Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to All you need is cash - forget love
WhiteJedi - that is ultimately what I was trying to say
Promoting unconditional love for strangers is unrealistic.
posted by
gomedome
on July 25, 2006 at 9:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Well Said...
All true realities of living.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on July 25, 2006 at 7:42 AM
| link to this | reply
gome dome
I have been saying for a long time that people have torn that page and kept it while tossing away the Bible. Ask any starving child if a mother's love is enough. If your way of life is so different than another's are you sure you want them to love you as they want to be loved? We have this concept of love all muddled in our heads. When you make a living and provide for your family you are loving them.
posted by
Justi
on July 25, 2006 at 1:35 AM
| link to this | reply
So many thoughts race through my head, I've decided to blog about this.
Here it is.
posted by
Schatz
on July 24, 2006 at 12:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 - your comment actually illustrates my point
When you preface with the word "but" it is also an implied "if" .....if mankind could see this then love would work. But since the majority of humans cannot see this .....
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
gome
No, love is not easily extended to strangers. That takes deep spiritual thought and understanding. Even then, it has to be really focused on to achieve.
It takes a real understanding that life is not seperate from itself. We are all a part of the same whole. It's really not difficult to love a stranger, but there has to be that focus on not being seperate....something that can be quite difficult in the illusion of seperatness we feel in human form.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on July 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Bhaskar.ing - if you are making a contention - you've lost me
When you say: "........and u'll find that there is more to life in acceptance than in choice." ...this is ultimately my point. Accepting the reality of how things are is the only way to solve any problem. Attempting to force human beings into a behaviour that is unnatural to human nature simply never works.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 11:27 AM
| link to this | reply
All you need is cash - forget love
Whenever u choose one over the other, u loose out the possibility and the potential that the other aspect may entail. Life is not to be enjoyed in part, but as a whole (good and bad included). Choice is incidental but choicelessness is accidental. Then u are open to the mysteries of the unknown. Therefore u will see that instinct almost always invariably weighs over considered decisions of the rational faculty. Without being judgmental accept things as they are, and u'll find that there is more to life in acceptance than in choice. Ponder over this point, or rather reflect deeply on the suggestion & if u think that it makes sense from an experiencial point of view, then i would welcome a feedback from u.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on July 24, 2006 at 11:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Sunnybeach7 - no, I wasn't referring to any blog specifically
Nor am I saying that there is anything wrong with a message of love, even though it may sound like that. What I am saying is that outside of our inner circles of family and friends we cannot suggest that love is easily extended to others. It is not a transferable commodity to strangers, despite how much we insist that it is. I believe that viewing how we deal with and help strangers should be derived from a much more pragmatic perspective that is based more realistically on human nature.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 11:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Hey! I hope you weren't reffering to my blog here! LOL
Love is good. Love is not everything. But it can help a lot. Anyway, I don't expect to see in this lifetime a world of all love. If we are very, very lucky...sometime in this lifetime we will see a world filled with more love than not.
I'm not sure exactly what you were referring to here, but love has to be true, and come from what's inside one's self....not something you feel pressured into through religion or fear.
That's my 2 cents.
Luv,
Sunny
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on July 24, 2006 at 11:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Schatz - I've always maintained that one person can only do so much
Yes I am thinking in terms of simple economics but the unfortunate truth of the human make up is that all feelings of self worth, gratitude and fulfillment are subject to economic influence with very few exceptions. It really boils down to the simplest of realities. Feed them and give them a means to feed themselves, then all of the other positive aspects of human nature follow suit. Until the minimum standards of food, shelter and economic opportunity are met, a persons life is consumed with meeting these minimum standards.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 10:03 AM
| link to this | reply
In my life, I have seen that change and enlightenment happen in ripples
that spread outward from one person to others, and so on. Some people are catalyst for healthy change. I am that person. I am raising three people. They will be better adults for it, and hopefully, institute powerful change themselves.
Can I tell you how it can happen tomorrow? No. But I am actively working on it every day. It is happening. We are but specks floating in the pool of our universe's time. We are so self-centered to think that we should be able to change the whole globe. It isn't possible.
We can only change ourselves. This is how the world changes. You're still thinking economically, instead of in terms of whether the sufferers (you're talking about) feel emotions like gratitude and peace despite their unfortunate monetary circumstances.
posted by
Schatz
on July 24, 2006 at 9:40 AM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger -- "the reality is far different", is the point that I was trying
to make.
Decrying the lack of love for our fellow man may have some value but it does nothing to feed someone. There is the importance of establishing the underlying motive that would compell someone to act on a stranger's behalf, with the ideal of love being one of such motives. But the reality of how things are going on this planet should demonstrate that attempting to use this one philosophy as a motivation to help others just ain't cutting it. Human beings need other motivations to act on the behalf of strangers.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 9:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, I think I'm going to disagree with you,
but only in semantics. I say that because I think our current society misuses the word "love." There's a Clint Black song lyric, "Love isn't something that we have, it's something that we do." Love is an action. If we truly love, we will take action and help heal those in pain. But that's my idealistic view. The reality is far different. Too many people claiming to be filled with love are nothing more than clanging gongs who don't put their love into action.
posted by
TVBlogger
on July 24, 2006 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Schatz -- that is a valid point
The example you give of a person thinking that an increase in their spouse's paycheck would somehow equate to happiness is exactly where the ideal of a message of love falls off of the tracks. Humans are motivated to a great degree by having and wanting more. In this regard, the least important aspect of our existences gets the most attention and consumes the greatest amount of our mental energy. Being able to preoccupy one's self with wanting more is also a luxury of the wealthy western societies. In all of this, there is no disputing that the love and respect of ones family, friend and peers is a vital element to happiness but the sense of overall well being derived from this love is not a transferable commodity. Spreading it can only be done in a subtle manner. I defy anyone to tell me how a person lucky enough to have this sense of well being can for example; transfer any of this love to the economically desperate people that are being caught up in the blood diamond wars of Liberia, Sierra Leone or Angola.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - you are wandering off a bit from the theme of this post
but not entirely.
The spiritual needs of individuals are a much lower priority than their physical needs, as basic food and shelter are paramount. Then as you allude to, addressing the root cause of their situation becomes the next priority. Providing a means to escape their situation is always a far better solution than outright charity. What I am trying to address in this post is that paying lip service to spreading a message of love does nothing to address these needs. The realization that every person on this planet needs to make a living has substantially greater value as an underlying philosophy than attempting to have human beings behave in a fashion that is decidedly outside of human nature in loving strangers. The simple truths are that human beings do not naturally love strangers and all the talk in the world of doing so will not change this fact.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply
It is perception that separated me from them before, and today it separates
me from you. I got into an argument at a party Saturday night with someone about the same things. She alleges she only needs a man who makes more money to be happy. I told her that she was full of crap and choosing to be miserable. (This did not go over well with her.)
The truth of it (for me) is, that you need love to be happy, but you don't need more than essentials to survive. Without love, it would be mere survival. But with love, even being below the poverty level, it is possible to be blissfully happy. I am.
Not that I'm taking a Pollyanna attitude and making the ridiculous statement that it's 'all good', because it isn't. But it's a hell of a lot better than being alone.
For the sake of clarity, I am not talking about my spouse, although I do value his love in the highest way. I mean loved in general. I have the love and esteem of my neighborhood, my lifelong friends, Bloggers, acquaintances, my extended family and my husband and kids. When we don't have something we simply ask for it. And we either get it, or get the message that we don't need it right now. The universe provides, if you can be trusting and feel deserving. There's the tough part.
posted by
Schatz
on July 24, 2006 at 8:01 AM
| link to this | reply
SuccessWarrior - you make a valid point but "love" in itself
is too benign as a means of compelling people to help others. Fear works sometimes, or the realization that the have nots of the world will, out of the necessity to survive, take what they need.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 7:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Ok...I just wanted to know what you were referring to before I put a lot into a comment.
I was thinking about what you said about cash vs love. I don't think that either is adequate by itself. Cash without well-meaning intentions behind it has no worth and eventually does more harm than good. Love without monetary, or physical, expression has no worth because it becomes simply lipservice.
A person can decide they want to love someone who is in a particularly unfortunate position, but unless they are willing to try to change the unfortunate state of that person, what's the point of their expression. In Christianity,and in many religions, prayer is an important. Jesus commands us to pray for others, for our neighbors, especially for our enemies, BUT He never said to depend wholly on your prayers to help someone. When He encountered someone in need, He had compassion on them and sought to help them, often knowing that what they needed was not necessarily what they were asking for (example, a handicapped begger asking for alms, when he really needs to be healed). He also never neglected the spiritual need of a person to focus entirely on the physical need.
I think by His example, Christians, and the world, should seek to help others on the spiritual, emotional, and physical levels. It fires me up when Christians ask for love for hurting people, but don't offer any way to eleviate that hurt. But places, like my college, ask for money for the college all the time...because it's very small, and independent. But they never offer any loving relationship for the students there, so I'm entirely disinclined to give money to the college, except what's required for my tuition. I hope this reflects what your blog is about. Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on July 24, 2006 at 7:06 AM
| link to this | reply
How about cash and love?
In that order. You can't take care of others until you can take care of yourself.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on July 24, 2006 at 7:01 AM
| link to this | reply
pkcricket - though I never made it clear in this posting, I was thinking
on a much larger scale than the plight of a few unfortunate individuals.
posted by
gomedome
on July 24, 2006 at 6:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Are you referring to the way Christians...or the world in general...react to homelessness or poverty?
Cricket ><>
posted by
pkcricket
on July 24, 2006 at 6:49 AM
| link to this | reply