getting past the crap

[B]

Long ago I've learnt by the grace of God to look at others and send
them a loving thought...a spiritual hug as it were. Sometimes we have
days when everyone is bugging us it seems and when I have my open
channel to Christ unblocked I just send them a loving thought. I do
believe that this softens things...maybe not right away..but it does
work. Sometimes picturing this person as a baby with fear or pain
helps your love to get to them. Now I don't mean condescension...that
will never work for no one is better or worse than anyone else in Gods
eyes..but to see us as creatures of God come down to this very tough
earth school which is a remarkable thing in itself and we should be
proud of ourselves for this...to learn... A baby is a wise
soul....full of love and clear as a crystal to be imprinted in this
new life ,,, a baby generally wants to get past the crap and just love
you simply and from the soul. One of the points in the Bible that I do
believe is truth..is that God wants us to come to it as little
children..in that we are to be open and trusting and love...pure love
getting past all the ego onion layers that we build on us as we get
older. Ever see how children can play and get along before they learn
how to distrust? before they learn how to over-identify with the
differences and not the similarities?

I once saw a girl in the supermarket dressed soooooooo provocatively
that it bordered on (to me) the ridiculous. She was wearing
tight....see through and chaps...yes...chaps...My first
reaction..after just looking and thinking she looked provocative...was
to roll my eyes and get irritated. I caught myself..I caught myself in
mid-irritation and started thinking about how much this girl wanted
attention..that it was a self screaming for love and acceptance and
equally fearful that she was going to get other girls picking on
her...I could see that. She simply wanted people to SEE her..to LOVE
her as herself. I looked at her and sidling up I said..."I love your
chaps"..and the smile that came out of that girls face was immaculate
and so beautiful. Probably not what the girl expected from me...not at
all...but it made her feel good and it made me feel good that I
stopped a stupid judgementalness and hypocrisy (heck who doesn't love
good attention?) right in its tracks. I praised Christ for this quick
lesson. We all need to work from a centre of love...tolerance and
compassion and realize when ego (the need to compete and fear of being
worse or better and away from God etc.)raises its ugly head.

Thanks be to the symbolic "son" "sun" (oh blessed light!) in all of
us. Thanks be to Christ.

Bren

[Jani]

Post by B
Long ago I've learnt by the grace of God to look at others and send
them a loving thought...a spiritual hug as it were. Sometimes we have
days when everyone is bugging us it seems and when I have my open
channel to Christ unblocked I just send them a loving thought. I do
believe that this softens things...maybe not right away..but it does
work. Sometimes picturing this person as a baby with fear or pain
helps your love to get to them. Now I don't mean condescension...that
will never work for no one is better or worse than anyone else in Gods
eyes..but to see us as creatures of God come down to this very tough
earth school which is a remarkable thing in itself and we should be
proud of ourselves for this...to learn...

There was a recent discussion elsewhere about the ethics of 'sending
energies', whether well-meant or not, to other people; the general consensus
was that it was intrusive and unacceptable. I'm not sure if a Christian
prayer *for* someone, rather than an 'unblocked-Christ-channel' thought sent
*at* them, would be a rather different concept, though?

As to thinking of the person as a baby - well, whether it's condescending or
not, it would still seem to be something the sender, or the pray-er, is
doing to make *themselves* feel better about the recipient. As I understand
it, 'love your neighbour as yourself' doesn't mean that you first have to
re-shape the 'neighbour' into something more lovable, otherwise 'loving'
would be remarkably easy.

A baby is a wise

Post by B
soul....full of love and clear as a crystal to be imprinted in this
new life ,,, a baby generally wants to get past the crap and just love
you simply and from the soul.

Babies are actually incredibly self-centred little creatures.

One of the points in the Bible that I do

Post by B
believe is truth..is that God wants us to come to it as little
children..in that we are to be open and trusting and love...pure love
getting past all the ego onion layers that we build on us as we get
older. Ever see how children can play and get along before they learn
how to distrust? before they learn how to over-identify with the
differences and not the similarities?

What age-group do you mean, here? Very small children *have* to learn to
recognise difference, otherwise they function as if everyone else was a
'clone' of themselves, and can't understand perspectives other than their
own. That's a fairly major factor in autism.

Post by B
I once saw a girl in the supermarket dressed soooooooo provocatively
that it bordered on (to me) the ridiculous. She was wearing
tight....see through and chaps...yes...chaps...My first
reaction..after just looking and thinking she looked provocative...was
to roll my eyes and get irritated. I caught myself..I caught myself in
mid-irritation and started thinking about how much this girl wanted
attention..that it was a self screaming for love and acceptance and
equally fearful that she was going to get other girls picking on
her...I could see that. She simply wanted people to SEE her..to LOVE
her as herself. I looked at her and sidling up I said..."I love your
chaps"..and the smile that came out of that girls face was immaculate
and so beautiful. Probably not what the girl expected from me...not at
all...but it made her feel good and it made me feel good that I
stopped a stupid judgementalness and hypocrisy (heck who doesn't love
good attention?) right in its tracks. I praised Christ for this quick
lesson. We all need to work from a centre of love...tolerance and
compassion and realize when ego (the need to compete and fear of being
worse or better and away from God etc.)raises its ugly head.

I was reading an interesting article on the Golden Rule which is relevant
here; the author pointed out that the GR relies heavily on the actor's
assumption that the recipient has exactly the same view of a situation as
they do. F'r instance, if I give food to a hungry person because I would
want someone to do that for me, and that person is actually struggling very
hard with keeping a religious fast, my putting a steak dinner under their
nose is a harmful act, not a beneficial one. I think it's very dangerous to
project one's own motives on to someone else's behaviour, and act
accordingly. That *is* egotistical. In the situation you describe, your
initial response - that you didn't like the girl's clothes, and found them
irritating and ridiculous - was set aside not while you considered why *you*
didn't like them, but while you constructed a motivation of 'screaming for
love' and 'fear of being picked on' for her, and then approached her with
that construct in mind. Did you *really* love the chaps, as you told her you
did? Or did you love *yourself* better, for being nice to someone *you* had
categorised as insecure and exhibitionist?

Jani, who hadn't considered the GR in that light before, and finds that it
makes a LOT of sense. Although I expect that Matthew, amongst others, will
think it too relativistic :)

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <m3OVj.357$***@trndny07>, Jani says...
[snip]

Post by Jani
Babies are actually incredibly self-centred little creatures.

Self-centered, yes. But self-centered is not necessarily always the same as
selfish, neither does the one _necessarily_ lead to the other.

Post by Jani
One of the points in the Bible that I do

Post by B
believe is truth..is that God wants us to come to it as little
children..in that we are to be open and trusting and love...pure love
getting past all the ego onion layers that we build on us as we get
older. Ever see how children can play and get along before they learn
how to distrust? before they learn how to over-identify with the
differences and not the similarities?

What age-group do you mean, here? Very small children *have* to learn to
recognise difference, otherwise they function as if everyone else was a
'clone' of themselves, and can't understand perspectives other than their
own.

And alas, I can think of a lot of adults who never seemed to have learned this:(

Post by Jani
That's a fairly major factor in autism.

Which, alas, does not explain the adults I just mentioned.

[snip]

Post by Jani
I was reading an interesting article on the Golden Rule which is relevant
here; the author pointed out that the GR relies heavily on the actor's
assumption that the recipient has exactly the same view of a situation as
they do.

But does it? Or is making this assumption a _mis-application_ of the Rule?

[sni]

Post by Jani
Jani, who hadn't considered the GR in that light before, and finds that it
makes a LOT of sense. Although I expect that Matthew, amongst others, will
think it too relativistic :)

Actually, since you mentioned 'relativistic', my first response was to misread
'GR' as meaning "General Relativity", even though you had already shown you
meant "Golden Rule" just a few lines above;)

But as I hinted above: the major problem is not that it is too _relativistic_
but that the article and your summary of it appear to rely too much on a rather
simplistic interpretation of it.

After all: consider the example you and the article use, that of placing steak
before someone who is fasting. Now recall the audience he was speaking to: they
were all very familiar with, for example, the Yom Kippur fast. Would _any_ of
them even _think_ of placing food before a fellow Jew keeping this fast? Of
course not. They all knew better.

In short, the GR was never supposed to be understood to mean _whatever_ you
would like to be treated as. It was always meant to be understood as meaning how
you would like to be treated, assuming you were thinking rationally and piously
about how you would want to be treated.

To make this a little clearer, let's take a look at the _whole_ verse:

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the
law and the prophets.
(Mat 7:12 RSVA)

Notice the check: "for this is the law and the prophets". Of _course_ the law
and the prophets never recommend eating on Yom Kippur. So your desire to eat
during the Fast is _not_ how you should treat others either.

Finally, this would perhaps be a little more clear if the RSV translators had
correctly observed the distinction between 'wish' and 'will' in the translation
above: it really should read "will tha men would do to you", not 'wish'. The
difference is that the _will_ is by definition rational and natural. 'Wish' is
often neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very verse:

what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this instance, both the
law and the prophets agree with what natural law dictates to us
[http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]

Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's reference to
our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.

[B]

Post by Jani

Post by B
Long ago I've learnt by the grace of God to look at others and send
them a loving thought...a spiritual hug as it were. Sometimes we have

**snip

Post by Jani
There was a recent discussion elsewhere about the ethics of 'sending
energies', whether well-meant or not, to other people; the general consensus
was that it was intrusive and unacceptable. I'm not sure if a Christian
prayer *for* someone, rather than an 'unblocked-Christ-channel' thought sent
*at* them, would be a rather different concept, though?

B - I find a big difference in sending someone a thought of love and
then sending them energies that focus on them "doing something". I'm
not here to manipulate anyone.

Post by Jani
As to thinking of the person as a baby - well, whether it's condescending or
not, it would still seem to be something the sender, or the pray-er, is
doing to make *themselves* feel better about the recipient.

B - well we each have our own beliefs about that obviously. Since all
of us were once babies...I see it as a way
to look at each of us as that same loving being...vulnerable...needing
love etc. Condescension does not even enter
my mind as my whole impetus is to extinguish my ego...it would be odd
for me to do so. Of course I can't be blamed for how people infer what
I am saying when I am doing the best "I" can but if one can get past
cynicism and suspicion of ulterior motives...and give others the
benefit of the doubt one might be able to see the source of why I
suggest that. How hard is it to hate a baby? how hard is it to ignore
or just judge? that is where I am coming from....see the original love
and work from there.

As I understand

Post by Jani
it, 'love your neighbour as yourself' doesn't mean that you first have to
re-shape the 'neighbour' into something more lovable, otherwise 'loving'
would be remarkably easy.

B - loving another as myself means, for me, that I have to see myself
in that person..Ie: empathy...and to do that
means I have to see that person as ONE with me. For example if I see a
person who is continually grouchy..I could...on one hand...throw the
anger back...or I could search to understand why they are what they
are and have compassion and empathy. I can try and get past it
now....or ignore it and work on that lesson later...whatever works for
both of us. I never ignore their reasons for being what they are..in
fact that is what I try and understand right off the bat usually. I
don't ever ask that they stop being who they are in essence..but I try
and find a way to love them for who they are NOW....to see the me in
them and them in me.

Post by Jani
A baby is a wise

Post by B
soul....full of love and clear as a crystal to be imprinted in this
new life ,,, a baby generally wants to get past the crap and just love
you simply and from the soul.

Babies are actually incredibly self-centred little creatures.

B - as well.

Post by Jani
One of the points in the Bible that I do

Post by B
believe is truth..is that God wants us to come to it as little
children..in that we are to be open and trusting and love...pure love
getting past all the ego onion layers that we build on us as we get
older. Ever see how children can play and get along before they learn
how to distrust? before they learn how to over-identify with the
differences and not the similarities?

What age-group do you mean, here? Very small children *have* to learn to
recognise difference,

B - again..it is a matter of degrees. When I go to a flower garden..I
love the differences, I love the variety but I am
always connected to how they are as a group..how they are alike as
well....
I tend to notice similarities first and differences second...probably
why I was not ready to exclude others on the basis of looks or race or
what have you as a child but sought to include everyone as valid.
Let's face it...we are spirits having a human experience first...and
from there the differences begin. Again..my opinion.

Post by Jani
I was reading an interesting article on the Golden Rule which is relevant
here; the author pointed out that the GR relies heavily on the actor's
assumption that the recipient has exactly the same view of a situation as
they do. F'r instance, if I give food to a hungry person because I would
want someone to do that for me, and that person is actually struggling very
hard with keeping a religious fast, my putting a steak dinner under their
nose is a harmful act, not a beneficial one. I think it's very dangerous to
project one's own motives on to someone else's behaviour, and act
accordingly. That *is* egotistical. In the situation you describe, your
initial response - that you didn't like the girl's clothes, and found them
irritating and ridiculous - was set aside not while you considered why *you*
didn't like them, but while you constructed a motivation of 'screaming for
love' and 'fear of being picked on' for her, and then approached her with
that construct in mind. Did you *really* love the chaps, as you told her you
did? Or did you love *yourself* better, for being nice to someone *you* had
categorised as insecure and exhibitionist?

B - good point. I actually did like the chaps...I actually wanted to
love the girl but I found a stupid irritation building in me out of
something... Yup I could easily have been putting my whole spin on the
situation...I acknowledge that...but I find it hard to find one human
being who doesn't do this. I've had people judge me and project on me
constantly...but to me..in the end...if it all results in one being
kinder...more loving...then I can't see it as bad. On the last
sentence...I can only say...I loved myself and her both better for the
learning experience.If I love someone ...it comes back to me and vice
versa because I tend to see me in them and them in me. If one wants to
read in these posts of mine "ego" ...then so be it...I post certain
posts like these because I felt that I learnt a good lesson and I
wanted to share. If someone gets something out of it that helps
them..then fantastic...if not...no biggie. I tend to find that peace
reigns more on earth when people try and find similarities towards one
another...animals..plants...etc. perhaps it is just what I refer to as
the inner Christ trying to show me our unity...who knows? Thanks for
reading and presenting me with more ways to look at something.

Post by Jani
Jani,

Bren

[Jani]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jani
Babies are actually incredibly self-centred little creatures.

Self-centered, yes. But self-centered is not necessarily always the same
as
selfish, neither does the one _necessarily_ lead to the other.

Indeed. I was taking issue with the idea that babies are nothing more than a
kind of amorphous 'love', with no genetic or biological predispositions.


[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
What age-group do you mean, here? Very small children *have* to learn to
recognise difference, otherwise they function as if everyone else was a
'clone' of themselves, and can't understand perspectives other than their
own.

And alas, I can think of a lot of adults who never seemed to have learned
this:(

True, but that's not quite the same as the point I was making ;)

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
That's a fairly major factor in autism.

Which, alas, does not explain the adults I just mentioned.

No, but it does explain why I don't agree with the OP's argument that
recognising difference, in young children, is a *bad* thing. It's part of
healthy mental development.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jani
I was reading an interesting article on the Golden Rule which is relevant
here; the author pointed out that the GR relies heavily on the actor's
assumption that the recipient has exactly the same view of a situation as
they do.

But does it? Or is making this assumption a _mis-application_ of the Rule?

He was talking of the GR in general philosophical terms, rather than
specifically Christian ones, yes. But it led me on to wondering how
applicable it is even within Christianity, given the variation between
Christian cultures (hence, my example of fasting, which I assumed would be
familiar to both orthodox and non-orthodox Christians, whether or not they
practised it themselves).

Post by Matthew Johnson
[sni]

Post by Jani
Jani, who hadn't considered the GR in that light before, and finds that it
makes a LOT of sense. Although I expect that Matthew, amongst others, will
think it too relativistic :)

Actually, since you mentioned 'relativistic', my first response was to
misread
'GR' as meaning "General Relativity", even though you had already shown
you
meant "Golden Rule" just a few lines above;)

Heh. Well, at least this isn't an interfaith group: Einstein probably isn't
the first thing that a Wiccan would have associated with 'GR' :) No, I was
musing more on the generality of the Golden Rule, and whether an orthodox
Christian would distinguish between GR-the-philosophy and
GR-as-expressed-in-Christianity.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But as I hinted above: the major problem is not that it is too
_relativistic_
but that the article and your summary of it appear to rely too much on a
rather
simplistic interpretation of it.

Ah, well, as I said, it was not a specifically Christian perspective that
was being discussed, and I probably should have made that more clear.

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all: consider the example you and the article use, that of placing
steak
they
were all very familiar with, for example, the Yom Kippur fast. Would _any_
of
them even _think_ of placing food before a fellow Jew keeping this fast?
Of
course not. They all knew better.
In short, the GR was never supposed to be understood to mean _whatever_
you
would like to be treated as. It was always meant to be understood as
meaning how
you would like to be treated, assuming you were thinking rationally and
piously
about how you would want to be treated.

*nods* so, in effect, there is no need to consider how other people want to
be treated, because they *should* want to be treated in the same way as you
do? This is where I'm going with relativism ...

Post by Matthew Johnson
So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is
the
law and the prophets.
(Mat 7:12 RSVA)
Notice the check: "for this is the law and the prophets". Of _course_ the
law
and the prophets never recommend eating on Yom Kippur. So your desire to
eat
during the Fast is _not_ how you should treat others either.

In my example, though, the person who wanted to give food saw only a hungry
person; they weren't even aware of the rules of fasting. Certainly, if they
*had* known, it would be a deliberately harmful act - but I'm talking about
an unintentional one.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Finally, this would perhaps be a little more clear if the RSV translators
had
correctly observed the distinction between 'wish' and 'will' in the
translation
above: it really should read "will tha men would do to you", not 'wish'.
The
difference is that the _will_ is by definition rational and natural.
'Wish' is
often neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very
what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this instance, both
the
law and the prophets agree with what natural law dictates to us
[http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]
Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's
reference to
our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.

I think I've been sidetracked, but I'll go with it :) The OP implied that
babies are born with a 'natural will', but it becomes subverted to 'wish'
because of human interaction. Is this what you mean?

Jani

[Jani]

Post by B

Post by Jani

Post by B
Long ago I've learnt by the grace of God to look at others and send
them a loving thought...a spiritual hug as it were. Sometimes we have

**snip

Post by Jani
There was a recent discussion elsewhere about the ethics of 'sending
energies', whether well-meant or not, to other people; the general consensus
was that it was intrusive and unacceptable. I'm not sure if a Christian
prayer *for* someone, rather than an 'unblocked-Christ-channel' thought sent
*at* them, would be a rather different concept, though?

B - I find a big difference in sending someone a thought of love and
then sending them energies that focus on them "doing something". I'm
not here to manipulate anyone.

That wasn't the distinction I was making, though. "Sending a thought" is a
direct person-to-person connection, whereas a prayer is addressed to a
deity.

Post by B

Post by Jani
As to thinking of the person as a baby - well, whether it's condescending or
not, it would still seem to be something the sender, or the pray-er, is
doing to make *themselves* feel better about the recipient.

B - well we each have our own beliefs about that obviously. Since all
of us were once babies...I see it as a way
to look at each of us as that same loving being...vulnerable...needing
love etc.

Well, that's the point I'm making - why is it necessary to see people as
helpless babies, before they can be 'loved'? That's rather like trying to
train a dog by treating it like a suckling puppy. Won't work ;)


[]

Post by B
As I understand

Post by Jani
it, 'love your neighbour as yourself' doesn't mean that you first have to
re-shape the 'neighbour' into something more lovable, otherwise 'loving'
would be remarkably easy.

B - loving another as myself means, for me, that I have to see myself
in that person..Ie: empathy...and to do that
means I have to see that person as ONE with me.

I think this is part of the problem - you say "myself ... for me.. myself ..
I ... ONE with me" but at the same time, you're *also* saying "my whole
impetus is to extinguish my ego". Do you see the inherent contradiction,
there?

[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
One of the points in the Bible that I do

Post by B
believe is truth..is that God wants us to come to it as little
children..in that we are to be open and trusting and love...pure love
getting past all the ego onion layers that we build on us as we get
older. Ever see how children can play and get along before they learn
how to distrust? before they learn how to over-identify with the
differences and not the similarities?

What age-group do you mean, here? Very small children *have* to learn to
recognise difference,

B - again..it is a matter of degrees. When I go to a flower garden..I
love the differences, I love the variety but I am
always connected to how they are as a group..how they are alike as
well....
I tend to notice similarities first and differences second...probably
why I was not ready to exclude others on the basis of looks or race or
what have you as a child but sought to include everyone as valid.

Yes, but I wasn't asking about that. If you didn't mean very small children,
and you were referring to learned cultural differences, that's another
matter.

[]


I think it's very dangerous to

Post by B

Post by Jani
project one's own motives on to someone else's behaviour, and act
accordingly. That *is* egotistical. In the situation you describe, your
initial response - that you didn't like the girl's clothes, and found them
irritating and ridiculous - was set aside not while you considered why *you*
didn't like them, but while you constructed a motivation of 'screaming for
love' and 'fear of being picked on' for her, and then approached her with
that construct in mind. Did you *really* love the chaps, as you told her you
did? Or did you love *yourself* better, for being nice to someone *you* had
categorised as insecure and exhibitionist?

B - good point. I actually did like the chaps...I actually wanted to
love the girl but I found a stupid irritation building in me out of
something... Yup I could easily have been putting my whole spin on the
situation...I acknowledge that...

It's a particularly hard lesson to learn when the 'object', so to speak,
doesn't fit into one's personal boxes. It's a lot easier to think that the
person who dresses differently *really, madly, deeply* wants to dress as you
(generic "you", there, not personal :) do, but is driven by insecurity and
dysfunction and so on to do otherwise.

[]

I can only say...I loved myself and her both better for the

Post by B
learning experience.

Clearly you learned something, and learned more from posting it. That's
good. But - what did the other person learn? Not that random strangers look
at her clothes, contemplate their own prejudices, overcome them to some
extent, and say "I like how you look". The 'love' benefits your personal
growth, sure, but it does nothing for her. Where is the 'compassion and
empathy'?

If I love someone ...it comes back to me and vice

Post by B
versa because I tend to see me in them and them in me. If one wants to
read in these posts of mine "ego" ...then so be it...I post certain
posts like these because I felt that I learnt a good lesson and I
wanted to share.

I'm not denying that you learned a lesson; I'm just not sure it's what you
*think* you learned.

[]

Thanks for

Post by B
reading and presenting me with more ways to look at something.

Eh, well, "know thyself" is, as Didactylos says, a bugger ;)

Jani

[B]

Post by Jani

Post by B

Post by Jani

Post by B
Long ago I've learnt by the grace of God to look at others and send
them a loving thought...a spiritual hug as it were. Sometimes we have

**snip

Post by Jani
There was a recent discussion elsewhere about the ethics of 'sending
energies', whether well-meant or not, to other people; the general consensus
was that it was intrusive and unacceptable. I'm not sure if a Christian
prayer *for* someone, rather than an 'unblocked-Christ-channel' thought sent
*at* them, would be a rather different concept, though?

B - I find a big difference in sending someone a thought of love and
then sending them energies that focus on them "doing something". I'm
not here to manipulate anyone.

That wasn't the distinction I was making, though. "Sending a thought" is a
direct person-to-person connection, whereas a prayer is addressed to a
deity.

Post by B

Post by Jani
As to thinking of the person as a baby - well, whether it's condescending or
not, it would still seem to be something the sender, or the pray-er, is
doing to make *themselves* feel better about the recipient.

B - well we each have our own beliefs about that obviously. Since all
of us were once babies...I see it as a way
to look at each of us as that same loving being...vulnerable...needing
love etc.

Well, that's the point I'm making - why is it necessary to see people as
helpless babies, before they can be 'loved'? That's rather like trying to
train a dog by treating it like a suckling puppy. Won't work ;)
[]

B - Necessary for me SOMETIMES. When I have trouble getting past all
the anger spewed at me I like to
see the person as a baby...because then my own need to throw it back
lessens...I see the basic need of all human beings to be loved...to
not feel threatened etc. I don't "treat" them like babies..I simply
use that to ease my own need to throw back.

Post by Jani

Post by B
As I understand

Post by Jani
it, 'love your neighbour as yourself' doesn't mean that you first have to
re-shape the 'neighbour' into something more lovable, otherwise 'loving'
would be remarkably easy.

B - loving another as myself means, for me, that I have to see myself
in that person..Ie: empathy...and to do that
means I have to see that person as ONE with me.

I think this is part of the problem - you say "myself ... for me.. myself ..
I ... ONE with me" but at the same time, you're *also* saying "my whole
impetus is to extinguish my ego". Do you see the inherent contradiction,
there?

B - take out the word "me" "myself" and insert the God within me...or
Christ within me. This is likely the problem..I am using the Brenda
version of the Christ within when I simply should use "Christ within".
When I speak from the Christ within..I tend to say "me" ....when I
should say Christ. There's a lesson..thanks. Might not make sense to
you but believe me..you have actually helped me here. ;)

Post by Jani
[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
B - good point. I actually did like the chaps...I actually wanted to

love the girl but I found a stupid irritation building in me out of
something... Yup I could easily have been putting my whole spin on the
situation...I acknowledge that...

It's a particularly hard lesson to learn when the 'object', so to speak,
doesn't fit into one's personal boxes. It's a lot easier to think that the
person who dresses differently *really, madly, deeply* wants to dress as you
(generic "you", there, not personal :) do, but is driven by insecurity and
dysfunction and so on to do otherwise.

B - true. Whether right or wrong though..I do think we all tend to do
this..we judge persons based on our own construct...and it can be a
tough thing to let go. I was talking about however how angered I was
AT myself for the initial reaction though remember...I knew my
judgment right of the bat...was in error. That was the point I was
trying to make..to check yourselves when you have that initial
reaction of negativity.

Post by Jani
[]
I can only say...I loved myself and her both better for the

Post by B
learning experience.

Clearly you learned something, and learned more from posting it. That's
good. But - what did the other person learn? Not that random strangers look
at her clothes, contemplate their own prejudices, overcome them to some
extent, and say "I like how you look". The 'love' benefits your personal
growth, sure, but it does nothing for her. Where is the 'compassion and
empathy'?

B - I believe HAD she thought that all "women" are jealous or "evil"
to her...that not all are. I have heard this from some women who base
a lot of their worth on their looks..that others women treat them
badly because of jealousy....for me to show kindness to her..when she
MIGHT have expected something different...is a lesson albeit a lesson
she may NOT have needed to learn because I was putting my whole "spin"
on the situation. Point being...no matter what comes of it...one of us
learnt a lesson..and then more by posting.

Post by Jani
If I love someone ...it comes back to me and vice

Post by B
versa because I tend to see me in them and them in me. If one wants to
read in these posts of mine "ego" ...then so be it...I post certain
posts like these because I felt that I learnt a good lesson and I
wanted to share.

I'm not denying that you learned a lesson; I'm just not sure it's what you
*think* you learned.
[]

B - but it is...as well as what you have shown me. I have learned
much and it continues.

Post by Jani
Thanks for

Post by B
reading and presenting me with more ways to look at something.

Eh, well, "know thyself" is, as Didactylos says, a bugger ;)
Jani

B - Heard the saying but never heard of Didactylos.....I wonder if he
had six fingers...

Bren

[B]

Post by Jani
No, but it does explain why I don't agree with the OP's argument that
recognising difference, in young children, is a *bad* thing. It's part of
healthy mental development.

B - ah but I never said that it was a "bad" thing. I simply stated
that I believed it better to see similarities first and hold to them
more...and see differences second.

Post by Jani
I think I've been sidetracked, but I'll go with it :) The OP implied that
babies are born with a 'natural will', but it becomes subverted to 'wish'
because of human interaction. Is this what you mean?

B - Oh dear..I don't believe I implied that it becomes subverted to
'wish" because of human interaction...you might have inferred this. I
simply stated that babies are born wanting to love and be loved. Is
love an instinctual thing? it might be as babies deprived of physical
love have shown to waste away..For me seeing someone as a simple (and
no I don't mean in a condescending way again...) being who loves and
fears and wants connection...it places me out of my need to retaliate
or defend and into a simple loving place.

Bren

Post by Jani
Jani

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
In short, the GR was never supposed to be understood to mean
_whatever_ you would like to be treated as. It was always meant to
be understood as meaning how you would like to be treated, assuming
you were thinking rationally and piously about how you would want
to be treated.

*nods* so, in effect, there is no need to consider how other people
want to be treated, because they *should* want to be treated in the
same way as you do?

Certainly not. For although both persons perhaps _should_ always think
rationally and piously about how they want to be treated, in practice,
both often fail to do so. That is _why_ the proviso is so important,
that is _why_ Christ's original words included the _check_ by
referring to the Law and Prophets (see below).

Post by Jani
This is where I'm going with relativism ...

And where I am trying to go is to show you that _all_ your concerns
about 'relativsm' presume the same disastrous hermeneutic mistake,
ignoring the second half of the verse. So the correct solution, rather
than worry about relativism, is to pay attention to the whole verse.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
To make this a little clearer, let's take a look at the _whole_
So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets. (Mat 7:12 RSVA)
Notice the check: "for this is the law and the prophets". Of
_course_ the law and the prophets never recommend eating on Yom
Kippur. So your desire to eat during the Fast is _not_ how you
should treat others either.

In my example, though, the person who wanted to give food saw only a
hungry person; they weren't even aware of the rules of
fasting. Certainly, if they *had* known, it would be a deliberately
harmful act - but I'm talking about an unintentional one.

Is this another example of your interpretation in 'philosophical'
terms rather than "specifically Christian" terms? If so, then perhaps
you should take this as an example of why such terms should not be
used for understanding a specifically Christian rule in the first
place.

If the person in your example is unaware of the rule, then he can't be
following the Golden Rule, not as Christ stated it.

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
Finally, this would perhaps be a little more clear if the RSV
translators had correctly observed the distinction between 'wish'
and 'will' in the translation above: it really should read "will
that men would do to you", not 'wish'. The difference is that the
_will_ is by definition rational and natural. 'Wish' is often
neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very
what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this
instance, both the law and the prophets agree with what natural law
dictates to us [http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]
Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's
reference to our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.

I think I've been sidetracked, but I'll go with it :)

It is common, even all too common, to think one has been
'sidetracked', when in truth, a lengthy digression was necessary to
correct an deeply rooted but incorrect presupposition.

Post by Jani
The OP implied that babies are born with a 'natural will', but it
becomes subverted to 'wish' because of human interaction. Is this
what you mean?

No. Wish is not a _form_ of the natural will. Rather, will depends on
and follows wish, but not in a simply reducible way. For example, we
may all wish to be treated like kings, but we cannot _will_ to do it,
since it is beyond our power.

The OP was not saying anything that specific about the will/wish (only
something much more vague and sentimental). So I rather doubt that is
what the OP meant, too.

How familiar are you with natural law theory? Have you ever read any
Aquinas on Natural Law, or on the human will (e.g. ST I q. 75-79)? Or
have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on Free
Will? It would be easier to explain if I could count on at least that
much common background.

[Jani]

[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
Well, that's the point I'm making - why is it necessary to see people as
helpless babies, before they can be 'loved'? That's rather like trying to
train a dog by treating it like a suckling puppy. Won't work ;)
[]

B - Necessary for me SOMETIMES. When I have trouble getting past all
the anger spewed at me I like to
see the person as a baby...because then my own need to throw it back
lessens...I see the basic need of all human beings to be loved...to
not feel threatened etc. I don't "treat" them like babies..I simply
use that to ease my own need to throw back.

I can see that as a temporary 'fix-it' - it's rather like visualising an
authoritarian boss in a vulnerable situation, in order to cope with a
telling-off - but it's still very much a kind of self-reassurance, rather
than a compassionate understanding of the other person's POV.

[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
I think this is part of the problem - you say "myself ... for me.. myself
..
I ... ONE with me" but at the same time, you're *also* saying "my whole
impetus is to extinguish my ego". Do you see the inherent contradiction,
there?

B - take out the word "me" "myself" and insert the God within me...or
Christ within me. This is likely the problem..I am using the Brenda
version of the Christ within when I simply should use "Christ within".
When I speak from the Christ within..I tend to say "me" ....when I
should say Christ. There's a lesson..thanks. Might not make sense to
you but believe me..you have actually helped me here. ;)

I don't think replacing one name with another makes a lot of difference,
tbh. "Christ within" or "channeling Raven", it all comes down to the same.

Post by B

Post by Jani
[]

Post by B

Post by B
B - good point. I actually did like the chaps...I actually wanted to

love the girl but I found a stupid irritation building in me out of
something... Yup I could easily have been putting my whole spin on the
situation...I acknowledge that...

It's a particularly hard lesson to learn when the 'object', so to speak,
doesn't fit into one's personal boxes. It's a lot easier to think that
the
person who dresses differently *really, madly, deeply* wants to dress as
you
(generic "you", there, not personal :) do, but is driven by insecurity
and
dysfunction and so on to do otherwise.

B - true. Whether right or wrong though..I do think we all tend to do
this..we judge persons based on our own construct...and it can be a
tough thing to let go.

It is indeed tough, but once it's gone, it's gone. Over the last few weeks,
I've been looking at prairie dresses, rather stylish shalwar-kameez, and
everything from ZsaZsa drag to bare-bum chaps at a local Pride parade. I
find it quite hard to remember *which* one I'm supposed to object to, but I
don't have a problem understanding that they're all very different, and that
*they* have objections to each other.



I was talking about however how angered I was

Post by B
AT myself for the initial reaction though remember...I knew my
judgment right of the bat...was in error. That was the point I was
trying to make..to check yourselves when you have that initial
reaction of negativity.

Oh, sure, I understood that. But it wasn't something that would affect the
object of your observation, only you. It wasn't interactive: the girl had no
idea that her kit had made you think through all those things, only that
some strange woman had come up to her and said "I like your clothes".


[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
Clearly you learned something, and learned more from posting it. That's
good. But - what did the other person learn? Not that random strangers
look
at her clothes, contemplate their own prejudices, overcome them to some
extent, and say "I like how you look". The 'love' benefits your personal
growth, sure, but it does nothing for her. Where is the 'compassion and
empathy'?

B - I believe HAD she thought that all "women" are jealous or "evil"
to her...that not all are. I have heard this from some women who base
a lot of their worth on their looks..that others women treat them
badly because of jealousy....for me to show kindness to her..when she
MIGHT have expected something different...is a lesson albeit a lesson
she may NOT have needed to learn because I was putting my whole "spin"
on the situation. Point being...no matter what comes of it...one of us
learnt a lesson..and then more by posting.

Seriously, what is confusing me here is that you insist on seeing this as a
kind and charitable act. You walked up to someone and said you liked their
clothes, they smiled and said thanks; everything else is in your own
imagination.

[]

Post by B

Post by Jani
Thanks for

Post by B
reading and presenting me with more ways to look at something.

Eh, well, "know thyself" is, as Didactylos says, a bugger ;)
Jani

B - Heard the saying but never heard of Didactylos.....I wonder if he
had six fingers...

Sorry, I forgot that you don't read Pratchett. Didactylos is, roughly
translated, "two fingers" - which is pretty much what he raises to both
philosophy and religion, every time they get in the way of reality ;)

Jani

[Jani]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
In short, the GR was never supposed to be understood to mean
_whatever_ you would like to be treated as. It was always meant to
be understood as meaning how you would like to be treated, assuming
you were thinking rationally and piously about how you would want
to be treated.

*nods* so, in effect, there is no need to consider how other people
want to be treated, because they *should* want to be treated in the
same way as you do?

Certainly not. For although both persons perhaps _should_ always think
rationally and piously about how they want to be treated, in practice,
both often fail to do so. That is _why_ the proviso is so important,
that is _why_ Christ's original words included the _check_ by
referring to the Law and Prophets (see below).

Post by Jani
This is where I'm going with relativism ...

And where I am trying to go is to show you that _all_ your concerns
about 'relativsm' presume the same disastrous hermeneutic mistake,
ignoring the second half of the verse. So the correct solution, rather
than worry about relativism, is to pay attention to the whole verse.

But I'm not coming at it from a Christian perspective, Matthew, that's the
point. I'm looking at whether the Golden Rule is so universal that *all*
religious cultures would have to subscribe to it, or whether it has to be
'juggled' to fit in with those cultures.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
To make this a little clearer, let's take a look at the _whole_
So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets. (Mat 7:12 RSVA)
Notice the check: "for this is the law and the prophets". Of
_course_ the law and the prophets never recommend eating on Yom
Kippur. So your desire to eat during the Fast is _not_ how you
should treat others either.

In my example, though, the person who wanted to give food saw only a
hungry person; they weren't even aware of the rules of
fasting. Certainly, if they *had* known, it would be a deliberately
harmful act - but I'm talking about an unintentional one.

Is this another example of your interpretation in 'philosophical'
terms rather than "specifically Christian" terms? If so, then perhaps
you should take this as an example of why such terms should not be
used for understanding a specifically Christian rule in the first
place.
If the person in your example is unaware of the rule, then he can't be
following the Golden Rule, not as Christ stated it.

Exactly! The GR is not specifically Christian, and whichever version of the
GR one subscribes to, it requires the same worldview on the part of both
actor and recipient.


[]

The difference is that the

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
_will_ is by definition rational and natural. 'Wish' is often
neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very
what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this
instance, both the law and the prophets agree with what natural law
dictates to us [http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]
Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's
reference to our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.

[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
The OP implied that babies are born with a 'natural will', but it
becomes subverted to 'wish' because of human interaction. Is this
what you mean?

No. Wish is not a _form_ of the natural will. Rather, will depends on
and follows wish, but not in a simply reducible way. For example, we
may all wish to be treated like kings, but we cannot _will_ to do it,
since it is beyond our power.

No, I didn't mean that the one follows on from the other; rather that the OP
was distinguishing between innate 'will' - something one is born with - and
'wish' that is desire created by living in the world.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The OP was not saying anything that specific about the will/wish (only
something much more vague and sentimental). So I rather doubt that is
what the OP meant, too.

Heh, well, perhaps I'm helping her out, there ;)

Post by Matthew Johnson
How familiar are you with natural law theory? Have you ever read any
Aquinas on Natural Law, or on the human will (e.g. ST I q. 75-79)? Or
have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on Free
Will? It would be easier to explain if I could count on at least that
much common background.

Eh, that's hard to answer, actually. Yes, I'm familiar with ST, and also
with *some* of the scholarly debate. But philosophy is not my field, and I
can't really argue from *within* the Christian paradigm, only from my own
relativist viewpoint. Assume common background, and if I can't keep up,
I'll ask.

Jani

[Jani]

Post by B

Post by Jani
No, but it does explain why I don't agree with the OP's argument that
recognising difference, in young children, is a *bad* thing. It's part of
healthy mental development.

B - ah but I never said that it was a "bad" thing. I simply stated
that I believed it better to see similarities first and hold to them
more...and see differences second.

Which is why I asked what age-group you were referring to, since recognising
"difference" is not the same for infants as it is for older children.

Post by B

Post by Jani
I think I've been sidetracked, but I'll go with it :) The OP implied that
babies are born with a 'natural will', but it becomes subverted to 'wish'
because of human interaction. Is this what you mean?

B - Oh dear..I don't believe I implied that it becomes subverted to
'wish" because of human interaction...you might have inferred this. I
simply stated that babies are born wanting to love and be loved.

No, babies are born with no concept of 'love', at all; they're little
bundles of self-centred sensory impressions. 'Love' is an adult idea, and
you have to train them into it.

Is

Post by B
love an instinctual thing? it might be as babies deprived of physical
love have shown to waste away.

Babies deprived of physical and emotional contact do not develop normally;
this doesn't indicate that they have some inborn "love and be loved"
quality.

.For me seeing someone as a simple (and

Post by B
no I don't mean in a condescending way again...) being who loves and
fears and wants connection...it places me out of my need to retaliate
or defend and into a simple loving place.

Well, this is what I keep pointing out - you have to visualise people as
vulnerable and needing love so that you can deal with your own desire to
retaliate. This is not the same as accepting people *as they are* and loving
them as yourself.

Jani

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
And where I am trying to go is to show you that _all_ your concerns
about 'relativsm' presume the same disastrous hermeneutic mistake,
ignoring the second half of the verse. So the correct solution,
rather than worry about relativism, is to pay attention to the
whole verse.

But I'm not coming at it from a Christian perspective, Matthew, that's the
point.

Then it is _not_ the "Golden Rule" you are describing: it is the
"Fool's Gold Rule" instead.

Post by Jani
I'm looking at whether the Golden Rule is so universal that *all*
religious cultures would have to subscribe to it, or whether it has to be
'juggled' to fit in with those cultures.

No, that is not what you are doing. For to do this, you would first
have to know what the Golden Rule is by itself, but this is what you
are _refusing_ to do whenever you insist on analysing it from a
'relativist' perspective.

[snip]

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
If the person in your example is unaware of the [fasting] rule,
then he can't be following the Golden Rule, not as Christ stated
it.

Exactly! The GR is not specifically Christian, and whichever version
of the GR one subscribes to, it requires the same worldview on the
part of both actor and recipient.

And my point is: if it is not Christ's version, then it is NOT "the
Golden Rule" It is, at best, "the Tinsel Rule", or "the Fool's Gold
Rule";)

Post by Jani
[]
The difference is that the

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
_will_ is by definition rational and natural. 'Wish' is often
neither. This is why Theophylact says, commenting on this very
what you do not love yourself, do not do to others; in this
instance, both the law and the prophets agree with what natural law
dictates to us [http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#07]
Note the reference to _natural_ law. This is justified by Christ's
reference to our _natural_ will, in the word 'will'.

[]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Jani
The OP implied that babies are born with a 'natural will', but it
becomes subverted to 'wish' because of human interaction. Is this
what you mean?

No. Wish is not a _form_ of the natural will. Rather, will depends on
and follows wish, but not in a simply reducible way. For example, we
may all wish to be treated like kings, but we cannot _will_ to do it,
since it is beyond our power.

No, I didn't mean that the one follows on from the other; rather that
the OP was distinguishing between innate 'will' - something one is
born with - and 'wish' that is desire created by living in the world.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The OP was not saying anything that specific about the will/wish
(only something much more vague and sentimental). So I rather doubt
that is what the OP meant, too.

Heh, well, perhaps I'm helping her out, there ;)

That would be a bad idea;)

Post by Jani

Post by Matthew Johnson
How familiar are you with natural law theory? Have you ever read
any Aquinas on Natural Law, or on the human will (e.g. ST I
q. 75-79)? Or have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
articles on Free Will? It would be easier to explain if I could
count on at least that much common background.

Eh, that's hard to answer, actually. Yes, I'm familiar with ST, and
also with *some* of the scholarly debate. But philosophy is not my
field, and I can't really argue from *within* the Christian paradigm,
only from my own relativist viewpoint. Assume common background, and
if I can't keep up, I'll ask.

But you just gave me every reason _not_ to assume "common
background". Especially with your insistence on 'relativism': after
all once you come to _understand_ Aquinas's "adaequatio rei et
intellectus", you cannot _help_ but agree with it;)

[B]

Post by Jani
No, babies are born with no concept of 'love', at all; they're little
bundles of self-centred sensory impressions. 'Love' is an adult idea, and
you have to train them into it.

B - well I don't agree with your opinion.

**snip

Post by Jani

Post by B
no I don't mean in a condescending way again...) being who loves and
fears and wants connection...it places me out of my need to retaliate
or defend and into a simple loving place.

Well, this is what I keep pointing out - you have to visualise people as
vulnerable and needing love so that you can deal with your own desire to
retaliate. This is not the same as accepting people *as they are* and lovi=

ng

Post by Jani
them as yourself.
Jani

B - that's right. Not all people though..just some...and I'm still
working on it.

Bren