Christians: Why should I love my enemy?

Post Reply New Topic

Why would I want to be kind to someone who will only take advantage of my kindness to do more evil towards me?

Christianity asks many things of you that you often don't want to do. It's why so many reject it.

Because rehabilitation is better than punishment. If you exclude people from society, they will often being criminal to survive or act like the outcast they have become. Plus those who forgive usually get more voluntary help from others than those who are vengeful or those who exploit others.

Well, I can definitely understand this being a conundrum----but, here's how it works, for me..... Being nice to people makes ME feel good about that I'VE done the right thing (because of my Christian faith, I also feel I've done what God wants us to do). Sometimes----NOT all-the-time----I just keep being nice / pleasant / mannerly / whatever to the other person, and eventually they come-around; but, like I said, NOT always (not always do I keep being nice, and not always do they come-around).

I've had more-than-one person just out-and-out BARK at me, and I haven't responded in-kind, and sometimes they back-down immediately, and sometimes it takes quite a while----and, like I said, sometimes it doesn't work at all.

About the "taking advantage" part: I feel one can curb that behavior from other people, and STILL be nice. Here's what I feel is a little example ("little" being the keyword, here): There's this girl at work who keeps goin'-around asking people for cigarettes..... She asked me a couple of times, and I obliged her a couple of times..... Around the third time, I just smiled at her, shook my head, and said: "You're gonna have to start bringin' your own cigarettes". That's all it took----she hasn't asked, since, and we continue to be "friendly" with each other at work.

Many times I've found that all it takes, is to stand-up to people----but, one can stand-up to people, without squashing them (meaning, you can do it in a "nice" way----but, in a way that says you ain't playin'; not in a way that says "you're a horrible person"). I don't like that girl, cuz she plays people----but, one can't be played / have "more evil done to them", unless they allow it.

I'm a pretty tough ol' broad----you'll get there (well, maybe not the female part LOL)----I don't take nobody's crap, and there's a way to smack-down people without them knowing what hit 'em (meaning, you let them know in no, uncertain terms----but, without cussing, being ill-mannered, being disrespectful, etc.); and it takes PRACTICE----it's not just one day, you're the "smack-down champ"! ! I still don't get it right, sometimes----and I'll be thinkin' I'm somethin'-on-a-stick----and I've had to go-off with my tail between my legs (LOL); but, OH, the times I get it right, I'm feeling like Midas or Atlas!! LOL

-------------------------

@Mikah: It's so wonderful to see you----I've missed you!!

I definitely agree with this----and, would like to add.....

I think many people think Christianity MAKES THEM conform----but, that's so not true, IMO. First-of-all, if a church, for instance, does things (like the way the preacher preaches----or, the songs the choir sings) that you don't like / make you feel uncomfortable / whatever, find another church. It's just like buying a dress----one size doesn't fit all!!

There are even all different types of Bibles----I've got a million of them (not literal, of course - hyperbole, you gotta love it LOL). When I'm not "feelin' it" from one, I'll go to another----then there are times when I want to "hear" a certain Bible verse the way I grew-up, learnin' it, so I'll consult another Bible (I still have the Bible I got as a kid).

Another interesting thing is that, IMO, the very people who don't want to conform, are often the very same people who want others to conform to THEM / their ways----even some, DEMAND it!!

Yep, this is soooo TRUE, in-my-case. I'll do back-flips for people (not literal - I'm too old and too tired LOL) who don't ask me to do back-flips----but, just as soon someone goes-around whinin' that nobody'll do back-flips for them, that's the very person for whom I WON'T do back-flips (I don't do "needy", well - I know that's a strange dichotomy, but); ironically, often, the very person NOT asking for back-flips is the person TRULY "needing" them, the most!

Hello there!



Agreed, it's not obvious to those who don't embrace the faith, but Christianity (and to be fair, other religions to a lesser extent), properly understood, is the enemy of conformism, tribal groupthink and the like (which is why socialist tyrants in particular hate it, among other reasons).

There's a link here with the first commandment, not often seen. Thou shalt have none other gods before me. This is not divine insecurity or tyrannical or unreasonable as the atheist often sneers, it is because if you don't worship God, you will worship something else, whether you realise it or not. Humans always worship something, and idolatry can be and often is very bad for you and terrible on a societal scale. No golden statues these days, but the false gods of money, power, celebrity, science or politics, capitalism or socialism (and the humans that embody them), the siren-song of globalism, universalism, these things run rampant in our societies... and all demand a much more rigid conformism than offered by Christian thought.



Indeed. To take one hilarious example, look at how the "enlightened" treat climate change sceptics. Do they listen? Do they rebut? Do they value a dissident opinion? Lol. No. They parade a fraudulent study about 97% of climate scientists (as if that meant anything), they exile the dissenters, deprive them of income, call them "deniers" to associate them with Holocaust denial (another unfashionable area where dissent is not tolerated). It's so funny and yet so sad at the same time.

I may not always think the way you do on religion, but I agree with some of the other things you said here.

As a Christian who also believes in science, I agree with everything you said except that last bit. I think those who are enlightened don't want to waste their time with fools. If 97% of a group of people, many of whom have PhDs in a particular field of study, and all of whom have dedicated their lives to learning the ins and outs of that particular thing and its implications believe something is true, there's likely some truth to their claim. Only others who have spent a similar amount of time studying the same topic and who have arrived at a different conclusion would have the credibility and knowledge on the subject matter to challenge them anyways. At best the rest of us can form our cute opinions by parroting what others who have actually studied a topic have to say.

Yes, science is not absolute and is largely based on theories derived from observations, but even if it is imperfect, repeat studies increase or decrease the certainty of a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that is proven to a sufficient degree of certainty through many repeat studies. Climate change is a theory. Ergo, climate change has been proven to a sufficient degree of certainty through many repeat studies. It's true that truth is not based on popularity, but I have to believe these scientists know what they're talking about. Whether humans are the cause of it is another issue, but there's sufficient evidence that human activity is at least impacting it (since climate change is a natural thing that will occur even without human meddling).

Anyways, acknowledging climate change doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the popular methods for combating it. That seems to be a common myth among conservatives that I can't quite fathom. I question the need to unnecessarily damage the environment or to not seek renewable resources wherever possible without sacrificing efficiency or livelihoods, but I actually think carbon taxes are a stupid idea. Most motorists are motorists out of necessity. Taxing motorists doesn't get them out of their car as they still need to drive to get places. Unless taxes are used to create transit systems that are effective and affordable enough to get people out of their cars, like what Japan and parts of Europe have going on, they're still going to drive. In the vast majority of cases, all carbon taxes accomplish is pissing people off.

In any case, I don't get why religious people and conservatives like to deny scientifically sound theories. It's not like they're a threat to those ideals. I'm a Christian, but I'm not familiar with the bible passage that says that God commands us to destroy the planet or that we should ignore what those who have studied the mechanics of our world have to say. I don't recall any instance where studies on climate change contradict what's written in the bible. Do point out any if you know of them. The Earth is 6000 years old theory outlined in Genesis is not one I believe in as I'm what's known as an "Old Earth Christian", so pick something else.

As for conservatives, playing dumb doesn't make them look smart. It's possible to adhere to conservative ideas such as seeking profit first and keeping taxes low without pretending to be an idiot on a topic. I actually think there is plenty of room to acknowledge that 97% of scientists are probably right, but disagree with Liberal techniques for dealing with what they say. Maybe someone could clarify why many Conservatives disregard science and logic as I think the Conservative viewpoint is otherwise just as valid and well-thought out as the Liberal viewpoint. I despise willful ignorance, hence why I can't identify with Conservatism in spite of only being just left of centre on the political spectrum and sometimes swinging right on some issues.

Oh, as for the topic at hand, Christians believe God will render judgement when all is said and done. We just don't believe hatred accomplishes much that God can't do better and far more objectively.

I disagree, many a lauded scientist has been called a fool or worse in his time, later to be proven correct. I don't seek an argument about the science, I only wish to point out that their behaviour is disgraceful, at the very least anti-scientific. If people are giggling about flat earth beliefs when someone presents an alternative climate theory or points out flaws in existing theories... given the sordid history of science being held back by appeals to authority, you would think they would know better.

I suppose you're right there. I would expect better of scientists. But, most of the supposed climate change skeptics I at least hear from take a very similar approach and simply say stupid things like "fake news" when someone does present evidence that challenges their point of view. I suppose you could argue that scientists should be held to a higher standard as observing and collecting data and making arguments based on that data is kind of their thing. I do understand why they might feel like debating with someone who doesn't have the credibility to challenge them is a waste of time though. I do however assume they would give the time of day to climate change skeptics who have similar degrees in climate science and have conducted studies of their own. Perhaps they're merely holding out for a worthy opponent.

You should not, it makes no sense at all, he was probably smoking hash when he said it.