toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to hate?

[bybee]

Well

Well

You guys already have a heck of a discussion going on, and I do not wish to disrupt it. Quickly, though, I love Lewis and have recently finished all three volumes of his collected correspondence. Bonhoeffer is personal hero of mine, and the Cost of Discipleship rarely leaves my bedside. You will always get far citing them to me!

What you have given me most to think about, is the difference between hating evil, and hating a person. I have usually considered there to be a great difference between the two. However, is hating nazism different than hating a nazi? Lewis felt that, at the core of any undesirable, was an immortal soul that, in its glory, we would be tempted to fall down and worship. Am I required, ethically, to hate anyone I am willing to brand as evil? Or am I required to refuse to believe that anyone is truly evil (as opposed to evil in action alone), that everyone, at their core, is a creation of God and worthy of love?

This is an extremely complex dichotomy, Hate the sin, love the sinner, BUT, sin exists because someone sinned. It does not serve the best interests of society to allow a lawbreaker to go unpunished.
We are obligated to protect the vulnerable and the innocent from the depredations of human predators.
God will judge the soul of a man/woman but society must act to prevent a person from repeating a heinous act.
You do not have to brand someone as "forever and unredeemably" evil. But we must brand harmful behavior commited by a person as evil and take necessary steps to protect others from harm.
So long as there is life there is hope for a change of heart.
I believe in life in prison without possibility of parole rather than the death penalty so that a soul may be saved.
My thoughts are kind of scattered. Time for me to call it a night.
Peace, bybee

 

[Lovejoy]

This is an extremely complex dichotomy, Hate the sin, love the sinner, BUT, sin exists because someone sinned. It does not serve the best interests of society to allow a lawbreaker to go unpunished.
We are obligated to protect the vulnerable and the innocent from the depredations of human predators.
God will judge the soul of a man/woman but society must act to prevent a person from repeating a heinous act.
You do not have to brand someone as "forever and unredeemably" evil. But we must brand harmful behavior commited by a person as evil and take necessary steps to protect others from harm.
So long as there is life there is hope for a change of heart.
I believe in life in prison without possibility of parole rather than the death penalty so that a soul may be saved.
My thoughts are kind of scattered. Time for me to call it a night.
Peace, bybee

Thank you for your thoughts. Do not mistake me, though. I favor a society of laws, and punishment for violation of those laws. Nothing in hate though. Hate is rather a final pronouncement on the worth of a person, which I do not think is given us. I don't mind pronouncing an action evil, if God has called it so. But a person?

 

[The Barbarian]

There may be some purely evil people, but I'll leave it to Him to identify them.

 

[Lovejoy]

There may be some purely evil people, but I'll leave it to Him to identify them.

If prophecy is correct, there surely will be (or are). Jude 1:9 seems to state quite alot about about our rights to make final judgements of any kind about anyone, though.

 

[Lighthouse]

@ Lighthouse, Mary_Contrary, Wanderer, etc.:

Tell me what the word "hate" means.

Hate

 

[Traditio]

Hate

:rotfl:

Lighthouse, you're too easy sometimes. All of the definitions were pathological. They're definitions of an emotion. If that's the case, then it should be obvious that God clearly can't "hate" in those senses. There's no such thing as a "Divine pathology." God doesn't have emotions. God is purely Rational.

 

[Traditio]

LOL. Mere feelings...

A woman would LOL at that. :noid:

I don't think emotions can be judged morally, I agree with that. However, my experience with said emotions was not a positive one and not something I recommend.

But can you recommend (or dissuade, for that matter) something purely pathological? "Never experience hunger!" It just sounds silly, doesn't it? "Never eat ice cream!" That doesn't sound as silly, though, does it?

One could say the intention rises from the emotion

No. Intention arises from freedom.

 

[Traditio]

It's like anger. Anger is never a simple emotion, but is generated by more fundamental things like fear, frustration, horror, and so on. You're right in the sense that one can decide whether or not one will hate. One cannot decide whether or not one will fear, only what one will do about the fear.

:nono:

That's just it: I deny that "hatred" is an emotion at all, precisely because God commands us not to do it, and nothing pathological can be commanded (or forbidden) as a duty.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

:rotfl:

Lighthouse, you're too easy sometimes. All of the definitions were pathological. They're definitions of an emotion. If that's the case, then it should be obvious that God clearly can't "hate" in those senses. There's no such thing as a "Divine pathology." God doesn't have emotions. God is purely Rational.

Traditio, You are betrayed by your youth! You continually "Joust with windmills".
I pray that all this fluffy nitpicking in which you engage will eventually bring you to a deeper understanding of life.
God is Love! That is an emotion! All of the Law and the Prophets proceed through that love.
The gift of Jesus the Christ is an act of God's love for humanity.
You might think to thank God for the kind of love which woman brings to life. A mother's love is beyond comprehension. A wife's love for her husband enable's him to become the man God intended him to be.
Read Proverbs and see the value which is placed on a good woman. Her place in the home and in society is necessary for the well being of the family.
Because you are young I choose to reserve judgment on your mysogeny and arrogance.
I love your ability to laugh at yourself!
Someday you shall make some lovely lady a good husband!
Blessings, bybee

 

[Traditio]

Traditio, You are betrayed by your youth! You continually "Joust with windmills".
I pray that all this fluffy nitpicking in which you engage will eventually bring you to a deeper understanding of life.
God is Love! That is an emotion! All of the Law and the Prophets proceed through that love.

This is just the thing: I don't think that love is an emotion, at least, not in the Christian sense. You can't be commanded to have an emotion or not to have one. Yet, Christ commands us to love. Love therefore can't be an emotion in the sense that Christ commands it.

This is where the word choice is very revealing. In the 1 John epistle, the Greek is: "ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν." The word used to describe God is "agapon," not "eros." The Latin is particularly good, I think. The Latin says: "Deus caritas est." "God is charity."

Again, in the Matthew text where Christ says to love one's enemies, the Greek says: "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς." The Greek says "agapate." The love is "agapon," not "eros." Again, the Latin is particularly good. The Latin says "diligite," not "amate."

The love that God has for us and the love that we are to have for each other is not pathological. It's not a feeling. It's duty. The love that God has for us and that we are to have for each other is benefience. It's charity.

 

[bybee]

My dear fellow

My dear fellow

This is just the thing: I don't think that love is an emotion, at least, not in the Christian sense. You can't be commanded to have an emotion or not to have one. Yet, Christ commands us to love. Love therefore can't be an emotion in the sense that Christ commands it.

This is where the word choice is very useful. In the 1 John epistle, the Greek is: "ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν." The word used to describe God is "agapon," not "eros." The Latin is particularly good, I think. The Latin says: "Deus caritas est." "God is charity."

Again, in the Matthew text where Christ says to love one's enemies, the Greek says: "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς." The Greek says "agapate." The love is "agapon," not "eros." Again, the Latin is particularly good. The Latin says "diligite," not "amate."

The love that God has for us and the love that we are to have for each other is not pathological. It's not a feeling. It's duty. The love that God has for us and that we are to have for each other is benefience. It's charity.

What does the Aramaic say? What does the Hebrew say?
We are human, carnal, therefore, our love is capable of corruption, unlike the perfection of God's love. Our love is in "Imitation of Christ".
The mind/brain interconnectedness cannot be polarized while we live.
Love is an emotion to the glory of God which can bring us to spiritual heights whilst still inhabiting our corporeal bodies. It is also necessary in the carnal sense so that we shall love one another and care for one another.
Love is never pathological. It is always efficacious and life sustaining. Whilst hate is generally pathological but sometimes necessary in order to fight the good fight.
Love is a purity. Hate is a mixed bag.
Because I love, I make a difference in this life.
Because I am able to feel hate I might be able to fight for that which is right.
I feel that I am descending into little bitty categories about something which is the foundation of life, that is, LOVE.
I realize that it is important to "think" about these things, but, one must be careful not to intellectualize to the exclusion of the heart.
It may be oh Traditio! that I am too old to be able to communicate sensibly with you. You know I wish you well. peace, bybee :help:

 

[Traditio]

Bybee, suppose you have two men:

The first feels a pathological love for all mankind, and on account of all that, he gives money to the poor because doing so gives him a deep sense of satisfaction from having done good.

The second feels nothing but cold insensibility for everyone else. He doesn't feel any pathological love for anyone. Yet, nonetheless, he "tears himself out of this deadly insensibility" (Groundwork, Kant) and gives to the poor anyway, purely because he realizes that it is his duty to do so, even though his act gives him no satisfaction whatsoever.

Who committed the more moral act?

 

[bybee]

My friend.

My friend.

Bybee, suppose you have two men:

The first feels a pathological love for all mankind, and on account of all that, he gives money to the poor because doing so gives him a deep sense of satisfaction from having done good.

The second feels nothing but cold insensibility for everyone else. He doesn't feel any pathological love for anyone. Yet, nonetheless, he "tears himself out of this deadly insensibility" (Groundwork, Kant) and gives to the poor anyway, purely because he realizes that it is his duty to do so, even though his act gives him no satisfaction whatsoever.

Who committed the more moral act?

It doesn't matter.
I would seek to spend time with a loving person and avoid the cold fish. That does matter! peace, bybee
Life is lived where the rubber meets the road! Not in artificial constructs! Come join us in the real world!

 

[Lion]

Is it always wrong to hate? Hmmmm... I hate that question.

 

[Lion]

Traditio

Maybe you are looking at that love commandment thing all wrong. :jawdrop:

Maybe the "love" part is really the secret of how to follow the commandments, or to put it in a meatier way, perhaps it’s the secret to living the Law of Love, to which there is no law. :cloud9:

Oh and of course love and hate are both emotions. Emotions are a part of our souls.

 

[Nick M]

:nono:

That's just it: I deny that "hatred" is an emotion at all, precisely because God commands us not to do it, and nothing pathological can be commanded (or forbidden) as a duty.

When God tells us to hate, clearly he isn't saying to turn on emotions. Those happen automatically.

This is what he is saying when he tells us to hate evil doers...

You make me sick! I want to vomit when you get near me or my family! You deserve execution you filthy discusting perfert! God is your enemy and so am I! Get away from me! You don't deserve to see God's sun light reflecting off my face!

I agree 100% with his actions toward homos.

 

[MaryContrary]

Unless I am saved - then you won't hate me (because God doesn't hate me). What if a saved person does something really horrible, is it okay to hate them then?

Hate? Probably not. I could be wrong on that one but I can't see how that's justified or even appropriate for me.

And - how do you hold them "responsible" (I'm talking those outside the church here)? Do you punish them, and how so?

Uh...no? :squint:
Where do I have the authority to punish anyone? I think I'm not understanding what you're asking here. At least, I hope not.

Also, can you hold a person responsible out of love, and if you can, how would that look any different than holding someone responsible out of hate?

Again the wording here strikes me as weird. I said, "If I hate a sin and hold you responsible for having committed that sin, then I'll hate you for committing that sin."

But I could just as easily say, and it should perhaps be obvious, "I hate sin and love righteousness. And I hold you responsible for your behavior. So if you are tempted to sin and overcome, I'll love you for it. Or if you simply do good for goodness' sake, I'll love you for it." Does that help?

And yet loves them enough to die for them, to reach out for them, and change their lives if they let Him. He loves them enough to teach His children to love them as neighbors or our enemies.

I hold people responsible for the damage they do to themselves and others, as well as the offense to God. My standard is God, after all, so I endeavor to love others as He does and hate them as He does.

If you're unredeemed and you meet me, then you'll know soon after that I would do anything, even die if necessary, to save you, while knowing I hate your sin and hold you responsible for it. I don't love unconditionally, accepting you and your sin with open arms. I don't love you and hate your sin, as if you're not responsible for it. I love you because you're my kin and hate you for the sin you do. That, at least, is my goal, as that's my understanding of what God expects of me.

 

[Traditio]

This is what he is saying when he tells us to hate evil doers...

Show me in the New Testament where Christ or any of the Apostles tells us to hate anyone.

 

[MaryContrary]

The second feels nothing but cold insensibility for everyone else. He doesn't feel any pathological love for anyone. Yet, nonetheless, he "tears himself out of this deadly insensibility" (Groundwork, Kant) and gives to the poor anyway, purely because he realizes that it is his duty to do so, even though his act gives him no satisfaction whatsoever.

Not possible. He'd neither care that it's his duty nor experience any satisfaction at doing so. He has no nothing motivating him to "tear himself out of this deadly insensibility".

 

[Traditio]

Not possible. He'd neither care that it's his duty nor experience any satisfaction at doing so. He has no nothing motivating him to "tear himself out of this deadly insensibility".

"Man is condemned-to-be-free" (Sartre). Man doesn't need a motivation to act. Sartre says that he acts first, and then invents a motivation.