Disagreement does not equal hatred

wrestlingHow often, in a discussion, have you heard of a person being accused hating this or that group because they have disagreed with some aspect of what they say, do or consent to?

Who hasn’t  been accused of hating many different people because they argued against their lifestyle or theology?

It is an invalid argument which is used to discredit a person for something which isn’t necessarily true.

Disagreement does not equal hatred.

We may disagree on a number of issues; politics, theology, sport, ethics, but does this mean we hate one another? No. It means we have contrary opinions on some issues, but it doesn’t mean I hate you, or you hate me.

I may hate the way you do some things, but that doesn’t mean I hate you.

Hate evil
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, yet I am told I cannot hate people, whether friend or foe. So here we have two instructions from scripture. One to hate evil. The other to love all people. So can I love people and hate the evil they may be engaged in? Of course. This must be possible.

How is it possible to have Christ, and hate people? How is it possible to be led by the Holy Spirit, who is Love, and hate people? How is it possible to have the fruit of the Spirit and hate people?

Hatred is of the flesh. If we hate we need to repent.

But, equally, we are called to preach the gospel in season and out, so we have to tell the truth as it is without compromise or contradiction.

Jesus told the truth
Did Jesus hate people because He preached the sermon on the Mount? Of course not, and yet it is one of the hardest lessons to live up to, and a set of values many of us would struggle with if we did not have the Spirit of Christ to lead us. Jesus preached these standards because he loved them enough to tell the truth.

Did Jesus hate the people who crucified Him? No, He asked the Father to forgive them because they didn’t know what they were doing, which was evil, and sin.

He loved them but did not condone their sin. For instance, the woman caught in adultery was not told by Jesus to continue in her sin, even when He said He did not accuse her. He told her to go and sin no more.

This was both a release and a rebuke, done in love, but it never ignored or permitted her sin. Rather, He forgave her sin, but made it clear it was unacceptable to continue in it.

He loved the person but hated evil.

You can love and disagree at the same time
I may disagree with your politics, or your theology, or your sexuality, but does this mean I hate you? No. That is a preposterous suggestion.

It is perfectly possible to love a person and disagree with them on a number of levels.

Haven’t you ever had friends you would die for who did things you would never agree with? Do all siblings stop loving one another because they disagree with a decision one might make? It may happen of course, but generally, as they say, blood is thicker than water and we maintain our love for each other even through the strongest of disagreements.

Is there a married person reading who has never disagreed with their spouse? Do you still love him or her, or did that disagreement mean you now hate each other? I hope not!

No, we have a covenant and a bond of love sealed with vows of eternal significance.

Warning is not hating
Another aspect of this, from a Biblical perspective, is how far you go in warning a person, who is on a certain course, of the risks or dangers if you observe that they have not considered the consequences. Do you love that person by warning them, or do you hate them?

In scripture we are told to ‘warn every man and teach every man in wisdom’. The gospel is truth, and contains certain warnings as well as inviting people into eternal life in Christ. Do I love you by not issuing truth or warning?

Paul says, when leaving the Ephesians, that he did not cease to warn them day and night with tears. He said to the Corinthians, “I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you.” He tells the Thessalonians to ‘warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, and be patient with all’.

Do we not warn our children if they are in potential danger, or correct them if they are in error, or instruct them in the right way? Do we love them or hate them when we bring warning, correction or instruction?

So this argument that telling the truth according to scripture equates to hatred is, in itself, wicked. To say that ministering the gospel even if it opposes a certain lifestyle is hating a person is a perversion of spiritual justice.

Christians cannot deny scripture any more than they can deny Christ. He is the Word made flesh. His Word is established in the heavens. It is the truth by which all men are saved, restored and sustained.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…
Hebrews 1:1-3

He speaks to us by His Word. How then can Christians not reveal the Word of Truth by the Spirit of Truth? As Paul said we are debtors to the unsaved to preach the gospel and compelled to reach as many as we can with the truth.

Repentance is change
The entry into the kingdom is through preaching and repentance. Repentance is a change of heart which leads to a change of mind and change of direction. This means men have to be persuaded of another direction, that of walking with God and not against God.

This is not easy and will lead to disagreement along the way, but is it love or hate which tells the truth? No. We tell the truth because we love.

If I say I love my brother but fail to tell him the truth which may save his life I am a liar. It is not love to hold my tongue when the truth has the power to save him.

Telling the truth or giving warning often takes courage. This courage is best served by love. If I have love for my brother then the courage flows from loving him so much that will not shrink back from telling him the truth which will save him.

Jesus gave his life for the truth. He shed His blood to reach a world going in the wrong direction, which disagreed with Him, which ultimately killed Him. That takes real love and courage.

So we can disagree and yet still be brethren who walk in love.


49 thoughts on “Disagreement does not equal hatred

  1. The Christian Nazis would say they loved Jews too. The Brits thought it was loving to put aborigines in reservations to die out.

    Telling someone the ‘truth’ is a double edged sword. Christians think they have the ‘truth’ and don’t like being told that they have fallen for lies.

    Is it love to promote lies and vilify groups of people?

    The lamentable fact is it is Christian groups who specialise in disseminating false and vitriolic propaganda akin to 1930s Nazi Germany.

    We have seen people on this thread who can’t get over their twisted beliefs about gays, asylum seekers, Muslims, Catholics and feed on this type of propaganda

    Undoubtedly these groups believe they are working out of love.

    Of course if you tell someone the ‘truth’ about the Word of God you will be labelled a hater of the Word.

  2. I reach out a hand of conciliation to you, Bones, and you spit in the face of brotherly love.

    I was very shocked at the depth of your spite over what is a reasonable democratic process in Australia, but, rather than continue with it, I drew a new page which distinguishes between disagreement, opinion and real hatred. It was an opportunity for a more level-headed, less accusative approach.

    But it seems your disrespect for an alternative, albeit Biblically Christian, perspective viewpoint has revealed a level of contempt for Christian thought which is in the same league as a professional antichristian like Richard Dawkins. I see no difference either to the argument you produce nor the manner in which you relate it.

    Maybe you need to look at yourself and your attitude to Christians or conservatives before you make such unreasonable and aggressively poisonous claims of equivalence.

  3. No one here is a ‘nazi’ anything, Bones. No one hates anyone. That is the point.

    But, brazenly and without apology, you continually present the outright lie that, because a person says Catholic dogma is unscriptural, or marriage should be, Biblically, between a man and a woman, or, as political policy, people smuggling should be stopped and government arranged refugee procedures upheld, they are, therefore, haters of Catholics, homosexuals and refugees.

    This logic is so preposterous a ten year old could see through it.

    Yet, even though I have firmly argued against the folly of saying disagreement equates to hatred, you immediately persist with it.

    What I have done is isolated your incongruous claim that disagreement equates to hatred into a corner where you stand with a dunces hat if you prefer, but it would be better to see the reason behind the correction and approach your future arguments with a less class-disruptive manner.

    You also miss entirely the point of love in action in accordance with gospel principles by attacking the authenticity of the Word.

    That is probably the major issue here, but only a believer would see that.

  4. You just reversed the question, if there was one.

    Is it hate to disagree with a point of view?

    Clearly it’s not.

    Is it vilification to point out error? Not at all. In fact, we are obliged to tell the truth.

    You brought up the Catholic articles I posted. They challenged clear error within the Catholic Church on the dogmas of Mary, purgatory, idolisation of saints, transubstantiation and exposed them as unbiblical from an Evangelical perspective.

    Would a Catholic disagree? Yes, probably. Would they therefore be wrong? No, because I produced Biblical evidence that the Catechism and Vatican teaching was indeed contrary to the canon of Scripture.

    Does this equate to vilification? Of course not. It is a defence of the gospel. If the proponents of Catholic dogma want to persist in it that is their prerogative. D I hate Catholics because they have a different perspective on Christianity? No. But if I know the Bible to be truth and do not point out error that would be a form of neglect which could be considered hatred.

    Your defence of their error knowing it is error is far more harmful spiritually and eternally than my exposé. Do I want to harm or destroy Catholics because they believe error? Of course not.

    Your entire premise is a straw man.

  5. I have regular conversations with a Hindu who always promotes his beliefs, whilst I compare what he says with Christian faith. Do we hate each other because we disagree? No. D we disrespect one another for being devout about different faiths? No.

    We get on very well. We are work colleagues. He respects my spirituality. I acknowledge his belief in Hinduism. Do I agree with Hinduism? No. Do I shout him down and call him names like you do for having another point of view? Never.

    Do we vilify each other for having different beliefs? No.

    Would I like to see him come to Christ? Yes. Have I presented the gospel? Yes.

    I am trying to tell you, Bones, that your continual attempt at saying that myself or Q or anyone else with a different perspective to you or Greg or wazza must, therefore, hate the people you champion is so ridiculous and callous I had to ultimately point it out to you in big lights so that you could get the point.

    But what do you do? You press on regardless with your juvenile assumptions and accusations.

  6. Bones, your question is, in itself, entirely based on your own false accusations from the other thread and skirts the issue on this thread.

    Are you saying that disagreement equals hatred?

    Well, you won’t answer this because you have already accused people of hating based on their disagreement with certain issues.

    Changing the subject won’t let you off the hook.

  7. But, rather than prolong the argument, it is apparent to anyone who has followed this discussion that you are determined to equate disagreement with hatred.

    By your own standards, then, your continual disagreement with Christian theology on marriage, sexuality and Catholic error makes you a hater of Christians.

  8. Bones,
    Is it love to promote and believe lies and vilify groups of people?

    Of course not, and I’m glad you asked, but if you’ll simply repent and stop promoting and believing your own lies and vilification of people you could become a nicer person.

    How are the Greens going in Queensland?

  9. Is it love to promote and believe lies and vilify groups of people?

    Of course not…

    So why do you do it?

    It could be something pathological which could be excused I suppose.

    I think it’s just the way of the Religious Right.

  10. Of course the Greens have never been major players in the house of reps and look like keeping their seat from the last election.

    It’s the senate which will be interesting and will keep the Murdoch and his puppy the Mad Monk under control.

    If the LNP get control of both houses, this country will be truly f**ked.

  11. “Green vote down to 6.4% in Queensland with 50% of the vote counted.
    Palmer Party at 14.1%. Unbelievable!”

    As Jimmy used to say…
    Praise the Lord praise the Lord Praise the Lord!

    Looks like the prayers of the righteous were answered.

    So time for Bones and the demons to regroup! lol

  12. Hinkler, Bones’ electorate, stays with the Lib/Nats with an increased majority.

    Bones’ Greens drop by 3% in their vote to 2.7%, which pans out to less than 2,000 votes, of which Bones’ was one.

    Hinkler’s new member is a self made businessman who has successfully set up a training school in the Health and Safety sector. As Managing Director, he now has a staff of 15 and over 10,000 local students from more than a thousand local businesses.

    The Greens candidate has no information about his experience, but ‘ is passionate about the environment, local jobs and promoting sustainable industries in the region’.

    So one does and one hopes.

    Good call, Bones!

  13. Like I thought. Rudd tried the Obama thing (and he was advised by his people) but compulsory voting is a different situation.
    And that’s a country where the left charge that voting ID is racial discrimination.

    Australia still has somethings going for it.

  14. I voted for Palmer dickheads but it’s been funny watching you make arses of yourselves and sucking up to the LNP.

    The Greens Adam Bandt retained their only seat in the House of Reps.

    The LNP poured a disgusting amount of money into Keith Pitt in Hinkler.

    Of course the first things the LNP cut is our foreign aid to poorer countries.

    Now we’ll see education f**ked like Newman has done up here. The little twat.

    Sarah Hansen Young looks like keeping her senate set. (Great work, Malcolm Fraser in supporting her) Don’t know if the Greens lost any senate seats.

    Thankfully there’s no way the LNP will get a majority in the senate.

    Lib dems may have got a seat in NSW.

    Palmer United Party might have two spots in QLD & TAS.

    Motorist enthusiasts party in vic ( they’re in 5th) who knows where they stand.

    Family first in SA will be there to make sure Steve doesn’t have to pay tax and keep pastor’s salary sacrifice concessions.

    Looks like your mate Pauline Hansen has missed out.

  15. Saw a site today calling for the extermination of anyone who voted Green.

    Made me think of you two retards. That’s the sort of belief you would have.

    In love of course.

  16. Bones, channelling Richard Dawkins,
    Saw a site today calling for the extermination of anyone who voted Green. Made me think of you two…

    Of course it did, Bones. That’s the way your twisted mind works.

    That still doesn’t make you right about anything, though.

    It just shows up your lack of integrity.

    And now you admit to being responsible for Palmer!

    The mind boggles.

  17. Your integrity’s f**ked up by the things you write.

    Can just imagine the type of congregation you teach your crap to.

    The mind boggles.

  18. Bones, channelling Machiovelli,
    Family first in SA will be there to make sure Steve doesn’t have to pay tax and keep pastor’s salary sacrifice concessions.

    I just completed my tax return in UK. They gave me a small refund.

    But I don’t think Family First had much to do with the tax arrangements in Australia, all the same.

    Mind you, if I’d ever been on the $75,000 pa you’ve been on I too would have been able to pay more tax.

    I think being a tax-payer is a privelege, but the amounts the average evangelical pastor takes home doesn’t compare with the salary of a union backed schoolteacher.

    Not that I begrudge teachers one cent. But complaining about the average pastor’s salary when you have such a comparatively large earning capacity seems somewhat hypocritical.

    Is there anything about Christians or the Church you actually like or approve of, Bones?

  19. It isn’t the done thing to edit someone else’s comments so that they appear to be saying the precise opposite of what they actually did write. You have done this to me also.

    Either censor, or leave the comment alone – but dont commit fraud.

    I suggest you don’t censor though – your right-wing commandants of the faith have put forward free-speech as a central platform. So I suggest you take Voltaire’s advice :

    “I dont agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

  20. wazza,
    It isn’t the done thing to edit someone else’s comments so that they appear to be saying the precise opposite of what they actually did write.

    It isn’t the done thing to spew out that kind of unnecessary language.

    If the comments are going to include vile expletives to describe a person they will be edited. The idea is to persuade a person to say what they mean without resorted to foul language.

    You can moderate your threads any way you want, but Bones was deliberately upping the temperature and I turned it down. Saying something far more positive to his original comments was a form of correction.

    I notice, though, that he prefers to comment on a protected thread where he knows the moderator would be too embarrassed to correct foul speech rather than say what he wants to say using decent English.

    I will also defend Bones’ right to say what he wants, but I don’t have to take foul speech from him when it is in my power to remove it. It was very personal, unnecessary, and won’t be happening on threads I moderate.

    Even free speech has some boundaries in some circumstances, which is fair enough as long as they are clearly articulated.

    Tolerance is subjective.

  21. But, look, wazza, I’m obviously not cut out to be moving in these circles where discouraging the constant use of degenerate speech is frowned upon.

    Bones has a need for venting his spleen at someone and has gradually become more and more expressive in his profanities.

    Asking him to tone it down has resulted in the opposite, so maybe he would like to continue using vile speech with you and Greg.

    I guess he must tolerate it in the class he teaches, or maybe joins in to be part of the youth culture.

    Interesting, though, how you defend the right to issue expletive insults at people ad hominem, but say nothing about the blatant untruths your compadre has compiled against anyone who disagrees with his politics or theology.

    Colossians 3
    8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

    Maybe Paul didn’t mean it for all Christians, only Pentecostals.

  22. ?Maybe Paul didn’t mean it for all Christians, only Pentecostals?

    Couldn’t find that scripture in the bible Steve.

  23. Steve, if you change a persons commnents to read as if they are saying something entirely different to what they actually said I wil revoke your editorial rights and you will only be able to author. First and only warning.

  24. Point taken, Greg.

    I thought my response to Bones’ calling me a ‘dickhead’, ‘retard’ and a gaggle of other names, as well as saying my theology and politics meant we are all f**ked (several times), was more dealt with in tongue-in-cheek humour than ‘fraud’ as wazza claimed, but there you go.

    I did the same with Ian a few weeks ago and no-one said a dicky-bird. Why?

    But you rule and you, therefore, set the rules.

    I guess this is a victory for profanity and abuse.

    Congratulations, Bones, wazza and Greg.

  25. If you want to re-edit this thread, Greg, go ahead.

    Where-ever you see that I have surrounded a word or phrase, [thus], you can insert [profanity removed] and it will cover the gist of what Bones was saying.

    It’s all yours.

  26. May I make a suggestion?
    Why not just ban profanity. It’s not the end of the world if you can’t swear in a public place.

    Then there is no need for editing. How do you people communicate in real life? Do you all swear like that when there are women around? Or young people?

    I really don’t understand how supposedly intelligent “Christians” can’t argue without profanity and obscenity?

    So you talk like this at home? At church? To your teenage daughters?

    This should be a place where women feel comfortable and high school students too.

    So instead of editing or not editing why not just self-edit. Bones, is it impossible for your to not swear all the time? Do you swear at your wife?

    Crazy. No wonder there are no women here.

  27. As for Ian, I didn’t even see his post or your change…I regularly ignore large swathes of his bullshit. In my threads I just delete his comments as a standard operating procedure

  28. Who’s being lazy? They’re your standards and your means of applying the standards. You are setting them up. You do it.

    I didn’t delete the comments for the precisely the reason of letting the main thrust of his comment remain. If you read it you will see that it’s obvious what he is trying to say.

    All I altered was the personal abuse using profanities. The substance of his remarks a loud and clear.

  29. Dear Bones, I am sorry for changing your profanities and abuse into pleasant comments about people thus altering your intentions.

    I will not do it again.

    I find your profanities offensive.

  30. I read the comments…I also searched to see if I could restore the old comment. I don’t jump to anyone’s command Steve…I’m certain your not unaware of that aspect of my character.

    You’re recalcitrance makes me want to just take away your editing rights.

  31. There, Greg, all comments by Bones restored to best of my memory. He can check through and ask you to make any other corrections to the comments you prefer if I left anything out.

    It won’t happen again.

  32. Steve – I do;nt care if you edit – just don;t put words into others mouths that weren’t there to begin with – much like I’ve done to a cople of your comments, which now i’ll have to go back and redact my edits!

  33. I didn’t call campbell newman a sh#t. Hes a twat.

    Stop playing with my posts, you’re becoming like Murdoch.

    I’d rather you just delete them then screw around with them.

  34. Sorry, Bones, wrong expletive. Corrected. I had forgotten your extensive vocabulary.

    The only thing I have in common with Murdoch is calling the election correctly.

    If there’s nothing else, I’ll leave you to it.

  35. ” I don’t jump to anyone’s command Steve…I’m certain your not unaware of that aspect of my character.”

    I like that. Sounds like a line from a drama.
    Needs a British accent!

    Better man than me Gregory. My wife’s got me jumping all over the place.

    I’d practice that line on her, but I’m too scared! So I’ll just try to be a tough guy on the internet instead.

    Did anyone join the Pope in fasting about Syria by the way?

  36. Given Steve’s lies about TIm Flannery we can see that this thread was a complete sham.

    Which I always knew.

    He can’t contain himself.

Comments are closed.