It really amazes me that it is only "Protestants" who are pitied because they actually believe that "God hates". Gee, I wonder where we could have gotten that from??? I didn't think the EO scratched out words in their Bibles, too. God is most definitely said to "hate" IN SCRIPTURE. And I think what may get missed is that there is a pure and righteous form of hate. To say God hates is just agreeing with his word. It has no origin in paganism because paganism certainly did not exist before God revealed himself to man. We are told to hate as well. Jesus himself in Luke 14:26 says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.". Certainly there can be a "Godly" form of hate and should not be a word we should necessarily shy away from.
Paul in Romans 12:9 says, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.". Sorry, if it makes some people feel weird to admit that our God has a righteous hatred for some things, but, like I said, I see no contradiction at all with God being a God of love, who also has a Godly hate. It is not being anthropomorphic to ascribe these two emotions because HE SAID IT HIMSELF! If he did not say these things, then you may have a valid gripe, but then again, "Protestants" wouldn't believe it if it wasn't in Scripture.
That all depends how you interpret what you read in the Bible. And that is determined by a variety of factors, personal preferences, education, language and quality of translation, marignal notes, historical context, etc, have more to do with how we internalize what we see written.
As I said literal (as well as allegorical) reading of the Bible is problematic, even if it appeals to human nature. As Thayer's Lexicon states "Not a few interpreters have attributed" the Greek word miseo (or the Hebrew equivalent ' sane), which is translated as hate, to mean to "love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight". Indeed, careful examination of the Bible seems to agree with this assessment.
For example, Genesis 29:30-31 says
And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
This clearly shows that the the word "hate" really means "loved less" because the previous verse doesn;t say he hated Leah, but that he loved Rachel more. Yet, the following verse says that God saw that Leah was "hated."
Likewise, in Deuteronomy 21:15 a man has two wives, one beloved and the other one "hated." Knowing that a man could divorce a woman, it is reasonable to assume that the "hated" one was less favored between the two, and not really hated.
Also, in the case of Esau (Malachi 1:2, Romans 9:13), it is not to be understood that God hated Esau, but that he favored him less, because that is how the word hate is used throughout the Bible.
And, in Luke 14:26 Jesus is really saying unless a man loves him [Jesus] more than his own father and mother, and brothers and sisters, he cannot be his disciple.
John 12:25 states "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." Someone who had to struggle all his life probably was not a smug and blissful as some more fortunate ones, but who persevered despite the obstacles put in front of him in his miserable (hateful) life, he will be rewarded with the evrlatsing life.1
We can pretty be sure, again based on biblical stories, that those things God really hated he also destroyed or made sure they were destroyed, which is not the case in any of the above verses.
I think your response clearly demonstrates what I wrote about earlier: the apparent human preference when interpreting the Bible to make the glove fit the hand. The tendency is to conform God to our image of him, to create a God who is acceptable to us, so we can be comfortable with him, so that we can be "his" and he can "ours".
Obviously some need a a loving, gentle and non-demanidng figure; other want an authoritarian despot who makes us feel safe. It seems to reflect more what we need than what is.
“I wonder where we could have gotten that from??? I didn’t think the EO scratched out words in their Bibles, too.”
Remember, it was we who gave you the bible you quote from, bb. It never ceases to amaze me how protestants have such a Mohammedan view of scripture! “It is not being anthropomorphic to ascribe these two emotions because HE SAID IT HIMSELF!” God “said”? He is subject to hatred? Or did some pre Incarnation fallen human being write that God “said” that? The Church which gave you your bible knows very well what is written there and thoroughly understands it. It could have removed any of a number of offending verses, especially from the OT. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. That it left in the “hate” verses” was for a reason:
“Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this” +Isaac the Syrian
and
“”It is because fear edifies simpler people.” +Basil the Great.
God did not write the bible; fallible men did, men who had no more understanding of the “essence” of the Creator of Existence than you or me. In most cases they did the best they could with their finite and fallen minds. +Gregory the Theologian recognized this when he wrote:
“For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God.”
And +John of Damascus recognized that when human beings write or speak of God as if He has a body and is subject to all the attributes and limitations of a body, these things are said symbolically in an effort to teach us about what are in fact beyond our nature.
Where did the hate come from,bb,it can't be part of God's essence or God would not be perfection?
Do you think God had hate in Him before the fall of lucifer?
God is love before the fall of lucifer,bb.Lucifer did not have the power to change and move God from love to hate and neither do we