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?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

To hate evil is still to hate.
Hate is like a fire. It spreads and feeds itself.
Hating evil, is still evil.
It must be dealt with without hate.

Apart from sounding like a haiku - who says any of that is true? Yoda?

Hate leads to the darkside.

Actually, moral relativism leads to the darkside.

[Wootah]

.

So I hate my family and actively work against it all the time. When they want to be selfish I try to encourage them to be selfless. When they want to just love within their group I point out the world that needs their love.

Would it not be preferable to encourage people (including family members) in positive or productive directions WITHOUT hating them?

Some of us Non-Theists, who are not beholden to ancient texts, know how to encourage without hating. Some Theists express that ability -- with PN as a prime example.

Evidently, though, hate is part of the agenda for many religions and religionists. Sad.

I think you're objecting to the language. What are you encouraging people away from and towards? it's away from something you dislike to something you like.

[Zzyzx]

.

You should call PN into this thread and let's see how she reconciles the quotes.

If PN wishes to participate in this thread she will do so without 'calling' from me.

I would be highly surprised if she and I were in disagreement.

I would be highly surprised if she agreed with hating one's family (or anyone else for that matter).

Mostly, between you and I,

Nothing presented here is 'between you and I' " it is public. To suggest otherwise seems quite naive.

I am left wondering if you know yourself or if you do know yourself but would prefer to engage in debate on this forum.

Speculating / 'wondering' publicly about my self-knowledge and/or motivations extends beyond one's competence level.

To claim you don't hate seems to me to be a claim to not be human.

Kindly read more carefully. I make NO claim to 'not hate' " but say EXACTLY ' know how to encourage without hating'. I trust that astute readers understand the difference.

Assuming you are simply not aware of yourself or the human condition:

Grandiose assumptions are typically disingenuous in debate (or in rational thinking).

To hate evil is good.

Kindly provide a universal / absolute definition of 'evil' " one that applies at all times, in all instances, everywhere, no exceptions.

Start there. Do you agree or disagree?

If / since there is no universal / absolute definition of 'evil' the question is a meaningless dichotomy.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 23 by Zzyzx]

If / since there is no universal / absolute definition of 'evil' the question is a meaningless dichotomy.

Here's another phrase.

As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Are you seriously going to debate whether the question of evil is a meaningless dichotomy when you are called on to act. Did you?

[Zzyzx]

.

If / since there is no universal / absolute definition of 'evil' the question is a meaningless dichotomy.

Here's another phrase.

As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Are you offering that as a universal / absolute definition of 'evil'?

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?

Throwing out phrases isn't debating. Kindly address the issues I rasied.

Are you seriously going to debate whether the question of evil is a meaningless dichotomy when you are called on to act. Did you?

When and by whom am I called on to act?

Am I obligated to act whenever 'called on'? If the KKK 'calls on' me to help fight the 'evil' of racial equality, shall I don a robe and act with them?

If a matter is beyond my ability to influence (say child rape in Africa for example), am I somehow expected to act?

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


I tend to favor realism over fantasy.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 25 by Zzyzx]

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?

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.

I tend to favor realism over fantasy.

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

[Blastcat]

[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?

[Willum]

[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.

[Blastcat]

[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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.