Love your enemies

Zombrex

Little fact finding post by me, to increase my understanding of issues raised in a thread on the A&A forum.

Can I ask what you guys understand by Jesus' command to love your enemies, how you view this command in terms of your day to day interaction with people who may be considere enemies, eg aggressive in a physical mental or verbally fashion to you.

Be it something mild like atheists on this forum annoying you, or Richard Dawkins saying something you think is unfair and stupid, right up to a Chinese soldier throwing a Christian in a holding cell.

Specifically a question of do you believe there is a compatibility between the general strive to love your enemies, and the day to day, hour to hour emotional response when faced with your enemies, be it mild annoyance and anger right to up the desire for revenge on those who have harmed you.

I know we no longer have Christian Only threads, but to non-Christians try to keep this civil please

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Specifically a question of do you believe there is a compatibility between the general strive to love your enemies, and the day to day, hour to hour emotional response when faced with your enemies, be it mild annoyance and anger right to up the desire for revenge on those who have harmed you.

There is compatiblility in the incompatibility .

Prior to being born again, the spirit of a person is in harmony with their body/mind. Both componants are as sin-loving peas in a pod. When the person is born again however, their spirit is renewed but their body isn't (yet). A conflict situation is established as a result - it can be considered the frontline where the holy (the persons new spirit) meets the unholy (the sinful flesh)

When faced with e.g. unrighteous anger (desiring e.g. to apply eye-for-an-eye law in the form of revenge) the Christian is being asked whether he will permit his sinful body (the source of the anger) it's desire - given that such desires are incompatible with who he (his spirit) now is. The argument he faces has many strands, amongst which:

- he has been forgiven the very sins which he now wants to extract revenge for in another. How can this be?

- in salvation, he willingly signed up to lie under the sway and rule of Christ in his life. And he knows that Christ desires he forgive the other. Is seeking revenge compatible with what he signed up for?

- he is engaged in a fight against satan's realm - a realm which he hates, how compatible is it that he fight for the other side in giving his sinful flesh it's way? Not very.


There is a difference between righteous anger and unrighteous anger. I'm thinking of Jesus driving the merchants from the temple or Paul extorting us 'not to sin in our anger' (indicating anger in itself potentially a healthy and normal and compatible-with-Christianity emotion).

A recent example of this would be Murdoch's current trouble. I would see him and his empire as advancing the kingdom of satan and I detest the kinds of ways in which people working in that industry have been enticed into in their sin and the darkness which has resulted in the world as a result of his activity. I rejoice in the idea of such an empire crumbling and the stark illustration of a man's life work crumbling down before his eyes at a time in his life when his powers have waned past the point of being able to recover from it. In love though, I would hope this experience will prove shatter Murdoch's pride and that this proves a bottom-of-the-barrel experience for him. I would like nothing better than all this depravity be turned to the salvation of him and others.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a difference between righteous anger and unrighteous anger. I'm thinking of Jesus driving the merchants from the temple or Paul extorting us 'not to sin in our anger' (indicating anger in itself potentially a healthy and normal and compatible-with-Christianity emotion).

A recent example of this would be Murdoch's current trouble. I would see him and his empire as advancing the kingdom of satan and I detest the kinds of ways in which people working in that industry have been enticed into in their sin and the darkness which has resulted in the world as a result of his activity. I rejoice in the idea of such an empire crumbling and the stark illustration of a man's life work crumbling down before his eyes at a time in his life when his powers have waned past the point of being able to recover from it. In love though, I would hope this experience will prove shatter Murdoch's pride and that this proves a bottom-of-the-barrel experience for him. I would like nothing better than all this depravity be turned to the salvation of him and others.

That is a good example of what I'm asking, the marrying of righteous anger and the commandment to love your enemy.

Using the Murdock example, do you think that if the cause it righteous (and few I think would argue that Murdock's empire is not a blot on the face of humanity), that justified the anger. Or must the anger also be tempared with the idea of love.

So something like humiliating Murdock with a pie in the face might be seen as a justified expression of disgust and anger. But is it still loving.

Manach

I've never given this injuncation too much thought to be honest. In every day normal life, I, along with a vast majority of people
don't have enemies. We have (and in my case I am) to deal irrantants, rudeness, lack of charity - but these are every day phenenoum
which we can deal with using a modicum of Christian charity/Emotional intelligence depending on world view.

For true enemies, I reckon I'd nearly be more inclined to a proportional response, a Shakespearian Measure for Measure within
a legal framework. At best, to deal a true enemy, it would be act within the terms of mercy, as the quality of mercy (vaguely
remembering from the inter-cert). At worst, an exact pound of flesh is due in accordance of the laws, no more/no less to "fed fat the ancient grudge".

philologos

I don't consider you or any of the other A&A folks enemies :pac:. I wish the very best for you in everything that you do. Ultimately I think it means don't have enemies. As loving ones enemies is a fundamental contradiction.

Yes, some people may annoy me from time to time, but I wouldn't consider such people enemies. Rather what is the interesting challenge for the Christian is to try and show grace to such people.

PDN

I have, over the last few years, been threatened with violence on a number of occasions because of my involvement in helping immigrant communities. On one occasion I received an anonymous deaththreat in the post (letters cut out of a newspaper, just like a ransom demand in the movies) and on another occasion people smeared dog faeces over the windows of our church accompanied by racist graffiti. So, while I consider no man to be an enemy, there are obviously people out there who see me as an enemy.

I understand Jesus' words as saying that I am to bear no personal ill-will against those who hate me. I should not rejoice if they get sick or have an accident, and I should pray for their well-being. None of that, of course, prevents me from viewing their behaviour as abhorrent. Nor would it stop me seeking to have their actions, where appropriate, reported to the police and legal recourse taken.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

I've never given this injuncation too much thought to be honest. In every day normal life, I, along with a vast majority of people
don't have enemies. We have (and in my case I am) to deal irrantants, rudeness, lack of charity - but these are every day phenenoum
which we can deal with using a modicum of Christian charity/Emotional intelligence depending on world view.

Isn't the point though that Jesus is saying deal with it with love? That it is easy to love those who love you but, but that Christians should try to love everyone?

Do you think you deal with the irritants, rude etc with love and if so what does that mean, to you specifically?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I don't consider you or any of the other A&A folks enemies :pac:. I wish the very best for you in everything that you do. Ultimately I think it means don't have enemies. As loving ones enemies is a fundamental contradiction.

Yes, some people may annoy me from time to time, but I wouldn't consider such people enemies. Rather what is the interesting challenge for the Christian is to try and show grace to such people.

Is that different, to your mind, than showing love to them?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good example of what I'm asking, the marrying of righteous anger and the commandment to love your enemy.

There's probably no difficulty in theory. The only problem comes in practice, the tendency being to allow your righteous anger to express sinfully. Satan is nothing if not crafty.

Using the Murdock example, do you think that if the cause it righteous (and few I think would argue that Murdock's empire is not a blot on the face of humanity), that justified the anger. Or must the anger also be tempared with the idea of love.

Rather than pie Murdoch, I'd see the loving response to be my praying for him. In prayer I would be thankful for what appears to be the crumbling of a tool of Satan (whose willing pawn Murdoch is understood by me to be). I'd also be earnestly desiring that this personal calamity (along with his advancing age) would be the thing to bring about a heart change .. resulting in his salvation.

santing

There are plenty of examples online to illuistrate this principle with. One I like: http://odb.org/2008/01/23/kingdom-living/

Manach

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't the point though that Jesus is saying deal with it with love? That it is easy to love those who love you but, but that Christians should try to love everyone?
Do you think you deal with the irritants, rude etc with love and if so what does that mean, to you specifically?

Ans: No.
In that being irritants, they/I are people working at cross-purposes in life and are not enemies. The normal reaction is proportionate, akin to the restrain of the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". No doubt, I should deal with issues in love as per Jesus' words, but alas I'm still a work in progress and besides, if I declared I was doing so in such a fashion at work, HR would summon me to their den. I'd rather the lions.

Monty.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A recent example of this would be Murdoch's current trouble. I would see him and his empire as advancing the kingdom of satan and I detest the kinds of ways in which people working in that industry have been enticed into in their sin and the darkness which has resulted in the world as a result of his activity. I rejoice in the idea of such an empire crumbling and the stark illustration of a man's life work crumbling down before his eyes at a time in his life when his powers have waned past the point of being able to recover from it. In love though, I would hope this experience will prove shatter Murdoch's pride and that this proves a bottom-of-the-barrel experience for him. I would like nothing better than all this depravity be turned to the salvation of him and others.

Make no mistake, Murdoch's enemies are just exploiting his current weakness, under the disguise of a pseudo concern for the phone hacking targets and a faux moral outrage. Their own lust for power is every bit as great as Murdoch's, e.g. Ted Turner (CNN), The Maxwells, Bill Gates, etc. etc.

The media no longer strives to inform the public with facts, that day is long gone. The name of the big money game today is to manipulate the public with opinion, not fact. He who controls the public's opinion today : owns them.

Monty.

Love your enemies ?

Anyone who thinks they don't have enemies, just has clever ones.
It's called the rat race for a reason.

I consider no one an enemy, but I have come across many who desperately want to consider me an enemy and fight me as one.

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." -Romans 12:17-21

Is ignoring your enemies the same as loving them ?

That's the best I can do for now, as my enemies are neither hungry or thirsty, but they are envious and greedy.

"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." -1 Peter 2:21-23

antiskeptic

Monty. wrote: »

Make no mistake, Murdoch's enemies are just exploiting his current weakness, under the disguise of a pseudo concern for the phone hacking targets and a faux moral outrage. Their own lust for power is every bit as great as Murdoch's, e.g. Ted Turner (CNN), The Maxwells, Bill Gates, etc. etc.

I don't recall my mentioning I was under any illusions on the matter.

santing

Originally Posted by Monty.
Make no mistake, Murdoch's enemies are just exploiting his current weakness, under the disguise of a pseudo concern for the phone hacking targets and a faux moral outrage. Their own lust for power is every bit as great as Murdoch's, e.g. Ted Turner (CNN), The Maxwells, Bill Gates, etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't recall my mentioning I was under any illusions on the matter.

I think I was already taught at the uni (25 years ago) that the biggest lie on the tellie was the news... So nothing changed.

Monty.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't recall my mentioning I was under any illusions on the matter.

Fair enough, it was not clear from your posts.

TravelJunkie

Wicknight wrote: »

Little fact finding post by me, to increase my understanding of issues raised in a thread on the A&A forum.

Can I ask what you guys understand by Jesus' command to love your enemies, how you view this command in terms of your day to day interaction with people who may be considere enemies, eg aggressive in a physical mental or verbally fashion to you.

Be it something mild like atheists on this forum annoying you, or Richard Dawkins saying something you think is unfair and stupid, right up to a Chinese soldier throwing a Christian in a holding cell.

Specifically a question of do you believe there is a compatibility between the general strive to love your enemies, and the day to day, hour to hour emotional response when faced with your enemies, be it mild annoyance and anger right to up the desire for revenge on those who have harmed you.

I know we no longer have Christian Only threads, but to non-Christians try to keep this civil please

hI Wicknight,

I think it boils down to 'can you forgive them' and then 'move on'.

Forgive and forget.

Tough one, and one every christian will struggle with, don't let them tell you otherwise! But, we have God to help us do this, and it does happen occassionally!

Sometimes, praying all the while, it goes like this:

Forgive, Forget, Remember again, Forgive again, Forget, Remember Again, Forgive again, Forget, Remember again, Forgive again, Forget. Remember with love and without mallice so no need of forgiveness.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I think it boils down to 'can you forgive them' and then 'move on'.

Really?

Would you define your relationship with people you love, such as your family, in such terms?

Asry

I would hope to be forgiving. It's the only part of living by the law of God that I'm good at, really ; in every other way, I fall fairly short of the mark.

But yeah, I think a lot of the deal with people who are horrible to you is that you need to understand where they're coming from. I'm saying this as a normal person though, not someone who's been tortured or raped or falsely imprisoned.

Even if I don't have a face-to-face discussion with the person who hates me or acts aggressively towards me, I'd have a think about how they would be feeling, what their motives might be.

I have been bullied and made less of for no reason other than being the person I can't help being. That was the hardest thing to forgive, but I think you need to understand in order to do it.

TravelJunkie

Wicknight wrote: »

Really?

Would you define your relationship with people you love, such as your family, in such terms?

Yes, I've had issues with close family and I've had to forgive them over and over again. I've put it behind me. I'm refering to moving on from the problem, not the person. The more I love someone the easier it is to forgive them, but, the more it hurts.