I can say only one thing: when I was a believer I remember homilies that reminded the faithful that God hates sin and loves the sinner, and that the Christian God, Lord and Savior taught his disciples not to hate, but to love their enemies.
Apparently not all "Christians" (or morel likely trolls with an ax to grind, masquerading as Christians) here on FR practice that. The hate they spill on these pages on anyone who dares question their beliefs, or even who happens to be Catholic, just doesn't come across as anything even remotely Christian, so it really doesn't matter what sect or cult they belong to; all one can see in their words is hate. Theirs god must the god of hate and their religion to match. pnsn and metmom, you don't have to say what you believe in. It's obvious.
Theirs=Their
No kidding?
"Matt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
Certain Skeptics think that Jesus missed the mark in living up to this admonition. Here are some examples, and the answer:
"Matt. 23:17, 27 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?..."Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
"Matt. 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."
John 10:8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them."
A key here is understanding the function of polemic in first-century Judaism (see our response to Earl Doherty). It is certainly possible under these constraints to love one's enemies and pray for them, and also attack them polemically, though such complexity of emotion is quite often foreign to us.
Moreover, the term "love" here does not correspond with our modern psychological category; it is "not a matter of sentiment and emotion but concrete action and practical concern." [Hill's commentary on Matthew, 130] It is in fact the term agape.
It does not exclude verbally attacking and discrediting one's opponents when they are in the wrong.
Beyond that, Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies of the truth.
There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for __all of his comments reflect their deception of others__.
The ancient definition of agape __did not exclude__ polemical practices __against ideological opponents who did broad, general harm to others__, and so Skeptics are merely illicitly applying modern categories to the situation.
One would hardly suppose that Matthew 5:4 would restrict one from joining an army and fighting in a war against a Hitler or a Stalin. This becomes a case of having agape for the greater number, and generally innocent, at the expense of the lesser who are guilty.
Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others attacked was very much in this category, since their actions imperiled the eternal fate of others. ...
Uh?....from what I've seen of your posts I find it very difficult to believe you were, perhaps your belief was in church-ianity rather than Christianity Kosta. It's not that uncommon. Many can learn the dogmas etc... and be studious about them but without really giving their life to the Lord. There are church-ianity train wrecks who find their way to atheism and other such things after hard encounters with the church. Just wondering as I find it remarkable you can say you were once a believer....in who or what may I ask?
Yeah, I hate evil as evil/satan is an anti-Christ spirit and has come against HIS WORD since the beginning and he uses his godless minions to carry on his task.
Stop you whining and looking to be embraced - you godless liberal troll!