The Bible lists some things that God hates, and none of them is a person or people. God hates, according to Proverbs 6:17-19, a proud look, a lying tongue, murderous hands, a wicked heart, mischievous feet, a false witness, and a divisive spirit. In other words, God hates evil actions and behaviors. He does not hate people.
God hates sin, but He does not hate sinners. If He did, then He would hate us all, since, as the Bible teaches, all people have sinned. The Bible is explicit that God loves everyone in the world, and that doctrine is the basis for so many important Bible precepts. God loved the world so much that He sent His Son to earth to procure atonement for us. Jesus loved people so much that He gave up His life to save us, even while we were in rebellion against Him. God expects us to love other people, since He loved us and to prove that we love Him.
Love is a major theme, if not the primary theme, of the Bible. It is the greatest virtue. It is part of the two Great Commands: love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Not only are Christians forbidden to hate other people, but the Bible, particularly in I John, indicates that if we hate others we are lying to ourselves and others about following God at all. I John 4:7-8 says, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love comes from God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
If you hear a Christian saying that God hates anyone, that person is mistaken at best and an enemy of God at worst. If you hear a Christian saying that he or she hates somebody, that person is also either very badly mistaken or maybe even completely reprobate. It is likely that the person is not a Christian at all, or at least has no right to claim the title.
To love in the Bible is to want the very best for another person. It is to wish only God’s blessings upon them and to hope ultimately that they become a child of God, if they are not already one. It is to be willing to put their needs before one’s own and to serve and help them in whatever way is needed.
Biblical love does not preclude scolding or reproving. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that parents, government authorities, and church leaders have the authority to discipline people and to enforce consequences as needed. In fact the Bible indicates that God chastises the ones that He loves, just as a Father does.
Biblical love does not preclude upholding the truth. If people state that certain behaviors are sins, according to the Bible, that is not an expression of hatred toward other people. In fact, the very ones who uphold the truth on sin are sinners themselves. They are not speaking from a vantage pont of superiority but of identification. Who better to warn others of sin and its consequences than people who have been caught in its trap themselves?
Finally, Biblical love does not preclude political activism, at least in my opinion. I am first and foremost a follower of Jesus and a citizen of God’s kingdom. However, I am also a citizen of the United States of America, and as such I have the same rights as anyone else. Not only is it my right to try to shape the course of our country, but it is my duty to particiapte in the political process. Loving people does not mean that I must deny my religious or political views in order to make other people happy–anymore than they must deny their religious or political views to make me happy.
That’s the difference between me and some other people that I debate with. I don’t consider people to be hating me when they oppose me politically or when they disagree with me on religious or spiritual matters. I don’t really see that it has anything to do with either love or hate. It has to do with trying to help set policies under which we will live. And everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion on which policies are best.
In fact I am worried about portraying the people on one side of any debate “haters.” Logically speaking, both must hate, since they both oppose each other. Each side has its goals and desires, and neither side should be compelled to yield in the name of love or be threatened into it by being called haters. It is bringing the level of public discourse and debate way down to call people bigots and haters because they have a different opinion from you. May the practice cease!
16 responses so far ↓
spunkylady // July 7, 2009 at 1:56 am |
AMEN!
jesurgislac // July 7, 2009 at 4:27 am |
Loving people does not mean that I must deny my religious or political views in order to make other people happy–anymore than they must deny their religious or political views to make me happy.
Your right to exercise your religion ends at the point where another person’s legal equality begins. As a Christian, you might believe that “Jews are Christ-killers”: but nonetheless, Christians are no longer allowed to refuse Jews the right to buy or rent property where they please. As a Christian, you might believe that “The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion” – but nonetheless, you are required to recognize interracial marriages as legally valid. As a Christian, you might believe that two men loving each other and having children together is a sin – but nonetheless, as a practical matter of fact, you either dismiss some children as mere inhuman “problems” or you accept that some children have two daddies and some have two mommies… and whether or not legislation requires you to treat all families with equal measure, your religion certainly does.
But bigots always find a way round that…
Spherical Time // July 7, 2009 at 11:13 am |
You claim that you don’t hate me.
Yet I feel hated.
Odd. I guess it must be true just because you say it and I should ignore my own experience of the matter. I’m sure that no one has ever simply said something false because they don’t like to think of the consequences of their actions.
nick // July 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
I don’t fully understand the first post(as with lots of other things), but I have a few things in response to it. Was there a time that ‘Christians’ weren’t allowed to sell/trade with Jews? Because if that is true, it seems quite contradictory to Jesus’ message of forgiveness(Matthew 18:21-35) but, I agree with your last statement, bigots do seem to find a way around :/
Also, the Bible not only says to love others as you love yourself, but also to submit to the ruling authorities(Romans 13:1-7), which do require citizens of the US to treat everyone equally(14th Amendment) under the law.
As far as two fathers/mothers of one child, I see nothing wrong with believing it is a sin, as far as marriage goes. Humans sin all the time, it is the action you take as a result of that sin that matters, in my opinion. I personally do not see anything wrong with two males/femals adopting a child, but I do not think it is possible for two men to have a child together, that is both of theirs, genetically. But I am not an expert, or even a novice at such matters.
I think you are being sarcastic, Spherical Time. (I like the name by the way.) And the Bible does not ever say that God hates humans, and it quite often says that He does in fact love them very much. I like Isaiah 54:10 personally, but there are many others that you could probably find by searching for them(as Jeremiah 29:12-13 says).
But, I agree with you(sort of). People do often say dishonest things without thinking of what might happen. Truth be told, I do not often think of what could happen by my words before I speak, especially with my family :/. Lastly, I do not think he(neither the writer nor God) hates you. The writer has no reason to hate you, and God has chosen not to, because you are His child.
I am sorry about the experience(s) you have had with people hating you, it is not right, it is not what humans are supposed to do.
Scott Erb // July 7, 2009 at 9:59 pm |
Well, when they burned witches at Salem they claimed it was out of love. That’s why I tend to avoid the word “hate” and focus on actions. Actions unfair and demeaning to gays are ethically wrong, even if not motivated by hatred. I find opposition to gay marriage to be immoral and contrary to what I hold as fundamental human rights.
I understand your point, and I also understand how a lack of empathy as to how what it is like to be the victim of injustice can be seen by others as hate. But I’ll not accuse you of hate, I don’t think you hate. I’ll instead argue that I believe the position you hold is immoral.
renaissanceguy // July 8, 2009 at 12:02 am |
Scott, thanks for brining up Salem. Saying that people should not change the definition of marraige is a far cry from advocating that they be burned at the stake.
One problem with this discussion is that people who favor changing the definition of marriage throw in the terms rights, immoral, and injustice–in addition to hate. By inserting those loaded terms they try to reorient the discussion in a way that they cannot lose.
Since I don’t want to be immoral or to favor injustice or to deny people rights, I am supposed to give up what my reason and my faith tradition tell me is correct and true.
However, I have never seen anybody prove that my position is unjust or that it denies people their rights or that it is immoral. Could you offer proof that it is any of those things–other than saying that it prevents certain people from getting what they want?
Spherical Time // July 8, 2009 at 9:11 am |
RG: Scott, thanks for brining up Salem. Saying that people should not change the definition of marraige is a far cry from advocating that they be burned at the stake.
No one is suggesting that voting against gay marriage is similar to burning people at the stake. However, Scott is saying that both you and the people of Salem claimed to be motivated out of love. “We love you, and this is for your own good.”
RG: Could you offer proof that it is any of those things–other than saying that it prevents certain people from getting what they want?
Nope. We can’t offer anything that you’d accept for two reasons.
1. Your sense of justice is limited to things that you already agree with. So even if I were to point out that there are gay women and men with children who need the protection of marriage to protect themselves if something horrible happens, you dismiss that. You dismiss the fact that it treats me differently than you and still wonder why we call it unequal and unjust.
2. You have no ability to empathize with other people. Which is why I think that the government should forcibly divorce you similar to the way that the people who voted for prop 8 tried to divorce thousands of gay people. Perhaps if it were to actually happen to you and you were to lose the legal rights you have as a married person you might understand why we press for marriage instead of a separate, unequal, substitute.
Just imagine that if you died and your wife was forced to pay inheritance tax on your house. Or if she died and your children were taken away from you because their custodian parent had died.
But you can’t.
Your god tells you that marriage is one man and one woman, so you decide that the legal definition can’t change. You vote against us. It doesn’t matter that this removes legal protections from gay families.
Jesurgislac // July 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
Since I don’t want to be immoral or to favor injustice or to deny people rights, I am supposed to give up what my reason and my faith tradition tell me is correct and true.
Don’t you think there’s something fundamentally wrong with your asserting that the faith tradition of Christianity requires you to be unjust towards a minority group and deny them the same legal rights as a majority? You may claim that your advocating injustice and discrimination is all done with “love”, but I think we’ve established that your idea of “love” is really not what anyone else would call love…
However, I have never seen anybody prove that my position is unjust or that it denies people their rights or that it is immoral.
I don’t see how anyone could prove to a homophobic bigot that it’s unjust to deny LGBT people and their children the same rights as heterosexuals and their children receive. I mean, you have to admit: the definition of bigot is someone who thinks the group against whom they are bigoted, deserves unequal and unjust treatment.
Fairly obviously (as Spherical Time has outlined) your position does deny LGBT people, and their children, their rights under the law. But if you have already got it fixed in your head that those rights are only for heterosexual people, then this argument will never sink into the glassy surface of your brain.
other than saying that it prevents certain people from getting what they want?
Your concept that marriage is wrong when it’s “just what people want” does lead again to the unfortunate picture of your proposing to your wife with “I don’t actually want to marry you, and I don’t love you, but I believe we’re interfertile, and we could produce children, so why not?”
Scott Erb // July 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
If I consider a position to be immoral, is it wrong to state so? After all, can’t someone who opposes abortion argue that they believe the pro-choice position immoral? If they do, are they using loaded terms in the way you describe?
Note I said I believe your position on this to be immoral. People disagree on moral issues all the time, since there is no way to prove morality — philosophers have been trying to do so for 2500 years and have been unable. So all anyone can do is state their rationale for making a moral choice, and see if others agree or disagree.
I believe that homosexuality is natural to many humans, and while I don’t know what it is like to feel attracted to someone of my sex, I trust that others do feel a natural sexual attraction and want a loving relationship with someone of the same sex. Moreover, I believe that the state should not discriminate against them and treat them as second class citizens for being a minority born with attraction to the same sex. To me, a gay marriage is just as natural and legitimate as a straight marriage, and not treating it as such is akin to not allowing interracial marriage. Moreover, marriage is recognized by the state as a form of contract, not a religious institution. Therefore state–sanctioned marriage should treat all equally, and not discriminate against same sex couples. I further believe that the state should not force religions to recognize or sanctify such marriages. Religions can define marriage as they wish, there is separation of church and state.
renaissanceguy // July 8, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
Spherical Time:
“So even if I were to point out that there are gay women and men with children who need the protection of marriage to protect themselves if something horrible happens, you dismiss that. ”
You are assuming that it is acceptable for people to put children in that position in the first place. I do not believe that it is. In such a situation, I would favor laws to protect the children’s interests, certainly.
“You dismiss the fact that it treats me differently than you and still wonder why we call it unequal and unjust.”
It does not treat you differently at all. Every qualified person may marry a person of the opposite sex. No person may “marry” a person of the same sex. That is equal treatment.
And that has been my point all along. You are not demanding a right that everyone else has.
You are demanding a special privilege that nobody else has. Until recently nobody in America (or anywhere tha tI know of) had the legal privilege of registering a marriage with a person of the same sex.
“Perhaps if it were to actually happen to you and you were to lose the legal rights you have as a married person you might understand why we press for marriage instead of a separate, unequal, substitute.”
But you are not pressing for marriage. You are pressing for calling something that is not marriage, marriage.
Two of my children are the offspring of my wife and me. One was adopted as an orphan. The state has a vested interest in knowing who their parents are and in encouraging a long-term relationship between their parents. That is the reason that the state sanctions and registers marriages–not so that homosexual people can feel “equal” to heterosexual people.
“Your god tells you that marriage is one man and one woman, so you decide that the legal definition can’t change.”
It is much more complicated than that. It’s true that my religious conviction is that marriage was created as a union of a man and a woman. It is also true that there are secular reasons to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and that is to help provide stability to society. I believe from my experience that children want and need a mother and a father to be committed and loving toward each other in order to feel secure and in order to develop uptimally.
Pretending that either a mother or a father are optional does not strike me as a good way to build a stable, healthy society, regardless of what my regliious beliefs are.
renaissanceguy // July 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
“Don’t you think there’s something fundamentally wrong with your asserting that the faith tradition of Christianity requires you to be unjust towards a minority group and deny them the same legal rights as a majority?”
I asserted no such thing. I asserted that Scott and others use loaded words in order to persuade people to change their minds instead of laying out their case logically. Anyone can say that his opponent advocates an unjust position.
“I don’t see how anyone could prove to a homophobic bigot that it’s unjust to deny LGBT people and their children the same rights as heterosexuals and their children receive.”
By explaining how same-sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, is a right. The theory of rights that the Founding Fathers of the United States would not have included marriage, and certainly would not have included same-sex marriage.
By showing that, despite biologically obvious facts, chldren are just as happy and healthy without knowing their real parents as they are being raised by a father and a mother who love each other and whom the state has an interest in keeping together.
“But if you have already got it fixed in your head that those rights are only for heterosexual people, then this argument will never sink into the glassy surface of your brain.”
I am not convinced that marriage is a right. I’m quite sure that it isn’t. It is not for “heterosexual people,” except by default, since it involves a man and a woman.
“Your concept that marriage is wrong when it’s “just what people want”. . .”
What I referred to people wanting is to change the definition of marriage. Some people want to apply the category marraige to relationships that are not marriage. They should not get to do so simply because they say that they want to.
Biology and thousands of years of tradition tell us what marriage is. I trust that a whole lot more than the desire of any given individual or small group.
jesurgislac // July 9, 2009 at 6:33 am |
You are assuming that it is acceptable for people to put children in that position in the first place. I do not believe that it is. In such a situation, I would favor laws to protect the children’s interests, certainly.
Yet somehow, whenever this comes up, you absolutely oppose laws to protect the children of same-sex couples – because you believe it’s “unacceptable” that they should have been born in the first place. How do you manage to hold these self-contradictory positions? Oh, that’s right… bigotry.
Every qualified person may marry a person of the opposite sex. No person may “marry” a person of the same sex. That is equal treatment.
Just as, prior to Loving vs. Virginia, it was “equal treatment” for any black person to be able to marry another black person, and any white person to be able to marry another white person, and this was… equal treatment? I guess going to a Southern college educated you into believing the “separate but equal” myth…
But you are not pressing for marriage. You are pressing for calling something that is not marriage, marriage.
Except in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the state governments of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. So, um, what are you trying to claim – your own personal bigotry rises above the law?
By explaining how same-sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, is a right.
The Supreme Court of the United States already explained that to people like you in 1967: that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man” a “fundamental freedom”, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness – which is itself an inalienable right according to the US Declaration of Independent. The court ruled that opposing the freedom to marry or to not marry is “surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” and that an individual’s freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Your idea is that an individual’s freedom to marry does reside with the State, must in fact be infringed by the State, because contrary to fact and reason, you believe t hat only a man and a woman ought to be allowed to marry: that if George Takei and Brad Altman wanted to marry, they ought to have ditched each other and each found a random woman to marry, rather than staying together in a lifelong committment of love, friendship, mutual care and mutual responsibility – which you dismiss as irrelevant and unimportant, since they’re not actually interfertile…
By showing that, despite biologically obvious facts, chldren are just as happy and healthy without knowing their real parents as they are being raised by a father and a mother who love each other and whom the state has an interest in keeping together.
If you had any interest in the welfare of the children of same-sex couples at all, RG, you could already have acquainted yourself with the dozens of studies done over the past decades which show that children raised by same-sex couples are, if anything, likely to be happier and healthier than the children of mixed-sex couples (this statistical anomaly seems to arise from the fact that same-sex couples never have children by accident, are much more likely to decide to have children when in a stable and loving relationship, and usually have delayed starting their family until they are financially stable). But as you prefer just to believe that it’s unacceptable for these children to have been born, it’s unsurprising that you don’t know that already. No scientific study has ever discovered any difference detrimental to the welfare of children who are parented by same-sex couples.
It’s true that my religious conviction is that marriage was created as a union of a man and a woman.
In short: you believe that God hates gay people. *shrug*
Spherical Time // July 9, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
RG: You are assuming that it is acceptable for people to put children in that position in the first place. I do not believe that it is. In such a situation, I would favor laws to protect the children’s interests, certainly.
There are already children in gay families. Gay people already have children, regardless of what you think of the matter and they love them and care for them. So, if you favor laws to protect the interests of the children, then why do you vote against them?
It doesn’t matter that you disagree with gay parents raising children! All that matters is that there are gay parents out there, and their children need the protection of their marriages! And you vote against them! [NOTE: RG tried to fix the link that was here and messed it up. I may not be a homophobe, but sometimes I seem like a technophobe.]
RG: It does not treat you differently at all. Every qualified person may marry a person of the opposite sex. No person may “marry” a person of the same sex. That is equal treatment.
Actually, that’s gender discrimination. You are basing legal protections on the gender of the people seeking that protection. You’ll notice that not even straight people can marry someone of the same sex. It doesn’t matter that they wouldn’t want to: they can’t do it.
So, you’re forbidding us from doing something that you don’t have an interest in. Really, what a kind move. That’s why you’ve inspired me to vote to forcibly divorce you and terminate your parental rights. You’ve convinced me that since I don’t ever want a straight marriage, you shouldn’t be allowed to get one either.
What you want certainly is not “equal treatment” between gays and heterosexuals.
RG: I believe from my experience that children want and need a mother and a father to be committed and loving toward each other in order to feel secure and in order to develop uptimally.
THEN WHY DO YOU ALLOW DIVORCE! It’s hypocrisy! Christianity teaches that divorce is immoral and sinful and goes against the definition Christ himself gave for marriage!
But it’s allowed! It’s legal.
And in the mean time, gay familes are broken apart and discriminated against because you can’t see past your religious views.
jesurgislac // July 9, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
To expand on the last:
You believe (or so you say) that God looks at George Takei and Brad Altman, together now for 20 years, and you think God’s reaction is “Those two men ought not to be allowed to pledge their love, trust, fidelity and friendship to each other until death! They mustn’t be allowed to call each other ‘husband’! They mustn’t be allowed the same legal rights as any other married couple!”
“Love” doesn’t cause that kind of reaction to a happily married couple. Hatred does. If you believe God does not want Brad and George to be married,you believe in a God who hates gay people and wants them to be unhappy.
So, kindly edit your post to say so: including the lying title, thanks.
We “love” you: we just don’t want you in the pool with us! « Jesurgislac’s Journal // July 9, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
[...] prejudice – we aren’t sharing our facilities with you – remind me of? Why, the changing the definition of marriage argument: the don’t let same-sex couples get married elsewhere and think they can be [...]
Scott Erb // July 9, 2009 at 10:17 pm |
Actually, changing the definition of marriage is a false argument. The definition of marriage is under constant change and flux — hence the high divorce rates common in the US. Marriage is NOT what it was 20 or especially 50 years ago. Moreover, legal definitions of marriage are irrelevant to religious definitions. Legal definitions should respect the fact that no group should impose its moral whims on minorities. But religious groups should be allowed to have their own moral stances on an issue like this, and refuse to sanction gay marriage if they wish. It’s really not hard: side with those who don’t want to force others to act according to their own moral views. Allowing gays to marry does NO HARM to Christian conservatives. They are not hurt, they are not forced to do anything differently, they simply have to accept that others have views and behaviors different than their own. Not allowing gay marriage does use the state to initiate force to prevent people from living freely, thus not allowing gay marriage does real harm to others.
One can oppose gay marriage in principle and still respect the idea that it should be legally allowed.