juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Only love conquers hate.
http://www.frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.html
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.
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
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
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom012.html
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
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jhn/Jhn015.html
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.”
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns_frames.html
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:
