Loving people for who they are.

Hermit Philosopher said:

Dear ideogenous_mover,

I don’t know that I understand your question and I’m almost certain that I do not understand your premise. Are you saying that you believe paedophilia to be a biological “condition” of some sort? If so, I disagree and doubt that you could provide data that would support that notion.

Click to expand...

Waking up with Sam Harris #91. Does psychology commonly look at neuroscience, or doesn't it? So if a part of the brain gets damaged, you wouldn't understand that to affect certain behaviors? In that podcast, they give the examples of klüver-bucy syndrome, and of charles whitman, who had a tumor pressing on his amygdala, when autopsied. (I wouldn't know what the cross-disciplinary connection is there, as I'm just a forklift driver)

ideogenous_mover said:

Waking up with Sam Harris #91. Does psychology commonly look at neuroscience, or doesn't it? So if a part of the brain gets damaged, you wouldn't understand that to affect certain behaviors? In that podcast, they give the examples of klüver-bucy syndrome, and of charles whitman, who had a tumor pressing on his amygdala, when autopsied. (I wouldn't know what the cross-disciplinary connection is there, as I'm just a forklift driver)

Click to expand...

I must have missed something. What podcast is it that you refer to?

I am not sure that you and I are speaking of the same thing. My comment in this thread was not about neurology; it was about someone being unable to not despise a perpetrator of innocent children.


Humbly
Hermit

Hermit Philosopher said:

I must have missed something. What podcast is it that you refer to?

I am not sure that you and I are speaking of the same thing. My comment in this thread was not about neurology; it was about someone being unable to not despise a perpetrator of innocent children.


Humbly
Hermit

Click to expand...

Sam harris and Robert sapolsky on good and evil

Well nevermind, I guess it's sort of a chicken or the eggs first issue.

Father said his man law was implemented on an oath of human truth relating to human spirituality.

The oath on a closed science book.

Ask why a child molester exists as a human explanation. Father said compAred to his man science destructive conscious thesis thinking then encoding causes the human female was like an innocent child.

Mutual equal innocent natural life sexual partner.

When you impose rationality to purpoae of choice is by human consciousness.

The male self possessed by his wisdom of science destructive causes known was to force change the innocent life is now acted out socially. As a human man's science mind inheritance caused by inappropriate AI machine condition.

It is in fact a human introduced personality disorder in consciousness.

Why medical studies produced no cause of reason. To the want of it's healing.

Jail was introduced to keep the innocent safe. Child molestation is a proven motivated agreement of choice with advice. As adults.

So we cannot heal the life of its inherited causes.

If a group chose and agreed on the practice evil occult science then groups deserve to reside together held away from humanity.

In their cloister jail teach them spirtuality. meditation. Non speaking. Fasting. Gratefulness but let them live out their separation from family as they chose separation in science.

Why jail was given to men in science in the past. As witnessed behaviour against innocence existing. As we own personal rights to live innocently and enjoy life as a child of spirit.

What holy human law once decided for them. They don't belong sharing our life. However we don't need to subject them to cruelty....yet they should by law be subjected to spirituality for having chosen against it.

We Never Know said:

That does have limitations right?
How can you expect someone to love a child molester, which is who he or she is.

Click to expand...

I think @Conscious thoughts was trying to suggest a "default" position -- what should be our initial concern when dealing with other people. And I think he is right. I'm a Humanist, not religious as CT is, but that doesn't stop either of us from recognizing that what matters most to all humans in this world is OTHER humans.

Of course, things can go wrong. Of course people can do bad things. Of course some people will be "mal-formed" in one way or another -- missing limbs, as in thalidomide, missing intellectual power, as in Down's Syndrome, and even, yes, capable of murder, rape and molesting children. But those things are not the default. We have to deal with them, certainly, in order to protect others, but we can do that without hate. We just have to know that there are aberrations -- that they must be contained.

I wonder why you went so immediately to your stance?

Conscious thoughts said:

To me it is more about loving the human being as a human being, not about what they have done in the past, as in wrong action, word or thoughts. And to not judge them for who they have been, who they are or what they will become.

This is a form of love that is growing from within me, it is still in develpment.

Click to expand...

Keep the development going....it's on the right path.

Unveiled Artist said:

Since so many have different experiences and backgrounds I don't think everyone sees love the same way when defining it by love for a human being as a human being. There's always been conditions to love people in maybe majority of minds. I mean love is rarely a word I heard about growing up, so I wouldn't know another word to call it to have some sort of respect (severe lack of better words) for another as a human being. I guess my moto is if I do X and can't call my self as a human being evil (whatever), why would I others. If I can't hold others at the same at the standards as myself than I'd be a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

I was a badly battered child and spent years and years in therapy from the time I was 7. In my thirties, I learned to do something that freed me from all the pain I had ever suffered -- I learned to forgive. It wasn't for anybody else -- not really -- it was for me.

And I've been free ever since.

I'm with @Conscious thoughts in this dialogue.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

I was a badly battered child and spent years and years in therapy from the time I was 7. In my thirties, I learned to do something that freed me from all the pain I had ever suffered -- I learned to forgive. It wasn't for anybody else -- not really -- it was for me.

And I've been free ever since.

I'm with @Conscious thoughts in this dialogue.

Click to expand...

How would you define love?

I think I can count on my hands I heard love growing up. In my case it was emotional neglect.

I agree with CT I just see it difficult when everyone defines love different if they are able to define it at all.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Keep the development going....it's on the right path.

Click to expand...

Thank you @Evangelicalhumanist. Yes I believe i am on a right path for me

ideogenous_mover said:

I really have to take a more nuanced approach here. I have a bit of a more Jungian, and perhaps Platonic view of what you are. I love the part of you that can control himself. I find the part of you that can't, contemptible. You are not a unitary thing. A good person might be obscured by a shell or mask of bad behavior, and I am not interested in that shell. Maybe there is someone good in there, and that person should be dug out

Click to expand...

That is the prosess that I am working on right now digging out the true me, without a Shell i haven't got all the answers yet.

Evangelicalhumanist said:

I was a badly battered child and spent years and years in therapy from the time I was 7. In my thirties, I learned to do something that freed me from all the pain I had ever suffered -- I learned to forgive. It wasn't for anybody else -- not really -- it was for me.

Click to expand...

This sentiment profound. Maybe it has been said before as a principle, but saying things as a principle is not equal to saying things as a matter of fact. So you should publish this. Maybe most, if not all can learn from you.

Conscious thoughts said:

To me it is more about loving the human being as a human being, not about what they have done in the past, as in wrong action, word or thoughts. And to not judge them for who they have been, who they are or what they will become.

This is a form of love that is growing from within me, it is still in develpment.

Click to expand...

In the Greek Scriptures (NT), the Greek word used for this kind of love is “agapé”. A love based on principle.

A Biblical definition of agape is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

EDIT:: Oh, that atrocious KJV on this site!
Here is the verse from more modern translations….
NIV:
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails.


More here:

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

Hockeycowboy said:

In the Greek Scriptures (NT), the Greek word used for this kind of love is “agapé”. A love based on principle.

A Biblical definition of agape is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

Click to expand...

Very similar to sufi unconditional love

Unveiled Artist said:

You can love a child molester (if its someone you know well to warrant that love) without loving her actions. Love from a distance?

Click to expand...

People are defined by their actions.

Hockeycowboy said:

In the Greek Scriptures (NT), the Greek word used for this kind of love is “agapé”. A love based on principle.

A Biblical definition of agape is found at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

EDIT:: Oh, that atrocious KJV on this site!
Here is the verse from more modern translations….
NIV:
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails.


More here:

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

Click to expand...

Most people are agape at Greek love. It was common for Greeks to rent boys for steam rooms.

Clara Tea said:

Most people are agape at Greek love. It was common for Greeks to rent boys for steam rooms.

Click to expand...

The unconditional love i feel for every human being, is not of the physical kind of love It is toward peoples heart, the goodness within so to speak

Father Heathen said:

If only someone were to alert the authorities.

Click to expand...

I did alert authorities. Authorities said that the complaint has to come from the little girls. The little girls were intimidated by physical threats, and when they became pregnant at age 12, they were told that their babies would be taken away and they would be arrested for narcotics use (which intimidated them further).

My neighbor punched on 13 year old (pregnant at 12) in the belly when 7 months pregnant, stating that was his method of giving her an abortion. That induced labor prematurely, and the fetus/infant needed eyeglasses because of oxygen deprivation, and was mentally challenged.

Of course, the DNA of the father now exists in his living son, and proof that he was born of a 13 year old mother exists, as well (pregnant at 12). Yet, no one is willing to testify.

Clara Tea said:

People are defined by their actions.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say so. If you took someone with impulse disability saying people are defined by actions means that person is defined by her or his disability.

Instead, a person's character and identity defines a person. So, if someone hits another they can change their actions but not their identity.

One can say that actions reflect ones character but from personal experience if people judged me from my actions they don't know me. Who we are can't change. We can change our behaviors.

We can change our behaviors to reflect who we are. A child abuser, who she is, in my opinion isn't defined by her actions. Maybe she doesn't know who true self, I don't know. That's how people change. They are motivated to be who they are and that spiritual awakening changes what they do... their habits.

Unless a person is defined by his disability (if it affects his behavior) I don't believe so. That's why people want to change their behaviors not be told they are defined by them.

That stigma makes it hard for convicted to change. Some do dispute the opposition. It's hard but I don't see it impossible of they needed and reviewed help. But they stigma would affect her for a life time.

Conscious thoughts said:

I believe this is the beginning of becoming a human being who embrace every human being for who they are with unconditional love from within.

Loving someone for whom they are, does not mean we must be 100% agree with what they say or do it means we accept that people are different than our self. it means even we hold a certain view, we fully let others hold their view without judging them by our own standards.

Instead of hate or frustration toward others, one begin to see the beauty in who they are because of what they do, not because we want them to be like our self.

And we can forgive them when they do us wrong

This world is meant for love and caring

Click to expand...

I accept others for who they are.
However, I shall oppose their ideas when I think and believe they are damaging.
I'll also not "love" people by default.

I'll certainly detest certain folks. Most of the time, I hope, for good reason. That's okay too. Because I'll happily let them enjoy their detestable ways. Unless their detestable ways infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same.

Conscious thoughts said:

Very similar to sufi unconditional love

Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line between conditional and unconditional love? Is one's own death a condition?

To my understanding, only God's love is unconditional. Jesus said to Peter, 'Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?' [John 13:38] At the time, Peter, despite his bold claims, was unable to do this and he went on to deny Jesus three times. Yet, after Pentecost, Peter did act as a shepherd to his flock and he did give his life for Jesus' sake. So, what made the difference?

Jesus also said, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' [John 15:13]

You wouldn't be here to argue if you had completed the greatest form of human love. So, how can we claim our love is unconditional if we haven't had to offer up our lives for our friends?

The thing about Jesus is that his words are always matched by his deeds! He did lay down his life for his friends. His life was not taken from him by force; it was offered for others.

IMO.