Why do you hate yourself, somegirl?  Do you mean that you hate some of your actions or inactions?  Hating self is not a good thing and therefore hating another would not be a good corrolary, IMO...cms

One cannot learn to love another until one loves ones self.  We have to learn to accept ourselves first just as God has.

Shalom

Mate

 I am not sure if she means that SHE herself suffers from self-hatred. I believe it is a hypothetical question. (am I right Somegirl?)

that's the way I took it too

The answer is yes, though you might find that expressing love for your neighbor increases your love for your self. Perhaps a better and more self-correcting commandment would be to love thyself as thy neighbor.

It could, of course, depend on which version one wishes to follow

In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.    Matt 7:12

Even in my literal mind, this is less vague than the whole fuzzy love concept.  This is about actions not feelings. 

I think this one is even clearer but it says the same thing....

This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you.
Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BC

And then there is the Wiccan Rede, which is my personal favourite, An it harm none, do what ye will.  Simple, concise and about action not thought.

It really is common sense and it never ceases to amaze me that even though it is found in every culture, over thousands of years, it remains difficult to achieve.  

LB

When I was a child I was taught:  Jesus first, Others second, Yourself last, and you would have JOY.  When I taught Sunday School and this suggestion came up for a little craft, I refused to teach it and substituted something else.  Because I don't believe that a person finds JOY by putting themselves last.  I believe that we find JOY and WHOLENESS and COMPLETENESS by living in harmony, by giving equal importance to self and others.

Remember - You are important.  You are a beloved child of God.  You matter.  And since God loves you, believe in that love, trust in that love, experience that love.  Let it surround you. 

Then learn to love yourself and I believe that a love for God and for others will follow. 

Another Sunday School saying - one I agree with - God didn't make junk. 

Somegirl...if you hate yourself it is almost certain you'll hate your neighbor to some degree. 

The one reason I can tolerate judgemental bigots at all, is my belief that they are suffering under a load of self-judgement. 

We're never told to "love" our neighbour. Unfortunately, as long as we cling to that translation, we'll always have the question of the opposite - hate.

I'm not quite sure how we let go of it, though. People who have relinquished all other traditional dogma still hang onto this one with dogged determination.

As LBM has noted, there are renditions of "Do Unto Others" in every religion as far back as we can go. That's not quite, however, the same thing as the message of the "Greatest commandment".

"Agape" is more akin to "relationship" than "love". So we're being told to recognize that we're in a relationship with our neighbour that is as close as if our neighbour were part of our own bodies. That's not a matter of "love" or "hate". Its simply an acknowledgement that no matter what we do, good or bad, it will have an effect on our neighbour just as surely as it will have an effect on ourselves.

The universal presence of "do unto other" or "don't do unto other" statements is the handbook on how we live out that relationship.

Someone who "hates" themselves still, if they wish to follow the "Golden Rule" does not have the luxury of "hating' the other, since complicit in the concept is to determine what the "other", the neighbour, would want done.

For me, one of the problems with the Principle of Mutuality/Golden Rule is that it has become such a cliche that we never truly delve into the depths of what it's saying.

For the record, no I do not hate myself, but I have in the past and have some experience with that mind set.

RevJohn, I thought that the golden rule and love thy neighbor were two different things, but either way the question remains.  If I have a relationship with my neighbor that is as close as if they were a part of my own body and I hate myself and my body,  it seems to be that to hate my neighbor is to follow that.  Also if I were full of self hate, to treat others as I would be treated would be to not treat others very well because I would expect and desire to be treated badly because that is what I would feel that I deserve.

You wouldn't really want to be treated badly though would you? Surely there is hope in being nice to people. Make the world the way you want it to be. Karma: put out goodness and it will come back to you. Show kindness and people will be kind to you. You don't need to automatically hate thy neighbour if you hate thyself. You can even feel very fondly for them while hating yourself. Of cource you can hate your neighbour if they're no good rotten scoundrels. I don't think we should go out of our way to be loving to neighbours or strangers, but I like to perpetuate niceness, by being pleasant to people. Still I don't make too much effort to be loving to people. Just polite and friendly. But if I don't feel like being seen or being nice, then I just stay out of the way! It's better than being angry or rude, they allways get back at you for it and make you feel worse!

SO in other words I think the "Love they neighbour as you love thyself" statement is faulty. You can tell people who follow that edict when they're super giving towards you for no good reason. Still it can be nice if it is genuine. That takes a pretty special kind of person though I think, someone who knows all humanity's failings.

I supose though, in some cases self loathing people do often hate everyone else, and that is a really sad situation. It must be hard to help those people.

Elanorgold, I think that was kind of the point I was trying to make.  Wouldn't it make more sense to just say "be nice"?  I tell my son to always be polite, no matter how he feels about the person he is dealing with.  I try, and fail sometimes, to do the same. 

To turn things back on the feelings one has for one's self doesn't make sense.  I get the feeling from doing that it is licence to get in a fight if I feel crappy and am itching for one.  I want to be fought and I want to fight so to egg my neighbor into fighting with me is fine by that logic.

I understand that there may be deeper layers to the golden rule and love thy neighbor but I don't understand how it can be understood one way on the surface and a completely different way if looked into deeper.  Should not looking into it deeper only reveal different facets not a completely different thing?

Love is a verb

That which inhibits is not Love.

Love liberates.

Be forgiving of self and others.

Heh somegirl...good thread.... One thing...i think the beard confused you...that is GoldenRule, not revjohn...

LB...I love that quote..thanks..may be my mantra this week.

Just thought of this quote from fictitional shaman Leonard on Northern Exposure, "Self loathing is the single worst crime of all. Do you think Hitler liked himself? Stalin? Cortez? We hate others, because we hate ourselves. Perhaps the christian scripture put it best, 'love, casts out evil'. You can't be a healer Ed, until you learn to love yourself."

It would be great to ALWAYS love yourself and your neighbour.

Realistically, most of us have our good days and our bad days. When I'm feeling good about myself I have no trouble loving my neighbour. On my "bad" days the best my neighbour can hope for is politeness.

Fortunately for my neighbour there are more good days than bad days!

Well, Pilgrims Progress, in the land down under, the land of endless summer, people naturally have more good days than bad.

But here in Canada, in March, which is supposed to be springtime, we still have a foot-and-a-half of snow on the ground!

Where is the summer, the unimaginable

Zero summer?

-T.S. Eliot

according to bible scripture. we don't belong to ourselves. we are God's property. so we are not allowed to destroy ourselves therefore if you cannot hate yourself, you can not hate others. besides why would you want to. enjoy God's blessings. learn his ways. and enjoy your life as you please him. this brings ultimate peace and joy. even in a crazy world

And as your neighbour that is all I want.  I don't want hugs and kisses.  All I ask is that you refrain from tossing kiwis at me.

It really is a shame that the ancient writers could not foresee that their fellow humans were such a pedantic lot.  Perhaps the greater shame was that they did not write down the admonishments of their mothers and grandmothers - keep your hands in your pockets.  The latter rendition possibly opening the door to a whole new path to self love and peace on earth.

Although one must admit Love your God and keep your hands in your pocket does lack the poetry of those that were written.

LB

Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin, as self-neglecting.    

William Shakespeare

Love and hate are legitimate human emotions. They exist for a reason. And they therfore need to be reasonable.

If one loves (or hates) for no reason, the state of behavior is sociopathic.

Reading this thread, there seem to be a lot of unqualified love being tossed around.

What is the value of any directed emotion if it is unearned or unjustified?

You are not alone in that thought. In fact, whole philosophies and religions have been built in the desparate effort to distract us from the connection between the two. After all, if faith is as simple as recognizing and living out the relationship we have with all of Creation, how can we justify jealousy, or prejudice, or condemning those we don't like?

Your analogy would be true enough if the concept we're talking about were self-centered. But it isn't. It's "other-centered".  Think of it this way - what is the first thing that you "would have others do unto you"? Is it not to get to know you? To understand what you want?  After all, even if what you want the "other" to get into a fight with you, they have to get to know you well enough to realize that.

     Likewise, the first thing we have to do in our relationship with others is to get to know them - otherwise we can't treat them "as they would be treated."

You mention in another post the question "how can something mean one thing on the surface and something entirely different if we go deeper".  Actually, many things in life are like that. Unfortunately we seldom take the time to go into the deeper layers of meaning that underly much of what we take for granted.

In the case of the core value of faith - agape Theos --> agape "the other" --> "treat others as we'd be treated"(and that value appears in all life affirming religions, not just Christianity), I don't think it is so much different when you delve into it deeper. It's more a matter of moving farther and farther from "self" as you become more and more aware of the "other" that is the whole of Creation.

Does that make sense?

David

PS - I may not be back on again for several days, so my apologies if I do not reply further for a while. This is a subject near and dear to my heart and I hope to be able to participate further shortly.

David

Which is why translating agape as "love" just muddies the waters. We are in relationship with every other thing on the planet. There is no question of "earned" or "justified". If I throw garbage on my neighbour's lawn I affect my neighbour. If I eat the last fish in the ocean, I affect what goes on my neighbour's table, as well as whether dolphins, sharks, etc have a meal. If I strip mine the top of a mountain in Kentucky for the coal, I affect ecosystems across the globe.

Has nothing to do with love, or hate for that matter.

GR,

If one had to internally review a philosophical treatise each time the emotion of love/hate was about to be evoked, we'd be frozen in thought beyond the time of an action being reasonable.

Humans, and the world we live in, operate at a much more instinctive level. They have to. 

Self hatred is a learned, habitual, assumed behaviour.  It can, therefore, be dehabituated provided you have a plan for rehabituation.  By getting out of yourself, loving your neighbour, you can apply this new behaviour and attitude to yourself.  You can learn, through this action, to put off self-hatred and put on self-acceptance.  Identifying your strengths and reinforcing them aloud in front of a mirror is one means of changing your current thoughts and actions.  Forgiving yourself is foundational.  It's a long process, but it can be done.  Bon Chance. - Pierre

And with that, so much for another good glass of scotch

Altough - just to be a stickler for detail - did they have pockets when these things were written??

Love God and keep your hand under your robe??  I think I better quit while I'm behind.

Fair enough.  agape=unconditional positive respect  ?  I think I can understand it as being separate from love/hate emotions in that definition.

LL&P

Spock

Hey!!! I thought she was complimenting me!  Thought I might actually have to lose the beard for awhile, but looking like I get to keep it. woo hoo! (Drinking mead without a beard just doesn't provide the same spiritual connection to my ancestors)

Unconditional yes - not necessarily positive, although the sense is there that we should work to eliminate the negative.

Here's an example - intentionally taking us outside of "one to one" relationships.

We are in relationship with the pirates who highjack ships off the coast of Somalia. The ransom they get adds to the costs we pay for goods. Sometimes people are killed. So its not a positive relationship. We can ignore it, and simply continue to pay the ransom as a sort of tax, and chalk the deaths up to the hazards of the job. Or we can take steps to change the relationship into something more positive, by retaliating against the pirates, or by changing the situation in the country so that pirating becomes less attractive. The one thing we can't do, ever, is sever the relationship.

Does that make sense?

David

please define  "agape"  as it applies to everyone.

I am confused by the meaning of the word.

I think you're selling humanity a bit short there. There are indeed times when we "act without thinking" but they're not as common as you seem to be proposing. Most of the time we do consider the consequences of our actions. That we can never know all of potential ramifications doesn't prevent us from doing our best.

Here's a simplistic example - why do people walking down the street go out of their way to put garbage in a trash can? After all, the chip bag (for example) will surely blow away before you walk back that way. It's not going to interfere with you in any way if you just drop it on the ground. And yet we take the time (again not always, not perfectly) to engage in that small act of societal relationship.

It's the Greek word most often used in the NT when the writers are talking about relationship. I'm not at a computer where I can accent the "e" as it should be. a - gop - eh.  Common useage generally translates it as "spiritual love". However, some years ago I became fascinated by the presence of the "Golden Rule" in every human moral construct whether religious or secular. So I started delving into what commonality might underly that simple statement. Coming from a North American liberal Christian background, I could most easily connect to my own traditions.

 As I studied the underlying meaning of "love" in the NT I came to realize that agape, which is most commonly translated as "spiritual love" didn't mean that at all. Keeping "love" as the noun, whether we added "spiritual" or "unconditional" or anything else missed the intent, since "love" comes with all the baggage that we've seen discussed in this thread and elsewhere.

Agape is the inseverable relationship that each and every one of us has with each other, and with every other part of Creation.

Belief in God is not required. The Humanist Society for instance, acknowledges the "interconnectedness of all things".

Sorry for the long ramble but I thought that it might be helpful to know where I came from to get to that. Hope it clarifies a bit.

David

Hi somegirl,

I would argue that you are not at liberty at all.  Liberty suggest freedom and if you hate or are indifferent towards yourself you aren't free you are apathetic.

If you hate or are indifferent to yourself I would be shocked to find that you were anything other than hateful or indifferent to your neighbour.

While GoldenRule is playing with translation when he says that we are not commanded to love our neighbours trying to turn agape into permission to hate requires more than playing with translation.  It necessitates the invention of a new and previously unheard of definition for agape.

Moving outside of the literal bounds of the second great commandment Jesus is very clear about how we are to treat our enemies (who also happen to be our neighbours in some fashion or another) and it isn't with hate or indifference.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Actually, the scientific evidence points to human action being 99% 'unconsciously' driven. Think about breathing or metabolising that sugar molecule currently residing in your liver.  Now extrapolate that to flexing the myriad muscles in your hand as you type the keyboard. All those actions are done without 'thinking'.

The theory goes that every action we take is done to increase our chance of survival (or of those near to us) in a hierarchical way that extends out to our species.

The garbage scenario is an example. Socially, we gain a 'survival point' by being observed to do something which increases the ease with which our community can live comfortably in their environment. Our kin like that. We get a credit for it, socially. And consequently, that credit has the potential to make our life easier at sometime in the future.

Hi GoldenRule,

She must have been.  If she was comparing the two of us favourably it must be because your post sparkled with wit and wisdom.

Nothing else comes even close to making as much sense.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:37-39

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 Romans 13:8-10

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.  Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:17-19

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:  But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

James 2:8-9

Emphasis mine

And translation King James. Your point being... ?

You DO know that the NT wasn't written in Ye Olde Englishe I'm sure.

Well yeah, and then you take a cheap shot at my translation. Sheesh. Even when I think your theology is a crock, I'm polite about it. .... ummm.... well.... with some exceptions - grin

Exactly. So no protracted reflection on philosophical treatises is required. I would argue that we can expand the concept beyond th unconcsious, but the principle remains intact, including in the hierarchical extension to not only our species but the environment that supports us.

The separation between "theology" and "science" is not as rigid as proponents of either side would like to think. As you've demonstrated here, there is a scientific basis for the spiritual concept of "we are one".

David

Well its a darn good thing I wasn't trying to turn it into "permission to hate" then isn't it?

As far as "playing with translation" well!!!!! And here I've always treated your pronuncifications (he said, making up words as he goes - after all, if I'm "playing" I might as well enjoy it - grin) with respect. Indeed!

In any case, the whole "god is love" thing is, to me, just too much like some cotton candy dream from the 60s. Or at least, that's what its devolved to.

I do not understand, nor do I find in Scripture, a God who wants us all to walk around smiling and nodding and being "in love" with everything no matter how objectionable.  I do find a God who says that, no matter how objectionable some things may be, we are connected to it/them. So turning our backs on that part of life or pretending its not there is not an option. Bending ourselves to the task of transforming ourselves, and the world, so that the relationship we cannot escape is as positive as possible, is the only rational course.

dup

My point being that you made the rediculous statement that we are not told to love our neighbours. My point being that you want to play word games (an accusation you hurl around here at others) about what agape really means. Who gives a rip? Love is love and we are told to love others as we love ourselves. When Jesus said that the second commandment is to "love thy neighbour as you love yourself," He was not playing word games. Nor was He palying word games when He said that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. The second commandment is like unto it.

Yes I know that the New Testament was not written in English. But I believe that the words of Jesus transcends ALL languages.

Hi consumingfire V3.0,

Well, you, for starters.  Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding.

For the most part we understand of scripture what we are able to read of it.  Translations also interpret.  Which is part of the problem.  English, with respect to understanding love, is deficient.

In English love is love.  That is not quite so in the Greek where they have different words which we capture in the English as "Love".  The same holds true for "hell" and if you really strive to understand what Jesus says (because I agree with you it does transcend all language) you are forced to accept that both you and I are bound by it.

We understand words to mean certain things based on dictionary definitions and the like.

The definition of agape is reflected in part but imperfectly in many English definitions of love.

Read KJV 1 Corinthians 13 to see that translation/interpretation in action.  Unless you have the NKJV you won't be reading about love you will read about charity.  In this the KJV gets the aspect of agape that is other driven, however; working the other way one would expect to read "storge" in the Greek text rather than "agape."

With four different Greek words that translate into the English "love" knowing what is going on in the Greek is more important than is knowing what is going on in the KJV.  John 21:  15-17 reads differently in the Greek than it does in the English and because of that opens the reader to different understandings about what is going on and what Jesus means by what he says.

Words have meaning.

They are important.

If that were not so the tongue wouldn't be anywhere nearly as dangerous as it is understood to be in scripture.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Which would be fair enough if that was actually what he said, as opposed to what King James' boys wrote. I agree with you though in that the Gospel writers were not playing word games. It's simply that we've lost a lot of what was intended since English does not have the nuances that the original Greek, or Aramaic for that matter, had.

As far as that goes, even the context is sometimes lost - although I agree with you that it's not so much the case in this particular passage. Things that were assumed to be known, as part of the society, are no longer understood the same way. So we have to take the time to recover the context as well as the word, or words, that bring us closer to the meaning.

Beyond that .... what John said.  

True enough. Although my post was meant to address the claim that GR made that we are not told to love our neighbour. I realize that in the KJV 1 Corinthians 13 uses charity instead of love. One could argue however that acting in charity is acting in love. And in all the translations I have, from formal equivalence to dynamic equivalence, from KJV to TNIV, the above scrpiture I presented does say, "love thy neighbour"

Perhaps I have gone overboard?

GoldenRule. If I have been rude to you (and it seems that I have) I do apologize. It's not my intent. 

Could we come to an accord however that God is love and Jesus loved without condition, and as Christians we need to strive to be as loving as we can to our neighbours? That surely is something that would be beyond "interpretation"

No worries my friend. I know I get under your skin by times. No offence intended on my part, and certainly none taken from anything you've ever posted.

I hesitate to seem as though I'm rejecting your olive branch my friend. I can go as far as to say that I agree with you given the meaning of "love" that most people use when talking about faith.

I don' think however that Jesus "loved without condition". There were many things to which Jesus was written as being vehemently opposed to. Remember the "generation of vipers" comments, not to mention taking a whip to the money changers.

Those are a couple of examples of what led me to question the whole "love" statement in the first place actually. I'm not a big fan of "I love you therefore I beat you" thinking. I've known people in that situation and its not in any way positive. So the question for me became "what the heck is this really saying" which is what led to several years of study and reflection and eventually to the understanding that I share here.

cf, thanks, sincerely, for extending the olive branch. I hope that we can continue to exchange notes, even occasionally barbed ones, to the expansion of both of our understandings.

David

1) But does being vehemently opposed to something automatically make a person not love without condition? Yes Jesus made a whip of cords, but did He actually strike anybody with it? I do not recall reading that He did. He certainly chased the money changers with it, but to be fair, they were turning God's house into basically a bank.

2) I think we can.