1 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.
Originally posted by whodeyI think hating and killing hateful enemies or individuals is at odds with at least part of Jesus's message.
🙄
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.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggThe 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.
I think hating and killing hateful enemies or individuals is at odds with at least part of Jesus's message.
Originally posted by whodeyNot, 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.
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.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggEither Jesus was inconsitant or you don't have an accurate understanding of what he meant.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggAnd 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.
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.
Case in point, the scripture says that Jesus came the first time as a lamb, but he returns as a lion.
Originally posted by shavixmirOn the contrary emotions are the driving force behind actions. ALL actions. Hate and anger are certainly powerful motivators.
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.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggThis 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.
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?
You may despise your enemies' actions, and their behavior towards you, but that doesn't mean it is morally appropriate to hate them.
2 edits
Originally posted by generalissimoWhy isn't hate the appropriate moral response?
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.
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.