Is hate learned?

[Jennifer5]

In your opinion, would you say that you learn hate? or are you born knowing hate? (please include stories when you have them)

[cogito_ergo_sum]

i think hate is learnt. it all depends on the circumstances you grow up in. for example, i know a lady who hates dogs. her husband doesnt, but her son, who's in grade 3, does. and you can just imagine him seeing his mother recoiling at the sight of a dog and thinking, right...

[SolInvictus]

Personally, yes, I believe so...

Having a minor in anthropology, cultural norms & mores are taught by parents/society to children (in general). When these standards are not met, the person or group may be ostracized or worse. For example, deviant behavior (against accepted beliefs) in some parts of Africa is considered a form of "witchcraft," and a priest is called on to exorcise the "evil" by banishment or ostracize the person(s) until he/she/they retract the deviant behavior.

To elaborate furthur, "witches" in these regions are generally women who are on the margins of society and/or had an affair, etc. In order to correct the "problem," an exorcism of the evil is sometimes performed by the local priest or religious specialist within the local community. Banishment/Exile tend to follow if the deviancy isn't corrected.

In regards to LGBT issues, many cultures have had many different viewpoints. Some Native American groups viewed as being blessed by the gods/deity(s) with "two spirits," and thus a honored citizen. If a man had effeminate behavior, he was not punished, but allowed status by means of female impersonination (this can be seen also in modern India).

The ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality, esp. among men, as one of the truest forms of love. Romans only discriminated ag. the passive male lover in the relationship. Domination & power among Roman men was regarded as important in their society, and being a "bottom" was seen as a sign of weakness. Greek myth also provides a beautiful illustration of homosexual origins: in this story, humans were originally two souls/bodies combined by as 2 males, 2 females, or 1 male & 1 female. They were later split in two, an acc. to the myth, we humans are continually in search of our soul mate / the "other half" of us.

Anyway, the point is I do believe hate is a learned behavior. Hate can be based on the culture & its assoc. beliefs. Deviants tend to be viewed as "evil" or subhuman or immoral, which is truly sad. The worst example being the Untouchables in India: they are casteless & basically perform duties that others do not or will not do, such as picking up garbage, etc.

[Zerbie]

Definitely. Yes. No time for that story. But definitely.

[pnggrad79]

Hate is born of sin and that is natural in all of us. Hate is taught by parents and significant others who propagate their fears on us as children. Sad, but true.:o

[NonLemming]

Hate is born of sin and that is natural in all of us. Hate is taught by parents and significant others who propagate their fears on us as children. Sad, but true.:o


Can I get an "amen"!?

[Vortex]

I believe hate to be a product of fear. It is our own insecurities that aid in harboring hate and consequently passing those fears onto others through socialization. It is our lack of understanding of ourselves and the world around us from which this fear manifests itself.

It is not the fear of accepting the LGBT community that drives their hate, but instead the self-introspection that will inevitably come with it. The very foundation of what they believe to be true and their own faith is what’s at stake.

We must not simply be content with the punishment of those responsible with hate crimes or the changing of laws toward equality for all humanity. It is only through knowledge and understanding that compassion and love can win out over hate, and we must have compassion for those who most need that understanding.


Hate comes not out of a need to confront others, but out of fear of confronting ourselves.

[Zerbie]

Vortex, you have a lot of wisdom. Thank you for what you've shared so far, and welcome to the forums. Yes, I think that without fear we would also be without hate.

[Jennifer5]

then how would you overcome your fears? where does it all start? does it have a beginning or is it all a circle? hate, is because of fear. fear, is in need of love. and love could also solve the hate...

[SolInvictus]

Personally, I see love as the solution: accepting oneself for who he or she is; loving someone & have it returned; supported by friends & others like us;
spiritual support from clergy (depends on denomination or indiv. church); and as Jesus suggested: if someone forces you to go a mile - go two miles.
If you are told carry a bag by someone you dislike, carry it all the way; if you are punched, turn the other cheek... The last one is controversial & can be interpreted variously, but I think the "gist" of it means if you are humiliated - then take action to get your dignity back through nonviolence. For example, say someone tears your shirt - then give it to them & shoes, etc. It stuns people & sometimes become dumbstruck not knowing what to do.

Does this always work? Probably not & hate isn't easy to fight, but it has to be fought somehow. Praying for enemies helps (does personally anyway).
When they insult or humiliate you, don't let them see how it affects you. Be tough & then let out emotions in private. Honestly, I have reacted this way as I have been insulted & humiliated by homophobes. Was it easy? No way, but I got through it.

For example, a coworker several yrs ago that I came out too (a mistake) decided my orientation was a joke & sinful. Thus, one day @ work, she had a picture of the Abu Ghraib scandal (newspaper article) & asked me in front of all the patrons "if it turned me on." Obviously, angered, I said "no, why would I" and then went privately in the employee room to vent my emotions out silently. I still cringe thinking about now, but after success & support, I am happy as I am.

Well, sorry for babbling on...LOL
Anyway, hope this helps & Peace.

[Vortex]

Vortex, you have a lot of wisdom. Thank you for what you've shared so far, and welcome to the forums. Yes, I think that without fear we would also be without hate.

Thank you, I am happy to be here and I hope to make a lot of new friends. This is a big step for me.


then how would you overcome your fears? where does it all start? does it have a beginning or is it all a circle? hate, is because of fear. fear, is in need of love. and love could also solve the hate...


I believe fear can only be overcome through knowledge and understanding. It is only in a state of complete understanding that we can truly have compassion for others. A state of absolute peace within ourselves and peace with the world around us. Where all the boundaries and differences that have for so long separated us no longer exist, and we feel connected and at one with all living things. This is what I call ‘Love’, it is not a word that I use sparingly because I believe very few will truly ever experience this. I hope that I can someday. It is the hope that such a thing exists that keeps me going.


You are correct in your observation of the cyclical nature of fear and hate. The violence and suffering that comes as a result of hate only creates more fear in the individual and those around them. This starts the cycle of hate all over again for a new generation unfortunately. It is important to realize though that ‘Love’ is absent from this cycle, and for good reason. Love ends the cycle and as I explained above it is not an easy thing to get to.

[NathanATX]

Hate is born of sin and that is natural in all of us. Hate is taught by parents and significant others who propagate their fears on us as children. Sad, but true.:o

I hear what you're saying, but I believe in the concept of "original blessing" rather than "original sin."

Hate comes from fear.
Fear of one's own sexuality being questioned.
Fear of one's "salvation" being put in jeapordy.
Fear of people who are different.

Fear compels people to act against whatever they fear. Those actions are the essence of hate.

[Emproph]

(-I was just confronted with that question again the other day. I did a search for “bearing false witness” regarding an unrelated topic and read something interesting that I think exemplifies the page I’ve written best. It said the best pride detector was how offended we are by the pride in others. It’s the biggest pause I’ve taken in a long time. Especially because I consider myself to be a pretty good pride detector, apparently not as good as I thought.

Point being that the question is irrelevant. The solution is the same.
The question frames them the same way they frame us. The framing process is the problem, not the picture. Anyway, here’s the link and what I wrote before if you feel like wading. :-)
http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven/pride.html )

(This is what I wrote a few days ago)
That’s a Good question, I was just thinking about it in joke form earlier, but you made it sound legitimate like if they were born with it we can’t blame them for molesting the idea of God.
(Wow, I wasn’t expecting to type that.)(a pandora’s box thought Sir thanx a lot)

First I’d have to give up my addiction to anger, do they even have AA meetings like that, and what would I do with all the extra time spent not hating? Yet I know it’s time, CSPAN gets me only so riled these days, it’d be like a perpetual tease buzz without being able to hate those I love to hate the most, what was the question?

How dare me, I honestly want to hate them for hating me, and what I want has nothing to do with them, I am the biggest hypocrite alive specifically because I know better. How dare me indeed? {we aren’t afraid to look at that part of us, that’s what we have to describe. The place of us that’s conquered the fear of acknowledging fear.}

How do you negotiate the 4th step process of THAT recovery group (making amends)?
(with a tearful eye and a southern accent>) “I realize now that it was my fault for not understanding that you’re just a wounded animal on the inside, consumed with avoidin’ the fear of death”

I’m a hypocrite for not realizing that they honestly can’t help it. And it’s all Joe Brummer’s fault. The man just doesn’t hate. I mean, what kind of a universe does someone like that live in? Tenaciously whispering definitive (or divinitive) beauty back to ugliness every time. I think he should come in a bottle, a window cleaner. ‘Keeping the windows of perception clear?’ Authentic Christian Gloss, the cleanser of certitude. Yes that’s it, that’s the one.

I can’t believe I’m a worser hypocrite that the people I save the word worser for.
I’d pretty much apply the same statistics for reparative therapy 'patients' as I would to addicts of dogma, but there is one difference, thoughts are things we actually can change. So I say they’re born with it, with a slight chance of undoing it. But as long as they can think, theoretically they can be shown to think about it. I'll hold my breath.... :(

Anyway, I’m a hypocrite and they can’t help it. And as they’re being tested with “Biblical inerrancy,” wait, If we realize can show them it’s a test, that’s our test.
The only way to show them it is a test is if we show them our recognition of how our test is to show them of their test. Yes, that’s it. One on one logic technology.

So I guess the trick is in communicating the better information of equality without threatening their idea of superiority.

P. S. Something about the freedom of being able to think outside of what is “known” to be true, and then something about dogma... Think outside the cage? -I like that one.

[Tears of A Clown]

It is said we are born a blank slate which starts learning before birth.
Yes to some it is learned. Daily abuse by ohters will teach one to be hate. It also is a conditioning. Usually these people learn to hate some group becuase it takes the place of what hurts that person. Most have low self esteem, been abused, conditioned, to the point they had nothing left inside and have to transfer all that inner hate somewhere so it is set on the target of the victoms of others in their group.
Some do it to fit in.
Some are just born with no loving soul, I have taught kids without a loving soul. Just looking in their eyes is like looking in a black hole. They strike at anyone whom can fall victom. These individuals are lost to the world, they never have a chance.
No, I was brought up in a home where my mom was on the fence as to racial discrimination. She says she isn't but when it get to a certian point where it is too close, then she is. My grandparents were total racial people. My grand mom would not have eaten at our house if she had known someone other than "white" had used it. Then came me. I have no bias on anyone. I have best friends of all races, religions, creeds, and yes lesbian and gay. That is a large leap in 3 generations. Even with the religious upbring I had. Funny thing is I have a mixed race grand daugher. I love her just as I do my other grand daugher. I treat my daughter in law no different than the other one. If my grand parents kenw, it would blow their minds....but just think...in 5 generations it has gone from total hate to a child of mixed races. No hate, just lots of love. So it there is hope for her, there is hope for all of you.
Those who say and do hateful things, just remember, Who's mouth did it fall out of? or who did the hateful thing, Let the hate fall back on them.
Rejoice everyone

-----------------------------------
Take a look.....This is Life.....Bring it ON!
----------------------------------
PuP aka Tears of a Clown

[Zerbie]

It is said we are born a blank slate which starts learning before birth.
Yes to some it is learned. Daily abuse by ohters will teach one to be hate. It also is a conditioning. Usually these people learn to hate some group becuase it takes the place of what hurts that person. Most have low self esteem, been abused, conditioned, to the point they had nothing left inside and have to transfer all that inner hate somewhere so it is set on the target of the victoms of others in their group.
Some do it to fit in.
Some are just born with no loving soul, I have taught kids without a loving soul. Just looking in their eyes is like looking in a black hole. They strike at anyone whom can fall victom. These individuals are lost to the world, they never have a chance.

-----------------------------------
Take a look.....This is Life.....Bring it ON!
----------------------------------
PuP aka Tears of a Clown

WOW!!!

What a perspective you have!

Yes, I know what you mean about daily abuse teaching hate. And transferring the rage from the perpetrator to a scapegoat, sometimes one that was deliberately taught to the victim as a scapegoat. And I have seen the black hole in the eyes too, in two people. Only two people, thank god, but when you see it - - you know things you might rather not know, but at least you know there is that degree of coldness in the world.
Forewarned is forearmed, perhaps.

Wow, great post Pup.

[ladyinred]

I'd have to say hate is taught and learned, and people may do it to fit in , because having an unpopular perspective that doesn't fit in with the status quo may bring hostility to that person.Look at how those who are protesting the war in Iraq are treated for example. How about those who believe LGBT people should be treated the same as anyone else. There is alot of resistence to these stances.

[Progo35]

From my experience, hate is both learned and present in everyone at different levels at birth. For instance, some people seem to enjoy hurting others. There is no reason for it, they do not have a history of abuse, they are not mentally ill...they just derive a sick kind of joy from humiliating, abusing, and harming others. In support of this hypothesis, I once asked a peer why she and others were calling me a retard, destroying my stuff, throwing rocks, and worse. She said, "Because it's fun and it's funny, and it's never going to stop!" I'm not exaggerating, those were her words.

When I was young, it was much easier to forgive people and love them, to the point that I felt I posessed almost supernatural compassion for others, despite standing up to what they were doing. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, constantly doing this has worn on me to the point that I have very intense bouts of anger that are ultimately self-destructive. On the other hand, I've done this because I've experienced that certain people do not respond to compassion-they need a good kick in the pants through the threat of legal action. But, this doesn't have to poison our relationships with God: as another user pointed out, "that isn't me."

[ladyinred]

Progo, I will relate my experiences where I can say I feel hatred is learned. I don't feel homophobia is even inborn but learned ,because of my son's reactions toward me when he was little, he never acted like it bothered him,(he wasn't exposed to anything sexually) he was more curious than anything. He didn't learn to be homophobic til grade school. I am actually shocked at what he has learned at school about God. I don't know all the details of what other kids have told him, but it has been negative, and he will not even talk about God now. I will say what he told me when he was about six when I asked him what he thought of the '"devil". He said ,"Mommy I think the devil is hate". That is pretty insightful for a child who has never stepped inside of a church in his life. This child was brilliant and creative, it is sad to say, but it seems he has lost that childhood wonder and innocence.... welcome to the adult world I guess.

[alakazoom87]

Man has a sinful nature. Hate is sin. Hate comes naturally. Sucks doesn't it?

[u-dog]

1. human beings evolved as hunter/gatherers on the savanahs of Africa
2. Hunter gatherer groups are limited in size to a couple dozen individuals at most by the availability of food within a limited area
3. Competing groups of hunter/gatherers using the same resources represent danger to individuals, groups and group genetic information.
4. Strangeness => fear => anger => hate.

Conclusion: Human beings are hardwired to hate the stranger. To be suspicious of the one who acts strangely, talks strangely, looks strange, dresses strangely, worships strangely.

In a hunter/gatherer economy this largely biological trait selects for survival.

When women began to invent civilization (sorry guys... it was DEFINATELY the ladies idea) and more complex social structures (like towns and cities) were emerging (along with animal husbandry and agriculture) it was less advantageous.

In a global context that includes Nuclear Weapons it is no longer a trait which selects for survival. Quite the opposite.

In short, I don't believe that there is any such thing as racism, nationalism, sexism, heterosexism. There is only the biological imperative called XENOPHOBIA (fear of the outsider) in all of its myriad manifestations.

In theological and spiritual context I believe that ALL RELIGIONS are prone to falling captive to this biological imperitive to hate the other, but are in fact God's way of leading us out of our animal past and into the human/divine future that God intends for us.

dave

Interesting sidelight: In High School English my kids were exposed to a fascinating essay that suggested that several of the ancient Genesis narratives were originally from the pre-historic era during which hunter/gatherers and the new agriculturalist communities were in conflict. It raised up particularly the stories of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Able. I could probably get the info from my kids if anyone is interested.

[Dash]

From my experience, hate is both learned and present in everyone at different levels at birth. For instance, some people seem to enjoy hurting others. There is no reason for it, they do not have a history of abuse, they are not mentally ill...they just derive a sick kind of joy from humiliating, abusing, and harming others. In support of this hypothesis, I once asked a peer why she and others were calling me a retard, destroying my stuff, throwing rocks, and worse. She said, "Because it's fun and it's funny, and it's never going to stop!" I'm not exaggerating, those were her words.

When I was young, it was much easier to forgive people and love them, to the point that I felt I posessed almost supernatural compassion for others, despite standing up to what they were doing. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, constantly doing this has worn on me to the point that I have very intense bouts of anger that are ultimately self-destructive. On the other hand, I've done this because I've experienced that certain people do not respond to compassion-they need a good kick in the pants through the threat of legal action. But, this doesn't have to poison our relationships with God: as another user pointed out, "that isn't me."

I agree with the both/and position.

As I experience my own hatred (and the struggle therewith), it rises up from the feeling of helplessness against insurmountable, implacable, unyielding opposition. I feel it most keenly when thinking about how those who stand against gltb folk speak so many untruths about us, refuse to listen to our truth, deny justice, and push us away from the table.

It's my frustration of being unable to touch their soul...to reach them...that actually turns into hatred and the desire to hurt and punish and reject.

Love rejected often ferments into poison. The capacity and natural process is within us....but we also pour that scalding draught into the mouths of our families, our neighbors, and our communities.

[BrentRichards]

I can certainly believe that hate itself doesn't have to be learned ... I do in fact believe in the existence of a "sin nature" as historic Christianity has affirmed. However, learning is critical: We may not have to learn HOW to hate, but we do learn WHO to hate. And, more importantly, I believe we can learn (with God's grace) how NOT to hate.

[BrentRichards]

Love rejected often ferments into poison. The capacity and natural process is within us....but we also pour that scalding draught into the mouths of our families, our neighbors, and our communities.

How beautifully said!

[tdogg]

It would be fascinating to know for sure how much a child will pick up while in the womb. Not only in regards to the mother's diet (and possible both parents prior to fertilization), but in attitude and mental/emotional health as well. I would venture to guess if the mother and even the father were hateful, violent or even enduring a brief period of depression or anxiety where they might have those feelings, it would be in some way absorbed by the baby the mother was carrying. Still leans towards 'learned' or at least 'environment'.

Zoom87, not everyone on these forums believes that babies are born steeped in sin. Just because that's what you believe, doesn't make it true. And, are you saying that hate comes naturally for you?

[tdogg]

Hate is born of fear....

If we are born in a state of fear (for our safety, our needs being met, our lives, love) then yes, we would hate if we didn't get what we were afraid of not getting.

[alakazoom87]

It would be fascinating to know for sure how much a child will pick up while in the womb. Not only in regards to the mother's diet (and possible both parents prior to fertilization), but in attitude and mental/emotional health as well. I would venture to guess if the mother and even the father were hateful, violent or even enduring a brief period of depression or anxiety where they might have those feelings, it would be in some way absorbed by the baby the mother was carrying. Still leans towards 'learned' or at least 'environment'.

Zoom87, not everyone on these forums believes that babies are born steeped in sin. Just because that's what you believe, doesn't make it true. And, are you saying that hate comes naturally for you?

I admit that I'm a sinner. I admit that at times I hate people. I'm honest with myself. However, I'm not going to allow sin to rule my life. I've set aside the old sinful nature and have put on the New Self, which is enriched with the Holy Spirit. I turn from my sin and look towards Christ and the grace that He has given me. He has given me the strength to move on and do His good work.


Tdog, just like everybody else, I put down my answer to the question: Is hate learned?

[Progo35]

I think the "Original Sin" argument for man being born into sin is generally a pretty fundamental aspect of understanding WHY Christ had to die. I've gradually come to accept this, while maintaining my belief that some people are predisposed to love, while others are predisposed to hatred. But, deep down, there is, I believe, an ugly, sinful tendency to celebrate other people's demise-I have felt it myself when my anger towards other individuals has reached its limit. For instance, once, I was sitting at a public computer looking for a document I had left on the hardrive. While I was doing this, I noticed a paper written by my former best friend's fiance, someone who had destroyed our relationship by telling my friend how to think and respond to me. He was emotionally, verbally and even physically abusive when he wanted to drop me in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night because I told him to stop saying nasty things about me. My friend and another girl who were in the car did nothing to come to my defense, and over time my friend blamed that incident on me, and our relationship of 20 years was destroyed.

So, you can imagine that I have a lot of anger towards this person, so when I saw this guy's paper on the computer's hard drive, I was seized with a deep compulsion to delete his work. Now, normally, when I think about doing something nasty to someone, it is a passing thought-I don't really want to do it. But in this case, I WANTED TO DO IT. I didn't, and my feelings were spurned by an intense losss caused by this person, but I feel this is an example of something in me, deep down, that is contrary to God's will. Of course, God demands justice-but not that way. And, I think that if hate were learned, my friend would have been able to stick to her principles and would not have betrayed me the way she did: I know that she knows better than that, but she is too weak to stand by her beliefs.

[BrentRichards]

Perhaps it is worth giving a brief (very brief) statement of what original sin does and doesn't mean. I do not claim here that all Christians agree with this definition, or that this is what all people who believe in original sin believe, but I think it is a fairly orthodox, evangelical view (and it's what I mean when I use the term original sin, anyway):


It does NOT mean we're all bad, any more than we're all good.
It DOES mean that we have the potential for great evil, as well as for great good.

It does NOT mean we are as bad as we could possibly be.
It DOES mean that there is no area of our life untouched by selfish, ungodly motives and desires.

It does NOT mean we are incapable of doing good.
It DOES mean we are often not inclined to do even the good we know.

It does NOT mean we are being blamed for something our ancestors did.
It DOES mean that like begets like, and being born into a sinful fallen world, we too are tainted with sin.

It does NOT mean that people are not capable of being "good" in a moral and ethical sense.
It DOES mean that we as Christians believe that we can never be "good enough" to earn our way to a perfect God (we also believe that we don't HAVE TO earn our way ... that's what the life, death, and resurrection of Christ was all about!)

It does NOT mean that the "whole world is going to hell in a handbasket."
It DOES mean that things are NOT THE WAY THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

It is NOT a doctrine of human worthlessness.
It IS a doctrine of human imperfection, and yes, even of human evil (which we can't deny exists in history!).


This said, I don't believe that we need to learn how to sin (by hating or otherwise) ... it is natural to us. But it is no less natural to us to seek truth and good (Some brands of Christians will disagree with me on that one). We live in tension between the two... As Augustine said, "The heart of man is restless, O God, until we find our rest in Thee."

Helpful at all? Dave and Andrew, do I get to stay in the Calvin Camp?

[tdogg]

Tdog, just like everybody else, I put down my answer to the question: Is hate learned?

My nature, I believe, is not towards natural hate. It's extremely difficult (if not impossible) for me to hold a grudge. I'm basically a trusting caring person unless I learn to do otherwise with someone. I can't think of anyone that I could say that I "hate". I could think of things tho, like:

the death penalty, people who are disrespectful to those I care about, people who harm other people or animals, people who disrespect nature, injustice, poverty, hunger, disease, just to name a few

But other people? Well, the closest I've come to 'hate' recently is watching The Eyes of Tammy Faye, and listening to Jerry Falwell's lies and deceit. He's no longer with us, but dang I was pissed at him. This was just last weekend. Yeah, some of those conservative, right winger, religious fundamentals can rile me up a bit. Yet, I wouldn't call it hate. I wish them no physical or emotional harm.

[tdogg]

Tdog, just like everybody else, I put down my answer to the question: Is hate learned?

My nature is not towards natural hate. It's extremely difficult (if not impossible) for me to hold a grudge. I'm basically a trusting caring person unless I learn to do otherwise with someone. I can't think of anyone that I could say that I "hate". I could think of things tho, like:

the death penalty, people who are disrespectful to those I care about, people who harm other people or animals, people who disrespect nature, injustice, poverty, hunger, disease, just to name a few

But other people? Well, the closest I've come to 'hate' recently is watching The Eyes of Tammy Faye, and listening to Jerry Falwell's lies and deceit. He's no longer with us, but dang I was pissed at him. This was just last weekend. Yeah, some of those conservative, right winger, religious fundamentals can rile me up a bit. Yet, I wouldn't call it hate. I wish them no physical or emotional harm.

That is not to say I don't get angry sometimes. But anger and hate aren't necessarily a joint commodity.

[Dash]

...watching The Eyes of Tammy Faye...

Dear Tammy's not doin' so good these days. :'(

[DanaH]

I don’t have an anthropology major, I’m a Christian but I can’t quote scripture and verse, and I don’t think I’ve gone over to the dark side. But I’ll throw my 2 cents worth in….

The question is, Is hate learned or are we born with an inclination toward it?

Without going into all the issues raised here, I’m going to refer to a lesson my mother taught me as a young child that has always seemed to ring true.

It takes an adult to hate. Children on a playground can hate each other one moment, and be off playing the next.

As we get older, we learn to separate, judge, categorize, and learn to hate. As officer of several sports organizations, I often said that if the adults got along half as well as the kids, we all would have had a much better time.

Thanks Mom. I love you, even though you don’t yet know Dana.

On the other hand, as parent of 3 children, I don’t agree we are born a (complete) blank slate. I don’t think we are pre-destined for anything, but I do know that each of my daughters had a personality from day one, and those personalities are still there today as my oldest turns 22.

I know that this is only my perspective and that even within the US there are many cultures and backgrounds. I admit that my background was middle class white rural Americal. Throughout my travels, US to Europoe to Asia, I have met people from many social classes and beliefs, but I only have my childhood to reflect on as a reference for born vs. learned.

Good questions – I love soul force.

Oh, by the way, my vote is for learned!!

[alakazoom87]

I love Paul;

Romans 7:14-25

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

[Pablo Rafael]

Matthew,

It is interesting that of all the sections you choose to post from Romans you choose one that is all LAW. Your post seems to be pretty much all LAW I see very little GOSPEL.

(I define Gospel as what God has done and does for us, it is what saves us. I define law as all connected with what we do, not just regulations but in living lives to God's glory BECAUSE He has saved us.)

When I look at the writings of Saint Paul I see an overwhelming statement of the GOSPEL. In fact the clearest message we have about the Gospel is from the writings of Saint Paul. When the early church wanted to require that the gentiles follow the Jewish practices as prescribed in the Bible, it was Paul who focused the church on the saving Gospel message rather than on the regulations. It is Paul who says, "For by grace you are saved through faith, it is not of yourselves, so that no one can boast." Also Paul, "For I am persuaded that ... nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

To be a witness to Christ we must show forth the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that though we are sinners, God loves us enough to shed His own blood to save us. We need to show forth that love to others we meet. As Paul again says, "If I have not love I am nothing."

I love the writings of Paul as well for in them the Gospel message is presented in its clearest form.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[alakazoom87]

Matthew,

It is interesting that of all the sections you choose to post from Romans you choose one that is all LAW. Your post seems to be pretty much all LAW I see very little GOSPEL.

(I define Gospel as what God has done and does for us, it is what saves us. I define law as all connected with what we do, not just regulations but in living lives to God's glory BECAUSE He has saved us.)

When I look at the writings of Saint Paul I see an overwhelming statement of the GOSPEL. In fact the clearest message we have about the Gospel is from the writings of Saint Paul. When the early church wanted to require that the gentiles follow the Jewish practices as prescribed in the Bible, it was Paul who focused the church on the saving Gospel message rather than on the regulations. It is Paul who says, "For by grace you are saved through faith, it is not of yourselves, so that no one can boast." Also Paul, "For I am persuaded that ... nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

To be a witness to Christ we must show forth the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that though we are sinners, God loves us enough to shed His own blood to save us. We need to show forth that love to others we meet. As Paul again says, "If I have not love I am nothing."

I love the writings of Paul as well for in them the Gospel message is presented in its clearest form.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

I posted the section when Paul talks about his sinful nature.

To be a witness to Christ we must show forth the Gospel.

I agree, however, do we forfeit the law in the process?

We might have to start a new thread if we continue this topic

[Zerbie]

I

The question is, Is hate learned or are we born with an inclination toward it?

Without going into all the issues raised here, I’m going to refer to a lesson my mother taught me as a young child that has always seemed to ring true.

It takes an adult to hate. Children on a playground can hate each other one moment, and be off playing the next.

As we get older, we learn to separate, judge, categorize, and learn to hate.


On the other hand, as parent of 3 children, I don’t agree we are born a (complete) blank slate. I don’t think we are pre-destined for anything, but I do know that each of my daughters had a personality from day one, and those personalities are still there today as my oldest turns 22.

I only have my childhood to reflect on as a reference for born vs. learned.


Oh, by the way, my vote is for learned!!

Dana,

Will you come play with me? :p:lol:

Seriously, you have no idea how much you just taught me with that post. It was one of those lightning flashes of "I get it!" when I read the above.

Part of the reason for such diversity in answers to this thread seems to be whether we are considering hate to be a flash-in-the-pan emotion, or a sustained malice over time. I take the word to mean the latter. Emotions are not hate. Actions are. And I think there may be a point at which actions can be insensitive, stupid, selfish, but not yet hateful, and a point at which they cross over into hate. Haven't given the matter much study, but it seems so.

Like you, I based my answer to this question on my childhood. Your mom is right: it does take an adult to hate. I didn't know that until just now.

Hey Dana, I hope your mom gets to meet the real you. You seem like a truly wonderful person, with profound intelligence and perspective on life. I hope your mom sees this side of you.
:love:

[BrentRichards]

I agree, however, do we forfeit the law in the process?

FORFEIT? The law has not been forfeited, it has been FULFILLED. Christ's work was COMPLETE and SUFFICIENT ... he didn't just give us a "boost" so we could climb up ourselves ... The law only brings death. Paul's argument in Romans is detailed and developed. As Pablo suggests, you are only pointing to the "problem" section of his argument, and failing to move on to the solution part, which is the only reason Paul lays out the problem at all ... so he can point to the wonder of the solution in Christ!

[u-dog]

This said, I don't believe that we need to learn how to sin (by hating or otherwise) ... it is natural to us. But it is no less natural to us to seek truth and good (Some brands of Christians will disagree with me on that one). We live in tension between the two... As Augustine said, "The heart of man is restless, O God, until we find our rest in Thee."

Helpful at all? Dave and Andrew, do I get to stay in the Calvin Camp?


Get to STAY??? My gosh, Brent, you get to be the President of the Calvin Club. Nicely done... I'm saving your post to my hard drive even as we speak.

I would be interested in hearing (reading) how you seperate the doctrine of Original sin from a literal reading of the Garden of Eden narrative? (maybe you don't see the need? I don't know) But how do you understand Orginal Sinfulness if there was no LITERAL Fall? If you read my anthropology post above you know that I believe that we humans evolved to be the people we are (evolution being a tool in the hands of a sovereign God, of course, but evolution nonetheless). I don't believe that the world was created in seven literal days or that the world is only 4,000 plus years old. So how do I make sense of the Fall in that context? I DO believe in a Fallen world, but I'm not at all sure HOW I do. can you help me, Oh Calvinist demi-god?

Dave

[BrentRichards]

Get to STAY??? My gosh, Brent, you get to be the President of the Calvin Club. Nicely done... I'm saving your post to my hard drive even as we speak.

I would be interested in hearing (reading) how you seperate the doctrine of Original sin from a literal reading of the Garden of Eden narrative? (maybe you don't see the need? I don't know) But how do you understand Orginal Sinfulness if there was no LITERAL Fall? If you read my anthropology post above you know that I believe that we humans evolved to be the people we are (evolution being a tool in the hands of a sovereign God, of course, but evolution nonetheless). I don't believe that the world was created in seven literal days or that the world is only 4,000 plus years old. So how do I make sense of the Fall in that context? I DO believe in a Fallen world, but I'm not at all sure HOW I do. can you help me, Oh Calvinist demi-god?

Dave


This clearly calls for a new thread. It may just be you, me, and Andrew, but we three "frozen chosen" can hairsplit to our hearts' content over there...

[DanaH]

Geez, Or should I say "Jesus"?

First of all, Thank you Zerbie, you made me cry. (in a good way)

It looks like we're doing the same thing Jesus was frustrated with his followers for. Trying to read the bible (or at that time what was the current belief or religious law) like it was a law book, and decide just exactly how everything should work.

We will never finish that conversation, it's been going on for several thousand years.

I do know that in Christianity, children are innocent. If Hate is a sin, then a child can't hate? Jesus said (and I'm sure one of you will give me the verse number and correct me on the exact quote) suffer the little children to come unto me.

In my book, Jesus was the first rebel in christianity. He was kind of saying, hey, don't you get it, love each other!!

If only we could be like little children and come to christ with an open heart and mind.

I could be up to 4 cents worth by now?

Thx

[tdogg]

Dear Tammy's not doin' so good these days. :'(

Dash, yes, it's so sad. I love Tammy Faye. She has been through a lot and is one person that truly has the light of Jesus shining through her words and actions. And she is suffering so. :'(

Yes, Jesus is a rebel!! That's probably why I love him so!!! :love:

Dana and Zerbie, that is what I think too. Emotions (such as anger, loneliness, disappointment) can lead, over time to hate. But I don't see hate as an immediate emotion. More, I see is as a state of being over time, probably brought on by a myriad of negative emotions.

Is hate the opposite of love?

[DanaH]

I would be interested in hearing (reading) how you seperate the doctrine of Original sin from a literal reading of the Garden of Eden narrative? (maybe you don't see the need? I don't know) But how do you understand Orginal Sinfulness if there was no LITERAL Fall? If you read my anthropology post above you know that I believe that we humans evolved to be the people we are (evolution being a tool in the hands of a sovereign God, of course, but evolution nonetheless). I don't believe that the world was created in seven literal days or that the world is only 4,000 plus years old. So how do I make sense of the Fall in that context? I DO believe in a Fallen world, but I'm not at all sure HOW I do. can you help me,Dave

I hope Zerbie forgives me for delving into this discussion :lol:

My take on original sin, the garden of eden, and evolution. Mind you, just my opinon, we all know what that is worth.

OMG - I'm already flinching before I write.

I don't think that eating the apple was the sin. If I read that literally, how do I find a literal tree of life, or a tree of good and evil? Could the original sin have been sex, they did have children shortly after, and Eve's "punishment" was to bear children in a greatly multiplied sorrow. In addition, was the tree of life, or the tree of good and evil an analogy for man becoming aware? Evolution?

I read once that Darwin was a Christian who developed the evoltion Theory while trying to make some sense of the Bible.

OK, maybe I'm up to 6 cents.

Bottom line, nobody will ever really know evolution vs creation, or a beautiful combination of the two by a divine creator. (OK, I added some passion to the statement :-) So, is the purpose of the discussion to learn something about ourselves? Perhaps if not reading literally, one can see that possibly the author of Genesis had some of the same questions?

Another thought - The Jews had always claimed to be the chosen people. (excuse me if I show my ignorance here, just thinking out loud) In my childhood, I always wondered, was there a parallel going on, evolution and creation whereby the Jews were the created? Don't SCREAM - it was just a childhood thought.

Thanks for playing.....

[alakazoom87]

FORFEIT? The law has not been forfeited, it has been FULFILLED. Christ's work was COMPLETE and SUFFICIENT ... he didn't just give us a "boost" so we could climb up ourselves ... The law only brings death. Paul's argument in Romans is detailed and developed. As Pablo suggests, you are only pointing to the "problem" section of his argument, and failing to move on to the solution part, which is the only reason Paul lays out the problem at all ... so he can point to the wonder of the solution in Christ!

I know what Paul was talking about in Romans and I know the differences between The Law and Grace. However, my Romans passage was simply displaying Paul talking about his sinful nature.

Hope I don't get attacked every time I bust out scripture. :confused:

Is hate the opposite of love?

Interesting enough, as I thought about this question for a few seconds. It came to me that anything less than love is the opposite of love. What do you think?

[tdogg]

My thoughts are:

Hate is a state of being, an attitude, probably from hanging on to negative emotions for a period of time. Love being a state of being, an attitude probably from positive emotions over a period of time.

I'm not sure that anything less than love is th opposite. There is indifference - definitely not hate, but not love either. Somewhere in between. I also believe that love is what we need to strive for. Love is releasing all boundaries that hold us in and prevent us from feeling fully our postive emotions. Believe it or not, sometimes positive emotions are more difficult to handle than the negative ones.

Zoom87, I don't think anyone has anything against you posting Bible verses. Just be careful and trod softly. You see, we have all been through a lot. We have been looked down on, preached to that we are going to hell, even disowned by those who do it in the name of Christ and proudly recite Bible verses to 'back up' their action of disowning us and condemning us. So, when folks that obviously think we are sinning just by being gay (or as you might say acting on our gayness), start reciting Bible verses, it's not going to be all that embracing for us.

It's fine to quote the Bible if you want. You might want to have it be relevant to the conversation. You should avoid using the words "homosexual" or "gay" and "sin" or "sinner" in the same sentence. I guarantee you will get a lot of ruffled feathers your way quickly. You would do well to avoid using the terms choice and lifestyle in relation to gay as well. Put yourself in our position, try to think how we might feel, before using various words, terms or phrases that have long been used to condemn and hurt us. I'm glad you're here. I think there is a lot to learn. :love:

[andrewlittle]

I know what Paul was talking about in Romans and I know the differences between The Law and Grace. However, my Romans passage was simply displaying Paul talking about his sinful nature.

Hope I don't get attacked every time I bust out scripture. :confused:
Not attacked, zoom, just emotionally discussed. Quote away but, like any good Bible study, expect significant discussion. I may yet come back in more detail on your selcted passage but, for now, I'm playing catch up. If I do pick up that thread, it won't be to bust your chops, okay.

Interesting enough, as I thought about this question for a few seconds. It came to me that anything less than love is the opposite of love. What do you think?
Interesting! I might semantically nit pick it a little, but I can very much appreciate your thought here. So, instead, I might just proffer that anything less than love stands in opposition to love. In case there's any doubt, overall I a in full agreement with you on this one.

Interesting sidelight: In High School English my kids were exposed to a fascinating essay that suggested that several of the ancient Genesis narratives were originally from the pre-historic era during which hunter/gatherers and the new agriculturalist communities were in conflict. It raised up particularly the stories of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Able. I could probably get the info from my kids if anyone is interested.
I don't know for sure, Dave, that your kids read an essay by Daniel Quinn, but this is a consistent message of his. Quinn (in books like Ishmael, My Ishmael, Story of B, etc) examines the Genesis accounts as core cultural myths (myth=storytelling explanation, not necessarily fabrication).

Many biblical scholars and critics alike agree on one particular point. Whether it is meant to be literal history or historical metaphor the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is not a common type of document. The old adage goes, “victors write history.” More correctly, it should read, “dominant cultures write histories that generally reflect well on themselves.” Rarely have subservient cultures found the opportunity to record their history. Non-dominant history is almost always passed on by oral tradition that is, many times, intentionally metaphoric in order to hide the details from their dominators. The Hebrew Bible is a document produced by a society that was rarely, if ever, the dominant culture. It also many, many times does not reflect well on the Hebrews. Quinn, and many cultural anthropologists, have speculated that this is a hallmark of oral traditions whose main characters may be other populations. It is possible that the early part of Genesis is a story told by the descendants of victims and witnesses.

Agriculture, the generally accepted beginning of civilization, began in the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia). The first agriculture was cultivating, which replaced gathering, followed by herding, as opposed to hunting. There was, in fact, a separation of centuries between the development of each method of farming, as well as a geographic and ethnic separation. Caucasian inhabitants developed cultivating in the north. Early Semitic tribes in the south began herding at a later time. Cultivation begins with the planting of the first seed, but herding takes generations to develop. Radically different lifestyles are also associated with each agricultural type. Cultivators would tend to accumulate in villages, while herders are essentially nomadic as they move with the seasons and availability of flora. As has generally been the case when cultivators enlarge their territory, the herders (Semites) were driven out repeatedly in order to lay claim to their lands.

Quinn suggests that we need to unpack the Cain-Abel story before we can see its correlation to Adam. He suggests that the brothers are “emblematic” figures – those that represent different times and cultures. Cain, the “forger” or “spear”, was the first-born and the cultivator. Abel, the “breath”, was the herder and the second-born, possibly by centuries. Abel’s offering to God was acceptable while Cain’s was offensive. Cain, jealous of God’s favor, kills Abel. As the Semites saw it (and it is of course their version of the story that we have), the tiller of the soil Cain was irrigating his fields with the blood of Abel the herder. Unpacked, Abel the herder functioned within the “creation” without substantially changing it to suit his needs, while Cain the cultivator saw fit to recreate “creation” by clearing areas for planting and laboring over the soil to control the output.

The Semites had not been in the Fertile Crescent to witness the dawn of cultivation, but some centuries later were witnessing the problematic behavior of their neighbors from the North. Something had happened that caused this people to labor intensively in their fields as well as to murderously invade neighboring territories. In recreating a story, developing a myth, about what had happened the Semites may have put together what they knew and filled in the blanks with what made sense, or even interpreting divine revelation in terms they could understand. There must have been some occurrence that caused such behavior that went against tribal customs held by the Semites to be normative. Enter Adam.

Adam, humankind, must have done something wrong – but what? These people appeared to know better than God what creation should look like, since they cut down forests and rearranged what God had made. Could they know what God knows? That must be it – they somehow acquired knowledge that should only be limited to God. How would they come by such knowledge, unless they did something that God told them not to do? From here, we can speculate further about how a story of a personification of mankind as a whole ate from the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thereby sinning against an edict of God.

Whether or not you buy into Quinn’s analysis of Genesis, or even place any stock in Genesis at all, there are some items that are generally accepted as historically accurate. According to historian Frank E. Smitha, the Semites did not inhabit Mesopotamia – they literally lived to the south. The inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent were, in fact, Ubaidians, a Caucasian race. It was around 4000 BCE that a people called Sumerians moved into Mesopotamia, perhaps from around the Caspian Sea, but certainly from the North. By 3800 BCE the Sumerians supplanted the Ubaidians, who moved further north, and had built better canals for irrigating and transporting crops by boat to village centers. And the Sumerians grew in number, the increase in population the key element in creating what we call civilization. The Sumerians continued to push to the south, eventually displacing the Semites.

Genesis describes the location of Eden as:
Gen 2:10 A river flows out of Eden to water the garden [placed in the east of Eden], and from there it divides and becomes four branches.
11 The name of the first is Pishon; …
13 …The name of the second river is Gihon; …
14 …The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
This would place the Garden of Eden in the Fertile Crescent, north of the Semites and in the area that contained the Ubaidians and the later Sumerians.

[BrentRichards]

Hope I don't get attacked every time I bust out scripture.

You didn't get attacked, but you will get called on it every time you "bust out" Scripture and use it in a way that I believe misrepresents the overall message, which the "forfeit" comment suggested to me. In order to "forfeit" the law, you have to assume it still binds us, which I cannot accept as consonant with the NT's radical message of grace. Christ's work was not insufficient.

The three primary rules of Biblical interpretation, as I'm sure you're aware, are CONTEXT, CONTEXT, and CONTEXT ... similar rules apply here ... in the context of your previous comments here, I couldn't help but feel that your particular use of this particular passage, and your comment on "forfeiting" the law, was not merely pointing out Paul's comments on his sin nature. Instead, it reads like a pretty clear slap at we who have, in your mind, forfeited the law.

I'm mad at myself now, because from the first post I read from you, I promised myself I would not get involved in this discussion with you. But I did. Shame on me. So I have one question. Is there any chance at all that you might change your mind about ANYTHING through your interactions here? If not, can you tell me what you do intend by being here?

Feeling defensive and angry and angry at myself for it ...

[alakazoom87]

I believe misrepresents the overall message, which the "forfeit" comment suggested to me. In

I was playing Devils Advocate when I said: Should we forfeit the law? ;)

[Progo35]

I do think that Matthew's post needs to be read in the context of our discussion: we're talking about original sin, and in my opinion, Matthew's passage fits right in. From my reading of this passage in context, it seems to me like Paul is saying that even as a Christian, he has times when he relies on the law to guide him instead of the Holy Spirit who inspired that law and fulfilled it with the Resurrection. I feel that in this passage, Paul IS contrasting the grace of the Gospel with the law that brings death, because we can never follow it. Thus, when Paul does the things that he wishes he didn't do, which we all do, he knows that the law would condemn him as a sinner but that Christ's death made it possible for sinners to be reconcilled with God, which is the Gospel message in a nutshell.

[tdogg]

I do think that Matthew's post needs to be read in the context of our discussion: we're talking about original sin,

Actually, this thread is "Is Hate Learned" and nothing about original sin. But I think there is another active thread that is specifically geared towards original sin, so his post perhaps is more relevant to that discussion than this one.

[Progo35]

Okay, prior discussion about original sin in the context of whether or not hate is learned or inherited...

[tdogg]

Now that I read that post (original sin), I would say his post isn't too relevant there either! Interesting discussion over there...

Yeah, whenever verses such as these are posted, the poster is definitely going to be questioned. I don't see the relevance, but if you and the poster can, then cool.

[tdogg]

I meant "thread" on original sin (not a single post on this thread). Sorry!

[Daniel]

From South Pacific, by Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_(musical)


Youve Got To Be Carefully Taught

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

[Zerbie]

I always think of this song during these conversations!!

GMTA. ;)
:love::good:

[BrentRichards]

It also reminds me of this (I am a sucker for Sondheim):

35zOcQRrFec

[u-dog]

[QUOTE=BrentRichards;31577]It also reminds me of this (I am a sucker for Sondheim):

OK... Well, now my Goose Pimple's goose pimples have goose pimples.

[DanaH]

From South Pacific, by Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_(musical)

Daniel, thank you for this. I've never seen it, but I love it.