toldailytopic: Is it wrong to hate?

[Lighthouse]

...if you compare it to what Jesus says here, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." There's no repentance implied there is there? And this case is referring to the population at large. Did Jesus not forgive those who crucified him? Did THEY repent?

There's also no forgiveness implied there. None of us ever said to only love the repentant. We said to forgive only the repentant. Love and forgiveness are not the same thing. If you love someone you will only forgive them if they repent.

Honestly I don't understand how you can espouse the perspective you are. It simply isn't a Christian attitude. It doesn't mesh with the full picture of the gospel.

You wouldn't know the full gospel if someone hit you upside the head with it.

By assuming forgiving someone that has wronged you is self-righteous you are in direct conflict with the words and actions of Christ.

Give me a reason to forgive someone who doesn't repent.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Is this supposed to make a point?

This is the gospel message:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

This means nothing without first knowing the truth of Psalm 5:4-6, that God hated us while we were sinners.

We didn't have to repent first, God extended the gift of His Son to us while we were still lost.

Did we receive Jesus without repenting?

If by lawyerspeak you mean the application of critical reasoning skills, yes. Else, you're just making noises you can't back with logic OR scripture.

You made an argument from silence based on a loophole, simply because you wanted it to be so. You have given neither Scripture nor logic, and are therefore a hypocrite.

That's absurd. The point, which you pervert with this absurdity, is to instruct us that we MUST forgive when asked, against a very human impulse that God knows is the easier and more likely response absent instruction.

I perverted nothing. My only argument is that there is no instruction to forgive without repentance, and to argue that the absence of a mandate not to is no basis for allowing it.

No. There's nothing circular about noting the absence of a prohibition. I might also note that Christ died for men and women who didn't ask him to...that He asked the Father to forgive those who were ignorant of the wrongness of their part in his death.

Dying so that whosoever would accept it could is irrelevant to forgiving those who repent. And His asking the Father to forgive those who knew not what they did was because they truly thought they were executing a guilty man. His blood was not on their hands, but on the hands of those who knew He was innocent, and those who could have prevented it if they'd cared enough but didn't.

Right, if a brother in Christ wrongs you and repents you must forgive him. Of course, we aren't talking about a member of the body here, are we. And were we you'd have no more made your point here than you did by your earlier convolution.

Jesus wasn't talking about members of the Body either. Even if you are not MAD you still recognize that Christ made this statement before He died. No one was in the Body, yet.

 

[Town Heretic]

No. I don't agree. Self-righteousness is when one seeks to be righteous apart from Jesus Christ through their own actions. I watched her on the show, and I judged her to be proud that she could forgive an unrepentant murderer who had murdered her grandchildren.

I caught that. I'm suggesting your judgment might have more to do with your idea of proper conduct and that it colors your perception of the person acting contrary to that course.

I don't blame Cathy. I blame the false Christian teachers in the Body of Christ who taught her that she should forgive the unrepentant.

Didn't sound that way when you said she was boasting about forgiving the murderer of her grandkids. That sounded hard of heart and condescending, dismissive of an act that I can't imagine myself capable of and painting it and her in a vain light to further your position.

If God won't forgive the unrepentant, then why should we?

God doesn't forgive the unrepentant of their sin. That isn't what we're talking about though. You're conflating to attempt to sustain your position.

I'm a Christian man. Why do you not find it credible that "my heart goes out to her"?

Because of what you immediately said about her. There was no sympathy in evidence outside of the declaration and a bit of contrary sentiment in evidence in everything else you wrote relating to her.

Forgive me for what? For trying to correct the false teaching she has received over the years.

So you suppose. And that's all you've done. Suppose.

Ironically, Cathy probably would have no problem rebuking me. Just as you have no problem rebuking me. Over the years, I've found that Christians who don't believe in judging or rebuking have no problem judging and rebuking me, a fellow Christian.

And now you're assuming a great deal about me and doing as good a job of it as I suspect you did with Cathy. Again, shame on you.

You and Cathy, who believe you should forgive everyone, will probably be very unforgiving of me.

Are you so blinded by your supposition that this actually seems reasoned or fair? I'm nothing of the sort and believe nothing of the sort. In fact I actually said your larger point wasn't without merit, but that your choice of illustration and method were shameful.

They still are.

What happend to your nicer-than-God attitude?

Never said I was. That's impossible. Now being nicer than you is a piece of cake. All I have to do is refrain from slandering strangers to make my ideological points.

You argue that it's okay for Cathy to forgive unrepentant McVeigh, but you have no problem slamming a Christian brother.

Well, I mostly "slammed" your practice. As for Cathy, I didn't so much argue for her right (which needs no argument) but that you had no scriptural support for the idea that she couldn't.

Jesus said that we can judge by their fruits.

And you consider forgiveness a fruit worthy of suspicion. Good to know. lain:

Jesus said to judge with righteous judgment.

I never said that he didn't. It's your application and judgment I'm questioning, not Christ's.

I blame her pastor more than I blame her. He has the greater sin.

So now you know what her pastor has taught her and that it's errant and that, more than that, it's sinful, as is her part. Again, good to have a clearer picture of what you find reasonable practice within the body.

I can give scripture for any challenge you care to make.

Except, apparently, the one we're discussing. No one is arguing against your right to rebuke or that you MUST forgive the repentant.

She said that she forgave Timothy for murdering her grandchildren.

Now tell me why you'd assume she meant more than forgiving the injury done to her. Or did you simply take it for granted that she believed she and not God had the power to forgive sin? lain:

Luke 17:3. Jesus commanded His apostles: "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, REBUKE him; and IF he repents, forgive him." Now you can ignore Jesus and write your own sheet of music. I choose to obey Jesus Christ.

Answered prior. Now about that self righteousness I worried after in you...

The reason Cathy was misled is because of Christians like you: "I know what Jesus said, but I think...."

To state something that doesn't require assumption: you don't know what you're talking about or who you're talking to. Shame on you, again. You defame a brother who has at no point agreed with that principle or expression. I simply believe you to be in error, prone to assumption, and blinded by a mistaken bias.

Cathy's unconditional forgiveness no doubt made her feel good. But it did nothing to save Timothy.

A loving example is frequently at the heart of an alteration in others. That an act of kindness fails to move is no guarantee that its antithesis would do more than reassure the unrepentant of the necessity of his course. Who can say what will move one man, other than God?

An open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.

There's another quote that goes, "Greater love hath no man..." That notes an act of sacrifice, not a moment of condemnation.

 

[Katie]

This makes sense, yet hate should be a passing emotion, as to remain hating only harms ourselves.

Hate *should* be a passing emotion. That "should" ... I wonder, who decided this?

Emotions are natural reactions ... I, for one, am not an advocate of denying *my* own emotions.

If I were to ever accomplish to deny my own emotions, then watch out!! because I will also deny the emotions of all those around me as well. Emotions are one of the greatest tools we have been given to gaining perspective and then, to understand the knowledge of Life! That is a scary thought to me .. that we SHOULD BE expected to deny what is Natural ... Ecclesiastes 7:29 KJV!

What "should be" seems, to me, to be a matter of perspective when it comes to the emotions of others and rarely those of our own, no?

A time to love and THEN a time to hate.

Someone told me not very long ago an insight that is rather difficult to acknowledge considering, but it is a fact that only that which means NOTHING to us do we have no problem to ignore.

So, when you say that "hate SHOULD BE a passing emotion," I wonder if you also think love SHOULD BE as well. How sad, no? And how insightful even perhaps to the state of the world we are living in today ... (???)

 

[Katie]

I agree with you 100% on that. Nobodies life should be focused on hate.

"should be" .. there it is again ... those two words that are based on I's lack of experience and not on OUR's understanding .. right? Hate, is either only ever properly fulfilled through understanding and/or through APPROPRIATE Justice (which is considered appropriate when decided not by society but by those paying for the natural consequences of anothers "sin," no?). Why is forgiveness seen as always the virtue? Can denial of the natural effects equate to true forgiveness? What good did the forgiveness of the first victim's family of a child molester do for the 2nd victim, I wonder? Just thinking and wondering ....

 

[Ktoyou]

Hate *should* be a passing emotion. That "should" ... I wonder, who decided this? (???)

Most in the mental heath field believe that harboring hate is deleterious to ones heath.

Since I cannot speak for them directly, I shall say I decided it.

 

[Katie]

Most in the mental heath field believe that harboring hate is deleterious to ones heath.

Since I cannot speak for them directly, I shall say I decided it.

And the Reason so many have suffered so from hate is because they were denied the ability to seek justice by society who has no problem to forgive the wrongs that were committed NOT against society, but individuals. The effects of crimes are often paid for via natural consequences, by the victims themselves and via societies laws, by the pockets of the individuals in society ... where is the justice in this?

Even worse, the victims then are further victimized by being expected to overcome their "hate" through unnatural means (medications, denial, etc).

Again the order of "a time to kill" AND THEN, "a time to heal." <---- is this wrong?

Amos 5:14-15 ... seek the good and not the evil ... establish judgement ...

Can we say we seek good when we are willing to forgive those who have not harmed us and rather purposely harmed others whilst expecting the victims of this harm to react as us when THEY are the ones suffering the natural consequences of the sins committed against them? Think it through .... are you willing to walk in the shoes of all victims? If not, then ... what right do you have to say how they "should be" reacting? If someone murders someone very close to you and you are denied the right to see justice served (life for a life), then the only way to overcome that hate is by understanding the sinner .. and can YOU understand why your loved ones life should have been robbed from them by another? If so, then they weren't so much your loved one, were they?

Often acceptance is mistaken for forgiveness .... then, look around and tell me the good that is resulting from this denial?

I don't see how it is fair to "expect" of others when it is not something you yourself have gone though. I do not understand how it is fair to place the greater responsibility onto the shoulders of the wronged than on the one who committed the wrong.

 

[Ktoyou]

Ok, it is your right to hate them, do as you please. I was making a point, nothing more.

 

[Katie]

Ok, it is your right to hate them, do as you please. I was making a point, nothing more.

Did you understand at all what I said? I would have expected a better discourse from *you* (more than most on this forum in regard to this topic) than the dismissal I have rather received. (???) Though I have Reason to give the perspective I have given here thus far, it is hardly because I hate anyone.

 

[freelight]

transcending revengeful retaliation, the karmic cycle of killing

transcending revengeful retaliation, the karmic cycle of killing

And the Reason so many have suffered so from hate is because they were denied the ability to seek justice by society who has no problem to forgive the wrongs that were committed NOT against society, but individuals. The effects of crimes are often paid for via natural consequences, by the victims themselves and via societies laws, by the pockets of the individuals in society ... where is the justice in this?

Even worse, the victims then are further victimized by being expected to overcome their "hate" through unnatural means (medications, denial, etc).

Are you suggesting heralding the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" as the cure for alleviating hate, or bringing some kind of ultimate justice? See how Jesus treated this principle with a newer more non-violent way. - he taught forgiveness, love....transcending the old 'eye for an eye' concept.

All souls ultimately reap what they sow,...there is justice in the universe, although it might not be manifested or resolved immediately - the universal laws are exact,...measure for measure. However, Love absolves all...and is the ever effectual atonement for all sin.

Again the order of "a time to kill" AND THEN, "a time to heal." <---- is this wrong?

Thats the writer of the book's perspective, from his observations. Such would depend on the situational context, morals and ethics pertaining. Only as a last resort in self-defense is such really justified. Otherwise all means ought be employed before any bodily harm or the destruction of life occurs.

If someone murders someone very close to you and you are denied the right to see justice served (life for a life), then the only way to overcome that hate is by understanding the sinner .. and can YOU understand why your loved ones life should have been robbed from them by another? If so, then they weren't so much your loved one, were they?

No matter,...killing a person does not bring the murdered one back or somehow "fix" the situation, neither does such an act of brutality necessarily help, reform or rehabilitate the criminal - so,...how does murdering a person do any justice? - it actually perpetuates killing! - more transgressing of the law, more SIN. Its insane really. Could this be why Jesus was against the "eye for an eye" concept? Ahhhhhhhh :idea:

In this way, I'm leaning more towards a view of non-support of capitol punishment (which could be seen as a gesture of hate, and "eye for an eye", "you hurt me, now I'm gonna get you back!" mentality. -which is really self-serving...not self-transcending) See my blog entry - Thoughts on the death penalty.

Also for a more rivetting commentary against senseless vindictive killing see Billy Meiers treatement on this Here.

Food for thought. Someone has to step up with a voice of reason and stop the KILLING. - oh, as a side-salad......while on the topic of 'hate',....even if there is no hate involved with enforcing one's sense of justice,....one is to evaluate the ultimate value, good and effectiveness of any so called punishment or 'justice' to the good of all involved. Hate only perpetuates more hate, while love perpetuates love. Each human being is responsible for their choices and practice. You and I contribute to the suffering and destruction of life OR its support, enhancement and facilitation, as every soul is of value and has the potential to change and become a better more healthy, sane, productive individual...worthy of happiness and to live out their lives in peace. This is the heritage of every soul.




pj

 

[Katie]

Are you suggesting heralding the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" as the cure for alleviating hate, or bringing some kind of ultimate justice? See how Jesus treated this principle with a newer more non-violent way. - he taught forgiveness, love....transcending the old 'eye for an eye' concept.

All souls ultimately reap what they sow,...there is justice in the universe, although it might not be manifested or resolved immediately - the universal laws are exact,...measure for measure. However, Love absolves all...and is the ever effectual atonement for all sin.



Thats the writer of the book's perspective, from his observations. Such would depend on the situational context, morals and ethics pertaining. Only as a last resort in self-defense is such really justified. Otherwise all means ought be employed before any bodily harm or the destruction of life occurs.



No matter,...killing a person does not bring the murdered one back or somehow "fix" the situation, neither does such an act of brutality necessarily help, reform or rehabilitate the criminal - so,...how does murdering a person do any justice? - it actually perpetuates killing! - more transgressing of the law, more SIN. Its insane really. Could this be why Jesus was against the "eye for an eye" concept? Ahhhhhhhh :idea:

In this way, I'm leaning more towards a view of non-support of capitol punishment (which could be seen as a gesture of hate, and "eye for an eye", "you hurt me, now I'm gonna get you back!" mentality. -which is really self-serving...not self-transcending) See my blog entry - Thoughts on the death penalty.

Also for a more rivetting commentary against senseless vindictive killing see Billy Meiers treatement on this Here.

Food for thought. Someone has to step up with a voice of reason and stop the KILLING. - oh, as a side-salad......while on the topic of 'hate',....even if there is no hate involved with enforcing one's sense of justice,....one is to evaluate the ultimate value, good and effectiveness of any so called punishment or 'justice' to the good of all involved. Hate only perpetuates more hate, while love perpetuates love. Each human being is responsible for their choices and practice. You and I contribute to the suffering and destruction of life OR its support, enhancement and facilitation, as every soul is of value and has the potential to change and become a better more healthy, sane, productive individual...worthy of happiness and to live out their lives in peace. This is the heritage of every soul.




pj

Thankyou for this reply. Challenge is always good for me when it comes to my views. This particular topic seems to have captured my interest in quite the particular way, thus ... there must be Reason for it.

First, let's discuss Jesus' view .... in John 8 when the woman who committed adultery was brought before Jesus with the intent to, specifically said, tempt him ... it should be apparent to any human BEING that to have ACTUALLY tempted him, it had to be a woman whose adultery personally affected him, no? It is NOTHING for me to teach forgiveness when it comes to the sin of adultery as it pertains to a stranger ... but when it becomes a reality to me personally, forgiveness might not be quite as easy as it had once seemed. In fact, I should even wonder what right I would have to forgive the wrongs of one when they were not wrongs that were committed against me personally, but rather against another .. the "another" is the one who has the power to forgive or the RIGHT to NOT do such .... don't you think? That is Justice fulfilled, I would think.

For Jesus' forgiveness of that woman to have meant ANYTHING, it would have to be personal ... thus, to me, it obviously was his wife that committed the sin against him! Yup ... else, his forgiveness was not at all noteworthy to those living in reality ....

Now, with that in mind, notice his words to her after all had left and after he said he did not condemn her (most likely because he was often gone from her fulfilling his mission in life and he was able to relate to her loneliness without him as he was lonely w/out her as well) ... he said to her .. "go, and SIN NO MORE."

Had she committed again the act against him, what then would have been his reaction? Can you say for certain what course of justice he would have taken? No, you can not ... because she did become 101% committed to him and his cause as later seen in the gospel accounts.

Experience: what so many of you have denied when you judge these things!

I would not at ALL call it insanity if one whose LOVED one had been unjustly murdered were to seek the life of the murderer. If the person who murdered could rob ONE of their life w/out JUST cause, then they are ALWAYS capable of robbing another of their life.

So again I ask, what good does the so called forgiveness of the first victim and/or their family serve for the next victim and/or their family?

Seek the good and not the evil! Sin does not exist without the sinner. Rid ourselves of the evil doers and we rid ourselves of the evil thus protecting the good, no?

Just asking as it seems to make perfect sense to me right now given our human Nature and then, seeing it confirmed in Ecclesiastes 7:29 KJV. But I am listening for the Reason why we should deny our Nature to rather futher guilt and shame those who never deserved the guilt and shame imposed upon them in the first place via the violation of another committed against them. How are we seeking the Good to deny justice?

 

[TeeJay]

Town Heretic, Let's cut to the chase.

Should Cathy have forgiven an unrepentant McVeigh?
Should we hate the wicked?
Does God hate the wicked?

God bless, Tom from Mabak, TX

 

[Zeena]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 8th, 2010 10:44 AM

toldailytopic: Hate. Is it wrong to hate?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Depends on what your hating.
If your hating sin, which is defined Biblically as transgression of the law, then it's GOOD to hate. :banned:

But if your hating people made after the simultude of God, no.
Nor anything in creation.

God gives breath and life to all, who are we to judge?

 

[Granite]

Not worthy of a reply.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

But you replied, anyway.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of whatever you've stuck it into and stop speaking about what you don't know.

You sound old, cranky, and incredibly transparent.

If hatred means this much to you, you've wasted an awful lot.

You can stop whenever you want, but I don't hold out much hope for your kind.

 

[TeeJay]

I don't base any of my beliefs or cares on religion.

Rusha, I am a Christian. Without God, nothing can be moral or immoral. Rusha prefers this; I prefer that. Hitler preferred to kill six million Jews. I preferred that he had not. Can you or I say that Hitler was wrong? Without God, there is no authority that says Hitler was wrong and you were right. As a person who does not believe in a Higher Authority, you have no authority in this debate to say anyone is wrong--or right.

What's phony is that you actually claim that you have the ability to judge what is in the heart of another human being.

Aren't you making a judgment of me now? And that's okay. It's okay to judge. But I have a Foundation upon which to judge and that foundation is the Rock, Jesus Christ. You lack that foundation.

:yawn: You do understand that I am NOT a Christian, right? However, it is rather amusing that even a little ole heathen such as myself understands that forgiveness is more about the benefit of the person giving it and less about the person receiving it.

Was Jesus concerned about making Himself feel good or about getting us forgiven?

In order for you to say this, you have to borrow from the Christian world view. How do you know what is good or bad? The reason is that you have a conscience. The God that placed a conscience in you is the One you deny; yet you unwittingly use your God-given conscience to attempt to discern right from wrong.

In this post, I am showing love for you. A good definition of love is that love seeks the benefit of another. Rusha, I don't want you to spend an eternity in hell apart from God. I want you to repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

The whole unbelieving world (you) is under the condemnatiion of the Law. "All have sinned. There is none righteous; no not one." But the good news is that Jesus is willing to pay your debt; but, you must give Him permission to do so.

If "you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, that He came in the flesh, that He died for you, and that He is risen, then the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the Body of Christ where you are sealed until the day of redemption. You can do this right now, next to your computer.

If I were to boil salvation down to make it simple: Salvation is knowing the one True God and He (Jesus) whom God has sent.

It sounds to me like this woman needed to forgive this individual to get away from her own negativity and hatred. IF it helps her with her healing process, then she is doing the right thing and certainly doesn't need your approval.

If she had studied under me, she would not have needed to get rid of her hatred for an unrepentant murderer who had murdered her grandchildren. She would have been relieved to know that she should hate McVeigh with righteous indignation. God hates McVeigh. I hate McVeigh. And you should too. She would have been showing love for McVeigh if she had rebuked him and warned him that she would be his judge on judgment day. Love seeks the benefit of another. Because she was taught false doctrine, she sought her own benefit--as you said, to "get away from her own negativity and hatred." Her unconditional forgiveness did nothing for McVeigh.

If you love everyone and everything, then your love has no meaning and is worthless. I value my wife's love because she is free to love another. But she chose to love me alone. The Apostle Paul said, "Let your love be without hypocracy; abhor what is evil. In 2 Chr. 19:2, God says that you are a hypocrite if you love those who hate Him. This applies to forgiveness as well. If you forgive everyone for everything, where's the value of your forgiveness. Jesus Christ died on the Cross so that we can be forgiven. Forgiveness is a precious commodity that Jesus shed His blood for. We should not esteem it so lightly.

Rusha, I will pray for you, for I seek only your benefit.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[Zeena]

The following verse seems to be a rather clear teaching on the subject....

A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. - Ecclesiastes 3:8

A time to hate WHAT, exactly?

Somolon remains aloof on this point, are you now ready to subject your 'hate' pressuposition upon Holy Writ?

David (a man after God's own heart) said...

Psalms 139:20 For they speak against You wickedly; Your enemies take Your name in vain. 21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; 24 And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.

David said... "I hate THEM", he didn't however say... "I hate their ideas", or "I hate their actions".

Apparently there is a time to hate wicked people.

He said "I hate them'.. Question is, was he RIGHT to do so?

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Deuteronomy 32:35
To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Revelation 2:23
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

James 1:20-21
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

That's true but there is nothing in the context to suggest that what David was saying or feeling about hate was wrong, in fact just the opposite seems to be true.

Couple that with all the other references to hate being appropriate in certain circumstances and it seems pretty clear there is indeed a time to hate.

How's about coupling that with all else Scripture speaks on this wise, rather?

When you hate the action and not the actor you neuter any possible good that could come from your righteous indignation.

I hate men who rape and murder little girls. Do you hate them? Or do you just hate their crime? Should we jail and punish criminals? Or jail and punish crimes? (whatever that might mean)

God does not distinguish the actions from the actor. God says...

Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.

2 Corinthians 5:14-21
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died;
15 and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
16 Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.
17 Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.
18 But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. 21 Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Granite]

For anyone to spend this much time defending hatred as a virtue and explaining why it's acceptable is kind of unfortunate.

Time well-spent in many other endeavors, squandered on defending hatred?

And this coming from people who claim to enjoy a relationship with the almighty.

It's enough to make me wonder why they're so baffled when I explain that I'm not interested in what they're selling...

 

[Alate_One]

There's also no forgiveness implied there. None of us ever said to only love the repentant. We said to forgive only the repentant. Love and forgiveness are not the same thing. If you love someone you will only forgive them if they repent.

You're arguing that its a good idea to hate PEOPLE. I do not forgive a BROTHER that does not repent, but a person that isn't a Christian? Sure.

You wouldn't know the full gospel if someone hit you upside the head with it.

Says the guy that thinks it is good to hate people and not forgive them unless they repent. I don't know what kind of wacky version of churches your lot belong to but if you read through this thread the atheists and agnostics get it better than you do!

You are driving people away from Christ with your attitude which is so far from Christ-like I really can't comprehend where you've gotten it from.

Give me a reason to forgive someone who doesn't repent.

Jesus did.

Is that not a good enough reason for you?

Is this supposed to make a point?

The "other side" in this thread is arguing that Christians should HATE those that do evil, but Christ tells us there is no reward for hating your enemies and loving your friends. Even Pagans do that. We are called to a higher standard.

This means nothing without first knowing the truth of Psalm 5:4-6, that God hated us while we were sinners.

You and the others are proof texting in the extreme. You're using this one verse, poetry I might add, to argue against the very words of Christ.

Did we receive Jesus without repenting?

We receive and repent at the same time, there's no "I repent first so I can make myself good enough to receive Christ".

Have you ever seen Les Miserables or read the book? If you haven't, you need to.

 

[Rusha]

Rusha, I am a Christian. Without God, nothing can be moral or immoral. Rusha prefers this; I prefer that. Hitler preferred to kill six million Jews. I preferred that he had not. Can you or I say that Hitler was wrong? Without God, there is no authority that says Hitler was wrong and you were right. As a person who does not believe in a Higher Authority, you have no authority in this debate to say anyone is wrong--or right.

I most certainly DO have the authority to say that Hitler was wrong. He used his power to kill innocent human beings based on nothing more than his hatred towards them.

With the exception of murderers, rapists and child molesters, intentionally killing another human being is wrong. Also, to make it clear, when I state the exception, I am not advocating that private citizens make these executions but am referring to the death penalty.

Aren't you making a judgment of me now? And that's okay. It's okay to judge. But I have a Foundation upon which to judge and that foundation is the Rock, Jesus Christ. You lack that foundation.

EVERYONE judges ... I have never denied that. However, your merely stating I lack a foundation from which to judge is meaningless. My judgment comes from a neutral position that gives ALL the benefit of the doubt unless they commit an act that maliciously harms another human being. Your judgment is based solely on your religion. Your judgment gives you the green light to judge honest and decent people who just don't happen to hold a belief in the a deity or the same deity as you do. I do not see your basis for judgment as being as logical and fair as my own.

Was Jesus concerned about making Himself feel good or about getting us forgiven?

Being that I am not a Christian, I think of Jesus as more of symbolic person than an actual one. Based on all the years of Bible reading (in parochial school and church) that I have done, I view the character of Jesus as the epitome of love ... NOT hatred.

In order for you to say this, you have to borrow from the Christian world view. How do you know what is good or bad? The reason is that you have a conscience. The God that placed a conscience in you is the One you deny; yet you unwittingly use your God-given conscience to attempt to discern right from wrong.

My world view is based on my own upbringing as well as my own conscience. It's pretty easy for most people who are rational and not devoid of a conscience to understand the "do unto others concept".

In this post, I am showing love for you. A good definition of love is that love seeks the benefit of another. Rusha, I don't want you to spend an eternity in hell apart from God. I want you to repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

That's fine and all, but I will tell you the same thing as I have always stated: I am not convinced that God exists, so at this point any kind of claim or conversion for me would be meaningless. I do not believe that someone who is not 100% convinced that your God exists *can be* a Christian.

The whole unbelieving world (you) is under the condemnatiion of the Law. "All have sinned. There is none righteous; no not one." But the good news is that Jesus is willing to pay your debt; but, you must give Him permission to do so.

If "you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, that He came in the flesh, that He died for you, and that He is risen, then the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the Body of Christ where you are sealed until the day of redemption. You can do this right now, next to your computer.


If I were to boil salvation down to make it simple: Salvation is knowing the one True God and He (Jesus) whom God has sent.

As stated above, my saying words and stating a belief would be meaningless if I do not actually believe in my heart. I do not, and for me, it would show no integrity on my part to lie and claim otherwise.

If she had studied under me, she would not have needed to get rid of her hatred for an unrepentant murderer who had murdered her grandchildren. She would have been relieved to know that she should hate McVeigh with righteous indignation. God hates McVeigh. I hate McVeigh. And you should too. She would have been showing love for McVeigh if she had rebuked him and warned him that she would be his judge on judgment day. Love seeks the benefit of another. Because she was taught false doctrine, she sought her own benefit--as you said, to "get away from her own negativity and hatred." Her unconditional forgiveness did nothing for McVeigh.

I DO hate McVeigh and every other piece of slime like him. However, that is ME. I was speaking strictly of this woman's mental health and well-being. Losing a loved one (child, grandchild, etc.) is devastating. Perhaps in order to deal with her grief, she needed to forgive this guy. I *could* not do it and would not expect something of someone else that I am unable to do myself. However, I have the feeling the woman is more at peace with her self by virtue of her forgiveness.

If you love everyone and everything, then your love has no meaning and is worthless. I value my wife's love because she is free to love another. But she chose to love me alone. The Apostle Paul said, "Let your love be without hypocracy; abhor what is evil. In 2 Chr. 19:2, God says that you are a hypocrite if you love those who hate Him. This applies to forgiveness as well. If you forgive everyone for everything, where's the value of your forgiveness. Jesus Christ died on the Cross so that we can be forgiven. Forgiveness is a precious commodity that Jesus shed His blood for. We should not esteem it so lightly.

Rusha, I will pray for you, for I seek only your benefit.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

I am not arguing that we should love everyone and everything. That is completely contrary to how I view things in real life and my own reaction.

As explained earlier in my post, I just see the kind of seething hatred that someone would have against the murderer of her family members as being devastating and self-destructive.

Once again, I don't believe the statement that hatred or love is right/wrong is accurate. I believe that both responses are neutral and that it is individuals who actually let themselves determine the outcome of their emotion.

 

[chrysostom]

For anyone to spend this much time defending hatred as a virtue and explaining why it's acceptable is kind of unfortunate.

Time well-spent in many other endeavors, squandered on defending hatred?

And this coming from people who claim to enjoy a relationship with the almighty.

It's enough to make me wonder why they're so baffled when I explain that I'm not interested in what they're selling...

but they don't define Christianity
you can reject what they are selling
but you should know that it isn't Christianity

 

[Rusha]

but they don't define Christianity
you can reject what they are selling
but you should know that it isn't Christianity

How should any nonbeliever *know* that it doesn't define Christianity? I mean seriously, Chrys, look around you. Hatred is being defended as a Christian attribute by some and rejected by others.

I would think that IF the Christian lifestyle is so superior that you would all at least have an agreement on a simple thing like love and hatred.