Well
Well
Sartre has it wrong! Motivation comes before action. We are just not always aware of it.
Well
Sartre has it wrong! Motivation comes before action. We are just not always aware of it.
toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to hate?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
If you loved sinners, you would hate them as demonstrated.
But you do hate them in your heart because you will not hate them in action. Shame on you.
John 5
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”
As you can clearly see, the hate Clete showed towards those that engage in wicked behavior, is patterned exactly like the hate Christ showed to the Jews, because he loved them.
Alate_One
Well-known member
No part of the verse you posted says anything about hating people . . .
I think this sums up what I have to say about hating someone because you love them
On the contrary, I say: women are wrong. They are in bad faith.
Philip S. R.
New member
Hate has no place in relationships between God's self aware creatures or in relationship to God. Misunderstanding, confusion and even justifiable assertion are not hate, but are often confused for irrational rage stemming from hate.
Cracked
New member
Christ saved His "hate" for the pharisees (mainly) and those who outwardly rejected Him. Other sinners He was much more gentle with - pretty much every sinner that approached Him and/or welcome Him (am I missing any?). Nicodemus is a good example. In your example, we see Christ speaking truth plainly. I don't see Jesus making up creative insults out of cruelty for some sort of sadistic pleasure.
I see in the NT that we are commanded to love, yet I do not see where we are commanded to hate (one could say that there is a love emphasis in the NT). One could also say, that if he/she was Chrislike, that he/she could hate like Christ. However, many of those who support this notion of "hating like God" disregard any relevance of Chrislikeness. Because of this, it is very hard to take their claims seriously.
Last edited:
If God has no emotions then He does not love. And rationality does not mean one has no emotion, it means one is not ruled by their emotions.
Now, show me Scripture that says God has no emotions. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
P.S.
You're a moron.
:sigh:
We're going around in circles. Yes, to the extent that "love" is understood in the pathological sense (such as erotic or brotherly love), then if God does not have emotions (a pathology), then indeed, God does not love in that sense.
As a matter of fact, I say that God does not love in that sense.
If, on the other hand, we understand love in the "agape" sense (in the Greek), in the "caritas" sense (in the Latin), and in the "charity" sense (in English), then indeed, God loves, because that love is not an emotion.
Jesus cannot command us to love our enemies in a pathological (emotional) sense. Contained in the very concept of "enemy" is precisely that I do not love (in the pathological sense) my enemy.
Nonetheless, even if I do not love my enemy in the pathological sense, I still must love my enemy in the volitional sense. That is to say, I have a duty to love my enemy in the sense that I must be beneficient to my enemy. I must love my enemy in the sense that "love...worketh no evil" (Romans 13:10).
The sense in which God loves and commands us to love is not the sense in which you people are using the word. St. Paul tells us what love is:
Corinthians 13:4-8 said:
In case you are wondering, the Greek that St. Paul is using is the word "agape." He's not talking about erotic or filial love. The love that Christ and St. Paul tell us to have is a love which is volitional and active. It is not pathological. It's not an emotion. It's sacrifice:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Again, the word that Christ uses in the Greek isn't the erotic love or the filial love. The word that He uses is "agapon."
This may seem like vain word-play. It isn't. It's actually a very important distinction, and we find just this use of word distinctions in the Gospel which is present in the Greek, but not in the English, and only imperfectly in the Latin. In Latin, the wordplay is between the "deligere" love and the "amare" love. Eh...it's not as good. See John 21:15-17. Early in the John account, St. Peter denied Christ 3 times. Here, Christ asks him 3 times whether St. Peter loves him.
The first two times, Christ says: "Do you love me?" Both times, the word he uses is "agapas." Both times, St. Peter answers: "Lord, you know that I love you." The word St. Peter uses is "philo." "Philo" is where we get "filial" love from. That is, it's a brotherly, pathological love.
Christ asks a third time: "Do you love me?" This time, Christ uses the word "phileis." When he asks this, it says that St. Peter is greived. If you're reading the English, it's partially clear why St. Peter is saddened. Christ asked him three times if St. Peter loves him. In the Greek and the Latin, it's even clearer. When he answers the third time, St. Peter is admitting that he only loves Christ in an imperfect sense.
He only loves Christ pathologically. He doesn't love Christ in the more perfect sense which transcends pathology/emotion. He doesn't love him in the sacrificial sense, the kind that duty requires. He doesn't love Christ in the purely volitional sense.
This is the conversation in the Greek and the Latin:
"Christ: Are you willing to endure hardship for me?
Peter: I like you, Jesus. You're a cool guy.
Christ: That's not what I'm asking. Are you willing to suffer, to be persecuted, and to die in my name?
Peter: I love you like a brother, Jesus! We've been hanging out for 3 years now.
Christ: I see how it is. You only think I'm fun to hang around with.
Peter: You're right Lord: that's what I meant."
Remember, this scene is a mirror image of the previous scene where St. Peter flees. In the previous scene, St. Peter, after claiming that he would rather die than forsake our Lord, flees, having denied Christ three times. Now, St. Peter is admitting that He only has the pathology. Even the third time, St. Peter is admitting imperfection.
To conclude this scene, Christ shows how St. Peter's mere pathology will eventually be transformed to real love: St. Peter's going to die for Jesus on a cross.
John 21:18 said:
Does God love us in the pathological sense? No. Christ condemns that kind of love as imperfect. St. Paul refutes it entirely. God loves us in the volitional sense, and that's how He commands us to love. He commands us to love in the sense that we can be commanded to love.
Actually, rationality isn't really either. Rationality is the possession of Reason, where Reason is apprehension of Truth. God is rational in the sense that He is Self-Intellection.
I'll say the same to you that I said to Nanonator: If the God of the Bible is not the God of my Reason, then the God of the Bible does not exist, and I'll join Nietzsche in saying: "God is dead."
As it is, I have no need to reference the Bible, because the lack of a pathology in God is evident to pure reason alone. Yet, you want a proof-text. Fair enough:
Mark 12:29 said:
God is a radical unity. There are no real distinctions in God. For God, there's no "before" or "after." There's no "this" and "that." God is an eternal Self-Intellection. In fact, it's not even right to say that He's Self-Intellection. To say that He's Self-Intellection is to imply a subject-object division. That is to say, it's to imply that God thinks about Himself in the same way that I might think about myself. That is, here I (a subject) am, here's my thinking (an act), and then here I am again (the object of the thought). There's a threefold division there.
God is One. God (the subject), God's thinking (the act) and God (the object of the thought) aren't even divisible in that way. God is God's intellection.
If you want a real proof text, then read the Parmenides by Plato. In any case, it should be readily clear why there's no such thing as a divine pathology, given the above. If you say that God has emotions, then you have to start dividing Him up. "God is angry." Well...no. God is God. "God is feeling love." Again...no. God is God.
My eyes are too far constricted. They've been in the sunlight. They can't see in the darkness of the cave. You've become used to looking at images. I'm used to looking at the model of which your images are images.
Well
Well
Many of us, too, left the cave long ago, when you were still in diapers.
It may be that we, too, have somewhat of a grasp on things as they are.
bybee
Well
:sigh:
We're going around in circles. Yes, to the extent that "love" is understood in the pathological sense (such as erotic or brotherly love), then if God does not have emotions (a pathology), then indeed, God does not love in that sense.
As a matter of fact, I say that God does not love in that sense.
If, on the other hand, we understand love in the "agape" sense (in the Greek), in the "caritas" sense (in the Latin), and in the "charity" sense (in English), then indeed, God loves, because that love is not an emotion.
Jesus cannot command us to love our enemies in a pathological (emotional) sense. Contained in the very concept of "enemy" is precisely that I do not love (in the pathological sense) my enemy.
Nonetheless, even if I do not love my enemy in the pathological sense, I still must love my enemy in the volitional sense. That is to say, I have a duty to love my enemy in the sense that I must be beneficient to my enemy. I must love my enemy in the sense that "love...worketh no evil" (Romans 13:10).
The sense in which God loves and commands us to love is not the sense in which you people are using the word. St. Paul tells us what love is:
In case you are wondering, the Greek that St. Paul is using is the word "agape." He's not talking about erotic or filial love. The love that Christ and St. Paul tell us to have is a love which is volitional and active. It is not pathological. It's not an emotion. It's sacrifice:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Again, the word that Christ uses in the Greek isn't the erotic love or the filial love. The word that He uses is "agapon."
This may seem like vain word-play. It isn't. It's actually a very important distinction, and we find just this use of word distinctions in the Gospel which is present in the Greek, but not in the English, and only imperfectly in the Latin. In Latin, the wordplay is between the "deligere" love and the "amare" love. Eh...it's not as good. See John 21:15-17. Early in the John account, St. Peter denied Christ 3 times. Here, Christ asks him 3 times whether St. Peter loves him.
The first two times, Christ says: "Do you love me?" Both times, the word he uses is "agapas." Both times, St. Peter answers: "Lord, you know that I love you." The word St. Peter uses is "philo." "Philo" is where we get "filial" love from. That is, it's a brotherly, pathological love.
Christ asks a third time: "Do you love me?" This time, Christ uses the word "phileis." When he asks this, it says that St. Peter is greived. If you're reading the English, it's partially clear why St. Peter is saddened. Christ asked him three times if St. Peter loves him. In the Greek and the Latin, it's even clearer. When he answers the third time, St. Peter is admitting that he only loves Christ in an imperfect sense.
He only loves Christ pathologically. He doesn't love Christ in the more perfect sense which transcends pathology/emotion. He doesn't love him in the sacrificial sense, the kind that duty requires. He doesn't love Christ in the purely volitional sense.
This is the conversation in the Greek and the Latin:
"Christ: Are you willing to endure hardship for me?
Peter: I like you, Jesus. You're a cool guy.
Christ: That's not what I'm asking. Are you willing to suffer, to be persecuted, and to die in my name?
Peter: I love you like a brother, Jesus! We've been hanging out for 3 years now.
Christ: I see how it is. You only think I'm fun to hang around with.
Peter: You're right Lord: that's what I meant."
Remember, this scene is a mirror image of the previous scene where St. Peter flees. In the previous scene, St. Peter, after claiming that he would rather die than forsake our Lord, flees, having denied Christ three times. Now, St. Peter is admitting that He only has the pathology. Even the third time, St. Peter is admitting imperfection.
To conclude this scene, Christ shows how St. Peter's mere pathology will eventually be transformed to real love: St. Peter's going to die for Jesus on a cross.
Does God love us in the pathological sense? No. Christ condemns that kind of love as imperfect. St. Paul refutes it entirely. God loves us in the volitional sense, and that's how He commands us to love. He commands us to love in the sense that we can be commanded to love.
Actually, rationality isn't really either. Rationality is the possession of Reason, where Reason is apprehension of Truth. God is rational in the sense that He is Self-Intellection.
I'll say the same to you that I said to Nanonator: If the God of the Bible is not the God of my Reason, then the God of the Bible does not exist, and I'll join Nietzsche in saying: "God is dead."
As it is, I have no need to reference the Bible, because the lack of a pathology in God is evident to pure reason alone. Yet, you want a proof-text. Fair enough:
God is a radical unity. There are no real distinctions in God. For God, there's no "before" or "after." There's no "this" and "that." God is an eternal Self-Intellection. In fact, it's not even right to say that He's Self-Intellection. To say that He's Self-Intellection is to imply a subject-object division. That is to say, it's to imply that God thinks about Himself in the same way that I might think about myself. That is, here I (a subject) am, here's my thinking (an act), and then here I am again (the object of the thought). There's a threefold division there.
God is One. God (the subject), God's thinking (the act) and God (the object of the thought) aren't even divisible in that way. God is God's intellection.
If you want a real proof text, then read the Parmenides by Plato. In any case, it should be readily clear why there's no such thing as a divine pathology, given the above. If you say that God has emotions, then you have to start dividing Him up. "God is angry." Well...no. God is God. "God is feeling love." Again...no. God is God.
My eyes are too far constricted. They've been in the sunlight. They can't see in the darkness of the cave. You've become used to looking at images. I'm used to looking at the model of which your images are images.
Many of us, too, left the cave long ago, when you were still in diapers.
It may be that we, too, have somewhat of a grasp on things as they are.
bybee
OMEGA
New member
Do like the Buddlights are supposed to do.
Control your emotions and your attitude.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath
27 Neither give place to the devil.:devil:
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.:thumb:
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.:rapture:
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice::argue:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.:angel:
----------------------------------------------------
Control your emotions and your attitude.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath
27 Neither give place to the devil.:devil:
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.:thumb:
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.:rapture:
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice::argue:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.:angel:
----------------------------------------------------
You're an idiot.
It is imperfect because he has one but not the other. God has both, which is how His love is perfect.
But Lighthouse, think about what an emotion is. It's an adventitious non-rational inclinination. It's an affect based on exterior circumstances. None of those things can apply to a God who's very name is "The One."
He can't possibly love you in the sense that He feels all warm and fuzzy whenever he thinks about you...for obvious reasons. :mmph:
He loves you in the sense that He willed you into existence, that He guides the word according to His Divine Providence according to the Rule of the Best, that He willed that, at the appropriate time, that the Incarnation should occur and that He should die on the cross for you, that He forgives sins, etc.
He can't possibly love you in the sense that He feels all warm and fuzzy whenever he thinks about you...for obvious reasons. :mmph:
He loves you in the sense that He willed you into existence, that He guides the word according to His Divine Providence according to the Rule of the Best, that He willed that, at the appropriate time, that the Incarnation should occur and that He should die on the cross for you, that He forgives sins, etc.
You have absolutely no Scripture on which to base any of this nonsense. The word of God clearly states that He has jealousy, anger, joy, love, hate, etc. I trust it over you. All you have are vain philosophies.
Thunder's Muse
Well-known member
I just saw this
LOL!
Honestly, though...emotions are powerful things.
If you were consumed with hate, I would most certainly encourage you to deal with it and let it go.
Simply from freedom? I would imagine there would have to be something else to spark that intention. To be vengeful for no reason seems a little insane.
LOL!
Honestly, though...emotions are powerful things.
If you were consumed with hate, I would most certainly encourage you to deal with it and let it go.
Simply from freedom? I would imagine there would have to be something else to spark that intention. To be vengeful for no reason seems a little insane.
You have no answer to this, Traditio. Because it's true beyond any doubt, I think...
...so rather than be dismayed at that, you embrace those vain philosophies all the more fervently.
Quite honestly, you blaspheme here.
Lighthouse's answer was a non-answer. I don't take scripture as my starting point. It's not necessary to do so, for obvious reasons. In fact, it's not even to be recommended. If you only "know" God through reading the Bible, then you don't know God at all. You only know a representation. The Bible isn't God. It's a book. It's a verbal image. That's it.
We already have an originary direct-encounter with God through pure reason. To use the Plotinean imagery, we don't need to look for God without in the outside world of images. God is present within to our intellects.
If you want to insist that God is able to feel emotions, then please explain to me how it is possible for Him to do so. The way I see it, either the God of the Bible is The One or He is not The One.
If He is, then either He can't feel emotions, or else you're going to have to show me how it's metaphysically/logically possible for him to do so. Note, I'm not asking for a proof that he feels emotions. That means that I don't want scripture. I'm wanting a proof that he's able to feel emotions. That means that you'll have to go beyond scripture. I'm asking for an explanation. "How is it possible?" I don't think it is, for obvious reasons.
If He is not, then He's not God. Plain and simple. :idunno:
Somehow, though, I very seriously doubt that either you or Lighthouse will be able to rise to the challenge. It requires more of you than blindly quoting scripture passages that you don't understand. It'll actually require you to do some thinking. (I know, I know: God forbid!)
- Status