Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure we are discussing the same thing when we discuss "love".

I have read "The Five Loves" by C.S. Lewis. That is one reason why I specified various types of love and even mentioned my love of computer games.

Then he gave the paraable of the Good Samaritan. In short, it is simply an example of the Golden rule.
No it most definitely is not. Agape love goes far beyond the golden rule.

Secondly, the only one who helped the man at the side of the road was a Samaritan, who was a natural enemy of the dying Jew, yet he helped him.
There is no such thing as 'natural enemy'.

Using this parable as an example, emotion did not play a factor in love, rather, it was a choice.
I totally disagree there. You seem to be claiming that one can love in a completely rational way, with no emotion whatsoever. I dispute that. Love is always an emotion.

In fact, if there were any emotion attached to the interaction, it would be one of hostility, which if the man had any, he then had to overcome it in order to help the dying man.
I guess that is what most Jews would have thought. However that conclusion is based on the false assumption that all Samaritans hated all Jews.

So I ask you, is it "rational" to help your adversery,
It often can be.

or put another way, is it natural to "love" your adversary?
That is a very different question. I think we often do 'love' our adversaries to some extent - so yes, I think it is natural. In fact, in many ways our spose is often both lover and adversary.

Would you not want your adversary to perish so that you may live and/or prosper?
Not necessarily. I generally am against war, the death penalty etc and only advocated killing in self defense. Unless my adversary wants to kill me (and is capable of doing so), I would not want him/her to perish, and it may not be beneficial for me to live and prosper.
This applies even to countries - wars result in losses on both sides. Sometimes co-operation is far more beneficial than conflict.
Certainly if you killed anyone who came into conflict with you, you would not prosper.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have read "The Five Loves" by C.S. Lewis. That is one reason why I specified various types of love and even mentioned my love of computer games.

[b]Then he gave the paraable of the Good Samaritan. In short, it is simply an example of the Golden rule.
No it most definitely is not. Agape love goes far beyond the golden rule.

Secondly, the ...[text shortened]... Certainly if you killed anyone who came into conflict with you, you would not prosper.

'the Golden Rule'-'Do unto others as they would do unto you',right?
Remember the way Obi Wan Kenobi went down? He just took the blow from Darth Vader - submitting to his fate completely.
My point here is just following on from Twhiteheads point, which is, we don't always do unto others as we would do unto ourselves, because, as I see it, this is just mutual ego-greasing.
For example If I were given a chance to be slain by say...the Bhudda, or some other manifestation of a truly enlightened person , I would fully not want the same thing to happen to them.
To overcome the fear of death is called ' emancipation'. When you truly reach this point you will never go back. Your life will forever be changed and keep 'yo-yoing' until 'enlightenment'.

Originally posted by whodey
(Hiccup) nooper, why doooyu asssk?

Hey your not as drink as you drunk you are! 🙂



Manny

Originally posted by amannion
'We have all broken the golden rule' is just a chance to justify the self flagellation and the abhorent practices of such entities as the Inquisition. Not sure I'd be quite as self congratulatory in claiming Mosaic law - this was a barbaric period of human history.
Jesus was not the first to apply this notion to our enemies.
The last point was of course w ...[text shortened]... - much in the same way as any sect leader from early to modern times.

What's your point?

My point is, I don't know of any other teacher who taught us that we should love our enemies before Christ did. In fact, he told his followers that you have been taught to hate your adversary, but I tell you otherwise. Perhaps you know of some that I don't know about nor did Christ and his followers know about. Nontheless, I find this type of love to be a choice, not an emotion. In fact, you might even call it a discipline. We naturally love those that love us back. In fact, Christ says that even the wicked do as much, however, what distinguishes the believer from others is that they show love to all even if some of them hate us. For us to be capable of such behavoir the supernatural must be at work in my opinion.

Of course, the other part of the equation is that Christ offers us a way to atone for our sins and repent or turn from them. In my own life and the lives of others, I have seen Christ work in such a way. In short, the testimony of such change is evidence of the power in their lives.

Originally posted by whodey
My point is, I don't know of any other teacher who taught us that we should love our enemies before Christ did.

That only shows your ignorance and not that there were no such other teachers. Note that I am in no way trying to insult you with the word 'ignorance'. I am similarly totally ignorant of any other such teachers. However, as far as I know I have not read many books about people prior to Jesus so I am quite aware of my ignorance of teacher prior to him regardless of their teachings.

Perhaps you know of some that I don't know about nor did Christ and his followers know about.
Christs earliest followers were mostly uneducated and wouldn't have known about many other teachers at all, and the ones they did know about would mostly have been Jews. Some of his later followers were much better educated (some of the gospel writers for example) but again, I doubt they knew that many teachers teachings. And most importantly, what makes you think Christ and his followers did not know about similar teachings? Many people have suggested in fact that the gospel writers used the teachings of a number of people in order to compile the gospels. I am inclined to agree with them. In fact, some of the teachings in the gospels are clearly coming from the gospel writers themselves. So there is clearly no shortage of 'Christ-like' teachings around that time.

Why do you think the 'love your enemy' teaching is unique? I bet you simply assumed it was and didn't really think about it.

Nontheless, I find this type of love to be a choice, not an emotion.
And I don't. I generally only show love to enemies and strangers for emotional reasons. I am quite surprised that you don't. You must be a very cold hearted person.

For us to be capable of such behavoir the supernatural must be at work in my opinion.
You are starting to sound like knightmeister who is incapable of doing anything good without Gods help. But you are contradicting yourself.
1. You recognized that loving your enemy is good.
2. You love your enemy.
3. You find it hard to believe that you could love your enemy.(because you inherently believe you should not love your enemy).
4. You conclude that your behavior must be due to supernatural intervention.

But 3 and 1 contradict each other, making 4 a rather poor conclusion.

Of course, the other part of the equation is that Christ offers us a way to atone for our sins and repent or turn from them. In my own life and the lives of others, I have seen Christ work in such a way. In short, the testimony of such change is evidence of the power in their lives.
Yet somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. Why Christians cant discuss something without trying to preach, is beyond me.

Originally posted by whodey
My point is, I don't know of any other teacher who taught us that we should love our enemies before Christ did. In fact, he told his followers that you have been taught to hate your adversary, but I tell you otherwise. Perhaps you know of some that I don't know about nor did Christ and his followers know about. Nontheless, I find this type of love to be a ...[text shortened]... n such a way. In short, the testimony of such change is evidence of the power in their lives.

"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others."
Confucius - 551 BCE to 479 BCE

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self."
Hindu text - around 800 BCE

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."
Pittacus - 640 BCE to 568 BCE

A small sampling only. Would you care for me to go into the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - who predates Christ by 500 years.
I'm not trying to denigrate the message of Christ's teachings - but he sure wasn't original - and try as you might to frame his teachings as different, the reality is that all over the world at this time and stretching back perhaps 1000 years, people were starting to have the same idea: wouldn't it be great to be nice to people for a change ...

Originally posted by amannion
"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others."
Confucius - 551 BCE to 479 BCE

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self."
Hindu text - around 800 BCE

"Do not to your neighbor what you would ...[text shortened]... ting to have the same idea: wouldn't it be great to be nice to people for a change ...

But these teeachings are simply the golden rule spelled out in a different way. It is a far cry from the teaching that we should love our enemies and do good to them which despitefully use us.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course, the other part of the equation is that Christ offers us a way to atone for our sins and repent or turn from them. In my own life and the lives of others, I have seen Christ work in such a way. In short, the testimony of such change is evidence of the power in their lives.
Yet somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. Why Christians cant discuss something without trying to preach, is beyond me.[/b]

My only point here is to say how Christ was revolutionary. In short, he changes lives and shows people how to love who could not or would not before, including myself.

Originally posted by amannion
"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others."
Confucius - 551 BCE to 479 BCE

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self."
Hindu text - around 800 BCE

"Do not to your neighbor what you would ...[text shortened]... ting to have the same idea: wouldn't it be great to be nice to people for a change ...

Yes exactly. Not to say there weren't others out there just acting out this teaching,(love thy enemy), and not just writing it down.
It seems to me that all evolved beings naturally end up coming to the same universal conclusions about life and humanity's role in the universe. 'Loving your enemy' is one of them however this teaching /insight can be expressed in radically different ways due to the culture or the age in which it is expressed. In its most extreme forms 'loving your enemy' could even entail murdering them!
Now to the interesting question of how many of these 'universal insights' there are as regards to being 'self-concious beings' in the universe , my answer would be infinity!!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes exactly. Not to say there weren't others out there just acting out this teaching,(love thy enemy), and not just writing it down.
It seems to me that all evolved beings naturally end up coming to the same universal conclusions about life and humanity's role in the universe. 'Loving your enemy' is one of them however this teaching /insight can be e ...[text shortened]... egards to being 'self-concious beings' in the universe , my answer would be infinity!!

So who taguth to love your enemy before Christ did?

Originally posted by whodey
So who taguth to love your enemy before Christ did?

amannion already pointed out three. Did he mention Guatama Bhudda? Anyway I've come across a few in my readings but cant recall anymore at this stage.
What do you think about my point that people may have been practicing this teaching without preaching or writing it down. It is my contention that there have been 'pockets' of highly evolved people living on thhis Earth for a long,long,long time before Jesus came. Jesus just came upon the same universal truth as they did-Love your enemy-or better put : "Love everything" . For only in this way will you realize the true nature of 'awakened non-dualism'. (The 'Love' cutting through all divisions and hence producing a totally non-dual mind.)

Originally posted by whodey
So who taguth to love your enemy before Christ did?

C'mon, you Christians are experts at interpreting (or perhaps I should say re-interpreting) texts.
Surely you can see how this - What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else - can easily be interpreted as a love your enemies direction.
I'm sorry but there is nothing revolutionary about Jesus and his teachings - assuming of course that they were actually his teachings (but I won't open that can of worms any further.) He was merely describing the sort of ethical framework that most other human societies were also developing or had already developed.
The difference with his is that you've added the supernatural element of his father/son link with a god.
You'll probably find similar sorts of supernatural familial links with kings, Greek heroes, and many others - so I guess even that isn't revolutionary.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your need to promote this one guy above every other - you've invested quite a lot into him. That's cool. But please, accept that there were some other pretty enlightened guys (and maybe some girls too) out there ...