Contradictory statements

[Zzyzx]

.
Contradictory statements

Words attributed to Jesus by Luke and Matthew (whoever they may have been) appear to be contradictory (as well as perhaps irrational -- particularly those cited by "Luke").

Luke 14:26 If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets

Love your neighbor " but hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters (and yourself)?

Do unto others (hate them) as you would have them do to you (hate you)?

In psychiatry and psychology, maintaining two or more contradictory statements or positions is viewed as an indication of schizophrenia . . .

Do the statements quoted seem like wise words from a wonderful teacher / leader / preacher?

[1213]

....
Love your neighbor " but hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters (and yourself)?

Please explain, what do you think love and hate means? And what do you think Bible means with hate and love? Why are they contradictory?

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213]

Hey, it's your religion, you tell us.
We know what the English says, show us how we are mis-conceptualizing.

[Zzyzx]

.

Love your neighbor " but hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters (and yourself)?

Please explain, what do you think love and hate means? And what do you think Bible means with hate and love? Why are they contradictory?

As may be apparent from my posts, I read, and write (and also speak) English. I use standard definitions as noted in standard-use dictionaries of the English language (available to anyone with access to the Internet).

Love: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person; a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

Hate: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:
http://www.dictionary.com

A person who experiences 'passionate affection and warm personal attachment or deep affection' for family members and ALSO experiences toward the same person 'dislike intensely or passionately, extreme aversion, extreme hostility, detest " would seem to have psychological problems. Since I am not a psychiatrist, I would consider it advisable that such a person seek professional counseling.

Professional Bible translators and editors chose the words 'love' and 'hate' to communicate the meaning of Bible stories. Amateur Bible defenders often attempt to 'correct' the professionals and the Bibles they produce " in order to inject their preferred meanings to fit their arguments.

Should I also define father, mother, brother, sister, children, neighbor, to, and, the, you, have, them, etc " for those unsure about usage of those terms?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

Excellent mockery.

However the emotion of hate is an emotionally re-enforced condition.
The more times you hate anything, the easier it becomes to evoke the emotion.

Just another example of where following the Bible leads to recurring evil behavior.

Do you hate evil behavior? If not then how evil can it really be?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 17 by Wootah]





[center]A good Christian just gotta hate[/center]

Unless you hate evil you are not loving your neighbour. All things that we love above God are evil, even family.

My family is NOT evil

So, we should love our neighbor... but if we love our neighbor MORE than God, they automatically become EVIL. How bizarre. I don't follow.

Of course, I am an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic to all of this weird Bible morality. I just think that it's way better to LOVE than to HATE.

But those two passages and your defense of them indicate to me that you must HATE in order to LOVE. Go ahead and hate all you like.

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

Since I don't have to follow the commands of the Bible,

I DON'T PROMOTE HATRED OF ANY KIND.
________________


Where is the compassion?

You can bold and capitalize your posts any time but as the Edmund Burke quote emphasized we don't need to promote anything to condone evil.

How come you think compassion is lost? If you hated homelessness more for example then you might do something about it.

Compassion is lost when we become moral relativists. Sure being hungry is bad but we all feel hungry now and then. It's the moral relativist who does nothing.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 28 by Willum]

Excellent mockery.

However the emotion of hate is an emotionally re-enforced condition.
The more times you hate anything, the easier it becomes to evoke the emotion.

Just another example of where following the Bible leads to recurring evil behavior.

As an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic who is an outsider to any god beliefs, I can just go ahead and promote LOVE instead of HATE.

Suppose you love a plant. So you promote love by watering it (when appropriate). So you hate it when your plant isn't watered right?

[Wootah]

.

If one person or one society says that something is 'evil' and another person or society says it is not, which one prevails? Who decides? Where is the 'universal / absolute' in that case?

And if one society says something is up and another says it is down I guess you would be at a loss to know?

That is correct " if I have no reference other than statements by the two parties.

One person is at the top of a mountain and another is at the bottom. A cave is located between them. Where is the cave from the former person? Where is the cave from the latter person?

Is there 'one true statement' (universal / absolute) regarding whether the cave is up or down?

Is the cave up or down from my position? Is its position stated relative to sea level " or to a satellite?

In reality, the cave is up or down ONLY RELATIVE to one's position on the mountain. Another alternative is NEITHER up nor down if one is at the same elevation as the cave.

As a real-life example: I live at the base of a mountain. Occasionally raccoons or opossums become a nuisance around my place, in which cases I live-trap them and relocate them to an area of dense forest on the mountain. From my property, the release point is 'up'. To people who live atop the mountain the release point is 'down'. If someone lived at the release point elevation, it would be 'over there' " neither up nor down.

If I lived atop the mountain and relocated the animals to the same place, would that be up or down?

Most of us seem to almost automatically reference other places in relation to OUR location " ignoring that others may not / do not share our location. We do much the same with 'morals' " set ours as the standard against which all others are measured " as though WE (or our group) were the 'deciders'. FANTASY, irrational, bloated self-importance.

Are any of us obligated to act against all incidences of 'evil' in the world?

With your particular skill set you might have done a world of good.

You did not answer the question -- which was not about me personally.

Perhaps I do 'a world of good' (or at least a little bit or my part). I actually DO things toward feeding the hungry and, clothing or housing those in need. Additionally, I do some writing that may benefit those who wish to learn useful skills. Previously I taught university students about the real world (Earth science) " which I consider 'a good thing' (though others may disagree).

Part of my 'skill set' is the ability to recognize my own limits " and to realize that my efforts affect only a very tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the world's population (or nation or even local) " and that I do not have ability or resources to 'help' more than just a very few people (so I am very selective in what I do).

Am I 'morally obligated' to do a 'world of good' (or any good for that matter)? If so, by whose morals?

I tend to favor realism over fantasy.

Are you really tending to favor realism over fantasy with your moral relativism line of thought?

YES.

I am realistic enough to recognize claims that morals are absolute or universal are FANTASY " that NO morals or moral code applies to all places, all times, all instances, with no exceptions.

Many (most?) people are unrealistic enough to think that their favorite morals / moral code applies to (or is binding upon) everyone in the world, all the time, no exceptions.

Those who worship some of the thousands of proposed 'gods' seem particularly inclined to think their favorite 'god' provided them with an absolute / universal moral code. They cite stories and opinions of ancient storytellers and religion promoters as 'proof' that their moral code applies everywhere all the time.

The next religious group down the block makes similar claims for a different 'god' " and so it goes. They may even fight over whose 'god' is 'better' or bigger or true / false. OR they may worship the same 'god' and kill each other over differences in details of belief or rituals.

Humans are strange animals.

Your relativism disqualifies you from diagnosing contradictions.

Do you understand that?

[rikuoamero]

.

If one person or one society says that something is 'evil' and another person or society says it is not, which one prevails? Who decides? Where is the 'universal / absolute' in that case?

And if one society says something is up and another says it is down I guess you would be at a loss to know?

That is correct " if I have no reference other than statements by the two parties.

One person is at the top of a mountain and another is at the bottom. A cave is located between them. Where is the cave from the former person? Where is the cave from the latter person?

Is there 'one true statement' (universal / absolute) regarding whether the cave is up or down?

Is the cave up or down from my position? Is its position stated relative to sea level " or to a satellite?

In reality, the cave is up or down ONLY RELATIVE to one's position on the mountain. Another alternative is NEITHER up nor down if one is at the same elevation as the cave.

As a real-life example: I live at the base of a mountain. Occasionally raccoons or opossums become a nuisance around my place, in which cases I live-trap them and relocate them to an area of dense forest on the mountain. From my property, the release point is 'up'. To people who live atop the mountain the release point is 'down'. If someone lived at the release point elevation, it would be 'over there' " neither up nor down.

If I lived atop the mountain and relocated the animals to the same place, would that be up or down?

Most of us seem to almost automatically reference other places in relation to OUR location " ignoring that others may not / do not share our location. We do much the same with 'morals' " set ours as the standard against which all others are measured " as though WE (or our group) were the 'deciders'. FANTASY, irrational, bloated self-importance.

Are any of us obligated to act against all incidences of 'evil' in the world?

With your particular skill set you might have done a world of good.

You did not answer the question -- which was not about me personally.

Perhaps I do 'a world of good' (or at least a little bit or my part). I actually DO things toward feeding the hungry and, clothing or housing those in need. Additionally, I do some writing that may benefit those who wish to learn useful skills. Previously I taught university students about the real world (Earth science) " which I consider 'a good thing' (though others may disagree).

Part of my 'skill set' is the ability to recognize my own limits " and to realize that my efforts affect only a very tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the world's population (or nation or even local) " and that I do not have ability or resources to 'help' more than just a very few people (so I am very selective in what I do).

Am I 'morally obligated' to do a 'world of good' (or any good for that matter)? If so, by whose morals?

I tend to favor realism over fantasy.

Are you really tending to favor realism over fantasy with your moral relativism line of thought?

YES.

I am realistic enough to recognize claims that morals are absolute or universal are FANTASY " that NO morals or moral code applies to all places, all times, all instances, with no exceptions.

Many (most?) people are unrealistic enough to think that their favorite morals / moral code applies to (or is binding upon) everyone in the world, all the time, no exceptions.

Those who worship some of the thousands of proposed 'gods' seem particularly inclined to think their favorite 'god' provided them with an absolute / universal moral code. They cite stories and opinions of ancient storytellers and religion promoters as 'proof' that their moral code applies everywhere all the time.

The next religious group down the block makes similar claims for a different 'god' " and so it goes. They may even fight over whose 'god' is 'better' or bigger or true / false. OR they may worship the same 'god' and kill each other over differences in details of belief or rituals.

Humans are strange animals.

Your relativism disqualifies you from diagnosing contradictions.

Do you understand that?

I'm struggling to find out just how the heck this can be justified (not just is, but even CAN be). How does one being a moral relativist prevent them from recognising or diagnosing a contradiction?
Does one need a certain stance on morality to recognise a contradiction in the following?
1. I translated the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament into English.
2. I am unable to translate a sentence from Hebrew to English when required to under oath in a court of law.

It seems to me that you are attempting to dismiss Z's points not because they do not make sense and in of themselves, but rather because of his stance on morality, which is a totally separate topic.
Imagine if you were an advocate for Political Stance X and I said "Denied! Dismissed because you're a member of Political Party Z!"

[Wootah]

Your relativism disqualifies you from diagnosing contradictions.

Do you understand that?

I'm struggling to find out just how the heck this can be justified (not just is, but even CAN be). How does one being a moral relativist prevent them from recognising or diagnosing a contradiction?
Does one need a certain stance on morality to recognise a contradiction in the following?
1. I translated the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament into English.
2. I am unable to translate a sentence from Hebrew to English when required to under oath in a court of law.

It seems to me that you are attempting to dismiss Z's points not because they do not make sense and in of themselves, but rather because of his stance on morality, which is a totally separate topic.
Imagine if you were an advocate for Political Stance X and I said "Denied! Dismissed because you're a member of Political Party Z!"

How can Z spot a contradiction if he can't determine if up is up or down is down?

edit: How can he claim one verse talks about love and another about hate if it's all relative?

[rikuoamero]

Your relativism disqualifies you from diagnosing contradictions.

Do you understand that?

I'm struggling to find out just how the heck this can be justified (not just is, but even CAN be). How does one being a moral relativist prevent them from recognising or diagnosing a contradiction?
Does one need a certain stance on morality to recognise a contradiction in the following?
1. I translated the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament into English.
2. I am unable to translate a sentence from Hebrew to English when required to under oath in a court of law.

It seems to me that you are attempting to dismiss Z's points not because they do not make sense and in of themselves, but rather because of his stance on morality, which is a totally separate topic.
Imagine if you were an advocate for Political Stance X and I said "Denied! Dismissed because you're a member of Political Party Z!"

How can Z spot a contradiction if he can't determine if up is up or down is down?

edit: How can he claim one verse talks about love and another about hate if it's all relative?

It's not his claim. We HAVE the verses. The words 'love' and 'hate' are used. In one Bible verse, we have Jesus saying "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother...,"
So, the word 'hate' is there, and for some reason, virtually all English translations of the Bible translated the Greek miseo to mean hate.
In another Bible verse, we have Jesus saying "Love your neighbour as yourself". Virtually all English translations of the Bible say that.

It matters NOT ONE WHIT what one's stance on morality is, the text is there, the words 'love' and 'hate' are used.
Now you may be disagreeing with Z on his own personal stance on love and hate (if so, that's between you and Z, and I will not be a party to that discussion), but that is NOT AT ALL the same thing as saying "How can he claim one verse talks about love and another about hate"