Which Early Christian Heresy are You (good silly fun quiz)

Fine line between loving ones self and just being prideful I suppose. Guess it comes down to loving ones self over all others or in addition to.

Matthew 22:39
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
 
Last edited:
... but the passage about love in 1 Corinthians 13 is a lot more to the point of what I mean. Take patience and kindness. Love towards oneself does not mean seeking or hogging another person's kindness or exploiting their patience, but recognizing kindness and patience because one has been treated kindly and patiently, one is allowing kindness and patience to be shown to oneself.
Sorry, but I don't see that as love.

Self-Love is not the opposite of Love for Another, but the opposite of Self-hate.
I see that as two extremes, neither of which is good or healthy.

If God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son... then who are we to decide who should be loved, or to withhold love from anyone in the world. And that includes ourselves.
It's a shame I haven't got the references to hand.
 
I suppose I go with the sages and the mystics on this one, especially Eckhart ... detachment as the prince of virtues.

There's interesting comments on his 'Signs of the True Ground'.

In the Abrahamics, the call is to love God, and love thy neighbour as yourself, but there is no direct call to love oneself.

On the mystical path, it's detachment and the effacement of self all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Really, I think we need a measured response to this.

The sense of the self as we perceive it today is relatively recent. It's taken a radical turn with the revolt against institutions that began in response to the Industrial Revolution, and has been rebooted with the emergence of Modernism, Consumer Culture and the US as the driving force after WWII.

A significant element is the philosophy of Relativism. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says:
"Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. Detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness... From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. Discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has..."

For the believer of any ilk, Relativism attacks the idea of objective reality and Eternal (or Transcedent) Truth. Not only the claims of the Abrahamics, but of every religion — Buddhism, for example, is undone when one realises The Four Noble Truths are relative, contingent and thus negotiable.

So although love oneself may well be implicit, as texts are contextual to the sitz im leben and there is ample evidence that man has never been so self-centred and self-regarding as we, the products of a post-WWII consumer culture.

Thus the practice of humility, detachment, self-effacement, of kenosis is regarded as suspect.

There is the telling of the mystic St Katherine of Sienna, in which Christ says "I am He who Is, you are she who is not" — this is fundamental to the mystic path, asserted by commentaries of all spiritual traditions, with the notable exception of many produced in the late 20th century west.

When I turn on my washing machine, it sings a little song. When it finishes a cycle, it sings another. OK, I tell it, but you are just doing what you are supposed to do, there's nothing to shout about ... same with us.

Too often 'love thyself' assumes that I should 'because I'm worth it'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
I am not the goal but just the result of chance, My existence is just a result of purposeless chance. I am no more than a hedgehog or a tuna fish, have nothing ahead of me but death and then the lights go out.

My consciousness is a product of my brain chemistry, of course including any 'mystic/spiritual' experiences.

Although I am a member of the most intelligent and dominant species, I am just another animal. So I may as well grab what I can out of life while I'm living?

NOT ...
(post edited)
 
Last edited:
Well, without dragging consumer culture, WWII or the washing machine into it, my take is this: As one of God's creations, loving ones self is a given. Not in the sense of being self-centered or over indulgent, but rather having due concern for ones physical, mental and spiritual well being and we must also be concerned for that of our neighbor. In this way we honor God and show him our love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
I am not the goal but just the result of chance, My existence is just a result of purposeless chance. I am no more than a hedgehog or a tuna fish, have nothing ahead of me but death and then the lights go out.
OK. Disagree, but OK.

My consciousness is a product of my brain chemistry, of course including any 'mystic/spiritual' experiences.
0
I see evolution as the emergence in the physical of that which can comprehend the spiritual.
 
As one of God's creations, loving ones self is a given.
But if we perceive ourselves as created natures, that instils a balance against the kind of narcissism I'm talking about. I am a created nature — so my view of myself is ontologically founded in my creator — in a sense, I am entrusted with a gift of God. When God said "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion ..." (Genesis 1:26) it was a call to curator / husbandry / guardianship, and that includes ourselves.

... having due concern for ones physical, mental and spiritual well being and we must also be concerned for that of our neighbor.
OK, but having due care and concern is not love, it's care and concern.

I'm specifically addressing the cultural notion that everything is there for our delight, without obligation.

There's such ideas as "I don't need a guru. I know what's best for me" which is patently silly, and assumes that 'I' am an utterly unique individual. Talk to the guys in any sophisticated marketing dept and they'll tell you just how unoriginal and predictable we are, and what that statement says about us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
OK. Disagree, but OK.

0
I see evolution as the emergence in the physical of that which can comprehend the spiritual.

Lol.

I wrote that post as in NOT.
Sorry ...

I've gone back and edited it. Sorry again @Thomas
 
Last edited:
What is "Love"?

Knowing your understanding of the term would certainly make it easier for me to understand everybody's contributions in this thread.
 
What is "Love"?

Knowing your understanding of the term would certainly make it easier for me to understand everybody's contributions in this thread.

Perhaps love is the acknowledgement in action that everything is part of a single body?

Impossible for mere embodied human creatures to fully grasp the knowledge.

If Time is the wall that contains the dimension/room of Nature, perhaps Love in its spiritual sense is the wall of the greater dimension/house of Spirit, that contains and surrounds and permeates the dimension of Nature, like a room within a house.

'My Father's house has many mansions.'

It would be a silly little finger to declare independence from the body. 'I am the vine, you are the branches.'

Eternal truths in simple words.

Perhaps?
 
Last edited:
OK, but having due care and concern is not love, it's care and concern.
Have to disagree here. To me they go hand in hand. One a reason for the other.
I'm specifically addressing the cultural notion that everything is there for our delight, without obligation.
Fair enough. That's why I said loving thy self is a given, but not in the sense of being self-centered or overindulgent.
There's such ideas as "I don't need a guru. I know what's best for me" which is patently silly, and assumes that 'I' am an utterly unique individual.
Ok. Never quite going to see eye to eye on this one though....;)
 
Ok. Never quite going to see eye to eye on this one though....;)
It's probably me being too instance-specific. I'm trying to locate the kind of thing I am talking about to offer as an example, but so far I've not been able to find it.

As for loving oneself — I can't think of a scripture reference that says that.

In my own family I was raised, we raised our kids, and now watch them raise theirs, in love ... but never once was told to love myself, nor did I ever tell my kids they must love themselves.

There is the idea that if one does not love oneself one cannot love. I'm not sure I agree, and I am sure I could find life-story instances that would suggest it's not the case.
 
Bugger. Sorry, RJM, it should be me apologising. :oops:
No worries. It shows how easily misunderstandings can happen in text conversations, lol.

If I thought that way it would mean I believe humans are the highest intelligence in the universe.

It would mean I believe that all energy and all the forces that govern energy popped into existence from nowhere for no purpose 13.8 billion years ago.

I'm not denying the Big Bang, of course.
 
Last edited:
What is "Love"?
Knowing your understanding of the term would certainly make it easier for me to understand everybody's contributions in this thread.
A good point ... and one I should address.

In which case, allow me a little time to compose a response ... I'll try not to be too wordy.
 
The forces of physics assembled the universe from energy generated by the BB. But what is energy and how did the forces assemble themselves?
 
Last edited:
Against all reason the strong force holds the +ve charge protons together, that would fly apart in the nucleus, and then the incredibly wonderful electron has an exact -ve charge to balance against the proton.

Through sheer coincidence the forces organise this indefinable thing called energy and the charges exactly balance each other, to allow atoms to form.

The forces and the energy are just there. But anyone suggesting spiritual powers is ridiculed.
 
Last edited:
As for loving oneself — I can't think of a scripture reference that says that.
I would agree, but qualify it a bit by saying, there is no scriptural references to loving oneself first, exclusively or to excess as is often incorrectly read into the Bible. The idea however, that we should cherish all of mankind including ourselves is repeated many times.

Ephesians 5 28-30: Comes to mind.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

There is the idea that if one does not love oneself one cannot love. I'm not sure I agree, and I am sure I could find life-story instances that would suggest it's not the case.
I kind of feel the same way. If anything, I'd say it's likely the other way around. In order to feel love for yourself, you have to love others.

...I'll try not to be too wordy.
One does get the impression your grocery list would read like an encyclopedia when you only wanted milk and eggs.:D
 
Back
Top