Very curious question indeed because the popular mantra of  pop psychology over the past couple of decades has advocated that we learn to "love ourselves" in order to be effective within society. On a whole I think we have taken this gobbledygook to the far left and forgot to keep it well grounded and balanced with the inclusion of "loving and serving others".

Too much naval gazing can create just as much imbalance as not being in touch with one's self. Often it can be the acts of extending oneself to help others and society that creates a self reflection that we approve of.

Loving God, neighbour and self - - this could roughly correlate to loving the Creator, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  I agree with Waterfall, there is a need for balance amongst the three.

There is a difference between respecting oneself and self absorption - a distinction often lost.

Low self esteem, lack of confidence and self loathing can be destructive.  The destruction can be turned inward to oneself; depression, suicide, self harm - or out wards; attacking others as a way to offset one's own inadequacies.

Self absorption can be equally destructive but is more directed outward and its impact felt by others.

What I believe that the Golden Rule - found in many, many cultures - is really highlighting is two fold:  For one to find inner peace and self respect toward oneself and to develop empathy for others.  Empathy allows one to step outside of one's own perspective and to embrace the other person's view point and recognize that they have developed their own modes for inner peace and self worth.

I don't think you can have one without the other.  It is difficult to be empathetic if one hates oneself because the projection on others will always be negative; nor can one be empathetic if one is self absorbed because it will be impossible to see the other person.

LB

Yet, taught by time, my heart has learned to glow for other's good, and melt at other's woe.     Homer

So what about the people who hate themselves because they think they are too fat, too skinny, too short etc. Do they play into the pop culture and the mantra that media dish out? =that they are not good enough. They don't love themselves, so because, they are so  focussed on their faults ( that they percieve) they can't love and serve anyone else, what does this passage  say to them>?

LOL lb, we were posting together

Great minds, Crazyheart, great minds

lb states:

What I believe that the Golden Rule - found in many, many cultures - is really highlighting is two fold:  For one to find inner peace and self respect toward oneself and to develop empathy for others.  Empathy allows one to step outside of one's own perspective and to embrace the other person's view point and recognize that they have developed their own modes for inner peace and self worth.

 I agree with this but I wonder how do people find the tools to help them in their own lives. maybe if they could, there would not be as much need for Women's shelters. food banks; jails. Or is this just a Pollyanna outlook.

How , by practicing Agape, can we , as people of the faith, do this?

It would be nice if GoldenRule dropped by.

I don't think empathy embraces someone elses viewpoint, it just understands that this is what the other person embraces.

This poses a connundrum for Christians. Do we want others to "know Jesus" or do we just want to tell them what we believe and leave it at that? Should we even want to tell them what we believe?

CH, "How, by practicing Agape, can we, as people of the faith, do this?"

Well there's the rub. As people of the faith (are you speaking of Christainity?) Should we be talking in generic(humanism) terms in order not to offend anyone? (leaving God and Jesus out of the equation?) Does having empathy remove our responsibility( is it a responsibility?) to offer an alternative? Because sometimes I wonder if the "exodus" we are witnessing from churches is because we are failing to address peoples questions(doubts) by using the bible intelligently because we ourselves have become uncomfortable in proclaiming that Jesus does offer important answers to our lives. Agape is taught in churches, should it be offered (note the word offer, not forced)  in shelters, jails, food banks, because Christians believe that Christ is the answer?

If we were able to re-define God as the cosmic totality, and actually experience IT, and ourselves as an inseparable part of IT, than all would be included in our greater and godly self. Then love of neigbour, love of self, love of environment would all be One Divine Love.

A question poses new questions, People of the faith - I meant any one - Muslims, jews, Christians etc.? Glad you pointed that out Waterfall.

You are right, Waterfall, wrong choice of words - by embrace I meant that I can understand that another person's viewpoint works for them but not necessarily for me.  If I discover another person whose choices have made them content with themselves - even though they would not be choices that I would choose - I need to acknowledge their validity to the other person and not impose my own.

I do not view it as a connundrum.  There is nothing wrong with sharing one's beliefs or even pointing out how such beliefs have led to personal peace.  However when one demands that another follow such a path, threatens them with violence even if it is just the intangible threat of eternal damnation, one has crossed the line of imposing belief on another.

This becomes an issue of control - and there are many reasons why people wish to control others.  It could be a desire to heighten one's own sense of self worth or it may be a desire to manipulate and oppress as in the case of those in authority because ultimately a people who are confident and value their self worth are not easily controlled by those seeking power over them and less likely to blindly follow a corrupt leader.

For me that was the lesson of Christ and every other prophet who has taught that peace is the ultimate path to the Creator.  It is not the individual who is dangerous but the idea that every individual is worthy of respect regardless of their place in society.  That is a very dangerous concept to state and church leaders and anyone who desires to control another.

You have made the important distinction between offer and force.  It is this distinction that differentiates "agape" from the more common usage of love and assistance.  It is, I believe, the difference between what Christ preached and what has been put into practice.

Each of us can offer this, not only in jails and shelters, but in our every day lives by being living examples, of finding and exhibiting our inner peace and contentment with ourselves and the world we live in.  Doing so will not change everyone because they must find it within themselves but it will offer an example of how it can be achieved.

How can one exihibit the peace of Christ if one is demeaning another's beliefs?  For me that is the ultimate conundrum.

LB

If you wish to experience peace, provide peace for another.   

Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama

It absolutely comes down to loving yourself, IMO. If I don't love myself fully, then how am I to love my neighbour? But maybe that's why there's so much pain and suffering in this world. We don't love ourselves fully and end up loving others less than God wants us to.

Here I am Crazy

I don't think its a Pollyanna outlook at all. As to "tools" I believe that we keep putting the cart before the horse. Arminius kinda illustrates this when he says "if could redefine God ..." . As we've said on other threads, getting people to adopt new paradigms is not going to happen.

But a tool now ....

That's what the 7 Questons are all about. A practical tool that anyone can use, no matter their theology.

    Take any action you're considering, and simply apply them -

Will this action have a positive effect on the other person?  The problem with our use of "love God, love neighbour" is that most people stop the interpretation here. Which leaves them either turning themselves into doormats, or simply projecting their own desires onto someone else.

Will this action have a positive effect on me? This is the very next question we need to ask to be true to the understanding of God as "immanent", part of everything, including us.

The remaining five questions -

Will this action have a positive effect on -

• those closest to the other
• those closest to me
• your shared community
• other communities
• the world/Creation/environment

encourage us to consider our actions in ever expanding contexts.

Regardless of their faith, or lack of one altogether, if those who, for example, caused the US housing crisis by offering unsupportable loans, had considered those 7 Questions before they acted, we might be in a different place now than we are.    

I think I could add something to the golden rule... let it henceforth be read as: "Love your neighbour as yourself, everything in moderation".

Good no?

As-Salaamu Alaiykum,

-Omni