Why God hates divorce - an alternate look

[StanJ]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

What Bible Scripture ? You say GOD is "impassible"-- back it up with Scripture.

Sure, as soon as you back up with scriptures that God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

[StanJ]

1 hour ago, Davida said:

What "double standards" ? How about you go to that post and show me where I used a double standard.  

Btw , I have found the Bible is much easier to read after you are born again and surrendered to Jesus as the Holy Spirit helps a whole lot to open God's Word. Secondly, I would Not use resources from persons, places  or institutions that don't believe in the inerrancy of Bible Scripture- because a person can have all the intellectual Bible Study Tools at their disposal but if you do not have the Holy Spirit you will simply be just spouting human error & human opinion .

The double standard that you use to allow yourself to label somebody liberal but don't accept the fact that you come from a conservative perspective and automatically think that conservative is right and liberal is wrong. It may surprise you to know that in Jesus' day he was considered a liberal.

and I find it's much easier to read the Bible once one has had the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, StanJ said:

That's right, God doesn't contradict himself or his word, but God does contradict people and their beliefs even when they seem to be in line with what scriptures says. 

If you truly believe in the immutability of God then what do you do with scripture like Gen 6:6?

It's only a problem for open theists.  

It's an anthropomorphism.  An all-knowing God, who is not bound to linear time, does not change His mind.  For God to repent or to be sorry that He made man in the human/carnal expression of that emotion, it would imply that God didn't know that man would turn out the way He did.   But that is simply untenable.   It is nothing more than an expression of intensity of God's grief over man's sin.  It means that the judgment of God was going to come down upon man with a broken heart. 

[StanJ]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It's only a problem for open theists.  

It's an anthropomorphism.  An all-knowing God, who is not bound to linear time, does not change His mind.  For God to repent or to be sorry that He made man in the human/carnal expression of that emotion, it would imply that God didn't know that man would turn out the way He did.   But that is simply untenable.   It is nothing more than an expression of intensity of God's grief over man's sin.  It means that the judgment of God was going to come down upon man with a broken heart. 

you sure like labeling people, but in any event if this is an anthropomorphism then I guess hate is also an "expression of intensity of God's grief over man's sin", to quote your own words? 

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, StanJ said:

you sure like labeling people, but in any event if this is an anthropomorphism then I guess hate is also an "expression of intensity of God's grief over man's sin", to quote your own words? 

I am not labeling anyone.   Open theists argue that God did in fact, change His mind because in their view God cannot know how man will choose to act.   God, for example, doesn't know what you will choose to have for breakfast, and He doesn't know the sins you will commit an hour or a day from now.    So they have no problem taking Gen. 6:6 at face value.  But Open Theism is heretical.

The difference between saying God "hates,"  and the description of Gen. 6:6 is that if we take that verse at face value, God is not omniscient.  And God cannot be trusted.  If God literally changed His mind, man would have ceased to exist.   Moreover, if God literally changed His mind, He can change it again, and that isn't any good for us.    There are a things that are very important to us that we don't want God to change His mind about.

God was grieved and it was expressed in an anthropomorphic way that expresses the intensity of that grief.  Hate is not anthropomorphic because it is a communicable attribute. 

 

[nebula]

And again StanJ ignores my questions.

[Churchmouse]

2 hours ago, StanJ said:

well if you read the post before yours you'll see a few links that also talk about God's impassibility.  Nothing can convince you unless you're open to the truth, and allow the Holy Spirit to show you.

I believe that Nebula has spoken about these links. I would suggest you respond to him so that i won't have to ask you the same question. To be honest I would rather talk with you about this, because I can't debate a link. the author is not present and I can't ask him anything. I would like to ask you to please point out the scripture that directs the authors of these links to think upon these lines.  There must have been something they could point out or in this case, you could point out that would lend some credence to these claims. If not then all we have is conjecture. I do have an open mind on somethings, but I need something to entertain that mind other than other peoples opinions.

[StanJ]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not labeling anyone.   Open theists argue that God did in fact, change His mind because in their view God cannot know how man will choose to act.   God, for example, doesn't know what you will choose to have for breakfast, and He doesn't know the sins you will commit an hour or a day from now.    So they have no problem taking Gen. 6:6 at face value.  But Open Theism is heretical.

The difference between saying God "hates,"  and the description of Gen. 6:6 is that if we take that verse at face value, God is not omniscient.  And God cannot be trusted.  If God literally changed His mind, man would have ceased to exist.   Moreover, if God literally changed His mind, He can change it again, and that isn't any good for us.    There are a things that are very important to us that we don't want God to change His mind about.

God was grieved and it was expressed in an anthropomorphic way that expresses the intensity of that grief.  Hate is not anthropomorphic because it is a communicable attribute. 

 

I know what's open theists are and that wasn't my point. This is what happens when you interject.  The point is that the hyperbole used in Genesis 6:6 is the same used whenever it is used to anthropomorphise God.  This one verse alone does not convey the idea of omniscience, yet you have no problem seeing it's true intent because you've been taught that not because you discovered it. Even though you agree with the immutability of God you still refuse to recognize God's impassibility because you haven't discovered it by the Holy Spirit, you've only been taught by man.  You agree with the three Omni attributes of God not because you discovered them but because you were taught them. Hate is just as anthropomorphic as regret is, except to those who refuse to see it. 

How exactly could God be grieved if he knew exactly what was going to happen? Again you anthropomorphize the word to try to make a point and do not even recognize what you're doing.

[StanJ]

48 minutes ago, Davida said:

The onus is on you Stan- produce the scriptures that says that GOD is impassible like you have been arguing since the beginning.  I think you cannot because there is NOTHING in scripture that backs up your opinion.

I've already shown scriptures that suggest the idea which you already rejected so I challenged you and you seem not to be able to be up to the challenge?  Apparently you find it easy to deny what you don't agree with but hard to support what you do agree with.  seems to me you are not totally committed to the idea of God's immutability but only those ideas that you have been taught are correct, not necessarily those you have thought through.

[StanJ]

1 hour ago, nebula said:

And again StanJ ignores my questions.

 like I said God's law of sowing and reaping is always in play.