Is it Possible to Love our Enemies?

[3DOP]

On 9/21/2025 at 1:37 PM, Pyreaux said:

Would a Neo-Nazi, a KJB agent, a Hezabollah terrorist, a Chinese spy, or an Ex-Mormon arsonist, not your "enemy"? If not, they are certainly those who may consider you to be their enemy, therefore perhaps, they are your enemy even without your say in the matter. If they were in trouble, perhaps it's even their own comeuppance, would you help them? If neighborly-love is defined as helping them with your time and resources without them even asking, via the Good Samaritan.

Agreed Pyreaux.

There seems to be an assumption on Christ's part that we have enemies, human enemies. For instance, by being politically liberal, I will have enemies. By being politically conservative, I will have enemies. An enemy is anyone who has ill will towards me. Our challenge, if we would love our enemies as the Lord instructs us, does not necessarily involve having great affection for them, but to wish them well. I know that I have been guilty of being glad when someone for whom I had an aversion, stumbled and fell, for example. I was unloving, unChristlike. I was his enemy at that point. He may never have been aware of it. 

If we would love our enemies, or those we don't like because they are constantly talking about murders and economic disaster, or other depressing news, we need to avoid malice towards them. It is very hard to feel affection towards them, and I have no guilt about having aversion to such persons. But if everyone is my brother or sister through Christ's coming in the flesh, uniting Himself with each of us, as my faith teaches, I must love them. To love only means to want the best for them for Christ's sake, which is to say for TRUTH'S sake.

By God's grace we can love those who are naturally repulsive to us (for what might be good reasons), and especially if we detect that they have actual malice towards us. God tests us and tries to perfect us by placing these kinds of people in our lives. God is pleased when we wish well to those who treat us well. But He asks us for something more which does not come naturally. I do not believe I am capable of it on my own. I need help to do that which is beyond my nature. I need my faith and God's grace to be able to make real in my mind and will that He is only asking us to behave towards others, how He has behaved towards us. He wishes the best for everyone!

That is the ultimate test of our Christian faith. What will we do or wish for those who make us disgusted, or hurt us and our loved ones? This is what it means to be perfect, because God is perfect. God is love.   

Edited September 22, 2025 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm going to take the punching part of your reply with a grain of salt, because I don't believe you've ever punched a "facist" and I don't believe you would under most normal circumstances.  The circumstances where you would punch one, I would guess to be similar to the circumstances where anyone would punch another person--extenuating.

But in terms of the rest of your post, I wonder, are we open to changing our minds as well though?  That's what I'm contemplating right now.  Is it really loving someone if I require all compromise or change be done on their end?

 

I have punched a fascist and more than once. To be fair they had it coming for more than just being a fascist but their being a fascist is still the main reason I punched them. I don’t punch fascists randomly because while I believe it is morally right to do so sometimes it isn’t legally allowed so you have to factor that into the decision as to when punching is appropriate.

As to how much compromise and/or change is required or even allowed depends on the morality of what is involved.

”I think all Mormons should be tortured to death” for example doesn’t really make me think there is some kind of acceptable compromise or middle ground.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Are you weeping over Satan and the fallen angels?

Are you referring to the verse quoted? Because in context, it is referring to those at the time of the flood, not the Sons of Perdition.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you referring to the verse quoted? Because in context, it is referring to those at the time of the flood, not the Sons of Perdition.

Somewhat understandably, marineland is confusing Moses’ account of God and the angels weeping over the wicked antediluvians, and the Doctrine and Covenants 76 account of the heavens weeping over the loss of fallen Lucifer and the sons of perdition. When comparing the 2 accounts, we see that they significantly differ due to the fact that the wicked antediluvians of Moses 7 have not committed the unpardonable sin and will eventually be afforded the opportunity to accept the gospel, repent and be released from the spirit prison. Meanwhile, Lucifer and the sons of perdition, are those who have steadfastly refused to repent and be redeemed until it’s everlastingly too late. This last group are those of who will remain “filthy still” (unforgiven). But it’s fascinating to contemplate that the heavens even wept bitterly over the loss of Lucifer and the sons of perdition — a powerful witness that underscores the great reality that God really does deeply love even his most hardened enemies. 

Edited September 22, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

From C.S. Lewis:

Quote

Now that I come to think of it, I don’t exactly have a feeling of fondness for myself. So apparently ‘Love your neighbour’ does not mean ‘feel fond of him’. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. 

That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad person’s actions, but not hate the bad person: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.

For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a person did and not hate the person? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the person. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the person should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere they can be cured.

The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing them? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and accept the punishment. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a person for their crimes or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy soldier.

I imagine somebody will say, ‘Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy’s acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?’ All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think people live forever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one’s own back, must be simply killed.

The first part I bolded is where a lot of people seem to trip up. Loving your enemies doesn’t mean pretending that if you dig down deep enough they are good people. They often aren’t. 

The second part I bolded is the one that I suspect many fail at. When I correct someone who believes a falsehood about someone they hate I often find them almost seething in resentment over being denied the fodder for their hatred. They seem determined to hang on to hatred even when it is shown the cause for the hatred is wrong. That is how you know someone has an appetite and a desire to hate. I don’t see this as giving every benefit of every doubt. I don’t have to assume good intentions when the person has demonstratively shown multiple times their intentions are malicious or vile or evil. It does mean you have to have an appetite for truth or, at least, accurate information if truth is too philosophical.

[teddyaware]

When it comes to the Lord’s commandment to love one’s enemies, a good starting point to gain better understanding of this divine principe is to define what the word love means as the Lord intended it to be understood. Many years ago I formulated my own definition of love, and this definition has helped to shed some much needed light on the subject, and does so in a manner that helps to demystify the principle in a way that opens the door to a consistent daily practical application of this principle.

My definition of love is as follows: “Love is earnestly striving to always do what is in the eternal best interests of your others, as well as yourself” Obviously, in this definition love is a verb. In the light of this definition, it becomes much easier to understand why God destroyed the antediluvians in the great flood, and then consigned their spirits to the spirit prison, for he did so in order to prepare their hearts to receive the abundant mercy of the gospel of Christ when it would again be offered to them

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledgeof the truth, or in transgression, having rejected prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

A somewhat less dramatic application of this principle is seen when the Lord warned his earthly enemies that they were children of the devil and that they would reap the whirlwind if they didn’t repent. Loving one’s enemies — earnestly striving to always do what is in the eternal interests of others— isn’t always couched in attempted displays of conciliatory affection.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it. (John eight)

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2025 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have punched a fascist and more than once. To be fair they had it coming for more than just being a fascist but their being a fascist is still the main reason I punched them. I don’t punch fascists randomly because while I believe it is morally right to do so sometimes it isn’t legally allowed so you have to factor that into the decision as to when punching is appropriate.

As to how much compromise and/or change is required or even allowed depends on the morality of what is involved.

”I think all Mormons should be tortured to death” for example doesn’t really make me think there is some kind of acceptable compromise or middle ground.

 

I agree, with very extreme thinking, compromise probably won't be possible.  The goals are too far apart.  But when the desired outcomes are the same but the means are where the disagreement is (which is probably the majority of our interactions with others), I think middle ground does exist if people are willing to seek it.

But we struggling seeking it.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

From C.S. Lewis:

The first part I bolded is where a lot of people seem to trip up. Loving your enemies doesn’t mean pretending that if you dig down deep enough they are good people. They often aren’t. 

The second part I bolded is the one that I suspect many fail at. When I correct someone who believes a falsehood about someone they hate I often find them almost seething in resentment over being denied the fodder for their hatred. They seem determined to hang on to hatred even when it is shown the cause for the hatred is wrong. That is how you know someone has an appetite and a desire to hate. I don’t see this as giving every benefit of every doubt. I don’t have to assume good intentions when the person has demonstratively shown multiple times their intentions are malicious or vile or evil. It does mean you have to have an appetite for truth or, at least, accurate information if truth is too philosophical.

Agreed.

I think we have to want goodwill and that can be hard to want.  Especially online where it's so easy to get applause and attention for making someone else look stupid.  Goodwill loses its appeal, and adoration by those who agree with us becomes the new goal.  And then enmity follows.

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

easy to get applause and attention for making someone else look stupid.

Been on both sides of that. I wish I could say otherwise.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Been on both sides of that. I wish I could say otherwise.

Me too.  

[marineland]

19 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Somewhat understandably, marineland is confusing Moses’ account of God and the angels weeping over the wicked antediluvians, and the Doctrine and Covenants 76 account of the heavens weeping over the loss of fallen Lucifer and the sons of perdition. When comparing the 2 accounts, we see that they significantly differ due to the fact that the wicked antediluvians of Moses 7 have not committed the unpardonable sin and will eventually be afforded the opportunity to accept the gospel, repent and be released from the spirit prison. Meanwhile, Lucifer and the sons of perdition, are those who have steadfastly refused to repent and be redeemed until it’s everlastingly too late. This last group are those of who will remain “filthy still” (unforgiven). But it’s fascinating to contemplate that the heavens even wept bitterly over the loss of Lucifer and the sons of perdition — a powerful witness that underscores the great reality that God really does deeply love even his most hardened enemies. 

@ZealouslyStriving  Thank you for clearing that up teddyaware. But Satan
is also the "father" of all the fallen angels.

Regardless of which group you refer to, are you weeping over them too?

Edited September 23, 2025 by marineland

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, marineland said:

Regardless of which group you refer to, are you weeping over them too?

Why are you asking?

[marineland]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Why are you asking?

Just wondering. I see no reason for weeping for the wicked antediluvians if they 
apparently get a second chance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Just wondering. I see no reason for weeping for the wicked antediluvians if they 
apparently get a second chance.

I weep over my kids’ suffering even when I know it’s only temporary. They hurt in that moment and I mourn with and for them.  Sometimes unnecessary pain, pain they caused themselves seems the hardest for me to process.

Why wouldn’t a loving Heavenly Father do the same?  Care about all his beloved children’s suffering, no matter the cause.  Why turn off the caring just because in the long run something is healed.

Christ’s suffering on the cross was only temporary.  Should we shrug that off as no big deal because of that?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, marineland said:

Just wondering. I see no reason for weeping for the wicked antediluvians if they 
apparently get a second chance.

We weep for the pain and suffering they will experience that they didn't need to experience if they had repented.

I have a son who spent a few weeks in jail for a stupid thing he did driving.  I knew it was temporary and yet I wept for him and with him.  Can I ask, are you a parent?

[marineland]

On 9/24/2025 at 4:03 PM, Calm said:

Why wouldn’t a loving Heavenly Father do the same?  Care about all his beloved children’s suffering, no matter the cause.

"... and the whole heavens shall weep over them"

[marineland]

On 9/24/2025 at 6:52 PM, bluebell said:

I have a son who spent a few weeks in jail for a stupid thing he did driving.  I knew it was temporary and yet I wept for him and with him.  Can I ask, are you a parent?

No. I am not a parent. That may disqualify me from commenting sufficiently.
I find it hard to weep unless I'm really sorry for hurting someone.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, marineland said:

No. I am not a parent. That may disqualify me from commenting sufficiently.
I find it hard to weep unless I'm really sorry for hurting someone.

I don't think it disqualifies you at all.  But I do think that there are some aspects of God's love that can be easier to understand if you have children.  Not having had that experience could make it more difficult to understand how much it can hurt when your child is hurting, even if you know the hurt is beneficial or temporary.

[Tony uk]

I have never been fortunate to have children. However, I imagine there will always be an intense love of ones own children. Parental protection of the child, even when that child becomes an adult.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tony uk said:

However, I imagine there will always be an intense love of ones own children.

I would say it’s quite likely there is, but not everyone feels that way.  I think enough do it’s a good default assumption.  

There is also intense love in the more abstract sense in that someone might love their children because they are their children, more property or a continuation of oneself than people to the parent.  There may be no desire to engage with the children as individuals, but a willingness to sacrifice everything for them to become what the parent wants/needs them to be (thinking of parents who work nonstop to put their kid in the best schools, etc so the kid can get a advantageous job but humiliates or disowns them if the kid quits school because of not liking the pressure or the work and wants to do something the parent sees as valueless).