Ship of Fools: "Love your enemy"

Thread: "Love your enemy" Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019997

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Okay, this whole Trump situation now has Christians where the rubber meets the road. How do you "love your enemy" without seeming to embrace their opinions or policies? Most of us liberal Christians have treated with scorn the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sim" especially on Dead Horse subjects. Now it bites us in the butt, because that is what it seems Jesus might really want us to do. In what way could I effectively love Donald Trump and his minions? Through prayer alone? Or should I consider such the policy of loving the individuals in the new ad ministration as something to try only when "all things are made new"? [Help]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If Trump showed up at my doorstep hungry I would feed him. If he were naked, I might knit him a sweater (can't promise him his choice of color). There's not a stitch of clothing in the house that will fit an obese man six feet tall, sorry. But if his feet are not too large he could have some socks.

After that? I don't trust him, so he'd have to give me many details. And, possibly, a cash deposit, because he doesn't keep promises. Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove, is my policy.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

We can't be dishonest in prayer. Pretending to love someone is impossible before God. We can ask God to help us to love them. We can ask God to help them and to guide them, knowing that God loves them.

If we genuinely love them, we can pray from the heart that all shall be well for them. We really can hate what they do and love them at the same time. They will answer to God for what harm they do.

We can also give our support to those who are hurt. We can speak out and do whatever we can practically to help them.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A good place to start, I submit, would be to start engaging with people as people, rather than by categorising them by ideology etc.

In the present case, if the coverage of offensive placards at anti-Trump rallies are to be believed - 'Rape Melania' - then some of those on the liberal side are just as bad - if not worse than those they oppose - and use similar crass tactics.

If we accept that not all Trump supporters are racist misogynists or that ot wasn't only right-wing Little Englanders who voted Brexit, then that's a step towards understanding them.

For those who ARE racist misogynists or right-wing Little Englanders, then the only way to do it is by attempting to show a more excellent way ...

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Yes, Jesus said "love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." He also made it very clear that he was on the side of the most downtrodden people in his society, and he didn't cozy up to the authorities who oppressed those people. He graced Zaccheus with his presence at dinner, and he called Zaccheus on his shit. And he converted him. The religious authorities Jesus just told off. Loving people who wield enormous power does not mean tolerating their abuse of that power.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

What do you think it does mean? Did Jesus love the cold-ass authorities of his era and if so, how did he show it?

If you can't feel loving toward someone, does it count as love to act lovingly towards them?

These are all sincere questions. I really am flummoxed.

(And thanks for all the comments so far.)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think love thy enemy means, IMHO to not return violence with violence.

It does not mean, to "like one's enemy."

I remember Giles Fraser who once wrote encountering Christians who used "love thy enemy" to mean that we should put up with homophobic Christians, that "love thy enemy" still means that the other IS our enemy.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

That makes sense compared to the Biblical meaning of "hate" in some contexts.

See:

quote:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

You are supposed to love your enemy and your neighbor but hate your family? [Ultra confused]

Love and hate are tricky concepts in scripture it seems.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I had a minister who was so manipulative and abusive and impervious to any attempts at discourse that I eventually the only way I could find to pray for him was to say, "May he learn the damage he is doing before he sees God's face, and not after."

I find myself going back to that thought occasionally with Trump. That, and that God will put good people in his path who can speak to him in a way he can here ( see: his sit down with Obama. )

I assume the question is limited to, how do you prevent your inner state from becoming a quagmire or bitterness and hate, and does not mean actions I might take in response to Trump's policies, because as to the latter, I think the most loving thing I can do for Trump is to do the best I can to prevent him from doing the damage he is capable of inflicting. Resisting and challenging. And continuing to serve the people made most vulnerable by what he has done so far, and will do in the future.

And I really took on board Hillary's injunction to "Go higher."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What do you think it does mean? Did Jesus love the cold-ass authorities of his era and if so, how did he show it?

If you can't feel loving toward someone, does it count as love to act lovingly towards them?

These are all sincere questions. I really am flummoxed.

(And thanks for all the comments so far.)

Well, for one his final words included a statement of forgiveness toward the people who killed him.

As to his confrontation of authority-- warning people that they are stuffing it up and need to pull up their socks is one way of being loving, just as much as putting stuff aside and asking the guy in the tree to take you home for dinner. Love requires different things at different times.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Very much YMMV.}

I'm experimenting with various things:

--Praying for little-kid Donald. I don't know much about his mom; but Fred, his dad, strongly taught all the kids that only winners deserved to be loved. And he forced the kids to be very competitive. D's big brother, Fred, Jr. (somewhat) separated from the family, was an alcoholic, and died too young. I saw something, the other day, where D was asked about him. IIRC, D paused a moment, then quietly said that he thought Fred, Jr. couldn't handle the competition. His style was tinged with a bit of sadness. Given some of his campaign persona, he could've said, "well, he was never up to the competition, but I always have been". But he didn't.

When he was very young, maybe 5, D was the kind of little boy who goes around and smashes other kids' block creations. (People who've known him for a long time say he's never really changed.) When D was 13, his dad reportedly tired of his behavior, and packed him off to military boarding school--the only kid in the family to be sent away. D says he liked it, but it probably wasn't easy.

I think D may still have living siblings, but I haven't heard anything about them. I don't know if they're just private people, or there's a rift. IIRC somebody said on the main election thread that D had refused to help with the cost of the health care of a disabled relative.

--I don't know anything about Pence's background; but he may well have childhood baggage and damage, too.

--This is *way* out there. Something I heard about years ago that may or may not be true, or open to interpretation.

A resident of a neighborhood was driving everyone crazy--basically, an adult bully, I think. People decided they'd had enough. Someone came up with the idea of focusing (thoughts, prayers, whatever) on the neighbor going to the place of his best good. So they tried. I don't know how long it took; but he suddenly moved away, with no warning. I don't know what happened.

This may be a totally ridiculous thing to try. But, as long as the focus is on helping Donald find the goodness, healing, and help he needs--which, I'm pretty sure, isn't as president--I don't see how it can be a bad thing.

--Maybe think of D as not well *yet*.

--Pray for Hillary, too, whatever you think of her. She's got to be in a world of hurt.

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

[ 14. November 2016, 05:47: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

How do you love? I don't think I know, but I love.

Some kinds of love are emotion, but is charity an emotion? I think that's what love means in the biblical sense: charity. It's an attitude, a turning towards, a conscious choice.

Hate isn't that. Hate's an emotion. It's overwhelming sometimes, but I find that my hate passes, and then I can turn towards those in front of me.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The root Greek word used both in love your neighbour and love your enemies is agape. As a noun it is pretty well defined in 1 Cor 13. I think is is best understood as a generous and unselfish act of the will and may indeed be exercised independent of or in contradiction to feelings of animosity or hatred.

I think that's what loving the unlovable is about.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I've been very affected by this radio segment where a black presenter talks ultra calmly to a white nationalist.

I can tell you that if it had been me doing the interview, I'd have likely swung at him but Al Letsen has much greater reserves of strength and character than I do.

But to me this is an example of loving the enemy. It is taking him seriously, but refusing to back down. It is listening to him calmly, trying to hold onto the facts of his humanity, but refusing to budge.

What isn't loving is simply standing by whilst he convenes a mob to start stringing people up or punishing people for being the "wrong" colour. What isn't loving is giving him an unchallenged platform to spill his words of hatred. What isn't loving is allowing him to get to your neighbours without walking over your dead body.

We can only show that we love Trump by refusing to allow the sickness inside his head to be actioned in the world.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes I agree. Cromwell's famous statement, "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think it possible ye may be mistaken" is an agape statement. The standard appears to be "correct gently and lovingly". Of course we may be wrong ourselves, but that doesn't change the principle.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Where I struggle with the idea of loving your enemy, is that to do that, one must label another human being as being an enemy.

On the OP, I find the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is actually a fundamentally sound concept, but one that, in the context of Dead Horses, is badly misapplied.

Where we have disagreements with fellow christians on this, I recall listening to Tom Wright talk about his time as an observer at a Vatican meeting, where he was invited alongside a representative from the Eastern Orthodox church. There were big disagreements over communion, but there was nothing to stop them reading scripture together or praying together. And in light of that, I think it's the most obvious place to start. Not to read scripture at one another, but with one another.

But it's only the first step of a long journey.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

That was beautiful, Golden Key.

When I worked in the Pentagon, I was great with all the low level civilians, enlisted and the hundreds of disabled, but I was not always so nice to the arrogant officers. One day my friend called me on it and said, "Colonels are people, too." So I really worked on it and tried to see the worried striver behind the bluster.

My husband, career military, has another way of dealing. He couldn't believe the "Not my president," signs that went up after Obama's elections and he can't believe them now. Obama, Trump, or George W. Bush, the President is his Commander in Chief and he will give him the respect the position deserves if not personal love. I think that's a starting point for me with Trump.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes I agree. Cromwell's famous statement, "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think it possible ye may be mistaken" is an agape statement.

Not to mention the standard by which irony meters are stress-tested.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes I agree. Cromwell's famous statement, "I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think it possible ye may be mistaken" is an agape statement. The standard appears to be "correct gently and lovingly". Of course we may be wrong ourselves, but that doesn't change the principle.

I'm not sure Cromwell is a particularly good model of conduct. And at least one way to read that statement suggest that we ought to listen to rabid nonsense put out by extremists who want to set up white-only enclaves because we quote "might be mistaken" and they might be right.

No. I am wrong about many things, but I'm not wrong that black people are as deserving as white. I'm not wrong that talking about expelling 4 million people from the USA is a sign of an approaching militaristic demogogue. I'm not wrong that various minorities are living in fear of the next occupant of the White House.

[ 14. November 2016, 11:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Obama, Trump, or George W. Bush, the President is his Commander in Chief and he will give him the respect the position deserves if not personal love. I think that's a starting point for me with Trump.

I don't understand this position, please explain a bit more.

What would the leader of your country need to do to not deserve "respect if not personal love"? Where actually is the line for you?

[ 14. November 2016, 11:08: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Karl is right and mr cheesy is right that Cromwell did not live up to his own lofty words. I'm not sure that makes them less lofty. And Jacob Bronowski redeemed them in the famous scene from the Ascent of Man at Auschwitz.

I think mr cheesy is right about the issues he declares himself not to be wrong about! And sometimes there is no room left for any form of dialogue. I don't think that removes the obligation to love enemies. Or at least try.

Historically, peaceful civil disobedience, another form of aiming high when others aim low, has had the effect of winning respect for minorities and minority viewpoints. I think that's the way of love as well. I have a feeling we may find out just how effective it continues to be under the incoming regime in the US. All such protests are a kind of beseeching authorities to reconsider.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Behaving well, with charity and kindness isn't the same trying to command a feeling of love. Behaving well doesn't mean lying to yourself about your feelings either. I think we often confuse acting lovingly with a feeling.

The most loving thing with evil people is to refuse to collude with them, to not approve, to hope and pray for their correction, but to do nothing to express acceptance, agreement, and to be careful that general respect for human dignity isn't misinterpreted as approval. But to pretend to love as in a feeling may be a lie. Speaking out against hate is love. Throwing over a table in a temple is love.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Apparently, Obama has deported more people than any President in US history. That doesn't mean that we don't have trouble ahead - I think we do - but if the recent furore about Trump on other boards and in the media has taught me anything, it's to actually listen to people who disagree with me rather than jumping to conclusions as to what they are saying ...

I winced when a BBC journalist mistook a rhetorical Republican reference to The Knights of Columbus to be a reference to 'another extremist group?' like the KKK.

The Republican spokesperson (to whom I took an immediate dislike, I must admit) had thrown back a question about the way the KKK were holding a rally to celebrate Trump's victory by saying that the KKK were so marginal that you might as well ask about the Knights of Columbus holding a rally for the same purpose ...

The point was missed by the BBC journalist and the black novelist who was also being interviewed at the same time. Love, in that instance, would have been to hear the Republican guy out - then to call him on something he was saying, not that he wasn't saying ...

We could still exercise love and give the Republican guy a drubbing ...

We have to cut through the noise and the rhetoric. If Trump had said that he was going to investigate criminals and drug-dealers then no-one would bat and eyelid. But because he's bloviated out of his arse during the almost Orwellian Two Minute Hate style hype of his election campaign, we're all expecting him to round-up anyone with a Spanish sounding surname or set up Gulags in Nevada.

The tragedy is that hype and reality have become conflated. He's part of that process.

But it's not something that's restricted to any one side or ideology.

We all need to be careful on that front.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Obama, Trump, or George W. Bush, the President is his Commander in Chief and he will give him the respect the position deserves if not personal love. I think that's a starting point for me with Trump.
I don't understand this position, please explain a bit more.

What would the leader of your country need to do to not deserve "respect if not personal love"? Where actually is the line for you?

The line is fairly simple. It's standing during "Hail to the chief," and not sporting a bumper sticker that says, "F**k Trump." It's not burning down a business because I don't like him. Because this is still my country and he is its fairly elected president.

What it wouldn't include was saying I agreed with his policies. It wouldn't keep me from peaceful protest against those policies. It wouldn't keep me from working hard to get someone else elected in four years.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What do you think about the kneeling during national anthems? "Hail to the Chief" I take it is a salute to the president? Respectful kneeling?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I think D may still have living siblings, but I haven't heard anything about them. I don't know if they're just private people, or there's a rift. IIRC somebody said on the main election thread that D had refused to help with the cost of the health care of a disabled relative.

You will. There's a sister who is a judge. The Orange One says he will put her onto the Supreme Court. Nepotism? But of course.

[ 14. November 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

He'd probably bring up Jack and Bobby Kennedy in defense. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, Jesus said "love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." He also made it very clear that he was on the side of the most downtrodden people in his society, and he didn't cozy up to the authorities who oppressed those people. He graced Zaccheus with his presence at dinner, and he called Zaccheus on his shit. And he converted him. The religious authorities Jesus just told off. Loving people who wield enormous power does not mean tolerating their abuse of that power.

And how did He call him on it Ruth? Didn't He call him on it by just loving him? Respecting him? Honouring him? When he KNEW he didn't deserve it?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Obama, Trump, or George W. Bush, the President is his Commander in Chief and he will give him the respect the position deserves if not personal love. I think that's a starting point for me with Trump.
I don't understand this position, please explain a bit more.

What would the leader of your country need to do to not deserve "respect if not personal love"? Where actually is the line for you?

That's standard, for the US military. The president is basically their top boss. They're not allowed to publicly criticize the C-in-C, at least not if they do so *as* a member of the military. AIUI, they can post, write to an editor, etc., as long as they post as Average Joe/Jill, not Capt. Joe/Jill.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

there is a similar Hatch Act that keeps federal employees from indulging in political activism.

My son is in the US Army. He is careful to take his political car magnet (he supported Gary Johnson) off his car when he is either doing the day job or doing his Army Reserve stuff.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Something compels me to say I need to listen a little more to the Golden Keys of the world. Yeah, Twilight, that was very moving.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I think it is usually a good thing to listen to Golden Key. [Smile]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
That's standard, for the US military. The president is basically their top boss. They're not allowed to publicly criticize the C-in-C, at least not if they do so *as* a member of the military. AIUI, they can post, write to an editor, etc., as long as they post as Average Joe/Jill, not Capt. Joe/Jill.

Right, but that wasn't actually what I was asking - where Twilight said that the "starting point" for him/her (presumably not being a person in the military) was to model the respect given by someone who was.

I wasn't talking about the arguably necessary deference given in the military chain of command, I was talking about why anyone in their right mind would defer to a fascist when they didn't have to.

If Trump presses the nuclear button on Iran, are you seriously saying that as President he'd have your respect?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There is no even remote scenario in which he would, especially if the deal is kept. Now North Korea ...

And Jesus respected Pilate and even Herod and His immediate murderers.

So yes, we must respect our Godless leaders and their instruments to the end.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Respect and cooperation being two entirely different things.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

No, I think one should neither respect nor cooperate with demonizing immigrants or looting the environment. I may respect the office of the Presidency, but I would be a damn fool to let my daughter intern in the Orange One's office.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Obama, Trump, or George W. Bush, the President is his Commander in Chief and he will give him the respect the position deserves if not personal love. I think that's a starting point for me with Trump.
I don't understand this position, please explain a bit more.

What would the leader of your country need to do to not deserve "respect if not personal love"? Where actually is the line for you?
That's standard, for the US military. The president is basically their top boss. They're not allowed to publicly criticize the C-in-C, at least not if they do so *as* a member of the military. AIUI, they can post, write to an editor, etc., as long as they post as Average Joe/Jill, not Capt. Joe/Jill.

Yes, there's a difference with the UK where the President is explicitly part of the chain of command whereas the UK Prime Minister isn't. In practice he gets to say "go" and they go and all the rest of it but when he does so, he does so with the authority of the Crown. So for a serving member of the military to criticise the President is a bit like lower ranks criticising their officers. In the UK it's more of an informal sense that the military ought not to routinely interfere in politics. IIRC, the brass did make it pretty clear that if the government was going to send them to war they ought to make sure the lads had the right kit, during the New Labour era but they were very careful not to say that this implied that the voters should support the other lot.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Respect can be an action rather than a heartfelt emotion. So can love.

For me, loving the Orange One (God help me, I have difficulty even typing his name!) is going to mean several things.

First, I have to (try to) stop talking smack about him on Inauguration Day, when he becomes president (God help us) and comes under the "respect those in authority over you" Bible passages. This won't stop me from sober criticism, but I suppose I will have to rein in my desire to spit. And certainly I will have to watch myself bigly, YUGELY, with what I say to my son about him. (You can see how difficult this is going to be for me.)

Second, I am going to have to (dear God) PRAY for him. Oh God.

Third, assuming he continues to behave as he has done in the past, I am going to have to take part in whatever collective actions develop to rebuke him. That won't be hard. And helping someone face reality is (or can be, should be) a loving act.

Thanks, guys. Now I'm contemplating how much my spiritual life is going to suck for the next four years. [Razz]

[ 15. November 2016, 16:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I liked Angela Merkel's response (German Chancellor), which seemed nicely completed by an opposition leader's comment below:

quote:
Germany and America are bound by their values: democracy, freedom, the respect for the law and the dignity of human beings, independent of their origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political position...On the basis of these values I offer the future president of the United States, Donald Trump, close cooperation.

Die Linke (The Left) leader Gregor Gysi added helpfully and accurately:

quote:
He's a simple soul, not particularly well-educated, he's coarse...We've never had anything like this in this form as president of the United States, even though there have been what I would consider bad presidents before

Deutsche Welle website article (in English)

So the rude boorish one gets attention and cooperation, not affection, so long as he behaves. Said politely by Germans. Which sounds like a good behaviourist way of treating errant children. Refuse attention to had behaviour. That's love to isn't it?

[ 15. November 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... For me, loving the Orange One (God help me, I have difficulty even typing his name!) is going to mean several things.

Do you mean President Elect Trump?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Respect and cooperation being two entirely different things.

In His case? Do you really think so? Therefore in ours? And NO not in co-operating in evil. Stand with the oppressed (disobey) AND co-operate with the abuse of power (civilly). Submit to it. I regard Martin Luther King as the greatest man of the C20th and a fair few more besides.

The Church in Germany could have EASILY stopped Hitler if it had been incarnational. At any point in history the same applies.

The century we do, the Kingdom, the Eschaton is realised.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Respect and cooperation are two entirely different things, as Kelly says. You needn't kiss ass and do whatever is required of you to show respect. Jesus showed respect at his various trials, but he certainly did not bend over backwards to make it easy for them to convict him. He mostly kept his mouth shut, which drove Caiaphas mad and even frustrated Pilate. And he refused to do any miracles for Herod.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Respect can be an action rather than a heartfelt emotion. So can love.

For me, loving the Orange One (God help me, I have difficulty even typing his name!) is going to mean several things.
<snip>
Thanks, guys. Now I'm contemplating how much my spiritual life is going to suck for the next four years.

Strong post as always and very interesting to read. I sympathise with your feelings even though I'm an atheist and here not there.

On the general question of loving one's enemies, I long since discarded any personal obligation to do so. I think a realistic assessment of any potential enemy is required by governments and on a personal level, I have no enemies really.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, believe me, loving one's enemies requires a very realistic appraisal of them. Anything you do with a cobra, you're going to do carefully if you want to live.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Respect and cooperation are two entirely different things, as Kelly says. You needn't kiss ass and do whatever is required of you to show respect. Jesus showed respect at his various trials, but he certainly did not bend over backwards to make it easy for them to convict him. He mostly kept his mouth shut, which drove Caiaphas mad and even frustrated Pilate. And he refused to do any miracles for Herod.

Aye. He could have stopped them breathing without even holding His breath. He co-operated with His prophesied destiny. To be led as a lamb to slaughter. He set them up. Manipulated them. Subverted them. Minimally. Silently. He made it inevitable that they would convict Him. He could have talked His way out of it easily. Who's talking kiss ass?

Some act to follow admittedly. One day.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Color me cynical, but you don't hear exhortations to love one's enemy from conservatives whenever someone is on death row, or for example, loving people associated with ISIS.

In fact, didn't Trump say that he wanted to bomb the crap out of ISIS?

Where is the Christian love from Mr. Trump?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh, believe me, loving one's enemies requires a very realistic appraisal of them. Anything you do with a cobra, you're going to do carefully if you want to live.

And if you don't... [Paranoid]

My version of an old story:

A scorpion came to the edge of a river. He wanted to cross, but there were no fallen branches to cross on, no big leaves to float on. So he sat down to think.

Meanwhile, a fox came running up to the bank of the river. It had been a long day, and all the fox wanted was to go home, eat, and curl up in his den.

As it put one paw in the water, he heard a sound. "Excuse me?" said a little voice.

Fox whipped his head around. Nothing. He finally saw a scorpion on a nearby stone. The fox slowly backed off a bit. "What do you want?" he asked.

Scorpion cleared its throat. "Excuse me, Fox, but I need to cross the river, and there are no branches nor leaves to take me across. May I hitch a ride on your back?"

In his heart, Fox panicked. He was terrified. He had been firmly taught to avoid scorpions, being that they couldn't be trusted, and would as soon sting you as say "hello". On the other hand, his parents had taught all their kits to be polite and helpful.

"Scorpion, I am afraid that, once we're mid-river, you'll sting me, and I'll go down and die," said Fox.

Scorpion looked surprised, then serious. "Fox, if I did that, we'd both go down and die. I don't want to die."

Fox's tummy twisted and did flip-flops. Then Fox made a decision. "All right," he said. "Climb up on my back, and take hold of my fur, so you don't fall off."

Scorpion climbed up, and Fox edged into the water. "Scorpion," said Fox, "you promise not to sting me? If I'm stung, we'll both go down and die."

"Fox, Fox, why would I do that? We'd both go down and die," said Scorpion.

Fox paddled into the mid-river, and suddenly felt a sharp pain in his neck. He knew what had happened. "Oh, Scorpion," he slurred with his numbing mouth, "you promised! Now, we'll both go down and die".

As the water closed over them both, Scorpion whispered "It's the way I am".

[ 16. November 2016, 00:07: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

A_B--

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Where is the Christian love from Mr. Trump?

Um...did anyone say we're expecting that???

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Trump is not to my knowledge a Christian.

And yes, the duty of loving ISIS people etc. lies on us as well. The folks I know express this by praying for them (and their conversion from evil), other forms of action being basically impossible.

As for people on death row, as far as I'm aware they receive prison visits and ministry like other inmates. I suspect you believe that love must be expressed in a particular way to count, i.e. in releasing them from their sentence.

[ 16. November 2016, 00:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QB] Trump is not to my knowledge a Christian.

He was baptized, wasn't he? Unless he explicitly renounces his Christianity, I view him as accountable to Christian principles.

quote:

As for people on death row, as far as I'm aware they receive prison visits and ministry like other inmates. I suspect you believe that love must be expressed in a particular way to count, i.e. in releasing them from their sentence.

I oppose capital punishment, I believe firmly that to love one'a enemy requires granting them at least a chance of repentance. Which means, ergo, you don't kill them.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

As for 1), you can take that up with Trump. But there are any number of people baptized here, particularly as infants, who then go on to live as if it had never happened.

In any case, it makes no difference to our duty of loving our enemy, even this enemy. Christian or not, we're stuck with it.

As for the death penalty--my point was: you appear to think that there is no way whatsoever to love people on death row unless you are personally actively working to get their sentences revoked or commuted. So basically chaplains, prison visitors, etc. are not loving them unless they are at the same time actively engaged in attempting to negate their death sentences. Is that a correct understanding of your view?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QB] As for 1), you can take that up with Trump. But there are any number of people baptized here, particularly as infants, who then go on to live as if it had never happened.

In any case, it makes no difference to our duty of loving our enemy, even this enemy. Christian or not, we're stuck with it.

I think calling people to account on the basis of Christian character is part of loving them. They might not heed the criticism, but loving the enemy entails confronting them and holding them accountable if not to "Christian" values, but to civic values of decency and fairness.

quote:
As for the death penalty--my point was: you appear to think that there is no way whatsoever to love people on death row unless you are personally actively working to get their sentences revoked or commuted. So basically chaplains, prison visitors, etc. are not loving them unless they are at the same time actively engaged in attempting to negate their death sentences. Is that a correct understanding of your view?

I did not mean to denigrate prison ministry, ministry to those in death row. What I simply meant was that I cannot understand reconciling capital punishment with a gospel perspective as I understand it, which IMHO, involves commitment to returning no one evil for evil, a will to renounce retribution and a life ethic that sees all people as deserving of the right to life. This is my particular progressive Christian perspective and I understand that not everyone may agree with me. But emotionally this is my conviction. If I was unclear and abrupt in my response, I apologize.

[ 16. November 2016, 01:54: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Then I think we are in substantial agreement. And by all means call Trump to account as often and as well as you can. I was simply confused because it sounded as if, well, as if you were surprised at his behavior. I wish I were.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Respect and cooperation are two entirely different things, as Kelly says. You needn't kiss ass and do whatever is required of you to show respect. Jesus showed respect at his various trials, but he certainly did not bend over backwards to make it easy for them to convict him. He mostly kept his mouth shut, which drove Caiaphas mad and even frustrated Pilate. And he refused to do any miracles for Herod.
Aye. He could have stopped them breathing without even holding His breath. He co-operated with His prophesied destiny. To be led as a lamb to slaughter. He set them up. Manipulated them. Subverted them. Minimally. Silently. He made it inevitable that they would convict Him. He could have talked His way out of it easily. Who's talking kiss ass?

Some act to follow admittedly. One day.

I refuse to turn myself into someone I don't like or respect for the sake of someone like Trump. If I meet him, I would probably make myself shake his hand, but I will also look him in the eye, and he won't like what he sees there. A fencer always-- ALWAYS-- shakes hands before she stands en guarde.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not, Martin, but funnily enough I thought that was a Christlike attitude.

Lamb Chopped, I feel for you. We had a couple third party voters in my family, but at least we all can hold hand and come together in our hatred of Trump.

[ 17. November 2016, 03:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I mean, pray for his deliverance from his Trumpness, or whatever. (Forgot the point of the OP, sorry.)

[ 17. November 2016, 03:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think you were thinking of a different thread where I referred to my unfortunate situation. But I appreciate the sympathy! (You should see my facebook feed. It looks positively schizophrenic with every possible shade of politics and religion represented. I have an interesting family (and friends). You definitely get practice in loving your enemies.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, like Lewis said, don't start with Hitler, start with the person in front of you. ( and yeah, I think I hit the "Next thread" button at some point, because when I scrolled up page 2, I didn't recognize the conversation all of a sudden. )

The same stuff still applies, though, I guess.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, like Lewis said, don't start with Hitler, start with the person in front of you.

You mean punch them first?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Kelly, with regard to the fencers, they are both playing the same game, with the same rules, on the same piste.

Not sure that applies here.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

I'd say the most important way to love your enemy these days is to try to tell the truth about them.

Remember all humans are biased and that you're no exception. Treat negative stories about enemies with the same skepticism that you'd apply to ones attacking your friends and allies. Call out people on your own team who pass on misinformation or exaggeration. Be charitable - don't interpret your enemy's words in the worst light. Don't strawman their positions but try to understand their strongest arguments. Remember it's not just your enemies who live in echo chambers, and that you're both prone to fear and demonising the other. Step back when you get too angry. Try to find common ground and build bridges with your enemies where possible; oppose them firmly but honestly when it's not.

[Edit to add: I fail miserably at most of these.]

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
at least we all can hold hand and come together in our hatred of Trump.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I mean, pray for his deliverance from his Trumpness, or whatever. (Forgot the point of the OP, sorry.)

[ 17. November 2016, 19:05: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Kelly. I agree. It's a Christ-like attitude. Reflected in your approach. He played very hard eye-ball with the Scribes, Pharisees, Pilate, Herod; all those abusing (redundant I know) power.

We ain't that good. That pivotal. Paul was a master at using every opportunity to exploit the powerful in his apparent helplessness too. Being there.

Not only are we not that good, I feel we need to go further than Jesus, or not as far, yet; be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves. He HAD to confront power alone and play His unique role. That may come to us, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

We live in a complex world where the multilateral liberal order is in retreat for a generation or more. Bilateralism between all big beasts is back. There will be strange pragmatic ententes. Realpolitik is back. One step away from machtpolitik. Nothing we can do there. We have no part to play, nothing to speak to power at that level.

So where can we? Subtly. Harmlessly. Guilelessly. Subversively. The way Christianity salted, leavened the greatest empire on Earth. Invoking the humanity of all others. Locally on up. Family. School. Friends. Colleagues. Neighbours. Street. Community. Environment.

Ah heck, you know the drill, as woolly liberals NOT bad-mouthing inept authority and alienated ethne (the right wing working class), sympathising with it, working with it, forgiving it whilst NEVER backing down in solidarity with the weak.

Hug homophobes and racists and ablists and sexists and xenophobes as a buffer for those they persecute in their fear. Acknowledging their fears isn't justifying them. We've got to find a way of detaching them from demagogues.

Trump is IRRELEVANT. We'll never get to look him in the eye with our righteousness. The bottom layers of his pyramid are our field. Without them he is UTTERLY irrelevant.

We gotta love them Kelly. We got to incarnate among them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hiro's Leap - excellent, that's exactly part of the strategy we need.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Kelly, with regard to the fencers, they are both playing the same game, with the same rules, on the same piste.

Not sure that applies here.

It applies to my character, which is what I was talking about. I'm not in charge of the games someone else chooses to play.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, like Lewis said, don't start with Hitler, start with the person in front of you.
You mean punch them first?

(Serene Jesus face) If punching someone in the face is genuinely the most loving thing you can do... [Biased]

A younger cousin of mine was getting thumped yesterday by a bunch of conservative friends/ family of his about his stance on school prayer. I stepped in, invoking my Christianity, and explaining why forbidding a teacher to lead prayer in school was not the same as punishing kids who chose to pray before lunchtime. I chimed in when he expressed doubts about the pledge of allegiance, stating my usual rap about it being idolatry and how God doesn't honor coerced pledges of loyalty.

Trump ain't gonna hear a damn thing I ever say, but the people in front of me will. As per Hiro's excellent, excellent post, there is a way to hold your ground and open your mouth while still seeing Christ in people.

And Martin, I think I understand where you are coming from, although personally I am less inclined to offer people honey and more hot beef broth, if that translates. ( Politely informing a bunch of evangelicals they are participating in idolatry would be an example of broth.)

I'm honestly doing poorly (hence my thoughts of broth) so I had to reread Martin's post to really get it.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

So where can we? Subtly. Harmlessly. Guilelessly. Subversively. The way Christianity salted, leavened the greatest empire on Earth. Invoking the humanity of all others. Locally on up. Family. School. Friends. Colleagues. Neighbours. Street. Community. Environment.
<snip>

Trump is IRRELEVANT. We'll never get to look him in the eye with our righteousness. The bottom layers of his pyramid are our field. Without them he is UTTERLY irrelevant.

We gotta love them Kelly. We got to incarnate among them.

By God. Team Marvin.

[ 18. November 2016, 02:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What do you think about the kneeling during national anthems? "Hail to the Chief" I take it is a salute to the president? Respectful kneeling?

I know this is going back a bit on the thread, but I wanted to add: Kneeling during the national anthem was done by high-visibility celebrities as an act of protest. It was intended to be visible in order to lead to a conversation. I think that's very different from individuals deciding, "Yeah, I don't like him. I'm not standing" if they're present when "Hail to the Chief" is played, when their doing so won't have any real effect in the world. IMO.

Anyway, I'm with Martin that we need to be concerned the most with loving people we come into contact with. Part of the reason, I think, that we're having trouble with what it should mean to love Trump might be that it's so abstract - even if he and his actions/statements have affected us personally. It's also pretty hypothetical: how many of us can reasonably expect not only to meet him, but to have an opportunity for meaningful interaction?

That said, praying for his greatest good (i.e., God's will for him) is a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is better for our own spiritual health to do so. Opposing his policies is probably more an act of loving those affected by them than it is loving him, himself.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

That said, praying for his greatest good (i.e., God's will for him) is a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is better for our own spiritual health to do so. Opposing his policies is probably more an act of loving those affected by them than it is loving him, himself.

Agreed. One could argue, though, that opposing dangerous policies "loves" the promoter of such policies by preventing them from doing things that bring them shame.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

True, but I still think that's more of an abstraction, or perhaps a secondary effect.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You are absolutely right. Martin nailed it, the bottom of the pyramid is our focus.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You are absolutely right. Martin nailed it, the bottom of the pyramid is our focus.

Yes, I'd like to sign up to Martin's manifesto above, too.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A wise man told me a few years ago that, contrary to many charismatic expectations of revival, he thought the coming season would be more like exile.

I think Martin60 did an excellent job of summarising the right approach in an exile era. Subversive love scatters the proud, lifts up the lowly.

Well said, Martin60.

[ 18. November 2016, 08:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Easily said ...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, there's that.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, like Lewis said, don't start with Hitler, start with the person in front of you.
You mean punch them first?
(Serene Jesus face) If punching someone in the face is genuinely the most loving thing you can do...

LOL, Kelly!

Reminds me of a story about Buddhist teacher Sharon Salzberg (from The Existential Buddhist site):

quote:
A menacing stranger once tried to pull Sharon Salzberg from her rickshaw while traveling through a dark alley in Calcutta. A friend managed to push the man away and they luckily escaped unharmed. When she told Angarika Munindra what had happened, he exclaimed “Oh, Sharon, with all the lovingkindness in your heart, you should have taken your umbrella and hit the man over the head with it!”

By the way, the article at that link is very pertinent.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You are absolutely right. Martin nailed it, the bottom of the pyramid is our focus.

No. The person we're with now is supposed to be our focus.

The question is about how to love those we disagree with. (or those who disagree with us *).

Patting ourselves on the back for loving those we sympathize with (arguing for the interests of those we see as innocent victims) doesn't cut it. Even the pagans do that.

Loving our opponents doesn't mean that we stop arguing for what we believe to be just. It means being the sort of opponent we would like to have.

(* - English euphemism for food poisoning - "it disagreed with me")

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

So... This?

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, like Lewis said, don't start with Hitler, start with the person in front of you. <snip>

Trump ain't gonna hear a damn thing I ever say, but the people in front of me will. As per Hiro's excellent, excellent post, there is a way to hold your ground and open your mouth while still seeing Christ in people.

And Martin, I think I understand where you are coming from, although personally I am less inclined to offer people honey and more hot beef broth, if that translates.

The bottom of the pyramid IS the person in front of me. Maybe as a blue collar worker who gets underpaid to provide childcare for other underpaid blue collar workers that plants me in a specific social arena, but what I heard Hiro and Martin to be saying is pretty much just what you are saying.

[ 19. November 2016, 19:51: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Sorry Kelly - I may have read into your words something you didn't intend.

Is the confusion here between loving our neighbour and loving our enemies ?

Nothing wrong with putting the main focus on your neighbour.

But if you're led to declare that your neighbour's enemy is your enemy, that shouldn't stop you being a chivalrous enemy.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh, agreed. Scroll up for my fencing metaphore.

I think the confusion came from the phrase " the bottom of the pyramid" which could mean " those most vulnerable socially" -- and indeed they are the ones who need the most backup right now-- and " the bottom line of the political pyramid, meaning President /Congress/ Supreme Court to state gov.to local gov.to neighborhoods ( and in my opinion, this can include cyber neighborhoods) From Martin's post, I was working with the second definition.

Which leads to the question, as Jesus asked, who is our neighbor anyway? Or, are their people " in front of us" that we aren't really noticing?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
Your neighbour is everyone. That is the fucking point of the Good Samaritan, to look beyond your own group.
This is never more true than today, when we can see the whole world and our impact upon it. When what we do; what we eat, buy, vote, work all have a global impact.

Love your enemy. I do not have the same religious injunction to do so. Hate, though, is wasted energy that negatively affects oneself.
But not wishing your enemy* harm is not the same thing as being OK with their agenda. Nor being accepting of their promoting it. It is a difficult balance, wishing someone well as a person, but confronting their damaging beliefs.

*Not the best term either.

This rant is not directed towards a particular person, but the thread general.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If our neighbor is everyone (which I do not deny), and we should love our neighbor, then perforce we should love our enemy, because our enemy is our neighbor.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If our neighbor is everyone (which I do not deny), and we should love our neighbor, then perforce we should love our enemy, because our enemy is our neighbor.

That is the only rational interpretation of your main man's words.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Of course. But as people keep saying, amorphic love aimed at heads of state is not a really effective kind of love.

Lilb, perhaps my rhetorical question was meant to imply the fucking answer you fucking supplied. A few weeks ago, memes were going around implying that the stakes were too high to not unfriend Trump supporters. We talk about the echo chamber, but then we sneer at people willing to do the hard work of engaging with different ideas as " appeasers."

And " engaging"'is not the same as " assimiating" , "agreeing" , or " cooperating", by the way. It's reaching out. As Martin said, Christianity began the same way.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course. But as people keep saying, amorphic love aimed at heads of state is not a really effective kind of love.

Lilb, perhaps my rhetorical question was meant to imply the fucking answer you fucking supplied.

My comment was not directed at you. I did say at the bottom of my post that it was aimed at no on in particular, And I so reiterate now.

quote:

A few weeks ago, memes were going around implying that the stakes were too high to not unfriend Trump supporters. We talk about the echo chamber, but then we sneer at people willing to do the hard work of engaging with different ideas as " appeasers."

I am finding this a personal challenge. I have friends who supported Brexit and friends who supported Trump. It is very difficult to engage with them on politics now because I strongly feel both of those positions are harmful. But they are my friends so I do.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Ok, I apologize, I missed the tag at the end. Never attack issues when you have just woke up.

It's just a mess, whether we are talking about loving neighbors or enemies. The words are easy to type, but the practicum is a bitch.

A friend of mine was mournfully describing his befuddlement at one of the kindest, most generous people he knows was expressing hurt and offense at the way people were slamming Trump voters-- of which she was one. I know her, too, and she is much too valuable a person to shunt to the unfriend pile. You have to figure out how to maintain your view of that person's worth while still recognizing that even someone you love and respect can be totally fucking wrong. Just-- wrong.

And it's not like even people who qualify as neighbors or allies are going to be easy to love all the time, either. I feel like I personally am well placed to focus on serving the Latino community in my area-- somehow-- but even though there was a huge surge for Clinton among them, it's not like racism and misogyny is nonexistent there. And I don't mean in a broad cultural sense, either, I mean parents saying straight up sexist stuff to their kids right in front of you, and you have to figure out how to surf that wave.

No matter who we aim ourselves at, there are going to be times we have to grab hold of our values while acknowledging other's worth.

[ 22. November 2016, 04:02: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I've struggled with this, and apart from the purely political aspect--which is to fight Trumpism to my last breath--the question of what I would do if I had occasion to meet the guy face to face has come up. For a start, I'd follow George Fox's example with Oliver Cromwell and address him as "Friend Donald," which would surely piss him off to no end, which is kind of the point. And I'd invite him to sit with me in silent prayer. I think I'd hold his hand, just to freak him out a little more...not in a mean way, just because I don't think human contact is something he has a lot of experience with. Think of it as exposure therapy.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've struggled with this, and apart from the purely political aspect--which is to fight Trumpism to my last breath--the question of what I would do if I had occasion to meet the guy face to face has come up. For a start, I'd follow George Fox's example with Oliver Cromwell and address him as "Friend Donald," which would surely piss him off to no end, which is kind of the point. And I'd invite him to sit with me in silent prayer. I think I'd hold his hand, just to freak him out a little more...not in a mean way, just because I don't think human contact is something he has a lot of experience with. Think of it as exposure therapy.

A passive aggressive 'love your enemy'?

I had the misfortune to be deputy headteacher when the head was a bully. It didn't take long before her tactics turned on me (I supported a bullied colleague). I kept evidence for a year and reported her for bullying and harassment. It was severe and she was quietly removed after a long and difficult time of investigation.

I worked hard at being kind and fair to her while not accepting the bullying. I never once replied in kind and never resorted to being passive aggressive. I'm proud of myself for surviving that awful period with integrity.

But nothing worked with her, she was a sociopath and played the victim when reported.

I still don't know what forgiving her would look like.

I bear no hate towards her and hope she's OK, but I worry for any person in her circle. She has no family or friends, all left her long ago.

I pity her, but forgive? I don't know how. If I met her I would be polite and move away asap.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Timothy--

Sounds like you'd have conflicting purposes.

Plus if he has issues around touch, forcing it on him (even in a small way) would harm him further--and possibly push him to act out.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I bear no hate towards her and hope she's OK,

To me that is forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean entertaining a false belief that she wouldn't bully you or anyone else given half a chance, and doesn't mean you need to expose yourself to her company if it seems likely that would end badly.

It means that if she were to indicate she'd changed and wanted to talk you would likely reciprocate. Whereas someone who hadn't forgiven her would feel "It's too late for that", or wish some for form of redress that would harm her.

Forgiveness doesn't mean pretending it didn't happen, it simply means a lack of vindictiveness and hate.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Boogie, mdijon.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

When you listen to someone with problems you are trying to detect 'what they are not saying'. Doctors often have people declare a trivial illness first and then get round to the serious one later. What people say and do is what they think you want them to say and do. Often its not them. People reveal their personalities over time, sometimes a really long time. Trump, Corbyn, May, Putin, Clinton, Farage - I wonder what they are really like 1to 1 behind closed doors. The only information I can offer on Trump is from some British ex-employees that say he was easy to work for and easy to talk to.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
as people keep saying, amorphic love aimed at heads of state is not a really effective kind of love.

Is there a tension between

- the idea that we should focus on those around us who care about how we act towards them, rather than on loving Africa or Republicans in what is inevitably a somewhat abstract way

- the idea that goodneighbourliness has no boundaries, that no-one is so outside our group that we can forget about loving them

?

My sense is that there shouldn't be, but that it's easy to state either in a way that suggests there is.

And maybe I did... (:

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ok, I apologize, I missed the tag at the end. Never attack issues when you have just woke up.

No worries

quote:

And it's not like even people who qualify as neighbors or allies are going to be easy to love all the time, either.

Few people are all good or all bad and that can sometimes be difficult to reconcile. But, as you say, recognising their worth helps.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm still hung up on the giving respect part of this, and the seeing that this is required. Is respect required? Can it be conditional for someone like this president-select?

I am reminded of Stephen Jay Gould's recounting of a trial regarding one of the "creationist biology" laws in the 1980s (from my memory). He discussed how a teacher testified "that it would be my tendency to disobey [the law]" when pressed by lawyers and the judge on obedience to it. Taking very seriously the expectation of respect of the law and need (requirement) to disobey the expectation.

Might it be just as well to refuse to conform to ceremonies (or whatever it is) and not stand up when this newly elected man shows up? How else does one account for their position and not conform? Is disobedience to an expectation of respect not a requirement of us sometimes, when we aspire to do the most loving, right thing?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The respect bit is best summed up for me in "salute the uniform, not the one wearing it." If T walks in, I will stand out of common courtesy. I will NOT go over and start trying to strike up a conversation, or show him any optional marks of respect--just those that being born into the human race (and soon, being in that particular office) merit.

So I'll stand for the national anthem, as that has nothing to do with him, thank God. I will stand when the fellow walks in and everybody else does. I will get him a bloody soda if I'm getting them for the rest of the room. I will NOT chase him for an autograph, or get in a photo with him if I have a choice, or write fangirl crap about his visits to Wherever, or fail to oppose the crap he spreads so liberally across the world. And if he were fool enough to ask my opinion on anything, the answer would be something along the lines of "With the greatest respect, Mr. President, that's a load of shit."

It isn't necessary to break traditional ettiquette to show disapproval. Indeed, some of the strongest felt criticism is couched in all the required forms of respect. Because human beings are generally excellent at telling the difference between heartfelt respect and empty shows.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"With the greatest respect, Mr. President, that's a load of shit."

Film this when it happens.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Trump has none of my respect, zero. Wealth and great power count for naught if the person's character is warped.

But the way we treat the lowest of the low defines us, does it not? And he, in my view, is the lowest of the low.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

You've heard of sedevacantists, haven't you? (Those who believe the Chair of St Peter is vacant -- sede vacante in Latin -- ever since the death of Pope Pius XII.)

I believe we need a casavacante movement -- the White House is empty.

Thus, in the highly unlikely event that my path and that of the TFO should cross, I would not acknowledge him in any way. No standing, no handshake, no "Hello, Mr. President," etc. The Amish call it shunning.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

ooh I like that Amanda B.

One of the difficulties I have with loving your neighbour by telling them the truth is that I never quite know what the truth is, even for myself. How am I supposed to tell the truth in love to another person?

O Lord, my heart is not lifted up,
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.

O Israel, hope in the Lord
from this time on and forevermore.

(shamelessly copied from Psalm 131 NRSV The Bible Gateway)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0