"Love Your Enemies"

mister_lister · 05-26-2007, 07:53 PM

Christ supposedly taught to "Love Your Enemies". Through out my Christian experience, from age 15 to 33, I found this to be one of the least taught and followed teachings of Christ.

Consider for a moment the implications of that teaching.

If you are to love your enemy, should you go to war to kill him?

If you are to love your enemy, should you take him to court to sue her?

If you love your enemy, would you rather do everything in your power to help her\him prosper?

Many denominations have explained away this teaching of Christ, instead putting in it's place doctrines of "just war" and "reasonable self defense". The Christian Church By and Large (except for a very few denominations) have abandoned Christ and his teachings.

The primitive church (first 100 years) according to everything I have read would not even allow a soldier in their congregation because of this teaching and others. A soldier had to give up self defense and killing to be a part of the congregation and this caused them to keep secret their beliefs and actions from ROME.

What are your thoughts?

milligal · 06-24-2007, 12:34 PM

I just found this thread or I would have responded sooner. This topic seems like one that applies to those that believe the bible should be taken literally. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to take up arms, are banned from taking each other to court but they believe that the bible is absolutely literal including that women should be in subjection, divorce is wrong and they still use shunning as a congregational disciplinary rule.

The bible may teach these things but let's face it, if we refused to take up arms we'd be speaking German right now and JW's would still be rotting in concentration camps. We don't live in a world where these teachings are practical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mister_lister

Christ supposedly taught to "Love Your Enemies". Through out my Christian experience, from age 15 to 33, I found this to be one of the least taught and followed teachings of Christ.

Consider for a moment the implications of that teaching.

If you are to love your enemy, should you go to war to kill him?

If you are to love your enemy, should you take him to court to sue her?

If you love your enemy, would you rather do everything in your power to help her\him prosper?

Many denominations have explained away this teaching of Christ, instead putting in it's place doctrines of "just war" and "reasonable self defense". The Christian Church By and Large (except for a very few denominations) have abandoned Christ and his teachings.

The primitive church (first 100 years) according to everything I have read would not even allow a soldier in their congregation because of this teaching and others. A soldier had to give up self defense and killing to be a part of the congregation and this caused them to keep secret their beliefs and actions from ROME.

What are your thoughts?

Og · 06-24-2007, 01:39 PM

I believe the point here is similar to buddhist detachment. Jesus has another quote in luke that says you should hate your mother/father/children/friends and your own life to be his follower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 14:26

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

I think that this is part of the philosophy of detachment. Find that middle path and don't let forces of fear and desire drive your psyche. Neither attachment or renunciation is the solution. Both of these actions tie you to an idea. But the middle path of negating the effect of external forces on your psyche is the fundamental point of what buddhism (and in my opinion, christianity) is speaking to.

Hate your loved ones and love the ones you hate. It's like the notion of the cyclone of samsara in hinduism where the point of enlightenment and attainment of nirvana is the calm eye of the storm where opposing ideas have no meaning (i.e. how jesus transcended heaven and hell with the ressurection).

I don't think that it means to literally love your enemies. I think they can still be your enemies but you must remove acts of malice in your classification of them as enemies.

There's a neat story about a samurai who's master was killed by a man. The samurai hunted this man down for vengeance. When the samurai finally had the man cornered and disarmed and had his sword drawn, the man spit in his face. The samurai sheathed his swords and walked away leaving the man alive.

The point was that his act would have been tainted by his own malice towards the man for spitting on him and not as an act of retribution and honor in respect for his master.

It doesn't mean that the two weren't enemies. It means that the behavior was rational instead of driven by fear and desire. This is the essence of enlightenment in the christian and buddhist sense.

Quote:

If you are to love your enemy, should you go to war to kill him?

If you are to love your enemy, should you take him to court to sue her?

So i would say that the answer is yes to the above. The point is to have rational reasons based on compassionate approach to all things in order to call them your enemy. Enemy does not have to be something that you HATE. It can be something that you are set against for very good reasons. Being an enemy of ignorance, for example.

milligal · 06-24-2007, 02:39 PM

I have to agree with that. In the same sense there are behaviors that must be controlled and some stopped because of the outcome they would have if let go.

I definitely think that many christian religions do not see the moral in the story and take these commands literal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

I believe the point here is similar to buddhist detachment. Jesus has another quote in luke that says you should hate your mother/father/children/friends and your own life to be his follower.

I think that this is part of the philosophy of detachment. Find that middle path and don't let forces of fear and desire drive your psyche. Neither attachment or renunciation is the solution. Both of these actions tie you to an idea. But the middle path of negating the effect of external forces on your psyche is the fundamental point of what buddhism (and in my opinion, christianity) is speaking to.

Hate your loved ones and love the ones you hate. It's like the notion of the cyclone of samsara in hinduism where the point of enlightenment and attainment of nirvana is the calm eye of the storm where opposing ideas have no meaning (i.e. how jesus transcended heaven and hell with the ressurection).

I don't think that it means to literally love your enemies. I think they can still be your enemies but you must remove acts of malice in your classification of them as enemies.

There's a neat story about a samurai who's master was killed by a man. The samurai hunted this man down for vengeance. When the samurai finally had the man cornered and disarmed and had his sword drawn, the man spit in his face. The samurai sheathed his swords and walked away leaving the man alive.

The point was that his act would have been tainted by his own malice towards the man for spitting on him and not as an act of retribution and honor in respect for his master.

It doesn't mean that the two weren't enemies. It means that the behavior was rational instead of driven by fear and desire. This is the essence of enlightenment in the christian and buddhist sense.

So i would say that the answer is yes to the above. The point is to have rational reasons based on compassionate approach to all things in order to call them your enemy. Enemy does not have to be something that you HATE. It can be something that you are set against for very good reasons. Being an enemy of ignorance, for example.

jaej · 06-29-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milligal

I just found this thread or I would have responded sooner. This topic seems like one that applies to those that believe the bible should be taken literally. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to take up arms, are banned from taking each other to court but they believe that the bible is absolutely literal including that women should be in subjection, divorce is wrong and they still use shunning as a congregational disciplinary rule.

The bible may teach these things but let's face it, if we refused to take up arms we'd be speaking German right now and JW's would still be rotting in concentration camps. We don't live in a world where these teachings are practical.

The point isn't that it's practical. The point is it's christ teaching, which is not followed by supposed 'christians'. I don't think mister was saying we should follow those ideas, but that christians don't, which really makes them not christians.