For Teallaura: Loving enemies

[Darth Executor]

You are sorta kinda making my point. They could be read that way whereas things like the Good Samaritan story make it clear you must read it that way. That is the difference.

The Good Samaritan story is not about loving your enemy.

[Darth Executor]

The two Jewish quotes given in this thread are from about the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.
Thus it's possible they could have been influenced by Christianity.

Proverbs 25:21
New International Version (NIV)
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

Exodus 23:4-5
New International Version (NIV)
4 “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.

[rogue06]

The Good Samaritan story is not about loving your enemy.

It answers the question of "who is my neighbor?" with Jesus responding that your neighbor includes outsiders even ones outside your group that are generally regarded as enemies of your group. Thus when we're instructed to "love one's neighbor as oneself" Jesus made it clear here that includes folks who are outside the group/clan/tribe... including those regarded as enemies.

[Darth Executor]

It answers the question of "who is my neighbor?" with Jesus responding that your neighbor includes outsiders even ones outside your group that are generally regarded as enemies of your group. Thus when we're instructed to "love one's neighbor as oneself" Jesus made it clear that includes folks who are outside the group/clan/tribe... including those regarded as enemies.

But Jesus's point was that your neighbour is someone who does good to you, which is the exact opposite of an enemy. He was not saying to love your enemy, He was saying someone is not an enemy just because he is a Samaritan and someone is not your neighbour just because he is a Jew.

[Teallaura]

...1. I believed that Laura was claiming that Christianity was unique in its call to show kindness to enemies. I may have misinterpreted her. That's been implied but I haven't really seen how..

No, you haven't misinterpreted. If you are referring to what I said in the other thread you seemed to be taking out of context - at least that was my impression at the time - by disregarding the caveat. For present purposes, this correctly states my position.

2. Laura asked me NOT to mess up her thread when I suggested that other philosophies also advocated much the same idea. She said she would discuss it with me in another thread..

I did? Man, I have got to pay more attention to me...

I didn't intend to say I'd definitely discuss it elsewhere, but I may have. Oops, sorry!

3. This is that other thread.

Is not!

(Yes, I'm feeling contrary today - why do you ask? )

4. I assert that other philosophies and religions have also advocated kindness to enemies.

From your quotations only, I do not see good evidence for 'loving enemies' as doctrine - only Judeaism and Taoism seem to have legit claim to advocacy (again, only looking at the quotations). Islam is so full of abbrogations that any quote needs support to show it isn't abbrogated - and I think Rogue already settled that issue, anyway.

5. I supported that assertion with quotes from various scripture traditions.

So you did - but only a couple in the OP and another couple in a later post are decently strong enough to support the claim. Judeaism and Taoism are the only ones you have good evidence for - the rest are not direct enough to make the claim that it refers to enemies. 'Love everyone' platitudes should logically include enemies, but frequently does not (See Modern American Liberalism... ) and is therefore insufficent alone.

On the Judeaism front Joel makes a good case against. If the doctrine is Judeaic then you shouldn't have trouble finding an earlier proof quote. Otherwise, it shows signs of being a departure and cannot support the point alone.[Edit: Nevermind, DE got this one.]

Which leaves Taoism, of which I know little. I suspect this is not major doctrine but I need to research before making an argument.

Or I could just say it doesn't exist since Taoist (LT to you) doesn't exist, but that requires too much thinking and my head still hurts...

That's all there is to it.

Is not!

[roadwalker]

'Love everyone' platitudes should logically include enemies, but frequently does not (See Modern American Liberalism... ) and is therefore insufficent alone.

Let me toss a grenade into the discussion here. Liberalism isn't about loving everyone, it's about tolerating everyone, ensuring an equality of opportunity to everyone and providing a social safety net to allow the weakest, least able and most unfortunate to be able to maintain at least a minimal standard of living. In other words,as a liberal I don't expect a Black Panther and a KKK member to love each other or even like each other. I do want and set the expectation that they will not shoot each other.

And under one good grenade deserves another: Jesus visits the Nephites, in the Book of Mormon and reiterates many of the things he taught in Judea, including the admonition (3 Nephi 12:44) to 'love your enemies.'

[rogue06]

Let me toss a grenade into the discussion here. Liberalism isn't about loving everyone, it's about tolerating everyone, ensuring an equality of opportunity to everyone and providing a social safety net to allow the weakest, least able and most unfortunate to be able to maintain at least a minimal standard of living. In other words,as a liberal I don't expect a Black Panther and a KKK member to love each other or even like each other. I do want and set the expectation that they will not shoot each other.

And under one good grenade deserves another: Jesus visits the Nephites, in the Book of Mormon and reiterates many of the things he taught in Judea, including the admonition (3 Nephi 12:44) to 'love your enemies.'

Their tolerance of conservatives is legendary.

[roadwalker]

Their tolerance of conservatives is legendary.

Hey, I'm a liberal and I tolerate you. Except on Tuesdays ;-)

[rogue06]

Hey, I'm a liberal and I tolerate you. Except on Tuesdays ;-)

1) Only because I'm so lovable.

b. I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. Economically I'm conservative but on social issues I'm often moderate and occasionally liberal.

[roadwalker]

1) Only because I'm so lovable.

b. I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. Economically I'm conservative but on social issues I'm often moderate and occasionally liberal.

I still tolerate Libertarians. In fact, I LOVE Liberbarians. A little known fact: In 2006, Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate by one vote (51-49 with a GOP vice President) when Jon Tester beat Conrad Burns by 2000 votes in Montana. Libertarian Stan Jones (a blue-tinted candidate, who had turned blue from drinking a silver solution as part of a hair brained scheme to improve his health) got 10,000 votes. If Jones wasn't on the ballot best guess is that most of his supporters would have switched to Burns.

On a more serious vein, if it came down to it, I could name at least a dozen people (mostly liberals themselves but also people like abortion doctors and the guy settng the controls on a photo-radar van in Phoenix) who were killed by conservatives for purely ideological reasons. Which is about 12 more than the number of conservatives who were killed by liberals for being conservative. And that's not even counting hate crimes, most of which are directed against members of racial or religious minorities, or against gay people.

[rogue06]

OK, fine. Several weeks ago Newt Gingrich's campaign bus stopped at our local truck stop (the biggest business in town) and was parked there for awhile (the candidate wasn't on it at the time, it was right after the Nevada caucus and the skeleton staff were driving it back to the east. I fought back the temptation to put an "Obama 2012" bumper sticker on the back. Maybe I should have. }:-)>

(sorry, I don't know how to use emoticons so that's the best you'll get.

[roadwalker]

Originally posted by roadwalker

OK, fine. Several weeks ago Newt Gingrich's campaign bus stopped at our local truck stop (the biggest business in town) and was parked there for awhile (the candidate wasn't on it at the time, it was right after the Nevada caucus and the skeleton staff were driving it back to the east. I fought back the temptation to put an "Obama 2012" bumper sticker on the back. Maybe I should have. }:-)>

(sorry, I don't know how to use emoticons so that's the best you'll get.

Well, to be honest, I'd deleted that because it wasn't relevant. But I guess it's back now.

[rogue06]

Well, to be honest, I'd deleted that because it wasn't relevant.

But obviously not quickly enough.

But I guess it's back now.

And now you know how to use a tongue smiley so it's all for the good

[rogue06]

I still tolerate Libertarians. In fact, I LOVE Liberbarians. A little known fact: In 2006, Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate by one vote (51-49 with a GOP vice President) when Jon Tester beat Conrad Burns by 2000 votes in Montana. Libertarian Stan Jones (a blue-tinted candidate, who had turned blue from drinking a silver solution as part of a hair brained scheme to improve his health) got 10,000 votes. If Jones wasn't on the ballot best guess is that most of his supporters would have switched to Burns.

Meh. Here in Georgia several years back it was the Libertarian candidate for Senate that kept the Democrat from winning outright and forcing a run-off that the Republican won.

[roadwalker]

Meh. Here in Georgia several years back it was the Libertarian candidate for Senate that kept the Democrat from winning outright and forcing a run-off that the Republican won.

I understand that can cut both ways too. Remember in 2000, Green party candidate Ralph Nader got 92,000 votes from the far left in Florida, and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan got 14,000 votes on the Palm Beach 'butterfly ballot', alll but a handful of which were almost certainly voted for Gore. Bush officially won Florida-- and therefore the election, by 537 votes.