you did in #21 what exactly you had in mind.



see this is not true. For the rest of the story you need to go to the original source. The Chronicles are the annuals of Israel from Adam to the capativity. In a sense it is a miniature OT tracing in capsule form of OT history.

You need to go to 2 Samuel 24 and there you'll see it was not a sin of David ALONE. God was against all of Israel at this time. 24:1 says:

And Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah." Chronicles is referring to this section of scripture.

There is a huge story behind this one in which Satan was very much involved. It ends with the selection of a site for the temple in Jerusalem and turns out to be a fitting climax to this phase of David's activity. Just like the Holocaust in which Satan was very much involved and many died as a result but the ending climax to that story as well was the return of the land to the Jews.

There's a plan going on. God always takes something evil and turns it around for good. Too many times God is the one blamed for what Satan is doing behind the scenes.

For more research on this you really need to read Numbers 1 and 26, 1 Chron 27:23-24, 1 Chron 20:8 (conclusion of previous chapter to see connection as to why David did what he did).

Hopefully you will see that David did indeed sin and that Satan, not god was to blame, but also all Israel was covered with blame as well. They were as guilty as their king. Thus God dealt with all Israel thru the act of the King who exemplifed the national spirit of pride.

SC

We don't do clouds harps and wings either...well maybe wings because we know the Seraphim and the Cherubim had many wings.



Well, if I did, then I apologize but it didn't sound very nice to me, and certainly not funny.

Mason,

at least if you're going to quote me, at least quote me in full. I was referring to a specific section of scripture and the bias presented on this subject. You're doing exactly what the media does with their sound bites. What do we call
this.....JU bites?

I was also having a discussion with Baker. This is the part of JU I hate. When others go after one and gang up on somebody because they said something not knowing the "other" discussions us two have had elswhere. I've told Baker elsewhere regarding certain scriptures that he did a great job. Where were you then Mason?

did you NOT read anything I said in #18 because I'm thinking I just wasted my time.

You cannot take human definitions and put them on the divine. God is not vindictive as you stated. I agree. It's men who are, not God. I pretty much explained it in #18. It's love not hate that God is exhibiting even though you don't believe it to be so. It's the curbing of sin for those who are left behind.

Oh and I'll just add vindictiveness to the list of names you keep throwing at me. You got any more in your book?

How am I vindictive? You know Baker, I've said 100 times when the name calling starts...you know what I'm thinking.