What would happen if the US government loved its enemies?

[lazarus]

What would happen if Presendent Bush decided that the US governement was going to love its enemies? You may believe that it already does. In a practical sense, what things would change?

[Dr. Shane]

Historically when one nation conquered another the conquered nation would be pillaged. A fine example is when Israel was conquered by Babylon and the temple gold was taken back to Babylon along with slaves.

The old joke use to be that if a nation was in economic ruin they should pick a fight with the US because the US always rebuilds the economies of the nations they conquer. Not too many other nations in the halls of history that have done that.

Of course Christ's advise to love our enemies was given in the context of individuals loving individuals. He did not lecture the Roman centurion about loving his enemies but said He had not seen greater faith in Israel.

[nuff sed]

In this day and age of the U.S. "loved" its enemies there would be no more US in just a very short time.

[Guest]

I think if the US "loved" its enemies, the US would be in total world domination.... because all the other countries would be rolling around inside their respective borders laughing their heads off.

[John317]

What would happen if Presendent Bush decided that the US governement was going to love its enemies? You may believe that it already does. In a practical sense, what things would change?

That sounds great but in reality we have to realize that the Golden Rule was intended for individuals and not for governments. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. The devil is the god of this world. That is whom most of the peoples of the world follow, and it's his tactics and values that they love, follow and practice. Remember the world hates Jesus Christ and it also hates true Christians. It will never change. Some in it change, yes, but those are the exceptions to the rule.

Bush telling the whole world that we are just going to love them would be like the police telling everyone they're now going to love them. Sound like a good plan? What does love mean in those circumstances? Sometimes love demands that you take drastic action, such as executing mass murderers and imprisoning rapists. Otherwise your wife might get raped or you might be too. Then who are you going to call for help? The loving policeman? The loving army?

What if police were to tell all criminals, "We are now going to just love you"? I could tell you what would happen. The criminals would be rubbing their hands in glee and thinking how stupid and naive the police are, and they would be getting their garages ready for all the loot they plan to steal as soon as the love begins.

We live in jungle, sad to say. Chinese proverb: Those who lie down with their tails between their legs get the boot.

Romans 13: 1-7 and Titus 3: 1,2 tells us the Bible's view of the proper role of the governments of this world. It says it's a good thing for the criminals to fear the governments. They're supposed to. Well you also want the criminal governments of the world to fear your government. Do you know what happens if they don't? You quickly get gobbled up by another government who wants what you have and they kill you or turn you into a slave. We saw this under Napolean, Kaiser Bill, and many before that. We saw this in WW I and WW II. Few people realize just how close both Germany and Japan came to winning WWII. If that had happened, we would now almost certainly be slaves of Nazis or of the fascist Japanese government.

Having said that, the church needs to be ready to encourage peace between nations and love its enemies, but that is totally different from the goverments. I show love towards "enemies" every day, but I am not foolish enough to think that my government should do what God has commanded his people to do. The government is not of God; the government has its feet planted firmly in this world and is a part of this sinful world. We, God's people, are not-- or at least we are not if we are true to our calling from God.

[lazarus]

I'm kind of surprised at the responses here. We seem to be equating love with being "NICE". We know that's not what it means at all. "As many as I love I rebuke and I chasen". God loved Israel but certianly taught them a lesson or two.

I'm really not sure about this "individual" thing. So we are to love individually but not collectively. So as a group of Christians we are meant to...what?...to hate? What was israel meant to do? love, hate, be indifferent? or something else?

Does loving someone mean that you shouldn't defend yourself against their violence?

So if foreign troops attack you personally you should "love". but if they attack your neibourhood you should defend your neighbourhood. ????

when a Christian president gets into office he stops loving people he just.........hmmmm. Come on ya'll

Quote:

We live in jungle, sad to say. Chinese proverb: Those who lie down with their tails between their legs get the boot.

So...... to love means to lie down?

[Neil D]

What would happen if Presendent Bush decided that the US governement was going to love its enemies? You may believe that it already does. In a practical sense, what things would change?

Recently saw the movie, Mohamad Gondi. Thru the use of passive resistance, the Indian goverment [during a time in history, major upheavals were going on] was able to remove British from it's country, AND keep them as friends. That is a major achievement in itself.

But the desire for revenge was strong, and there were, according to the movie, large problems among the peoples of India and Paskistan [they were once a united country]...and the main reason is because that religion [and it's prejudices] played a major role in causing the rifts...That is why India is mainly Hindu in it's religion and Paskistan is Muslim.

We have not learned that violence never solved anything, and that religion, even though it teaches to "turn the other cheek" also says that "there is a time for war".

I have maintained that if, before your conversion, you were a passive and not agrressive person, and after your conversion, you became intolerant, unreasonable, and single minded toward your religion, your religion did you nothing but made you a worse person.

[K]

Quote:

I have maintained that if, before your conversion, you were a passive and not agrressive person, and after your conversion, you became intolerant, unreasonable, and single minded toward your religion, your religion did you nothing but made you a worse person.

Outstanding!

[K]

Another thought. . . . I love my girls, but my girls have known all their lives that if they got out of line. . . . . there would be punishment.

Why doesn't that equate to governments too?

[John317]

I'm kind of surprised at the responses here. We seem to be equating love with being "NICE". We know that's not what it means at all. "As many as I love I rebuke and I chasen". God loved Israel but certianly taught them a lesson or two.

My responses are directed at the different ways people understand what it means to be loving. There is such a thing as "tough love," which is what I believe in and practice. But lots of people, I think, have wrong ideas about "love", so my answers were given to respond to them. You didn't really describe how you understood "love." I think probably most people, if asked whether someone was loving, they would equate it with "niceness" or some related concept.

Actually I have tried to explain "tough love" to the kids where I work and that is hard for them to understand. I have told them, "Yes I love all of you," which shocks the daylights out of them, and then I have to quickly explain what I mean. If I don't, they get the wrong idea. I tell them that means I am willing to do things that will make them mad. I will tell them no if that is the best thing for them.

Quote:

I'm really not sure about this "individual" thing. So we are to love individually but not collectively. So as a group of Christians we are meant to...what?...to hate? What was israel meant to do? love, hate, be indifferent? or something else?

No, of course not hate but rather its opposite.

I didn't explain that clearly. I touched on that aspect but did not go into detail. Here is what I said about that: ..."the church needs to be ready to encourage peace between nations and love its enemies, but that is totally different from the goverments. I show love towards 'enemies' every day...We, God's people, are not [of the world]-- or at least we are not if we are true to our calling from God."

So yes, we as a church are to love both collectively and as individuals. Especially the Adventist church. But the government and the church have two very different functions and purposes. For one thing, the government is both of the world and in the world, whereas the church is in the world but is not to be of the world.

God put the governments here to keep order in an otherwise very lawless, wicked world. It has to use force and sometimes it has to carry out war and take human life. One of its primary functions is to protect the innocent and the helpless against evil people, and to bring about order for the purpose of allowing the gospel to be proclaimed and published. Christ's body, of course, is never to carry out war or participate in the taking of human life, although individual Christians have a right to make up their own minds as to whether to be part of the military or police. During Vietnam I chose to go into the military as a medic and not carry a weapon. Others chose differently. I have a cousin who is SDA and an armed policeman in Tucson, Arizona. I personally wouldn't do that. Let God be the judge.

Quote:

Does loving someone mean that you shouldn't defend yourself against their violence?

I certainly don't think so. But other differ on this question. There are different points of view on this. During the Civil Rights struggle in this country, the majority fortunately chose to go along with Martin Luther King's understanding of passive resistence. The other extreme was the Black Panther Party and even, for a while, Malcolm X who talked of "the ballot or the bullit." Then you have Gandhi, who said the Jews in WW2 should have committed suicide rather than fight or die in the gas chambers. (He said this because of his view of reincarnation.)

So my original response was written to those who would say "love" means we don't fight for any reason. I held this view for a short time as a young person, but I have long since changed my mind.

Quote:

So if foreign troops attack you personally you should "love". but if they attack your neibourhood you should defend your neighbourhood. ????

when a Christian president gets into office he stops loving people he just.........hmmmm. Come on ya'll

Not sure why you wrote the first part of this. Could you explain that a bit?

If a foreign country invaded the United States and attacked this country, I would show "love," but for me that "love" would mean helping to fight the foreign troops.

I know the situations the prophet Jeremiah wrote about when God told the Hebrews not to fight invaders and to go down willingly to Babylon. That's because the invading armies of Babylon were God's way of punishing the Jews of that day for their disobedience. But unless a true prophet of God tells me the same thing, I would take up arms to fight off an invading foreign military.

But as for the president, he takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and he is there to defend all Americans, and to represent all Americans, not just Christians. He is the atheist's president as much as he is the Christian's. So he can't always just do what He would do personally if he was a private citizen.

He should certainly love people, yes, but as President his first responsibility is to protect and defend the US constitution. From the point of view of his oath, the President is loving people best and most when he protects and defends the constitution.

For instance, I think of Lincoln as our best and greatest president and also as our most loving and kind, even though he had no choice but to oversee a tragic civil war in which more Americans died than all the wars we've fought since then.

Quote:

We live in jungle, sad to say. Chinese proverb: Those who lie down with their tails between their legs get the boot.

Quote:

So...... to love means to lie down?

Some might interpret "love" as turning the other cheek and letting your enemy get a good slap at the other side.

It's been understood that way by a lot of people. For instance, Gandhi and the people of India. In their case, they are very fortunate. But the reason it worked for them is that the country they were dealing with was a highly civilized England, not nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR or Mao's Communist China. So, whether it is wise to do that depends at least to some extent on the ruthlessness of your enemy.

There is a sense in which this is the tactic of God in the battle against Satan. God may in some ways be seen as a boxer who gets in the ring and lets his opposition pound away until the latter is totally exhausted and expends all his resources, and then God gives the knock out punch at the very end. Neils-Erik Andreason gave that illustration in a class he taught in The Life and Teaching of Jesus.

[Dr. Shane]

Christ Himself defended the widows who were being taken advantage of by the religious leaders. He also defended the poor travelers being taken advantage of by the temple merchants. Some people see Christ as only the Lamb and forget that He too is the Lion.

[John317]

Christ Himself defended the widows who were being taken advantage of by the religious leaders. He also defended the poor travelers being taken advantage of by the temple merchants. Some people see Christ as only the Lamb and forget that He too is the Lion.

Yes, true. Before, He was the bloody sacrifice, He is now our High Priest, but one day soon He will doff His High Priestly robe, put on His crown and royal robes and come to dispense justice.

[lazarus]

My answers don't deal with all the issues raised, it was a long post. Here are my responses,such as they are.

Quote:

I know the situations the prophet Jeremiah wrote about when God told the Hebrews not to fight invaders and to go down willingly to Babylon. That's because the invading armies of Babylon were God's way of punishing the Jews of that day for their disobedience. But unless a true prophet of God tells me the same thing, I would take up arms to fight off an invading foreign military.

Therefore loving your enemies can sometimes mean killing them.

Quote:

But as for the president, he takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and he is there to defend all Americans, and to represent all Americans, not just Christians. He is the atheist's president as much as he is the Christian's. So he can't always just do what He would do personally if he was a private citizen.

So as a president he must sometimes go against his Christian principles to be president.

Quote:

He should certainly love people, yes, but as President his first responsibility is to protect and defend the US constitution. From the point of view of his oath, the President is loving people best and most when he protects and defends the constitution.

Isn't the first responsibility of a Christian president be to God and what God asks of HIm?

Quote:

For instance, Gandhi and the people of India. In their case, they are very fortunate. But the reason it worked for them is that the country they were dealing with was a highly civilized England

So if your oppressor just beats you in the street then you should show love but if they hang you from a tree then you should fight back. If its a massacre then you should be violent but if its a beating turn the other cheek.

[John317]

My answers don't deal with all the issues raised, it was a long post. Here are my responses,such as they are.

Quote:

I know the situations the prophet Jeremiah wrote about when God told the Hebrews not to fight invaders and to go down willingly to Babylon. That's because the invading armies of Babylon were God's way of punishing the Jews of that day for their disobedience. But unless a true prophet of God tells me the same thing, I would take up arms to fight off an invading foreign military.

Yes, it can. Doesn't it for God? God loves his enemies-- for instance, Satan-- yet love eventually will mean that Satan will be destroyed.

Remember that you don't love just your enemies, who may be violent and totally untrustworthy, but you also love others whom your enemies would destroy if they could. For instance, the government must put some people in prison and, according to the Bible, it must also take human life, if it's going to protect the law-abiding and the innocent. God is going to make the universe completely safe for those who love him. Those who hate God and are unwilling to submit to Christ's law will ultimately be eliminated. They wouldn't be happy living in God's universe anyway. Therefore in God's case, the loving thing will mean the destruction of the wicked. Do you believe this?

I think that in human history, there have been times when the loving thing required the death of evil people. Don't you?

Quote:

But as for the president, he takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and he is there to defend all Americans, and to represent all Americans, not just Christians. He is the atheist's president as much as he is the Christian's. So he can't always just do what He would do personally if he was a private citizen.

Quote:

So as a president he must sometimes go against his Christian principles to be president.

I wouldn't think so. At least I don't know of any Christian men who had to go against their Christian principles as president. I know some who did, but they were not compelled to do it. If a man or woman believes their "Christian principles" would not allow them to go to war and oversee the killing of many people, they shouldn't become president of the United States. Or when they run for the office, let them announce beforehand that no matter what happens, even if Iran were to detonate a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon in Los Angeles or New York, they will not lead this country into war.

Quote:

He should certainly love people, yes, but as President his first responsibility is to protect and defend the US constitution. From the point of view of his oath, the President is loving people best and most when he protects and defends the constitution.

Quote:

Isn't the first responsibility of a Christian president be to God and what God asks of HIm?

Yes, and I don't see that there necessarily has to be a conflict between being an American president or congressman and being a Christian whose first responsibility is to God. Daniel was a similar to being a vice president of Babylon. But Daniel was appointed as an officer in a dictatorship. We have a democratic republic, which elects its president. So an American president is elected by all sorts of people, he's not just appointed by one man. He can serve the people and serve God at the same time. I believe some presidents did this, for instance Abraham Lincoln.

Quote:

For instance, Gandhi and the people of India. In their case, they are very fortunate. But the reason it worked for them is that the country they were dealing with was a highly civilized England

Quote:

So if your oppressor just beats you in the street then you should show love but if they hang you from a tree then you should fight back. If its a massacre then you should be violent but if its a beating turn the other cheek.

Didn't say that or mean it. Not sure why you would think this is what I am saying.