how we are wired

[Robert]

I could have titled it personality but thought this was just as pertinent. I have been wondering about the way we are to love others as ourselves. Something gets a lil messed up if we dont love ourselves, but how do we love ourselves in a positive way if we have damage that we don't even fully know or understand because we are blind to it. I see a downward spiral often when it comes to this, that anyone struggling with this is told to learn to do it and if they dont they get scorned or ignored which only serves to entrench the very root problem they want to break free from. Jesus love disrupts this problem doesnt it??? I just see at times people dont act like it does and receiving love is not given because the person has a lack for whatever reason within themselves.

i hope i am making my point clearly. I have seen this issue underlying many of those who declare themselves deconverts from Christianity as well as some who just are emotionally and relationally damaged and weak. They percieve or hear the call to love in a tone more like a drill sgt or a harsh demanding way than an accepting,compassionate way. Any thoughts???

Robert

[Amie]

Robert,

The "love your neighbor as you love yourself" commandment preceded "love one another as I have loved you". That still creates some complications when a person believes that Jesus gave conditional love.

I think that the complications are born of not hearing the commandments as promises. If I were God and said "Let there be light", it would be so. Light will have been commanded into being. That doesn't mean that the universe had to do something obediant for light to exist.

If God said "Love one another", it will be. Perhaps resting in that would be helpful though I know how difficult that can be.

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- good thoughts you have as always, but i wonder about cases where love just isn't??? The mother who sold her 5 yr old girl into prostitution for drugs,the couple who kidnapped and made jaycee dugard a slave to them for 18 years,the girl who killed a neighbor because she wanted to know what it would feel like to kill someone.

I just post these examples to unpack what you mean by *love just will be* What is it that has affected each of these people that they would lacl love so much to commit these actions??? I remember in a thread a lil while back you said you didn't think there was sin anymore, what do you call these actions then?? Just asking to get as much understanding as possible in how you see love working itself out Amie, even in such extreme examples.

Always great to share and recieve feedback from you Amie. Hope your job situation has been going great!!

Robert

[Amie]

Robert,

In order to understand the cause of their actions, I would need to know their situation specifically. Just to address your example though, and barring that there was a biological impairment at birth, the mom in question probably has a lack of the ability to empathize. That may have been because of her own mistreatment during her childhood.

Let's say (and this is totally made up) that she was hit by her parents, and blamed for it. Let's say that, because her parents were all knowing in her mind at that age, that she identified with them and blamed herself. Let's say too that she blamed herself for stuff that was normal behavior for a child - right down to tantrums when she felt frustrated and unable to express herself any other way.

Maybe too, she was sexually abused. In my non-professional opinion, most, if not every, individual normalizing prostitution has been. Things don't seem to be a big deal when you have been accustomed to them and most folks won't accept that as normal as adults (unless they have already been desensitized). If she sold her child into prostitution, I would suspect that she was raped even, repeatedly.

HOWEVER, drugs can also desensitize. She has a story else she would not have turned to them to cope with whatever haunts her. She doesn't have to feel when she is high, and/or what the drugs make her feel is better (in her mind) than what she is feeling. She has little value for herself and a need to not deal with stuff. She's ok with sticking a needle in her or snorting or smoking whatever and bringing herself near death - a place that she may actually wish for.

Whether denial, drugs, identification with abusive parents and therefore a rage at her own daughter, or a combination of all of it, or something else all together - who she was when she was born was altered. She is going against what is natural for a parent. She is worthy of compassion and mercy. And no, we wouldn't want to approve of her actions and encourage them. Enabling her isn't love.

I've been thinking about sin lately even. Without all of the 'stink' that folks generally attach to it, in Hebrew the word just means "miss the mark". When Adam and Eve bit the apple, if there was a "mark" to hit - which was "don't eat that" - they sure missed it. Through out the rest of the story people worked to hit the mark of right behavior and as flesh and blood saw it, some of them succeeded.

It turned out that the belief that wrong behavior meant that a person was not worthy of love/God, was also missing a mark. It was due imo to ignorance. To know that love endures with us through our mistakes is to see that we are unable to create the separation between ourselves and love that we thought. We never had that power.

That doesn't mean that folks don't believe that today. The story of Jesus was a revelation that infected the world:


2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells. Isa. 65:17

That created a new humanity. One that is able to know love. That woman's life will have made it hard for her so see and experience love, and probably her daughter will have the same problems unless she is helped. We cannot punish love into her, and no one is worth discarding. No one is garbage. We can love her, and she can experience it through us. We can carry the hope that one day she will feel that again in so doing, and accept the possibility that she won't.

Human beings have grown into the love that is here. Her own life of resistance or disability causes her pain. It's not fun for her. We are learning more and more how to break those cycles and how to avoid repeats - but we have so much more to learn imo.

The law of Moses gave Israel a blueprint for a way to behave. If they could do it, then they could feel a little better about themselves (though in the meanwhile they discarded and condemned others). If they couldn't do it, they had proof of mistakes. The law validated sin. It strengthened it, and so the bondage to it and the death that resulted from it (a believed separation between God and human) was perpetuated through it.


1Co 15:56 Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;

Jesus took away sin by demonstrating unconditional love. If it were illegal by their standards to eat pork, and the result of breaking the law changed from death to recognition of forgiveness, what power does the law have any more?

I'm a respecter of societal law. I also look forward to the day that some laws become obsolete. What, for example, would a law to protect from murder mean if no one was murdering any more? There are already laws on record that are so out of time that they seem ridiculous these days. Here's some US ones: http://webring.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/weird-and-out-of-date-law-in-us/

That's how love completed the law - it made it obsolete. Those alive during the transition who held to the law were resisting love itself. That will always result in loss. Jesus and the first fruits desperately reached out to them that they would not experience the pain of such a loss. Some people just wouldn't have it. They lacked the ability to see (denial) or they saw and chose the power they thought they had via the old system.

The difference between that old system and the standards that we all tend to have individually or as groups today, is that the power of God evidenced that they were right. The "beast" did great signs and wonders, even calling fire down from heaven. The acceptance of sacrifice was symbolized by the flames consuming the offering. They believed that the fire upon the alter was from heaven.

Religious teachers can claim the same, and some might even believe it - but it won't actually be true. There is nothing to validate that claim. Thsoe who believe though, will experience the consequence of their belief just like Jerusalem. The less love is in the life of a person, the greater the suffering.

I haven't decided about sin yet. But I'm not in a hurry to really.

And yes, the job is going well so far thank you!

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- thank you!!! You laid out very thoroughly an understanding of the action and reasons underlying them that are very genuine, even though you spoke from conjecture. I so enjoy reading when you go into such detail because you bring out factors that are very much at play. Taking into account all you said, i want to leave aside extreme examples and consider plain ordinary ones. I read a blog the other day of a guy who said he did an experiment of visiting various churches to see what differences and similarities he would find. he said it took 5 visits before anyone spoke to him aside from the obligatory shake hands say hi time. How is it people can sit side by side every sunday and never speak??? How is it any of us hold back from involving ourselves with people everyday??? Why doesn't love just happen more easily and naturally???

i ask this in a way to get past standard answers. Honestly though, personality factors, experiences we have had in life, and a whole host of factors you mentioned in your last post all affect why. I think sin, missing the mark, has made us so vulnerable to self-protection and self-interest that even when we mature into loving more easily it always is a struggle because of our selfish nature which must be transformed by Christs nature placed inside us. Just some of my thinking. Hope to hear more from you and everyone.

Robert

[Barry]

{Bolding is mine}...
Why doesn't love just happen more easily and naturally???

...I think sin, missing the mark, has made us so vulnerable to self-protection and self-interest that even when we mature into loving more easily it always is a struggle because of our selfish nature which must be transformed by Christs nature placed inside us. Just some of my thinking. Hope to hear more from you and everyone.

Robert

Robert, I'm not trying to take apart your words, as a fun exercise.
Just trying to get an idea on your inner workings so to speak. That meaning how you see things from inside. [Which is how we all see things]

If it is not imposing Robert, could you explain a little what you mean by the first "naturally" as used and then what you mean by the subsequent "own nature" and "Christ's nature".
{for example}
What in your view, makes up this "nature"?
How is it formed or come to be?
[As I see it from my angle, the first use "naturally", being a philosophical question on your part about people in general, and then the next "nature", being a theological point about personal transformation.]

BTW, great thread!
Barry

[Robert]

Barry- thanks my friend!!! i am inspired by everyone on here to think up creative threads lol Glad you asked me to expand on my meaning. I think naturally as i spoke of first was as you said, focused upon all of us as people in general. When we are presented with an opportunity, however that happens,to show love i think overall we do it. I think that it takes a stimuli often though to break us from the natural state of selfprotection, if that makes sense. Like my example of being at a worship service. We are surrounded by people, we hear a message of commitment to love or roundabouts, sing worship songs and yet we can barely talk to anyone after its over, unless they are already friends. i say this as a genaralization of course because as i said personality aspects like shyness and such come into play. Alot of times people will reach out to visitors or ones they don't really know, i was just making an overall point.

Theologically, i see that we all are born with a nature that is selfish in its core and so affects how we love because love is othercentered. By Christ's nature indwelling us, the ability to love is empowered in us, but we will always fight our old selfish nature in various ways on a regular basis. Depending upon life experience,maturity,nurture and other factors, our ability to love will be stronger or lesser. I say this with a caveat that i am laying out my thoughts on all this and they are always subject to change upon my own growth as well as learning from others :) Thanks for helping me clarify my own thinking barry. Hope to get your response as well as from anyone else.

Robert

[Barry]

Barry- thanks my friend!!! i am inspired by everyone on here to think up creative threads lol Glad you asked me to expand on my meaning. I think naturally as i spoke of first was as you said, focused upon all of us as people in general. When we are presented with an opportunity, however that happens,to show love i think overall we do it. I think that it takes a stimuli often though to break us from the natural state of selfprotection, if that makes sense. Like my example of being at a worship service. We are surrounded by people, we hear a message of commitment to love or roundabouts, sing worship songs and yet we can barely talk to anyone after its over, unless they are already friends. i say this as a genaralization of course because as i said personality aspects like shyness and such come into play. Alot of times people will reach out to visitors or ones they don't really know, i was just making an overall point.

Theologically, i see that we all are born with a nature that is selfish in its core and so affects how we love because love is othercentered. By Christ's nature indwelling us, the ability to love is empowered in us, but we will always fight our old selfish nature in various ways on a regular basis. Depending upon life experience,maturity,nurture and other factors, our ability to love will be stronger or lesser. I say this with a caveat that i am laying out my thoughts on all this and they are always subject to change upon my own growth as well as learning from others :) Thanks for helping me clarify my own thinking barry. Hope to get your response as well as from anyone else.

Robert

My brain is fried LOL ROFL! Been a busy day thinking and other stuff.

Great overall point Robert. I like it when everyone holds hands at the end of service cause the preacher asked and then everyone gets behind the wheel of a car in the parking lot! Watch out! LOL!

Now on this second part I got a bit of a different view. And IMHO this association of a sinful nature so to speak is a whole in the ground waiting to be tripped over. The very concept of it makes it difficult to love self.
I love me just the way I am but still try to improve and mature and do better. The two are not exclusive. I have no sin nature. I just have things to learn and hurdles to jump over and....

My making sense point has been reached LOL.
Be back tomorrow. Maybe some others will help or correct me.
Barry :)

[Amie]

Robert,

Have you ever spoken with a person even about the concept of the belief that God doesn't send people to hell? See, if you have I'm thinking that I can predict fairly accurately what your experience has been.

It's like when Israel was freed. They felt hungry and thirsty and felt better off under Pharaoh.

It's like with the great emancipation in the US. Slaves were freed. Many of them were angry and felt better off as slaves.

In my experience, when people learn of their freedom immediately the reality of their own lives hits them. If they are content, it is generally taken as good news. If they are not, then they answer with denial.

The reason for unhappiness is as old as the story of Eden imo. They all have a set of standards and reasons that they aren't good enough, that the world isn't good enough, and that life isn't good enough.

Israel really was hungry and thirsty. Were they therefore right that they were better off as slaves? Emancipated slaves in the US - same thing - they were hungry and thirsty. Were they also right?

To me, love is the natural thing and all else is going against what is natural. I don't say that to correct you or to argue, I'm good with being friends with people that have different opinions and views. Just for the sake of communicating my own view, I think that love is our nature. Jesus was a reflection of us - a human being. We couldn't see past that mirror in the beginning of the story, yet when humanity looked in the mirror its' understanding was limited. Jesus became the face of humanity so we could see God/love in ourselves.

You answered well your own questions imo in saying: "missing the mark, has made us so vulnerable to self-protection and self-interest"... Yes!

What if self-protection were a part of love? And what if the issue is learning personal boundaries and personal frontiers as we do so? What if it were ok to love ourselves and the issue was learning a balance?

There's this gated community not far from where we live. My kids have friends who live there. One of their families even programmed a code for us to punch in that is easy to remember that we use. If we enter through the side gate, I kid you not I would say 96% of the time I get shocked touching that key pad. It's shock enough to hurt! And it hurt over and over and over -- just in my kids' getting to see their friends.

I could have learned just to stay out, and some folks might make that choice. I mean, who wants to open themselves to being hurt again and again? I carry a pencil in my purse so I can use it to put the buttons. It's a sort of protective thing - because pain isn't fun.

Probably no one would begrudge me of using my pencil, and folks may even be understanding when it comes to the people who chose not to even go there anymore because they don't feel that the relationship is worth the pain. Yet, when things become emotional rather than physical, stuff like that becomes harder to accept.

What if someone has been hurt again and again and isn't comfortable with reaching out first? See, it is our own business - who we want to be - regardless of who others are.

Because my post is so long, I'll continue it and post the next part separately..

Amie

[Amie]

There is this method of parenting in history that was built upon the view that people are born wicked. As an issue and objectively it is easier to see that as open for debate, but not so when you hold an infant. I borrow some Freud terminology but I am not a fan of his. He was one of the folks advocating that infants are wicked. Even Jung claimed that inside us, we are all raging monsters. They both had quite a negative view of humanity from the start.

That method of parenting taught that babies were born "selfish" and needed training. Freud said that we are all born with "id", short for "identity". "Id" is not yet representative of a developed "ego", but is a beginning sort of layer. I don't see it that way necessarily, but that is another thread. Anyhow, he said that "id" is only capable of thinking of its own needs and whenever it has one, it cries in a selfish fit. To me, he painted infants as small brats only concerned for themselves. If I were around in his time, I would question his view of himself to his face.

Are you familiar with the experiments that used to be conducted under that view of infants? (That they were literally a thoughtless, feelingless, black hole of need.)

Excerpt from Alice Miller's "For Your Own Good" and quote from J. Sulzer's book on parenting 1748:


As far as willfulness is concerned, this expresses itself as a natural recourse in tenderest childhood as soon as children are able to make their desire for something known by means of gestures. They see something they want but cannot have; they become angry, cry, and flail about. Or they are given something that does not please them; they fling it aside and begin to cry. These are dangerous faults that hinder their entire education and encourage undesirable qualities in children. If willfulness and wickedness are not driven out, it is impossible to give a child a good education. The moment these flaws appear in a child, it is high time to resist this evil so that it does not become ingrained through habit and the children do not become thoroughly depraved.

You would be correct in observing that the book was written LONG ago. However, that thinking and methodology was the prodominant thinking for hundreds of years to follow (and probably before).

Here is an example of an unethical experiment conducted on a baby to see if infants could be "conditioned": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment He successfully conditioned the baby, yet my hope is to point out the 'unethical' part. It is ok to terrify any human being until they are traumatized as such? Was the infant being selfish by responding in fear and self protection? Yep, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Supposedly "behaviorism" was followed by "psychology". Jung was also new at that time, but they considered him something else all together. I'm with Ed - I am not an advocate of those old ways of thinking. I am thankful that things began to be pondered at least.


It is quite natural for the child's soul to want to have a will of its own, and things that are not done correctly in the first two years will be difficult to rectify thereafter. One of the advantages of these early years is that then force and compulsion can be used. Over the years, children forget everything that happened to them in early childhood. If their wills can be broken at this time, they will never remember afterwards that they had a will, and for this very reason the severity that is required will not have any serious consequences.

In the quotes we have the view that a child having a will of their own is bad. If you will, keep in mind that the belief was that the ugly black hole of need called infant turned into a child now able to "make their desire for something known".

Reality is that babies are love and loving. They bond with their parents and others in their lives. They are unable to communicate NEEDS any other way than through crying. What are they having these "fits" for? Food? Being changed out of their own feces or urine? Comfort? And you may or may not know that the old way of thinking sets forth a means of making infants stop that "annoyance" by leaving them to cry. That is nothing less than learned hopelessness. Something that was natural - a baby communicating to the parent who is supposed to care for them and love them more than anyone in the world - to be their protection - is turned into what?

Individuals have their own preferences and children haven't learned boundaries and coping skills. Children are individuals. "They see something they want but cannot have" - most people can relate, can we not? Aren't there things that we would all like to have but can't? We can empathize because we know how it feels to be disappointed, or for reality to be something that we're arguing with. As parents, we teach emotional plugged-in-ness, and we teach coping skills, and we teach boundaries for self-expression. What the writer of that book suggests is an utter murder of the self. Children are not allowed to express who they are what so ever. They are to get in line and be 100% obedient through force. The goal is to "break" them - and what is our will if not an expression of who we are?

We also know today that it is not true that such treatment has no consequence just because it won't be remembered.

Here is a quote again from Miller's book written by J.G. Kruger:


It is my view that one should never strike children for offenses they commit out of weakness. The only vice deserving of blows is obstinacy. It is therefore wrong to strike children at their lessons, it is wrong to strike them for falling down, it is wrong to strike them for wreaking harm unwittingly; it is wrong to strike them for crying; but it is right and proper to strike them for all of these transgressions and for even more trivial ones if they have committed them out of wickedness. If your son does not want to learn because it is your will, if he cries with the intent of defying you, if he does harm in order to offend you, in short, if he insists on having his own way:

Then whip him well till he cries so:

Oh no, Papa, oh no!

Such disobedience amounts to a declaration of war against you. Your son is trying to usurp your authority, and you are justified in answering force with force in order to insure his respect, without which you will be unable to train him. The blows you administer should not be merely playful ones but should convince him that you are his master. Therefore, you must not desist until he does what he previously refused out of wickedness to do. If you do not pay heed to this, you will have engaged him in a battle that will cause his wicked heart to swell with triumph and him to make the firm resolve to continue disregarding your blows so that he need not submit to his parents' domination. If, however, he has seen that he is vanquished the first time and has been obliged to humble himself before you, this will rob him of his courage to rebel anew. But you must pay especial heed that in chastising him you not allow yourself to be overcome by anger. For the child will be sharp-witted enough to perceive your weakness and regard as a result of anger what he should deem a meting out of justice. If you are unable to practice moderation in this regard, then yield the execution of the chastisement to another, but be sure to impress upon the person not to desist until the child has fulfilled his father's will and comes to beg you for forgiveness. You should not withhold your forgiveness entirely, as Locke justly observes, but should make it somewhat difficult of attainment and not show your complete approbation again until he has made good his previous transgression by total obedience and has proven that he is determined to be a faithful subject of his parents. If children are educated with befitting prudence at a young age, then surely it will very rarely be necessary to resort to such forceful measures; this can hardly be avoided, however, if one takes children in to be reared after they have already developed a will of their own. But sometimes, especially when they are of a proud nature, one can, even in the case of serious transgressions, dispense with beatings if one makes them, for example, go barefoot and hungry and serve at table or otherwise inflicts pain upon them where it hurts. [Gedanken von der Erziehung der Kinder (Some Thoughts on the Education of Children), 1752, quoted in Rutschky]

Note the reference to the "wicked heart". The demand from the parent is to conform into their image or suffer beatings, going barefoot or hungry, etc. The point is to cure the child of being who they are because the desire to be who they are, to like what they like, and for infants the desire not to lay in their own excrement is just "selfish".

If you are interested in reading Miller's book, you can find the entire thing online here: http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

I realize that whether or not spanking is excessive force is a personal viewpoint and Alice Miller sees it as excessive. Even if you advocate spanking, there is a great deal to be gleaned from her and from this book. I'd encourage anyone to read it.

Adam and Eve, like children, were incapable of knowing that love is unconditional because they hadn't ever consciously screwed up before. They passed that ignorance down, how could they not? It is the reason that people concluded that they were/are wicked.

It is the reason Freud saw himself as evil, the reason Jung saw himself as a monster. It's the reasons that parents teach it to their own children and when we know better, we do better.

Who was there to tell us that it is normal to not feel open after being hurt? To tell us that it is ok to feel afraid, to feel angry, to feel sad... to feel at all?

The very best way to educate the world about love is give yourself and the world that experience imo. God is love and as Doug often says, God/love is a gift.

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- I agree with most of what you shared there. I have a psych background so am very familiar with Freud, Skinner, bably albert, behaviorism and you name it. My contention is still though that we have an inherently selfish nature which gets displayed as we start to live life. I am not talking about babies and their basic needs here. Eventually as we all begin to grow up , we dicover our selfish nature. Love is always present as you said but it has to contend with our inherited nature. Take for example your own situation you had at work. Those ladies did not treat you lovingly, they chose to withold love and act negatively. That is my point. We can choose to ignore love and we do so many times if we were honest with ourselves, just part of life. Hope to hear more of your thoughts.

Robert

[Barry]

Amie- I agree with most of what you shared there. I have a psych background so am very familiar with Freud, Skinner, bably albert, behaviorism and you name it. My contention is still though that we have an inherently selfish nature which gets displayed as we start to live life. I am not talking about babies and their basic needs here. Eventually as we all begin to grow up , we dicover our selfish nature. Love is always present as you said but it has to contend with our inherited nature. Take for example your own situation you had at work. Those ladies did not treat you lovingly, they chose to withold love and act negatively. That is my point. We can choose to ignore love and we do so many times if we were honest with ourselves, just part of life. Hope to hear more of your thoughts.

Robert

Hey Robert.
I have a few personal thoughts on the subject. Hope you don't mind.

Concerning the above issue of conduct: Is it selfishness nature or did they act that way because they have a problem loving themselves?

Selfishness is not nearly as "natural" as we make it out to be imo. There are tribes that by and large do not act selfishly at all in their own community. Selfish nature is not in the genetics its in the culture.

It's in the doctrines.
My salvation, my ticket to heaven, my sanctification, my faith, my works, my spirituality.....


We are culturally taught to not love ourselves. We are environmentally taught to not love ourselves. That's why we learn to be selfish or more accurately imho self centered.
Unrealistic self centeredness is from insecurity. It's much harder to be generous while insecure.

And yes we all have it on some level. But the idea is to take the journey away from insecurity in a none burdensome way.
And this is what the fulfillment of all things can help with. Unity is not made it is realized.

As for myself, I don't try to love myself I just decided that I do.

This begins to address both the conscious and unconscious hurdles that are programed into our minds.

Of course there are many aids and helps and whatever works keep doing. But overall the issue is insecurity. And replacing "doctrines" with the doctrine of love without condition is the platform to journey from.

Barry

[Laren]

i think language has a large part in selfishness development. where we express and learn to identify my, mine, i, me, yours etc.

[Robert]

barry- Mind??? the whole point of the dialogue is to have you share so of course i dont mind LOL I like what you say about how we learn selfishness Barry. I disagree in points though. I think it was Freud who said, even from infancy, we have a basic mantra hardwired into us which is, *we want what we want when we want it and we want it right now* I think if we are brutally honest with ourselves, we find this to be true. That is not to say we do not conquer it, just that it is always in us. You dont think about loving yourself, you just do it. Could you expand a lil more?? Would you say there are times you beat yourself up,get upset with yourself,etc??? I think maybe amies coworkers do have trouble loving themselves, but also sometimes not. They made a choice how they acted towards amie, for whatever reasons. i would like to hear from amie if she saw them treat others at her job in a much diffferent way??? This goes to my contention with the Dr Phil slogan about *we teach others how we want to be treated* i do not think it is a universal. I do not teach people to put me down and call me names, i actually approach the ones who do this with love and decency so i don't think that slogan of his always holds water. Always appreciate your thoughts barry my friend.

Robert

[Barry]

barry- Mind??? the whole point of the dialogue is to have you share so of course i dont mind LOL I like what you say about how we learn selfishness Barry. I disagree in points though. I think it was Freud who said, even from infancy, we have a basic mantra hardwired into us which is, *we want what we want when we want it and we want it right now* I think if we are brutally honest with ourselves, we find this to be true. That is not to say we do not conquer it, just that it is always in us. You dont think about loving yourself, you just do it. Could you expand a lil more?? Would you say there are times you beat yourself up,get upset with yourself,etc??? I think maybe amies coworkers do have trouble loving themselves, but also sometimes not. They made a choice how they acted towards amie, for whatever reasons. i would like to hear from amie if she saw them treat others at her job in a much diffferent way??? This goes to my contention with the Dr Phil slogan about *we teach others how we want to be treated* i do not think it is a universal. I do not teach people to put me down and call me names, i actually approach the ones who do this with love and decency so i don't think that slogan of his always holds water. Always appreciate your thoughts barry my friend.

Robert

Hey Robert.
Is that how God made you?

Barry

[Amie]

Eventually as we all begin to grow up , we dicover our selfish nature.

Maybe we're just going to see this differently right now (who knows what either of us will think ten years from now, lol!). For one, I was trying and maybe failing (my lack, not yours!) to communicate that the negative connotation attached to selfishness may be unfair in many cases. For two, I think that it is more natural to love than to be ugly to one another.


Take for example your own situation you had at work. Those ladies did not treat you lovingly, they chose to withold love and act negatively. That is my point. We can choose to ignore love and we do so many times if we were honest with ourselves, just part of life.

We can't know their intent and it isn't fair imo, to project one onto them. We can't know their heart and I would never in a million years see them as being heartless. I just don't think that they knew better.


I think it was Freud who said, even from infancy, we have a basic mantra hardwired into us which is, *we want what we want when we want it and we want it right now*

Freud was a sick man and quite self loathing. I already shared his view of infants and he translates their needs into hissy fits. From there, the contempt only ages and the little black holes begin to actually try and verbally express desires, etc. That's how he sees things - not how I see things. The science of the study of the human mind, behavior, relationships, and the like has moved forward since the 1800's.

What if the negative connotations were removed from our desires ("I want what I want..")?


Would you say there are times you beat yourself up,get upset with yourself,etc???

Is it possible to get upset with yourself AND it be true that you love yourself?


i would like to hear from amie if she saw them treat others at her job in a much diffferent way???

If they did treat other people nicer, doesn't mean that they fully comprehend how I was feeling and the impact of their behavior toward me. The most educated folks on behavioral rules were addressed by Jesus in his saying "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This isn't an excuse and it doesn't make it ok. Demonstrating boundaries where others don't recognize them is up to me. You might be right that teaching folks how to treat us isn't always universal - I don't know of any formulas that work for every single person. But, it could be that that mantra adjusts in each situation.

For example, when you allow people in your life that treat you that way, it is YOUR choice. Your choice teaches other people. You could choose to complain to your boss or to HR. You can draw your lines and teach them that isn't ok with you. If that doesn't work, you are in charge of your own life.

My job situation is ever improving because I opened up. AT THE SAME TIME, I have had to own some stuff of my own and that hasn't been easy either.

If you tried everything and nothing worked, you would have to decide whether or not the job is more important than how you want the people in your life to treat you. If you want to surround yourself with different folks in that instance, you would have to change jobs. That might not be a good idea in your circumstance and in this economy.

For the most part, when you accept that behavior from others, they learn that it's ok. There are times in our lives when we are powerless, and times in our lives when we have choices. The serenity prayer is ever so wise imo:

http://www.inkmonkey.com/artgallery/serenity_prayer/images/single_mat/serenity_prayer.jpg


Selfishness is not nearly as "natural" as we make it out to be imo. There are tribes that by and large do not act selfishly at all in their own community.

Imo, this is an important point and cannot be overstated.


i think language has a large part in selfishness development. where we express and learn to identify my, mine, i, me, yours etc.


It's in the doctrines.

My salvation, my ticket to heaven, my sanctification, my faith, my works, my spirituality.....

Certainly there is nothing wrong with individuality and ownership. When do the negative connotations attached to selfishness become true? Is it when it is "unrealistic self centeredness".

AND, does love negate that anyway? Because who does love reject?

Amie

[Barry]

Certainly there is nothing wrong with individuality and ownership. When do the negative connotations attached to selfishness become true? Is it when it is "unrealistic self centeredness".

AND, does love negate that anyway? Because who does love reject?

Amie

Hey Amie,
I would ask, "Who does love with conditions reject?"
And answer "Me!"
So then the need for a salvation of my very own as pertains to an acquiring of acceptance or a perceived alleged arrival point that is where one is "supposed to be".

There would be a difference in what God accepts and what my mind will.

Fulfillment does not do away with personal development transformation and so on, and the ownership thereof, but it does away with the twists and turns of needing to arrive at a designated point that is build on doctrines or the perceptions thereof.

Of course much more could be said and such things can themselves be hard to put into words.
Just a thought of course.
Barry