• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Love your enemies. Really!?!

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Ha.

I see how you are looking at it now.

You don't see enemy by definition, so enemy doesn't exist from your point of view. Whatever one does, doesn't prompt you to label them. So if someone acts hypocritical, they are not a hypocrite. If they act deceitfully, they are not deceitful. If they lie and cheat, they are not liars and cheaters. If they murder, they are not murderers...
They are just people.

Enemy isnt a label like murderer who murders; thief that steals; abuser who abuses.

Enemy doesnt have that connection. Since I dont define people by their actions, I wouldnt use enemy because that refers to a person. A persons actions are cruel but you wouldnt use enemy to describe it.

Man... you are a boss. Have you ever had to deal with someone who tells you things that are not true, and carry away things that don't belong to them, without asking permission?

How would you handle a situation where a person like that offers to keep house for you, while you take a trip for a week?

Say, you really are in need of someone to do that for you, and they volunteered.

Haha. Actually not those examples. If they lied, I didnt know it.

Yes, Ive experienced things like that. I dont hold grudges on purpose. If I notice (these days) I think of someone else poorly, Im aware, and learn to change my thoughts and thus my actions. Calling someone an enemy and names hasnt been part of my personality. Im more pull-back and run not fight and insult.

But to each his own way of handling stress. Just enemy isn ot a good word Id describe someones actions without targeting the nature of the person who commited them.

Do you consider us sinners?

We do bad things, so I guess yes. My point is when we say enemy, we separate that other person as a sinner and we are not. As if we cant be a sinner as well.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Ha.




Enemy isnt a label like murderer who murders; thief that steals; abuser who abuses.

Enemy doesnt have that connection. Since I dont define people by their actions, I wouldnt use enemy because that refers to a person. A persons actions are cruel but you wouldnt use enemy to describe it.



Haha. Actually not those examples. If they lied, I didnt know it.

Yes, Ive experienced things like that. I dont hold grudges on purpose. If I notice (these days) I think of someone else poorly, Im aware, and learn to change my thoughts and thus my actions. Calling someone an enemy and names hasnt been part of my personality. Im more pull-back and run not fight and insult.

But to each his own way of handling stress. Just enemy isn ot a good word Id describe someones actions without targeting the nature of the person who commited them.



We do bad things, so I guess yes. My point is when we say enemy, we separate that other person as a sinner and we are not. As if we cant be a sinner as well.
Hmmm.
We had better do a little Sesame Street piece then.
One of these things just doesn't belong here. One of these things just isn't the same...
animated-smileys-music-015.gif


enemy
ˈenəmē/
noun
  1. a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
    synonyms: opponent, adversary, foe, archenemy, rival, antagonist, combatant, challenger, competitor, opposer;

    • a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
      noun: the enemy
      "the enemy shot down four helicopters"
    • a thing that harms or weakens something else.
      "routine is the enemy of art"
thief
THēf/
noun
  1. a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or violence.
    synonyms: robber, burglar, housebreaker, cat burglar, rustler, shoplifter, pickpocket, purse snatcher, sneak thief, mugger;
murderer
ˈmərdərər/
noun
  1. a person who commits murder; a killer.
    "convicted murderers"
    synonyms: killer, assassin, serial killer, butcher, slaughterer; More
frog
frôɡ,fräɡ/
noun
  1. 1.
    a tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping.
Which one isn't a label, and which is, and how do you separate them?
Or... Which one isn't a good word to describe someone's actions without targeting the nature of the person who committed them? Explain.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hmmm.
We had better do a little Sesame Street piece then.
One of these things just doesn't belong here. One of these things just isn't the same...
animated-smileys-music-015.gif


enemy
ˈenəmē/
noun
  1. a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
    synonyms: opponent, adversary, foe, archenemy, rival, antagonist, combatant, challenger, competitor, opposer;
    • a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.
      noun: the enemy
      "the enemy shot down four helicopters"
    • a thing that harms or weakens something else.
      "routine is the enemy of art"
thief
THēf/
noun
  1. a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or violence.
    synonyms: robber, burglar, housebreaker, cat burglar, rustler, shoplifter, pickpocket, purse snatcher, sneak thief, mugger;
murderer
ˈmərdərər/
noun
  1. a person who commits murder; a killer.
    "convicted murderers"
    synonyms: killer, assassin, serial killer, butcher, slaughterer; More
frog
frôɡ,fräɡ/
noun
  1. 1.
    a tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping.
Which one isn't a label, and which is, and how do you separate them?
Or... Which one isn't a good word to describe someone's actions without targeting the nature of the person who committed them? Explain.

REALLY??

I dont use the word enemy. It refers to a persons actions:

hostile to someone or something.
synonyms: opponent, adversary, foe, archenemy, rival, antagonist, combatant, challenger, competitor, opposer;

Its too strong of a word and I know no evil person to which I would call them any of these.

The nature of a frog is not an an action like murder and thief. It doesnt describe a person by his actions like enemy.

This is the definition:

tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping.

Your frog comment doesn relate to murders and theives and enemy.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
REALLY??

I dont use the word enemy. It refers to a persons actions:

hostile to someone or something.
synonyms: opponent, adversary, foe, archenemy, rival, antagonist, combatant, challenger, competitor, opposer;

Its too strong of a word and I know no evil person to which I would call them any of these.

The nature of a frog is not an an action like murder and thief. It doesnt describe a person by his actions like enemy.

This is the definition:

tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping.

Your frog comment doesn relate to murders and theives and enemy.
Very Good! ...on elimination of the frog, but you haven't identified which description isn't a label, and which is, and how you separate them?
Nor have you explained what makes 'enemy' different from the others, making it not a good word to describe someone's actions without targeting the nature of the person who committed an act.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Very Good! ...on elimination of the frog, but you haven't identified which description isn't a label, and which is, and how you separate them?
Nor have you explained what makes 'enemy' different from the others, making it not a good word to describe someone's actions without targeting the nature of the person who committed an act.

Cause you didn't ask for all of that. I can't read minds.

Why would you use fro example if it doesn't relate to the original point that you challenged me?

Enemy is a strong word (all words are labels) that I do not use because it implies the persons nature actions. (your definitions)

A frog is a label that defines the nature not action of an amphibian as in your definitions.

Murderer and their describes a person in relation to that person's actions. (English grammar)

These three labels are different.

1. One defines the person As his actions.
2. The other defines a something it's nature not actions
3. The last defines a person's in relationship to his actions.

Whatever point you are trying are argue I lost it when you started playing the labels game.

That does not excuse I don't use the term because it defines a person by their actions not their nature.

Basically when you call someone an enemy, you define the person as if his nature is corrupted. That's totally different than using the word frog.

Now you're saying they are different in context. Why compare them if they are different as I keep pointing out?

Whats Your point?

Edited.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I think it's a bit disingenuous to spin it to mean "DO resist an evil person, but do it sneakily."

I do not think its spin to consider the historical context, the social structure and how it was understood by the original audience. And apparently MLK Jr and Gandhi who was an admirer of Jesus, understood it well, against anger, retaliation.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Thank you for taking time to ask...

For example, I am not christian. I dont believe god exist, nor heaven, or hell, or human sacrifice.

If god came and asked -why didnt you believe?-- and I honestly told him Why, then I would understand why he would throw me into hell.

My honesty didnt save me, but the fact I was honest made me more comfortable my consequence.

Now if I were to lie to god and say hey, I loved you from the start. We were pals.

Would god ignore that lie?

And would I go to heaven just because I lied and said I had faith in him when I had not?

Well first you lose on all acounts,
It takes more than faith and believe.

If I say I have faith, but yet I show by my actions I have no faith, I lose.

If I say, I believe, but yet I show by my actions I don't believe I lose.

But if I walk accordingly to my faith, I win
But if I walk accordingly to what I believe.
I win.
It's not a two way street, as you may think.
No it's a one street to God.

For the path to God is wide, but the gate is narrow, and few that find it.
Faith. Let me ask. Does seeing nonbelievers as disadvantage strengthen your spiritual growth given whatever god says would do so regardless the topic?

If so, how?

Nope not at all, unbelivers has the same opportunity as everyone else. So the unbelievers made their choices, upon denying God.
So there is no disadvantage. Unbelievers have everything to grain, (Eternal life). But the Unbelievers Refuse's. So Unbelievers made their choice's.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I do not think its spin to consider the historical context, the social structure and how it was understood by the original audience. And apparently MLK Jr and Gandhi who was an admirer of Jesus, understood it well, against anger, retaliation.

If I may ask, Are you saying that God stands against Anger and Retaliation against people?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I do not think its spin to consider the historical context, the social structure and how it was understood by the original audience. And apparently MLK Jr and Gandhi who was an admirer of Jesus, understood it well, against anger, retaliation.
Despite the fact that the passage has Jesus saying "do not resist an evil person," not "do not get angry with an evil person?"

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad they did resist. They were going against Jesus's advice, but I think they were right to do so. Taking Jesus's advice literally by not resisting evil has some serious ethical problems.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well first you lose on all acounts,
It takes more than faith and believe.

If I say I have faith, but yet I show by my actions I have no faith, I lose.

If I say, I believe, but yet I show by my actions I don't believe I lose.

But if I walk accordingly to my faith, I win
But if I walk accordingly to what I believe.
I win.
It's not a two way street, as you may think.
No it's a one street to God.

For the path to God is wide, but the gate is narrow, and few that find it.


Nope not at all, unbelivers has the same opportunity as everyone else. So the unbelievers made their choices, upon denying God.
So there is no disadvantage. Unbelievers have everything to grain, (Eternal life). But the Unbelievers Refuse's. So Unbelievers made their choice's.

So actions determine ones salvation?

Nonbelievers dont deny.

Another question; How do you deny something that does not exist?

It would only be a disbenefit if that god did exist to where we can chose to whether we want to believe in whatever it is. But the benefit is defined by someone else not the beneficiary.

How can you benefit from someone elses definition of the word?

Also, that would assume eternal life is a benefit to all people as if eternal life should be what people choose. People dont chose waht benefits them; they loose either way. Live a lie for eternal life or live in truth and burn in hell (context).

So, if a person doesnt benefit from eternal life but god says he does, how does god judge the genuine nature and action of that nonbeliever when the only person who is happy is god?

So, if one walks in christ and follows just to receive eternal life, how would god determine their genuine nature beyond their actions and faith?

What is faith and action based on a lie?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
So actions determine ones salvation?

Nonbelievers dont deny.

Another question; How do you deny something that does not exist?

It would only be a disbenefit if that god did exist to where we can chose to whether we want to believe in whatever it is. But the benefit is defined by someone else not the beneficiary.

How can you benefit from someone elses definition of the word?

Also, that would assume eternal life is a benefit to all people as if eternal life should be what people choose. People dont chose waht benefits them; they loose either way. Live a lie for eternal life or live in truth and burn in hell (context).

So, if a person doesnt benefit from eternal life but god says he does, how does god judge the genuine nature and action of that nonbeliever when the only person who is happy is god?

So, if one walks in christ and follows just to receive eternal life, how would god determine their genuine nature beyond their actions and faith?

What is faith and action based on a lie?

You spoke it ( Another question; How do you deny something that does not exist)
What proof do you have God does not exist.

Remember you spoke it, so now your called to prove what you say, so where's your proof.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You spoke it ( Another question; How do you deny something that does not exist)
What proof do you have God does not exist.

Remember you spoke it, so now your called to prove what you say, so where's your proof.

That doesn't answer the question.

The question is how so you deny something that does not exist?

I don't have issues with whether or not god exists nor am I one to debate for and against it. I don't know what a god is so I have no reason to care about its existence. Thats just me.

Everyone is different. But my question is how do you deny something that does not exist?

If the word god is throwing you off, use X.

Edit.

Oh that, and another question I asked you. Does it help your spiritual growth knowing that if people don't choose to believe in your god, they would die?

Is the value of life important if one doesn't chose christ even though they will not benefit from it?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
That doesn't answer the question.

The question is how so you deny something that does not exist?

I don't have issues with whether or not god exists nor am I one to debate for and against it. I don't know what a god is so I have no reason to care about its existence. Thats just me.

Everyone is different. But my question is how do you deny something that does not exist?

If the word god is throwing you off, use X.

Edit.

Oh that, and another question I asked you. Does it help your spiritual growth knowing that if people don't choose to believe in your god, they would die?

Is the value of life important if one doesn't chose christ even though they will not benefit from it?

So now you want to cop out. You spoke it, So where's your proof that God doesn't exist.
This life is nothing, like a leaf falling off a tree. But life eternal is everything, like a river that runs into the ocean, it becomes bountiful to all.

To answer your question ( Does it help your spiritual growth knowing that if people don't choose to believe in your god, they would die?)

People makes their own choices in life, if they choose death rather than life, that's not my fault, but theirs.
Does it help my spiritual growth, their choices has nothing to do with my spiritual growth.
To you when a person dies, you see it as their all gone, but seeing you have no idea about death. That when a person dies. The body of flesh and blood only dies. Their spirit which is in the body returns back to God who gave it,
So when your body dies, your spirit which is in your body returns back to God who gave it.
Who knows, what a person may choose tomorrow.
Those who choose not to believe in God
to day, who knows what they may choose tomorrow.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Faith, why do you get flustered over what I believe???
1. So now you want to cop out. You spoke it, So where's your proof that God doesn't exist.

2. This life is nothing, like a leaf falling off a tree. But life eternal is everything, like a river that runs into the ocean, it becomes bountiful to all.

1. Faith. It is what I believe. That statement is how I see life. It has nothing to do with you.

(This is actually the same when believers say -god exists- without adding it was their opinion. Atheist get defensive just as you. Dont know why...)

2. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with hearing -there is no god- as if god is only defined by abrahamics. It also sounds like, because of your discomfort, you are defensive. A fight-response to something you feel is at danger to your morals.

The question was not designed to question your beliefs or state my belief as if you must believe it to; cough, Im not christian.

To answer your question ( Does it help your spiritual growth knowing that if people don't choose to believe in your god, they would die?)

People makes their own choices in life, if they choose death rather than life, that's not my fault, but theirs.

Does it help my spiritual growth, their choices has nothing to do with my spiritual growth.

No. Does your belief that others will die helpful to your spiritual growth?

1. To you when a person dies, you see it as their all gone, but seeing you have no idea about death. That when a person dies. The body of flesh and blood only dies. Their spirit which is in the body returns back to God who gave it,

2. So when your body dies, your spirit which is in your body returns back to God who gave it.

Who knows, what a person may choose tomorrow.
Those who choose not to believe in God
to day, who knows what they may choose tomorrow.

1. Faith, I never said that.

2. Yep. Everyone has their own beliefs about life, death, and the afterlife.

Its a nice topic if you dont take it personal as if we are questioning and attacking your belief by ours.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Faith, why do you get flustered over what I believe???


1. Faith. It is what I believe. That statement is how I see life. It has nothing to do with you.

(This is actually the same when believers say -god exists- without adding it was their opinion. Atheist get defensive just as you. Dont know why...)

2. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with hearing -there is no god- as if god is only defined by abrahamics. It also sounds like, because of your discomfort, you are defensive. A fight-response to something you feel is at danger to your morals.

The question was not designed to question your beliefs or state my belief as if you must believe it to; cough, Im not christian.





No. Does your belief that others will die helpful to your spiritual growth?



1. Faith, I never said that.

2. Yep. Everyone has their own beliefs about life, death, and the afterlife.

Its a nice topic if you dont take it personal as if we are questioning and attacking your belief by ours.

You stated it that God doesn't exist, So prove your claim. End of Story
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You stated it that God doesn't exist, So prove your claim. End of Story

Faith.

You are getting defensive over a question that has nothing to do with the proof of gods existence.

There is no god---this is what I personally believe.

I dont care about proof. Im not a proof-person.

Gods existence does not make sense to me.

God makes sense to you.

Why do you need to be confrontational about our differing beliefs???

The question I asked is, how can you deny something that does not exist?

Take out the word god. Seems my belief about god upsets you. Put X or candy or something in its place.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
So now you want to cop out. You spoke it, So where's your proof that God doesn't exist.
This life is nothing, like a leaf falling off a tree. But life eternal is everything, like a river that runs into the ocean, it becomes bountiful to all.

To answer your question ( Does it help your spiritual growth knowing that if people don't choose to believe in your god, they would die?)

People makes their own choices in life, if they choose death rather than life, that's not my fault, but theirs.
Does it help my spiritual growth, their choices has nothing to do with my spiritual growth.
To you when a person dies, you see it as their all gone, but seeing you have no idea about death. That when a person dies. The body of flesh and blood only dies. Their spirit which is in the body returns back to God who gave it,
So when your body dies, your spirit which is in your body returns back to God who gave it.
Who knows, what a person may choose tomorrow.
Those who choose not to believe in God
to day, who knows what they may choose tomorrow.

Faith, why are you so uncomfortable with hearing god does not exist?

I mean, I dont get uncomfortable that you believe he does. So,.....
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Cause you didn't ask for all of that. I can't read minds.

Why would you use fro example if it doesn't relate to the original point that you challenged me?

Enemy is a strong word (all words are labels) that I do not use because it implies the persons nature actions. (your definitions)

A frog is a label that defines the nature not action of an amphibian as in your definitions.

Murderer and their describes a person in relation to that person's actions. (English grammar)

These three labels are different.

1. One defines the person As his actions.
2. The other defines a something it's nature not actions
3. The last defines a person's in relationship to his actions.

Whatever point you are trying are argue I lost it when you started playing the labels game.

That does not excuse I don't use the term because it defines a person by their actions not their nature.

Basically when you call someone an enemy, you define the person as if his nature is corrupted. That's totally different than using the word frog.

Now you're saying they are different in context. Why compare them if they are different as I keep pointing out?

Whats Your point?

Edited.
Thanks.
 
Top