01 Jun 2014

H8ers Gonna H8

Religious 22 Comments

This might strike some (most?) of you as a “no kidding, Murphy” post, but maybe it will click with a few of you. If I can help just one reader…

On social media it’s fun to refer to implacable critics as “haters,” and the common explanation for their behavior is, “Haters gonna hate.” But I actually think that is more profound than most of the people using it realize. First, it crystallizes the choice we face: Are we going to approach others with love, or with hate? There’s no middle-of-the-road policy here.

Furthermore, what I’ve realized as well is that someone who is a “hater” to you, is not just picking on *you*. There are many recipients of that person’s hate on a daily basis. The person really IS a hater; that’s not just a cute term for “someone who really said rude things about my Throwback Thursday pic.”

What made me realize these things, was watching internet battles of late, where it was quite obvious to me that various partisans were hurling the most ludicrous of criticisms at each other, and apparently with righteous indignation. I previously would not have thought some of these exchanges were possible, had I not seen them with my own eyes. (Yes, the Piketty stuff is an example, but that’s just one of many, and I don’t even just mean arguments that have political ramifications.)

Yet this should be par for the course, for a Christian. No matter how ludicrous the criticism any of us receives from a hater, no matter how unfairly our wonderful efforts are despised by people who (in our minds) can’t hold a candle to all the hard work we’re doing… it is nothing compared to this:

10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up. 12 But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, “Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.” 13 And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14 But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.”

15 The Lord then answered him and said, “Hypocrite![a] Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it? 16 So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound—think of it—for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?” 17 And when He said these things, all His adversaries were put to shame; and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him.

And as those of you familiar with the gospels know, this was a recurring theme. Just like Clinton’s partisans sent out the talking point of “does not rise to the level of impeachment” during the Lewinsky scandal, so too did Jesus’ enemies actually keep bringing up the fact that He was miraculously healing people on the Sabbath. With a straight (and indignant) face, they were publicly criticizing someone for miraculously healing people when He should not have been working.

So no matter how annoyed you get with unbelievably idiotic nitpicking critics, take it with a chuckle: It’s nothing compared to what Jesus put up with, and He still willingly died to save all of the haters, including you and me.

22 Responses to “H8ers Gonna H8”

  1. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, Jesus’ rejoinder seems unsound to me. If you asked a Jewish doctor why he was practicing on the sabbath, would it really make sense for him to say “People are supposed to free animals from bondage on the sabbath, so I’m allowed to free patients from the bondage of medical conditions?”

    • Harold says:

      Or the bus driver that people should be freed from the bondage of walking? The eighteen years and extent of disablement are matters of degree, not of principle. If this is OK, then it would be OK to work to free a person from the bonds of a slightly sore toe.

      One could argue that to free the woman is indeed a worthy thing to do, but why not wait until tomorrow? She has suffered 18 years, one day won’t make much difference.

      Matthew 12 says: “He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

      This seems to fall into the is/ought trap. He is saying that everyone would lift out the sheep, using that to justify helping people on the Sabbath. That avoids the proper question, which is *should* one help the sheep on the Sabbath?

      I had always assumed that there was some latitude in the prohibitions of the Sabbath. Feeding the sick was presumably allowed, presumably if done as a volunteer not an employee. I read of current interpretations that “While extinguishing a fire is forbidden even when great property damage will result, in the event of any life-threatening fire one is required to extinguish the flames.” So one is not merely allowed, but required to “work” in order to save life.

      • guest says:

        That avoids the proper question, which is *should* one help the sheep on the Sabbath?

        Yeah, that’s a tough one.

        Unless there’s some nuance about the Sabbath I’m missing, he doesn’t seem to be answering the objection.

        You could lift your hand to your face to eat food that was prepared the day before, so that doesn’t qualify as work.

        Maybe only non-production / non-investing was in view, such that saving sheep from wells or healing others was OK.

  2. Gamble says:

    I think one of the toughest slaps to the face, is man demanding a human king and other manmade government when Jesus clearly says His Kingdom is not of this earth, don’t love the world, put down your sword, turn the other cheek, all authority is Mine, Love ME with all your heart mind and soul, etc…

  3. J Mann says:

    I honestly don’t get the analogy between the Lewinsky response and the parable.

    Bob, are you saying that in that example, Clinton was beset by small minded criticism or that Ken Starr was?

    • Gamble says:

      Yes I thought the analogy was dyslexic…

    • Benjamin Cole says:

      Huh? Where does Lewinsky fit in? And I happen to agree with Clinton’s backers that his private sex life was not an impeachable offense…but hey, only love here…

  4. Major-Freedom says:

    I will never accept the notion that any “worse case” or “better case” comparison should affect the justice, morality, or truth value of a particular action or conviction.

    To let even a foot in the door, will result in apathy towards murder and theft and rape, because after all, “At least it isn’t as bad as under Hitler!”.

    Likewise, I will never tolerate hatred just because some guy, whose stories may not even be historically accurate, had it worse. Chuckle? What, am I supposed to chuckle at being thrown into a cage and tortured, because some guy was nailed to a cross and left for dead? Never will I think less or more of an action based on worse cases, or better cases. Justice is justice not because it’s better than Hitler.

    If haters gonna hate, then I will show them my love for those who don’t hate. I won’t love the hater just because someone else was worse.

    • Anonymous says:

      You don’t believe in “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      You don’t believe in “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

      • Gamble says:

        I think MF is trying to say, ALWAYS hate the sin or in MF’s atheistic paradigm, hate the aggression/violence always no matter context or severity or pseudo rationalization…

      • Major-Freedom says:

        I judge people according to their actions.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Well, judging people is one thing, but just because someone is a bad person does that mean you should have negative feelings towards them? I think your emotions are better directed at what they did than at them.

          • Major-Freedom says:

            “Well, judging people is one thing, but just because someone is a bad person does that mean you should have negative feelings towards them?”

            Understanding them as a bad person IS having negative feelings towards them. Calling them a bad person is a judgment, and it is not a positive one.

            “I think your emotions are better directed at what they did than at them.”

            Perhaps I was not clear. I understand who people are by what they do. If you tell me to focus on the action, then you are telling me to focus on what I understand a person to be, which means it makes no sense to me for you to ask me to separate what a person is doing, from who they are.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              “Understanding them as a bad person IS having negative feelings towards them. Calling them a bad person is a judgment, and it is not a positive one.” Well, judgment can be an intellectual matter. You can dispassionately come to the conclusion that someone is a bad person, without having emotions like anger or hatred towards them.

              “Perhaps I was not clear. I understand who people are by what they do. If you tell me to focus on the action, then you are telling me to focus on what I understand a person to be, which means it makes no sense to me for you to ask me to separate what a person is doing, from who they are.” No, I’m not objecting to understanding who a person is on the basis of their actions. But you can still have positive feelings toward a person despite thinking that they’re evil. Even if the moral quality of a person is determined by the moral quality of their actions, the emotional attitude you have about the person need not be determined by the emotional attitude you have about their actions.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                “Well, judgment can be an intellectual matter. You can dispassionately come to the conclusion that someone is a bad person, without having emotions like anger or hatred towards them.”

                I don’t separate emotions from reason. I treat them as connected via hierarchy, where passions are the handmaiden of reason. In other words, if you feel emotional about something, it’s because of specific intellectual convictions you have, whethwe they are at this moment clear in your conscious thinking or not. If you don’t know why you feel a particular way about something, then it is because you haven’t yet become fully aware of the intellectual roots.

                If you call someone a bad person, I don’t believe that you can be dispassionate of it completely. I’ll grant you that you could be very dispassionate. But not fully. And my only point is that there is some negative feelings there when you call someone a bad person. The only difference is how strong those feelings are, which I argue is a function of your intellectual convictions.

                “No, I’m not objecting to understanding who a person is on the basis of their actions. But you can still have positive feelings toward a person despite thinking that they’re evil.”

                I hold that if you understand someone as evil, then that is itself a thought that carries a negative connotation. It is itself a negative feeling.

                If you claim to have positive feelings for a person who does evil, then you are either simply ignoring and/or not including the evil in that assessment, or you are defining evil as good, or you are not understanding a person as what they do. If the last one applies to you, then that’s your ontology, not mine. I identify people as what they do. I don’t merely “base” my judgment of who they are on what they do. I define a human as an actor.

                “Even if the moral quality of a person is determined by the moral quality of their actions, the emotional attitude you have about the person need not be determined by the emotional attitude you have about their actions.”

                I don’t separate them, and I don’t believe they can be separated as you claim. If I believe the moral quality of a person’s actions are evil, then I don’t separate those actions from the person, since I understand a person by their actions. I understand who you are by virtue of your actions. I don’t separate your actions from you.

              • Harold says:

                “if you feel emotional about something, it’s because of specific intellectual convictions you have.” Really? All emotion is based on intellect? No room for instinct at all?

  5. Matt G says:

    If you accept deontological arguments for natural rights, don’t you understand more about people than just what they do?

    IANAC but I think this is one of Jesus’ main themes: if judged by our actions, we are all found wanting. It’s our underlying humanity that is worthy of love, and this is more fundamental than any notion of worldly justice.

    • Matt G says:

      Oops, supposed to be a reply to Major-Freedom.

  6. Dan Lind says:

    Am I nuts for wondering why give the term “hater” credibility?

    If I hate the word am I absolved from being a hater because words are inanimate?

    What IS a hater?

    Urban Dictionary:
    A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

    Wikipedia:
    Hater is a derogatory term used to describe people who are derogatory towards people. Haters behave as such not out of jealousy, but out of the need to reduce the target of hatred’s standing. The term is often used as an abusive ad hominem attack to dismiss any negative criticism. It is also often commits the fallacy of begging the question as it exempts the abusive use of the word hater from being considered hateful by assuming it’s reasonable and the criticism made by the supposed hater is not.

    Dictionary.com:
    ( in combination )a grudging or spiteful person, esp one who disparages others: a woman-hater ; a cop-hater ; Don’t let the haters get you down

    A “hater” then seems to be a person with a mean and nasty disposition, something of a misanthrope.

    But is this really how the term is used?

    Are all racists haters but not all haters racists?

    Are perpetrators of “hate crimes” haters?

    “Hater” seems to belong in the dictionary of the imprecise, a blunderbuss term, targeting anything in a general vicinity. It’s a pejorative term that relieves its user of the responsibility for identifying exactly of what it is he disapproves.

    It’s a little disconcerting to find Murphy giving credibility to the term.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Your disconcertation just shows that haters gonna hate.

      • Dan Lind says:

        Doesn’t mean a damn thing, but that’s hilarious.

        Wisecrackers gonna wisecrack.

Leave a Reply to Gamble

Cancel Reply