It's the greatest of all human emotions..

[Tom Wetmore]

Maybe it's a Gerry thing, but you too have missed the point - B-A-L-A-N-C-E. Three attributes, like the three persons of the Triune God working in perfect harmony. But love is a matter of spirit or emotion which motivates the mind to think and the body to act.

The heart feels drawn toward another, the mind reasons and thinks of the right thing to do and the body acts accordingly. Yes, a person can skip the first step and feel no compassion or affection toward a person in need and reason out the right course of action to help take care of the need or how to treat the person with courtesy and respect and act accordingly. But that is not action motivated by love, it just doing a good thing. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is just not love in action. It's civility. It's

disinterested patronage. It's a duty. It's works.

You ask if feelings are reliable. I would ask if your mind is reliable. Is your body reliable? Obviously, no part of us is terribly reliable. That was an earlier point I made. Sin has knocked us out of whack. We are imbalanced and all mixed up. None of us is functioning at optimum levels, mentally, emotionally or physically. But you know what, some of the least among us physically and mentally still can feel and express love. And often they do much better at it than those rational ones restrained by some sense of principles and unwavering sense of duty to do the right thing.

How magnificent would your life be if you pushed your feelings into the background on everything?

Tom

[cardw]

I think we can look at emotions as forms of bio energy. The word e-motion has the word motion in it. Emotions create movement. I think we make a mistake when we label an emotion as bad or good. They each have their purpose.

I do think fear is the opposite of love since love draws people closer and fear moves us apart. Fear is very useful when you need to run from danger and its purpose is short term. Fear becomes harmful when it becomes the core motivation and is chronic. Much of religion is based in fear and teaches people to act from fear.

Anger can be harmful when it is directed at people, whether that be oneself or others. It can be a very powerful emotion of change and is essential for setting boundaries. Generally anger blows when it has not been used for setting proper boundaries.

When anger blows it is a self protection mechanism that kicks in to help us survive. Properly used it can be directed at harmful things people do. And anger does not mean that one is not loving. If one were to look at Jesus cleansing the temple it certainly appears to be a rage. He's turning over tables and swinging cords and yelling at the money changers and merchants to get out of his father's house. It doesn't look he is saying please.

While empathy is a beautiful emotion, it can create more harm than anger when it becomes the motivation for enabling. A person who does not set boundaries is just as harmful as the person raging in anger. Often empathy is a cover up for fear. That person needs anger. An example is a person who does nothing when an abuser harms them or their children because they are trying to "keep the family together." There needs to be anger at what is happening to move one to get help and insist that the abusive behavior stops NOW. Only after everyone is safe can healing occur.

Emotions are essential to being human. They are the point of existence because only within emotions can one experience joy. The intellectual mind has no access to that experience because joy is not linear. It is another form of emotional energy. And when I talk about energy, this energy is very organized and contains a lot of intelligence in a very complex form. The intellectual side of ourselves simply can't keep up with it because of its high order of complexity. Emotions process on many channels at the same time. That's one reason why we as humans tend to talk a lot about how we feel because of the difficulty of putting many of our experiences into words.

I think many of us have been taught to be afraid of our emotions rather than how to use our emotions.

[Gerr]

It seems to me that in your zeal and quest to disagree with and dissect what I posted you end up totally missing the point.

Zeal & quest to disagree? If my memory serves me correctly, I made the statement that agape love is a decision based on principle. You joined the discussion and disagreed that, no, it was rooted in the emotion. I have no problem that you disagree with what I say, but I'm at a loss as to why you call it "zeal and quest to disagree" when it goes the other way?

Quote:

The right reason for doing the right thing is that you love, ie, feel compassion or a sense of empathy or connection to the person in need. It goes to what motives the action.

For someone who does the most heinous thing to another human being, my emotions tell me destroy this animal! God's agape love tells me otherwise - treat this person as someone for whom Jesus died. That decision has nothing to do with emotion. It is rooted in principle. That is not to say that agape love has no feelings at all. A lot of the good things we do are done not merely from rational standpoint but because we do feel compassion. But who are these people we do we do the right things and feel compassion for? The downtrodden, the victims, the sick, those marginalized. But the predators?

Quote:

Taking a rational principled approach to doing good deeds is like having sex with your wife simply for breeding purposes to create the next generation of humans and calling it "making love."

Hmmmm. Talk about a non sequitur!

[Bravus]

The distinction between reason and emotion is a Greek invention that didn't even exist at the time most of the Old Testament was written. It shouldn't be 'reified' (treated as though it's a real thing), it should be used as a tool where it's useful and discarded where it's not. Certainly the Bible, when not read through that Greek filter, is very holistic...

[Neil D]

John and Gerry-

We tend to look at agape love as a principle in which feelings follow....And I am not saying that that is wrong...but rather it is something that we put forward as a definition of God's love.

And yet, from the book of Hosea, I showed where God's feelings for a rebelleous people moves Him to action...This is contrary from what you have advanced as the definition of agape love...There is emotion of longing, of pathos, of desire from God which in turns, moves Him to seek out these that are lost to Him and seeks to find them...NOW....

Would you say that God's love is different than what is presented here?

[Gerr]

The distinction between reason and emotion is a Greek invention that didn't even exist at the time most of the Old Testament was written. It shouldn't be 'reified' (treated as though it's a real thing), it should be used as a tool where it's useful and discarded where it's not. Certainly the Bible, when not read through that Greek filter, is very holistic...

Are you saying there's no distinction? Yes, I do believe in the whole person but that whole person is also made up of different parts that are often in conflict. My emotions tell me one thing, and perhaps even reason would tell me the same thing, but God's agape love may in fact go against both. For example: my emotions and reason tell me Dahmer and his ilk deserves the electric chair and does not deserve to be treated as a human being, but agape love as I understand it promps me to do otherwise.

[Bravus]

No, there's a distinction but it's useful, not true. It's a tool for thinking about different parts of a whole.

[Gerr]

John and Gerry-

We tend to look at agape love as a principle in which feelings follow....And I am not saying that that is wrong...but rather it is something that we put forward as a definition of God's love.

And yet, from the book of Hosea, I showed where God's feelings for a rebelleous people moves Him to action...This is contrary from what you have advanced as the definition of agape love...There is emotion of longing, of pathos, of desire from God which in turns, moves Him to seek out these that are lost to Him and seeks to find them...NOW....

Would you say that God's love is different than what is presented here?

I sense that there seems to be something that is getting lost in your example and Tom's. Would you have the same feelings for Hosea as you would for Gomer had he sold his wife into prostitution? Have the same feelings for the servant who was forgiven an enormous debt but had no compassion on someone who owed him a few dollars as the fellow servant who could not pay him his debt?

Since you brought up Scripture, let me bring up some quotations from SOP also. I hate to do this because in the past, this has elicited criticism that this somehow is an attempt to to end all discussions. It is not. This is only to show the reasons for my position.

Pure religion has to do with the will. The will is the governing power in the nature of man, bringing all the other faculties under its sway. The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the deciding power which works in the children of men unto obedience to God or unto disobedience...................

You will be in constant peril until you understand the true force of the will. You may believe and promise all things, but your promises or your faith are of no value until you put your will on the side of faith and action. If you fight the fight of faith with all your will power, you will conquer. Your feelings, your impressions, your emotions, are not to be trusted, for they are not reliable, Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5. 1855; 2002 (513). Pacific Press Publishing Association.{5T 513.1}

But shall we wait till we feel that we are cleansed?-- No; Christ has promised that "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). You are proved of God through the Word of God. You are not to wait for wonderful emotions before you believe that God has heard you, feeling is not to be your criterion, for emotions are as changeable as the clouds.White, E. G. (1958; 2002). Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 1; Selected Messages, Book 1 (328). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

The religion of Christ brings the emotions under the control of reason and disciplines the tongue.

White, E. G. (1930; 2002). Messages to Young People (136). Southern Publishing Association.

There is danger of those in our ranks making a mistake in regard to receiving the Holy Ghost. Many suppose an emotion or a rapture of feeling to be an evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit

White, E. G. (1958; 2002). Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 2; Selected Messages, Book 2 (18). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

Bold & underlined for emphasis mine.

[Gerr]

No, there's a distinction but it's useful, not true. It's a tool for thinking about different parts of a whole.

Perhaps not useful to you, but a useful tool to me. There are people whose necks I feel like wringing but would not do.

[Bravus]

I do believe I said it *is* useful... so yeah, there is a valid purpose to being able to talk about thoughts and feelings separately.

I do worry about taking that next step of saying 'reason always right, feelings always wrong' though. Our feelings have access to an enormous amount of incoming information that we experience subconsciously, so we may feel someone is a good person (or otherwise) without yet having enough explicit, rational evidence to support that feeling. Yet trusting it can protect us.

I once saw an inspirational poster for (Christian) children that said 'Never trust yourself'. That might be good advice in some things, but it also robs kids of protection against the actions and intentions of abusers that their feelings would otherwise offer...

[Gerr]

Ah, but you added, "not true."

I wouldn't go so far as to say that reason is ALWAYS right and feelings are ALWAYS wrong. This kind of generalizations cause problems most of the time.

BTW, when the Holy Spirit is trying to impress something to us {subconscious) we often say, "I feel led...." But this might be a misnomer?

[Bravus]

Yeah, sorry, I was being (perhaps too) concise.

To me, 'useful but not true' is a little phrase I use about lots of ideas. Saying 'light is both a particle and a wave' is useful, but not true. We can use that idea to explore how light behaves, but light is neither a particle nor a wave, it is simply light.

Similarly, saying people have thoughts and feelings is useful but not true. People have thoughts/feelings that are all mixed up together - and even that description isn't really accurate. It's useful to be able to talk about thoughts and feelings separately - and because we do it so much, it may even come to feel, subjectively, as though the two things are really separate. But they aren't, they are linked in complex ways, and it's healthy to remember that.

[cardw]

Quote:

If you fight the fight of faith with all your will power, you will conquer. Your feelings, your impressions, your emotions, are not to be trusted, for they are not reliable.

This does not agree with my experience at all. It has been when I did not listen to my impressions that I made mistakes. My impressions didn't tell me exactly what was wrong, but they let me know when I need to take a closer look. At these points reason seemed to give a clear way, when in actuality I should have listened to my gut feeling.

This statement presents what I consider to be a fatal paradox when you take these things literally. Using one's will power to accomplish something doesn't need a god.

Plus, one either has trust or they don't. You can't work that up no matter how much will power you have.

Quote:

The religion of Christ brings the emotions under the control of reason and disciplines the tongue.

I happen to think that we are silent too often. To me, this promotes a form of dishonesty and teaches manipulation. This produces what I call "nice" people.

Quote:

You are not to wait for wonderful emotions before you believe that God has heard you, feeling is not to be your criterion, for emotions are as changeable as the clouds.

The reason you have to use will power in the first place is that this god is not there.

One of the first signs I received when I finally let go of these particularly toxic teachings on emotion was peace, joy, and lightness of heart. If these are not a part of life, then what's the point?

I also received a resolve that I was never going to place myself in that type of prison again. The healing of one's emotions is essential to being fully alive. If I was to say I had a conversion experience, it would definitely be when I let go of the idea of god as described in the Bible and by Ellen White. I will NEVER place myself under that oppression again. That's how strongly I feel and think about these toxic teachings.

These teachings were designed to keep people in fear because people had doubts about Ellen White. She used her authority to deflect her critics and maintain control. You will notice that no one is ever good enough. These are tremendously subtle because they look "wise" and she seems like such a "nice" woman. But her councils on this matter don't play out in real life. To put it bluntly, they don't work.

There is no question in my mind that Christianity is based on fear. To me, the evidence is massive. I am very comfortable using the tools of reason, but there are places that reason simply can't go. And when reason is limited by authority it simply doesn't even consider other alternatives. Its a trap that even the most intelligent can't escape unless they are willing to pay attention to their deeper self. The self that senses, not the self that fears or the self that is protecting the ego.

[Tom Wetmore]

Perhaps not useful to you, but a useful tool to me. There are people whose necks I feel like wringing but would not do.

Is it love that restrains you from wringing their necks? I would seriously doubt it. Not that it is a bad thing to feel restrained from killing someone, but we can obey the law for a variety of reasons, none of which have love in them. We may fear having blood on our hands or fear being killed ourselves. Or we may simply be self-controlled.

This is not to say there is no love in the idea or the motivation. We may well have some small kernel of love, but I think it rare among people to possess and act out of a pure love on the order that Jesus speaks of.

Bravus is quite right, that we really cannot dissect and isolate our emotions from our intellect, or our physical self. These things are holistically integrated in us. And that complete integration does result in a sort of confirmation of the point being made by EGW. You have heard the saying, "Act enthusiastic and you will be enthusiastic." One aspect of the point EGW was making was not to wait for our feelings before we believe or act. Studies have shown that emotions do follow actions. If you force yourself to smile, eventually you will begin to feel happier. If you grit your teeth and be kind to that nasty person, eventually you may just begin to regard them differently and may actually begin to have Christ-like thoughts about them. Yes, and maybe even grow to love them.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Perhaps not useful to you, but a useful tool to me. There are people whose necks I feel like wringing but would not do.

Is it love that restrains you from wringing their necks? I would seriously doubt it. Not that it is a bad thing to feel restrained from killing someone, but we can obey the law for a variety of reasons, none of which have love in them. We may fear having blood on our hands or fear being killed ourselves. Or we may simply be self-controlled.

Ah, doubting Thomas!

Yes, you're right! As corrupted humans, our motives are no longer as pure as we would like to think. Partly agape love, partly the law, and probably various combinations of what you mentioned. We do have civil laws to maintain order after all!

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

John and Gerry-

We tend to look at agape love as a principle in which feelings follow....And I am not saying that that is wrong...but rather it is something that we put forward as a definition of God's love.

And yet, from the book of Hosea, I showed where God's feelings for a rebelleous people moves Him to action...This is contrary from what you have advanced as the definition of agape love...There is emotion of longing, of pathos, of desire from God which in turns, moves Him to seek out these that are lost to Him and seeks to find them...NOW....

Would you say that God's love is different than what is presented here?

I sense that there seems to be something that is getting lost in your example and Tom's. Would you have the same feelings for Hosea as you would for Gomer had he sold his wife into prostitution? Have the same feelings for the servant who was forgiven an enormous debt but had no compassion on someone who owed him a few dollars as the fellow servant who could not pay him his debt?

[Neil D]

I do believe I said it *is* useful... so yeah, there is a valid purpose to being able to talk about thoughts and feelings separately.

I do worry about taking that next step of saying 'reason always right, feelings always wrong' though. Our feelings have access to an enormous amount of incoming information that we experience subconsciously, so we may feel someone is a good person (or otherwise) without yet having enough explicit, rational evidence to support that feeling. Yet trusting it can protect us.

I once saw an inspirational poster for (Christian) children that said 'Never trust yourself'. That might be good advice in some things, but it also robs kids of protection against the actions and intentions of abusers that their feelings would otherwise offer...

Thanks for pointing out that small but significant fact that never trusting yourself only applies to tempting circumstances...Sometimes we need to listen to that small voice and be able to recognise it's character, as Abraham did when he was tested and KNEW God's voice....and His character....

[Neil D]

There is no question in my mind that Christianity is based on fear. To me, the evidence is massive. I am very comfortable using the tools of reason, but there are places that reason simply can't go. And when reason is limited by authority it simply doesn't even consider other alternatives. Its a trap that even the most intelligent can't escape unless they are willing to pay attention to their deeper self. The self that senses, not the self that fears or the self that is protecting the ego.

There is much that you have reflected that is toxic, Richard. What you have done is taken the culture of Adventism to the extreeme, and called it "normal Christianity". And, you are correct in saying that this "normal Christianity is not correct.

I see much and am amazed that you have overcome much of the toxic principles that we have incorporated into our culture. Truely, there are many here, who have not only incorporated it into thier culture, but embrased it, claiming that they are "not a part of the world" and are a "pecular people"...Well, you are correct in that they ARE pecular....lol.

I see, in you, God working in your life and with you despite the culture of extreme adventism impeding your way. And it maybe that you will yet see God working in your life and be amazed at His love for you despite your rebellion against Him..

[John317]

The problem with what you are saying is that we are integrated beings created with a mind (rational), spirit (emotion) and body (action). We really cannot separate these aspects of ourselves and be only one or the other. Unfortunately sin has thrown those out of balance. The point of the original Greek word, agape was that it represented the highest form of love with perfect balance between all three aspects of a person.

We do not trust our feelings because we have learned that the human heart is deceitful above al else. But that is no excuse to become emotionless robots. We are meant to have and express and act on emotions.

I'm talking about the meaning of the Greek word, agape. I'm not implying or suggesting that our love should be without emotion.

Quoting from an article in the Nelson Study Bible:

After contrasting agape with eros (physical sexual desire and not much else) and philos (esteem and affection in casual friendship), the writer says, "This word, agape, describes a love that is based on the deliberate choice of the one who loves rather than the worthiness of the one who is loved. This kind of love goes against natural human inclination. It is a giving, selfless, expect-nothing-in-return kind of love."

Another article from the same study Bible--

[Gk. agape] (1 Peter 4: 8; Romans 5: 5, 8; 1 John 3: 1; 4: 7,8, 16; Jude 21) Strong's #26: This Greek word was rarely used in Greek literature prior to the New Testament. When it was used, it denoted showing kindness to strangers, giving hospitality, and being charitable. In the New Testament, the word agape took on a special meaning. It was used by the New Testament writers to designate a volitional love as opposed to the purely emotional kind. It is self-sacrificial love, a kind naturally expressed by God but not so easily by men and women.

[ChildofChrist]

It's the greatest ofall human emotions...

Greed and fear stand tied.

Love is not of human origin. God sent His Son for fearful and greedy hu-mankind. Love as the human race is concerned has been corrupted.

[John317]

I couldn't agree with you more.

I'd put greed and lust (false love) in the same category since they are closely related.

Anyone read a long short story by Leo Tolstoy called, "The Kreutzer Sonata"-- one of his greatest and most disturbing?

Read it here: http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/kreutzer-sonata/

It's a profound story that has to do with this very subject-- love.

[cardw]

Quote:

There is much that you have reflected that is toxic, Richard. What you have done is taken the culture of Adventism to the extreeme, and called it "normal Christianity". And, you are correct in saying that this "normal Christianity is not correct.

Well, when I grew up this was normal Adventism. We call it extreme today, much like we would call Christianity in the past extreme. And you can read on these boards that this "normal" Adventism still has its proponents.

When I state that Christianity is based in fear its because of its doctrines, not its people. Any religion that states you will ultimately die a painful death by fire unless you join or accept Jesus as your saviour or behave a certain way is based in fear.

And unless you move to a metaphorical interpretation, these teachings underly every other teaching in Christianity. Fear is unavoidable. This is what makes Christianity harmful.

If you substitute Zeus for the word God in the Bible you would never believe those things to be true.

Quote:

I see, in you, God working in your life and with you despite the culture of extreme adventism impeding your way. And it maybe that you will yet see God working in your life and be amazed at His love for you despite your rebellion against Him.

That may be true, but I am reasonably certain that its not the god of the Bible or the one Ellen White describes.

[olger]

Maybe it's a Gerry thing, but you too have missed the point - B-A-L-A-N-C-E. Three attributes, like the three persons of the Triune God working in perfect harmony. But love is a matter of spirit or emotion which motivates the mind to think and the body to act.

The heart feels drawn toward another, the mind reasons and thinks of the right thing to do and the body acts accordingly. Yes, a person can skip the first step and feel no compassion or affection toward a person in need and reason out the right course of action to help take care of the need or how to treat the person with courtesy and respect and act accordingly. But that is not action motivated by love, it just doing a good thing. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is just not love in action. It's civility. It's

disinterested patronage. It's a duty. It's works.

You ask if feelings are reliable. I would ask if your mind is reliable. Is your body reliable? Obviously, no part of us is terribly reliable. That was an earlier point I made. Sin has knocked us out of whack. We are imbalanced and all mixed up. None of us is functioning at optimum levels, mentally, emotionally or physically. But you know what, some of the least among us physically and mentally still can feel and express love. And often they do much better at it than those rational ones restrained by some sense of principles and unwavering sense of duty to do the right thing.

How magnificent would your life be if you pushed your feelings into the background on everything?

Tom

Tom.

I think we are in agreement on some aspects of the discussion. For instance:

I agree that emotionless robots are not the image of God in humanity. We are created to give & receive love.

I agree that intellectually locked people are only half a person. A lot of Adventists are in the Intellectually Locked Heart category (I have worked with several of them).

Having said that, I restate that feelings are an unreliable guide to what is right. Feelings can turn a productive family man into a hopeless alcoholic. A moment of indiscretion can break up a home. Feelings can drag little children through the meat-grinder of a divorce court. Feelings can add the 20-30 extra pounds that many Americans carry around.

We must live our lives on the basis of principle, adhered to and derived from the Word of God. This puts our feelings into proper persepctive. Incidentally, the Bible illustration of Eve & the apple predates the "knocked out of whack" consequences of the Fall. Predates it.

regards,

g

[phkrause]

But at the same time cardw Christianity is the only religion that has a savour. And I'm not sure that death will be a painful one, from what I've read. We all have a choice for good or evil, and I know that if I choose evil than I will take the consequence's.

pk

[Neil D]

Well, when I grew up this was normal Adventism. We call it extreme today, much like we would call Christianity in the past extreme.