The mystery of selfish love

[Sonny]

How's that for my own words?

Here's the thing - sin, selfishness, is a mystery. It's not a mystery to be solved. Some think it is, but this is just their ego speaking because if they could rationalize sin (selfishness) they would justify its existence.

What, then, is this mystery? It is best answered in the form of a question: How could a sinless (unselfish) being, be it angel or human, be tempted to be selfish (sin)?

We must remember that Lucifer was created unselfish - he was created in God's image. The same for Adam and Eve before the fall of mankind. How could sinless being be tempted to be selfish? How could sinless being sin?

There's no answer to the question, at least not on this side of eternity.

[Sonny]

Adam and Eve had no predisposition to selfishness, yet clearly they choose sin. Eve coveted position - she wanted a higher position, something unnatural for one filled with agape love. On the other hand Adam choose Eve over God - the source of his agape love. Both these acts were contrary to their holy natures. I can't explain it.

[skyblue888]

If sin could be explained, especially from sinless beings, it could be justified.

sky

[cardw]

If you can't answer why sin came from a sinless being then sin doesn't exist.

It makes no sense for a rational being that doesn't have a naturally selfish nature to choose to do a selfish act. There is no motivation.

This is true for both Satan, the so called most intelligent created being in the universe, and for Adam and Eve. At least for Eve you have her being tricked, but even then the trick only works if Eve wants to have more power.

In a selfless being there is no desire for power because power is meaningless.

In many ancient cultures Satan would be the hero of the Eden story because the serpent was seen as the wisest of all creatures. It was wise because it taught as a trickster.

You might notice that the Serpent was the only one telling the truth. And god in the story behaves rather selfishly and childish. God's "solution" is to punish.

Because of this story being presented in a western tradition women have been treated as lesser beings for thousands of years. It has become shameful to be naked. Sex was seen as evil. Punishment became the preferred immature ethical understanding. Painful childbirth has been presented as the norm and seen as a punishment. Work has been seen as punishment.

It is a bleak outlook on life that is based on a myth. It seems far more likely that we are motivated to "sin" because of fear and immaturity. The solution then becomes education and love.

[wayfinder]

Sin, plain and simple, is to disobey God. Virtue, the opposite of sin, is excellence/perfection in performance (right-doing righteousness). The Serpent/Dragon/Satan took what he had been forbidden to take, specifically, the world. The Man and Woman took that which they had been forbidden to take, specifically, the fruit of the tree of "Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". It is of upmost importance that the Serpent maintain a state of being disobedient on this earth. This state of being ensures that te Serpent maintains his authority over the nations/people of this world. The Kingdom of God, on the otherhand, is a people who are obedient to the commands/will of the God of heaven and earth. God's authority on this earth is singularly and specifically exercised only over those who have willingly submitted to the covenant of the kingdom of God and obey Him. It is a kingdom of obedience that God is waiting for, to ultimately accomplish the total defeat of the Serpent and his kingdom (the kingdom of the world). selfish love is not love at all, but a means to an end. The Serpent has selfish love for his kingdom, because he is their ruler and not God. He will do anything and everything to continue the status quo.

[cardw]

If God wanted obedience, why give anyone the power of choice?

I think obedience is such a shallow goal. It lacks any sign of consciousness or intelligence.

Obedience is about the immaturity of seeing a rather arbitrary obeying of laws as some sort of ultimate accomplishment. That doesn't seem like the pinnacle of wisdom for an all knowing being to present. It seems like something a child would consider to be great.

No one has been able to address the issue of motivation for a rational highly intelligent wise being to seek such a shallow goal of power.

Restating the story says nothing new. You have to address the problems.

[wayfinder]

Is obedience such a shallow goal? Is obedience the goal at all? I would say, the answer is no. I see obedience as the path to the goal. The goal is a perfect world where all of the senses and sensibilities are fully realised.

For example, I practice nursing, I work with physicians who practice medicine. I understand that "practice" is obedience to the "laws" of nursing or medicine. The goal is to make man whole, or at least to bring them successfully through their desease or malady. God has given us the "laws/rules" to practice with the goal of the perfect life experience, which can only be experienced through practice. When we stop thinking of obedience as a bad thing we are truly able to find joy in doing the will of God.

See Daniel 7:27

This is not a bad thing!

[fccool]

I don't think it's a serious question for anyone to ask who believes that the story is myth in the first place. It's sort of like asking whether Ishmael is too stupid to give up his life following a whale. If it's a fictional story, then it does not reflect any sort of reality if you approach it from the view that it's a mythical fiction.

If it indeed reflects any kind of reality in your view, then perhaps you can reasonably discuss the rational for actions of the characters. Otherwise it's like going to see a movie like Transformers and then complaining that it's too unrealistic :)

[cardw]

It is a serious concern when people are making moral determinations based on this myth. It is much like the head of one of the environmental committees in congress deciding that global warming isn't true because god placed a rainbow in the cloud promising to not flood the earth again.

[fccool]

You have to be honest by saying that you can't prove that it's a myth. You may say that the burden of proof lies with extraordinary claim... but in the end of the day you are dissident in this environment. Most of the people hardly take you seriously. They may understand your arguments, and they may even find them valid... but in the end ... no matter how much evidence you pile up, it will not be enough for them to believe what you have to say on the subject matter. There might be some minor overlaps in the "we don't really know" areas, but when it comes to the end result... which is a belief that Biblical discourse is THE TRUTH, the belief will prevail in most cases... and will thank you for challenging and strengthening their faith

I just find it very ironic.

[cardw]

Well fccool you have to honest and say that you can't prove that evolution is a myth. I'm not using this as an argument directly, but I state it to illustrate that not proving something false says nothing at all.

It's also irrelevant to point out that I'm a dissident in this environment. And as far as taking me seriously I would point out that some of the most visited topics are those that I participate in. You may not take me seriously, but somebody is.

Overwhelmingly I get positive feedback privately. That doesn't matter either because none of your points are relevant to what is true.

What is interesting, and this is one of the main reasons I post, is that no matter how much evidence is piled up religious people will hold on to their myths. Much of what I post is not for those here. It is quite an effective illustration for those who I refer here to see the power of the indoctrination that seems to be immune to any evidence to the contrary.

Most people I come in contact with don't believe me that this type of thinking is still quite common. It serves as an inoculation for those who have no idea there is this type of foundation and are responding to the appeal of the community.

And many agnostics and atheists participate in church communities because church culture does provide a way to engage with the community and is often the only option. I know a number of pastors who are atheists and yet still see value in church community.

To me this illustrates that love is present in humanity and the whole oxymoron of the idea that love is selfish. If something is selfish then it's not love but manipulation.

This idea of selfish love is only presented to preserve the idea that humans have nothing of value of themselves. And it's based on a terrible view of the Eden myth.

[cardw]

I want to address this idea that there is no proof that the Eden story is a myth. I think the weight of evidence indicates that it is a myth.

When we look at the genetic map of human migration is becomes plain both genetically and linguistically that human kind began deep within Africa.

The traditions around Eden place it near Babylon. That is to be expected because you can see how the Israelites took many of the Babylonian myths and incorporated them into their monotheism. There is some indication in many of the details including using Adam's rib to make Eve that there was Babylonian source material for parts of the myth. And religious traditions tend to be ethnocentric and the OT is no different by placing the origin of humankind in their local area.

From archeological details it appears that the OT was put together sometime in the 6th century after Babylonian captives would be integrated into the nation. They would have brought some strife because their religious beliefs would have some differences from the native population. We can see this still playing out in Jesus day with the Samaritans. The OT contains stories of these competing religious traditions and obviously the victor gets to write the story.

So the Eden story is is direct conflict with genetic and linguistic evidence for the origin of human kind. Genetic evidence is pretty solid because we can trace mitochondrial DNA through the mother pretty far back.

I understand there is going to be a variety of reactions to this challenge. Some will entrench themselves further into their faith no matter what the evidence. This is illustrative for many reasons. And it works in many cases from a very human perspective.

Others will modify their beliefs to try and incorporate the new information into the myths. This has been going on a long time and we can trace the evolution of religious beliefs from these types of influences.

And others will rebuild from a whole other assumption. It doesn't really matter, but I believe that searching for what is true based on evidence is far more likely to find success than faith alone. For me faith is only needed to begin the journey. It does nothing to inform.

[fccool]

My guess is that you are using this board for a debate target practice. But... that's just my guess

[wayfinder]

Isn’t a myth, in reality, an unproven account? If the “myth” remains unproven it remains a myth. Belief is pretext on facts or faith and the seeker of truth is in constant search of facts and the faithful are content to wait until heaven where God will fill in the facts. The problem with this is, it is much easier to believe a lie/myth by faith then to know and practice the truth.

The perceived “problem” with the creation account may be resolved by a study of the account itself from different sources. When I studied the Summerian account of the gods with which they interacted and worshiped and combined the book of Enoch I synthesized the evidence from these sources and overlaid the Septuagint account of creation. I know that the evidence is overwhelming and sound, that the earth is older than 6,000 years. There were people/nations on the earth before the creation of the Adamu/Adam these were the males and females created on the sixth day. The teacher/light bringer/Lucifer had co-opted God’s world and set it on a path to destruction. The plan of and for restoration, given by God through His prophets, has been consistent throughout time. I found a key to understanding this that holds together better than the current one. God, with unselfish love, created a redeemer (Adam) to tell the nations they were being lied to and must forsake their teacher and worship the Elohim. To prepare Adam for this great responsibility it was imperative that he demonstrate obedience, through unselfish love for the Elohim, and would thus be qualified as the redeemer. In reality, there were two creations thousands of years apart, the second was for the purpose of restoration.

If God had put the redeemers (Earthman and woman) to death the earth would have been destroyed if not by Elohim, by entropy. God sent His Son as the redeemer and was put to death after demonstrating perfect obedience, and thereby, started the plan of and for the restoration of righteousness and the return of the glory of God to this earth.

See Numbers 14:21

[Sonny]

First, what is sin? By that question I mean to ask what is the essence of sin?

Agape, by definition, is a love that is selfless. Therefore, everything a being filled with a agape does is for others. Being selfless doesn't mean not being self-aware - it means that your thought and motives are constantly outward flowing to others.

The opposite of this is human love, which is agape bent back to one's self. So sin is anything outside agape, especially at the motivational level. Anything I do for the promotion of myself isn't agape - it is sin. That's why the Apostle Paul said (and I'll paraphrase since we are to say things in our own words) - no one will make it to heaven by his performance for there's none truly good.

Now how do you explain how selfishness took possession of the mind that was dominated by unselfish agape?

[cardw]

[With reference to the first two paragraphs of Sonny's post...]

This goes along with true humbleness. Humbleness is not thinking low of oneself, it's not thinking of one's self at all.

I think one can be self aware and still be humble. Otherwise it would not be possible to love others as one loves oneself.

[And with reference to the last two paragraphs of Sonny's post...]

This explanation is essential to condemn anyone for being a sinner. Otherwise creation is flawed and it is god's fault.

I think once a person understands that the promotion of one's self is an illusion and is meaningless, the motivation to do so goes away. It is a sign of immaturity because power is only useful for playing games we make up as humans. They are arbitrary goals. They have no real value. Wealth, talent, power, fame and other things we value are illusions we make up and other people go along with simply because they have been tricked into thinking they have value.

Someone who is awakened doesn't seek these because they know that they don't ultimately satisfy. They don't provide meaning because they don't really have value.

Even trying to be a good person has no meaning. It's arbitrary because what does it mean to be good? Of what value is it intrinsically. We simply choose to give it value. It's an artificial goal. Anything that seeks to rate oneself based on externals is a game. It's meaningless.

One has to transform how they see the world and themselves. The reason being judgmental is so destructive is because it promotes the illusion of these artificial values of greater and lesser based on rules we make up.

The motivation for being selfish goes away once the world view that sets up greater and lesser, good and bad, and other illusionary values, goes away. The only thing that I know that has true value and this is based on experience, is the relationships we have with each other.

When those are right I feel alive and loved. And they are not based on comparisons. It seems to me that comparisons as values destroys relationships. It is compassion and empathy that connect us. And I don't think we would know about these things without suffering.

So maybe the world is exactly as it should be.

[Sonny]

There is no love of self in agape. Agape is a love without self (this isn't to be confused to mean without self-awareness nor is the opposite of agape, self-hate).

You see self-hate is the result of competition, what the Bible calls coveting.

By the way, the sum of the law is (without quoting it) - love others like you normally love yourself. Notice that there's only one command, not two. Agape loves without getting something back.

On the other hand sin wants something back. When you pay tithe hoping to gain eternal life you are not producing agape, you are producing sin.

[cardw]

Love is defined, to me, as an unconditional positive regard. I think that is essential to hold toward one's self. We are limited and therefore require a certain level of self care.

Also without a love for one's self empathy would be impossible. And I believe that empathy is the essential core of the golden rule.

Now if you want to separate love into categories you are certainly welcome to, but I believe there is only one kind of love. To remove self from love serves no purpose that I can determine other than trying to gain some kind of recognition which would negate it anyway.

Now having love for self does not require me to get anything back. It is self generated because it is called self love. It also means that I am willing to receive love.

I think you are confusing conditional love with self love. Conditional love is not love at all, but manipulation.

Now if I try and do agape love I'm still keeping score because I have determined that I get nothing back. It simply is a more complex game to get a reward. A rather hollow one at that.

I hold myself equal in regard to others. Plus if I am to be able to love effectively I need to take care of my emotional and physical health. I have to have some regard for myself to do that.

I think it is important to admit that we are not gods. We have limits and religions often shame us for not being gods with god like powers to save everyone.

I have found that life offers what we need only in the moment. And the more I focus on the moment the more resources and awareness I have.

Trying to determine if I am doing agape love simply takes me out of the moment and into calculation and judgement.

Now I agree that self centeredness is the source of a lot of misery and depression. But self love is not self centeredness. I see nothing wrong with a commitment to hold myself in unconditional positive regard. This does not mean that I deny my mistakes, but it is an essential baseline for recovery. It is not up for discussion, but is simply assumed that I am priceless. It doesn't mean that what I do is priceless, but my personhood as a living human being cannot be compared to anything.

[Sonny]

If you had been in Christ's situation - beaten and placed on a wooden cross to slowly suffocate, and you could have by a single thought come down off the cross - what would you have done?

Remember that Christ was unjustly punished. He did nothing wrong and from our point of view He had every reason to fight back. Also, keep in mind that if Christ's humanity hadn't died the whole world would have perished.

Christ had to chose either to love Himself; come down and save Himself or agape the world (His enemies) and be willing to die the 2nd death (no hope of a resurrection). As we know He took the curse instead of His enemies.

[cardw]

I think the whole concept that Jesus needed to do this to save the world is immature. Plus there have been others that have suffered far more than Jesus. He only had to suffer a few hours and yet we don't applaud these others for saving the world. When you look at the days and weeks of torture unbelievers had to go through at the hand of Christians in the middle ages you have a far greater picture of suffering. Simply look up the implements and methods of torture they had perfected in the cause of Jesus Christ and I think you will be sufficiently horrified.

I don't need Jesus to suffer and die to convince me that loving my neighbor is a good idea. Who is going to destroy the world if Jesus doesn't do this? If you believe in the concept of one god then Jesus is. Why does he have to convince himself? Just don't destroy the world. It's basically Jesus sacrificing himself to himself based on rules he made up himself to prevent himself from killing all of us.

His death hasn't done anything to stem the tide of violence in this world. His philosophy, which is echoed by others, has certainly been an influence on how we deal with violence and concepts of love for our fellow human beings. But his death only promotes a punishment mentality which is counter to his philosophy.

I think the lack of speaking and acting on the part of Jesus encourages a victim mentality. If our Founding Fathers had that attitude our country would have never emerged from the totalitarian rule of monarchies.

If Gandhi had never spoken out and acted, based on his understanding of Jesus' philosophy, India would have never gained its independence.

I think you are presenting a false choice here for Jesus. This iron age need to have sacrifices and punishments to make things just is a very immature view of ethics. To not speak against injustice is unethical in my opinion. Even injustice done to one's self. This lack of action promotes violence and allows others to be subject to abuse by those same powers.

[Sonny]

Our humanity is rotten..it is selfish...it is self-seeking. As Paul said of his humanity - I know nothing good dwells in me....

Jesus, as God, took our humanity into Himself. For 30 something years He lived a perfect life of agape & towards the end He took the curse of the law - God abandonment. No one has every tasted this death. He suffered more than anyone that has ever suffered.

You can't love your neighbor as yourself. Only if you accept Christ can you begin to experience agape in your life. Without Him you love yourself and then maybe you help your neighbor.

Jesus lived for His neighbors - especially His enemies. He never thought of Himself, He always lived for others. He didn't have a bank account with lots of $$$...He didn't have anything but the cloths on His back. He was servant of all.

[cardw]

I believe this idea that humanity is rotten is exaggerated and harmful. So many people live in shame from a Christian upbringing that teaches this. It robs people of their natural goodness and causes them to question every little thing they do. It encourages self centeredness and makes life a petty measuring of goodness.

I find among non believers some of the most unselfish people. They give and serve simply because they see that it is the most joyful way to live life. Since they don't believe in heaven there is no selfish motivation to be generous.

I believe that people are incredible beings that are capable of creating things of beauty that transcend explanation.

I have learned to love people quite effectively and that requires that I take responsibility for my own well being first. If I don't do that I won't be any good for anyone. I certainly extend myself when it is needed, but the best way to love people is to help them gain self control and independence.

I don't think it is healthy to always live for other people. It will kill you and then what use are you? This idea that we are the helpers and there are people who need our help is ego driven. The idea that we have to be little saviors is based on pride and self-centeredness.

I see no value in what Jesus did in dying on the cross. It takes more courage to live than to die. You can provide no evidence that his death accomplished anything. It is all made up in peoples' heads.

This idea that being poor and living off the kindness of others as being virtuous is a false virtue. And I think Jesus thought of himself when he wanted to get away from people and have some quiet time. And he certainly had his wealthy donors that sustained his needs.

[cardw]

When you talk about Christ being sacrificed to appease a law you are saying that the law is greater than the god who made it up.

Can't god change the law?

Apparently he can't, so the law is greater than god.

This idea that law describes what is real is a reduction of reality. There is no law that can describe these complex realities. Law is a human mechanistic way of thinking made up by men. That's why law gets extremely complex and ends up being trumped by common sense.

There are many aspects of our being that law has no right to determine. It is not the right tool.

Holding our eternal life hostage to the cruel torture and death of any human being is not justice. It is not just for an innocent person to die for another. It may satisfy a really bad law, but it is not just.

How can you compare one life to another? You can't because the conclusions would not be compatible with our deepest sense of justice and our value of conscious life. There is no law to describe these areas of human experience and value.

It would be unethical for me to accept the death of another for my own salvation. What kind of unconscious self centered being would do that? To me that is immoral behavior.

[fccool]

Cardw,

I don't really think that because God set a set of laws, he's binding himself in some legal straight-jacket. If a company has a set of rules, should they change these for the sake of failing employees. Changing those rules would result in failing company. Can company change these rules? Yes, would it be for the best? Perhaps not.

I do understand issues with sacrificial atonement. Frankly, it does not make much sense to me as to why the infinite God of the universe would resort to savagery in order to carry across the ideas of forgiveness, and need for change. It would be like a father taking the household pets, slicing their necks open in front of the kids and sprinkling them with blood in order to forgive them... saying that his anger can only be pacified with blood. What kind of effect would it have on normal kids? Do you really think they'll grow up "normal"?

To tell you the truth, my stomach turns every time there's a hymn or a song about saving blood. I really don't think people visualize much when they sing (or they have no imagination perhaps). When we sing, there's a fountain filled with blood. What kind of imagery is that? And then people get dipped in that... supposed to be a good thing? Should we be celebrating that?

It does sadden me the extend to which Christianity celebrates death. It really perverts the value of life.

Unfortunatly, there's no way to reform the ideology without throwing out most of the old testament, and much of Pauline theology. C.S. Lewis recognized himself the inherent problem of God who orders a genocide (including the pregnant women), and then teaches about the value of human life. That makes people committing abortions to be a petty cash thieves. He (Lewis) came to a conclusion that goodness of God is to be upheld above any Biblical narratives when both clash... yet this new theology is no longer the mainstream Christianity we have in 99% of Churches today.

[fccool]

I think this is where most of the Christianity turns into a rather dogmatic comic-book type of answers. I.E. in the (most) comic books we have one-sided villains. Frankly, they are evil because there's a need to advance a comic book narrative. Without those villains, there is no conflict... and without conflict there's no need for comic book heros.

Evil is a perspective, it's not an absolute as we see it. What's evil for you may be good for me. Evil acts can result in the ultimate good, and good acts can result in ultimate evil. It's just two sides of reality. The pain both hurts and signals that there's something wrong in the body.

It may surprise Christians that Judaism and Christianity has different views on Satan. Christianity holds Satan to be the cosmic fluke of free will. Yet, it becomes a paradox of perfection to think that ultimately good creature would turn on the creator. It's a comic book approach, not a reality based one.

Judaism has a bit more realistic approach to this issue. In Judaism theology, God is one and all powerful. There's no creature in the world that can simply run around causing all of the havok with God's permission. Thus in Rabbinical theology, Satan is a D.A. type of angel who's purpose is to accuse and to test by tempting, all under supervision and permission from God.

Christian theology makes free will to be the mysterious mechanism that God either has not control of, or can't predict (as some try to explain). Thus the explanation is ... God would not want a tape recorder saying I LOVE YOU. He wants you to choose. I.E. eliminating the evil tendencies would eliminate free choice. I see this as an attempt to cover up the holes in one dimensional villains, and given them more depth by making the plot more complex.

There's no need for that. God has a free will, yet he is unable to do evil (He is able, based on Judaism theology). That does not render Him a robot. The free will explanation of evil is an obvious attempt to patch up some theological holes.