For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven… a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
–Ecclesiastes 3
-Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
This is in response to what epictetus_phrygianslave wrote in the other thread
I think this issue should be disscussed a bit more in depth what are your opinions, is the Rabbi right?
A person who managed to live life without hating anyone would be better off than someone who hated. The trick is to avoid hate without losing the will to do the right things- i.e., I don’t hate Saddam Hussein, but that doesn’t mean I think he should be left alone to run a country.
So you would go to war even perhaps kill Saddam Hussein out of love for him? That is the only way to stop him ruling a country.
I think there is a legitimate role for hate in our human lives. It is another one of those squirmish ideas, like the original sin or retribution, that the modern day “humanist” wants to avoid. But I do not have a clear idea what it is yet.
To know something you need to experience it. It was only after I understood experentially jealousy, that I could defined it - namely the emotion aroused when your own seeks or is joined to another - and understood what is meant when God is spoken of as a jealous God.
It is also clear that God hates, but I have not yet experienced righteous hatred personally. Will reflect further.
TheUndergroundMan
I take my hat off to you sir!
A beautiful and most timely post!
Ecclesiastes: What a work of wisdom!
This doctrine of opportuneness is rightly singled out by TheUndergoundMan as worthy of examination in greater depth. “To every thing there is a season.â€
God saw His work and pronounced it very good: the Preacher saw that He had “made every thing beautiful in its seasonâ€
What is the morality being presented to us here? Namely, that the creation in all its aspects is perfect and beautiful and that it is our duty always to fear God never to fear man.
So, the Rabbi exhorts men to hate. He is doing what he thinks is right and good and proper. Likewise the serial sniper killing his brothers and sisters at random. Or Adolf Hitler murdering six million Jews. And then there is Joe Stalin, and all the rest throughout history.
Why should I get indignant over what other men do? I am not my brother’s keeper. My only concern is with my own moral purpose, that I get it right and keep it undefiled and pure.
Let the Rabbi utter his message of hatred. What is it to me or to any man who fears god? The Rabbi disturbs only his own peace not mine. He gives me an opportunity to practise my virtue so I am thankful to him.
My own evil is enough for me!
By the way, when I say ‘God,’ make sure you all don’t start imagining a bearded old man above the clouds!
What if one does not fear god? I posted that question earlier on and got awnsers with virtue is its own reward but that leaves a hole with justice. We can never say for certain that god exists yet we value justice. This is the argument for athiesm in the other post. Being that we are uncertain of gods existence we must take justice into our own hands and not wait around for god. For look I say to you what if there is no god where then is justice to be found with men such as Hitler? Hatred has its place & time, we cannot simply be afraid of god and wait for him to do everything, that was exactly what my athiesm post was about. Surly you value justice? And this is precisly why the notion that there may not be a god is so important.
And what is wrong with being disturbed? The Holocost I’m sorry to say is very disturbing to me much more so then when my own personal peace is distrubed through hatred when a man wishes to bring about genocide.
And it is not the Rabbi that exhorts you to but the Old Testiment that does.
You say you are not your brothers keeper. You remind me of true accounts that happened durring the russian pogroms. Deeply religious jews stood by and did absolutly nothing while their mothers and sisters were raped. Hatred runs through my viens as I think of such accounts. This is what you say to me fear gods justice and fear not man well I say like the Rabbi poppycock. I will not stand by and love/tolerate a person invading my house and raping my loved ones, killing my family or other such monstrosities. I adhere to the fact that there is a time for hatred and its from a rational perspective.
Exactly and there is nothing to say that they are wrong without absolute morality. Hitler was not disturbed by the murder of six million jews in his mind it was for the greater good. Humanity therefore needs an absolute morality something that says you shouldn’t murder/steal ect. because it is intrinsically wrong.
First I don’t know how you can say its perfect. Second if you do then you must understand hatred to be a part of that creation so why reject it?
TheUndergroundMan
That’s fine, no problem!
I’m quite happy for you to decide for yourself about these matters.
I want for you only to think and act exactly as you do.
It’s not up to me to try and change you in any way.
I have power only over myself.
I have no power over any other man’s moral purpose - not even god himself has power over a man’s freedom of choice!
Would it really hurt to just love? If people wernt so selfish i think it would work, but many would take advantage of other peoples love.
I think murder and stealing are intrinsically ok. Man will do anything to survive. He will kill and steal if he needs, or wants to.
Killing and murder are two completly different things.
I understand the Rabbi, and I am no Angel who is incapable of hating. I consequently ask myself whether the call to love one’s enemies is realistic. When I then observe what the Scriptures say about God, I discover that He is said to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Christ doesn’t call upon us to “like” the enemy (in his case the Roman occupiers) but to love - Paul says that such loving is like heaping hot coals upon the head of people who are dealing derogatorily with believers.
It seems that love isn’t always just the antonym to hate, it is an active advancement of someone, benefiting, furthering them - perhaps even against their will. Remember, Religion is the basis for ethics.
Christ said that those who had been slapped should hold the other cheek in, requiring a blow with the back of the hand or knuckles. Such a blow wasn’t allowed in the Roman Army - except in war - and especially not during Occupation, whereas a slap was. In the Orient it was regarded as outright violence to hit someone with the back of the hand and frowned upon. Therefore provoking the fist made the general injustice very clear and gave the underdog a certain dignity back.
I think that a lot of garbage has been passed as Christianity - mostly out of ignorance. It isn’t black and white - but there are enough people, either pro or contra, who like to argue as if it were all that simple. I feel very often that it is an insult to my intelligence when I am confronted with such naive arguments, but then again, if Christians themselves argue this way, it is no wonder that atheists, Agnostics and the rest hold these arguments to our face.
Shalom
Bob
please explain. I always thought you had to kill someone inorder for it to be a murder. They are not completly diffrent things.
Sure I’ll explain. For example when you kill a cow or other animal for food are you murdering the cow or killing it? Let me put from a religious perspective. The Torah commands you not to murder, not not to kill. For example your required according to the Torah to protect your own life. Killing someone who threatens your life, for example an enemy in war, is not murder but quite the opposite it is you protecting your own life by “killing” someone else. In contrast to willfully take someone elses life for any reason other then self persevasion is murder.
The following from the Dictionary.com:
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Kill:
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life
Notice the key diffrence “The unlawful”. So from a religious persepctive there are lawful times in which one may kill and in which one may not. Note the Old Testiment forbids murder not killing and it is a very big distinction.
Also according the dictionary murder only applies to “killing of one human by another” as to whether you agree with that or not is a diffrent disscusion however as the words are used and thought of today that is how they are applied.
And to finish off on what you said INoNothing:
This is not forbidden in a religous persepctive except that you have your terms mixed up as I pointed out Murder and killing are very diffrent and if you simply change the words to make it sound like this “I think killing and stealing are intinsically ok. Man will do anything to survive. He will kill and steal if he needs, or wants to.” I have nothing against that and niether does religion in fact it would command you to steal if its because your starving. You can’t sperate the act from the circumstances. I only have a problem with the word murder that you use and the end of your statment “if he wants to”, that I do not adhere to.
Bob said:
And went on to say:
Might I ask for you to kindly share with me how such acts are out of love and further the advancement of someone & benefit them? Perhaps my views of the Spanish Inquisition are totaly mistaken I had missed all the benefits and active advancment of the age and was totaly blind to that great love that must of been so vivdly present throughout.
Do you truthfully hold the notion that “heaping hot coals upon the head of people who are dealing derogatorily with believers.” is an act of love? Put faith aside for a moment and seriously awnser my question, disscuss paul not as if what he says is divine but just as a human being. Does what he say according to what you quoted really make sense to you?
Your reaction is what happens when one takes a metaphor and interpretes it literally - which is especially troubling when I write implicitely “is like”. I did try to make clear that benefiting or furthering someone who regards themselves as our adversary or who try to antagonise us becomes troubling for them - which is the metaphor that Paul is using.
This strategy has been successful throughout history - mostly not for the victims but for the people who lived after them. It is when the public are completely outraged at atrocities done to people who are regarded morally inculpable that such violence is no longer deemed presentable and is forced to cease. (One reason why there is a censorship of pictures of the war in Iraq, so that public opinion doesn’t go against the administration)
Unfortunately you have turned the whole thing around and instead of compassionate or exemplary behaviour causing unrest with the assailant, you see acts of torture being interpreted as love. That is quite typical for people who’s prime goal is not to understand but to criticise at all costs. It is also the method that the Inquisition used to silence supposed “heretics” - who’s prime fault was to question the authority of the church.
The Inquisition was always about power, never about the Religion of Christ and his followers. The expressions of detestation and aversion towards people who follow the compassion of Christ are also about power, and always have been. They are signs of extruded guilt and projection of fear - they are particularly hostile towards Christ’s: “these things I have spoken to you, that in me ye may have peace - in the world ye shall have tribulation, but take courage—I have overcome the world.”
Shalom
Bob
Fine so there is a slim diffrence to murder and killing. let me reword this.
I think murder and stealing are intrinsically ok. Man will do anything to survive. He will murder and steal if he needs, or wants to.[/u]
Yes Bob my mistake your absolutly right. I missed the metaphor thank you for correcting me. And my prime goal is understanding not critisism, critisism only brings me closer to understanding if one can show its invalidity to me as I believe you just have.
Sometimes when one is growing up and looks at things through a certain set of glasses they tend to see what they want not what actualy is and I’m not ashamed to admit that I am totally guilty.
Which is why dialogue is so important, we arn’t able to see everything in the right light and I hope to be as clear about things as possible.
What you’ve givin me is an entirly different paradigm to look at and I thank you.
As for me, murder and stealing are never ever o.k. intrinsically, extrinsically, or any other way. But that’s just for me and I would never dream of moralising and telling others what’s o.k. for them. I can mention something to another but that other has then to choose for himself.
I almost agree with you when you say man will do anything to survive, I’d phrase it thus: many men will do anything to survive.
But your final statement is perfectly logical, correct, flawless in it’s reasoning, truthful, self-evident, i.e., man will murder and steal if he needs, or wants to.
Look at Euripides play, Medea. She, (Medea,) murders her own children simply because she wants to get at their father and hurt him as much as possible. And you can find similar stories, all the time, in any newspaper or magazine!
But for justices sake should moral laws and codes be imposed upon mankind?
Moral laws and codes should be imposed upon mankind to protect the weak and our own loved ones, not just for “justices sake” - although it would be reason enough. They are a set of rules that ensure that a society has and protects certain values, which have been deemed important.
Shalom
Bob