@teacon7: "He hates the vices and sin, but loves the person."

He hated Esau and Esau was a person. It sayeth so.

Again, understanding context and original language use tells a different meaning. The word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” This is evident from Genesis 29:30. The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’.

God does not hate anyone, but he does bless some nations more than others.

It's drivel because none of you have any of the actual skill or depth of knowledge required to make these conversations possible. Go read a fucking book.

Ha! You English are so warped! You think that the Spanish Inquisition was bad, yet your kings and queens murdered Catholics and chased out of your island non-conforming Christians to Holland and the New World! Sanctity in Britain was killed with Saint Sir Thomas Becket!!

Beggars can't be choosers! Don't you understand? And I, among other masters, hold a theology masters degree you cad!!

Which English person do you refer to?

Oh, its a generalization as is found in 'all of' these forums of course!

Are you guys going to play or just respond to my postings?

This thought reminds me of the quote from Babylon 5.
"I wonder if the right question is, can God create a puzzle so difficult, a riddle so complex, that even he can't solve it? What if that's us?"

@ Brad: I was just wondering if you think I'm English. I'm not English.

I am currently in a philosophy group at my school, so religious and philosophical debates are sorta my thing. But this question, that the universe itself was created to solve a question is similar to the purpose of the Earth in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy(Idk if anyone brought this up already, I just read the question and the last page). In that book, the main characters came to the conclusion that either the question/answer was so stupid, or the question and answer could not exist at the same time.

As for whether this universe is a giant computer, the only way it will find the answer is if the smallest components make their contributions to the answer or question(since we don't know what the riddle was in the first place) and hopefully compute in a couple million years. But for the benefit of discussion, I believe the best place to start is to figure out what purpose God had in creating our universe and giving us the feels if we could live in happiness and harmony in heaven
(@ Brad the theology master)

@ChoosyBeggar - What book(s) would you, out of your clear depth of knowledge, skill, and polite erudition, suggest that the thread start reading?

@jamiet - I can confirm what Brad said above. As far as I can tell, the idiomatic use of that Hebrew word sets up relative comparisons between the "hated" and the "loved" thing, rather than only expressing unreasonable feelings of anger. I can see why the English translations would leave out that nuance, and why that would be misleading.

For what it's worth, responsible and honest study of texts like this asks that we look at the history and context. In the context of the sentences around Malachi 1:3, the word "Esau" is standing in for "the land and country where Esau lived and died and raised children." The very next verse talks about "Edom" (a country, possibly descendant from a guy named "Edom") in the same way. So what's being compared is not the individual persons, but the relative fate and fortunes of the kingdoms descendant of Jacob, Esau, and Edom. Whether you believe any of the scriptures or not, it's historical fact that the brothers Jacob and Esau themselves lived much earlier than when Malachi wrote, so we quite reasonably read the text in light of that knowledge.

In general or in order to equip themselves for the specific line of thought? And yes, I realize I'm rude. I don't need to be polite to be correct.

@ChoosyBeggar - You're the expert, right? Can you give the top three titles for "in general" and to equip us for this line of thought?

I'm legitimately asking you to specify. Are you asking for books pertaining to the topic of biblical logic, or are you asking what I would suggest for basic rhetorical competency? Because honestly most of the fucking droolers in this thread should start with a high-school grammar textbook before even touching philosophical works.

Actually scratch that. Content is entirely out of reach here. 80% of this thread needs to learn is that rhetoric is a *learned* skill, not something everyone is born with. Before even touching specific arguments they need to be put through their paces on extremely basic platonic or aristotelian logic. Learn how to form an argument as well as how to form a question. Learn the bare minimum of writing for clarity of intent. Expand their fucking vocabularies. This is like toddlers playing at chess.

@Kokarotto It is imprecise and false to speak on behalf of God in philosophical discussion: this would be a defence, not an explanation. There are simpler ways to defeat this 'paradox':
1. That not being able to lift a stone is incapability, therefore you are simply stating that God is incapable of being incapable, and so is omnipotent.
2. That language confuses from the key question: "Can God create an object he cannot translate through space." In order for God to not be able to translate a stone through space, it must be larger than space itself for Him to not be able to translate it through space.

In short, your defence is nice, but there are others out there that raise fewer horrific implications for life itself. If God gives the Universe free reign to create random stuff, what happens when it creates an object that nothing can destroy? Not exactly the most benevolent God then.

It might seem like a paradox, but we have to remember that the rules of logic don't apply to God. He can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, and he can lift it because logic does not apply to him.

If the mind of God were to fit within the skull of man, he would be no god at all. It is impossible to argue the intent of a god-figure; we can only impose logic as it pertains from the human position. Realize that that is the only valid aim, here.

@ Markus: How do you know that?

It's pretty clear that God is all-powerful. Laws of physics don't apply to him, so why should laws of logic?

Because they are entirely different sets of laws. That's like saying because the Laws of Amsterdam don't apply to me neither do those of the country I live in.

Also it is far from clear that any deity (assuming they exist) is omnipotent

Got maybe not be a physical being but he better be a logical one.

First of all, that comparison is inaccurate. What I said is more like "because the driving laws don't apply to me, neither do the tax laws". Logic and physics are both laws of the universe, just as the driving and tax laws are both laws of one government.

Do you really think that we can confine God our understanding of the universe? God can do anything, and because of that, laws cannot apply to him.

Okay but your replacement statement is just as illogical.

Also you just assert he can do anything. Can you warrant that please?

Not really, but we've gotten sidetracked. Laws can't apply to God because they would restrict him! God can do anything, and a law creates an action that cannot be performed. Therefore, God is not subject to the laws of mortals.

Why must God be unrestricted. At least with the bible he clearly has restrictions like that's the entire reason Jesus was sent.