Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Cutting Away at Tolerance Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 08:59:10 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 38 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >Concerning my rather odd statement to Mr Lindborg: > As a Christian, I am compelled to forgive you. However, there's nothing > to stop me from telling you what a schmuck you're being. >What is loving enemies all about? What is forgiveness all about? >When someone says "I am compelled to forgive", what does that mean? In my case, it was meant quite literally. I am *compelled* to forgive: not required, by some rule, but compelled by my own earnest desire to emulate Christ. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Oddly, in private e-mail, btw, it has become quite clear that this was literally true: Mr Lindborg did *not* intend his remarks to be as offensive as I found them, and I rather hope that the exchange will end in friendship. When we do our best to live the law of Love, good things result. >From my normal context, to love someone is to wish them the best. It >is to seek to understand and be with them. Loving an abstracted >person halfway across the globe is simply not possible. Au contraire, I believe that it is not only possible but necessary. It is, however, only possible when you make the effort (and it can be immense) to de-abstract that person, as it were. It is not possible to love a person next to you, if you see them abstractly. This is, in fact, one of the best definitions I have ever heard of a sociopath: one who sees his/her fellow humans as abstractions rather than people. KUWAIT: First there is a country, then there is no country, then there is. The Roach