Comment: Not to get...

(See in situ)

Not to get...

...too far off into a theological discussion here; but I agree that love is not love without justice.

Non-love always brings punishment with it; there is no escaping that natural law consequence. Those who are not reconciled to Love will experience whatever hell that entails in their particular case, both now and in the age to come.

I'm not arguing against there being any punishment, or consequence to violations of Love -- what I would say, though, is that mere punishment and suffering is not justice. True justice is the righting of a wrong. That can only be accomplished by the restoration of Love between the offender and the victim(s). And that can only be accomplished in turn by two other things:

- repentance on the part of the offender, desiring to restore right relationship, Love

- forgiveness/mercy on the part of the victim, desiring to restore right relationship

If either or both of these are missing, you do not have justice, or the righting of the wrong. Punishment does not bring justice unless it facilitates restoration. Mere retribution is not Love.

Someone who would rather that a murderer burn in hell forever than for them to yet be reached and transformed by Love, if possible, does not have Love in their heart towards that person. Love always seeks a way to right wrongs, to restore the good. Love always hopes, never fails.

I understand if someone thinks it not possible for whatever reason, but wishes it could be otherwise. I cannot relate to someone who doesn't care if it's possible or not but would rather the person never be reconciled.

My analogy is just pointing out that it would be very odd for a 'Liberty-minded' person to not at least have their heart always oriented towards pushing back the State at every point possible, wishing that they could just be stateless, and live and let live. Even if they're a minarchist and don't think it feasible to go completely stateless, it would be strange if it turned out that the 'necessary evil' was actually not necessary, and they still craved the evil anyway.

It would be like saying you understand the 'necessary evil' of self-defense in a world where there are aggressors but not actually desiring that there was no need of it. (A Theodore Roosevelt would be disappointed if there was too much peace -- not enough of the martial glory, etc.)