Why God hates divorce - an alternate look

[StanJ]

49 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

I don't understand where where you got your last sentence from. Why would the idea of God having feelings have anything to do with God qualifying his attitudes.

There are several instances of God being wrathful

In the context I was replying to, God is qualifying sin by saying he hates it or he abhors it or whatever other negative language is used there and I believe it is simple hyperbole that is being used and not something to actually describe God's true feelings. You have to understand the concept of impassibility and then use it to filter the word of God through.

[nebula]

12 hours ago, StanJ said:

 you should look up the meaning of the word impassible.  You may be able to love but God is love so how exactly can you relate rationally to the difference? 

http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God
 

•  

   

Definition of impassive

1. 1a archaic :  unsusceptible to pain
   b :  unsusceptible to physical feeling :  insensible
   c :  unsusceptible to or destitute of emotion :  apathetic

2. 2:  giving no sign of feeling or emotion :  expressionless

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impassive
[Edit : I originally posted the wrong link]

 

Psalm 78
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.
40 How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!

How can God  have anger to turn away, wrath to be stirred up, and grief is He is impassive?

And again:

Or how can God "rejoice over" anyone without "giving sign of feeling or emotion"?
"The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing." (Zeph. 3:17)

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, StanJ said:

I quote scholars, whether or not you agree with them and want to label them as liberal is your issue. IMO,  a lot of Christians need to be liberated from the bondage of their own beliefs. 

Yeah, because YOUR theology is perfect?  If everyone would just surrender their belief system and listen to you, you would lead them them out of the bondage of thinking for themselves?  You're not in bondage to your beliefs at all?   And yes, they are liberal scholars and liberalism leads people into bondage, not out of bondage. 

Quote

Well that would be your opinion and thankfully truth is not dependent on opinion.  According to you God has double standards, he can hate but he tells us not to hate.  Who I am or am not convincing, remains to be seen, unless of course you consider yourself God and know all?

It's not a double standard at all.  God's hate is perfect.  We don't project our carnal expression of hate onto God.   See, God's hatred of sin occurs in the context of His absolute holiness.   Our expression of hatred does not and occurs in the context of our fallen nature.   That's why God can hate, but tell us not to.   God's hate is righteous and is expressed in state of moral perfection.    And those who know God understand that his attributes are held by Him in a state of perfection.   So God can love and hate at the same time without contradiction.

Quote

Again opinion does not negate fact, nor does being contrary.  The only person that I find insulting anyone here is you. 

But at the end of the day, your argument IS based on trying to convince us that we cannot read the Bible and should not thinking for ourselves, that we need you to liberate us from our beliefs.  If we don't agree with you, it's because we are in bondage to our own beliefs   So apparently, you believe it is up to you to convince us that the Bible doesn't really say what we can see for ourselves  that it says.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, StanJ said:

In the context I was replying to, God is qualifying sin by saying he hates it or he abhors it or whatever other negative language is used there and I believe it is simple hyperbole that is being used and not something to actually describe God's true feelings. You have to understand the concept of impassibility and then use it to filter the word of God through.

And that is false teaching.   God is not impassible.   You are assigning impassibility to God and you have no authority from Scripture to do that. And instead of letting Scripture speak for itself, which shows God expressing/experiencing a number of different emotions, you are claiming that God does not.   You do so in defiance of clear statements in Scripture God expresses emotions.  

The Bible doesn't teach that God is impassible.  Quite the opposite.   God is not ruled by emotions and God is not given to impulsive emotional outbursts.   But neither is He the god of deism, either, cold and emotionless.   So the argument of hyperbole simply doesn't wash.

[Churchmouse]

2 hours ago, StanJ said:

In the context I was replying to, God is qualifying sin by saying he hates it or he abhors it or whatever other negative language is used there and I believe it is simple hyperbole that is being used and not something to actually describe God's true feelings. You have to understand the concept of impassibility and then use it to filter the word of God through.

I have a hard time believing that anything written in The Bible was put down as simple hyperbole, since it was The Holy spirit that guided the authors through their task in constructing it. 

Here are just a few scriptures that describe his attitude  in emotional language, that I am sure was placed there for a reason.

Exodus 34:15  indeed, you are not to bow down in worship to any other god, because the LORD's name is Jealous—he's a jealous God—

Numbers 14:18   The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

I understand what impassable means and have read what is stated about it in the link you provided, but I didn't find any validation that what was said there came from or was reviewed by anyone of significance. I did a little research on this and found out here

http://www.whois.com/whois/theopedia.com

 

That it was registered to  an AARON SHAFOVALOFF,

Quote

Registrant Name: AARON SHAFOVALOFF
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 4318 W PENTENWELL LN
Registrant City: SOUTH JORDAN
Registrant State/Province: UT
Registrant Postal Code: 84095
Registrant Country: US

I goggled the name and brought up these references

https://www.google.com/search?q=+AARON+SHAFOVALOFF&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I did go through several of these links and my skepticism is on high alert concerning authenticity of the afore mentioned web site.

[StanJ]

3 hours ago, nebula said:

•  

   

Definition of impassive

1. 1a archaic :  unsusceptible to pain
   b :  unsusceptible to physical feeling :  insensible
   c :  unsusceptible to or destitute of emotion :  apathetic

2. 2:  giving no sign of feeling or emotion :  expressionless

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impassible

 

Psalm 78
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.
40 How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!

How can God  have anger to turn away, wrath to be stirred up, and grief is He is impassive?

And again:

Or how can God "rejoice over" anyone without "giving sign of feeling or emotion"?
"The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing." (Zeph. 3:17)

 impassive is not the same as impassible and if this is the way you study then no wonder you don't get answers.

[StanJ]

2 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

I have a hard time believing that anything written in The Bible was put down as simple hyperbole, since it was The Holy spirit that guided the authors through their task in constructing it. 

Here are just a few scriptures that describe his attitude  in emotional language, that I am sure was placed there for a reason.

Exodus 34:15  indeed, you are not to bow down in worship to any other god, because the LORD's name is Jealous—he's a jealous God—

Numbers 14:18   The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

I understand what impassable means and have read what is stated about it in the link you provided, but I didn't find any validation that what was said there came from or was reviewed by anyone of significance. I did a little research on this and found out here

http://www.whois.com/whois/theopedia.com

 

That it was registered to  an AARON SHAFOVALOFF,

I goggled the name and brought up these references

https://www.google.com/search?q=+AARON+SHAFOVALOFF&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I did go through several of these links and my skepticism is on high alert concerning authenticity of the afore mentioned web site.

 I didn't say anything I said the concept of hate and just because you don't know who the owner of Theopedia is doesn't make it an invalid site. Do you know who the owner of Wikipedia is?

 

[StanJ]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And that is false teaching.   God is not impassible.   You are assigning impassibility to God and you have no authority from Scripture to do that. And instead of letting Scripture speak for itself, which shows God expressing/experiencing a number of different emotions, you are claiming that God does not.   You do so in defiance of clear statements in Scripture God expresses emotions.  

The Bible doesn't teach that God is impassible.  Quite the opposite.   God is not ruled by emotions and God is not given to impulsive emotional outbursts.   But neither is He the god of deism, either, cold and emotionless.   So the argument of hyperbole simply doesn't wash.

As opposed to your arguments of denial which are based on nothing more than ignorance and misunderstanding.  Apparently many people are not yet ready to move on to maturity. Heb 6:1-3

You preach the immutability of God yet you obviously don't understand what it means or you would understand about impassibility.

When many of us struggle to know the mystery of God you apparently have him all figured out.

 

[StanJ]

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/01/the-impassible-god-of-the-bible

https://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/09/25/the-beauty-of-the-impassible-god-or-is-god-an-emotional-teenager/

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28360880-confessing-the-impassible-god

[Churchmouse]

9 hours ago, StanJ said:

 I didn't say anything I said the concept of hate and just because you don't know who the owner of Theopedia is doesn't make it an invalid site. Do you know who the owner of Wikipedia is?

 

You used the site as a reference to for making a point about the supposed impassibility of God. and I never said I didn't accept the site because I didn't know who ran it. I said I had trouble accepting it because of his religious leanings were suspect. Would you expect me to accept a website ran by a Catholic?  No matter what the intent is in constructing a web site, The owner ultimately sets the tone of the site and the Admins do here.  Also, I did say that I read the area where information was to be submitted and there are very few safeguards on the reliability of any information or the quality of those reviewing such information.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, such material found there doesn't rise to the level of Biblical truth and understanding. In there lies the difference of concern.  There have been many links to many web sites, both religious and secular in nature, that have been used here and many have be dismissed because of their reputation. That which you have linked to here, as I've said I am skeptical of, because:

(1) I know the owners religious leanings, which I don't share.

(2) There is no references to any  credentials for those who review any information within the site.

(3) There is no references to connect anything I've seen stated there with the Authors who have submit the info. So their qualifications can't be verified.

All this brings into question every bit of information found there.  It can't be interdependently verified. No person of merit is known to be apart of the verification process. How are we, as Christian supposed to take anything from there as anything more than the fabrication of others imaginations and opinions. Further more what is to stop any Atheists from planting false information on this site, to humor themselves?

I am still open to discuss this with you. I have not said that I reject everything you have said. Just could you not use the site in question to make your points as I have found it quite lacking.
 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Churchmouse