dlawbailey

I was reading a debate and I have to say I ran into a little atheist problem.

As active atheists here all probably know Christopher Hitchens' standard question is : "Show me something a theist could say that an atheist can't."

As an atheist I have to say that I'm a little embarrassed to have read what might be one:

"Love your enemies".

"Love your enemies" - is Jesus (or just the Sermon On The Mount, if you dispute the text or whatever) the source of that idea or is there a non-theist source.

Because I have to say that the "love" part is a pretty religious idea.

I, as an atheist, have absorbed it, certainly. But have I absorbed it from religion or is it an extension of an atheist ethic?

Textual references?

Decypher

I believe you can find the idea of unviersal compassion in Buddhism, (which would include love for enemies), and Buddhists will often say that they don't believe in God.

However, Buddhism does seem to involve a supernatural worldview, what with the doctrine of rebirth, and I'm not sure the denial of God really makes much sense in Buddhism.

Amedeo

You are assuming that "love your enemies" is a moral norm which a theist has and an atheist does not have. I have heard of many people who also assume that morality (moral norms) is something that belongs to theists, and that atheists do not have moral norms and, therefore, cannot act morally.

To begin with, people who act morally do not do on account of the moral norms they have in their heads; and people who act immorally do not do so on account of their lacking moral norms in their heads. People get confused on this because they are thinking of the JUDGEMENT of a man's behavior, which is actually made in view of a code of laws or a code of morals. A judge requires and acts by a given code.

It is a fact that the ecclesiastical religions of yesteryear had codes of laws (or morals) which supposedly were given by the gods to their ethnic peoples. So, the idea arose, which is still prevalent today, that morals come from God or: theism is a doctrine about God, creator and legislator, etc. etc. From this they infer that atheists reject God, morals, and all the rests that the clergy teaches. (The original fault of theists is their belief that theism and ecclesiastical/prophetic theism are one and the same, and that they really believe in a god rather in the word [about a god] which is spoken to them by the middle men or merchants in deity, called prophets or tele-evangelists.)

The proposition, "Love thy enemy," is not part of any code or morals which either theists or atheists formulated. It comes from a theist, but Jesus' God, if that be the Biblical Deity-Composite, had given morals to His People -- specific orders how to deal with their alleged enemies (plunder the Egyptians before leaving; kill ever man, woman, and child of the Philistine lot that lives on the land I promised you; etc.); and specific orders on how to deal with one another and to behave toward God [Moses' Commandments]. The God of the Israelites is a revengeful God, who does the opposite of loving the enemies.

Loving the enemies mean, above all, not reacting in kind to received offenses. This is a strict pacifism which is not part of any theism, but it is occasionally enacted by people who are either theists or atheists. It is a moral norm which does not come from any religion and is not essentially connected with one's own belief or disbelief in a god, or with any belief or disbelief in any kind of human immortality. (Were we to judge Jesus as one who rejected the actual morals prescribed by the Biblical God, his heavenly father was not the Biblical God! On the other hand, he was actually a theologian or prophet of the Elohim, whereas Yahweh the Sabaoth and Avenger was the god of the Judaeans, who for him were the strayed sheep of Israel. But Jesus was a living contradiction, because presumably he kept on quoting the Scriptures to prove that he was the expected Messiah. And so it goes.)

It is also quite possible that "love thy enemy" was not a moral maxim enunciated to all people for all time. (Similarly, the Commandments were rules given specifically to the Israelites fresh out of Egypt, not to mankind, to whom the first 4 Commandments would make no sense whatsover.) It may have been a commandment to the people who were hearing him, to the Judaeans of his time, who aspired to get rid of the enemy, namely the foreign House of Herod and the Romans who protected it. In Jesus' day there were many rebels or insurgents who used violent means for their end. Jesus' veiled message would be: convert them, instead of trying to subdue them. And that's what the Apostles and Paul did after his death as "king of the Judaeans." (The conversions came too late or were not sufficiently widespread, for in the year 70, the enemy -- reacting to the armed rebels -- even destroyed the Temple.)
-----------------
The Gentile ethics of love was formulated by Cicero, who understood that love of others is the presupposition for being virtuous, or: The presupposition of the ethics of the philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc.) And love [not good will, but generosity, affection, absence of wrongdoing such as injustice, etc.] comes in degrees, as it is of the people in the immediate family and of humans as such. [[The delusional American Christians believe that all morals come from the total Bible.]]
The Ciceronian ethics was brought by Augustine into the Catholic ethics. And of course Francis of Assisi founded what they called a "new religion" whose God = Love, and with man loving all creatures, rather than using them or renouncing them, as the monastic Christians had been doing. He was the force behind the Italian renaissance of humanistic culture. Francis made the traditional religion of Jesus the King obsolete; His forces had been mobilized for the Crusaders' enterprise, and the Templar Order had assumed the official title of "Ordo Militum Christi:" The Order of the Soldiers of Christ.

noble savage

Why does the question of origins matter? I can see why it might matter to believers, who want to ground their ethical principles in divine revelation. But isn't the non-believer free to borrow a good idea, or reject a bad one, whatever its source might be? If one does not accept the idea of a divine origin of ethical beliefs--in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or whatever--but thinks that these beliefs originated and were articulated in human social contexts--why would should it matter if that social context is a "religious" one? If "religion" is really a sphere of human social activity (i.e., not contact of man with the divine), must the atheist or agnostic suppose that this particular sphere of human social activity produces only bad ideas? Might not any sphere of human thought produce both good and bad ideas?

In short, I don't know whether this idea "originated" with Christianity or not, but I also don't see why this idea need be an exception to Hitchens' claim or an "atheist problem."

Noble Savage

gurugeorge

'twas a known trope amongst Cynics (sort of Hellenistic anti-Establishment hippy types) and Stoics (Establishment types). From a website discussing parallels:

(18) LOVE YOUR ENEMIES

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other as well... Love your enemies, and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return - Lk. 6.27-29, 35; Mt. 5.39-44; cf. §16, 19-21.

{p. 24} Socrates bore all the ill-treatment he received with forbearance. For example someone expressed surprise once at his self-restraint when he'd been kicked. Socrates commented, If an ass did kick me, still would it have been in order to take it to court? - LEP 11 21.

Someone told Diogenes that his friends were conspiring against him. Diogenes replied, Well now, what's to be done, when you have to treat friends and foes the same? - LEP Vl 68; [an enigmatic response, but most likely positive].

A rather nice part of being a Cynic comes when you have to be beaten like an ass, and throughout the beating you have to love those who are beating you as though you were father or brother to them - Epictetus III xxii 54.

Socrates... didn't just avoid conflict at every point, but wanted to keep others from conflict, too - Epictetus IV v 2; cf. 12.

Who is there among us who does not admire Lykourgos of Sparta, in his response to being blinded in one eye by a fellow-citizen. The people handed the young man over to him, to take whatever vengeance he wanted. He refrained from any retaliation in kind, but educated him and made a good man of him - Epictetus, Encheiridion 5.

If the citizens of Mallus have behaved stupidly - and they have! - it's up to you to put anger aside and forgive them the punitive revenge you thought you had a right to; and, instead, work out a solution to this dispute over boundaries - Dio 34.43 (to citizens of Tarsus).

{p. 25} Never to give way, never to concede a point to a neighbour (or not without feeling humiliated); never to marry getting your own way with allowing others to as well - that's not manly or strong-minded, it's just ignorant stupidity - Dio 40.34, (to his fellow townspeople in Prusa); compare all of Discourses 37-41, on (re-)conciliation.

How shall I defend myself against my enemy? By being good and kind towards him, replied Diogenes - Gnomologium Vaticanum 187, (in Paquet pp. l01, 183 cf. Plutarch Moralia 88B.

Someone gets angry with you. Challenge him with kindness in return. Enmity immediately tumbles away when one side lets it fall - Seneca, de ira II xxxiv 5; cf. III v 8, xxiv 1, etc.

You ask, If a man of sense and understanding happens to get his ears boxed, what is he to do? Just what Cato did when someone boxed his ears. He stayed cool, he didn't retaliate, he didn't even offer to forgive. He refused even to admit that anything had happened. His denial was more high-minded even than forgiveness would have been - Seneca, de constantia xiv 3; cf. de ira III xxv 3.

We shall never desist from working for the common good, helping one another, and even our enemies, till our helping hand is stricken with age - Seneca, de otio i 4.

This doesn't necessarily mean "Jesus was a Cynic teacher" or "early Christians followed Cynic teachings" - it could mean any number of things. But it does show that this idea wasn't new. Much of "Jesus"' teaching seems to be cobbled together from various sources - if he said anything genuinely original, it's hard to find. On the other hand, if he was genuinely wise, he wouldn't be saying anything all that original anyway, because most wise things had already been said. The problem then, as now, was that people hardly ever listen to wisdom

Cheerful Charlie

Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.
- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom
Well over 1000 years before Jesus.

Socrates in a dialogue by Plato, Crito talks about avoiding revenge and the problems of such attitudes.

Basically, one way to avoid enemies is by befriending them, and not letting
their actions drag you down to their level. Other wise things break down in to endless cycles of revenge and blood feuds.

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world will be blind".
- Ghandi

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
- Confucius

"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!" In those who harbor such thoughts hatred is not appeased.

"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!" In those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred is appeased.
Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law.
Dhammapada 3-5

My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.

Jainism. Vitaragastava 14.5

Of the adage, Only a good man knows how to like people, knows how to dislike them, Confucius said, "He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon Goodness will dislike no one."

Confucianism. Analects 4.3-4

I should be like the sun, shining universally on all without seeking thanks or reward, able to take care of all sentient beings even if they are bad, never giving up on my vows on this account, not abandoning all sentient beings because one sentient being is evil.

Buddhism. Garland Sutra 23

The sage has no fixed [personal] ideas.
He regards the people's ideas as his own.
I treat those who are good with goodness,
And I also treat those who are not good with goodness.
Thus goodness is attained.

I am honest with those who are honest,
And I am also honest with those who are dishonest.
Thus honesty is attained.

Taoism. Tao Te Ching 49

Similar sentiments are old and ancient and wise men everywhere have taught them. Jesus was but one eddy in a large river.

Cheerful Charlie

Minimalist

Why not simply invite them to explain the Crusades and the Inquisition? "Talk is cheap" is also a saying.

Anduin

I never get why people think that 'love your enemy" is a good moral imperative. As much as I can try, I cannot possibly love my enemies, and I know practically nobody who does. I can try to respect my enemies, empathise with their point of view, deal with them, negotiate with them, and all sort of behaviour that could be considered conciliatory, but I cannot "love" them.

To me it is one of those Christian moral imperatives that sound good on paper, but have little practical value. No, I do not want to turn the other cheek. No, I do not want to give away all of my possessions to the poor.

BALDUCCI

"Love your enemies" was likely a politically inspired interpolation, like many others in the Gospels, trying to create the impression that Jesus was not hostile to Roman occupation.

Clivedurdle

Maybe some highly educated Romans did have a lot to do with composing the Gospel stories.