continued:
I’m all ears:
What on earth are you talking about? I have done no such thing! It is quite possible that I am entirely wrong on this matter and it is I who need to change my view.
I am not in a position to judge another’s faith and I have not done so.
Just because I am honest enough to tell the world that the opinions of some others has evoked a feeling of shock (and what ever the other noun is) does not mean I am passing judgement on anyone.
How can you say such a thing?
Shall I trawl through your discussions with Calvinists and accuse you of what you are accusing me? God forbid that I should resort to such tactics rather than engage in profitable debate so that we may learn from each other. Please!
I repeat that I have done no more than be honest about the feelings evoked within me. That does not make me right, nor does it in anyway imply that I think I MUST be right and all others wrong. If that is ‘arrogance’.
Furthermore, I have no idea why you should think of dealing favourably towards me because I am a “fellow Brit”. I will take that as an attempt at some sort of jest but, considering your rebuke, it is hardly a time for jesting.
Again, in the context, I am perfectly happy to state that the only difference between ‘dislike’ and ‘hate’ is a matter of degree. I hope that answers your question.
I’m not sure what that means. It comes across as rather rude but perhaps it was not meant to be.
Perhaps it means that you do not want to discuss this topic further with me? I don’t know but personally, I would like to see if we CAN make real progress and perhaps that would be most likely if we could discuss, civily on a one-to-one thread, just you and myself?
I honestly feel that it would be a real breakthrough for this little community if we could make progress on this issue and I am willing to learn.
I believe that true christian love towards another must include some positive emotion (affection) for that other.
You believe that true christian love does not have to contain any positive emotion but may indeed include some negative emotion (ie disliking) towards the other.
Why do you say “it is all indeed a question of semantics”?
I believe it is a vital issue and may be important as the issue of Calvinism
God bless you Johnny
Bret
Thanks so much for your post. I love the way you speak from the heart, and with such honesty.
To me it’s a no brainer that loving need not necessarily involve liking. John (Pilgrim) disagrees with me, as is his right. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to abandon the debate, as I do think it’s a worthwhile and hopefully enlightening one. I don’t *think *that will be the case, as I know John to be a good soul who, like me (I trust) and all the rest of us, is doing his best to be true to the light God has given him. We may ‘get into it’ pretty good at times - indeed I am about to plunge back into the fray with him now - but I value his fellowship and do not wish to do (or say, or should that be write? 
) anything that might sever it.
Peace and love
Johnny
Hi John
Thanks for taking the trouble to write such a detailed response to my diatribe. I meant what I said in my last post to Bret: I value your fellowship, and I’m sure you are a good man doing his best to follow the light you’ve been given. I find you a highly stimulating debater, with interesting and challenging opinions. I also think honest disagreement - argument - is a good and healthy thing.
And as fellow natives of God’s own country, the land of the Beatles, cricket and warm beer, it is our bounden duty to play up, play up and play the game, don’t you agree?
Don’t know how familiar you are with the peerless Dr Strangelove, but there’s a scene in it when Sterling Hayden’s mad General Ripper holds a gun on Peter Sellers’ stiff-upper-lip RAF Officer Mandrake. Sellers gives him the most wonderfully British public school stare and says “Do I take it, sir, that you are threatening a brother officer with a gun?” Brother officer! Hilarious.
John, humour is my stock in trade, as you know. And far from the occasion of a rebuke “hardly [being] a time for jesting,” I would say it is precisely the time when we ought to be jesting. If music has the charms to soothe a savage breast, I’d say laughing at ourselves has the same beneficial, mollifying effect. I’m sorry if you disagree, or don’t feel that any levity can be introduced into a fundamentally serious discussion. But in much the same way that you cannot help being honest about your feelings (and bravo for that), I cannot help being a sarcastic and flippant old git on occasion. I yam what I yam, as a famous man once said.
Okay, if I really tried hard I could play every conversation with a face as straight as the rope that hangs a very fat man. But if I did that I wouldn’t be being true to myself. And being true to ourselves, I would suggest, is at the heart of this debate.
Thank you for reminding me of the usefulness of the quote button. While not wishing to blow my own trumpet, I would point out that I have somehow managed to operate said button quite successfully on no small number of occasions in the past. But I confess this could easily have been the result of an unusually long streak of beginner’s luck.
Actually, it may interest you to learn that where I come from we use these funny little marks – we call them inverted commas – to indicate that we are quoting a word or phrase. Here’s an example:
“I am now hopeful that we might make progress, particularly with Johnny’s help and by the grace of God.”
You said that. I interpreted (dangerous, I know!) your comment as indicating that you and I specifically were already making at least some progress in understanding where we were each coming from – notwithstanding the consensus reached with other posters on the thread. I was wrong. Sorry. You’ve made it quite clear that as far as you are concerned no such even remotely incipient understanding had been reached.
But enough of this semantic persiflage . Let us cut to the chase here.
I said:
(Nailed that quote button again! I’m on a roll!)
To which your response was:
(And again! Man, I’m hotter than a fox!)
Now, I can see only three plausible explanations for you responding as you did:
- You recognise the deliberately offensive implications of what you have said, but rather than be a man and admit your intent you instead feign innocence, adopting a specious attitude of outrage to add credence to the deception.
And just to make this nice and sparkling clear, those offensive implications – and I emphasise that they are implications, not outright accusations (although of course the end result is the same) – are that a ‘christian’ who denies that agape love must necessarily involve an emotional component isn’t a true Christian at all. That, John, is what the epithet “so called” means. And given that I, along with others on this thread, openly maintain this position, your use of said epithet is therefore an implied slur on the veracity of our faith: it is bogus, or at the very least inferior to the faith of somebody – somebody like you (whence the suggestion of arrogance) – who affirms that agape love necessarily includes that emotional component.
However, I gladly discount this explanation out of hand. It is entirely unworthy of the good soul I know you to be.
- You recognise the inadvertently offensive implications of what you have said, but for some reason – embarrassment, perhaps, or stubbornness – you are unwilling to acknowledge your error. Hence, on the principle that attack is the best form of defence, you attempt to bluster your way out of the situation, in the process rather uncharitably alluding to some putative oratorical faux pas of my own in other threads.
Again, unworthy of you, John, and I reject it.
Which leaves me with –
- You are really and truly blind to the offensive implications of your statement. Strange, very strange. But I guess we are all blind to some truths, sometimes.
Assuming that I am right, you need only acknowledge that and we can move on. We all make mistakes, say things we didn’t really mean – or meant at the time and subsequently regretted. I do it a lot, especially in the heat of debate. I’ve suffered from foot in mouth disease for most of my adult life. (You probably noticed.)
And if I am wrong, well, I trust you will enlighten me as to the correct explanation. Once we’ve got what I’m sure is only a misunderstanding cleared up, hopefully we can continue with debating the other, more important issues raised.
All the best
Johnny
A good principle that backs up the notion of loving but not liking is simply
‘‘love the sinner hate the sin’’ 
Johnny wrote:
I replied:
Johnny quoted me previously (after many days without Johnny’s input on this thread but Johnny having just arrived) as saying:
Johnny’s latest reply:
I am now going to attempt to reply in the manner of Johnny’s last post so that you/Johnny can feel whether you think it is conducive to helpful discussion. Please note that I am hesitant to do this and will put it in a different colour. I will also only do it once and briefly although the style pervades the whole of Johnny’s reply:
Now, I can see only two plausible explanations for you responding as you did:
a) despite having no grounds you faked surprise (puzzlement) in order to belittle or put pressure on your opponent psychologically (now being the good fellow I know you to be, and of fine British stock I know this cannot be the case old chappy )
b) you genuinely made a mistake, an error of memory and thought that I had changed my stance but are now too embarrassed to acknowledge that and so, due to stubborness or hardness of heart or whatever, you try to persuade that my phrase could be interpreted in the past tense and that it actually meant something entirely different in that it had become a reality.
It doesn’t make any sense. You are a wordsmith and there were no grounds to imagine that I had changed my stance.
Johnny:
I have extracted that from a paragraph to acknowledge your admission and in the hope that we can move on I appreciate the admission.
And I too enjoy humour but I must try to use it carefully (see above). When you are trying to put a
debating opponent down (possibly legitimately), the way the humour is injected will make the difference between lightening the situation for your debater or rubbing in your ‘morally superior’ position (ie laughing with as opposed to laughing at)
Me too but hopefully we will learn from one another.
Years ago, I stopped calling anyone ‘christian’ (unless it was in a situation that demanded brevity and very simple categorisation as in, say, hospital admission) because I, like some other posters on this forum, realise that word is loaded and means so many things to so many people. More importantly, I do not call myself a Christian (having read Simone Weil which I recommend). I call myself a ‘pilgrim’ but I do not think that I am in position to judge myself worthy of the title ‘christian’.
From the other thread:
I will not be the judge of who is saved and who isn’t. I refuse to be pressurised into doing so by you. I do not see it as an insult if someone refers to me as a ‘so called’ christian. It is a matter of fact that I am frequently so called. It is you who is reading more into the term ‘so called’. I can accept that my term “so called christian” in this context may have come across strongly but it is a term which I use for myself and am happy for others to use about me.
Further, lets look at the remainder of my sentence:
Do you recall anyone on this thread or the other who this may refer to? I honestly don’t know of anyone who has pushed their position this far (ie to the extent of being content to harbour feelings of hatred). I am testing the water to see if someone is actually in this position but at present I know of no-one.
So, you are objecting to me making a statement about a fictitious person on the grounds of?? of what?
Your categories are as helpful as mine (in purple) to you and are not conducive to making progress on what I see as a vital issue.
I stand by my previous statement:
But I accept that the “so Called” term was something that I STILL hadn’t ‘reflected on’ until you had pointed it out today and so I thank you for that and will try to be more thoughtful how/when I use it in future.
So, I will post the position we have reached thus far in my next post
God bless you Johnny
All quotes from Johnny:
You have certainly stated that the word ‘like’ has many connotations and so I find it quite incomprehensible why you wish to separate it from context. I for one, have used it continually in this thread as it was used in the context originally.
I disagree with your statement “having a preference for their company”. There is no need to introduce comparisons in the definition of like. It muddies the waters and is unnecessary.
I agree with your statement “having affection for/towards them”
You talk of me conflating? There is no need to insist on shared interests and shared passions. This goes beyond “affection towards” which is a simple and clear definition.
Your apparent need to go beyond simple “like” is interesting.
Again, it is interesting that you again go beyond “liking” to “liking to spend time with”. The English itself clearly demonstrates how you wish to extend the simple definition of “having affection for” to “having affection for spending time with”.
As for “cuckold”, I am not familiar with the word but if you mean, would I want to spend time with someone who has wronged me, the answer is (or should be from a christian viewpoint IMO) yes! I would want to get to know them better and hope that they would get to know me better so that we can understand each other and any causes of differences.
No, not anywhere near ‘fair enough’ and I am extremely keen to deal with your Hindley example but I must save it for later.
Firstly, we must be clear on the definition of ‘like’ in this context.
I also repeat, that I believe that it would be useful to have a one-on-one discussion with you Johnny so that the discussion flows well and progress is made.
Hi Stuart
I agree with “love the sinner, hate the sin” but this thread is titled badly (my fault), it should be “Should we in all Godliness be able to Love a person whilst as the same time disliking the person”
My position is that I cannot in all Godliness do that.
God bless you - I find your posts amazingly stimulating.
Hi John
I appreciate your parody of my posting style. After all, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery . And anyway, I’m happy to have the Michael extracted from me; I dish it out, so I must take it back in, otherwise I’d have to add hypocrisy (or should I say even more hypocrisy) to my already far too lengthy list of faults.
I also appreciate you acknowledging that humour does indeed have a place in debate. I don’t see how you extrapolate from “laughing at ourselves” to “rubbing in [my] ‘morally superior’ position”, but never mind.
It really is time to move on, lest this conversation degenerate totally into a second-rate version of the Monty Python ‘argument sketch’. (Extract - Michael Palin: “Argument is a connnected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.” John Cleese: “No it isn’t.”)
Therefore - as your flawed brother in Christ - I offer you the following apology, no sarcasm or irony intended, straight up, no chaser:
I’m sorry if anything I’ve written in this recent exchange has upset or offended you. I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has been less than 100% honest. I’m sorry if I’ve inadvertently or wilfully misunderstood or misinterpreted either your overt or implied intent in anything you have said.
I would very much like to continue the debate with you about the real issue at hand - can we love while disliking? I see the merit in your suggestion that this be done on a one-to-one basis. But equally I see the value in having others join in as well. If you’ll bear with me I will try and respond properly to some of the points you made in your last post as soon as I have time.
All the best to you, John, and God bless you too.
Peace and love
Johnny
Johnny, you have done me good just reminding me of that classic sketch from the Monty Python Team and, whilst thinking of professional comics, it was a sad day yesterday to hear that Eric Sykes was dead. No doubt he is unknown to many outside of the UK but his humour was gentle and clever. I remember watching his film “The Plank” many years ago in my youth. I also listened to Kenn Dodd live in Scarborough about 11 months ago. It was fascinating to watch a true professional at work - someone who isn’t just famous for being famous.
I hope and pray that one day I might meet them all in person with the reconciliation of all etc.
Likewise I’m also sorry if anything I’ve written in this recent exchange has upset or offended you. I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has been less than 100% honest. I’m sorry if I’ve inadvertently or wilfully misunderstood or misinterpreted either your overt or implied intent in anything you have said.
I wonder if the authorities would accept a fresh start with the more clear title:
“Is it possible, in all Godliness, for us to Love a person as we ought whilst as the same time harbouring nothing but feelings of dislike towards that person?”
As for one-to-one, I think that would be the way quickest progress could be made and if you really feel that you are not up to the job, then I would be happy to go against almost any other member.
The only alternative would be one-to many which is probably much more slow and tiresome (or do I mean tiring?).
God bless you and thank you for your gracious response
why thank-you , I am glad that what I put forward makes you think !, this is the way it should be unfortunately that simply isn’t the case with a good percentage of christians and their tightly held beliefs - for a monthy ongoing subscription I’ll keep them coming [tax deductible of course] and if you subscribe now I’ll send you this miracle prayer cloth that can even raise your neighbours pets from the dead 
but on a serious note I do understand that that is what the topic at hand is, now perhaps for yourself you can’t do that but that is distant to, weather or not the notion of loving a person is not necessarily the same as liking them !,which is why I believe my quote on a basic level supports the gist of what is being said.
Hi John
Thanks so much for your last post. You’re a good egg, John, and I really do value and enjoy our discussions. If I may be so bold, I feel you are a kindred spirit (nationality notwithstanding ), in that you are not afraid to speak frankly and honestly about what you believe, even if to do so risks criticism or even opprobrium from others.
Not that anything you’ve said in this thread ‘deserves’ to elicit such a response. I’m really sorry I got, unnecessarily and unfairly, on my high horse earlier. I love the stimulus of a good argument (Python or common variety ), but sometimes I lose sight of the wood for the trees.
I don’t wish to offer any excuses for how I’ve spoken on this thread. I do honestly believe that it is possible to love, in the agape sense, without liking. And I hope, in due course, to put forward a persuasive case for my beliefs.
But to be quite frank, John, I’m not in a great place, spiritually speaking, at the moment. My faith - and any faith I have is faith in Jesus Christ, the wonderful, amazing Saviour who modelled the God life for us in his few short years on this earth - is very weak at the moment. The death of a very dear man, a retired clergyman and close friend of my parents who has given me great spiritual succour over the years, has knocked me for six. He was 76 years old, and had been ill for some months (a mixed blessing). I don’t have a philosophical or ontological problem with the idea of death. If God has decreed that death is a necessary process in His divine economy, who am I to question that? But when I think about the actual, the real, here and now, in your face, grief of his widow, of his sons, I feel so bloody angry.
I am 48 years old, and like most of us have had to deal with the deaths of a number of loved ones - both family members and friends. The most traumatic of these was the death of my best friend Gareth four years ago, suddenly, from a heart attack. (Hearing the news of Gareth’s death was the single worst moment of my entire life, and his passing was a major factor in my coming to believe in UR.)
But somehow the death of this dear old chap - his name was Martin - has really got to me. My Mum and Dad both turned 70 this year, and I know I must prepare myself for the day when they will leave me to go to be with Christ. But when I contemplate the prospect of losing them I feel quite unmanned. Why does it have to be this way, I ask myself? Surely the God who flung the galaxies into the vastness of space could devise a less painful way of perfecting us?
Sorry to go on, John. And sorry again to have been such an arse earlier.
Peace and love
Johnny
I feel so bloody angry.
perfectly understandable
I ask myself? Surely the God who flung the galaxies into the vastness of space could devise a less painful way of perfecting us?
damn good question , I used to try to devise ways to deflect any and all blame from GOD and in some ways I still believe this is a virtuous exercise but please take comfort in this - for what ever reason GOD has chosen this way
[best of all possible worlds] in which to achieve his outcome that we are all to some extent blind to, you will be reunited with your friend again and he will wipe away every tear ! perhaps then we really will be ‘‘more like Jesus’’
Sorry to go on, John. And sorry again to have been such an arse earlier.
Peace and love
Johnny
Johnny
I assure you that my arse and my arsiness is bigger than yours and you truly are a gentleman. I wish we could meet face to face where (I hope) you might get to like me as well as love me.
Other than that I don’t know what to say. I have just turned 55 and lost both my parents a couple of years ago. They were my rocks, particularly my father who was a Pentecostal minister. My father died slowly of cancer whilst watching his wife sink into the abyss of senile dementia. My mother (or her shell) lasted too long after that. I dream about them frequently and I was with them in a dream last night but none of the dreams are pleasant - my mother still ill and my father weeping for her whilst I am trying to “solve” the problem of the ‘wrongness’ of it all.
I have not yet had to deal with the death of a very close friend or sibling. My heart goes out to you. I will not patronise you by trying to offer you words of condolence which you already know better than myself.
I have just returned to this forum having taken time-out (about a month) due to the opprobrium of another (where I was told that I was even wrong to give an unqualified apology because saying “I apologise” was a way of making excuses for what I had done, but saying “I am sorry” would not have been???) [In truth, I always prefer to use ‘apology’ because it includes culpability whereas ‘I am sorry’ may not, but Ekky Thump, some will see evil where-ever they wish]
I will now take time out again (because I am going to sunny Spain for 10 days and whilst I might have accessed the t’internet I now think it more sensible that I don’t).
For you, it is a time to ‘Stop all the Clocks’, but I pray that God will give you the peace and assurance that Gareth and Martin would, no doubt, wish you to have. I happen to believe that they are now both very alive and very well even though the suffering down here is something else entirely.
God bless you my friend and fellow traveler
Hi John
Thanks for your good wishes, prayers and kind words. They mean a lot. While I will never properly understand the necessity of suffering and loss, I am in no doubt that it is in times of darkness and pain that we find out who our true friends are, and draw great comfort from them. Suffering and pain do bring out a fellowship, an empathy, which is very special. And I thank God for that.
I am very sorry to hear of the difficult loss of your parents. Like you, my Mum and Dad are my rocks, and life without them - even though I have a wonderful wife, and three wonderful brothers - is incomprehensible to me currently. They are staunch Christians (and like you I don’t like using that word about myself, but it is a convenient shorthand as you say), and they have always lived out the unconditional love that is - for me - a characteristic of the Christ-life.
The last time a bunch of us EUs met in South London, Al Smith’s son Chris made that very point - ie can God be less loving than our parents, who love us with an unconditional, ever-forgiving love? I say nay, nay and thrice nay! The notion that God, who is love, could *ever *turn His back on His children, as the Arminians believe, or never loved us in the first place, as the Calvinists believe (horrible, horrible thought) is for me an utter absurdity. I am not a parent. But I am convinced that the bond between a mother or father and their child is, in all except the mentally ill (or perhaps those unfortunates for whom the vicissitudes of a very hard, unloving life have overwhelmed their instinctive feelings of love for their offspring) unbreakable. And as God is the apogee, the absolute exemplar of love, He cannot love less than human parents.
I really hope you can come along to our next meeting. I’m sure we’d all get on like a house on fire. And John, I *already * like you . I just don’t always agree with you ! What was it Voltaire said, I do not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it? Hear hear.
(And quoting Frankie Howerd earlier reminds me that yes, the loss of Eric Sykes was a sad one. You’re right about his humour being gentle, and very funny, and God knows we need more of that in this rotten world. I don’t watch much contemporary comedy on TV - so much of it seems to me to be characterised by a cruelty, a malice (I’m thinking, say, Ricky Gervais or Frankie Boyle; there are many others in the same vein) which neutralises the beneficial effect of laughter in the first place.
My mother suffers very badly from arthritis, and is close to becoming a cripple, but thank the Lord her mental health is very good, and my father is both physically and mentally strong. I pray they, and my brothers and I, will be spared the trials you must have endured with your parents.
Have a wonderful holiday, John. I may follow your lead and take a couple of weeks out from t’interweb. Perhaps once you get back we could indeed resume this particular ‘loving vs liking’ debate on a one-to-one footing.
And how splendid to hear a Yorkshireman use the expression ‘ekky thump’!! Freddie Trueman would be proud!
Grace, peace and love to you, John.
Your friend
Johnny
Hi Stuart
Thanks very much for your kind and supportive words. As I’ve just said in my post to John, it is the love and fellowship and support of fellow believers, fellow travellers such as your good self, which makes the darkness bearable.
And I think you’re correct in saying that we shouldn’t always be looking to devise ways to ‘let God off the hook’ as it were. Of course, we bring suffering on ourselves by our sinful behaviour. But we are born, without so much as a by your leave, into a world full of pain, much of which cannot in any sense be ‘blamed’ on us.
But praise God He knows that - which is why the cross, and Jesus’ passion, are *essential * to any meaningul theodicy. And as you say, Stuart, it will indeed all be gloriously alright one day, and Gareth and I will be reunited in love, as will all temporarily parted friends. That is why I am an Evangelical Universalist!
Peace and love
Johnny
Hello Hello Johnny and John,
This is getting as tight as Murray-Federer!
But please keep it open to all and no doubt the occasional ball will be tossed your way from the side-lines in the hope that a concensus is eventually reached even if it is only to agree to disagree. I may send a story or two, examples that it is possible to love at the same time as disliking (not hating) a person, and even of being disliked by a person.
Sad to read of your losses of loved ones, may they rest in peace and may your memories of them bring you comfort.
My mother and father passed away very peacefully more than ten years ago after 60 years together at 87 and 95 respectively so we were able to focus on celebrating their lives which we still do! Tomorrow another year will have slipped me by and I enter into a new age just past the three quarter mark!
Dear Pilgrim during your time in Spain, if you are in Barcelona it would be great to meet together and, if here during a Sunday, then I hope you would enjoy coming along to St George’s!
Just fior the record John I do hope you agree with Johnny as he suggests
quote I would very much like to continue the debate with you about the real issue at hand - can we love while disliking? I see the merit in your suggestion that this be done on a one-to-one basis. But equally I see the value in having others join in as well. unquote
Affectionately and with prayers,
Michael in Barcelona
Hi Michael
Thanks for your kind message.
I think the reason John suggested a one-to-one dialogue on this very important and sensitive issue is, perhaps, because he is pretty squarely in the minority - at least among the thread participants thus far - in his view that godly agape love must include an element of affection.
Actually, scrub that definition. John has spelt it our more clearly for us -
“Is it possible, in all Godliness, for us to Love a person as we ought whilst as the same time harbouring nothing but feelings of dislike towards that person?”
(There is a difference, which we need to discuss also.)
Anyway, as John is, for the moment, in the minority, I am guessing that he feels he is in a difficult position, a ‘Pilgirm vs the Forum’ position, if you like. But I do feel that it would be wrong to exclude people such as yourself and Stuart who have already made such helpful contributions to the debate.
So I suggest we proceed on this open forum, but taking care not to ‘bombard’ John when we disagree with him. John, would that be acceptable to you?
All the best
Johnny
Hi Stuart
Hear, hear, sir!
Hear, hear and thrice hear, sir!
All the best
Johnny