Claiming Moral Authority

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, your ontology does have this type of continuity. At least initially. >>>[/quote]No sir. We touched on this briefly several months ago when you asked me about my adherence to creation “ex nihilo”. That is, out of nothing. As is the case with most thinking men, you habitually reason in terms of your own already adopted system. In your case pantheism. When you hear me speak of God in the beginning creating space, time, the heavens and the earth, you naturally see that as God extending HIMSELF to then include the reality that we now find ourselves in.

This is not my view nor is it the bible’s view. In the biblical system there was once a “time” (for lack of a better human way of putting it for the moment), when the infinite and eternal and to us meaninglessly pure being, essence and mind that IS almighty God was the only ontological reality in existence.

The sum of biblical truth taken as a whole proclaims that every single entity not then in existence was brought into true ontological reality from absolutely nothing by the the fiat command of this God. This includes matter, light, time and space. All by divine mechanisms understood only by Himself. Even the concept of “nothing” in the context of this discussion is incomprehensible to us.

This God’s being, power and knowledge are infinitely beyond the intellectual equipment of man. The combined prowess of every man from Adam until the last trumpet of the Lord proceed not one micron toward His. This God commanded nothing and nothing obeyed Him to give forth everything. Even before the organization of matter into it’s present forms and before the existence of man and therefore sin as well, the ontological distinction of creator and creature was utterly basic and hence taken as axiomatic by Christians throughout the ages. Some more consistently so than others. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< Then Man is ousted from Eden and the Fall introduce a radical, ontological separation. >>>[/quote]I believe this may be my fault for not having expressed this part with sufficient clarity. Sinful man’s separation from God is primarily moral and ethical not ontological as I carelessly and erroneous stated earlier. I apologize. Even without sin man by definition as creature is distinct from the creator God. Sin plunges him from favor and fellowship to enemy and outcast. Not from a component of God’s essence to a distinct one of his own. Your view of where you thought my tautologies lived just moved. Again I apologize. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< Everything else (the idea of Grace, denial of free will, the concept of covenant and related ecclesiology) follows from this point. >>>[/quote]From the significantly revised version of the point as I just stated, yes.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< The main difference between our systems is your belief in the Original Sin.
My view acknowledge the existence of evil, even radical evil. But it doesn’t (and can’t) have the ontological cosequences it has in your theology. >>>[/quote]As I have now burdened you with the task of rethinking this part. I will leave you to do that. If you wish. You didn’t believe that the “one” could be ontologically dissected. I understand. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< My main concern with your theology is, believe it or not, moral in nature. >>>[/quote]I never thought otherwise =] [quote]kamui wrote:<<< I understand that the “source” of morality has to be “extraneous”, independent from our will. Heteronomous as you would call it. >>>[/quote]Why is this the case? What in your system necessitates this? Why can’t morality be relative and even if it can’t, on what basis is a particular point of thought, word or deed declared to be moral or not? To say nothing of cultural and societal enforcement. I suspect in your view, what is moral and what should be enforced upon the populous are not always the same thing. I sense that you hold a principle whereby that which can not be universalized cannot become law, but that it’s private practice is not to be forbidden. Or even viewed as wrong, but simply cannot be normalized by civil law. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< But your system put this principle so far it end up “reversing” itself with the unavoidable conclusion that “sentient beings” only have an extrinsic value. >>>[/quote] In my system ALL beING AND beINGS have whatever value or not that the God who is their author decrees. To use your phraseology. Those redeemed from sin have intrinsic value to God as He adopts and incorporates them into Himself so to speak, in Christ as members of His body the church. Those He leaves to be damned in their sin have extrinsic value as He displays His horrific hatred of all that is not holy like Himself (He can do that n we can’t). His love, mercy and grace are amplified greatly as His creation witnesses what His redeemed elect have been saved FROM as well what they have been chosen TO. A great epic, cosmic, divine drama in which we are all players and He is the star you ask? I reply with a resounding YES!! And His saints wouldn’t have it any other way because HE wouldn’t have it any other way. How anyone else would have it is irrelevant.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< That means that in last analysis, you don’t respect a child because he is a child.
The child is, like everyone else, a spiritually dead sinner who do not reserve any kind of respect.
You’ll absolutely respect him, but only because it’s God’s monopoly to destroy him or to save him. >>>[/quote]Children have no more intrinsic value to God than adults. His special punishment for harming children speaks to the cowardly and predatory depravity of the perpetrator. Not the extra valuable nature of the child. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< Strictly speaking, God is the ONLY thing that possess some kind of intrinsic value. >>>[/quote]Yep. And everything AND everyone else derives their value by His decree as He sees fit. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< The ethical “cost” of the concept of transcendance is that moral respect is always indirect, mediated. And i find this conclusion properly… immoral. >>>[/quote] I understand. =] You’re SUPPOSED to find it that way or my bible would be wrong which is not possible. What you have just stated is that YOU find it immoral. My view is that the God whose nature and law you (and I without Christ) are perpetually offending, defines morality. He doesn’t care what either of us find to be this… or that. In my view thankfully so. He can send Joshua to kill every man woman, child, animal and insect in Canaan and that is absolutely right. However, if I so much has look on a woman impurely who is not my covenant Wife by His definition, I have committed a sin worthy of eternal hellfire. Do you think I choose to believe that because I just decided it was right? I believe it because His living Word in my heart bears witness to his written Word in my hands that it is right and it is therefore my great joy to pursue holiness and righteousness in a lifelong quest to hear Him finally say “well done thou good and faithful servant”. (Here is what defines the difference between where we find our tautologies)

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I won’t disagree with the last sentence.
But there is no contradiction in a circle. At least not if the circle exists at the “deepest” possible level. It’s just that, at such levels, demonstration is no longer possible.
But at the same time, it’s no longer needed. >>>[/quote] This will require more time that I have left at the moment.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Does this mean i just choose the tautology i prefer, without any real reason ? No. Absolutely not. >>>[/quote] Thats’ a vast oversimplification of what I thought you were doing, but my one sentence answer left me vulnerable to this criticism. I’ll try n get to that later too. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< There is a few metaphysical and ethical reasons to prefer this one to another one. Even if the other one can’t be disproved.
And i do NOT think that one way is really “easier” than the other one. >>>[/quote] Maybe not easier, but personally preferable. Like I say. I’m outta time right now though.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I suppose you would agree that morality can not be man-made. Cause it would scream “autonomy”.
You won’t agree that acknowledging the objective existence of evil is “enough for most relevant purpose”.
And in a way i would agree. There is more to it than that, but for a relativist, it would at least be a start.[/quote]Yes, no and maybe, but I doubt it because of my dependence on the first of these three.

I’ve been in a real hurry. Please forgive any typos.

EDIT:Before I go for now? Everything I’ve just said is totally foreign to Catholicism BTW. Not even close.

422

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

You’re still only looking at one side of the coin, pat.

  1. There is the emotion of the ‘do-er’, which is the least important in terms of morality.

  2. Then there’s the emotion of the ‘do-ee’, which is the entire basis for morality among atheists, and a major consideration among the faithful (Christ exemplified love and compassion, even to the detriment of the ‘do-er’)

  3. And then you have the trump card; how does The Father feel about it? This will mostly come into play when both the ‘do-er’ and ‘do-ee’ feel good about it.[/quote]

There is no coin here. Emotion does not play in to objective morality in terms of what it is. Emotion is can be an affect, or it can be a driving force for a behaviour, but the object is reflected by action not emotion.
You can feel a certain way and not act on it. You can experience something and it arouse your emotions in a certain way, but it’s not objective at all.

Emotion is a very small player in objective morality. It can exist, it cannot exist, and neither makes an action moral or immoral.

You’re looking at the wrong coin all together. Emotion doesn’t make something moral or immoral. Since it does not, it’s irrelevant in terms of what makes an action moral or immoral.[/quote]
I don’t understand your logic here. If emotion has no bearing on morality, then where are you getting your morality from?

423

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

You’re still only looking at one side of the coin, pat.

  1. There is the emotion of the ‘do-er’, which is the least important in terms of morality.

  2. Then there’s the emotion of the ‘do-ee’, which is the entire basis for morality among atheists, and a major consideration among the faithful (Christ exemplified love and compassion, even to the detriment of the ‘do-er’)

  3. And then you have the trump card; how does The Father feel about it? This will mostly come into play when both the ‘do-er’ and ‘do-ee’ feel good about it.[/quote]

There is no coin here. Emotion does not play in to objective morality in terms of what it is. Emotion is can be an affect, or it can be a driving force for a behaviour, but the object is reflected by action not emotion.
You can feel a certain way and not act on it. You can experience something and it arouse your emotions in a certain way, but it’s not objective at all.

Emotion is a very small player in objective morality. It can exist, it cannot exist, and neither makes an action moral or immoral.

You’re looking at the wrong coin all together. Emotion doesn’t make something moral or immoral. Since it does not, it’s irrelevant in terms of what makes an action moral or immoral.[/quote]
I don’t understand your logic here. If emotion has no bearing on morality, then where are you getting your morality from?[/quote]

I don’t get “my morality” from anywhere because it does not belong to me. I can acknowledge it, or reject it. Morality is it’s own entity. That which is evil is evil regardless of how you feel about it. For instance, slavery was always immoral even when it was accepted. That’s the whole point, that which is evil is always evil. That which is good is always good. We can choose to act evil or good, but we cannot make anything evil or good… It already is what it is.
Emotion can be used as a teaching tool for morality, but it is not the basis for it, because so often emotions are misplaced.

424

What I meant was; For any given action, how do you define whether it is moral or immoral?

It is worth mentioning that slavery wasn’t accepted by everyone. There were some very outspoken opponents of slavery from the very beginning. I posted this quote from one of our Founders in another thread a few days ago:

[quote]"That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, of every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications. Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden Idol.

"The Managers the Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have to right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners.

By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supports of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!" [African Slavery In America, by Thomas Paine, written in 1774 and published in March 8, 1775.][/quote]

425

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What I meant was; For any given action, how do you define whether it is moral or immoral?

It is worth mentioning that slavery wasn’t accepted by everyone. There were some very outspoken opponents of slavery from the very beginning. I posted this quote from one of our Founders in another thread a few days ago:

[quote]"That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, of every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications. Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden Idol.

"The Managers the Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have to right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners.

By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supports of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!" [African Slavery In America, by Thomas Paine, written in 1774 and published in March 8, 1775.][/quote][/quote]

An act that is moral or immoral is defined by it’s ultimate end. It ultimately harms or helps a sentient creature. You do not have to actually get to the end for the act to be defined, reason is sufficient to draw the conclusion.

426

[quote]pat wrote:

An act that is moral or immoral is defined by it’s ultimate end. It ultimately harms or helps a sentient creature. You do not have to actually get to the end for the act to be defined, reason is sufficient to draw the conclusion.[/quote]
Yeeesh. I definitely have to disagree with you here, Pat. Cold logic and reason are pretty horrible ways to define morality.

427

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

An act that is moral or immoral is defined by it’s ultimate end. It ultimately harms or helps a sentient creature. You do not have to actually get to the end for the act to be defined, reason is sufficient to draw the conclusion.[/quote]
Yeeesh. I definitely have to disagree with you here, Pat. Cold logic and reason are pretty horrible ways to define morality.[/quote]Worse than emotions? Jay, ya gotta think here bud. I don’t agree with Pat either btw.

428

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

An act that is moral or immoral is defined by it’s ultimate end. It ultimately harms or helps a sentient creature. You do not have to actually get to the end for the act to be defined, reason is sufficient to draw the conclusion.[/quote]
Yeeesh. I definitely have to disagree with you here, Pat. Cold logic and reason are pretty horrible ways to define morality.[/quote]Worse than emotions? Jay, ya gotta think here bud. I don’t agree with Pat either btw.
[/quote]
OK, so then how do you determine right from wrong?

429

As I said in another thread:

430

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

An act that is moral or immoral is defined by it’s ultimate end. It ultimately harms or helps a sentient creature. You do not have to actually get to the end for the act to be defined, reason is sufficient to draw the conclusion.[/quote]
Yeeesh. I definitely have to disagree with you here, Pat. Cold logic and reason are pretty horrible ways to define morality.[/quote]

Uh, well you can disagree, but there are only two ways to possibly understand it, on is logic reason, the other is revelation. To understand it fully, you need both complimenting each other. That which is good is good by definition, that which is evil is evil by definition which are logical propositions.

Trying to understand good and evil, with no basis in logic gives you no chance to understand it at all.
I don’t understand how you can say morality is an illogical proposition.

Further, logic and reason, lead to the understanding that you cannot define morality. It’s not arbitrary so you cannot define what it is by any mode, you can only understand it or refuse to… Or you can choose not to care, but then this conversation would be pointless.

431

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.

432

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.[/quote]
Is “love” in this context an emotion?

433

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.[/quote]
Is “love” in this context an emotion?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting question. Why would it not be? Is love not the greatest of all emotions?

434

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.[/quote]
Is “love” in this context an emotion?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting question. Why would it not be? Is love not the greatest of all emotions?[/quote]

It is, but it isn’t always an emotion. Many times, it’s a choice. Many times it’s hard. As much as it can lift you, it can also break you. Love is many things.

435

My answer to someone declaring that “love” is an emotion on a website filled with unbelievers I’ve known for years there and many whom I actually do love.

"Authentic love is a volition of the will and is commanded by God. “You SHALL love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:5) "

25-Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26-so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27-that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28-So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself" (Ephesians 5-22-28)

The idea of love as an emotion is a perversion. Like “falling in love”. There is no such thing. Those who “fall in love” “fall” back out. Love in the godly sense is a deliberate investment of one’s self in someone else to the end of promoting and honoring THEIR person, interests and security over one’s own. We are commanded to seek to be of service to God by our service to the world as salt and light and our service to the body Christ His church as he reveals our call in that regard.

In the case of marrieds this means God first, spouse next, children after them and then others. In the case of singles this means God first while preparing in celibate purity for spouse next, children after them and then others. Unless one is given a specific and special call by God Himself to lifelong celibacy which is the exception. That IS taking care of one’s self, before someone shouts "WHAT ABOUT ME?!?!? Of course emotions, which are not in any way evil in themselves, will FOLLOW. Which is the point.

Like our Pastor always tells us. “Emotions make great servants and disastrous masters”. As I said, that is right which is in conformity to the revealed nature and will of God. I am not allowed to “feel” what I think is right nor pursue ANY other path or standard than that which has been graciously given to us by the creator/designer Himself. God’s love, even for others, by definition, as it has eternally existed in the persons of the Godhead for each other, is unto HIMSELF in the service of HIS OWN GLORY. He can do it n we can’t.

My love for my wife, my children, my brothers and sisters in the Lord, the world lost in sin and the special burden God puts on my heart for some people, including some here, is ALL in service to Him. It is both His command and His gift as it is most assuredly NOT in me to love some of you people here at all nevermind enough to allow myself to hurt and to pray for your salvation, peace and joy.

This is so utterly foreign to the sick, depraved self worshiping world we live in because it is dead in sin. Sin being ANYTHING contrary to and or in competition with that standard which has been graciously given to us by the creator/designer Himself. I do with unhesitating narrow, dogmatic and intolerant boldness call anyone under the sound of my voice or within sight of my words who is not presently loving the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and might by seeking to obey His every command from your heart, to repent.

Forsake your wicked life and call upon the name of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God in whose blood and death destroying resurrection ALONE is found escape from the deadness of sinful self and His unquenchable wrath against it.

Nobody believes any of that crap anymore right? How well I know. It is no mystery that my most fervent detractors on this site are some claiming to be Christians, but whose Jesus is a Satanic counterfeit created in their own image. A false Christ who looks, acts and speaks, not coincidentally, just like them. This is NOT the spotlessly pure and holy, sovereign King of all that is, who is revealed in the Holy Bible.

Theirs is not the Jesus who loves His church bride enough to sacrifice Himself to save her and who hates sin enough to execute eternal damnation upon every last soul descended from father Adam who has not so repented. I deserve that damnation. Just like everybody else. Far more for things I’ve thought, said and done SINCE I’ve been a Christian and known better than anything I did as an unbeliever. I cannot and will not keep that Love, grace and mercy to myself.

It IS a joyous thanksgiving day for me indeed."

436

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.[/quote]
Is “love” in this context an emotion?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting question. Why would it not be? Is love not the greatest of all emotions?[/quote]

It is, but it isn’t always an emotion. Many times, it’s a choice. Many times it’s hard. As much as it can lift you, it can also break you. Love is many things.[/quote]
I don’t recall ever making a conscious decision to love or not to love someone. There have been people whom I just couldn’t bring myself to love, but it was not a choice on my part. I still wish them the very best (that is, I pray they’ll turn their lives around and see just how badly they’ve treated others), but I could not tell you beyond a doubt that I’d catch a bullet for them.

It is hard sometimes, though. My father-in-law is a long-time, hardcore alcoholic in the first stage of recovery (again), and it’s been an emotional ordeal to let him hit rock bottom. Knowing that helping him involves holding off on short-term help (enabling) in favor of solutions that are long-term makes it bearable, but definitely not easy.

I would argue that love is definitely always an emotion, though. It makes us do things that we hate. Makes us attempt things that are beyond our capabilities. Makes us defy logic, reason, and wisdom. Makes us put our concerns for ourselves aside and act solely for the benefit of someone else. Only an emotion can do that.

437

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I would argue that love is definitely always an emotion, though. It makes us do things that we hate. Makes us attempt things that are beyond our capabilities. Makes us defy logic, reason, and wisdom. Makes us put our concerns for ourselves aside and act solely for the benefit of someone else. Only an emotion can do that.[/quote]Define “emotion” for me if you would please before I go off talking about something you don’t mean. A biblical definition would be preferable.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I don’t recall ever making a conscious decision to love or not to love someone. >>>[/quote]I do. Many times. Usually in response to the Holy Spirit leading me to intercede and care for somebody. There’s plenty of emotion involved in that and much hurt, but that does NOT dictate my choices or actions. It follows them.

438

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
As I said in another thread:

Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Love each other as He loves us.[/quote]
Is “love” in this context an emotion?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting question. Why would it not be? Is love not the greatest of all emotions?[/quote]

It is, but it isn’t always an emotion. Many times, it’s a choice. Many times it’s hard. As much as it can lift you, it can also break you. Love is many things.[/quote]
I don’t recall ever making a conscious decision to love or not to love someone. There have been people whom I just couldn’t bring myself to love, but it was not a choice on my part. I still wish them the very best (that is, I pray they’ll turn their lives around and see just how badly they’ve treated others), but I could not tell you beyond a doubt that I’d catch a bullet for them.

It is hard sometimes, though. My father-in-law is a long-time, hardcore alcoholic in the first stage of recovery (again), and it’s been an emotional ordeal to let him hit rock bottom. Knowing that helping him involves holding off on short-term help (enabling) in favor of solutions that are long-term makes it bearable, but definitely not easy.

I would argue that love is definitely always an emotion, though. It makes us do things that we hate. Makes us attempt things that are beyond our capabilities. Makes us defy logic, reason, and wisdom. Makes us put our concerns for ourselves aside and act solely for the benefit of someone else. Only an emotion can do that.[/quote]

Maybe not initially, but there are all kinds of love. Like, ‘love your enemy’, it’s a choice. You sure as hell do feel like loving them. But you choose to do it. That’s certainly not based on feeling when every fiber of your being wants to hate, you choose to love.

439

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Maybe I used the wrong term. I’m referring to one person’s general disposition toward another person.

I know exactly what you mean, but is it your love for the person causing you to act, or your love for God?

440

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe not initially, but there are all kinds of love. Like, ‘love your enemy’, it’s a choice. You sure as hell do feel like loving them. But you choose to do it. That’s certainly not based on feeling when every fiber of your being wants to hate, you choose to love.[/quote]
Probably the one rule I have the most trouble with, personally. My love for Christ and the Father causes me to act in a loving, forgiving manner toward those I would consider to be my enemies, but I don’t feel any love for them, as far as affection goes.