The Love of Humanity

Bruce Michael · 06-09-2007, 12:50 AM

Quote:

The acceptance of all is mandatory for entrance into the Temple of St. John.

Of course it is an ideal and not to be forced.

Somebody got upset with me earlier in the year at a spiritual discussion group when I stated we can only love in freedom. "Oh no!" they said it is a commandment of Christ. "That will give excuses for everyone not to love" they protested. I think not, more likely folk will just be hypocritical.

We only love in freedom- it is an ideal. Better a real love, than an insincere attempt.

By the way, we can only love a portion of Humanity egoically, intimately- we cannot love all of Humanity that way.

-Br.Bruce

AndrewX · 06-09-2007, 01:34 AM

One of the Elder Brothers speaks thus:

The path of life is one of mutual help. Participants in the great task cannot be humanity-haters. This term denoting a shameful hatred is a long one. But perhaps people will the better remember it and be ashamed. (Community, 5)

MindFreak666 · 06-09-2007, 02:18 AM

Thats so true Bruce, Love has to be natural. People should love everyone as their family, because humanity is one giant family. We all share this earth, we all have to live together on this rock.
But if it has to be forced than it is not love at all. It can be encouraged but not forced.

Thomas · 06-09-2007, 11:09 AM

Hence apage, not eros.

Thomas

juantoo3 · 06-09-2007, 08:31 PM

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hence apage, not eros.

By chance, do you mean agape?

Tao_Equus · 06-09-2007, 08:40 PM

perhaps frome the greek 'agapee' (as pronounced as greek alphabet unavailabele to me), 'love'?

juantoo3 · 06-09-2007, 09:01 PM

To misquote the lovely Miss Tina Turner:

"What's philio got to do with it?" -loving humanity, that is?

Tao_Equus · 06-09-2007, 09:03 PM

lol fili (feminine) and filo (masculine) depend on which pastry you wish to roll

(they both refer to friendship not 'love').

Thomas · 06-09-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

By chance, do you mean agape?

my shortest post ever, and I get it wrong!

juantoo3 · 06-10-2007, 01:00 AM

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

my shortest post ever, and I get it wrong!

That's OK, it happens to the best of us!

(if nothing else, it shows someone was paying attention...

)

juantoo3 · 06-10-2007, 01:08 AM

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

lol fili (feminine) and filo (masculine) depend on which pastry you wish to roll

(they both refer to friendship not 'love').

Is not "friendship" also known as "brotherly love?"

I always use Philadelphia as my mnemonic...it means "city of brotherly love." Strange, or not, but of the three Greek words for love; eros, phileo and agape; eros is not to be found in the New Testament. As far as I know, and I may stand correction, the Hebrew equivalent of eros is not to be found in the Old Testament. (Kinda puts a bit of a damper on some of the sexual overtones I've heard some promote) Not that human sexual intercourse is not alluded to, but that raw animal sex is not overtly mentioned as such.

PS, probably for the benefit of Thomas as much as any, my understanding of the Greek word "agape" is "love of G-d." In that sense, I see no direct correlation with loving humanity...unless we somehow view G-d within everyone / everything.

Bruce Michael · 06-10-2007, 03:10 AM

Hello juantoo3

>PS, probably for the benefit of Thomas as much as any, my understanding of the Greek word "agape" is "love of G-d." In that sense, I see no direct >correlation with loving humanity...unless we somehow view G-d within >everyone / everything.

This is interesting because these things get mixed up in translation. The teaching on charity in the KJV is an example.

"Agapao” is the same word “love” that appears in John 3:16.

Let's look at John 21:

Quote:

15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you agapao Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I phileo You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs."

16 He *said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you agapao Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I phileo You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep."

17 He *said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you phileo Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I phileo You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.

This makes it clearer:

Quote:

If you look closely, you will see that there have been two Greek Words inserted for the Word "Love" in the verses above. The two words are agapao and phileo. Now let us look at the Greek definitions of these two words:

1.

agapao - This is a very special and deep kind of love. It means to love dearly.
2.

phileo- This is a friendly kind of affection. In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance it states the difference between agapao and phileo is that agapao is more of a heart love and phileo is more of a head love.

Now read the verses again. You will see:

1.

Jesus asks Peter, "Do you AGAPAO me more than these?" Peter says, 'yeah I like you Lord.'
2.

The second time, Jesus simply asks, "Do you AGAPAO me?" Notice that Jesus lessens the level of love. Sigh... Peter still cowers and only responds... 'yeah I like you Lord.'
3.

Finally, Jesus asks, 'Peter...do you like me?' And Peter agrees.

Agape, (the Love from Heaven above)
Br.Bruce

AndrewX · 06-10-2007, 04:14 AM

I would suggest that in order to fulfil the 1st of Christ's Two Commandments, one must be able to fulfil the 2nd, also ... and vice versa. The two are so intimately related to the other, that for our present Humanity in the state it is in today, one cannot be properly fulfilled, without simultaneously fulfilling the other!

Some day, this may not be the case. But we must be able to take philos, and elevate it to the point of Agape, then apply Agape, in precisely the same relationships where hitherto philos has been sufficient.

Until we can do this, we have not done Christ's work ... on earth, let alone in Heaven.

~andrew

Thomas · 06-10-2007, 11:59 AM

In the ancient world it was almost a given that the oracles and prophets were 'taken over' by the gods and used as a mouthpiece, much in the way of table-rapping seances of the 19th century (and continues in some Christian denominations).

This order of spiritual or religious experience was invariably ecstatic — ecstacy became a mark of authentic spiritual experience — and subsequently the word deployed was 'eros' and from here we can begiun to unravel the whole dimension of 'erotic ecstacy' that was the foundation of temple prostitution, etc.

The Christian scribes highlighted a new and radically original idea, that of spiritual experience being not eros nor ecstatic, not of 'losing' oneself in God, but 'finding' oneself in God — the real meaning of Divine Union — whereas for the oracle/ecstatic of antiquity there is no real union because the higher simply 'displaces' the lower, who would often recover as from a theatrical feint, with no memory of the experience.

It's also worth noting not to get involved with an 'agape v phileo' debate, as there is littrle clear distinction between them:

"but men loved [agapeo] darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

"for they loved [agapeo] the praise of men more than the praise from God" (John 12:43).

whereas:

"For the Father loves [phileo] the Son and shows him all he does..." (John 5:20).

"No, the Father himself loves [phileo] you because you have loved [phileo] me..." (John 16:27).

Thomas

AndrewX · 06-10-2007, 12:23 PM

Of course, it was not the Christian scribes who introduced to the world the idea that the Divine might possess a man (or woman), and the latter not lose (or give over) his rational, brain consciousness to the event. This is called the sibylline power, and many a sibyl remained awake for the amazing rapturous "Divine possession" that followed.

Edgar Cayce is a perfect example of a modern prophet who was not a conscious sibyl - hence the term, `sleeping prophet.' He did not know what was occurring until after he awakened, and even then he often needed to be told.

H.P. Blavatsky, on the other hand, was a conscious sibyl, as her follower, Geoffrey Hodson. Both individuals knew exactly with Whom they were communicating, and did so in Service to the Christ (sic) - and to Humanity. So, too, are both of these people excellent examples of the Biblical injunction to "test the spirits," which corresponds perfectly to the Eastern teaching of inculcating the power of viveka - or "spiritual discrimination," the ability to discern Truth from falsehood.

Oh, that this faculty viveka (not to mention humility) were a little more present in some of the self-appointed experts around here in all matters ecclesiatical - as the last time I checked, the powers of mesmerization were NOT synonomous with those of Inspiration. Anton had his following back in the day, as did Simon Magus, but neither of these spring immediately to mind when we think of altruism and philanthrophy.

No, I think we may be certain that the Great Teacher of Men (and Angels) was neither vain, nor a hypocrite.