![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I couldn't be a Christian because I don't believe in always loving your enemy.
The Greek for "enemy" in the NT texts referring to loving one's enemy is ἐχθροὺς (echthrous), which connotes that they hate you and desire to abuse you.
Sorry, no. I do not believe that everyone is deserving of love, nor do I think it is always beneficial to love someone in this state.
Now, I don't believe it is never useful or appropriate. I believe that in some instances loving one's enemy can create a great transformation in them or society. It can end years of strife to kill hateful, abusive people with kindness. This only works, however, if they have a conscience and if they are open to it.
Of course, the question remains: "What does it look like to love one's enemy?" You are not doing them any favors remaining their punching bag or footstool. And if you are of equal value to everyone else, then it is not loving yourself to allow them to do it.
The examples that Jesus gives for loving one's enemy is "turning the other cheek" and "giving them your cloak as well." These are, in fact, both acts of shaming the other person without resorting to violence. So, is Jesus saying we should love those who hate us by disrupting their anger through public shaming? Perhaps. I have no clue.
So, while in some cases, I do believe the best thing to do is indeed to love an enemy. Kill them with kindness. Stop their lashing out in wild frustration with acts of unconditional love (I even see this work in my own marriage). I think in some other cases, however, it is a very wrong, self-destructive, and socially irresponsible thing to do. And since his admonition to do so is spoken as being a universal, it becomes a problem.
I also couldn't be Christian because of its intense admonition against not being poor. Sorry, but I don't believe that I am any less good just because I want to enjoy the pleasures of life and have a large enough savings so that things don't go south. The world can have what is left of my middle class "riches" when I am dead. And indeed, since we have no children, we will leave what we have left -- if we have anything left after social security is destroyed and healthcare keeps getting more expensive -- to some charity.
There are a lot of wealthy Christians, so I am not sure how they get around the Gospel of Luke.
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
“Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep."
Woe to me for not being hungry? No, thank you.
There is a lot in Christianity that I still very much have affection for, and perhaps there will be a time when what I have affection for will be enough and I will experience a reversion back to Christianity. But these two concepts -- loving your sociopathic, conscience-free abuser or molestor or unabashed manipulator; and always having to feel guilty for not being poor -- are the two biggest philosophical barriers between me and Christianity.
The Greek for "enemy" in the NT texts referring to loving one's enemy is ἐχθροὺς (echthrous), which connotes that they hate you and desire to abuse you.
Sorry, no. I do not believe that everyone is deserving of love, nor do I think it is always beneficial to love someone in this state.
Now, I don't believe it is never useful or appropriate. I believe that in some instances loving one's enemy can create a great transformation in them or society. It can end years of strife to kill hateful, abusive people with kindness. This only works, however, if they have a conscience and if they are open to it.
Of course, the question remains: "What does it look like to love one's enemy?" You are not doing them any favors remaining their punching bag or footstool. And if you are of equal value to everyone else, then it is not loving yourself to allow them to do it.
The examples that Jesus gives for loving one's enemy is "turning the other cheek" and "giving them your cloak as well." These are, in fact, both acts of shaming the other person without resorting to violence. So, is Jesus saying we should love those who hate us by disrupting their anger through public shaming? Perhaps. I have no clue.
So, while in some cases, I do believe the best thing to do is indeed to love an enemy. Kill them with kindness. Stop their lashing out in wild frustration with acts of unconditional love (I even see this work in my own marriage). I think in some other cases, however, it is a very wrong, self-destructive, and socially irresponsible thing to do. And since his admonition to do so is spoken as being a universal, it becomes a problem.
I also couldn't be Christian because of its intense admonition against not being poor. Sorry, but I don't believe that I am any less good just because I want to enjoy the pleasures of life and have a large enough savings so that things don't go south. The world can have what is left of my middle class "riches" when I am dead. And indeed, since we have no children, we will leave what we have left -- if we have anything left after social security is destroyed and healthcare keeps getting more expensive -- to some charity.
There are a lot of wealthy Christians, so I am not sure how they get around the Gospel of Luke.
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have received your consolation.
“Woe to you who are full now,
for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who are laughing now,
for you will mourn and weep."
Woe to me for not being hungry? No, thank you.
There is a lot in Christianity that I still very much have affection for, and perhaps there will be a time when what I have affection for will be enough and I will experience a reversion back to Christianity. But these two concepts -- loving your sociopathic, conscience-free abuser or molestor or unabashed manipulator; and always having to feel guilty for not being poor -- are the two biggest philosophical barriers between me and Christianity.
