1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Sep '10 13:531 edit
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    I just want to point out the possibly gigantic implications, of hate being the appropriate moral response to what is hateful, being true.

    Jesus said "love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you".

    Let's assume he was issuing a moral injunction, and not merely issuing pragmatic advice.

    Let's further assume he meant this statement to apply univ Hence, millions of people are, and have been, laboring under a delusion.

    Lucifershammer?
    🙄

    Do you know what the srciptures say about hate? We are to hate sin. This is the beginning of wisdom. So when one sins, you have two options. You have the example of destroying the sinner, as we see in OT stonings, you we have the option of showing mercy on the sinner as the focus shifts toward destroying the sin in peoples lives, as we see in the example of Christ showing mercy to the woman caught in adultery.

    As for those who refuse to turn from their sins, I suppose that is why we have prisons and the death penalty.
  2. Joined
    09 Jul '10
    Moves
    720
    11 Sep '10 13:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    🙄

    Do you know what the srciptures say about hate? We are to hate sin. This is the beginning of wisdom. So when one sins, you have two options. You have the example of destroying the sinner, as we see in OT stonings, you we have the option of showing mercy on the sinner as the focus shifts toward destroying the sin in peoples lives, as we see in the ex ...[text shortened]... who refuse to turn from their sins, I suppose that is why we have prisons and the death penalty.
    I think hating and killing hateful enemies or individuals is at odds with at least part of Jesus's message.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Sep '10 14:06
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    I think hating and killing hateful enemies or individuals is at odds with at least part of Jesus's message.
    The destruction of sin is and was his message. After all, if all suffering is due to sin then God has an obligation to destroy it. Unfortunately, it would appear that this sometimes involved destroying the sinner. So in that respect you are correct.
  4. Joined
    09 Jul '10
    Moves
    720
    11 Sep '10 14:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    The destruction of sin is and was his message. After all, if all suffering is due to sin then God has an obligation to destroy it. Unfortunately, it would appear that this sometimes involved destroying the sinner. So in that respect you are correct.
    Not, it's the other way round. Part of Jesus's message was one of forgiveness. But hating, even the hateful, precludes forgiveness. But Jesus was not perfectly consistent. He did talk in other passages about sinners deservedly suffering.
  5. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    11 Sep '10 14:14
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    Not, it's the other way round. Part of Jesus's message was one of forgiveness. But hating, even the hateful, precludes forgiveness. But Jesus was not perfectly consistent. He did talk in other passages about sinners deservedly suffering.
    Either Jesus was inconsitant or you don't have an accurate understanding of what he meant.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Sep '10 14:161 edit
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    Not, it's the other way round. Part of Jesus's message was one of forgiveness. But hating, even the hateful, precludes forgiveness. But Jesus was not perfectly consistent. He did talk in other passages about sinners deservedly suffering.
    And what is forgiveness all about? Is it not about reconciliation? Is it not about overcoming sin in our lives via reconciliation with each other and with God? Again, the focus is the destruction of sin. Right now we are in a period of grace, so enjoy it. But as you say, it is fleeting and heads will roll when it does.

    Case in point, the scripture says that Jesus came the first time as a lamb, but he returns as a lion.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    11 Sep '10 15:04
    --> Spirituality
  8. Joined
    10 May '09
    Moves
    13341
    11 Sep '10 15:09
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It's not morally wrong. It's just a waste of time.
    In fact, hating costs energy. And that energy could be better used to do something constructive, which in the long run will make that person happier.
    On the contrary emotions are the driving force behind actions. ALL actions. Hate and anger are certainly powerful motivators.
  9. Subscribershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    87824
    11 Sep '10 16:27
    God damn.
    Hate doesn't do anything but waste time.
    Think about it.
  10. Joined
    18 May '09
    Moves
    3183
    11 Sep '10 17:55
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    Why shouldn't you hate them?
    Hate them by all means if it pleases you, but it is more effective to apply one's faculties to the task of elimination.
  11. Pepperland
    Joined
    30 May '07
    Moves
    12892
    11 Sep '10 18:14
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    I just want to point out the possibly gigantic implications, of hate being the appropriate moral response to what is hateful, being true.

    Jesus said "love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you".

    Let's assume he was issuing a moral injunction, and not merely issuing pragmatic advice.

    Let's further assume he meant this statement to apply univ ...[text shortened]... Hence, millions of people are, and have been, laboring under a delusion.

    Lucifershammer?
    This argument only works if hate is indeed "sometimes the appropriate moral response", but that is never the case, hate isn't an appropriate moral response.

    You may despise your enemies' actions, and their behavior towards you, but that doesn't mean it is morally appropriate to hate them.
  12. Joined
    18 May '09
    Moves
    3183
    12 Sep '10 12:16
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    God damn.
    Hate doesn't do anything but waste time.
    Think about it.
    Can you think? You have shown no signs of being abe to do so yet.
  13. Joined
    09 Jul '10
    Moves
    720
    12 Sep '10 12:18
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Either Jesus was inconsitant or you don't have an accurate understanding of what he meant.
    He may not even have been the author of all the quotes attributed to him.
  14. Joined
    18 May '09
    Moves
    3183
    12 Sep '10 12:26
    Originally posted by IshDaGegg
    He may not even have been the author of all the quotes attributed to him.
    Perhps he was incontinent?
  15. Joined
    09 Jul '10
    Moves
    720
    12 Sep '10 12:272 edits
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    This argument only works if hate is indeed "sometimes the appropriate moral response", but that is never the case, hate isn't an appropriate moral response.

    You may despise your enemies' actions, and their behavior towards you, but that doesn't mean it is morally appropriate to hate them.
    Why isn't hate the appropriate moral response?

    What is hateful merits being hated. Plus, hating it may assist in the rectification of what is hateful.

    So. what's your objection? This is main question in the thread.

    Shavixmir says that hate wastes time. Someone else said that it squanders energy.

    Well, I grant both may sometimes be true. But they are not always true.

    For example, Nazi Germany was hateful. If hating it helped to sustain the ultimately successful opposition to it, it would have been functional, neither a waste of time nor energy.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree