How true, but I wish they would get some commonsense things done.
2 Likes
It seems like you are missing the point. I am not blaming you for missing the point. I love you and I forgive you but you are still missing the point. Isnât that a more human attitude to take then this is your fault you are stupid and I hate you and I canât forgive you. I know it is not easy for some one to think like this but the way the world is going it seems like the only sustainable way forward.
It is one thing not to vote for someone because you hate something they do. It is when that hate grows into hating them and everything they stand for and encouraging others to hate, there is a problem. When the other side hates you then the problem doubles. Then violence breaks out. Isnât this what we see happening in the world today. It can all be changed if we love the person but hate the sin/ their hateful action.
Sorry @Elza1 but I have to make an attempt at scripture again and I hope you donât hate me but first we have to remove the plank from our own eyes before we can see to remove the speck from our brothers. Sorry donât know the verse.
1 Like
I agree with this. But my understanding of the word âhateâ is a lot stronger than most people. Hate is more than a dislike of something, itâs a strong, active animosity that demands action in order to remove the object of that hatred. Itâs a dangerous thing. Thatâs why politicians stir it up, because they can use it to control us.
But any time weâre encouraged to hate and de-humanize others, weâre in a dangerous place. Donât stay around people who encourage hatred, they do not have your best interests at heart.
3 Likes
If you misapply forgiveness to an extreme, you have someone insisting you must forgive during, or even before an assault, but critically, that eliminates standing against the offense and opposing it, which is also our duty.
Forgiveness is not without conditions, acknowledging and confessing are conditions. Love does not stand idly by while harm is done, that would be a gross dereliction of love.
While we are indeed called to love the offender, we are ALSO called to oppose the offense, however devoid of hate for the offender we may, and should, be.
In short, love does not accept harmful acts, and does not stand idly by, and forgiveness while free and freely given, is not without some conditions.
If it is a Queston of faith, then note that we are to forgive AS WE ARE FORGIVEN, and our received forgiveness has the preconditions of acknowledgement and confession.
The lie in calling everything hate speech, is that opposing a wrong does NOT require hate of a person, therefore speech about the wrong being wrong is not automatically hateful, thatâs the lie, a lie intended simply to quell opposition or questioning of a behavior.
9 Likes
I do it mathematically. The hating of hate. Since of means multiply and hate is negative then a negative times a negative equals a positive.
So, if I disagree with you its hate, if I think somebody should be held accountable for their actions, its hate. As for removing the plank in my own eye first-- there has to be a plank. I take responsibility for my own actions. And I know the verse quite well⊠nextâ
4 Likes
Well said. I will add, however, one can forgive somebody while they are beating him, but, they can still stop the beating. They have nothing to do with one another (necessarily).
4 Likes
AMEN! You preach it Brother!!!
2 Likes
I agree with you one hundred percent. Maybe I am being paranoid. Something triggered me and now I have to figure out what it is. Sorry if I caused ill feelings.
1 Like
To hate hate is, I believe, a nonsensical proposition because it requires the very thing it opposes. Hate, contrary to popular opinion, is not in itself, a thing worthy of its own. Hate wrongly applied, wrongly acted upon, or wrongly embraced is what should be hated, and that is not hate of hate, that is hate of wrong.
According to my math, hate x hate is like 0 x 0, you still end up with the exact same value you started with, which is 0, hate x hate is still ⊠hate. yes, I am actually saying hate, itself, is not wrong, nor is it unfaithful, hate is also not always a negative thing, as even your argument itself suggests. If hate of a bad thing leads to its elimination or the diminishing of that bad thing, then It is how hate is applied that makes it wrong or right, good or bad, and again, that is supported by your mathematical conclusions where even your math concludes that hate can have a positive value IF applied correctly.
So, believe it or not, I do say this respectfully, but I disagree with your underlying premise, ( that being that hate is bad and should be hated in and of itself ), for the reasons so listed.
3 Likes
Makes sense. I hate liver doesnât mean hate is negative. If I say hate of another person is negative and hate for that hate is not negative. So one has a negative and a positive which is a negative. I want to be positive so it doesnât work. Thanks for that. If I can press you a little further. How can we convince people that believe guns are for taking lives instead of saving lives by stopping the people from taking them?
Your circular reasoning, logical fallacies, and psychological projection have made it impossible.
4 Likes
I just hope nobody was offended. Thanks
By being clear and honest about the fact that guns are like disinfectants, or any other powerful tool of defending ourselves, we wish we would never need such things, but the facts of life simply dictate otherwise.
Though I can reasonably understand your question and why you would ask it that way, the way you pose it has the effect of blending differing things together. Doing so is a large part of why the issue is so wrongly understood.
Your question blends what guns do, with what guns are âforâ, and what guns are for, as well as why we would need them for that, are not at all the same things. Confusing things that way, and then building on it, is how the issue gets so misrepresented by those who deliberately wish to do so.
Guns and disinfectants never save the life of the thing they are directly applied too, yet both are used to preserve life that should not be lost, or provide sustenance for life, through their ability to meet a necessity we so often wish we would never have. The question does not rightly rest on what the gun, or a disinfectant does, but rather, if and when they should be used, and who should have that right.
Our constitution speaks to both.
5 Likes
Is this how political violence starts?
5 Likes
To which violence do you refer sir? Real, or perceived? 
5 Likes
I just hope that the Left can be held fully accountable if and when the SHTF. Itâs long overdue, after the plethora of outrageous actions of the Left.
Have patience and keep your powder dry, folks.
9 Likes
Who is responsible for political violence?
Very simple answer.
Whoever is commiting it. 
6 Likes