Is hate required to be all loving?

[Wootah]

I think a Christian should hate what God hates.

I think that no god should hate. If God hates, then he is not worthy of his status.

This is to discuss the question: Is hate required to be all loving?

Basic idea is that a God of love is not an all-loving God if that means that they have to love evil.

Responses?

[boatsnguitars]

It seems a common line is partiality. The God had to root (like the shepherd) foir his flock and 'protect' them from predators. That is, the rest of his created humans who do not belong to the flock.

That is the flaw of religion. It is partial and divisive, and other religions do the same.

Sure, there are sheep and there are goats. There is wheat and there is chaff. My point is that to be all-loving does not necessitate non-partiality. It seeks it, but it does not require it. Non-partiality is more the beginning and end of being all-loving than it is necessarily any step along the way...

The problem is we conflate these, and reduce things down to some sort of generic, intention-less, completely non-partial love. Loving everyone the same irrespective, like even if one child is killing the other, we wouldn't step in... By thinking this way we miss the very active nature of love, of being all loving, which means proactively acting on behalf of all. Which means sometimes going against those that you love.

To summarize, I'm not saying to not love the wolves. What I'm saying is that the vision is for lambs to lie down with them. And if the wolves are out of control destroying that vision, then to be all loving means to stop them.

It's not that it's not okay for us to feel hate - that's not the problem. The issue arises when religious people start talking about God's feelings, and then they shift the conversation to themselves by saying something like, "But I can love everyone the same, irrespective of..." Did you catch the shift? We were originally talking about how God can hate, but suddenly it's about their feelings. The reason for this is that theists often access the same part of the brain when discussing what they believe and what they think God believes (but not what other people believe).

The problem with theists claiming that God is all-loving (in fact, they claim "God is Love"), and then saying that God hates, is that it creates a contradiction. Then, when we point out this contradiction, they try to act like we're the ignorant ones for not understanding it. But how can something that is Love also hates?

The answer lies in religion and mythology, which allow people to hold two contradictory ideas at once. While they claim it's true, it's not really true. It's not a complicated issue. Theists have made a claim that they can't defend, and when we call them out on it, they resort to creating convoluted apologetics to try to confuse us.

Theophile, are you talking about yourself or God? I accept you are a normal person who can fell Love and Hate. God is not such a creature - if defined as Love ("God is Love").

If something is defined "This ball is All-Metal" then claim it's also part Nerf. It's a contradiction. However, it's perfectly fine in mythology or in a story that isn't about reality. I can say in a story, "Bob, the married bachelor, fit the ball perfectly into the square hole."
This is something Theists have never understood about the their belief in God. They can say anything, and it never has to be demonstrated as true.

[theophile]

It seems a common line is partiality. The God had to root (like the shepherd) foir his flock and 'protect' them from predators. That is, the rest of his created humans who do not belong to the flock.

That is the flaw of religion. It is partial and divisive, and other religions do the same.

Sure, there are sheep and there are goats. There is wheat and there is chaff. My point is that to be all-loving does not necessitate non-partiality. It seeks it, but it does not require it. Non-partiality is more the beginning and end of being all-loving than it is necessarily any step along the way...

The problem is we conflate these, and reduce things down to some sort of generic, intention-less, completely non-partial love. Loving everyone the same irrespective, like even if one child is killing the other, we wouldn't step in... By thinking this way we miss the very active nature of love, of being all loving, which means proactively acting on behalf of all. Which means sometimes going against those that you love.

To summarize, I'm not saying to not love the wolves. What I'm saying is that the vision is for lambs to lie down with them. And if the wolves are out of control destroying that vision, then to be all loving means to stop them.

It's not that it's not okay for us to feel hate - that's not the problem. The issue arises when religious people start talking about God's feelings, and then they shift the conversation to themselves by saying something like, "But I can love everyone the same, irrespective of..." Did you catch the shift? We were originally talking about how God can hate, but suddenly it's about their feelings. The reason for this is that theists often access the same part of the brain when discussing what they believe and what they think God believes (but not what other people believe).

Did I do that? I didn't intend to... I'm talking conceptually here about what it means to be 'all-loving' since that was the OP question. So other theists may do what you're saying (sure), but I don't know what that has to do with that I'm saying. This is not about personal feelings.

The problem with theists claiming that God is all-loving (in fact, they claim "God is Love"), and then saying that God hates, is that it creates a contradiction. Then, when we point out this contradiction, they try to act like we're the ignorant ones for not understanding it. But how can something that is Love also hates?

No, it doesn't create a contradiction. What is the contradiction? Again, hypothetically, let's say as a starting condition that 'all' = you plus two children who you love equally, i.e., you are literally 'all-loving'. Now, let's say one of your children is on the verge of killing the other. What would you do as an all-loving parent? Would you try to stop the murderous one out of love, i.e., act against them? But what if the murderous one doesn't stop? What would you do then? Imprison them? Bind them? Kill them even as a final resort? ...

Would any of those actions not be out of love? Would taking any of those 'hateful' actions mean you no longer love the murderous child who you act against, and perhaps even put down? You may hate what the child has become, but that doesn't mean you no longer love the child... It's no different than if you have to put down your rabid dog (Old Yeller styles). You still love the dog as you pull the trigger, don't you?

Theophile, are you talking about yourself or God? I accept you are a normal person who can fell Love and Hate. God is not such a creature - if defined as Love ("God is Love").

I'm talking conceptually. What it means to be all-loving. It doesn't really matter who is doing the all-loving, does it? The question is if 'hate' is required. My overall answer was that 'required' is too strong a word, but that 'hate' may be called for and isn't inconsistent with being all-loving. i.e., Taking what on the surface appears to be hateful action, and further, hating certain aspects of the one you love, e.g., the rabid-ness of the dog. But again, that doesn't mean you don't love the dog.

If something is defined "This ball is All-Metal" then claim it's also part Nerf. It's a contradiction. However, it's perfectly fine in mythology or in a story that isn't about reality. I can say in a story, "Bob, the married bachelor, fit the ball perfectly into the square hole."
This is something Theists have never understood about the their belief in God. They can say anything, and it never has to be demonstrated as true.

You keep arguing on the surface. i.e., 'love is the opposite of hate and the two can't possibly be compatible'. You're not entering into what it really means to be all-loving, and what kind of action this may entail.

[boatsnguitars]

It seems a common line is partiality. The God had to root (like the shepherd) foir his flock and 'protect' them from predators. That is, the rest of his created humans who do not belong to the flock.

That is the flaw of religion. It is partial and divisive, and other religions do the same.

Sure, there are sheep and there are goats. There is wheat and there is chaff. My point is that to be all-loving does not necessitate non-partiality. It seeks it, but it does not require it. Non-partiality is more the beginning and end of being all-loving than it is necessarily any step along the way...

The problem is we conflate these, and reduce things down to some sort of generic, intention-less, completely non-partial love. Loving everyone the same irrespective, like even if one child is killing the other, we wouldn't step in... By thinking this way we miss the very active nature of love, of being all loving, which means proactively acting on behalf of all. Which means sometimes going against those that you love.

To summarize, I'm not saying to not love the wolves. What I'm saying is that the vision is for lambs to lie down with them. And if the wolves are out of control destroying that vision, then to be all loving means to stop them.

It's not that it's not okay for us to feel hate - that's not the problem. The issue arises when religious people start talking about God's feelings, and then they shift the conversation to themselves by saying something like, "But I can love everyone the same, irrespective of..." Did you catch the shift? We were originally talking about how God can hate, but suddenly it's about their feelings. The reason for this is that theists often access the same part of the brain when discussing what they believe and what they think God believes (but not what other people believe).

Did I do that? I didn't intend to... I'm talking conceptually here about what it means to be 'all-loving' since that was the OP question. So other theists may do what you're saying (sure), but I don't know what that has to do with that I'm saying. This is not about personal feelings.

The problem with theists claiming that God is all-loving (in fact, they claim "God is Love"), and then saying that God hates, is that it creates a contradiction. Then, when we point out this contradiction, they try to act like we're the ignorant ones for not understanding it. But how can something that is Love also hates?

No, it doesn't create a contradiction. What is the contradiction? Again, hypothetically, let's say as a starting condition that 'all' = you plus two children who you love equally, i.e., you are literally 'all-loving'. Now, let's say one of your children is on the verge of killing the other. What would you do as an all-loving parent? Would you try to stop the murderous one out of love, i.e., act against them? But what if the murderous one doesn't stop? What would you do then? Imprison them? Bind them? Kill them even as a final resort? ...

Would any of those actions not be out of love? Would taking any of those 'hateful' actions mean you no longer love the murderous child who you act against, and perhaps even put down? You may hate what the child has become, but that doesn't mean you no longer love the child... It's no different than if you have to put down your rabid dog (Old Yeller styles). You still love the dog as you pull the trigger, don't you?

Theophile, are you talking about yourself or God? I accept you are a normal person who can fell Love and Hate. God is not such a creature - if defined as Love ("God is Love").

I'm talking conceptually. What it means to be all-loving. It doesn't really matter who is doing the all-loving, does it? The question is if 'hate' is required. My overall answer was that 'required' is too strong a word, but that 'hate' may be called for and isn't inconsistent with being all-loving. i.e., Taking what on the surface appears to be hateful action, and further, hating certain aspects of the one you love, e.g., the rabid-ness of the dog. But again, that doesn't mean you don't love the dog.

If something is defined "This ball is All-Metal" then claim it's also part Nerf. It's a contradiction. However, it's perfectly fine in mythology or in a story that isn't about reality. I can say in a story, "Bob, the married bachelor, fit the ball perfectly into the square hole."
This is something Theists have never understood about the their belief in God. They can say anything, and it never has to be demonstrated as true.

You keep arguing on the surface. i.e., 'love is the opposite of hate and the two can't possibly be compatible'. You're not entering into what it really means to be all-loving, and what kind of action this may entail.

Again, you seem to be pulling the conversation into a discussion about Human Beings, who are not defined as "All-Loving" or literally defined as Love itself.

It's interesting that you say I'm arguing about the surface - perhaps superficially - because I am talking about God, not humans who are not all-loving, and are never described as such. We do express love and hate. We are 'flawed" as Christians remind us repeatedly. Yes, I agree God is superficial. It's a imaginary being in Theists heads that Theists confuse with their own self.

I'm not going to agree to your premise that "All-Loving" means that hate is part of it. I'm not required to play apologetic word games with you. You are trying to say that God is not All-Loving but you can't admit it, so you do the Apogists dance.

Next, I imagine you'll argue that Heaven must include Hell. That a Eden must have a "Don't Press This Button" that ruins everything. That Perfect Beings must produce imperfect things, etc.

Like I said, I am not a Believer: I don't need to play that game.

Let's try again. God is All-Fish. Does that mean he's also part Dog? Can you confirm you are aware of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Or, let's use your example, if a dog is rabid, do I have to hate the rabidness if I'm all loving? No. If I'm All-Loving, I don't have the capacity to hate. Just as the All-Metal Ball doesn't have the capacity to be part Nerf, or the Fish God has the capacity to be a Dog God.

Does a fork have the capacity to be a tire on your car? Even if you bend it in a circle, it still completely fails to act as a tire. It has no Tire quality in it. Even it's roundness if bent doesn't meet basic requirements. It can't do it.

This is the reality of things.

The solution is simple: Don't define God as All-Loving. It's so simple it hurts.

[TRANSPONDER]

it seems that a lot depends on what sort of god hathe been created in the poster's image.Does it have a Hell? Not loving. Sorry, nobody will tell me that is anything but psychotic sadism according to the moral code God supposedly gave us. Of course if the Believer has adapted the religion where Hell means a place of re -education where Outmoded and unacceptable forms of thought have been eradicated so that we are fit to join the Party.

Of maybe God is the God of Einstein but able to think ahead. It's why Theist apologists don't get to ask atheist to define God - it is for the one who has a concept of it. But where it gets involved is in intervening god. The wormcans of the problem of Evil fail in the 'naughty step' analogy, all attempts to retranslate the Bible or to throw the blame on human beans. I know, because I've done it, and the finale was the Theists running away saying 'it is Good because it's God'sPlan' which is a faithclaim validating nothing at all. But of course all that mattered was that he didn't have to admit his case didn't stand up.

Well,we saw an excellently erudite post with Bible references and dickering about ethics, and apart from some Hate being ok as part of all - loving, excuse me, that is partiality to a sect or tribe, I won't go into detail, but the thing is, I've seen it before and it really doesn't work, not with a god that is other than incompetent or working blind and you may slap your housekeeping on that, to win.

[JoeyKnothead]

Metaphor: If you are a shepherd looking after sheep how can you say you love the sheep if you allow a wolf in?

If the rhetorical you is a lover of truth, how can you let religion in?

I think the hold up here is the "all" part.

How about a love for all mankind, and a hatred of those who'd destroy it?

Maybe a love of all the liquor, and an unfailing hatred for an empty bottle of it?

Heck, I love me the pretty thing a whole big ol' bunch, but sometimes I hate her just a little bit.

If we understand "all" to be, "I love you all, but some of you are trying my patience", surely there's a place for all in our understanding.