Atheism

[dlamberth]

I would move to stop them from doing me harm.

As would I.

At the same time, where I'm at today, as I moved to stop them I'd no longer consider them or anyone else an "enemy". I couldn't say that in the past. Back than I would have been saying the same sort of things as you are. But I'm a different person these days.

.

 

[dlamberth]

With all the history the human race has at committing genocide against others, ...

It's really sad our attachment to hate and fear and the horrors it will cause us to do to our fellow human beings.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

With all the history the human race has at committing genocide against others, I refuse outright the idea that my view that those who wish to do others grave harm need to be stopped as some sort of self-perpetuating prophecy. We cannot stand by and allow evils to be unchallenged or refuse to view those who do evil things as enemies of us all.

The thing is, though: that is EXACTLY what the perpetrators of genocide told themselves, too, virtually every single time: they did not just decide to randomly murder somebody - they ALWAYS believed that they were protecting themselves against harm at the hands of their victims.

Look at Rwanda, look at Bosnia, look at Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Armenians in the late Ottoman empire: the pattern is always the same. People "defending themselves" against a group that is perceived as a direct threat to their own well-being and safety.

 

[light upon light]

And what of those would would actively seek you to enact their violence upon you? Should we consider them cuddly teddy bears that just need a hug?

Obviously human beings and societies need to protect themselves from violence.

The "enemy" construct though is exceedingly dangerous and has enabled the infliction of countless evil on millions of human beings.

 

[LoAmmi]

The thing is, though: that is EXACTLY what the perpetrators of genocide told themselves, too, virtually every single time: they did not just decide to randomly murder somebody - they ALWAYS believed that they were protecting themselves against harm at the hands of their victims.

Look at Rwanda, look at Bosnia, look at Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Armenians in the late Ottoman empire: the pattern is always the same. People "defending themselves" against a group that is perceived as a direct threat to their own well-being and safety.

So what if that's what they thought? I'm not allowed to oppose them because they might believe they are correct? I cannot believe they are enemies of the common good when they go off and slaughter those who have not harmed them?

No, I'm sorry. I refuse.

 

[LoAmmi]

As would I.

At the same time, where I'm at today, as I moved to stop them I'd no longer consider them or anyone else an "enemy". I couldn't say that in the past. Back than I would have been saying the same sort of things as you are. But I'm a different person these days.

.

Enemy:
1: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2
: something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>


One seeking to injure me is my enemy by definition.

 

[bhsmte]

Enemy:
1: one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2
: something harmful or deadly <alcohol was his greatest enemy>


One seeking to injure me is my enemy by definition.

One is certainly entitled to defend themselves from someone trying to injure you. Have you come across many people in your life trying to injure you?

 

[LoAmmi]

One is certainly entitled to defend themselves from someone trying to injure you. Have you come across many people in your life trying to injure you?

Yes. I have. See this:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821330/#post65579346

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. I have. See this:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821330/#post65579346

That's too bad and it does happen to some people. If you had to defend yourself, no problem with that at all.

Was there a reason, why you were bullied so much?

 

[dlamberth]

One seeking to injure me is my enemy by definition.

I understand your perspective way too well. There is another perspective though, and that's from the heart. It's where I can see that another is trying to do me harm, yet at the same time my not seeing them as an enemy. That's a dichotomy, I know. But that's what happens when heart gets involved with brain. It doesn't mean I have to like them or even want to be around them. But it does have to do with what's going on in my head and the type of thoughts I have going on about them.

.

 

[LoAmmi]

I understand your perspective way too well. There is another perspective though, and that's from the heart. It's where I can see that another is trying to do me harm, yet at the same time my not seeing them as an enemy. That's a dichotomy, I know. But that's what happens when heart gets involved with brain. It doesn't mean I have to like them or even want to be around them. But it does have to do with what's going on in my head and the type of thoughts I have going on about them.

.

I see people as human beings created in the image of the divine. I treat everybody with respect and dignity. However, I see people as needing to be stopped when they do things that harm others and say they are enemies of the people.

I don't involve myself in this "heart" stuff people talk about. I don't know what it means.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's too bad and it does happen to some people. If you had to defend yourself, no problem with that at all.

Was there a reason, why you were bullied so much?

Same thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7821330/#post65582647

 

[oi_antz]

Who exactly are you claiming that I hate?

You said this:

there are people we will come across we don't care much for in life and simply will not love.

By my definition, if you don't care for someone you must be deciding that they do not gratify you enough to deserve your compassion. That is on the negative scale of like and dislike, so because you dislike them enough to not care about them, I say that you hate them.

Compare this to the idea that loving your enemies is a good thing to do. The idea is instructing us that when people treat us in a bad way, maybe they bully us, maybe they rob us, maybe they slander us, yet when they are shivering and hungry, we feed them. This is usually quite different from self defence when being attacked, but that decision belongs to the individual. Romans 12:20 contains this message, finishing by saying "In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.". The potential impact of this is that your enemy can see how being miserable is not pleasant, and how kindness can put an end to misery. It is an opportunity for their conscience to convince them that their behaviour is making others miserable and that they should be more kind. In fact, as you give food to your enemy, you have the opportunity to stimulate their conscience in that way, which is what will cause their shame to become burning coals.

 

[bhsmte]

You said this:


By my definition, if you don't care for someone you must be deciding that they do not gratify you enough to deserve your compassion. That is on the negative scale of like and dislike, so because you dislike them enough to not care about them, I say that you hate them.

Compare this to the idea that loving your enemies is a good thing to do. The idea is instructing us that when people treat us in a bad way, maybe they bully us, maybe they rob us, maybe they slander us, yet when they are shivering and hungry, we feed them. This is usually quite different from self defence when being attacked, but that decision belongs to the individual. Romans 12:20 contains this message, finishing by saying "In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.". The potential impact of this is that your enemy can see how being miserable is not pleasant, and how kindness can put an end to misery. It is an opportunity for their conscience to convince them that their behaviour is making others miserable and that they should be more kind. In fact, as you give food to your enemy, you have the opportunity to stimulate their conscience in that way, which is what will cause their shame to become burning coals.

Because I don't care for a person and in how they may behave, means I hate them? Maybe in your world, but not mine.

 

[LoAmmi]

Compare this to the idea that loving your enemies is a good thing to do. The idea is instructing us that when people treat us in a bad way, maybe they bully us, maybe they rob us, maybe they slander us, yet when they are shivering and hungry, we feed them.

I would agree that this would be in line with Jewish teaching in most cases. I have helped those who were once bullies of mine.

 

[dlamberth]

By my definition, if you don't care for someone you must be deciding that they do not gratify you enough to deserve your compassion. That is on the negative scale of like and dislike, so because you dislike them enough to not care about them, I say that you hate them.

That's a ridiculous jump to conclusion. Lack of empathy or compassion does not equate to hate.

.

 

[oi_antz]

That's a ridiculous jump to conclusion. Lack of empathy or compassion does not equate to hate.

.

Oh? So what causes someone to not care for another?

 

[oi_antz]

Because I don't care for a person and in how they may behave, means I hate them? Maybe in your world, but not mine.

Maybe the term "care for" has a cultural meaning to you that it doesn't have for me. What makes you not care for this person when they need someone to care for them?

 

[Zoness]

I don't care for most people and they don't care for me. I don't see an issue here? It makes my emotional management much easier.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You said this:

Originally Posted by bhsmte

there are people we will come across we don't care much for in life and simply will not love.
​

By my definition, if you don't care for someone you must be deciding that they do not gratify you enough to deserve your compassion. That is on the negative scale of like and dislike, so because you dislike them enough to not care about them, I say that you hate them.

Compare this to the idea that loving your enemies is a good thing to do. The idea is instructing us that when people treat us in a bad way, maybe they bully us, maybe they rob us, maybe they slander us, yet when they are shivering and hungry, we feed them. This is usually quite different from self defence when being attacked, but that decision belongs to the individual. Romans 12:20 contains this message, finishing by saying "

In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.".

The potential impact of this is that your enemy can see how being miserable is not pleasant, and how kindness can put an end to misery.

It is an opportunity for their conscience to convince them that their behaviour is making others miserable and that they should be more kind. In fact, as you give food to your enemy, you have the opportunity to stimulate their conscience in that way, which is what will cause their shame to become burning coals.

Excellent!

Thou would maketh a good Christian

Prov 25:
21 If one hating of thee is hungry, give him bread to eat and if one be thirsty, be giving him waters to drink
22 That burning coals thou heaping upon their head,--and YAHWEH shall repay to thee.
[Romans 12:20]
&#12288;
Matthew 5:44
"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Luke 6:35
"But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High.
For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Romans 12:20
Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
[Probverbs 25:21]
.