Who Does God Hate?

[Desperaux]

Yes. That is why I used the plural 'authors' instead of 'author'. The authors of the New Testament must have been fully aware of what had been written in the Old Testament. They were aware of those 'prophecies' so they wrote what they did to make it appear as if the prophecies had come true.

Of course, that needs to be proven. Can you do that, please?

[Brother Mark]

Ummmm. okaaayyy. There is a difference between knowing something and believing something. So you use something you call 'faith' to bridge the gap between belief and knowledge. As an agnostic I am simply unable to do that. Perhaps believers do not need hard evidence. Us non-believers (oh how I despise that term) do.

There's plenty of evidence GM. It's easier to prove that the NT is original (unedited) than it is to prove Shakespeare's plays are original. There's far more manuscripts available than most people realize. Those that wrote the NT are eye witnesses. Basically what your position is "I don't care what people say they saw. I am not going to take their personal witness." Thing is, in a court of law, people make decisions based on eye witness accounts all the time. History itself is based on eye witness accounts.

If historical accuracy and eye witness accounts are not enough, well, they're not enough. Not sure what else you might be looking for. There's plenty of research out there if your interested.

[Athanasius]

Yes. That is why I used the plural 'authors' instead of 'author'. The authors of the New Testament must have been fully aware of what had been written in the Old Testament. They were aware of those 'prophecies' so they wrote what they did to make it appear as if the prophecies had come true.

Okay, but here's what I was getting at.

It's easy to fulfill 'prophecies' made in a book, especially if the same 'prophecies' are fulfilled in the same book. The authors of the book wanted the prophecies to come true so that is what they wrote. No great mystery there.

I would say it's safe to assume that the authors of the New Testament weren't aware they were writing the New Testament. What's furthermore is that while we might have 'The Bible,' which is a collection of 66 distinct books. The fact remains that at the time of writing, Isaiah was a completely separate book from Matthew (as an example). The fact that the prophecies are fulfilled 'in the same book' doesn't speak against those prophecies.

In any case, which prophecy mentioned by any of the authors of the NT do you feel is not a fulfillment of an OT prophecy?

[Dani H]

Here we go, the ole scare tactic. Jesus'll get me if I don't believe what his friends said about him is true.

There is no scare tactic. You will stand before Him one day and He will judge you. And you have everything to do with how that turns out. I'm not trying to scare you. I don't even know you. I'm just here to give you truth. And truth doesn't change.

The thought of the Lord judging me in such a manner doesn't make me afraid because I'm secure in His love and in my relationship with Him.

[Godmachine]

Of course, that needs to be proven. Can you do that, please?

I was considering one of many possibilities with what I said. I did not mean to say "this is what really happened". I apologize if I was not clear enough on that.

[Godmachine]

Okay, but here's what I was getting at.

It's easy to fulfill 'prophecies' made in a book, especially if the same 'prophecies' are fulfilled in the same book. The authors of the book wanted the prophecies to come true so that is what they wrote. No great mystery there.

I would say it's safe to assume that the authors of the New Testament weren't aware they were writing the New Testament. What's furthermore is that while we might have 'The Bible,' which is a collection of 66 distinct books. The fact remains that at the time of writing, Isaiah was a completely separate book from Matthew (as an example). The fact that the prophecies are fulfilled 'in the same book' doesn't speak against those prophecies.

In any case, which prophecy mentioned by any of the authors of the NT do you feel is not a fulfillment of an OT prophecy?

I am fully aware of what the Bible is. I agree it is probably safe to assume that the NT authors were unaware that they were writing the NT. But they had to have been aware of earlier writings that made certain predictions. The actual construction or assembly of the Bible came along much later than any of those writings. The people who put it all together in fact didn't write any of it; they had a collection of writings from various authors spanning many centuries. Using your example, Isaiah came much earlier than Matthew so we can safely assume that Isaiah was unaware of this guy named Matthew. Matthew however came later and must have been aware of the writings of Isaiah. One could speculate here (I am NOT saying this is what really happened) that Matthew, having read the writings of Isaiah and seeing certain predictions that were made, wrote his gospel to correspond with those predictions. Of course such speculation takes all the fun out of believing in 'prophecies'.

[Godmachine]

There is no scare tactic. You will stand before Him one day and He will judge you. And you have everything to do with how that turns out. I'm not trying to scare you. I don't even know you. I'm just here to give you truth. And truth doesn't change.

The thought of the Lord judging me in such a manner doesn't make me afraid because I'm secure in His love and in my relationship with Him.

Will he judge me based on what I believed or what I did? Believe it or not there really are atheists and agnostics out there who are genuinely good people. Does your god prefer bad believers over good non-believers? Does he really hate non-believers that much that he would send an atheist who gave selflessly to help the sick and the poor to hell while allowing a believer who raped little boys into Heaven?

[Athanasius]

I am fully aware of what the Bible is. I agree it is probably safe to assume that the NT authors were unaware that they were writing the NT. But they had to have been aware of earlier writings that made certain predictions. The actual construction or assembly of the Bible came along much later than any of those writings. The people who put it all together in fact didn't write any of it; they had a collection of writings from various authors spanning many centuries. Using your example, Isaiah came much earlier than Matthew so we can safely assume that Isaiah was unaware of this guy named Matthew. Matthew however came later and must have been aware of the writings of Isaiah. One could speculate here (I am NOT saying this is what really happened) that Matthew, having read the writings of Isaiah and seeing certain predictions that were made, wrote his gospel to correspond with those predictions. Of course such speculation takes all the fun out of believing in 'prophecies'.

Again I'll ask (since you avoided the important question in my last post), do you have any reason for believing what you've stated here? You've provided a lot of 'speculation'. A lot of 'rational avoidance' of prophecy, but what do you actually think, and why do you think it? Otherwise it could simply be that you hold irrational beliefs.

[Godmachine]

Again I'll ask (since you avoided the important question in my last post), do you have any reason for believing what you've stated here? You've provided a lot of 'speculation'. A lot of 'rational avoidance' of prophecy, but what do you actually think, and why do you think it? Otherwise it could simply be that you hold irrational beliefs.

Written words can be interpreted in many ways. Written words about 'prophecies' do not proove anything. I have reason to believe Isaiah came before Matthew and I have reason to believe Matthew was aware of Isaiah's writings. I find it hysterically funny when religious folks accuse those who do not believe 'irrational beliefs' of holding irrational beliefs. Sure there are things I believe for which I have no proof whatsoever that some people might find 'irrational'. I have never met anyone who did not hold some irrational beliefs. I am not the one making the claim to be 'right'.

[Athanasius]

Written words can be interpreted in many ways. Written words about 'prophecies' do not proove anything. I have reason to believe Isaiah came before Matthew and I have reason to believe Matthew was aware of Isaiah's writings. I find it hysterically funny when religious folks accuse those who do not believe 'irrational beliefs' of holding irrational beliefs. Sure there are things I believe for which I have no proof whatsoever that some people might find 'irrational'. I have never met anyone who did not hold some irrational beliefs. I am not the one making the claim to be 'right'.

Well, if you want to be like that...

You have a reason for believing that Matthew was aware of Isaiah's writing. The reason being that Matthew quotes Isaiah at length. On the other hand, you have no reason (at least you haven't presented any) for believing Matthew wrote his Gospel to correspond specifically with the prophecies of Isaiah. You have unfounded speculation; you admit as much. The reason you reject Matthew? 'Just because'.

I'm not accusing you of holding irrational beliefs because you don't believe. I'm suggesting it's possible you hold irrational beliefs because you affirm something for which you have nothing but speculation (which you are making the claim to be 'right'). You haven't provided any proof. The fact that it's likely that most people hold a few irrational beliefs does not remove the fact that in this instance, your belief is simply unfounded. What's worse is that not only is it irrational in that it has no proof; it's irrational in that it ignores the proof. You cast aside the proof for no reason other than you don't want to accept it. It's a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, the very definition of irrational.

Here is the important question: can you provide any proof to support what you're saying? Any reason other than 'just because'?

[Godmachine]

The reason you reject Matthew? 'Just because'.

Your words, not mine.

I'm suggesting it's possible you hold irrational beliefs because you affirm something for which you have nothing but speculation (which you are making the claim to be 'right').

Please point out where I made that claim and I will humbly apologize. Sounds to me like you're speculating.

You haven't provided any proof.

I am not here to prove anything. I am looking for proof of the claims that you are making. You're pointing out words on paper that say certain extraordinary events occurred and calling that 'proof'. I am not rejecting those words. There they are. But they don't prove those events actually occurred.

Here is the important question: can you provide any proof to support what you're saying? Any reason other than 'just because'?

Please point out where I said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. Speculation does not require proof. If there was proof it wouldn't be speculation and I've made it very clear that what I was saying was SPECULATION.

[Godmachine]

One could speculate here (I am NOT saying this is what really happened) that Matthew, having read the writings of Isaiah and seeing certain predictions that were made, wrote his gospel to correspond with those predictions. Of course such speculation takes all the fun out of believing in 'prophecies'.

Here is what I said. There is no 'just because'. There is no 'this is what really happened' (note the part where I say "I am NOT saying this is what really happened")

[Gypsy]

Will he judge me based on what I believed or what I did?

I know it's not what you want to hear and not what seems fair to you, but respecting your salvation, it's the former:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Believe it or not there really are atheists and agnostics out there who are genuinely good people. Does your god prefer bad believers over good non-believers?

I have no doubt there are atheists who are "genuinely good people", by earthly standards, but not heavenly standards. By those standards, none of us qualify. Consider the thief on the cross:

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

this was a man who must have lived close to a perfectly sinful life and in his final moments on this earth came to Jesus and was saved. Saved through faith not by works.

Does he really hate non-believers that much that he would send an atheist who gave selflessly to help the sick and the poor to hell while allowing a believer who raped little boys into Heaven?

try to understand our belief is not that God chooses to hate this person or that person. He is perfectly good and can not arbitrarily choose to hate specific people. As such (being perfectly good) all sin is intolerable to Him. Yes, the believer who rapes little boys, but also the "No, Baby, your butt doesn't look fat" little white lies and the clipping pencils from the office. All sin is intolerable to him and no one, save Jesus, has ever not been sinful, by nature. In order for us to become presentable to Him, that sin must be atoned for. God loved us so much, that He Himself became man - the perfect man - the only sinless man and with that sinless nature ransomed His own life to pay for our sins. All He asks is that this sacrifice be recognized through faith. The person who raped little boys, fibs to his wife, steals office supplies - these sins have already been paid for in His eyes and through His own love and our choice is whether to accept that forgiveness or not - accept that love or not. Hell is the place where God is not, if we choose to not accept His love than we ourselves have decided to go to that place.

[Desperaux]

I am fully aware of what the Bible is. I agree it is probably safe to assume that the NT authors were unaware that they were writing the NT. But they had to have been aware of earlier writings that made certain predictions. The actual construction or assembly of the Bible came along much later than any of those writings. The people who put it all together in fact didn't write any of it; they had a collection of writings from various authors spanning many centuries. Using your example, Isaiah came much earlier than Matthew so we can safely assume that Isaiah was unaware of this guy named Matthew. Matthew however came later and must have been aware of the writings of Isaiah. One could speculate here (I am NOT saying this is what really happened) that Matthew, having read the writings of Isaiah and seeing certain predictions that were made, wrote his gospel to correspond with those predictions. Of course such speculation takes all the fun out of believing in 'prophecies'.

Mary didn't know she was going to give birth to a child in Bethlehem, even though it was prophesied in scripture. The Pharisees themselves missed it.

[Dani H]

Will he judge me based on what I believed or what I did? Believe it or not there really are atheists and agnostics out there who are genuinely good people. Does your god prefer bad believers over good non-believers? Does he really hate non-believers that much that he would send an atheist who gave selflessly to help the sick and the poor to hell while allowing a believer who raped little boys into Heaven?

You will be judged based on what you did, of course. And on why you did it. It'll all be laid bare then, for all to see. Because God still gave you a conscience, and no matter what belief you claim (or not), you're still expected to follow it. The whole point of following Jesus is to have Him teach us how to really get to know and obey God in this life and to have us restored to the original fellowship with Him mentioned in Genesis, and to not sin so we don't have to worry about judgment later but can look forward being joined to God forever.

And no true believer will rape anybody.

You really do have the wrong opinion of Christianity.

Nobody who serves Jesus will ever commit gross sins like that. What you're describing is somebody who is no longer serving the Lord and who turned from Him long before that person is able to do such a thing.

Like I've already stated, just because somebody claims the name of the Lord, doesn't mean that He is anywhere near that person. By their fruit you will know them. Jesus said so Himself.