mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/08/85)
In article <5398@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >There are people who claim to love everyone, but whose love seems pretty >watered down to me -- compared to the love that I feel for the people I >say that I love. I actually do not think that it is possible to feel this >sort of profound love for everyone. But what sort of love dis Jesus mean? >Moreover, what sort of actions are compatible with love? Did Jesus love >the money changers he whipped out of the temple? as he was doing the >whipping? If I got out a whip and set into my neighbours I would find it >very hypocritical to call that love. >you see the difficulties? Right now, as far as i know, most people who >call themselves Christians condemn certain actions which other people >who called themselves Christians did as ``non-Christian''. No doubt those >people would or do disagree. How can any Christian be sure that he is not >practicing a false Christianity, despite having all the best intentions in >the world? >I have yet to find any acceptable solution. This question bothered Soren >Kierkegaard a lot, but, by and large, I have not found that it has bothered >other theologians and philosophers who have assumed that because they were >sincere that they were also correctly understanding what God wants of them. >This particular belief bothers me a great deal. This is a very important question, and in fact it does figure in modern theology, though not in a very overt way. FOr the moment, I will talk as if I represent the liberal theology of (for instance) the Episcopal Church. It is important to realize that we have no way of knowing exactly what the demands of love are. Our consciences are perverted by our evil, and thus are not wholely trustworthy. On the other hand, Paul seems to reject the notion that we must be fully instructed by law. Calvin gave three purposes for law, of which the second is most important to this discussion. First, one can use the law to see that one is in fact a sinner. Second, the law gives some indication of what standards are demanded. Third, the law restrains to some extent those who have no stronger basis for their morality (Calvin means non-christians here, but the principle generalizes in an obvious fashion). Jesus is quite clear that the Jewish law can be considered to be incomplete, in that there are actions demanded by love, but not by the law, and that there are things permitted by the law, but not by love. An important illustration of this is in his teaching on divorce. It is also evident that he establishes little in the way of law (as a jew would recognize it). I don't believe that any group of christians can sit down with a Bible and write out The Law of Christ. Love is simply much too situational, and there is not a good enough oracle to rely on. Most of the law people claim to find in the scriptures, they are projecting there. Sorry I can't give a simple answer: it's not a simple issue. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/12/85)
Laura, I think this issue can be simplified. I do not see any conflict between Jesus teaching love and Jesus whipping the merchants. For example, if you had a child that was instructed to stay in the yard, for safety and their general well-being, but they left the yard...when you punished them would you still love them? Of course you would. I think love is in the attitude of the one who is relating. When you really care about someone, or love them, it sometimes means inflicting pain....i.e. telling a friend that their behavior is hurtful or destructive or a number of other things. God gave us law to protect us and when we disobey He punishes out of love. A christian can point out harmful behavior (not following Jesus) in a loving or non-loving way, depending on their attitude in conveying it. karen
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/15/85)
> [karen] > > I think this issue can be simplified. I do not see any > conflict between Jesus teaching love and Jesus whipping > the merchants. > > For example, if you had a child that was instructed to stay > in the yard, for safety and their general well-being, but > they left the yard...when you punished them would you still > love them? Of course you would. I think love is in the > attitude of the one who is relating. It does not matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. (Although we know that I don't.) The thing that matters is that the Bible says it straight out that the Lord chastens those He loves, and that only bastard children are not given punishment for wrongdoing. So we can expect to be taken behind the woodshed when we need it! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/15/85)
> I think this issue can be simplified. I do not see any > conflict between Jesus teaching love and Jesus whipping > the merchants. > > For example, if you had a child that was instructed to stay > in the yard, for safety and their general well-being, but > they left the yard...when you punished them would you still > love them? Of course you would. I think love is in the > attitude of the one who is relating. When you really > care about someone, or love them, it sometimes means > inflicting pain....i.e. telling a friend that their > behavior is hurtful or destructive or a number of other > things. God gave us law to protect us and when we disobey > He punishes out of love. > > A christian can point out harmful behavior (not following Jesus) > in a loving or non-loving way, depending on their attitude in > conveying it. I think it goes beyond this Larry (er karen). Because Jesus claims that we should love everyone, that doesn't mean we should feel obligated to explain all of his actions in terms of love. For example, to claim that Jesus loved the merchant because he disciplined him is really unecessary. Jesus probably DID love this merchant. I'm sure he can al;so find room in his heart ot be absolutly disgusted with the merchant as well. Hate? Possibly so. I'm just trying to point out that if Jesus was so totally human then perhaps he DID have room for some good old honest hatred. Hatred for the sin (which he had to whip out of that vile old merchant) and perhaps some disgust at the sinner as well. The existance of love doesn't necessarily mean the non-existance of other emotions. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Or as Jabba the Hut would say, "Brrrruuuuuurrrrrrrpppppp!"