if you truly love your neighbor as yourself and replace all hate with love......will the abscence of hate make love meaningless........just how you can never really understand and appreciate happiness unless you have experienced sadness....?
love and hate
- Thread starter ZachB
- Start date
I don't buy it. I don't need to have asthma or emphysima or be strangled to enjoy breath....
hate a required evil?? just don't buy it.
defining, accepting, and understanding the blessings of abundance does not require lack.
I guess maybe this is an earthly concept...it makes sense here.
hate a required evil?? just don't buy it.
defining, accepting, and understanding the blessings of abundance does not require lack.
I guess maybe this is an earthly concept...it makes sense here.
wil said:
To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
ecclesiastes 3:1-8
Apparently it is important enough, that it was specifically included in scripture, and specifically identified as having a season and of some kind of purpose.
v/r
Q
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hate the sin, but love the sinner?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
From the 3rd verse of the Dhammapada (sayings attributed to the Buddha):
"Hate never yet conquered hate; only love conquers hate."
andrew
lunamoth
Episcopalian
taijasi said:
Excellent! (I never realized that this saying is attributed to the Buddha).
lunamoth
ZachB said:
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.
taijasi said:
Hi andrew, I hope we are not confusing anger with hatred. They are different animals. Hatred is like voltage (then so is love), and emotion is the driving force (or amperage), behind the "Choice decision" of Love or Hate. Either way, the result is action or "Wattage". Indifference however is the real opposite of Hate and of Love (it is non emotion and non choice). Wherein the second two complete a circuit of sorts, indifference is more like an interrupted circuit (unrealized potential).
I supposed that is why we are told, "Hot or Cold", we can be utilized and developed, but the Lord hates luke warm.
my thoughts.
v/r
Q
there we go....does anyone need to understand cold to understand hot or vice versa?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
As for what you point out regarding indifference, Quahom, good point. Of course, that is not what the Buddha was indicating - nor what Christ taught ... in this particular instance. I think the rule of thumb, as expressed by both teachers, is that Love is Greater than hate, and that only by practicing Love, can we conquer hate.
The question of indifference, or equanimity, is another lesson altogether - and that is that we should strive to not be moved by external circumstances. Yes, it looks very good on paper, but it is (in my experience anyway) one of the greatest challenges in truly living the spiritual life (ie, a life of true righteousness, to phrase it in Christian terms).
I can remember freaking out any number of times at losing an entire hard drive of data, personal writings, etc. - which I didn't have backed up. Finally, when I lost a huge 420mb hard drive (MAN that was a monster drive for its day) ... I remember shrugging. It had some of my most treasured electrons on it, and it was forever gone - a total loss. But mysteriously, I was completely unmoved - in that particular instance.
Now imagine winning the lottery. Wouldn't most of us be at least a little excited? Or giddy!
Shoooooot. Man, I'd go nuts. So much for composure. But is it really the good fortune it appears to be? Who can say? It's relative. Just as is death, and sickness, and war. Our difficulty often arises from our value judgments, and limited POV. Surely murder is wrong, 100% of the time (we say) ... but it has a place, as - hmmm, gee, someone pointed this out. Turn, turn, turn ...
(Yes, I know who pointed it out.)
We've got to consider that being lukewarm is not inconsistent with practicing detachment, or the `Divine indifference,' which allowed the Master to go about his work without fussing & complaining, finding & pointing out fault, and generally being a real rotter ... rather than the really neat guy that he was.
And that's just it. It's all about perspective. The dualism of the Manicheans would have us thinking that the material world (or manifest existence itself) is inherently evil, and a misinterpretation of Eastern religions (eg, Buddhism), as well as Gnosticism, might lead to the same misunderstanding. But almost Universally, the theologies of the worlds' religions indicate that good & evil (as principles, not as the emotions "love" & "hate"), are simply the yin & yang, or positive & negative poles, of our worldly existence. The great pair of opposites is important, and has its place, but it is superseded by a reality which we might be wise to simply regard as Loving ... ultimate answers remaining Mysteries until we, too, come into our own.
Yes, in our human experience, I think that even hate has its place, because this planet is as yet far from becoming spiritually Redeemed ... in the sense that there is no longer any unnecessary suffering. Perhaps I'm looking it at it somewhat in Buddhistic terms, but I am also quite confident that Christ Himself would say, Evil has its place. Better that we strive to not participate in that "side of evolution" (called Involution, esoterically) - even unconsciously. But none of us (on this forum) are perfect; thus we all slip, from time to time.
The problem of Good & Evil is a much larger issue than one simply for Christian Theology, and could appear on any given forum at CR with a slightly different angle. But to respond to Zach's question ... and from a Christian perspective, I think the answer is tricky. If one has never experienced the negativity of hate, then perhaps we could say that the quality and nature of the Love that is expressed ... is somewhat different than that of someone who has experienced hate (and hated), then chosen to rise above hate, and fully express Love. It becomes a little difficult, but personally I'm not convinced that as Christians we need relegate Love so utterly & entirely to the realm of the non-attainable. Put simply, may we too, with practice, not also Love unconditionally, as did Christ? [Just imagine, love, expressed by all, for all, and always. Dare to dream! Dare to - Imagine ... ]
Perhaps a part of our very purpose for being in the world (imperfect as it is, and as we are) ... is to experience what life is like when God's Presence is questionable ... and when - clearly, we do not suffer from an over-abundance of love. As someone who believes that evolution occurs (at one time or another) on every planet (sic!), I think there is a very good reason that we all appear on this planet, and now. If you look at the first part of that sentence, the second part becomes - poignant. Another way to approach it is: What lesson(s) are we learning?
Peace,
andrew
The question of indifference, or equanimity, is another lesson altogether - and that is that we should strive to not be moved by external circumstances. Yes, it looks very good on paper, but it is (in my experience anyway) one of the greatest challenges in truly living the spiritual life (ie, a life of true righteousness, to phrase it in Christian terms).
I can remember freaking out any number of times at losing an entire hard drive of data, personal writings, etc. - which I didn't have backed up. Finally, when I lost a huge 420mb hard drive (MAN that was a monster drive for its day) ... I remember shrugging. It had some of my most treasured electrons on it, and it was forever gone - a total loss. But mysteriously, I was completely unmoved - in that particular instance.
Now imagine winning the lottery. Wouldn't most of us be at least a little excited? Or giddy!
Shoooooot. Man, I'd go nuts. So much for composure. But is it really the good fortune it appears to be? Who can say? It's relative. Just as is death, and sickness, and war. Our difficulty often arises from our value judgments, and limited POV. Surely murder is wrong, 100% of the time (we say) ... but it has a place, as - hmmm, gee, someone pointed this out. Turn, turn, turn ...(Yes, I know who pointed it out.)
We've got to consider that being lukewarm is not inconsistent with practicing detachment, or the `Divine indifference,' which allowed the Master to go about his work without fussing & complaining, finding & pointing out fault, and generally being a real rotter ... rather than the really neat guy that he was.
And that's just it. It's all about perspective. The dualism of the Manicheans would have us thinking that the material world (or manifest existence itself) is inherently evil, and a misinterpretation of Eastern religions (eg, Buddhism), as well as Gnosticism, might lead to the same misunderstanding. But almost Universally, the theologies of the worlds' religions indicate that good & evil (as principles, not as the emotions "love" & "hate"), are simply the yin & yang, or positive & negative poles, of our worldly existence. The great pair of opposites is important, and has its place, but it is superseded by a reality which we might be wise to simply regard as Loving ... ultimate answers remaining Mysteries until we, too, come into our own.
Yes, in our human experience, I think that even hate has its place, because this planet is as yet far from becoming spiritually Redeemed ... in the sense that there is no longer any unnecessary suffering. Perhaps I'm looking it at it somewhat in Buddhistic terms, but I am also quite confident that Christ Himself would say, Evil has its place. Better that we strive to not participate in that "side of evolution" (called Involution, esoterically) - even unconsciously. But none of us (on this forum) are perfect; thus we all slip, from time to time.
The problem of Good & Evil is a much larger issue than one simply for Christian Theology, and could appear on any given forum at CR with a slightly different angle. But to respond to Zach's question ... and from a Christian perspective, I think the answer is tricky. If one has never experienced the negativity of hate, then perhaps we could say that the quality and nature of the Love that is expressed ... is somewhat different than that of someone who has experienced hate (and hated), then chosen to rise above hate, and fully express Love. It becomes a little difficult, but personally I'm not convinced that as Christians we need relegate Love so utterly & entirely to the realm of the non-attainable. Put simply, may we too, with practice, not also Love unconditionally, as did Christ? [Just imagine, love, expressed by all, for all, and always. Dare to dream! Dare to - Imagine ... ]
Perhaps a part of our very purpose for being in the world (imperfect as it is, and as we are) ... is to experience what life is like when God's Presence is questionable ... and when - clearly, we do not suffer from an over-abundance of love. As someone who believes that evolution occurs (at one time or another) on every planet (sic!), I think there is a very good reason that we all appear on this planet, and now. If you look at the first part of that sentence, the second part becomes - poignant. Another way to approach it is: What lesson(s) are we learning?
Peace,
andrew
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Labeling something as conceptually "cold" also implies the label of the concept of "hot," with the concept of "self" being the reference point. However, experiencing "cold" in an uncomfortable manner might cause a person to develop a compulsive desire for "hot," whereas a person experiencing "lukewarm" will develop no compulsive desire at all. I think this parallels the point that taijasi made about someone who has not experienced hate as contrasted to a person who has experienced hate and has developed a desire to rise above hate; as contrasted to the lack of development of compulsive desire from experiencing "lukewarm." {I hope I presented that coherently!}wil said:
Being freed from the compulsion related to desire gives you a greater freedom in how you apply loving principles to a given situation.
wil said:
Actually yes, Wil. The nervous system does not know the difference between hot or cold. It only knows that the ambient temperature is not what the body can handle. Just like the body does not know wether the mind is in a state of anger or euphoria, only that the brain wants it pump adrenaline, and get ready for bracing or fleeing. We (as in the personage, or character, or spirit) on the other hand, learn what is hot and what is cold. We learn love and hate. Or maybe it is we know there is something different, then we learn what values to place on what, and call those equations love, hate, or indifference.
Here, we are born wanting (it is a natural survival instinct). We have to learn how to give though, and that take a higher level of mentality than just instinct. Maybe we hate naturally, but have to learn how to love.
Hate appeals to our base, but I think love might be more appealing to our logical side, but again that has to be developed.
Who knows?
v/r
Q
I'd like to point out something, or rather ask a question.
Are we talking about the decision to love, regardless of how we feel? Or are we talking about "feeling in love"?
Then are we talking about the decision to hate, again regardless of personal "feelings", or are we talking about the feeling of rage or cold fury?
I think that might make a difference in the way we are trying to express our thinking here, if we all agreed we were on the same page...
just a thought.
v/r
Q
Are we talking about the decision to love, regardless of how we feel? Or are we talking about "feeling in love"?
Then are we talking about the decision to hate, again regardless of personal "feelings", or are we talking about the feeling of rage or cold fury?
I think that might make a difference in the way we are trying to express our thinking here, if we all agreed we were on the same page...
just a thought.
v/r
Q
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
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.Quahom1 said:
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
It would explain the concept of inherited, "original sin."Quahom1 said:So, each man and woman is born with a set of "instructions" built into the basic programming? I like it!
v/r
Q
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
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
Mercuræn Buddhist
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.Quahom1 said:
It adds a whole new dimension to the idea of forgiving oneself, and making peace with oneself....
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.}Thomas said: