In Defense of Hate

[DocSolarisReich]

That is nearly the exact opposite of your claim, there is an explict command to love one's enemies and persecutors, not to judge and hate them. Jesus explictly states that the right to judge the sins and actions of other belongs to God alone (Matthew 7).

It is an error to read that passage as saying that hate is the opposite of love, or to apply the command to love your enemies outside the brotherhoood of Christ. Love the Body of Christ, hate the enemies of Christ. It is also an error to read 'Judge not' as an instruction never to judge anyone for anything.

19Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? 20Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee? 21Jesus answered, and said to them: One work I have done; and you all wonder: 22Therefore, Moses gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and on the sabbath day you circumcise a man. 23If a man receive circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are you angry at me because I have healed the whole man on the sabbath day? 24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.

 

[Aldarion]

I'd say it's more based on envy than hate.

Originally, maybe, but envy can easily birth hate. And modern cultural Marxism is definitely more hate than anything.

I don't thibk that hate is a part of love or that it the two are inextricably linked.

Personally, I'd say they are two sides of the same coin.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Then, the witness of the Apostolic and post-apostolic Fathers:

“I for my part maintain that to hate the enemies of God is lawful, and that such a hatred pleases the Master. By enemies I mean those who in every way deny the glory of the Master, whether the Jews or those who are manifestly idolaters or those who thought Arius’ teaching make an idol of the creature, and so take up again the Jewish Error. “~ Gregory of Nyssa, Letters, #3.8

“Live in peace not only with your friends but with your enemies; but only with your personal enemies and not with the enemies of God.” ~St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves

“Love your personal enemies, hate the enemies of Christ, destroy the enemies of the fatherland.” ~ St. Philaret of Moscow

“Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God.” – St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle to Abbot Theophilus

"It would be lawful to pray for the death of a perniciously active heresiarch with a view to putting a stop to his ravages among the Christian people." ~ Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917

Hatred of the enemies of God is no vice, this is the clear teaching of Church East and West.

 

[Battlegrinder]

It is an error to read that passage as saying that hate is the opposite of love, or to apply the command to love your enemies outside the brotherhoood of Christ. Love the Body of Christ, hate the enemies of Christ.

That's simply wrong, as shown by the actions of Christ himself, who forgave not only the people outside his fellowship that persecuted him but also those that tortured and executed him, and who's example Matthew 5 calls us to emulate.

It is also an error to read 'Judge not' as an instruction never to judge anyone for anything.

True, however it is a far greater error to read it as a call to judge as God judges men.

Personally, I'd say they are two sides of the same coin.

Why?

Hatred of the enemies of God is no vice, this is the clear teaching of Church East and West.

Then that teaching is wrong, because the gospel itself says otherwise.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Then that teaching is wrong, because the gospel itself says otherwise

The Gospel is given to us by the Church, it is evil to read Holy Writ against the teaching authority of our Holy Mother, the spotless bride of Our Lord.

 

[Battlegrinder]

The Gospel is given to us by the Church, it is evil to read Holy Writ against the teaching authority of our Holy Mother, the spotless bride of Our Lord.

The gospel was given to us by Christ, not the church, and he at no point suggested that the teachings of men could in any way overule his own words, and in fact explictly said otherwise at several points. John 4:16 being the most famous.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

The gospel was given to us by Christ, not the church, and he at no point suggested that the teachings of men could in any way overule his own words, and in fact explictly said otherwise at several points. John 4:16 being the most famous.

Our Lord established a Church, he did not hand over a book. It was that Church that assembled the book of the Holy Canon of Scripture.

 

[Aldarion]

Why?

Hate and love are both, in essence, based in passion for something. If you are capable of love you are capable of hate, and vice versa, because both hate and love are fundamentally the same emotion, except expressed in diametrically opposite ways. And this can be proven by the fact that these emotions are biologically linked in human brain:

Scientists prove it really is a thin line between love and hate

The same brain circuitry is involved in both extreme emotions – but hate retains a semblance of rationality

www.independent.co.uk

To remove human capacity for hatred, you have to remove human capacity for love. Even self-love and egoism.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Our Lord established a Church, he did not hand over a book. It was that Church that assembled the book of the Holy Canon of Scripture.

And given that no part of that canon supports your claim that the teachings of any part of that church can overule the scripture itself, nor does it set anyone's judgement as the meaning of that s scripture above anyone else (with the possible exception of Peter, who has been dead for two thousand years and thus unable to weight in on this), your position of "hating your enemies is totally cool, some guy from Moscow said so" is still wrong.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Hate and love are both, in essence, based in passion for something. If you are capable of love you are capable of hate, and vice versa, because both hate and love are fundamentally the same emotion, except expressed in diametrically opposite ways. And this can be proven by the fact that these emotions are biologically linked in human brain:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html
To remove human capacity for hatred, you have to remove human capacity for love. Even self-love and egoism.

Absolutely correct. As taught by Saint Augustine, the opposite of Love is not Hate, but Indifference.

And given that no part of that canon supports your claim that the teachings of any part of that church can overule the scripture itself,

This is simply a bald faced false claim about my position, which is simple the position of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, what has been held everywhere and everywhen by the Universal Church. Private interpretation of the scriptures is forbidden. The Church teaches what the scriptures mean.

Sola Scriptura is anathema.

Nicea II, 7th Ecumenical Council 787 a.d.

ANATHEMA to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the catholic Church. (Session I)

 

[Battlegrinder]

Hate and love are both, in essence, based in passion for something. If you are capable of love you are capable of hate, and vice versa, because both hate and love are fundamentally the same emotion, except expressed in diametrically opposite ways. And this can be proven by the fact that these emotions are biologically linked in human brain:

Scientists prove it really is a thin line between love and hate

The same brain circuitry is involved in both extreme emotions – but hate retains a semblance of rationality

www.independent.co.uk

To remove human capacity for hatred, you have to remove human capacity for love. Even self-love and egoism.

I'm not sold on the "some of the same part of the brain is involved, therefore same thing" logic at play there, there's a massive leap in logic there. It's not uncommon for the same part of the brain to light up when doing all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they're two sides of the same coin or that you can't have one without the other. You're using a lot of poetic logic here, which I don't think really works as a general rule even that's personally how you think (and in fact we know that's not how it works, because there are many cases of people that process emotions differently due to brain damage, mental illness, or even just thier cultural beliefs).

This is simply a bald faced false claim about my position, which is simple the position of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, what has been held everywhere and everywhen by the Universal Church. Private interpretation of the scriptures is forbidden. The Church teaches what the scriptures mean.

Sola Scriptura is anathema.

Nicea II, 7th Ecumenical Council 787 a.d.

That's circular logic. "We proclaim that only we have the right to interpret the Bible, as justified by our interpreting of these passages of the bible".

 

[DocSolarisReich]

That's circular logic. "We proclaim that only we have the right to interpret the Bible, as justified by our interpreting of these passages of the bible".

The Church has the Authority from the Master.

15But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Church has the Authority from the Master.

How exactly does "Have a neutral third party you both respect adjudicate disputes between you and your fellows" translates to "and also that third party must be organized into a massive hierarchical universal church with solo authority to interpret scripture" in your view?

 

[Aldarion]

I'm not sold on the "some of the same part of the brain is involved, therefore same thing" logic at play there, there's a massive leap in logic there. It's not uncommon for the same part of the brain to light up when doing all sorts of things, that doesn't mean they're two sides of the same coin or that you can't have one without the other. You're using a lot of poetic logic here, which I don't think really works as a general rule even that's personally how you think (and in fact we know that's not how it works, because there are many cases of people that process emotions differently due to brain damage, mental illness, or even just thier cultural beliefs).

That is only part of the argument, and not the most important one. But it is often used by neuroscientists. The basic idea however is that both love and hate are based on care. If you either love or hate something, then you care about it.

 

[Battlegrinder]

That is only part of the argument, and not the most important one. But it is often used by neuroscientists. The basic idea however is that both love and hate are based on care. If you either love or hate something, then you care about it.

Ok, but that's again shifting more into very personal poetic arguements. If you have any sort of emotional reaction to something, you probably care about it, love and hate aren't special in requiring you to care about the underlying topic.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

How exactly does "Have a neutral third party you both respect adjudicate disputes between you and your fellows" translates to "and also that third party must be organized into a massive hierarchical universal church with solo authority to interpret scripture" in your view?

Because Our Lord established a Kingdom, not a democracy. It's Christ the King not Christ the President. The Church was founded by Our Lord and his Apostles, the Hierarchical Authoritarian Church that binds our conscience in matters of Faith and Morals is exactly what Our Lord established.

Forth Session of Trent: "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

Seventh Session of Trent: "CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema."

Bull of Unam Sanctam, 1302: "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins."

 

[Battlegrinder]

Because Our Lord established a Kingdom, not a democracy. It's Christ the King not Christ the President. The Church was founded by Our Lord and his Apostles, the Hierarchical Authoritarian Church that binds our conscience in matters of Faith and Morals is exactly what Our Lord established.

He established a kingdom, yes, but not a kingdom of the earth (john 18:36), so the idea he intended the church to run as one is not supported by the gospel. It does not logically follow that God would tear the temple veil in two, destroying the barrier that has separated men from him (Matthew 27:51), if his true intent was to build yet another one to once again separated us from a true personal relationship with him.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

He established a kingdom, yes, but not a kingdom of the earth (john 18:36), so the idea he intended the church to run as one is not supported by the gospel. It does not logically follow that God would tear the temple veil in two, destroying the barrier that has separated men from him (Matthew 27:51), if his true intent was to build yet another one to once again separated us from a true personal relationship with him.

Except a monarchical, patriarchal, authoritarian, hierarchical Church is exactly what his Apostles built in his name, so I'll take their interpretation of Our Lord's Word over anyone else's. A Church that feeds the sheep only good food and is protected from error. A Church that sets Saints before us as examples that are inerrant guides to virtue. Saints that command Crusades and hating those who hate Our Lord and fighting the enemies of the particular land and people that Our Lord gave you to.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Except a monarchical, patriarchal, authoritarian, hierarchical Church is exactly what his Apostles built in his name, so I'll take their interpretation of Our Lord's Word over anyone else's. A Church that feeds the sheep only good food and is protected from error. A Church that sets Saints before us as examples that are inerrant guides to virtue. Saints that command Crusades and hating those who hate Our Lord and fighting the enemies of the particular land and people that Our Lord gave you to.

The Apostles didn't do most of that, though. They didn’t declare anyone saints, nor do we need them as inerrant guides to virtue, as they are obviously not inerrant since no one is inerrant, and we already have a perfect guide to virtue in the form of christ himself. It's also odd to credit them for launching crusades to reclaim land, because the crusaders fought for land that the lord never bequeathed to anyone, and the Apostles didn't send them on thst crusade. The Church the Apostles built, and the one that declared people saints ands called for crusades are manifestly not the same Church, which against raises the question of why you defer to that Church's teachings on the subject of hate, over the word of the gospel or even the Apostles.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

The Apostles didn't do most of that, though. They didn’t declare anyone saints, nor do we need them as inerrant guides to virtue, as they are obviously not inerrant since no one is inerrant, and we already have a perfect guide to virtue in the form of christ himself. It's also odd to credit them for launching crusades to reclaim land, because the crusaders fought for land that the lord never bequeathed to anyone, and the Apostles didn't send them on thst crusade. The Church the Apostles built, and the one that declared people saints ands called for crusades are manifestly not the same Church, which against raises the question of why you defer to that Church's teachings on the subject of hate, over the word of the gospel or even the Apostles.

"Why aren't you protestant like me"

"No thanks, I'm already sold up on crazy."