In one of his wartime essays, George Orwell describes the de facto pro-nazi "peace" movement as "...an army of millionaires, quoting the Sermon On The Mount".
Which seems mildly shocking, since normally when the words of Christ are cited, it's to convey the idea that that they set an admirable example. But Orwell is essentially implying that there are some situations where they don't really apply.
Orwell wasn’t a Christian.
Thank God. Neither is the next Nobel Peace nominee. But not in a good way.
@stetson, I think the Sermon on the Mount is about how Jesus expects his disciples to live on a daily basis. It’s about the values of the kingdom of heaven compared to the values of this world. And it is specifically addressed to the powerless.
As for how its values might appropriately play out in a societal context, I’d say the sort of non-violent resistance of the Civil Rights Movement in the US provides a good example.
Well, if that's your example of a relevant societal context, then I think the SotM is totally inapplicable to Britain in February of 1941, pre-Barbarossa, pre-Pearl Harbor, when they really were standing alone against the nazi war machine.
Which is why I suggested that attempting to form a national policy against the Nazis on the basis of the SotM is a misapplication of it.
So then how is that different from my saying that, in Orwell's view, "the words of Christ", ie. the SotM, "don't apply" to the nazis?
It depends on what you mean by “the words of Christ don’t apply to the Nazis.” Does it mean “Jesus didn’t really mean we have to love them,” or does it mean “we’re looking to a grammar book to tell us how to bake a cake”?
The former suggests it’s only because the Nazis are really, really bad that Jesus’s command that we love our enemies surely can’t apply when it comes to them. The latter suggests that Jesus’s words are being taken out of context from the get-go.
It’s the difference between doesn’t apply when those people are involved and weren’t meant to apply to a situation like this.
So, IOW...
"Ya know, I don't care what some goddam long-haired carpenter said 2 000 years ago, when I read about some of these violent criminals today, I think we should just run their brains through a blender on the six o'clock news."
Or...
"Well, yes, Jesus is asking us to maximize the presence of forgiveness in our lives, but he's not giving us precise instructions on building our legal system, so you can't just pull his words out of context to prove the immorality of capital punishment."
The former we may call the blasphemous position, the latter the nuanced one.
What I find interesting about that passage from Shopkeepers At War is that Orwell doesn't really give any context to help decipher whether he's a blasphemer or a nuancer. Did he think:
"Oh God, these fascist tycoons quoting that old bit of drivel?"
Or...
"Sad to see these fascist tycoons misusing the most noble moral sentiments ever put into words."
Granted, I'm not well-read on British essayists of the war period, so I don't really know how shocking it would be to write like that. I do know that Orwell himself once opined that the tenets of the Church Of England, and religion generally, hold little sway over the English people.
For what it's worth, loving an enemy doesn't mean you can't oppose them, tell them they're wrong, or even put them to death if that's necessary and the proper thing to do. What it rules out are things like hating them, taking pleasure in their suffering, or deliberately setting out to cause them unnecessary and undeserved harm. It also rules out things like ignoring their serious need--and if that need is a need to be corrected and held to account, then "loving your enemy" will mean doing just that--while others take the easy way out and let them keep going down the road to damnation.
The thing about loving people is, it requires you to think. It's not as easy as "loving people is doing whatever they want you to do." Much of the time loving someone means doing exactly what they DON'T want you to do, because you are aware that what you are doing is actually better for them. This is a distinction that's easy to see when you're a parent and forced to make such decisions all the time. But we maybe tend to forget it when we're thinking about enemies, particularly political ones.
Sometimes I think love means "if I cannot speak to you in a civil fashion, then we are simply not going to speak."
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
Mind, if things get uglier, I'm not sure that will hold.
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
There are some ways in which the current situation could have been avoided by earlier actions via the criminal justice system.
@stetson, I think the Sermon on the Mount is about how Jesus expects his disciples to live on a daily basis. It’s about the values of the kingdom of heaven compared to the values of this world. And it is specifically addressed to the powerless.
As for how its values might appropriately play out in a societal context, I’d say the sort of non-violent resistance of the Civil Rights Movement in the US provides a good example.
Well, if that's your example of a relevant societal context, then I think the SotM is totally inapplicable to Britain in February of 1941, pre-Barbarossa, pre-Pearl Harbor, when they really were standing alone against the nazi war machine.
Which is why I suggested that attempting to form a national policy against the Nazis on the basis of the SotM is a misapplication of it.
So then how is that different from my saying that, in Orwell's view, "the words of Christ", ie. the SotM, "don't apply" to the nazis?
It depends on what you mean by “the words of Christ don’t apply to the Nazis.” Does it mean “Jesus didn’t really mean we have to love them,” or does it mean “we’re looking to a grammar book to tell us how to bake a cake”?
The former suggests it’s only because the Nazis are really, really bad that Jesus’s command that we love our enemies surely can’t apply when it comes to them. The latter suggests that Jesus’s words are being taken out of context from the get-go.
It’s the difference between doesn’t apply when those people are involved and weren’t meant to apply to a situation like this.
So, IOW...
"Ya know, I don't care what some goddam long-haired carpenter said 2 000 years ago, when I read about some of these violent criminals today, I think we should just run their brains through a blender on the six o'clock news."
Or...
"Well, yes, Jesus is asking us to maximize the presence of forgiveness in our lives, but he's not giving us precise instructions on building our legal system, so you can't just pull his words out of context to prove the immorality of capital punishment."
The former we may call the blasphemous position, the latter the nuanced one.
What I find interesting about that passage from Shopkeepers At War is that Orwell doesn't really give any context to help decipher whether he's a blasphemer or a nuancer. Did he think:
"Oh God, these fascist tycoons quoting that old bit of drivel?"
Or...
"Sad to see these fascist tycoons misusing the most noble moral sentiments ever put into words."
Granted, I'm not well-read on British essayists of the war period, so I don't really know how shocking it would be to write like that. I do know that Orwell himself once opined that the tenets of the Church Of England, and religion generally, hold little sway over the English people.
You can get a cheap paperback of Orwell’s Essays, and they’re worth it.
The original quote that sparked this made more sense when someone provided more of it to give context. In the same way this essay makes more sense in the context of what else he wrote at the time.
He’s basically the other side of the Lewis coin. It’s WW2, Lewis was writing to a (more) theologically literate public to help them see the importance of Christianity in dark times. Orwell was writing for multiple British audiences (at least two of which are pretty pro-Soviet/ would put themselves well on the Left - trade unionist and middle class intellectuals) about why this quarrel between capitalists is worth fighting (Shopkeepers was published a good six months before the end of the Nazi-Soviet pact).
Although I am reminded of the Anabaptist story of one of their early martyrs who, when pursued over frozen ice in the Netherlands, turned and helped one of his pursuers who'd fallen through.
Give me Orwell every time over meaningless Christian piety. Fascism was rife in the British ruling class at the time of Shopkeepers At War, Feb. 1941. Six months in to The Blitz. Three after Coventry. They'd have allied with Hitler in the blink of an eye. It's even satirized, at the time, by P. G. Wodehouse, for God's sake! His foulness was obvious for nearly a decade, the parallel with Putin overlaps.
The highest profile historian of many years, a natural Fascist, told me personally with regard to the former King Edward VIII, 'They'd have shot him if they could'. His exact words.
Love them all you like, whatever that could possibly mean.
On a day to day basis, it just means live in peace with all men, I have fascists in my family, fascists I love and never, ever challenge. I worked with a neo-NAZI, not a problem. It's easy to love people despite their helplessly evil beliefs that would make them my enemies if I chose. Especially little people. Actual enemies would be persona non grata.
Powerful establishment 'enemies' are not personal. They are 'the enemy'. Which is a totally different category. Do Christians love Satan? It's meaningless. One can have pity that a virtual demigod goes to the bad. One should. But 'love'?
The British government. He was a NAZI collaborator, a traitor. Until proven otherwise in 2040-2 when the hundred year rule applies to the relevant public records. They knew then, the blow to morale would have been too much.
Thanks @Martin. I was confused because you had said "They would have allied with Hitler in the blink of an eye." and it wasn't clear to me that you had moved onto a different "they."
I beg your pardon @North East Quine. I see the problem. There's the state 'they' and the ruling class 'they'. The state, the people's state, was at war. He was part of the ruling class.
I beg your pardon @North East Quine. I see the problem. There's the state 'they' and the ruling class 'they'. The state, the people's state, was at war. He was part of the ruling class.
Well no, because what was King George VI if not ruling class? So there isn’t a ruling class ‘they’ unless it’s such a meaningless ‘they’ as to comprise all the following positions:
Edward VIII - (allegedly) let’s be friends with the Nazis
George VI - I’ll never leave, the Nazis will have to kill me
Lord Halifax - for God’s sake stop the war, too many people will get killed, maybe we can do a deal with Hitler
Hon Tom Mitford (only son of Lord Redesdale) - I refuse to fight the Nazis, but I’m happy to fight the Japanese, please pull some strings and ensure I’m sent to the Far East
Winston Churchill (grandson of a duke) and running your ‘people’s state’ - Hitler must be stopped
Lord Brand - how do we reorganise the economy to beat Hitler? Let me get thinking.
Sir Oswald Mosley - we’re on the wrong side
Honestly, when it came down to it, as with WW1, most of the ruling class (and/or their sons) were at the sharp end taking the bombs and bullets. We can all trot out exceptions because the (Tory led) British government prosecuting the war had an interest in drawing attention to them (when not actually arresting them).
The idea that World War Two was some sort of triumph of the common man, despite the best efforts of everyone in British power/Power who really secretly wanted to support the Nazis doesn’t bear scrutiny I’m afraid.
the people’s state was real in that it included the overwhelming majority of everyone from the ruling class to the working class pulling together.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
Yeah but is it? Is it impossible? Or is that just a cop-out? See this is what I struggle with, with the implication that Jesus' divinity is something inherent in our humanity, which we haven't yet figured out how to (or been willing to) activate or actualize.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
And this to me is further proof that the same divinity exists within us and Jesus is just saying "Get your isht together and just behave as you know you can and should."
I think I can love someone and still disagree with him or regard him as foolish. I am not saying I always manage to love everyone.
Assuming a Christian context, it's about loving your neighbour as yourself - or giving a good try. That doesn't mean liking them or agreeing with their political opinions. I tend to focus on something we have in common so my head doesn't explode.
My huge, and pretty much insurmountable problem, is that many of the actions of my political opponents are actively harmful to other neighbours.
I'm still figuring that out. I have a limited number of spoons for that kind of disagreement. No argument of mine, however finely honed, is going to change their minds as they're too invested.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Others with better knowledge of NT Greek can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s long been my understanding that “perfect” isn’t really a good or helpful translation of the Greek teleios/teleioi. It can also be translated as “complete” or “whole” or “mature.”
The meaning of what Jesus is saying, as I understand it, isn’t really “be perfect” in the way that speakers of contemporary English would understand that to mean, but rather “fully be the human you were created to be,” or “be your best, whole self.” (Or maybe, “be the grown-up in the room.”)
I try never to be disagreeable with anyone in real life. There's absolutely no point whatsoever. Unless I'm invited to. Or I have absolutely nothing to lose. Working with street people for 16 years affords many variations. One of those guys, a really awkward piece of work, has just gone down for 26 years. I have a good friend 30 years my junior, needs input regardless, I give it. Whether he asks or not. He says stuff, I respond. Left field. He'd rather have my friendship with his tyres kicked than not. I'm his consiglieri. My beloved stepson of 44 years can take no challenge whatsoever, even new political-economic concepts, so we talk Larry David and aliens instead.
On a personal level, who's experienced a notable benefit of loving a political enemy, and what was/is it?
Although Jesus asked us to love everyone, he didn't ask us to like everyone.
I'm clear on the distinction. I'm interested to know how and when it's delivered a demonstrable benefit -- "loving" a political enemy.
Go.
I'm curious about why you think it needs to deliver a demonstrable benefit. Could you let me know?
I did mention the mental health aspect--I think praying for Trump, even in fear and anger, is preventing me from losing sight of his humanity--and that in itself is a good thing, as it dampens my anxiety levels, which are already sky-high. Given that I've done and am doing all that is possible to change things given my position in life, the anxiety serves no further purpose, and may in fact stop me from being useful. So there's a benefit, if you like.
I'm trying to work out if I'm surprised that Romans 12 doesn't seem to have come up.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
On a personal level, who's experienced a notable benefit of loving a political enemy, and what was/is it?
They weren’t my political enemies, but working toward loving my worst enemies, i.e. my abusive parents, while also learning to protect myself from their toxicity, was a good practice for many years. I still struggle with hating them, and trying to pray for their good in the afterlife. Other than spiritual benefits and some elements of maturity, I’m not sure how to pin down specific “benefits,” though, and at least for me, that’s not why I did it—I did it because I was commanded to by the words of my Master, Christ.
For what it's worth, loving an enemy doesn't mean you can't oppose them, tell them they're wrong, or even put them to death if that's necessary and the proper thing to do. What it rules out are things like hating them, taking pleasure in their suffering, or deliberately setting out to cause them unnecessary and undeserved harm. It also rules out things like ignoring their serious need--and if that need is a need to be corrected and held to account, then "loving your enemy" will mean doing just that--while others take the easy way out and let them keep going down the road to damnation.
The thing about loving people is, it requires you to think. It's not as easy as "loving people is doing whatever they want you to do." Much of the time loving someone means doing exactly what they DON'T want you to do, because you are aware that what you are doing is actually better for them. This is a distinction that's easy to see when you're a parent and forced to make such decisions all the time. But we maybe tend to forget it when we're thinking about enemies, particularly political ones.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Others with better knowledge of NT Greek can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s long been my understanding that “perfect” isn’t really a good or helpful translation of the Greek teleios/teleioi. It can also be translated as “complete” or “whole” or “mature.”
The meaning of what Jesus is saying, as I understand it, isn’t really “be perfect” in the way that speakers of contemporary English would understand that to mean, but rather “fully be the human you were created to be,” or “be your best, whole self.” (Or maybe, “be the grown-up in the room.”)
That'd work better, but it still runs up against the "as your heavenly Father is perfect" part at the end. Human best-selfedness would still seem to fall well short of that, IME. Unless there's a word that's poorly translated there, too, but then we're getting into some pretty concerning issues with the Bible.
On a personal level, who's experienced a notable benefit of loving a political enemy, and what was/is it?
They weren’t my political enemies, but working toward loving my worst enemies, i.e. my abusive parents, while also learning to protect myself from their toxicity, was a good practice for many years. I still struggle with hating them, and trying to pray for their good in the afterlife. Other than spiritual benefits and some elements of maturity, I’m not sure how to pin down specific “benefits,” though, and at least for me, that’s not why I did it—I did it because I was commanded to by the words of my Master, Christ.
Slavery, being one of the more off-putting analogies for Christianity (but, you do you). And I wish you well re: your parents, of course. That must be very hard.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Others with better knowledge of NT Greek can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s long been my understanding that “perfect” isn’t really a good or helpful translation of the Greek teleios/teleioi. It can also be translated as “complete” or “whole” or “mature.”
The meaning of what Jesus is saying, as I understand it, isn’t really “be perfect” in the way that speakers of contemporary English would understand that to mean, but rather “fully be the human you were created to be,” or “be your best, whole self.” (Or maybe, “be the grown-up in the room.”)
That'd work better, but it still runs up against the "as your heavenly Father is perfect" part at the end. Human best-selfedness would still seem to fall well short of that, IME. Unless there's a word that's poorly translated there, too, but then we're getting into some pretty concerning issues with the Bible.
Same word both times.
I’d say the issues aren’t with the Bible, but with many English translations of the Bible—just one reason why insisting on one and one only translation can be a bad idea, and why having Greek and Hebrew resources is a good idea.
BTW, a major part of the issue is that the meaning of “perfect” has changed. When it was first used in English translations (Wycliff, I think), it basically meant “complete.” The meaning of “perfect” changed, but while that was happening, the language of older English translations—the Wycliff, the Tyndall, the Geneva and the KJV (which intentionally used already-archaic vocabulary)—was becoming firmly entrenched.
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
There are some ways in which the current situation could have been avoided by earlier actions via the criminal justice system.
This is true.
And to a prior conversation, I'd add that you can find fascists in every subset of society. They're not isolated to any particular class or stratum. I know I'm related to a few. They are rich fascists, indeed, and poor fascists. They come in all ethnic groups and religions, I suspect.
Tact is an interesting practice, and I sometimes wonder if you can call it friendship when conversations become tactical exercises. Still, the effort invested may be considered an expression of love. Even then, I know folks who would feel betrayed by this "make nice with Nazis because they're family" practice. Is it love to betray people who are targets of malice?
If this were Nazi Germany, should you socially laugh at anti-Semitic jokes because you know the jokester will see your lack of mirth as antagonism? Or sit quietly and try to ignore the provocation? Or do you call them out knowing it'll lead to immediate alienation, if not worse?
Where's the line? What's love when someone is that suffused with hate and you know there's no separating it from them?
Curiously, I think sometimes it's easier to forgive people from the position of victim. It's a different matter when you're the sympathetic audience. Watching people torture your friends and smile at you is a trip.
[I realize this may be an intensification of "political enemies," but it feels like where we're going these days.]
Okay, so here's an example of what I deal with. On Bluesky, I saw the list of "trending things" on the side. Among stuff about Barry Bonds (baseball guy? Alive? Dead? Who knows?) etc., I see "White House." And I wrestle with clicking it so see what fresh horror awaits us all, and I think, God forgive me, "The only thing I care about is whether or not something horrible happened to it, with him in it." And I'm like, no, that's not right, but it feels -- key word, feels, an emotion rather than a God's-eye view of the reality that none of us know but Him--like praying for Trump's repentance is a fool's errand. It's hard to see him, or Musk, as human, even though they are. I know that part of their whole brand (I think) is to project themselves as unstoppable elemental forces rather than people with any kind of vulnerability at all (I can't easily imagine either of them crying, etc.).
Is this what it's like for other people? Again, this happened seconds before starting this post.
Maybe I should just say, "God, have mercy, help us out of this mess, and help those people repent and be healed" and move on. Like whack-a-mole, every time the hatred pops up.
Well the injunction is to love everyone, especially one's enemies, which is pretty unreasonable. It further continues to admonish us to be perfect, as God is perfect, which is impossible.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Others with better knowledge of NT Greek can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s long been my understanding that “perfect” isn’t really a good or helpful translation of the Greek teleios/teleioi. It can also be translated as “complete” or “whole” or “mature.”
The meaning of what Jesus is saying, as I understand it, isn’t really “be perfect” in the way that speakers of contemporary English would understand that to mean, but rather “fully be the human you were created to be,” or “be your best, whole self.” (Or maybe, “be the grown-up in the room.”)
That'd work better, but it still runs up against the "as your heavenly Father is perfect" part at the end. Human best-selfedness would still seem to fall well short of that, IME. Unless there's a word that's poorly translated there, too, but then we're getting into some pretty concerning issues with the Bible.
On a personal level, who's experienced a notable benefit of loving a political enemy, and what was/is it?
They weren’t my political enemies, but working toward loving my worst enemies, i.e. my abusive parents, while also learning to protect myself from their toxicity, was a good practice for many years. I still struggle with hating them, and trying to pray for their good in the afterlife. Other than spiritual benefits and some elements of maturity, I’m not sure how to pin down specific “benefits,” though, and at least for me, that’s not why I did it—I did it because I was commanded to by the words of my Master, Christ.
Slavery, being one of the more off-putting analogies for Christianity (but, you do you). And I wish you well re: your parents, of course. That must be very hard.
Thank you. It is, yes, though I pray they are doing better in the afterlife, and that someday I will essentially meet the people they are meant to be for the first time. Sometimes I wonder if dreams in which we get along better, not perfectly, but better, are hints of that. Only God knows.
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
There are some ways in which the current situation could have been avoided by earlier actions via the criminal justice system.
This is true.
And to a prior conversation, I'd add that you can find fascists in every subset of society. They're not isolated to any particular class or stratum. I know I'm related to a few. They are rich fascists, indeed, and poor fascists. They come in all ethnic groups and religions, I suspect.
Tact is an interesting practice, and I sometimes wonder if you can call it friendship when conversations become tactical exercises. Still, the effort invested may be considered an expression of love. Even then, I know folks who would feel betrayed by this "make nice with Nazis because they're family" practice. Is it love to betray people who are targets of malice?
If this were Nazi Germany, should you socially laugh at anti-Semitic jokes because you know the jokester will see your lack of mirth as antagonism? Or sit quietly and try to ignore the provocation? Or do you call them out knowing it'll lead to immediate alienation, if not worse?
Where's the line? What's love when someone is that suffused with hate and you know there's no separating it from them?
Curiously, I think sometimes it's easier to forgive people from the position of victim. It's a different matter when you're the sympathetic audience. Watching people torture your friends and smile at you is a trip.
[I realize this may be an intensification of "political enemies," but it feels like where we're going these days.]
I don't think socially laughing would be right, no. You could say, "I love you, Uncle Bob, but that's not right" in one way or another, and if they still take it badly, then that's on them. And if you don't get invited to next Thanksgiving, well, it does make things less awkward for that...
Okay, so here's an example of what I deal with. On Bluesky, I saw the list of "trending things" on the side. Among stuff about Barry Bonds (baseball guy? Alive? Dead? Who knows?) etc., I see "White House." And I wrestle with clicking it so see what fresh horror awaits us all, and I think, God forgive me, "The only thing I care about is whether or not something horrible happened to it, with him in it." And I'm like, no, that's not right, but it feels -- key word, feels, an emotion rather than a God's-eye view of the reality that none of us know but Him--like praying for Trump's repentance is a fool's errand. It's hard to see him, or Musk, as human, even though they are. I know that part of their whole brand (I think) is to project themselves as unstoppable elemental forces rather than people with any kind of vulnerability at all (I can't easily imagine either of them crying, etc.).
Is this what it's like for other people? Again, this happened seconds before starting this post.
Maybe I should just say, "God, have mercy, help us out of this mess, and help those people repent and be healed" and move on. Like whack-a-mole, every time the hatred pops up.
Yeah, it's important to keep vengeful emotions in check. Ya don't wanna end up in a screaming rage down at some local church, beating the shit out of the lay leaders who are using coffee-hour to sell time shares.
Seriously, though, @ChastMastr. I think you might be being a little, shall we say, pharisaic against yourself?
Suppose Jesus were attending the funeral of a beloved grandmother killed by a random thief, and the grand-daughter breaks down during her eulogy and yells to the killers: "I HATE YOU!".
I really can't see Jesus going up to her afterwards and saying "I understand your grief, but I think you should try to avoid slipping into the temptation of hatred, because that's not how God wants us to be."
Now, your political interactions do not put you into the same emotional or moral category as the grand-daughter. Maybe more like the guy yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" at the jerk driver who almost hit him while speeding through the red light at a cross-walk. Long and the short, I think you're entitled to the moral holiday.
Okay, so here's an example of what I deal with. On Bluesky, I saw the list of "trending things" on the side. Among stuff about Barry Bonds (baseball guy? Alive? Dead? Who knows?) etc., I see "White House." And I wrestle with clicking it so see what fresh horror awaits us all, and I think, God forgive me, "The only thing I care about is whether or not something horrible happened to it, with him in it." And I'm like, no, that's not right, but it feels -- key word, feels, an emotion rather than a God's-eye view of the reality that none of us know but Him--like praying for Trump's repentance is a fool's errand. It's hard to see him, or Musk, as human, even though they are. I know that part of their whole brand (I think) is to project themselves as unstoppable elemental forces rather than people with any kind of vulnerability at all (I can't easily imagine either of them crying, etc.).
Is this what it's like for other people? Again, this happened seconds before starting this post.
Maybe I should just say, "God, have mercy, help us out of this mess, and help those people repent and be healed" and move on. Like whack-a-mole, every time the hatred pops up.
Yeah, it's important to keep vengeful emotions in check. Ya don't wanna end up in a screaming rage down at some local church, beating the shit out of the lay leaders who are using coffee-hour to sell time shares.
(Mutatis mutandis)
No, but my throat was a wreck for almost a week after a ghastly (literally screaming rage) meltdown a few weeks ago (only one person, online, was the recipient of it, apart from how much my neighbors may have heard). (Ironically, while Trump stress sparked it all off, we’re both anti-Trump… it’s a long story and while I think he acted badly as well, I’m ashamed of how I behaved, and I don’t know if he will ever accept my apology.)
Seriously, though, @ChastMastr. I think you might be being a little, shall we say, pharisaic against yourself?
Suppose Jesus were attending the funeral of a beloved grandmother killed by a random thief, and the grand-daughter breaks down during her eulogy and yells to the killers: "I HATE YOU!".
I really can't see Jesus going up to her afterwards and saying "I understand your grief, but I think you should try to avoid slipping into the temptation of hatred, because that's not how God wants us to be."
Now, your political interactions do not put you into the same emotional or moral category as the grand-daughter. Maybe more like the guy yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" at the jerk driver who almost hit him while speeding through the red light at a cross-walk. Long and the short, I think you're entitled to the moral holiday.
Yeah, but it’s genuinely wishing ill on someone. I don’t want to be like that.
I think there can be times when it behoves us not to bury our heads in the sand like ostriches but limit our exposure to social media, news etc that might trigger extreme reactions.
There is a balance in that of course.
Trump-anxiety is understandable and the way his administration is firing off things in rapid succession is a deliberate strategy to side-step a concerted reaction from the media, political opponents and anyone else they want to blind-side.
Somehow, we have to maintain some kind of equilibrium. Easier said than done.
Mindfulness exercises, prayer, meditation and so on - exercise if we are capable - aren't self-indulgent and escapist strategies but they may be effective coping mechanisms.
Seriously, though, @ChastMastr. I think you might be being a little, shall we say, pharisaic against yourself?
Suppose Jesus were attending the funeral of a beloved grandmother killed by a random thief, and the grand-daughter breaks down during her eulogy and yells to the killers: "I HATE YOU!".
I really can't see Jesus going up to her afterwards and saying "I understand your grief, but I think you should try to avoid slipping into the temptation of hatred, because that's not how God wants us to be."
Now, your political interactions do not put you into the same emotional or moral category as the grand-daughter. Maybe more like the guy yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" at the jerk driver who almost hit him while speeding through the red light at a cross-walk. Long and the short, I think you're entitled to the moral holiday.
Yeah, but it’s genuinely wishing ill on someone. I don’t want to be like that.
There's always humour. Son #1 sent me this. He's an atheist but has a better handle on Jesus' teaching than some Christians.
Seriously, though, @ChastMastr. I think you might be being a little, shall we say, pharisaic against yourself?
Suppose Jesus were attending the funeral of a beloved grandmother killed by a random thief, and the grand-daughter breaks down during her eulogy and yells to the killers: "I HATE YOU!".
I really can't see Jesus going up to her afterwards and saying "I understand your grief, but I think you should try to avoid slipping into the temptation of hatred, because that's not how God wants us to be."
Now, your political interactions do not put you into the same emotional or moral category as the grand-daughter. Maybe more like the guy yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" at the jerk driver who almost hit him while speeding through the red light at a cross-walk. Long and the short, I think you're entitled to the moral holiday.
Yeah, but it’s genuinely wishing ill on someone. I don’t want to be like that.
There's always humour. Son #1 sent me this. He's an atheist but has a better handle on Jesus' teaching than some Christians.
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
There are some ways in which the current situation could have been avoided by earlier actions via the criminal justice system.
This is true.
And to a prior conversation, I'd add that you can find fascists in every subset of society. They're not isolated to any particular class or stratum. I know I'm related to a few.
You reminded me - perhaps intentionally - of the old Dorothy Thompson essay (with a few outdated class stereotypes)
I think there can be times when it behoves us not to bury our heads in the sand like ostriches but limit our exposure to social media, news etc that might trigger extreme reactions.
There is a balance in that of course.
Trump-anxiety is understandable and the way his administration is firing off things in rapid succession is a deliberate strategy to side-step a concerted reaction from the media, political opponents and anyone else they want to blind-side.
Somehow, we have to maintain some kind of equilibrium. Easier said than done.
Mindfulness exercises, prayer, meditation and so on - exercise if we are capable - aren't self-indulgent and escapist strategies but they may be effective coping mechanisms.
A friend of mine (one of my best friends since 1980) said this, and I’m thinking about it—maybe combined with one of the news aggregators @Lamb Chopped mentioned above, one of which I’ve subscribed to. Not that I’m not absorbing news constantly just by being on the internet at all.
I'm lately remembering that guy who decided he would ignore news from 2017 through 2020 and just focus on doing good locally. Everybody got upset with him, but are we absolutely sure he wasn't onto something?
I found a website that addresses this concern here in the United States. It is called Better Angels. Check it out.
I'm sorry, but anyone who is still on board with pardoning the 1/6ers, invading Greenland, purging lgbqt from the military, handing their health-care information over to Tesla, proclaiming Trump unbound by the law etc etc, is going to be pretty immune to the schmaltzy appeals to "cross-partisanship" put forth by these self-proclaimed angels.
Research indicates that the phrase "better angels of our nature" is from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. Which also graced the nation with this hopeful admonition...
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.
Comments
Thank God. Neither is the next Nobel Peace nominee. But not in a good way.
So, IOW...
"Ya know, I don't care what some goddam long-haired carpenter said 2 000 years ago, when I read about some of these violent criminals today, I think we should just run their brains through a blender on the six o'clock news."
Or...
"Well, yes, Jesus is asking us to maximize the presence of forgiveness in our lives, but he's not giving us precise instructions on building our legal system, so you can't just pull his words out of context to prove the immorality of capital punishment."
The former we may call the blasphemous position, the latter the nuanced one.
What I find interesting about that passage from Shopkeepers At War is that Orwell doesn't really give any context to help decipher whether he's a blasphemer or a nuancer. Did he think:
"Oh God, these fascist tycoons quoting that old bit of drivel?"
Or...
"Sad to see these fascist tycoons misusing the most noble moral sentiments ever put into words."
Granted, I'm not well-read on British essayists of the war period, so I don't really know how shocking it would be to write like that. I do know that Orwell himself once opined that the tenets of the Church Of England, and religion generally, hold little sway over the English people.
The thing about loving people is, it requires you to think. It's not as easy as "loving people is doing whatever they want you to do." Much of the time loving someone means doing exactly what they DON'T want you to do, because you are aware that what you are doing is actually better for them. This is a distinction that's easy to see when you're a parent and forced to make such decisions all the time. But we maybe tend to forget it when we're thinking about enemies, particularly political ones.
I've often thought with the Present Occupant that if he would go back to grifting on his private dime instead of the public's, I may be happy to watch him disappear and not seek more against him than the appropriate pursuit of the criminal justice system.
Mind, if things get uglier, I'm not sure that will hold.
There are some ways in which the current situation could have been avoided by earlier actions via the criminal justice system.
You can get a cheap paperback of Orwell’s Essays, and they’re worth it.
The original quote that sparked this made more sense when someone provided more of it to give context. In the same way this essay makes more sense in the context of what else he wrote at the time.
He’s basically the other side of the Lewis coin. It’s WW2, Lewis was writing to a (more) theologically literate public to help them see the importance of Christianity in dark times. Orwell was writing for multiple British audiences (at least two of which are pretty pro-Soviet/ would put themselves well on the Left - trade unionist and middle class intellectuals) about why this quarrel between capitalists is worth fighting (Shopkeepers was published a good six months before the end of the Nazi-Soviet pact).
It’s all context and nuance.
Although I am reminded of the Anabaptist story of one of their early martyrs who, when pursued over frozen ice in the Netherlands, turned and helped one of his pursuers who'd fallen through.
He was still executed.
Must look that story up again.
The highest profile historian of many years, a natural Fascist, told me personally with regard to the former King Edward VIII, 'They'd have shot him if they could'. His exact words.
Love them all you like, whatever that could possibly mean.
On a day to day basis, it just means live in peace with all men, I have fascists in my family, fascists I love and never, ever challenge. I worked with a neo-NAZI, not a problem. It's easy to love people despite their helplessly evil beliefs that would make them my enemies if I chose. Especially little people. Actual enemies would be persona non grata.
Powerful establishment 'enemies' are not personal. They are 'the enemy'. Which is a totally different category. Do Christians love Satan? It's meaningless. One can have pity that a virtual demigod goes to the bad. One should. But 'love'?
Well no, because what was King George VI if not ruling class? So there isn’t a ruling class ‘they’ unless it’s such a meaningless ‘they’ as to comprise all the following positions:
Edward VIII - (allegedly) let’s be friends with the Nazis
George VI - I’ll never leave, the Nazis will have to kill me
Lord Halifax - for God’s sake stop the war, too many people will get killed, maybe we can do a deal with Hitler
Hon Tom Mitford (only son of Lord Redesdale) - I refuse to fight the Nazis, but I’m happy to fight the Japanese, please pull some strings and ensure I’m sent to the Far East
Winston Churchill (grandson of a duke) and running your ‘people’s state’ - Hitler must be stopped
Lord Brand - how do we reorganise the economy to beat Hitler? Let me get thinking.
Sir Oswald Mosley - we’re on the wrong side
Honestly, when it came down to it, as with WW1, most of the ruling class (and/or their sons) were at the sharp end taking the bombs and bullets. We can all trot out exceptions because the (Tory led) British government prosecuting the war had an interest in drawing attention to them (when not actually arresting them).
The idea that World War Two was some sort of triumph of the common man, despite the best efforts of everyone in British power/Power who really secretly wanted to support the Nazis doesn’t bear scrutiny I’m afraid.
the people’s state was real in that it included the overwhelming majority of everyone from the ruling class to the working class pulling together.
I'm clear on the distinction. I'm interested to know how and when it's delivered a demonstrable benefit -- "loving" a political enemy.
Go.
And, point of order, @Telford -- Jesus didn't ask. He instructed, without any qualifying aspect, at least not in English translation I'm aware of.
Yeah but is it? Is it impossible? Or is that just a cop-out? See this is what I struggle with, with the implication that Jesus' divinity is something inherent in our humanity, which we haven't yet figured out how to (or been willing to) activate or actualize.
And this to me is further proof that the same divinity exists within us and Jesus is just saying "Get your isht together and just behave as you know you can and should."
AFF
Assuming a Christian context, it's about loving your neighbour as yourself - or giving a good try. That doesn't mean liking them or agreeing with their political opinions. I tend to focus on something we have in common so my head doesn't explode.
My huge, and pretty much insurmountable problem, is that many of the actions of my political opponents are actively harmful to other neighbours.
I'm still figuring that out. I have a limited number of spoons for that kind of disagreement. No argument of mine, however finely honed, is going to change their minds as they're too invested.
The meaning of what Jesus is saying, as I understand it, isn’t really “be perfect” in the way that speakers of contemporary English would understand that to mean, but rather “fully be the human you were created to be,” or “be your best, whole self.” (Or maybe, “be the grown-up in the room.”)
I'm curious about why you think it needs to deliver a demonstrable benefit. Could you let me know?
I did mention the mental health aspect--I think praying for Trump, even in fear and anger, is preventing me from losing sight of his humanity--and that in itself is a good thing, as it dampens my anxiety levels, which are already sky-high. Given that I've done and am doing all that is possible to change things given my position in life, the anxiety serves no further purpose, and may in fact stop me from being useful. So there's a benefit, if you like.
They weren’t my political enemies, but working toward loving my worst enemies, i.e. my abusive parents, while also learning to protect myself from their toxicity, was a good practice for many years. I still struggle with hating them, and trying to pray for their good in the afterlife. Other than spiritual benefits and some elements of maturity, I’m not sure how to pin down specific “benefits,” though, and at least for me, that’s not why I did it—I did it because I was commanded to by the words of my Master, Christ.
Amen!
Amen times a million!!
Yes, I prefer meaningful Christian piety, absolutely.
That'd work better, but it still runs up against the "as your heavenly Father is perfect" part at the end. Human best-selfedness would still seem to fall well short of that, IME. Unless there's a word that's poorly translated there, too, but then we're getting into some pretty concerning issues with the Bible.
Slavery, being one of the more off-putting analogies for Christianity (but, you do you). And I wish you well re: your parents, of course. That must be very hard.
I’d say the issues aren’t with the Bible, but with many English translations of the Bible—just one reason why insisting on one and one only translation can be a bad idea, and why having Greek and Hebrew resources is a good idea.
BTW, a major part of the issue is that the meaning of “perfect” has changed. When it was first used in English translations (Wycliff, I think), it basically meant “complete.” The meaning of “perfect” changed, but while that was happening, the language of older English translations—the Wycliff, the Tyndall, the Geneva and the KJV (which intentionally used already-archaic vocabulary)—was becoming firmly entrenched.
This is true.
And to a prior conversation, I'd add that you can find fascists in every subset of society. They're not isolated to any particular class or stratum. I know I'm related to a few. They are rich fascists, indeed, and poor fascists. They come in all ethnic groups and religions, I suspect.
Tact is an interesting practice, and I sometimes wonder if you can call it friendship when conversations become tactical exercises. Still, the effort invested may be considered an expression of love. Even then, I know folks who would feel betrayed by this "make nice with Nazis because they're family" practice. Is it love to betray people who are targets of malice?
If this were Nazi Germany, should you socially laugh at anti-Semitic jokes because you know the jokester will see your lack of mirth as antagonism? Or sit quietly and try to ignore the provocation? Or do you call them out knowing it'll lead to immediate alienation, if not worse?
Where's the line? What's love when someone is that suffused with hate and you know there's no separating it from them?
Curiously, I think sometimes it's easier to forgive people from the position of victim. It's a different matter when you're the sympathetic audience. Watching people torture your friends and smile at you is a trip.
[I realize this may be an intensification of "political enemies," but it feels like where we're going these days.]
Is this what it's like for other people? Again, this happened seconds before starting this post.
Maybe I should just say, "God, have mercy, help us out of this mess, and help those people repent and be healed" and move on. Like whack-a-mole, every time the hatred pops up.
Thank you. It is, yes, though I pray they are doing better in the afterlife, and that someday I will essentially meet the people they are meant to be for the first time. Sometimes I wonder if dreams in which we get along better, not perfectly, but better, are hints of that. Only God knows.
I don't think socially laughing would be right, no. You could say, "I love you, Uncle Bob, but that's not right" in one way or another, and if they still take it badly, then that's on them. And if you don't get invited to next Thanksgiving, well, it does make things less awkward for that...
Yeah, it's important to keep vengeful emotions in check. Ya don't wanna end up in a screaming rage down at some local church, beating the shit out of the lay leaders who are using coffee-hour to sell time shares.
(Mutatis mutandis)
Suppose Jesus were attending the funeral of a beloved grandmother killed by a random thief, and the grand-daughter breaks down during her eulogy and yells to the killers: "I HATE YOU!".
I really can't see Jesus going up to her afterwards and saying "I understand your grief, but I think you should try to avoid slipping into the temptation of hatred, because that's not how God wants us to be."
Now, your political interactions do not put you into the same emotional or moral category as the grand-daughter. Maybe more like the guy yelling "Fuck you, asshole!" at the jerk driver who almost hit him while speeding through the red light at a cross-walk. Long and the short, I think you're entitled to the moral holiday.
No, but my throat was a wreck for almost a week after a ghastly (literally screaming rage) meltdown a few weeks ago (only one person, online, was the recipient of it, apart from how much my neighbors may have heard). (Ironically, while Trump stress sparked it all off, we’re both anti-Trump… it’s a long story and while I think he acted badly as well, I’m ashamed of how I behaved, and I don’t know if he will ever accept my apology.)
Yeah, but it’s genuinely wishing ill on someone. I don’t want to be like that.
There is a balance in that of course.
Trump-anxiety is understandable and the way his administration is firing off things in rapid succession is a deliberate strategy to side-step a concerted reaction from the media, political opponents and anyone else they want to blind-side.
Somehow, we have to maintain some kind of equilibrium. Easier said than done.
Mindfulness exercises, prayer, meditation and so on - exercise if we are capable - aren't self-indulgent and escapist strategies but they may be effective coping mechanisms.
There's always humour. Son #1 sent me this. He's an atheist but has a better handle on Jesus' teaching than some Christians.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA
Rotfl! (I can’t wait for the next Randy Rainbow video…)
You reminded me - perhaps intentionally - of the old Dorothy Thompson essay (with a few outdated class stereotypes)
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
A friend of mine (one of my best friends since 1980) said this, and I’m thinking about it—maybe combined with one of the news aggregators @Lamb Chopped mentioned above, one of which I’ve subscribed to. Not that I’m not absorbing news constantly just by being on the internet at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/coyotetracks.org/post/3lgy4f2fozh2e
It’s… something to consider.
I'm sorry, but anyone who is still on board with pardoning the 1/6ers, invading Greenland, purging lgbqt from the military, handing their health-care information over to Tesla, proclaiming Trump unbound by the law etc etc, is going to be pretty immune to the schmaltzy appeals to "cross-partisanship" put forth by these self-proclaimed angels.
Again, that's the FIRST Inaugural Address.