Only love conquers hate


....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Reaction score
up to my arse in alligators
Only love conquers hate.​

“He was angry with me, he attacked me, he defeated me, he robbed me”—those who dwell on such thoughts will never be free from hatred.
He was angry with me, he attacked me, he defeated me, he robbed me”—those who *do not* dwell on such thoughts will surely be free from hatred.
For hatred can never put an end to hatred. Love alone can. This is an unalterable law. —Dhammapada 1:3-5

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. . . . If you love those who love you, what thanks can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. . . . Instead, love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. . . . You will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to hate ungrateful and the wicked.” —Luke 6:27-28, 32, 35

(emphasis mine)

I am indebted to the site I referenced for saving me a lot of trouble putting these quotes together.

I wish to make a point.

We so often hear about how hate cannot conquer hate, that only love can conquer hate. Yet, how many that allude to these same principles do not by their actions demonstrate the same virtues they allude to. It just seems to me so Orwellian.

Now, in fairness, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish “tough love” from hate, but there really is a difference. Rightly or wrongly, tough love was used on me as a child, and it is what I have learned and have grown comfortable with. I use tough love. The difference between tough love and Orwellian love is the intent behind it. Tough love really does have the best interests of the person being loved at heart.

Orwellian love, by contrast, is meant to control.

Now, Orwellian love, for those like me who have only a cursory familiarity with the novel (or movie) “1984,” is not the love that the Dhammapada or Luke were referring to. Orwell’s “newspeak” (what I have long inaccurately called “doublespeak”) makes it quite clear that “love” is not always love.

Miniluv - Ministry of Love (law and order). "The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometer of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons... One did not know what happened inside the Ministry of Love, but it was possible to guess: tortures, drugs, delicate instruments that registered your nervous reactions, gradual wearing-down by sleeplessness and solitude and persistent questioning."

I do not in any way wish to seem accusatory. It just seems to me there are those who are misguided about what love actually entails. Certainly love is a mystery, and I don’t think any of us has a full grasp on just what exactly love is, let alone why it is. Yet, I also believe the vast majority of us do intuitively understand what love is not.

Romans 12:9-21
[Let] love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
[Be] kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;
Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
[Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. -NKJV

Now, I suppose one could argue that these are the words of Paul, that questionable apostle who is hardly fit to be speaking for Christ. Perhaps in some of his commentaries this detraction may hold some merit, but in this passage I cannot help but think Paul is speaking “spot on” regarding what love is, and is not.

While I feel this entire teaching is most appropriate, I would like to call attention to verse 18, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Placing this side by side with my comments about the teaching of “turn the other cheek,” perhaps it begins to make a little more sense why I feel the way I do. I am a big fan of Max Ehrman’s “Desiderata.” As he was a preacher, a minister (I forget which denomination, it isn’t important), I think he was able to gather the essence of Christ’s teachings in that beautiful poem. Yet, on this one point his words were not so different from Paul’s. The Desiderata paraphrases this quote of Paul, “As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.” There is a key element here, crucial to understanding. That key is “without surrender.” Yes, of course live peaceably with all other peoples, as long as they are not trying to conquer you or chain you into submission. In the words of Winston Churchill, “we will never surrender!” And we as Christians have no need to do so.

John 15:12-15
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. –NKJV

I want to call attention to verse 14, “Ye are my friends, if ye *do* whatsoever I command you.” Keep in mind these words are written by John as having come from the mouth of Christ. Christians cannot get much closer to the source. Love is about doing. The word love is hollow and empty and devoid of meaning without the doing.

Equally incorrect is calling hateful actions “love.” Just as a well cannot give forth both sweet and bitter waters, nor a vine both sweet and bitter fruit, hate is still hate even if it is called love. Earlier I mentioned tough love, and I can see the confusion some make in mistaking tough love for hate. No. If one steps back but a moment, dispassionately, and really looks over the situation, they understand correction. Corrective teaching is a form of love, as any parent knows.

The problem comes when one does not see corrective teaching for what it is, and instead sees it as an affront. An affront on the level with “He was angry with me, he attacked me, he defeated me, he robbed me.” An affront that is dwelled upon. And that dwelling upon becomes hate.

And yet, I can see some attempt to argue that hateful actions can be used to correct someone, all in the name of love. This might not be stated so succinctly and plainly, it more likely would wear a mask and camouflage. Hate, especially political hatred, seldom announces itself openly in a public manner. It only announces itself openly where it feels secure, among like-minded crowds. When recruiting among those that are not *yet* like-minded, hate must of necessity paint itself to look like love.

Herein enters the Christian’s gift of discernment. Christians are taught to look not at the words said, but the deeds behind the words. We know the spirit by the fruit of the work, whether evil or good. If we instead take the words at face value without considering the intent, motivation and deeds behind them, we have fallen into the Orwellian trap of “newspeak.”

Newspeak is "politically correct" speech taken to its maximum extent. Newspeak is based on standard English, but all words describing "unorthodox" political ideas have been removed. In addition, there was an attempt to remove the overall number of words in general, to limit the range of ideas that could be expressed.

The most important aim of newspeak was to provide a means of speaking that required no thought what-so-ever. It uses abbreviations or clipped conjunctions in order to mask or alter a word's true meaning. (emphasis mine)

Here is the official definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

new•speak ('nü-"spEk, 'nyü-), noun, Usage: often capitalized. : propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings. Etymology: Newspeak, a language "designed to diminish the range of thought," in the novel 1984 (1949) by George Orwell. Date: 1950

I am sure some of you have seen me allude to George Orwell being a seer (what some term “prophet”). I noted in that comment that he was a sociologist by profession, and that he had a keen insight into human behavior, and how political systems were able to sway that human behavior through technology. He was a very astute man. Considering when he wrote his novel, and the fact that so much of what he alluded to is so endemic in Western culture some almost 60 years later, it is frightening the accuracy that he was able to achieve. Has the world gone “exactly” the way he wrote, no, of course not. Then again, if he had written a fully accurate preordinate account, does one really think it would have survived to be available to the masses? I think Big Brother would have insured it would not.

Most people I know now think in terms of the name of his book, 1984. To us, now, that was a long time ago. I know there are persons who contribute here that do not even remember that year. It is past and gone, it is old news, it didn’t really happen, things aren’t the same anymore…

Quite the contrary. Orwell knew indeed whereof he spoke. Look around, it is not difficult to find the essence of newspeak and motives and methods of Orwell’s book scarcely hidden in the agendas of Political Correctness, Ecumenism, Globalism and everyday politics. What seemed novel in Orwell’s day, is now so commonplace we do not imagine anything otherwise.

Which is why I am writing this now. Orwell’s ’84 has come and gone in the minds of the masses, but it never really did leave. It is the modus operandi behind the political power structures. It is fait accompli. It would serve us all well to keep this in mind. I am not given to conspiracy theories, this is no theory. One need only look around, and discern.

Yes, only love conquers hate. Unless love is not really love, it which case it just feeds hate.
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 12 & 13
1 Corinthians 13:1-8 said:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails....
Does love really conquer anything? Or, does love overcome, and cover over? The reason I ask this is because if we agree that hate is the absence of love, then love is introduced...does not love simply "fill the void"? Is not love like water, always seeking its own level?

Something to consider.
love resists hate, righteousness conquers hate.

the church resists evil from overflowing; however, jesus christ will conquer and judge all when he comes back in gods righteous glory with his angels.
Kindest Regards!

Only a moment...

Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of G-d, and every one that loveth is born of G-d, and knoweth G-d.
He that loveth not, knoweth not G-d, for G-d is love.
1 John 4:7&8
I think love conquers fear....compassion conquers hate.

Hate has a source, typically from lack of understanding and love. So often it appears to be a matter of opening folks upto being more open. Hate is often though also a perception.. on both sides.

But the Covey seek first to understand, then to be understood...gotta find out what needs aren't being met, and if they are valid, why not...
wil said:
I think love conquers fear....compassion conquers hate.

Hate has a source, typically from lack of understanding and love. So often it appears to be a matter of opening folks upto being more open. Hate is often though also a perception.. on both sides.

But the Covey seek first to understand, then to be understood...gotta find out what needs aren't being met, and if they are valid, why not...

Compassion conquers loathing. One is a decision and the other is an emotion. Love fills the void left by hate. One is a decision overridden by another decisison.

Indifference is an enigma. It is a fence walker, who has yet to choose which way to jump.

Feelings can never conquer other feelings, only switch back and forth.


Kindest Regards!

hate is the absence of love
I heard something recently, I am still mulling over, but at first glance it seems to make sense.

The absence of love is not hate, it is apathy. As long as there is hate, it is proof that one still cares. (I presume this means that the person still cares enough to hate) As long as a person still cares, there is still hope.

Apathy is a far more difficult obstacle to overcome, in my opinion. Perhaps that is why the lukewarm and fence sitters are cast aside.