loving your enemy

[truelight Mike]

Is there any higher teaching than the teaching of Jesus to love one's enemy?

[truelight Mike]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I don't necessarily think you need to have an "experience " with Jesus to do what is right and good. And if doing what is "right and good" is what you do than I think that pleases God.
If you are just naturally loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, not laying up treasure on earth (seeking wealth ), giving to the poor, denying yourself and other things that He talks about especially in the Sermon on the Mount than I would suppose you are possibly closer to the Kingdom of God than most professing Christians.

And I don't believe Jesus' mission was to save us from His "angry Father ".
I know that is the popular view of atonement but it's not the oldest that I know of.
Instead I believe Jesus came to save us from eternal death and the Devils claim on our lives because on our our sinful choices. (The wages of sin is death)

I agree the other way makes no sense . The Way Jesus made it sound was this plan to help mankind was his loving Father's idea.

[Divine Insight]

1. Judge your neighbor fairly.

Do you consider your neighbor's to be your "enemies"?

2. Do not go about spreading slander.

Most likely you will have made yourself into the enemy of someone else if you have done that. So this advice sounds more alone the lines of suggesting to not become the enemy of someone else rather than loving your enemies.

3. Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart.

What about people who aren't a fellow Israelite? Are Israelis allowed to hate non-Israelis?

4. Rebuke your neighbor frankly.

Is this opposed to secretly making them an enemy in your mind without even telling them. So in other words, if you tell them right out that you don't like what they do, then that doesn't count as making them your enemy?

And once again, do you think of your neighbors as your enemies?

5. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge.

In other words, don't make enemies. As I said in post #2. And if you don't make enemies then you won't need to worry about having to love them.

In short, provide due process and don't let anyone live in your head rent free.

So providing "due process" amounts to loving your enemies? As long as we report them to the proper authorities and are open about personally rebuking them, we are loving our enemies?

Apparently this is how Christians and claim to love gays. They simply make it illegal to be gay, openly rebuke the gays, then use laws to discriminate against gays in the workplace and marketplace, and then fight for anti-gay laws to further justify rebuking them even more harshly.

Yep, that sounds real "Christian" alright.

Love your enemy by getting the law on your side so you can openly rebuke and hate them legally.

Please note: All usage of the term "you" in this post is intended as a "generic you". Nothing personal implied or intended.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I don't necessarily think you need to have an "experience " with Jesus to do what is right and good. And if doing what is "right and good" is what you do than I think that pleases God.
If you are just naturally loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, not laying up treasure on earth (seeking wealth ), giving to the poor, denying yourself and other things that He talks about especially in the Sermon on the Mount than I would suppose you are possibly closer to the Kingdom of God than most professing Christians.

I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. From what I've read in the New Testament Gospels this is precisely what Jesus taught. There are even verses in these gospels that have Jesus himself saying clearly that a belief in him, or in his words is unimportant. Like you say, the only thing that is important is that the essence of the words he spoke is fulfilled.

And for this reason any person on earth can satisfy the requirements that Jesus had outlined. No matter what religion, or non-theistic position or beliefs they might have.

But if we accept this, then Christianity becomes an irrelevant religion. And most certainly not the most important one. Neither would it be important for anyone to believe in Jesus.

An argument could be made that people need to at least hear his message in order to "comply". However, I personally find that to be unlikely. The very simple reason is that anyone who would need to "comply" because they aren't naturally the way Jesus describes, would then be pretentious about who they are. So it would be far more realistic if people met the criteria outlined by Jesus simply because that is who they truly are.

And I don't believe Jesus' mission was to save us from His "angry Father ".
I know that is the popular view of atonement but it's not the oldest that I know of.
Instead I believe Jesus came to save us from eternal death and the Devils claim on our lives because on our our sinful choices. (The wages of sin is death)

Even this idea isn't free from contradictions and problems. This would also suggest that this Devil was causing God to "jump through hoops". Why should an omnipotent God need to do anything to "defeat" a measly demon? And especially anything so degrading as having his only begotten son brutally beaten and crucified?

As you say, the wages of sin are death, not being brutally beaten and crucified. Therefore Jesus could have come to earth, taught a long life of ministry, and then died naturally from old age. And then rose again from the grave. That would have be perfectly sufficient for having beaten the "Wages of Sin" as death.

So there are tons of problems associated with Jesus having to be brutally beaten and crucified just to pay "The Wages of Sin" which is merely death.

Also, that death is supposed to be permanent spiritual death. The "Wages of Sin" is not to die, and then be resurrected 3 days later and ascend to heaven. In fact, that's precisely what every Christian dreams of. That's the reward of saints, not the wages of sin.

So if the wages of sin is permanent spiritual death, then Jesus didn't pay the wages of sin for anyone. The check bounced in a mere 3 days. He didn't stay dead.

I agree the other way makes no sense . The Way Jesus made it sound was this plan to help mankind was his loving Father's idea.

Well, as I had outlined above, the other apology doesn't hold water either. We can't have God jumping through hoops to beat Satan. And if the wages of sin is death, then Jesus would have needed to die and never come back. And there also wouldn't have been any need to have him brutally beaten and crucified. A mere peaceful death would have been quite sufficient.

So there are tons of unresolved problems in your explanation for the Crucifixion and mere 3-day death of Christ.

~~~~~

And just for the record. Dealing with the problems of Christianity and the New Testament stories of Jesus is only a very small problem with this religion. There are actually tons of problems with the Old Testament God that warrant rejecting this religion even before we get to the Christian offshoot of these ancient stories.

And the strangest part of this is that most Christians wouldn't even be interested in reverting back to Judaism. In other words, take the Christ out of Christianity and most Christians would rather become atheists than to revert back to Judaism.

In short, even Christian don't care much for the Old Testament God.

Take Jesus out of the picture and they're done. They aren't going to revert back to Judaism.

[truelight Mike]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

I realize you've got plenty of issues with the Bible and Christianity. I disagree with a lot of your conclusions about it all. I want to make clear I in no way think faith in Christ is insignificant!!!!!
On the other hand, i believe how modern Christianity, in large , defines faith is way off.

Love God and Love your neighbor are the first and greatest commandments according to Jesus.

There was a reason for the Old Testament whether you or I understand it or not.

[Divine Insight]

Love God and Love your neighbor are the first and greatest commandments according to Jesus.

I agree that this is one of the many things that Jesus had supposedly taught. However, we have no clue what the man actually taught. In fact, we have no clue that the New Testament accurately describes any "Jesus" that might have actually lived.

Also, there is no reason why we should think that Jesus thought of "God" as the precise verbatim Yahweh character that was described by the Old Testament.

Let's not forget that much of that comes from the claims made within the New Testament, that Jesus was born of a virgin woman who had been intentionally impregnated by Yahweh. That Yahweh himself spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son and that we should hear him, etc.

The "real Jesus" (if there even was one) may not have had anything at all to do with those particular rumors.

So when Jesus says to "Love God" he may not even be referring the God of the Old Testament at all.

In fact, I personally believe that Jesus was most likely an extremely misunderstood mystic-minded Jew who was trying to bring the higher moral teaching of Mahayana Buddhism into his home religion. Jesus most likely thought of "God" as the Buddhist did. In a very mystical sense. And even in a pantheistic sense. This is in harmony with many things that he taught.

There was a reason for the Old Testament whether you or I understand it or not.

If you and I don't understand it, then there was no reason for it at all. In fact, if t here actually exists a God who has any control over this doctrine at all he should have had the Old Testament abolished entirely.

In fact, think about this. Matthew claims that Jesus taught the following:

Matthew 5
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But why would Jesus proclaim that he did not come to change the laws, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass, and then proceed to change the laws?

According to the Old Testament we are supposed to do God's judging and killing for him and judge and stone our brothers and sisters to death sinners.

According to Jesus we're not supposed to do that anymore. According to Jesus only those who are without sin are to cast the first stone. But Christianity holds that no human is without sin, therefore no human is supposed to judge others or cast the first stone.

Jesus clearly changed the law. So why not be honest about it and just say so? Why not say, "I've come to change the laws and the Old Testament laws no longer apply".

Instead, according to Matthew, he proclaimed precisely the opposite.

Jesus also changed specifically the law of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", and that we are to do away with the evil among us.

Jesus taught that instead of doing that we are to turn the other cheek and resist not evil.

This is a 100% about-face from what the Old Testament taught as the law.

So when Jesus says that we are to "love God" what God is he talking about? Surely not the Yahweh of the Old Testament. He clearly didn't agree with that God at all.

~~~~~~

It is also claimed in the New Testament that Jesus said, "I and that Father are One". This is actually a statement of Pantheism and is in complete harmony with Mahayana Buddhism. But in Judaism this was considered to be blaspheme as the only way in Judaism that a person could be one with God is to be God himself.

So Jesus was accused of blaspheme for this very reason. But what was Jesus' defense? Well according to the New Testament Rumors, Jesus pointed to the Old Testament and said, "Does it not say in your law[/i] that I have said ye are gods".

Two very important things here. First Jesus didn't refer to the Old Testament as "God's Law", but rather he referred to it as "your law". And the second important thing to realize is that Jesus wasn't standing his ground to proclaim that he was uniquely one with the father. To the contrary he was arguing that anyone can say that they are one with the father. That was his defense against charges of blaspheme.

This clearly shows that Jesus was indeed thinking as a pantheist. So Jesus wasn't thinking of "God" as a jealous make Zeus-like character as modern day Christians tend to thin of the God of the Old Testament.

So when Jesus says to "Love God" I don't think he was speaking of some imaginary egotistical Zeus-like Godhead named Yahweh. I think what he had in mind was a far more mystical concept of God more akin to how the Mahayana Buddhists think of "God".

I have very good reasons to believe that Jesus (or any highly religious man living in his time and place) would have certainly been well aware of the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. Even if he wasn't fully aware that those teachings originated from Mahayana Buddhism.

All we need to do is simply recognize that Jesus was most likely a "mystic-minded" Jew and all of this makes sense.

What you are proposing is that we look at this from the vantage point of modern day Christians who are convinced that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh. But that paradigm has extreme problems.

And the major two problems being that it requires that we support the entire Old Testament as being sane and moral. And that we try to justified that Jesus did not come to change the laws even though that's clearly what he did. Because to try to claim that he didn't do it would require that we (or at least Christians) must still be going out and killing heathens who preach of Gods other than Yahweh, because the Old Testament laws requires that we do just that.

It makes no sense to claim that Jesus didn't change the laws of the OT and then refuse to continue to follow those laws to every jot and tittle as Jesus had proclaimed they must be followed.

[OnceConvinced]

I believe that loving your enemy is bad advice. Especially this blessing them stuff. I tried to employ this advice throughout my childhood and although on the odd occasion it made a friend out of an enemy it also made me a target for bullies. If you love bullies they will simply just take advantage of that and you will become nothing but a doormat.

[Divine Insight]

I believe that loving your enemy is bad advice. Especially this blessing them stuff. I tried to employ this advice throughout my childhood and although on the odd occasion it made a friend out of an enemy it also made me a target for bullies. If you love bullies they will simply just take advantage of that and you will become nothing but a doormat.

This is true. In the real world it happens to be a fact, that if you treat abusers nicely it will only result in being abused even more.

Take Jesus teaching to turn the other cheek, and this requires that we become a doormat for psychopaths.

Also, did Jesus even remotely acknowledge or address the issues of mental illness anywhere in the Bible? Most likely not, and that's because in his day an age people had no clue about mental illness. They thought that if a person was acting poorly they were either doing so via pure healthy conscious free will choice, or they were "possessed by demons".

We know now that possession by demons is nothing more than an ignorant superstition. Yet according to the Bible Jesus himself believe in demonic possession.

It seems to me that any well-educated modern person should easily dismiss Christianity as being a clearly absurd mythology based on nothing more than obvious false superstitions.

Sure, Jesus may have been associated with some far better moral principles than had been taught in the Old Testament, but that hardly qualifies him as having any sort of divine knowledge.

[bluethread]

1. Judge your neighbor fairly.

Do you consider your neighbor's to be your "enemies"?

Nice implication of the fallacy of the converse. The question is should one consider one's enemies to be one's neighbors. That appears to be how Yeshua viewed it.

2. Do not go about spreading slander.

Most likely you will have made yourself into the enemy of someone else if you have done that. So this advice sounds more alone the lines of suggesting to not become the enemy of someone else rather than loving your enemies.

Again, a fallacious scenario. No, that is not most likely. One can have enemies without having first slandered them. The point is that if someone hates me, that does not justify my slandering them.

3. Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart.

What about people who aren't a fellow Israelite? Are Israelis allowed to hate non-Israelis?

That is the NIV translation. The actual term is brother. Your question is precisely what Yeshua was addressing. One should not harbor hate.

4. Rebuke your neighbor frankly.

Is this opposed to secretly making them an enemy in your mind without even telling them. So in other words, if you tell them right out that you don't like what they do, then that doesn't count as making them your enemy?

And once again, do you think of your neighbors as your enemies?

3 and 4 are a couplet, don't harbor hatred, address the issue. Again, you present the fallacy of the converse. Rebuking someone who is doing the wrong thing does not necessarily make them an enemy.

5. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge.

In other words, don't make enemies. As I said in post #2. And if you don't make enemies then you won't need to worry about having to love them.

And again, it does not say don't make enemies. One can make enemies doing the right thing. Remember, these are rules that apply to friends as well as enemies.

In short, provide due process and don't let anyone live in your head rent free.

So providing "due process" amounts to loving your enemies? As long as we report them to the proper authorities and are open about personally rebuking them, we are loving our enemies?

No, one must also not harbor hatred or bear a grudge.

Apparently this is how Christians and claim to love gays. They simply make it illegal to be gay, openly rebuke the gays, then use laws to discriminate against gays in the workplace and marketplace, and then fight for anti-gay laws to further justify rebuking them even more harshly.

Yep, that sounds real "Christian" alright.

How can one make it illegal to BE gay? However, to your point, that is how many secular humanists love smokers. What is not "Christian" about discouraging BEHAVIORS one believes to be harmful?

Love your enemy by getting the law on your side so you can openly rebuke and hate them legally.

So, are you saying that the primary purpose of the first amendment to the constitution of these United States was to permit people to openly rebuke one another? The only law related to hate I have seen so far discourages it. So I am not sure where you get the idea that I supported legal hatred, whatever that is.

Please note: All usage of the term "you" in this post is intended as a "generic you". Nothing personal implied or intended.

Noted, however, personal or not, it would be nice if you could refrain from straw man arguments.

[ttruscott]

Love God and Love your neighbor are the first and greatest commandments according to Jesus. There was a reason for the Old Testament whether you or I understand it or not.

Can love really be acquired by commandment? I don't think so - it can only flow from a free wile acceptance of the other person as an object of love, as a lover. Therefore I believe the commandment to love was given so as to bring us face to face with our lack of love, not as a method to acquire love. Also, love fulfills all commands: Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

because you can keep a commandment without love but you cannot love without keeping HIS commandments.

And if I might stretch a bit, since a lack of holiness is a lack of connection with HIM, we first will be made holy, that is, in communion with HIM and HIS plans and then we will learn to love HIM and be free of all corrective commandments.

[truelight Mike]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Ok I think Jesus did fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Its done. He did come to change things. He actually raised the standard. Just a few verses past yours in Matt 5 He starts to say "you have heard... but I tell you..."
When they asked Him about divorcing a wife He said, " it was because of the hardness of your hearts that Moses wrote you this precept but in the beginning it was not so therefore what God has joined together let no man separate."

He did come to call us to righteousness and then gave us a living example!


Asking questions is one thing but I'm afraid we can be so doubtful and suspicious that the Truth could walk right passed us and we might not even be able to see it. Myself included