Enemy loving: Did Jesus Really Mean It?

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus is also recorded saying in Luke 19:27, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Not exactly love your enemy.
I find it a rather strange verse that immediately follows Jesus preaching a parable.
It just seems out of place when reading the whole chapter.

That's a parable about what was soon to happen to those who rejected the Messiah.

"While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' "He was made king, however, and returned home."

This is about Christ, His death and resurrection, and the unbelieving Jews...

What happened to them in the end? The Rome they allied with to kill Jesus and persecute His followers eventually turned on them and killed them, in largest part.

So it's a righteous anger and a fitting end to those people.

We don't take vengeance on our enemies, vengeance is mine saith the Lord. Until then, we love our enemies because God loved us while we were yet enemies, dead in our sins... He died for us... that's love.

Reject that King however, and HE will answer it.

 

[timothyu]

Just as Jews were in an occupation by Roman forces, so are we surrounded by enemies...

That would require then a physical messiah like the one the Jews were looking for. Our enemy is ourselves and those others who refuse to put the will of the Father ahead of our own.

 

[John Helpher]

Counter arguments exist for most positions.

Fair enough. I will rephrase. You may imagine a counter argument, but a rational one does not exist.

erhaps I missed it, but has love, of any kind, been defined in this thread?

Yes. Enemy loving, familial love (e.g. a husband for his wife), feel-good love (e.g. an emotional feeling which is not consistent with reality), unconditional love, and love which is demonstrated through actions (i.e. if you love me, you will obey me).

So what is your definition, or definitions in the context of enemies?

People tend to end up enemies of one another for petty or irrational reasons, e.g. you hurt me so I will hurt you, or, you have something I want and won't give it to me so now we're enemies.

The kind of love Jesus promoted is to demonstrate that there is something bigger than these petty differences. I realize it may not feel petty to the person who has been hurt, and yet, retaliation rarely achieves justice. We all would like to see justice when we feel aggrieved (which is why we justify hurting our enemies), but we tend to be so completely ignorant when it comes to what justice is.

Until we can learn how to love even those who hurt us, we will not understand how to accurately dispense justice. Rather, we will only be lashing out in our anger and hurt.

 

[John Helpher]

Not exactly love your enemy.
I find it a rather strange verse that immediately follows Jesus preaching a parable.
It just seems out of place when reading the whole chapter.

The context is that of the King dispensing justice. I think Hazelelponi addressed the issue well; the King has authority over life and death because he is able to judge justly and wisely. We're still learning. Until we can learn to love our enemies, we will not understand how to properly dispense justice.

One final note; there's a whole world full of people complaining that it's wrong for the creator to set standards and dish out punishments. You guys blame him for exercising his authority, you imply that he is unfair for holding you accountable for your choices, or that he is unloving for destroying those who reject him. All of this bitterness changes nothing; in fact, it only proves the point of a need for consequence. No matter how much you scream and shout about how unfair it all is, you'll still be held accountable for your choices.

 

[timothyu]

You screwed up now go and no longer put your self serving ways to practice, a.k.a. go and sin no more.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes. Enemy loving, familial love (e.g. a husband for his wife), feel-good love (e.g. an emotional feeling which is not consistent with reality), unconditional love, and love which is demonstrated through actions (i.e. if you love me, you will obey me).

Those are not definitions, just descriptions of where they apply. Granted my listing of the Greek terms did the same, but the associated definitions for them are well known and certainly accessible.

In your "definition" of love related to enemies you offer a clear description of the benefits of such love, but you don't define it. I realise we all probably think we know what we mean by love, but I'm not so sure. I suspect an unambiguous, concise definition would be useful.

 

[John Helpher]

Those are not definitions, just descriptions of where they apply.

Descriptions of how and why things are the way they are are exactly what definitions are derived from. Look at the definition for run:

"move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
"the dog ran across the road"

A description of the action is what we use to define the concept. In the same way, love is defined by the conditions in which it applies to practical reality. Thus, unconditional love is irrational.

In your "definition" of love related to enemies you offer a clear description of the benefits of such love, but you don't define it.

See above.

 

[Ophiolite]

Descriptions of how and why things are the way they are are exactly what definitions are derived from. Look at the definition for run:


A description of the action is what we use to define the concept. In the same way, love is defined by the conditions in which it applies to practical reality. Thus, unconditional love is irrational.

You haven't described the action of love. I understand you feel you have given a satisfactory definition of love. Unfortunately, for me, it doesn't even come close. It covers its field of application, but little more. An alien visitor might eventually tease out a definition from all of your comments, but its accuracy would be questionable. And you are still fixated on decrying the notion of unconditional love, something I don't wish to approach until we have a solid definition before us.
Now, one of the reasons I have asked you for a definition is, as I noted earlier, that I don't have a satisfactory definition myself, so I am looking for input from others. If you are unable to offer one that meets my (possibly idiosynchratic) standards for definitions then I can offer nothing further to the discussion (except disagreement and confusion, neither of which are desirable).

 

[John Helpher]

You haven't described the action of love.

It [my explanations regarding what love is] covers its field of application,

Pardon me if this comes across as too forward, but it really does seem like you're not making sense here. You're saying I have not described the action of love, but rather only its applications [to reality]. That makes no sense.

I have to wonder why you're so hung up on this idea of getting a definition from me while at the same time dismissing the practical applications I've suggested, as though the two are somehow mutually exclusive. As I explained in my previous post (even using an actual example from distionary.com), definitions are derived from how the words apply to practical reality. I have given many practical examples of what love is and what it is not.

If you cannot derive some understanding of what love is and what it is not from such practical examples, then it is not me who is failing, but rather it is more likely that you are holding on to something which is preventing you from a sincere interpretation. Humans are designed to understand love; to interact with it and behave in ways which promote it. We get it wrong quite often, but we are designed to want to get it right. Otherwise, you'd not even be here asking about it. It can be easy to love. Look at a child who receives a puppy or kitten as a gift; there is no guile or emotional baggage there regarding a need for definitions and descriptions; just a human experiencing what it means to love in a very simple way.

But, it can also be easy to experience hurt. All humans go through this at some point, even if it is just the dog getting cancer and dying, leaving the child to cry. The dog didn't reject the child; death is part of life and even knowing that from an intellectual point of view doesn't stop it from hurting.

But, how much more so is the hurt when it is done deliberately; when the hurt is a result of intended rejection. Often this hurt can be enough to make any of us question whether or not love is real, to make us believe we can never understand it even if it is, and in too many cases, that love is really just some kind of trick, to the point that even when we hear about practical examples of love we still deny that these things constitute any kind of definitive explanation.

And you are still fixated on decrying the notion of unconditional love, something I don't wish to approach until we have a solid definition before us.

This seems like the explanation for why your previous comments don't make sense. You like the idea of unconditional love; it carries a strong romantic, safe feeling . You don't want to love go of it as a concept, but, as soon as you try to describe what unconditional love is, you will find yourself using conditions to do so; this is illogical. This is not an opinion. Unconditional means no conditions. If you then use conditions to describe the concept, you have broken (or contradicted) the concept. This is not an attack or a rejection, but rather just a matter of rational recognition. It is irrational to call something unconditional which does, in fact, include conditions.

It is because you're trying to hang on to an irrational concept that your own thinking about love is so clouded here. Of course you will be ever confused about what love is when you view it from a fundamentally irrational premise (i.e. that it is unconditional).

 

[Par5]

The context is that of the King dispensing justice. I think Hazelelponi addressed the issue well; the King has authority over life and death because he is able to judge justly and wisely. We're still learning. Until we can learn to love our enemies, we will not understand how to properly dispense justice.

One final note; there's a whole world full of people complaining that it's wrong for the creator to set standards and dish out punishments. You guys blame him for exercising his authority, you imply that he is unfair for holding you accountable for your choices, or that he is unloving for destroying those who reject him. All of this bitterness changes nothing; in fact, it only proves the point of a need for consequence. No matter how much you scream and shout about how unfair it all is, you'll still be held accountable for your choices.

I assume you place me under the heading of "you guys".
Well, for a start I am not screaming and shouting how unfair it is. I don't believe in you imaginary friend so I don't concern myself about some being watching my every action and deed, my every word, every thought, awake or sleeping, who may decide at my life's end to send me to a place of eternal torture. I'm not losing any sleep over that.
All I am doing is commenting on what you believe about your god and the things your belief says about your god, leading me to question why you would want to follow such a being. Not only follow such a being but excuse its most violent excesses such as committing genocide against the Canaanites.
Christians often say that the slaughter of the Canaanites was justified as they were evil people and that god is just and good and anything he does can only be good.
What I would ask you is this. Would you have been capable of putting
women and children and infants to the sword time after time after time?
How "good" would that feel to you?
So you see, I am not angry at your god. I just find it difficult to understand why anyone could follow a being that has such a penchant for mass slaughter and yet sees no wrong in it.
I'm sure you know your bible so you will be aware of other murderous events carried out by, or at the behest of, this "all-loving" god you believe in.
Not a lot of " love your enemies" there!

 

[Ophiolite]

Pardon me if this comes across as too forward, but it really does seem like you're not making sense here. You're saying I have not described the action of love, but rather only its applications [to reality]. That makes no sense.

Not forward at all. I think while I was writing that sentence I changed my mind about how to phrase it, but inadvertently left in a portion of the original thought. The result was what you see: contradictory nonsense. It should have read "You have described the action of love, not its actual character."

I have to wonder why you're so hung up on this idea of getting a definition from me . . .

I trained as a scientist. I think as a scientist. Discussions proceed productively when the the terminology is clearly defined, but are liable to have people talking past each other when this is not done. I grant you that may not be to different of what we are doing anyway, but then I'd smile and say "well that's because we don't have a definition".

If you cannot derive some understanding of what love is and what it is not from such practical examples, then it is not me who is failing, but rather it is more likely that you are holding on to something which is preventing you from a sincere interpretation. Humans are designed to understand love; to interact with it and behave in ways which promote it. We get it wrong quite often, but we are designed to want to get it right. Otherwise, you'd not even be here asking about it. It can be easy to love. Look at a child who receives a puppy or kitten as a gift; there is no guile or emotional baggage there regarding a need for definitions and descriptions; just a human experiencing what it means to love in a very simple way.

"Deriving some understanding" is not as satisfactory as having a concrete definition from which to work.

You dismiss unconditional love. Coincidentally the F1, seven time World Champion, Lewis Hamilton in an interview today talked about the "unconditional love" exhibited by his pet dog. Now you gave an example of a child loving their puppy. Can the reverse apply? And if so, for a dog, why can't it be unconditional? If we had a definition I shouldn't need to ask that question.

This seems like the explanation for why your previous comments don't make sense. You like the idea of unconditional love; it carries a strong romantic, safe feeling .

Actually, I think the idea of unconditional love is silly, but I don't have an issue with those who wish to believe in it.

It is irrational to call something unconditional which does, in fact, include conditions.

What conditions attach to the love expressed by Lewis Hamilton's dog?

It is because you're trying to hang on to an irrational concept that your own thinking about love is so clouded here. Of course you will be ever confused about what love is when you view it from a fundamentally irrational premise (i.e. that it is unconditional).

For you to have arrived at this conclusion I must have been expressing myself with exceptional incompetence. Sorry for that.

Let's try this. Love is a term that is seriously abused by most people at one time or another, often most of the time. There is a vast spread of usage as to its meaning: Tolworth John talking of unconditional love; the same term from Hamilton, but probably not one John would agree with; love of a husband for their wife; love of a mother for her children; love of a sportsman for his team mates; love of a citizen for his country; love of a Samaritan for a stranger. I'm sure between us we could add another score, another hundred examples.

Yet you are urging me to discuss one aspect of love without a definition. Now that, to borrow your terminology, really is irrational.

Note: I hope my directness is not coming across as agressive. My aim is to be open.

 

[John Helpher]

Well, for a start I am not screaming and shouting how unfair it is.

We'll see.

for a start I am not screaming and shouting how unfair it is. I don't believe in you imaginary friend so I don't concern myself about some being watching my every action and deed, my every word, every thought, awake or sleeping, who may decide at my life's end to send me to a place of eternal torture. I'm not losing any sleep over that.

And yet, here you are, complaining about it.

All I am doing is commenting on what you believe about your god and the things your belief says about your god, leading me to question why you would want to follow such a being.

Nah, that's not all your doing. It's not only Atheists and skeptics who imply guilt through innocent questions. Have you stopped beating your wife? See how unfair the question is? But, okay, you referenced a parable of Jesus, where the king sentences a rebellious person to death. Obviously, that parable bothers you, (probably because you recognize that you yourself are a rebellious person and you don't like the threat of being punished for that rebellion) so you've come here, to a thread about love, and suggested that, because this God dishes out punishment, he's not really a loving God.

That is the essence of your complaint. And, as I said before, the creator of life and death has the right to set standards, to expect obedience to those standards (even if our attempts at obedience are imperfect) and to dish out punishments to those who deliberately disregard his expectations.

That is not unloving; it is in fact an aspect of justice. You cannot have one without the other; love and justice are two sides of the same coin. But, what really is so bad about the creator's standards? Love your neighbor. Do good to those who hate you. Forgive those who hurt you. Judge yourself first, before judging others. Those are all good, sound teachings.

Why would you rebel against them?

 

[Par5]

We'll see.



And yet, here you are, complaining about it.



Nah, that's not all your doing. It's not only Atheists and skeptics who imply guilt through innocent questions. Have you stopped beating your wife? See how unfair the question is? But, okay, you referenced a parable of Jesus, where the king sentences a rebellious person to death. Obviously, that parable bothers you, (probably because you recognize that you yourself are a rebellious person and you don't like the threat of being punished for that rebellion) so you've come here, to a thread about love, and suggested that, because this God dishes out punishment, he's not really a loving God.

That is the essence of your complaint. And, as I said before, the creator of life and death has the right to set standards, to expect obedience to those standards (even if our attempts at obedience are imperfect) and to dish out punishments to those who deliberately disregard his expectations.

That is not unloving; it is in fact an aspect of justice. You cannot have one without the other; love and justice are two sides of the same coin. But, what really is so bad about the creator's standards? Love your neighbor. Do good to those who hate you. Forgive those who hurt you. Judge yourself first, before judging others. Those are all good, sound teachings.

Why would you rebel against them?

Again, I am not complaining. Your god does not concern me.
What concerns me is that people like you can consider that the murder of helpless women, children, and infants is good and just because they believe their god is good and just.
You berate me for questioning how you can call the god you believe in as being loving when you also believe he commanded the slaughter of men women and children. That is not a criticism of your imaginary friend, it is a criticism of your warped thinking.
I have heard all the excuses you give for your god many times before, and the threats, and they do not sound any less pathetic each time I hear them.
Unsurprisingly you didn't answer the question as to whether you would be capable of putting helpless women, children, and infants to the sword and think that it was good.
So I'll try asking you again. Would you?

 

[John Helpher]

Your god does not concern me.

he commanded the slaughter of men women and children. That is not a criticism of your imaginary friend, it is a criticism of your warped thinking.

Regardless of who/what you're criticizing, it is a criticism. Why would you say you are unconcerned, but also you have all these criticisms you want answers to? It's like you're trying to say two contrary things which begs the question; why? I think the solution is that these questions are not innocent. They are not sincere. They are accusations disguised as questions. Why else would you ask questions about something which you say you are not concerned about? It makes no sense, unless there is an ulterior motive behind the questions. I think this is made even more clear based on the little dig you slipped in regarding my "imaginary friend". I think you know that kind of comment is designed to be hurtful, and generally speaking, when people try to hurt one another, it is because they themselves feel some kind of hurt which they do not know how to process in a constructive manner.

Yes, I know you say you don't believe in a creator etc, and yet here you are, criticizing his motives and justice. I have no doubt that you've been through this exact argument many times before and somehow you never find satisfaction. What is it that you want? Would you be satisfied if a Christian were to say, "You know, you're right. The creator of life and death, who has all knowledge of all truth is wrong and I should stop believing that he exists because, in my limited comprehension, I am the sole arbiter of truth and justice and if I believe something is right or wrong, then that that is all there is to it!"?

Somehow I doubt that would bring satisfaction, either. You would simply become even more bitter in your pursuit; a vicious cycle of taking out your hurt on others who don't seem to feel the same pain you do. Why shouldn't they see feel the same pain? You probably justify this on the basis that you're a rationalist who is only trying to open the eyes of the ignorant, but that's a lie. If that were true, you wouldn't bother with insults and you wouldn't pretend that you don't really care about the criticisms you make.

You know, so many Atheists and skeptics refer to the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example of the cruelty of God, dumping plagues on those poor, innocent Egyptians. This further demonstrates how their hurt feelings lead to irrational interpretation. The Egyptians were not innocent. They were slavers.

The plagues didn't come straight away; only after several attempts by Moses (and God) to reason with Pharaoh. Moses even performed a few miracles to validate his claims before the plagues. Pharaoh didn't care. He was proud and stubborn (and more than a little greedy; the Israelis were a formidable source of free labor).

Then came the plagues and for each plague, Pharaoh asked for mercy, conceding that he would, indeed, free the slaves. God immediately ceased the plague after which Pharaoh immediately reneged on his agreement, which prompted the next plague. This happened over and over again, which is why there were so many plauges. All Pharaoh had to do was submit and free the slaves. He chose not to.

The underlying message behind all of this is that God engineered this entire setup. He allowed the children of Israel to be taken into slavery. He allowed Pharaoh to become not only a king but, in the culture of the Egyptians he was tantamount to a God, all for the purpose of demonstrating that it does not matter how powerful any earthly king or government claims to be; the creator will destroy you if you oppose him. It was a test of wills for the purpose of demonstrating a lesson in authority.

Pharaoh probably made all the same complaints you make about this brutal God, killing innocent people etc, and look where it led him. He became intensely bitter, to the point that his actions led to the hurt of all those around him. Rather than stop and recognize this destructive cycle, he only became more bitter. The one thing he would not do was submit. That was his choice. That's also your choice. The creator gives you that right, but you can never say that you were deceived. You can never say you didn't know. You can never say you misunderstood or that the Lord didn't try hard enough to reach you. You, alone, are responsible for the choices you make and, like all the rest of us, you will be held accountable for those choices.

It's not too late for you. All Pharaoh had to do was admit he was outmatched by a power, intelligence, and love far greater than anything he could put forward. It's humbling, but it's the only way.

 

[John Helpher]

The result was what you see: contradictory nonsense. It should have read "You have described the action of love, not its actual character."

Hi Ophi. Thanks for this rather humble concession, but it still does not make sense. Remember that definition of "run" I posted?

"move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
e.g. 'the dog ran across the road'"

The definition, or actual character of the concept, is based on a description of how the thing works in practical reality.

This insistence that you must get some kind of concrete definition, as opposed to descriptions of the concept in action (as a means of defining what it is or is not) is not scientific. Rather, it suggests loop-hole thinking, because there is no single definition which can nail-down such a far-reaching concept as love. There are many aspects to love; romantic, familial, agape, platonic, etc, each one dealing with a different aspect of what it means to love. Trying to come up with a one-liner definition which incorporates all of this would almost certainly be incomplete at best, and therein lies the problem; there is much room to hide among the confusion caused by such incomplete attempts at a one-size-fits-all definition.

Something like "run" is fine because this really is a very simple concept which only needs a one-liner. You could say that there are different kinds of running, too, like jogging, sprinting, prancing, or skipping, but those are their own words with their own definitions, unlike love where you'd need to add a qualifier like familial-love or romantic-love. It's all the same root word with very different applications.

Instead, it would be far better, and accountable, to describe what love is (or is not) in practical terms on a case by case basis.

Tolworth mentioned a specific kind of love, i.e. unconditional. Rather than try to give an incomplete, one-size-fits-all definition of such love, I instead listed examples to illustrate why unconditional love isn't a real thing. It's a fantasy about love designed to illicit an emotional reaction about the goodness of our love or that of others. It is not possible to describe what unconditional love is without referring to conditions thus making it irrational to refer to unconditional love as a real thing. That's not an opinion; it is factual, critical thinking, much like one would expect from scientific training.

You dismiss unconditional love.

Inaccurate. I proved, through practical examples, that the concept is irrational.

Coincidentally the F1, seven time World Champion, Lewis Hamilton in an interview today talked about the "unconditional love" exhibited by his pet dog. Now you gave an example of a child loving their puppy. Can the reverse apply? And if so, for a dog, why can't it be unconditional?

The dog's love isn't unconditional. Rather, its love is faithful. Faithfulness is a condition which makes love what it is. If the dog were not faithful, then it could not be described as love. Lewis refers to it as unconditional as a means of complimenting the quality of that love; it gives him emotional satisfaction to think of it as unconditional because in his mind unconditional equates to unwavering and strong, both of which are conditions which makes the love what it is. Rather than using an irrational concept to describe his strong feelings, he should just say that his dog's love is faithful and true which gives him a strong feeling of satisfaction.

Actually, I think the idea of unconditional love is silly, but I don't have an issue with those who wish to believe in it.

As a scientifically trained person, you should.

It may be fair enough, in some cases, to allow people to indulge fantasies, especially if you get the impression that they don't want to hear your corrections, but if it is a friend or loved one who is open to hearing you, why not offer them a more rational means of interpreting love? Love includes strong feelings, yes, but is never irrational. It may be that people will often act without critically thinking in a way that flukes a genuinely loving behavior but it would be better if they were trained to recognize why they behave the way they do, thus ensuring that their behaviors will be rational more often and still consistent with what it means to love.

What conditions attach to the love expressed by Lewis Hamilton's dog?

I believe this comment contradicts your earlier admission that you think unconditional love is silly. Clearly, you do think it has merit. It is not that unconditional love is silly, but rather that it is irrational and irrational thinking will not lead to more genuine love. The opposite is true. You may fluke it here and there, but ultimately an irrational perception of love will lead to bad (or at the very least, ignorant) choices.

For you to have arrived at this conclusion I must have been expressing myself with exceptional incompetence. Sorry for that.

Not incompetence; bias. I think you really do have some special place in your heart for the concept of unconditional love, which I don't fault you for. It's a romanticized idea of love which is specifically marketed to be attractive. People who have irrational ideas about love are easier to manipulate, ultimately culminating in more pliable consumers. It is similar to the Disney concept of love-at-first-sight.

I do not doubt there are cases of couples who become enamored upon their first meeting and end up staying together, but that is not destiny or fate or romance. Couples who stay together do so because they make the relationship work. They compromise, they sacrifice, and they work through their problems. They make choices which are consistent with what love is in practical terms. These are some conditions required to make love what it is. We never see mundane arguments about bills or attendance at social gatherings, or addictions, or arguments about how to spend the holidays or how to respond to in-laws, or politics, etc in Disney movies. The problems are always grandiose moral issues which really do have very simple (if difficult) solutions.

Note: I hope my directness is not coming across as agressive. My aim is to be open.

Feel free to speak your mind even if you strongly disagree.

 

[Par5]

Regardless of who/what you're criticizing, it is a criticism. Why would you say you are unconcerned, but also you have all these criticisms you want answers to? It's like you're trying to say two contrary things which begs the question; why? I think the solution is that these questions are not innocent. They are not sincere. They are accusations disguised as questions. Why else would you ask questions about something which you say you are not concerned about? It makes no sense, unless there is an ulterior motive behind the questions. I think this is made even more clear based on the little dig you slipped in regarding my "imaginary friend". I think you know that kind of comment is designed to be hurtful, and generally speaking, when people try to hurt one another, it is because they themselves feel some kind of hurt which they do not know how to process in a constructive manner.

Yes, I know you say you don't believe in a creator etc, and yet here you are, criticizing his motives and justice. I have no doubt that you've been through this exact argument many times before and somehow you never find satisfaction. What is it that you want? Would you be satisfied if a Christian were to say, "You know, you're right. The creator of life and death, who has all knowledge of all truth is wrong and I should stop believing that he exists because, in my limited comprehension, I am the sole arbiter of truth and justice and if I believe something is right or wrong, then that that is all there is to it!"?

Somehow I doubt that would bring satisfaction, either. You would simply become even more bitter in your pursuit; a vicious cycle of taking out your hurt on others who don't seem to feel the same pain you do. Why shouldn't they see feel the same pain? You probably justify this on the basis that you're a rationalist who is only trying to open the eyes of the ignorant, but that's a lie. If that were true, you wouldn't bother with insults and you wouldn't pretend that you don't really care about the criticisms you make.

You know, so many Atheists and skeptics refer to the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example of the cruelty of God, dumping plagues on those poor, innocent Egyptians. This further demonstrates how their hurt feelings lead to irrational interpretation. The Egyptians were not innocent. They were slavers.

The plagues didn't come straight away; only after several attempts by Moses (and God) to reason with Pharaoh. Moses even performed a few miracles to validate his claims before the plagues. Pharaoh didn't care. He was proud and stubborn (and more than a little greedy; the Israelis were a formidable source of free labor).

Then came the plagues and for each plague, Pharaoh asked for mercy, conceding that he would, indeed, free the slaves. God immediately ceased the plague after which Pharaoh immediately reneged on his agreement, which prompted the next plague. This happened over and over again, which is why there were so many plauges. All Pharaoh had to do was submit and free the slaves. He chose not to.

The underlying message behind all of this is that God engineered this entire setup. He allowed the children of Israel to be taken into slavery. He allowed Pharaoh to become not only a king but, in the culture of the Egyptians he was tantamount to a God, all for the purpose of demonstrating that it does not matter how powerful any earthly king or government claims to be; the creator will destroy you if you oppose him. It was a test of wills for the purpose of demonstrating a lesson in authority.

Pharaoh probably made all the same complaints you make about this brutal God, killing innocent people etc, and look where it led him. He became intensely bitter, to the point that his actions led to the hurt of all those around him. Rather than stop and recognize this destructive cycle, he only became more bitter. The one thing he would not do was submit. That was his choice. That's also your choice. The creator gives you that right, but you can never say that you were deceived. You can never say you didn't know. You can never say you misunderstood or that the Lord didn't try hard enough to reach you. You, alone, are responsible for the choices you make and, like all the rest of us, you will be held accountable for those choices.

It's not too late for you. All Pharaoh had to do was admit he was outmatched by a power, intelligence, and love far greater than anything he could put forward. It's humbling, but it's the only way.

You just don't get it, do you?
I'll try again. Your god is of no concern to me. My criticism is reserved for your belief that genocide can be thought of as a good and just action.
When you consider that you think I am a rebellious person, whatever that means, and because of this I will have to answer to some mystical figure when I die and possibly face eternal punishment, I need only remind myself that I don't believe that slaughtering women children and infants can in any way be called good or just as you seem to think, so I guess that puts me way ahead of you when it comes to morality, with no reason to worry about your opinion of me.
As I asked you before, would you be capable of putting women, children, and infants to the sword, believing what you were doing was good and just?
I will also ask. If not, why not?

 

[John Helpher]

You just don't get it, do you?

I think I do. Refer to post #34. I think you need to properly address my comments there before we can move on.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't think enemy loving is simple. I mean, the concept is simple; love people even if they hurt you. The practice of the concept is far more difficult. I tend to be wary of people who somewhat glibly describe such things as being simple as this usually indicates they haven't thought through the issues carefully.

Also, there is no such thing as unconditional love, as conditions are required to separate one thing from other things. "Unconditional love" sounds nice because it makes absolutely zero requirements from us. If a wife tells her husband that she loves him unconditionally, then she can never, ever criticize him for anything, even if he cheats on her, because her love is without such conditions as faithfulness or loyalty.

We should be able to love others even when they hurt us, but that should not stop us from recognizing when they do the wrong thing. Criticism, even strong criticism, is not synonymous with being unloving. The opposite is true. The author of Hebrews describes this concept when he writes, "The lord rebukes those he loves." He goes on to recognize that criticism never feels good in the moment, but for those sincere people who accept the criticism, they learn and grow from it.

People who say that God should love them without condition do so as a means of rejecting criticism, i.e. "if you really loved me, you would not criticize me". They believe that the hurt they feel from being criticized is evil so they developed a convenient doctrine suggesting that no one should be judged (i.e. criticized).

Real, genuine love cannot be what it is without conditions which separate it from what it is not.

There is a quote by Marv Levy about football
“What it takes to win is simple, it’s not easy.”

I think the same applies to just about anything we attempt. What we need to do or to understand is actually simple but doing it is not easy.

 

[John Helpher]

I think the same applies to just about anything we attempt. What we need to do or to understand is actually simple but doing it is not easy.

Quite insightful, GtaW. This is good way of simplifying my thoughts on the issue. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Par5]

I think I do. Refer to post #34. I think you need to properly address my comments there before we can move on.

I don't see what your comments have to do with answering my question. I would have thought that it would be a question that could be answered very quickly and easily by most people, but no, you do an Irish Jig around it and choose to mention Pharaoh and the Egyptians, how they were slavers, and how Pharaoh refused to free the Israelites.
Well, the bible says that your god hardened Pharaoh's heart against freeing them, and as for the Egyptians being slavers, the same bible condones that practice.
All I have done is state that the premeditated slaughter of women, children, and infants is wrong.
Would I make a judgement about someone who didn't think it was wrong? Yes, I would.
Which leads me right back to my original question to you.