Worldview reduces complex concepts
Into meaningless rhetoric
The current political rhetoric has devolved into pietistic moralistic charge and counter-charge as each talking head seeks to capture the high moral ground while illustrating that the other side spews forth the rhetoric of hate. Yes, it is time for another presidential election cycle to begin. The charge of hate is the latest concept being used to discredit anyone and anything with which you disagree, regardless of the historical period or circumstances.
Paul uses the metaphor of a judge to illustrate that the person who judges others guilty is himself, or herself, also guilty of the same charge; in this case, the concept of hatred (Ro 2:1-5). Paul has already concluded that everyone is guilty of sin before God; therefore, no person has the moral high ground by which to judge others. Further, he states that the person doing the judging of others is simply seeking to transfer attention of his or her self to others whom he alleges are guilty of even worse instances of hate. Thus, the purpose of judging others, without appearing to judge others, is to deflect attention from one’s self so you appear less guilty, or even innocent, when compared to the heinous derelictions of others.
No one defines their terms thus:
No one knows what is being discussed
However, the Law of Identity is often violated in these discussions. Define hate. Merriam-Webster defines hate (noun) in several ways such as: “…intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury…” and “…a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred…“. Hate (verb) is: “…to regard with active hostility…” or to “…find very distasteful…“. So, when one hears the word hate, which definition does the speaker intend? Without clarity, adherence to the Law of Identity, you may supply a definition that differs from the speaker’s; thus, there is conflation. Politicians, news pundits, lawyers, and most talking heads use this to their advantage as it gives them plausible deniability. They can later deny meaning the definition that you inferred. It is this sort of imprecision that causes conflicts such as he said:you said. This is why the above graphic appears as profundity when in fact it is meaningless. Without application of the Law of Identity no one understands what is actually being discussed; therefore, one cannot coherent disagree.
Notice the subtle lack of responsibility
The writer blames you for inciting hate
In our postmodern jargon this can be either a Fertile Fallacy, a deliberate deception to elicit a desired response, or Reflexivity, deliberate use of circular reasoning to achieve a desired goal. Both of these have been promulgated and used effectively by the philosopher, Mr. Soros and his disciples. These techniques use deception as legitimate methodologies to achieve one’s goals which is a sort of pragmatism or the ends justifies the means. Now, what was the meaning of hate in the above graphic? Does the writer simply mean that he, or she, has a strong aversion to you? Or, do they have such intense anger that you may do you harm if given the opportunity? You do not know! For any meaningful discussion to advance, and possibly for your personal safety, hate must be defined. Is this of any interest to the casual person? Probably not. If Americans had paid less attention in the 1950s to Hula Hops, pop music and other trivial pursuits perhaps they would have paid more attention to the messes their government was getting involved in such as the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam.
But, in our current political climate the use of the undefined word, hate, is lazily tossed about with a superior, pietistic manner designed to manipulate you, the listener, to join the speaker on his, or her, high moral ground. Some students at George Washington High School {San Francisco} demand that a mural of George Washington be covered since he was a slave owner and therefore a bigoted racist no longer thought worthy of any national accomplishments; oh yes, it will cost the school district approximately $600,000.00 to appease these moralistic, self-righteous students {Daily Wire}. These children have been taught by public education that no opinion counts but theirs, higher self-esteem, and all issues must be judged by current standards. Thus, 21st century racial pietism is the standard and George Washington does not meet the standard! History is a record of advancement and regression of societies to give us an understanding of why and how our current culture is what it is. To demand that the 18th century meet the current postmodern moral code of political convenience is absurd. Each period must be seen within the context of their reality and knowledge base. But, something else is being overlooked in these discussions: what value system is being used to arrive at these charges?
Slavery was endemic to all societies because of the lack of mechanized equipment to produce enough food and products. This is simply a fact and not an acquittal. Societies could not produce enough food without a continual influx of cheap labor; i.e., slavery. This lack of trained but compulsory labor meant that very few products were developed in the ancient world. Governments existed through taxation and conquest to obtain treasure accumulated by other governments. Slavery stopped being viable when the industrial revolution produced the mechanized equipment to meet the needs of the society. Most Western countries voluntarily gave up slavery peacefully. However, America, due to its pietistic morality refused to discuss the question of ending slavery peacefully. Like today, each side became entrenched in their position and used rhetoric to obfuscate the issues. The South just said is was their peculiar institution since they could not justify it otherwise. The North, being less honest, wanted to keep slavery out of new states because it reduced what a person could earn competing against slave labor. To be honest, Lincoln’s War was not fought over slavery; it was fought to enlarge the power of the federal government to give us the behemoth we have today. Tens of thousands of Americans died in vain; Federal government botched Reconstruction and the South responded with Jim Crow laws which were then promulgated by the Federal government during the World Wars to acquire votes from the South to fight and win the wars. Slavery died because of free market economics but racism was kept alive to keep and then expand political power in the burgeoning national socialistic government of America. But something else is still lacking in our discussion.
The Result of the Intolerance of
Tolerance is the death of dignity
The development and spread of biblical theology based mainly on the Bible and not on institutional dogma suited to political expediency caused a moral awakening in Western culture. If Christ came to make people free then how can man justify slavery? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and main other founding fathers were not Christian but Deists who rejected nearly all forms of received religion believing that reason alone could inform one about God. Paul states that fallen people are ungodly, their sin nature actively rejecting God and His truths (Ro 1:18-25). This is why fallen people construct worldviews, to supply some explanation of this world, man’s place and man’s end point that does not need God. The founding fathers would have been very comfortable with today’s anti-God environment while embracing the every changing requirements of postmodernism. This does not sit well with most Christians who have been given an incorrect view of American history and biblical doctrine.
The end result of sin is four-fold: 1) Violence; 2) Degradation; 3) Division and 4) Death. God allows lost man to live by his own ethics which are incoherent and every changing; but, even more important is that these ethics promote violence, degradation, division and many deaths. The proponents who lightly bandy about the word hate refuse to take responsibility but the every growing political violence, both intellectual and physical, will result in an intolerable, despotic government, a broken economic system and the suppression of God’s truth that speaks out against the growing darkness. That means the elimination of Christians from their midst. First, in concentration or reeducation camps and final by elimination, either passively or actively. Nothing is more sure than the violent, vehement anger Satan has toward God and Christians will produce these results.