Love Vs Hate

Romans 1:18 - 32 is about those who chronically look to the VISIBLE attributes of the created order instead of to God’s INVISBLE attributes (which have no sex/gender & sexuality) to do sexual ethics, & justice in general. 

At its heart, love looks to God’s image alone & then does worship & sexual ethics (all ethics) accordingly.    Matthew 22 reminds us that the first table of the Law is summarized as “Love God, first.  Do so exhaustively & perfectly. The second table is about loving others exhaustively & perfectly before yourself & after God.”  This sort of love fulfills the Law (Romans 13) & conquers guilt related fear in the Judgment.


Hate parodies love.   Hate looks not to God’s image & authority but to images drawn from the created order.   Hate is a failure to love God exhaustively & perfectly & others before yourself and a persistence in this attitude toward God & others that becomes increasingly recalcitrant, unteachable, & impervious (but not immune) to sound correction.   Over time, hate destroys individuals, ecclesiastical institutions, civil governments, & whole societies.  


Haters look to themselves & their own image first, then to any number of sources of truth other than God’s image & authority.  Over time, it can become institutionalized. 


Why is there a perpetual state of war between a great many Christians & the LGBTQ community?  Because for several generations, people have been taught to look to their bodies and/or psyche in order to do sexual ethics.  It isn’t unusual for homosexuals to appeal to their biogenetics &/or psychology in order to underwrite their sexual ethics.   Christians who follow after the traditional view are reasoning the same way & coming to a different conclusion.  

 

Men in churches & society have been doing it for centuries too.   Women are told that they are unfit for office because of their sex/gender not because of their morals.   According to John Gill, Adam sinned the greater, but the Serpent was on to something because, after all, leadership is something for which just plain aren’t cut out to do.   


How does gluttony work in the modern world?  Robert Reich is right when he points out that modern day gluttons are accustomed to not having to look at the poor.   The uber-rich might avoid driving through the sadder parts of Las Vegas.    While Americans debate health care freedom & mask usage, they remain (self-reinforcingly) ignorant about what the flu & pneumonia do in sub-Saharan Africa on an annual basis.  


White Supremacy is built on the foundation of looking to the human image and a quasi-romanticized view of history that runs through the White Man’s Burden narrative.   They look to their own image & culture and the result is a racial narrative that scapegoats Jews, LGBTQ people, principled religious dissenters, non-white &/or non-Aryan people for all their problems.  


God’s essence is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable.   Therefore God’s love is complete, not just exhaustive & meticulous.   God does not grow.


Hate entails an absence of love.  Therefore hate is incomplete.  Whereas God says He will not contend with us forever (Genesis 6:3 & Isaiah 57:16) & that His wrath can be satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), people who hate deeply are people whose lust for destruction cannot be truly satisfied.  Why else is Satan depicted as the perpetual accuser of God & God’s people (Rev. 12:10)? 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

  Paul is following the basic outline of a suzerain covenant in general     & the outline of Lev. 18 in particular.   Shema & Decalogue (Rom. 1:18 - 20)   God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.    God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to his Law & Gospel.    This corresponds to Lev. 18 : 1 & 2. A - Rom.    1:18 - 19.  God’s wrath falls on those who suppress His image.   B - Rom 1:20  - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made so that people are without excuse.  What is the teleological intent of the created order?    To serve as an epistemic warrant on par with God Himself? No!  It’s purpose is to serve as a pointer to God who is Himself the only sufficient epistemic warrant for all faith & practice....
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more