God hates atheists

[Hakan101]

That's sort of the question I'm asking. The passages I presented would suggest that it means the son is not loved (and in fact, hated). You're saying otherwise?

I don't think you responded to it yet, but the story of the Prodigal Son addresses your questions. I mentioned this and I think drich did too. God never stops loving us, and in fact is more overjoyed with those who return to him than with those who already faithfully remain in him.

 

[razeontherock]

Genesis 2:21 MSG

I am not going to go back on that. Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

I LOVE seeing someone quoting "The Message," in a passage where it helps bring clarity! But this is NOT from Genesis. It's Galatians 2:21, available on biblegateway.com, with the disclaimer that it's not a good translation of the Gospels. (In fact the person who did the translation felt Jesus' words could NOT be done the way he created this.)

 

[LogosRhema]

I LOVE seeing someone quoting "The Message," in a passage where it helps bring clarity! But this is NOT from Genesis. It's Galatians 2:21, available on biblegateway.com, with the disclaimer that it's not a good translation of the Gospels. (In fact the person who did the translation felt Jesus' words could NOT be done the way he created this.)

Thanks for correcting it. My phone app and my own proofreading error! I compare the message with the amplified mostly. I enjoy the message version thoroughly tho, really captures the heart of the Father I feel.

Galatians 2:21 AMP

[Therefore, I do not treat God's gracious gift as something of minor importance and defeat its very purpose]; I do not set aside and invalidate and frustrate and nullify the grace (unmerited favor) of God. For if justification (righteousness, acquittal from guilt) comes through [observing the ritual of] the Law, then Christ (the Messiah) died groundlessly and to no purpose and in vain. [His death was then wholly superfluous.]

 

[drich0150]

You're right, I just skipped over it. It wasn't intentional. I apologize.

Okay so the book says "God hates people who are x and y." It then goes on to say that "Atheists are people who are x and y." Sparsity doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

I ask that you not only be willing to look at the immediate context surrounding the verses you have highlighted, but to the context in which this book was written. Also look at the dynamic of the relationship between those people and the Christian doctrine, then identify and segregate the differences.

What is the context?

As a book of hymns for OT Jews.

So, these passages are wrong? It seems like you're suggesting that we can basically throw this book away.

These passages are Hymns and praises for all of those under the Old covenant. Not all of the precepts apply to New testament Christianity.

Well, if that's not what these passages say, what do they say? That's kind of the meat of the question.

Not what, it is to whom these passages speak.

That's sort of the question I'm asking. The passages I presented would suggest that it means the son is not loved (and in fact, hated). You're saying otherwise?

The passage I pointed out that Christ was recorded as saying does indeed indicate otherwise. Again not all praises and Hymns that the OT Jew sang about is consistent with New Covenant Christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

Ha! I also own an Amplified, and used that for years after wearing out my KJV, wringing all the meaning I could from it. Then on to The Message, and now I'm considering either Beck, God's Word, or an Orthodox study Bible.

 

[LogosRhema]

Ha! I also own an Amplified, and used that for years after wearing out my KJV, wringing all the meaning I could from it. Then on to The Message, and now I'm considering either Beck, God's Word, or an Orthodox study Bible.

Use them all brother, they all have a piece of the larger puzzle.

 

[razeontherock]

Use them all brother, they all have a piece of the larger puzzle.

And this is "the larger answer" for our OP. Context is not an easy thing, and a lone verse is not the thing to focus on. G-d is vast, HUGE --

infinite.

 

[JGG]

I ask that you not only be willing to look at the immediate context surrounding the verses you have highlighted, but to the context in which this book was written. Also look at the dynamic of the relationship between those people and the Christian doctrine, then identify and segregate the differences.


As a book of hymns for OT Jews.


These passages are Hymns and praises for all of those under the Old covenant. Not all of the precepts apply to New testament Christianity.


Not what, it is to whom these passages speak.


The passage I pointed out that Christ was recorded as saying does indeed indicate otherwise. Again not all praises and Hymns that the OT Jew sang about is consistent with New Covenant Christianity.

So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?

 

[LogosRhema]

So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?

God hates that what hurts ourselves and others. Should read the entirety of the Bible in light of it all.

 

[JGG]

God hates that what hurts ourselves and others. Should read the entirety of the Bible in light of it all.

That's why I'm asking about it. Where did this particular passage come from? What was it's inspiration? Why inculde it if it goes against the message of the Bible?

 

[razeontherock]

Rather, the message of the whole of Scripture needs to be understood, and then how this (or anything else) fits into it comes into view.

 

[JGG]

That's why I'm asking about it. Where did this particular passage come from? What was it's inspiration? Why inculde it if it goes against the message of the Bible?

There's no answer to this?

 

[drich0150]

So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?

No in short, you should apply this passage to whom it was written.

Understand the Whole bible speaks of two completely different faiths. We need to understand the first to know what the second truly is. The second is a freedom given from the works and activities one had to do to obtain righteousness with God in the first. Without this contrast the second is meaningless.

For example look at what God's view of atheists were before, and look at what it is now. Understand what the blood of Christ has bought you... Opportunity where you would have it before.

 

[LogosRhema]

There's no answer to this?

Yes, I apologize. I will give you my answer, tho I don't know if all will agree.

Let me rephrase my previous answer keeping the entire Bible in context. The answer was yes.

Instead of focusing on what was, let's look at the reality of scripture now. The new testament says that we were cocrucified with Christ on the cross, it says that our "old man" died with Christ and we also take part in His resurrection. Our carnal nature was circumcised off in our realization of the reality of the cross.

This is one of the mysteries and reasons for the cross. This sinful and carnal man that, as the Bible says, was absolutely against God no matter what, has died. So the answer? It was yes, but the reality of the cross makes the answer no.

What of those who don't believe yet? Well, the Bible says that Christ died for all of mankind. In my mind, all of mankind has been cocrucified with Him. Then why are they still doing evil things? That's where faith comes in.

Although they may not have faith in the reality of the cross that still does not mean grace covers them.

Colossians 1:21 NIV

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.

Many live in this make believe world, alienating themselves in their own minds in thought and actions. It doesn't change that the reality around them that grace is real. Faith doesn't manifest Christ's death, but faith is the realization of this new creation reality, that they are free from the law of sin and death. Faith does not manifest something that wasn't already there.

As it stands now. God does not hate atheists or even the most evil man. The reality of it all is that man is dead in the spiritual and Christ covers them. God is not provoked to wrath but provoked to draw near as the iniquity of the man will catch up to him and in never failing hope the man will call out for help. Where sin is, grace abounds the more.

Hope this answers your question. If you need me to post all the scripture I can. Responding via smart phone hence why it isn't shown there now. God still does hate these things, but because all have died with Christ the nature of that man God hated has been replaced with the nature God loves.

 

[JGG]

No in short, you should apply this passage to whom it was written.

Understand the Whole bible speaks of two completely different faiths. We need to understand the first to know what the second truly is. The second is a freedom given from the works and activities one had to do to obtain righteousness with God in the first. Without this contrast the second is meaningless.

For example look at what God's view of atheists were before, and look at what it is now. Understand what the blood of Christ has bought you... Opportunity where you would have it before.

What is the first faith? Are you saying that God used to hate atheists, but doesn't now? That the nature of God completely changed all of sudden? That doesn't seem reasonable. What changed God's mind?

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, I apologize. I will give you my answer, tho I don't know if all will agree.

Let me rephrase my previous answer keeping the entire Bible in context. The answer was yes.

As well as i can trace the context, the original question was "So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?"

You give a yes answer to that?

Instead of focusing on what was, let's look at the reality of scripture now. The new testament says that we were cocrucified with Christ on the cross, it says that our "old man" died with Christ and we also take part in His resurrection. Our carnal nature was circumcised off in our realization of the reality of the cross.

This is one of the mysteries and reasons for the cross. This sinful and carnal man that, as the Bible says, was absolutely against God no matter what, has died. So the answer? It was yes, but the reality of the cross makes the answer no.

For the benefit of the OP, the reality of the cross taking up residence in our lives changes the proverbial "everything" - but it does not change the word of God from yes to no. (Nor in any other way)

I see a need for further clarification here, but you are doing a good job.

What of those who don't believe yet? Well, the Bible says that Christ died for all of mankind. In my mind, all of mankind has been cocrucified with Him. Then why are they still doing evil things? That's where faith comes in.

Although they may not have faith in the reality of the cross that still does not mean grace covers them.

So clarify: unbelievers are all covered by Grace, or not?

As it stands now. God does not hate atheists or even the most evil man.

Good News!

 

[LogosRhema]

As well as i can trace the context, the original question was "So to summarize, it is simply wrong, and I should ignore this particular biblical passage?"

You give a yes answer to that?

For the benefit of the OP, the reality of the cross taking up residence in our lives changes the proverbial "everything" - but it does not change the word of God from yes to no. (Nor in any other way)

I see a need for further clarification here, but you are doing a good job.

So clarify: unbelievers are all covered by Grace, or not?

Good News!

He context of my yes and no is related to God's anger towards "sinners".

 

[razeontherock]

Right:

"God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:9) Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

And just in case anybody wants to think Paul just made it up, here is one place where the roots are in Prophecy:

"And in that day thou shalt say, O LORD, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. (Isaiah 12:2) Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation."

 

[JGG]

He context of my yes and no is related to God's anger towards "sinners".

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it. God doesn't hate atheists anymore, or God isn't angry at sinners anymore?

 

[LogosRhema]

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting it. God doesn't hate atheists anymore, or God isn't angry at sinners anymore?

In context to what I previously wrote, yes. Please read my longer post to capture how and why.