Universal Love: what do you think about it?

[Pure]

What do you think of it as a moral ideal, something you might try to practice?

Since it’s Christmas…. Some say Christmas is about ‘universal love’, said to be the central message of Christianity. It’s a concept found elsewhere, for instance the Chinese philosopher Mozi about 600 BC, called for jian ai translated as 'universal love'; 'impartial concern', 'inclusive caring.' Buddhism, perhaps, also contains an approximate analogue.

What’s the ideal worth? A lot, despite its being high? Or is it inferior to any of a number of schemes for ‘rationing’ love according to various distinctions: who’s closest? of those not very close, who’s deserving?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think "universal love" is just words, but there is something real and on the whole very good that came out of Christianity, which is the idea of universal goodwill to all humans, without regard to race, creed, sex, national origin, handicap status, etc. I understand that Confucius and Buddha also recommended versions of this, but it's the Christian one that most of us are most familiar with. I believe the Sermon on the Mount is the primary source for this. It's still rather a radical notion - "What, you mean even Samaritans are equal in God's eye? Even women?"

 

[slyc_willie]

Too much of anything can be a bad thing. I'm an optimist, and I like to think good exists in every heart, however small.

But if the entire planet suddenly converted to this concept of 'universal love,' wouldn't that cheapen the idea of love itself? Wouldn't Love become common, like kitschy keychains and bumper stickers? And who wants something so common?

Love is something we strive for, work for, make sacrifices for. If it was readily available, if it existed despite everything, it would cease to have worth. Love is a struggle, and it should be that way. A reward for doing whatever it takes to devote yourself to someone or something.

I am not in favor of universal love . . . but I am in favor of the pursuit of personal and fulfilling love.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yikes! I should have checked if all the replies had actually voted before going out on the limb...

I'm reminded of Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, somewhere about Chap. 13 as I recall. It's the familiar passage about 'Faith, Hope, and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.' In some translations, 'love' is translated as 'charity', or vice-versa. I imagine, if there's some ambiguity, that the original word had some connotations of a broader respect for mankind, rather than an emotional interpretation of loving a certain person.

Without delving too deep into different concepts of morality and law, I just don't think that a concept of Universal Love is realistic.

 

[slyc_willie]

I just voted. Thanks for reminding me, Huck.

My idea of 'Love' is usually centered around the intense feelings of devotion, charity, lust and sacrifice one person feels for another.

But Love, obviously, has a greater scope. Still, to try and convey love across a population, no matter how big or small, means encountering innumerable problems.

One cannot project love beyond their own personal sphere. To love on a broader scale requires mind control, and that would destroy the concept, the idea, of Love as a whole.

Love can only be given by individuals, and to individuals.

 

[TE999]

'Flawed pipedream' reporting for duty, sir.

Universal anything is a repugnant concept in my view.

It implies marching in lockstep, even it is for huggybearkissyface happiness.

I can't see humanity singing 'Kum-by-Ya' around the global campfire either.

Love, IMHO, is like trust, loyalty and respect.

It needs to be earned, not scattered about like rose petals 'for the good of humanity'.

When they figure out how to genetically exorcise all the greedy, grasping, rapacious and devious SOB's from the human race, gimme a call.

Until then, Universal Love is a nice dream and it'll stay that way.

Not that it isn't a goal to strive for.

Maybe in a hundred years.

Peace (in 2007).

 

[elsol]

I ascribe to "Univeral -Get The Fuck Out of My Face-".

It's a lot easier than loving all thems people... I'm not a young'un anymore.

 

[slyc_willie]

I ascribe to "Univeral -Get The Fuck Out of My Face-".

It's a lot easier than loving all thems people... I'm not a young'un anymore.

No, you're a true grouch . . . Lol

Seriously, love ya, El.

 

[English Lady]

Universal love is I guess, what I build my life upon. It's something very sentral to my being, it's osmething that not only comes from my faith but from my experiences in life. Loving people, respecting people makes life better. I do not hate anyone -okay, I might have problems loving some people, but I don't know if there's a level for how much you should love everyone - I can't imagine it should be equal -that'd be silly.

So yes, I strive for universal love I think it's something that is very important.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Universal love is I guess, what I build my life upon. It's something very sentral to my being, it's osmething that not only comes from my faith but from my experiences in life. Loving people, respecting people makes life better. I do not hate anyone -okay, I might have problems loving some people, but I don't know if there's a level for how much you should love everyone - I can't imagine it should be equal -that'd be silly.

So yes, I strive for universal love I think it's something that is very important.

Bless your little cotton socks...

and I agree... my concept of universal "love" is... that 'love' is actually what we all ARE... it is what we naturally express ourselves as... at our core, we are love, and we are all one... each individual expressions of that one-ness/love...

 

[impressive]

I try. I fail. I keep trying.

 

[rgraham666]

I try. I fail. I keep trying.

And that's the best any human can do.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Paul's use of the term was mentioned, and so this becomes particularly relevent. It's actually a good starting point for this conversation anyway:

Greek words for love
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a number of different Greek words for love, as the Greek language distinguishes how the word is used. Ancient Greek has three distinct words for love: eros, philia, and agape. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are given below.

Eros (ἔρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "(romantic) love". Plato refined his own definition. Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. It should be noted Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction". Plato also said Eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.

Philia (φιλία philía), means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philia denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.

Agapē (ἀγάπη agápē) means "love" in modern day Greek. The term s'agapo means "I love you" in Greek. The word "agapo" is the verb "I love". In Ancient Greek it often refers to a general affection or concern, rather than the physical attraction suggested by "eros"; agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. The verb appears in the New Testament describing, amongst other things, the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple. Many Christian scholars have consequently argued that the verb's use in the New Testament is simply to describe God's love for humanity (compare with Spinoza's amor intellectualis Dei, the intellectual love of God). In the end, "agape" is differentiated from "eros" above. In biblical literature, its meaning and usage is illustrated by self-sacrificing, giving love to all--both friend and enemy. The word "agape" is not always used in the New Testament in a positive sense. II Timothy 4:10 uses the word in a negative sense. The Apostle Paul writes,"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world...." The word "loved" here is a form of the root word "agape". Thus the word "agape" is not always used of a divine love or the love of God. Generally, in the New Testament it refers to a total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the object loved. The word seems to contain more of an mental or intellectual element than the other Greek words for love. It is a rational love that is not based on total self-interest. By this a Christian is required to love (agape) someone who is not necessarily lovely or loveable. The Christian by God's grace and mercy is required to "love" someone that he may not necessarily like or love in the sense of having warm fuzzy emotional feelings toward. It is a love that acts in the best interest of the other person. The classic biblical text on this self-sacrificial love is the well-known biblical verse, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...." A Christian is required to love his enemies ("...Love your enemies..." Matthew 5:44). Thus. the Christian is required to always do good and have the best interest of his enemies in view when he acts.

Storge (στοργή storgē) means affection in modern Greek; it is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Paul's use of the term was mentioned, and so this becomes particularly relevent. It's actually a good starting point for this conversation anyway:

Greek words for love
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eros (ἔρως érōs) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing.

Philia (φιλία philía), means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love...

Agapē (ἀγάπη agápē) means "love" in modern day Greek. The term s'agapo means "I love you" in Greek. The word "agapo" is the verb "I love". In Ancient Greek it often refers to a general affection or concern, rather than the physical attraction suggested by "eros...

Storge (στοργή storgē) means affection in modern Greek; it is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring...

Thanks for these, Roxelby...

I think agape is the closest to the concept of "universal love"... but I think it's important to differentiate between that and romantic love (eros) which is mostly a projection.... *ducking*

 

[Pure]

it appears that Paul and other early Xtians seized upon 'agape,' developing it, rather than eros. 'eros' has been applied to love of God, and God's love, and isn't to be equated simply with physical love/lust or with 'romantic love.' it is a force of nature that brings together. my speculation is that Paul and co. found eros too 'fleshy,' and wanted (they thought) to rise above the flesh. the other element, i surmise, is that agape is developed as more 'disinterested': it can be spread about to all mankind. (So the older translations speak of 'charity'.)

in the OT, God is said to have 'chesed' or usually translated, 'loving kindness' or 'steadfast love' [or even 'kindness' or 'mercy'] for Israel. Since there is a command to imitate God, the OT injunction is to 'loving kindness'.

i have some doubts as to whether 'universal love' is found in most people's Xtianity, though it turns up in folks like St Francis and Schweitzer.

Paul, who wrote the famous words about 'love,' how it suffers long, forgives, is not haughty, etc. also said,

"It is actually reported that there is immorality among you... for a man is living with his father's wife [i.e., a widowed step mother]. Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit, and ...I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing.. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.**" (1 Cor 5)

Further,
"I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber.. not even to eat with such a one. ... 'Drive the wicked person from among you.'"

I think this problem goes back to the OT: the loving God is quite willing to put people to death, cast them out, etc. The so-called 'idolators' [worshippers of Baal] being prime targets.

----
**It's worth noting that this *accords* with one aspect of agape, as per the article that Roxanne posted:

//It is a love that acts in the best interest of the other person.//

For the immoral person, driving them out, and subjecting them to death under Satan gives them a chance at a favorable judgment on their soul, at the end of times. (This is the same idea as burning witches does them a favor.)

It can be dangerous to one's health to run into certain folks, like St. Paul, who practice 'agape'.

 

[Liar]

Global love. I can do global. On a very general, non-comittal scale, I'll love each individual human I encounter, until proven otherwise.

Universal? No. I really fucking hate Jupiter, and the horse it rode in on.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

For the immoral person, driving them out, and subjecting them to death under Satan gives them a chance at a favorable judgment on their soul, at the end of times. (This is the same idea as burning witches does them a favor

This is a literal translation... on both sides...

but "tough love" IS love... feeling someone else's heart and acting from love is possible, and there are times it looks and even feels cruel, but it's the right thing (I'm not talking morally).

We get into trouble when we take anything too literally.

And yes, there is an aspect of eros in the spirit, in the love for God/Him that I find in two-bodied bliss with him/Him...

 

[Pure]

note to selena,

St Paul quoted by pure: //For though absent in body, I am present in spirit, and ...I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing.. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.**" (1 Cor 5)//

SK
This is a literal translation... on both sides...

P: So what is your NONliteral translation?

NIV has ///"When you are assembled....hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[the body, the flesh] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."///

---
SK but "tough love" IS love... feeling someone else's heart and acting from love is possible, and there are times it looks and even feels cruel, but it's the right thing (I'm not talking morally).

Yes, 'tough love' is love, but practitioners of what they call 'tough love' can be dangerous for one to run into. There is the zealot who kills you to free your soul to join with God.

So someone who says, "I practice 'universal love', but it's a 'tough love'" may well say (as has been said); "I don't choose to involve myself a lot in the war on AIDS in Africa since it's God's punishment; their deaths, as immoral people, are what's best for them."

I realize we're 'tough' on kids, 'for their own good,' like being sure they get to bed on time, but as you know 'for their own good' is the slogan of many a savage abuser. As you probably know, For your own good, is the title of a famous book on child abuse.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

P: So what is your NONliteral translation?

well remember... the bible is simply text written by humans... subject to literal and nonliteral translations. You could take this passage literally (and it has been taken literally, way too many times to count)... or you could take it metaphorically. That "God" (i.e. spirit, the divine) has a plan, a will, and a destiny, and sees much more of the big picture than we do, and that it is not up to us to judge.

I have no doubt that this passage, taken literally, can be dangerous. Anything, taken too literally, can be dangerous.

---

Yes, 'tough love' is love, but practitioners of what they call 'tough love' can be dangerous for one to run into. There is the zealot who kills you to free your soul to join with God.

It is the zealot who takes things literally, instead of metaphorically, who aligns "god's will" with "ego will" and finds them one in the same. They are often not. Ego-love is not universal love. We get caught in our stories, in our personal versions of love... instead of realizing that it's a small step outward (or inward) to melt into the love that we all are, all the time. When we are in alignment with THAT "love," all acts, even violent ones, serve a deeper purpose.

The problem is, most people rarely get there, and when they do, they rarely stay. Christ, the Buddha, there are very few who could get there and then stay and act from that place... the tough love I speak of isn't about serving our self-righteous egos, it's about serving the OTHER... and in doing so, serving ourselves. If you see a baby eating bleach under the sink, do you just walk away? Or do you grab them, and shake them, and say, "NO! Don't EVER do that!" That's the kind of love that serves.

But you're not wrong to question the motivation of those who translate and take words like you quoted literally, Pure... it's a very real fear, one that has been realized over and over throughout history. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because it CAN be taken literally, doesn't mean it has to be.

I don't know how to get people to align themselves with the deeper love, the wellspring that runs through and in all of us, just under the surface... I wish I did. But if I knew that, well... I'd probably be put up on a cross or something...

 

[Pure]

i do appreciate those connected to the eternal spring who practice 'universal love', like St. Francis, George Fox, Ramana Maharshi's.

for most people (including St. Paul), though, the 'universal love' slogan seems to accompany some areas of hatred; for instance many of these 'elect' comtemplate the picture of those who end in hellfire. St. Thomas once wrote that the bliss of those in heaven is increased by the sight of the sufferiing souls in hell, below.

ADDED: I might propose that those who preach or relish hellfire for those who oppose The Teaching, cannot be practitioners of 'universal love.'

 

[elsol]

I wanted to start "The Church of Univeral Hate"... but I figured the kind of people who would join might not be so much into the orgies.

Unfortunately, nobody would let me advertise with the name "The Church of Universal Fuck"

Too many plumbing types (crack and all) showed up when I tried "The Church of Universal Screw".

Too many dudes at "The Church of Universal Sex". (Fucking guys kept asked 'Where the co-eds be at?')

Let's not talk about my experience at "The Church of Universal Plug".

NOt only was I in the wrong country for the "The Church of Univeral Shag" but the only people that showed up were dressed up as raccoons and shit.

Alas... I believe in the principle though... so I will prevail!

 

[slyc_willie]

Love is not the only wellspring, the only current, that runs through us all. There is also hate. We see it every day.

The two emotions, two states of being, cannot exist without the other, or so I believe. I hate almost as much as I love. I am an emotional person, and I enjoy being such. Someone once said I am 'elemental' in the way I act and think. I took that as a compliment.

I do not, and would not, strive for universal love. Better to let us all give our best efforts, to test ourselves and see if we have 'the right stuff' to reach the goal. Sure, I would support a friend, stop a baby from drinking bleach, save a stranger . . . but when it comes to love?

You're on your own. YOU need to make the effort, YOU need to sacrifice. So that, if and when it happens, you can proudly proclaim that you earned it . . . and you will enjoy it ever moreso because of that fact.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Unattainable. Sorry.

 

[Pure]

interesting, slyc,

the taoists say that light requires, complements and is complemented by darkness.

Jung long criticized Xtianity for its attempt to be all 'white light' 'God is Love' etc. The only remaining 'dark' entity is inferior and pathetic, Satan.

He turned to the Gnostics--long declared heretical by Xtians-- to get the big or complete picture.

 

[elsol]

YOU need to make the effort, YOU need to sacrifice. So that, if and when it happens, you can proudly proclaim that you earned it . . . and you will enjoy it ever moreso because of that fact.

No, I don't.

With that many stupid people around... I can slide by without much effort at all.

And Christmas proves that a PS3 received is a WAAYYYY better than a penny earned!