Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000 Posts: 5854
|
redryder wrote: Thanks so much to you four who responded to my post (maryjo606, fanofVan, NNunn, and pethuel); I appreciate your thoughts and insights! I’ve finished reading the Topical Study at the link provided by pethuel (thanks for that!), and learned much about the Thought Adjusters to mull over and discuss with Marion.
Looking back at my original post, when I said “Love . . . is earned, (or grows in one) based on appreciation of the qualities or actions of another”, I realize now that what I was describing was “conditional” love, and truly might better be termed affection (albeit frequently intense and abiding). It is conscious, and selective, and it can change: lessening, intensifying, or even disappearing completely. Perhaps, at least for my perspective, the term “love” should be reserved for those entities for whom we have (or should have) unquestioning, continuing, and unconscious feelings of love: mother, father, sister, brother, and God. Regardless of their qualities or actions, that love is engendered solely by their being who they are. However, the question lurking behind my original question remains: if I don’t feel love for God, how can I develop it? If I don’t love my earthly father, an “up-close and personal” figure who gave me life, how can I love my heavenly father?
Without going into unnecessary detail about my early life, let me explain that: while I have respect for my father, who was a good man, I don’t know that I ever felt love for him; for my alcoholic mother I felt only sympathy and sorrow; for my stepmother, I had some degree of affection, but not love; I have no sister; and for my three half-brothers, I guess I might have love. As I write this, it makes me feel ambivalent, but clearly like there’s something wrong with (or lacking in) me. I look forward to your observations, suggestions, personal experiences, et cetera....
I look forward to a study of the meaning of "love" as defined and presented in the Papers. I wonder if we might learn to love others only because of their origin and potential destiny and our familial relationship in the family of creation? Or perhaps love them because we truly come to understand them and their situation in light of their hopes and ideals? Or because we are not judgemental but are forgiving and merciful instead??
Perhaps we "should have" love for everyone? How do we do that or get there? The Urantia Papers guide us toward such a reality perspective.
I hope you will take advantage of the keyword search for "love" posted above and I look forward to your discoveries and further discussion here!
Bradly. 
100:4.4 (1098.1) In physical life the senses tell of the existence of things; mind discovers the reality of meanings; but the spiritual experience reveals to the individual the true values of life. These high levels of human living are attained in the supreme love of God and in the unselfish love of man. If you love your fellow men, you must have discovered their values. Jesus loved men so much because he placed such a high value upon them. You can best discover values in your associates by discovering their motivation. If someone irritates you, causes feelings of resentment, you should sympathetically seek to discern his viewpoint, his reasons for such objectionable conduct. If once you understand your neighbor, you will become tolerant, and this tolerance will grow into friendship and ripen into love.
100:4.5 (1098.2) In the mind’s eye conjure up a picture of one of your primitive ancestors of cave-dwelling times—a short, misshapen, filthy, snarling hulk of a man standing, legs spread, club upraised, breathing hate and animosity as he looks fiercely just ahead. Such a picture hardly depicts the divine dignity of man. But allow us to enlarge the picture. In front of this animated human crouches a saber-toothed tiger. Behind him, a woman and two children. Immediately you recognize that such a picture stands for the beginnings of much that is fine and noble in the human race, but the man is the same in both pictures. Only, in the second sketch you are favored with a widened horizon. You therein discern the motivation of this evolving mortal. His attitude becomes praiseworthy because you understand him. If you could only fathom the motives of your associates, how much better you would understand them. If you could only know your fellows, you would eventually fall in love with them.
100:4.6 (1098.3) You cannot truly love your fellows by a mere act of the will. Love is only born of thoroughgoing understanding of your neighbor’s motives and sentiments. It is not so important to love all men today as it is that each day you learn to love one more human being. If each day or each week you achieve an understanding of one more of your fellows, and if this is the limit of your ability, then you are certainly socializing and truly spiritualizing your personality. Love is infectious, and when human devotion is intelligent and wise, love is more catching than hate. But only genuine and unselfish love is truly contagious. If each mortal could only become a focus of dynamic affection, this benign virus of love would soon pervade the sentimental emotion-stream of humanity to such an extent that all civilization would be encompassed by love, and that would be the realization of the brotherhood of man.

_________________ "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
|
|