No it isn't.Loving enemies is not just an altruistic act, but a powerful strategy for personal self -transformation and liberation.
What is my personal self tranforming into?Loving enemies is not just an altruistic act, but a powerful strategy for personal self -transformation and liberation.
Is it possible to love your enemies?
This is an interesting claim, but not backed up by any explanation or facts. As others have pointed out, what is meant by transformation and liberation of self?Loving enemies is not just an altruistic act, but a powerful strategy for personal self -transformation and liberation.
Perhaps he started dating a Braves fan?Jesus Lazardo? He pitched for the Marlins IIRC. Good fastball, but why is he worried about whether one loves one's enemies?
That's some top shelf angry sex, right there.Perhaps he started dating a Braves fan?
And there are a lot of "loving" christians on fakebook who delight in posting, complete with pictures, that the "end times" are upon us their god is coming soon to kill all the non-believers.Jesus loved his enemies so much that he commanded us to kill them.
Luke 19:27-44
Yep. And they have no problem with our deaths and it's also OK that we should suffer eternal torture.And there are a lot of "loving" christians on fakebook who delight in posting, complete with pictures, that the "end times" are upon us their god is coming soon to kill all the non-believers.
Not long after he told his followers to steal a horse.John, specifically John 4:7-21, disagrees.
Jesus didn't command that. The nobleman in the parable commanded that.Jesus loved his enemies so much that he commanded us to kill them.
Luke 19:27-44
Who do you think the nobleman in the parable represented? This particular parable was used to justify the crusades, the inquisition and the Catholic Protestant wars.Jesus didn't command that. The nobleman in the parable commanded that.
You can use anything to justify atrocities. Jesus did not tell his followers to kill people in front of him.Who do you think the nobleman in the parable represented? This particular parable was used to justify the crusades, the inquisition and the Catholic Protestant wars.
Yes you can. And the Bible is great for that. It just goes to show how worthless the Bible is.You can use anything to justify atrocities. Jesus did not tell his followers to kill people in front of him.
Sure, but there's plenty of absurdity in the Bible already. No need to start making ◊◊◊◊ up about it.Yes you can. And the Bible is great for that. It just goes to show how worthless the Bible is.
Who the hell is making ◊◊◊◊ up about it? Parables are the language of the Bible. While that story may not be Jesus specifically commanding his followers to slay anyone who is unwilling to be led by him, it still is a very reasonable interpretation of the parable.Sure, but there's plenty of absurdity in the Bible already. No need to start making ◊◊◊◊ up about it.
Luke 19: 12-27 isn't it? The parable of the pounds. It's the prototype for The Apprentice except instead of Trump firing the losers, all their stuff goes to the winner, and those who fail to play get slaughtered in front of him.Jesus loved his enemies so much that he commanded us to kill them.
Luke 19:27-44
It is kind of platitudinous, but sort of true too, as most platitudes tend to be. Sure, loving your enemies involves changing your attitude in some way toward your enemies and what you should do about them, and obviously that does something to you. Whether that something is something you want or something you should avoid is not specified.What is my personal self tranforming into?
Liberation from what?
Platitudes are dull and worthless, give us specifics!
In fact, Jesus consistently taught nonviolence and love, even towards enemiesYou can use anything to justify atrocities. Jesus did not tell his followers to kill people in front of him.
"“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”"And they nailed him to a tree.
My takeaway is to hate the mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and get them before they get into the initial planning stages of getting you.
Never could get the hang of Thursdays."“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”"
And yet he used the parable in Luke. And said he did not bring peace, but a sword. That's if he actually existed. Or if he did most or even some of the things attributed to him in the Bible. Which seems most unlikely. I grant that a lot of the teachings attributed to Jesus is mostly non-violent and even commendable. But certainly not all. And those verses are almost always used to justify some of the most hideous of actions by those that label themselves as Christians.In fact, Jesus consistently taught nonviolence and love, even towards enemies
So we are told. He apparently couldn't be arsed to actually record any of his teachings, just assuming that unknown writers would publish contradictory summaries of them decades later.In fact, Jesus consistently taught nonviolence and love, even towards enemies
I think you can say he taught it, but you cannot say he did so consistently. His followers can always find the loopholes.In fact, Jesus consistently taught nonviolence and love, even towards enemies
focusing on these points is a misinterpretation and that Jesus' broader message promotes nonviolenceAnd yet he used the parable in Luke. And said he did not bring peace, but a sword. That's if he actually existed. Or if he did most or even some of the things attributed to him in the Bible. Which seems most unlikely. I grant that a lot of the teachings attributed to Jesus is mostly non-violent and even commendable. But certainly not all. And those verses are almost always used to justify some of the most hideous of actions by those that label themselves as Christians.
Some passages and actions seem to indicate a commitment to nonviolence, others can be interpreted differently, leading to different perspectives on the consistency of Jesus' message of nonviolence and love.I think you can say he taught it, but you cannot say he did so consistently. His followers can always find the loopholes.
Says who? While I generally agree, I know that verses like this are used as justifications for all kinds of Christian atrocities including the genocide of 6 million Jews by the NAZIs.focusing on these points is a misinterpretation and that Jesus' broader message promotes nonviolence
Except when it doesn't..focusing on these points is a misinterpretation and that Jesus' broader message promotes nonviolence
Jesus did not prohibit defense but condemned revengeSays who? While I generally agree, I know that verses like this are used as justifications for all kinds of Christian atrocities including the genocide of 6 million Jews by the NAZIs.
Yeah, what an arrogant ass.Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.
-Romans 12:19
Says who? While I generally agree, I know that verses like this are used as justifications for all kinds of Christian atrocities including the genocide of 6 million Jews by the NAZIs.
Are you saying the NAZIs were only defending themselves from the Jews?Jesus did not prohibit defense but condemned revenge