Soul, respect and love

Soul, respect and love

Joined: August 19th, 2010, 10:23 pm

August 22nd, 2011, 10:20 am #1

While I no longer associate myself with Christianity, I nevertheless, was raised as a Christian and believed sincerely, as a Christian for nearly 50 years ... and so the Christian philosophy is still very much a part of my life and attitude. I now see the Bible in quite a different light than I did as a Christian believer and while I realize that the Bible itself is not a particularly fantastic book above any other book, the Bible is still the ONE I happen to know best!~

So-o ... when I think about human lessons, I just automatically tend to have verses of the Bible pop up in my head and I then contemplate the wisdom of the saying.

One of the themes I often think about and which I think is acutely pertinent for NAmerica today ... is the theme of "soul".

"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul"? (Mark 8:6)

Christians today tend to think of soul as an internal entity of theirs that is going to survive death and zip off to a place called heaven. Christians are urged to go out, "witness" and "save souls" (from hell, of course).

What did the Hebrews and early Christians REALLY mean with that word though? Often, what Christians believe words to mean and what they actually meant ... are quite different ... and that's because of later, developed doctrines which need to be supported by "correct" belief.

Before Christianity, Hebrews had no concept of heaven or of people going there when they died. At least, there's no persuasive evidence that any of them believed like that. To them ... when a person died, it was the end of that person insofar as it pertained to human consideration. They focused on the HERE and NOW; life on earth.

And so ... "soul" had nothing to do with any kind of existence after death. It was for LIVING people.

The NTestament also ... puts no emphasis on an after-life existing in some other dimension such as heaven or hell. It focuses on this planet only ... for humans. Therefore, the NTestament says nothing of souls being saved by believing in Jesus, in order to go to another place called heaven, after death.

Ok, so if soul pertains to living people only ... exactly WHAT was/is the essence of soul ... and how can a person gain the whole world but somehow lose his soul?

Think about that carefully. It's said that money can buy you anything ... but can it buy you a soul or buy you your soul back?

How do you go about losing your soul?

Soul is the driving life force inside of each person which makes that person unique, distinct, recognizable, accomplished, loved or hated ... but always respected.

I think sometimes people can see "soul" more acutely in inanimate objects -like a muscle car- than they can recognize it in themselves or in other people!~ I hear guys, (or used to), brag and rave about some particular car and how it performs and how marvelous it is. It's like that car has its own unique personality. I've even heard enthusiasts go on and on about some demolition car and how many other cars it's demolished and how -despite looking pretty hideous from all of its crashings- it is still "king"! Gad.

If only people could see soul in themselves and other people as acutely as they can see it in gadgets or machinery...

I believe that in order to HAVE soul ... one has to RECOGNIZE soul in other humans too. It's related to ego; ego is the recognition of the unique distinction of one's self from all other human beings. To have a healthy ego/soul, one has to recognize soul ... not only in favorite people but in ALL people. One has to recognize that "spark of life" in others and nurture/respect whatever that spark happens to show.

It's impossible to gain respect from others unless/until one is willing to respect others. Respect is a vital life-force which ties people together in a positive, constructive and powerful, yet intangible way ... and is the driving/sustaining force which enables people to survive and triumph in times of deep trouble. It's what permits many leaders to develop, who work together cooperatively for a common cause without considerations for self-elevation or self-aggrandizement. When the job is finished, such leaders are then content to fade back into anonymity.

When one studies the message of the NTestament, it's really all about a struggle of a group of people to disengage themselves from a corrupt and evil tyrannical system ... and all of the advice given, applies to this struggle. The message is NOT one of making some kind of holy people group but rather, of ENABLING a group of willing people to find their soul and to express themselves in their own freed life.

The NTestament speaks frequently about "love" but the English translation into a single word "love" actually comes from two different words in the Greek manuscripts -phileo and agape. A third word, "eros" also existed in that language but to my knowledge, it doesn't appear anywhere in the NTestament. Eros pertained to sexual love and bonding ie 'erotic'.

The word "phileo" pertained to friendship, 'brotherly love,' and a feeling of loving something -like nice clothes or high position.

It was a given that friends and family would receive a more intimate form of love and loyalty than would strangers. The NTestament occasionally invoked this "phileo" word but only rarely -only 25 times in the entire works ... compared to 425 instances where the word "agape" was used!

What did "agape" mean in the context of love? Well, Christians will usually say that it means a totally selfless "Godly" type of love that has no bounds and is somewhat irrational and unconditional (or something to that effect).

I say no ... agape meant nothing like that at all. In the context of a struggle for a common purpose, it's IMPERATIVE that members of that struggle exercise an agape love force toward each other ... or the entire movement will fall apart. That "love" is primarily embedded in respect and recognition of soul ... in each and every member.

Many groups throughout history, have separated themselves from their "world" and have gone off by themselves to start up their own vision of a better life. It's tough, it needs commitment and organization and lots of cooperation.

One really bad example was the Jim Jones sect going off to Guyana to try to tough it out and create something meaningful. This was a pretty big group of over 1000 people ... it had a lot of potential ... but it ultimately failed in a colossal disaster and tragedy. Most of the members committed suicide.

On the other hand, a lot of Mennonites have left their "world" in the past -sometimes repeatedly- to go off in a group to some other country and start over ... and they usually succeed. I had an uncle who pulled up stakes three times in his life ... going first to Mexico, then to Bolivia and finally to Paraguay ... each time, starting over and facing new unknown challenges in brand new environments.

What was the problem with Jim Jones' attempt? Well, for starters, it was founded in wrong principles. Jones thought himself to be Jesus Christ and his followers were essentially zombie followers. The entire group lacked soul and Jones WANTED it that way. He wanted to be "god" and give orders and have his followers blindly obey him. It didn't work. In an effort like that, EVERYONE needs to have soul, be able to think for themselves and be dedicated to investing themselves willingly ... to sacrifice and GIVE ... in the spirit of agape love. The problem with independence of thought and motivation is that it tends to create friction and fighting ... UNLESS ... everyone recognizes the value of soul and respect and cares more about the common cause than they care about self-pampering.

Jones was motivated by fear, paranoia and hatred. That doesn't work either. A survivalist movement cannot thrive on motivation of hatred and fear; it can only survive and thrive in an atmosphere of agape love, optimism and putting old hatred aside. It MUST have faith in its future because -after all- it LEFT the old world behind in hope of creating its own NEW world.

Jim Jones made the tragic mistake of NOT recognizing soul ... because he'd lost his OWN soul. It's very easy to do. Get yourself compromised in some way, doing things secretly which you condemn openly ... and you immediately kill your soul.

Or ... start thinking selfishly for self gratification and/or recognition ... and you lose your soul.

There's one individual whom I respected a lot in the past but who has now become a rather pathetic shadow of his former self ... and that is Michael Ruppert. I just watched him on a video which he made about a week ago and it's painful to hear him vent about himself.

Yes, he's feeling marginalized -maybe even persecuted- but ... what was his motivation for being an activist in the first place? He seems to have lost sight of that and now it all and only about himself. This is really sad.

A true leader with soul, respect for other souls and a commitment to a cause ... can NOT put his own ego in front of the cause. He has to be committed to his own "demise" of importance in order to keep respect for himself. This falls into the category of "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)

The CAUSE has to be so deeply etched into the back of one's mind ... that self and self importance ALWAYS come second (or don't even matter) ... if one is to be an effective soulful leader.

Bitterness, anger, hatred, revenge etc. are NOT productive ... for the people who hold those attitudes and motivation. (They are only productive for others who MANIPULATE such feelings but never for the people holding the feelings).

Having soul -to have a soul- one has to be truthful and honest. I suppose that occasionally, everyone lies ... and sometimes lies are almost necessary ... but as a rule, soul can only develop where there is honesty. How can one recognize or respect the essence of someone who lies habitually? It's impossible because one doesn't know what is true about that person and what isn't ... when everything comes out a lie! Compulsive liars have no soul because they don't know THEMSELVES what is right or true any more!

A person with soul doesn't care about his image; he KNOWS that his image rests in his honesty, integrity and attitude towards others. He knows that because he has it confirmed by feedback. (Perhaps this is what's eating Michael Ruppert -the positive feedback has dried up?)

Be careful about that. When feedback dries up or goes south on you ... it's probably time to do a good personal inventory in order to get back on track again with the attitude.

And if that positive feedback just DOESN'T come back any more ... and your reputation slips off into oblivion, you have to accept the fact that maybe your 15 minutes of fame are past? You also have to ask yourself, "why did I do this thing in the FIRST place? Is that still the most important motivation -and if it is- then ((I)) don't really matter all that much in the greater picture ... do I?"

Is it phileo love that drives you ... or is it agape?

-Vince

PS: It's interesting to see how these two different loves are used and contrasted in the John passage where Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves him -(John 21:15 - 17).

In verse 15 Jesus asks Peter if Peter has agape love for him, more than for the other 2 guys ... and Peter says, " Yea Lord, you know I phileo love you!"

Then Jesus asks him again, "Do you have agape love for me?"

Again, Peter replies, "Yea Lord, you KNOW that I phileo love you!!"

Then Jesus asks him a third time ... but this time Jesus says, "Do you PHILEO love me?"

In verse 17 it says that Peter was grieved because Jesus asked him the third time if Peter phileo loved him.

I'm not sure what to make of that, to be honest. Why did it grieve Peter when Jesus asked him the third time whether Peter had a personal love for Jesus instead of a formal agape love which Jesus had asked about twice before?

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 1:30 pm

August 22nd, 2011, 12:54 pm #2

Your whole post sadly exposed that you NEVER were TRULY a Christian even though you may have thought of yourself as one for 50 years. It's a problem 85% to 88% of those who proclaim now or have proclaimed in the past to be Christian.

You obviously IGNORED the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT when you attempted to portray some sort of knowledge here.

John 21:15-17

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me (AGAPE') more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you (PHILEO)." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love (AGAPE)' me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love (PHILEO) you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love(PHILEO) me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love (PHILEO) me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love PHILEO you." ESV

N> When you exist in the LIGHT it is MUCH EASIER to COMPREHEND things than when you FREELY CHOOSE to exist in the DARKNESS because IN THE DARKNESS you're doomed to opinions only.

John 1:5
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
NASU

Paraphrasing John 21:15-17 in it's PROPER CONTEXT it is OBVIOUS that Peter was misunderstanding the AGAPE' LOVE that Christ was talking about taking it to mean "PHILEO" a FRIEND TYPE LOVE.

In verse 17 Christ then is asking "IN A SENSE"; "Peter...IS YOUR LOVE FOR ME A FRIEND TYPE LOVE?" Peter again replied; "you "KNOW" I FRIEND TYPE LOVE YOU"

When you consider the EXTENDED CONTEXT you might know that Peter's PHILEO LOVE for Christ at that time was NOT a LOVE come from the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit for the Holy Spirit was not yet come. So Peter's love was deeply sincere as a TRUE FRIEND but NOT AGAPE' which is LOVE from the indwelling Spirit of God.

Unfortunately Vince, you're doomed to opinions only. There is more on your post at my forum http://www.network54.com/Forum/649938/

There is really no more need to post here because it is just a bunch of bumbling voices from people walking in a spirit of stupor.

Rom 11:8
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." ESV

A modern day building of the Tower of Babel.










Give the devil an inch and he'll become a ruler~~~Wise Sayings"
Quote
Like
Share

doh!
doh!

August 22nd, 2011, 1:09 pm #3

cRaNkY is back!
Quote
Share

Interpreter
Interpreter

August 22nd, 2011, 2:36 pm #4

Or is that beyond your ability?
Quote
Share

doh!
doh!

August 22nd, 2011, 7:53 pm #5

Do you have anything between your ears?
Quote
Share

Joined: August 19th, 2010, 10:23 pm

August 22nd, 2011, 9:10 pm #6

Your whole post sadly exposed that you NEVER were TRULY a Christian even though you may have thought of yourself as one for 50 years. It's a problem 85% to 88% of those who proclaim now or have proclaimed in the past to be Christian.

You obviously IGNORED the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT when you attempted to portray some sort of knowledge here.

John 21:15-17

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me (AGAPE') more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you (PHILEO)." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love (AGAPE)' me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love (PHILEO) you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love(PHILEO) me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love (PHILEO) me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love PHILEO you." ESV

N> When you exist in the LIGHT it is MUCH EASIER to COMPREHEND things than when you FREELY CHOOSE to exist in the DARKNESS because IN THE DARKNESS you're doomed to opinions only.

John 1:5
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
NASU

Paraphrasing John 21:15-17 in it's PROPER CONTEXT it is OBVIOUS that Peter was misunderstanding the AGAPE' LOVE that Christ was talking about taking it to mean "PHILEO" a FRIEND TYPE LOVE.

In verse 17 Christ then is asking "IN A SENSE"; "Peter...IS YOUR LOVE FOR ME A FRIEND TYPE LOVE?" Peter again replied; "you "KNOW" I FRIEND TYPE LOVE YOU"

When you consider the EXTENDED CONTEXT you might know that Peter's PHILEO LOVE for Christ at that time was NOT a LOVE come from the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit for the Holy Spirit was not yet come. So Peter's love was deeply sincere as a TRUE FRIEND but NOT AGAPE' which is LOVE from the indwelling Spirit of God.

Unfortunately Vince, you're doomed to opinions only. There is more on your post at my forum http://www.network54.com/Forum/649938/

There is really no more need to post here because it is just a bunch of bumbling voices from people walking in a spirit of stupor.

Rom 11:8
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." ESV

A modern day building of the Tower of Babel.










Give the devil an inch and he'll become a ruler~~~Wise Sayings"
the interpretation you give on that passage. It's a classical Christian interpretation.

The PROBLEM with your Christian interpretation is that Peter could hardly have misunderstood ... because phileo and agape are different words in the language they spoke. An English reading person could easily misunderstand because both words have been translated into a single "love" word but the source language was spoken, using two distinctly different words.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

doh!
doh!

August 22nd, 2011, 9:24 pm #7

He only cares about who says it. You are not on his licker list.
Quote
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 1:30 pm

August 22nd, 2011, 10:47 pm #8

the interpretation you give on that passage. It's a classical Christian interpretation.

The PROBLEM with your Christian interpretation is that Peter could hardly have misunderstood ... because phileo and agape are different words in the language they spoke. An English reading person could easily misunderstand because both words have been translated into a single "love" word but the source language was spoken, using two distinctly different words.

-Vince
Then if Christ said "Agape"' and Peter said "Phileo" then would Peter not recognize a difference in the sounding of the words? Try sounding them. Surely he would have noticed two different words and asked Christ what Agape' meant, but he didn't. Instead Peter understood Agape' to mean Phileo. The reason AGAIN, he MISUNDERSTOOD is because Agape' is come ONLY FROM the INDWELLING Spirit of GOD, which had not yet come.

John 16:7
7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. NIV

John 14:26-27
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of EVERYTHING I have said to you. NIV

It is MORE LIKELY Peter UNDERSTOOD MORE CLEARLY the meaning of Agape' ***when*** he experienced the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit because Agape' is the LOVE that comes ONLY from one who has the INDWELLING of the Spirit of God.

This is why most people on this forum now LOVE to use the word LOVE and associate THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the word with God. However the FACTS ARE that the FAR MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HERE LACK THE INDWELLING of God's Holy Spirit and actually have no concept of Agape' (GOD LOVE).

I've responded to the rest of your post on my forum but if you're afraid of finding out how much you never knew about God, I understand your trembling. There is a couple of people who have come over but I find the most mouthy ones like to be close to their momma group.

Give the devil an inch and he'll become a ruler~~~Wise Sayings"
Quote
Like
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

August 22nd, 2011, 10:48 pm #9

He only cares about who says it. You are not on his licker list.
of course Nucc knew better. Nucc knows best and he wants everyone to know it.

Its all about Nucc, the peer of the holy spirit. Jack wants to proclaim his current god, Nucc just wants to tell people how stupid they are if they aren't in agreement with him.

Disagreeable fellow really, most saints apparently were too.

Maybe Nucc thinks he is a saint?

Nah, most saints are wrong, especially if they don't agree with Nuccs way of doing things.

Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

August 22nd, 2011, 10:56 pm #10

Then if Christ said "Agape"' and Peter said "Phileo" then would Peter not recognize a difference in the sounding of the words? Try sounding them. Surely he would have noticed two different words and asked Christ what Agape' meant, but he didn't. Instead Peter understood Agape' to mean Phileo. The reason AGAIN, he MISUNDERSTOOD is because Agape' is come ONLY FROM the INDWELLING Spirit of GOD, which had not yet come.

John 16:7
7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. NIV

John 14:26-27
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of EVERYTHING I have said to you. NIV

It is MORE LIKELY Peter UNDERSTOOD MORE CLEARLY the meaning of Agape' ***when*** he experienced the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit because Agape' is the LOVE that comes ONLY from one who has the INDWELLING of the Spirit of God.

This is why most people on this forum now LOVE to use the word LOVE and associate THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the word with God. However the FACTS ARE that the FAR MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HERE LACK THE INDWELLING of God's Holy Spirit and actually have no concept of Agape' (GOD LOVE).

I've responded to the rest of your post on my forum but if you're afraid of finding out how much you never knew about God, I understand your trembling. There is a couple of people who have come over but I find the most mouthy ones like to be close to their momma group.

Give the devil an inch and he'll become a ruler~~~Wise Sayings"
and you're going to set him right on your fearsome but empty forum?

Your opinion of what god means is of no interest to people. Your self opinion is horribly bloated, your knowledge is infinitesimal. We know you think you know it all, but its the things you aren't interested in that squeezed the gulf that you can't be bothered finding out.

You are a distraction to real christians, and irrelevant to rationalists. You haven't even got a toe hold in there.

Whats more, your attempts to convince someone that you do know something are pathetic for the most part, except for maybe those who share the black hole of your scientific ignorance.



Maybe you need to jump on a motor bike and copy "shock of god"'s videos a bit more?

You know?" Why is there nothing instead of something" in your knowledge?

Quote
Share