There are things in the bible that says what God hates but at the same time, you can do something that he may hate but he will still forgive you. There is only one unforgivable sin. Also really it is not God hating the person, it is God hating the action that is taking place which is why he will forgive as he doesn't hate you, he loves you instead.

In a way, it is and isn't a matter with the Old Testiment. More so what people say doesn't matter is the laws, a lot of the laws to behonest and with the New testiment, there was the "new" laws which a lot of them more reinforce the old laws. The New Testiment tells us to follow the ten commandments so even if someone wanted to argue saying "But old testimant doesn't matter/isn't relevant now", that is technically untrue as the New Testiment reinforces a lot of the Old Testiment laws

Well, no there probably isn't a point in talking to me when what you have to say is so ridiculous.

Spurge did not simply use the word theory instead of scientific theory.  He called evolution a theory, which is wrong.  He also implied that scientific theories were on equal level with any generic theory, which is also wrong.  The implication of his post was clearly that, because it is a theory, it is not ok to teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution (or evolution at all).  That was quite an embarrassing suggestion indeed, although it was quite nice of you to jump in so he didn't have to be embarrassed alone. Do not pretend this was about semantics.    It was about whether or not scientific theories were appropriate for the class.  Don't try to backtrack.  And if you admit that they are, then your embarrassment can be over.

You said you were a mechanical engineer, right?  Why did you say mechanical?  An mechanical engineer is just an engineer right?

Would you rather have sex with just any female, or a biological female?  They're both just females, right?

Would you rather be operated on a doctor, or a medical doctor?  For that matter, would you prefer a licensed doctor, or just any doctor? They're all just doctor's right?

Would you rather eat just any flesh or cow flesh?  Flesh is flesh, right?

If you were getting a divorce, would you want just any lawyer or a divorce lawyer? A lawyer is a lawyer right?

Would you prefer to eat rotten cheese or just any cheese?  Rotten cheese is just cheese right?

Adjectives are an important part of the english language.  So, whether you say car or vehicle probably isn't important.  But, in other cases that distinction can be very important.  A doctor of medicine is very different than a doctor of the arts.  They are both doctors, but I'm sure you wouldn't want someone with a PHD in Art History to operate on you.  If somone told you they were an athlete, you might not be impressed.  If they said they were an olympic athlete, you'd probably feel differently.

A dancer is very different from an exotic dancer.  You may not mind if your daughter grew up to be a dancer, but the word exotic changes things, doesn't it?

And in this case, a scientific theory is very different than just any old theory.   Spurge implied they were the same, and you backed him up.  And that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science, and is an incredibly foolish thing to say.  

God flooded the world and killed everyone but like five people.  If that's not an expression of hate, I'm not sure what would qualify.

Or you could look at it as God seeing that the Earth was irreparably sinful and he wanted to give the beings that he created and loved so much another chance. I don't think that the great flood was an act of hatred, moreso disappointment...

But it is a theory. If it wasn't a theory, they wouldn't put the word theory in the phrase scientific theory. You're wrong. There's nothing else to it.

There were babies on the Earth at the time.  Right?  I mean, I know it's not real or anything, but we have to assume that babies exist in the fictional world.  There were also lots of animals.  Noah took two of each, which meant the others had to die.  Not only did the animals and babies have to die, but they had to do so in an incredibly agonizing way.  Couldn't he have just had them all die in their sleep?  Or, you know, not kill them at all.  

You said that god hates sin, yes?  So there were people who were sinful and he drowned them all.  I'd say that would be an act that expressed his hatred.  

First of all, no one appreciates your "its not real" statements. Pretty sure everybody here already knows that you don't believe in God, and even if they didn't, there are other ways to convey that than being rude and belittling people's faith.

Anyways, if God were to not kill them, the world would go on in sin, and no one would get into heaven which is considered the greatest punishment. Its not difficult to see how this could be considered an act of mercy and love, giving the beings he created a second chance. Feel free to not see it that way, but you aren't going to prove anything as there isn't really any basis in fact here...

I was under the impression that Noah's Flood was not viewed as literal, even by most Christians.  If anyone actually believes that one family literally created an ark, literally filled it with two of each animals, the earth was literally flooded, and the water literally disappeared and left the water cycle... Well then I am happy to belittle that idea, whether or not people appreciate it.  I mean, if people take the story metaphorically I can respectuflly disagree, but if people take it literally, I'm not going to lie and say I don't find that ridiculous.

Yes.  It is very hard to believe that killing innocent people and animals is anything good.  Even IF this was necessary, could god not have done it in such a way to avoid suffering?  Was it necessary to drown animals?  Newborns?  

Of course, this is interpretation of literature, so there is no fact, but I believe that killing nearly every living thing is pretty much the most hateful thing that can be done.

Again, whether or not it is metaphorical, there are ways to have a discussion without being incredibly rude.

As for everything else, I have already explained myself. Both sides of this argument are not based on fact, and your interpretations do not necessarily speak to the truth of the matter. The fact is, this can be explained in a way that doesn't involved hate, whether or not you accept that explanation is irrelevant. The great flood, metaphorical or not, cannot be used to disprove the statement that "Christianity is against expressions of hate". Moreso, after the great flood, God swore to solemnly promised to never do such a thing again, so it is somewhat irrelevant to the modern principles of the religion.

God says he will never destory the world with a flood.  He can still destroy it any other way he wants.  He keeps his options open.  And, this topic was about whether the bible could suport hatred, so the old testament is relevant.  

The simple fact is that an omnipotent loving god could have done this in a way with no collateral damage.  He could have had every sinner have a heart attack in his sleep.  He could have just poofed them out of existence, right?  He could have... you know.... not drowned everyone and everything, including things which had never done anything wrong.

It is impossible to believe that this method was not chosen particularly to inflict suffering.  Drowning is a particularly agonizing way to go.