love and hate

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Perhaps allowing God to "write the law into our hearts?" It has to start somewhere. Making the conscious decision to allow this to take place is necessary in order to retain free will, which is a necessary component for love. JMHO.

So, each man and woman is born with a set of "instructions" built into the basic programming? I like it!

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So, each man and woman is born with a set of "instructions" built into the basic programming? I like it!

v/r

Q

It would explain the concept of inherited, "original sin."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It would explain the concept of inherited, "original sin."

Improper execution of program...

[Thomas]

In the course of the discussion it's worth considering what we mean by 'love' - Scripture, using the Greek, has multiple terms, eros, agape, philia, storge... all with different understandings.

I think a simple yardstick, and perhaps one that taijasi would approve (from your response to Quahom), is the notion that true love can only be exercised without attachment - and I stress the phrase because in its most common modern sense, all too often what is called love is in fact no love at all, but a desire to possess.

Meister Eckhart spoke of detachment as the greatest of the spiritual virtues, for without detachment none of the virtues are possible.

The Greek Fathers used the term apathea for this mode of detachment, a term from Stoic philosophy - not to be confused with 'apathy' as it is commonly understood.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Improper execution of program...

Rational mind overwriting Irrational mind, or vice versa, without proper authorization...bypassing free will...=(hate)=force, compulsion, violence, as opposed to (love)=cooperation, agreement, and consent.

It adds a whole new dimension to the idea of forgiving oneself, and making peace with oneself....

Originally Posted by Thomas

think a simple yardstick, and perhaps one that taijasi would approve (from your response to Quahom), is the notion that true love can only be exercised without attachment - and I stress the phrase because in its most common modern sense, all too often what is called love is in fact no love at all, but a desire to possess.

Which fits in with my rather clumsy "forumla" above. The idea of becoming "one" via possession then becomes a "function of hate," whereas love, as the "perfect bond of unity," would require detachment in order for free-will to remain operative. {It's starting to "come together," so to speak.}

[lunamoth]

Another view is that cold is the lack of heat so that there is really only 'one' condition and that is quantity of heat (low quantity being termed cold). Similarly, can we say that there is only one condition 'love' yet when love is lacking we call it hate? Or is hate/evil an active force of its own?

Perhaps related to one's view of the enemy.

peace,
lunamoth

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Another view is that cold is the lack of heat so that there is really only 'one' condition and that is quantity of heat (low quantity being termed cold). Similarly, can we say that there is only one condition 'love' yet when love is lacking we call it hate? Or is hate/evil an active force of its own?

Perhaps related to one's view of the enemy.

peace,
lunamoth

I might be mistaken, but I think that hate originates in the reptilian part of the brain, whereas love originates in the mammilian part of the brain, which would suggest different conditions. I might be mistaken, however.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I might be mistaken, but I think that hate originates in the reptilian part of the brain, whereas love originates in the mammilian part of the brain, which would suggest different conditions. I might be mistaken, however.

You could very well be corrrect, seattlegal. I was just putting that idea out to see what others thought as it is a view I think about but do not necessarly hold firmly. I go back and forth over whether hate/evil has a power of its own. Perhaps it is a kind of passive power, like a wall, which can be destroyed by the wrecking ball of love.

peace,
lunamoth

[ZachB]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Rationally, that may seem so - but being able to sustain such a mood of peace and love doesn't mean to say that such a state is meaningless - I assure you, it has its own meaning. In fact, hate itself become meaningless.

I shouldn't have used the word meaningless......It will never become meaningless...but will it be unappreciated?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Another view is that cold is the lack of heat so that there is really only 'one' condition and that is quantity of heat (low quantity being termed cold). Similarly, can we say that there is only one condition 'love' yet when love is lacking we call it hate? Or is hate/evil an active force of its own?

Perhaps related to one's view of the enemy.

peace,
lunamoth

Hate is the absense of love...hmmm yes, that could very well explain the type of love Thomas pointed out (agape or decisional love). Hence in a way, indifference could be tied directly to this as well.

I heard someone once say to another "Love me or hate me, but I will not be ignored."

interesting

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You could very well be corrrect, seattlegal. I was just putting that idea out to see what others thought as it is a view I think about but do not necessarly hold firmly. I go back and forth over whether hate/evil has a power of its own. Perhaps it is a kind of passive power, like a wall, which can be destroyed by the wrecking ball of love.

peace,
lunamoth

Now I remember where the hot and cold came from, or more aptly, why. When we love or hate, we are actively engaged in thinking about the value of another. When we are indifferent, there is no value placed on another. God therefor in His promise to keep us with free will, can not change our decisions, but there is nothing said about Him not changing our hearts, prior to our decision making, or even after. Perhaps Love and Hate are simply variations on a theme, and indifference is the true opposite, and something God can not work with...

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You could very well be corrrect, seattlegal. I was just putting that idea out to see what others thought as it is a view I think about but do not necessarly hold firmly. I go back and forth over whether hate/evil has a power of its own. Perhaps it is a kind of passive power, like a wall, which can be destroyed by the wrecking ball of love.

peace,
lunamoth

The other possibility might be that there is a "switch" {one candidate might be the amygdala} we have that will either trigger the reptilian brain, or the mammilian brain, in response to any given situation. {Common cause, different reactions} It would then be up to us to decide and to train ourselves in the correct manner in which to react.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Interesting topic!

I might be mistaken, but I think that hate originates in the reptilian part of the brain, whereas love originates in the mammilian part of the brain, which would suggest different conditions. I might be mistaken, however.

Two cents: I think it is fear that originates in the reptilian brain, if I am not mistaken. Where's my psych 101 text when I need it?

Also, from looking into advertising psychology and the work of John B. Watson in the early 1900's, human infants exhibit three distinct traits: love, fear and rage. Those are the three atributes we continue to build on as adults. In other words, speaking from the point of an advertiser, "you cannot make a new desire in a person - you must build on their already existing wants and desires (using love, fear and rage!)." -paraphrase of one of Watson's peers whose name escapes me at this moment.

How this plays into love and hate in the framework of religion is anybody's guess, but so far I would be inclined to agree that love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and add that rage and fear should also be accounted for, separately.

[Aquinas]

Originally Posted by ZachB

just how you can never really understand and appreciate happiness unless you have experienced sadness....?

Well, that's a very good question. There is something called Godly sorrow, It occurs when one sins or has done something wrong. Godly sorrow is from God, and when someone experiences Godly sorrow as the result he experiences great joy

Psalms 126:5-6 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.

This is a beautiful verse, which says when we mourn we sow tears and reap in joy. Try to ponder this. Also ask yourself this, did God experience sorrow or sadness like when Jesus wept for jeruslem because he loved the people in jeruslem? Or do you think the Father wept when He saw his own son dying on the cross because He had loved Him?

[wolfen]

For me hate is a form of pain. Physical pain touching a hot stove exists to tell us something is wrong, and we need to take corrective action. IMHO, hate is very similar to this. Hate is not acting as a contrast to encourage appreciation for painlessness, but as a sign that emotional/spiritual damage is taking place.