What would Jesus do on a Saturday night?
So, I’ve got to political theory classes this semester and in one, Modern Political Theory, we just burned through Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan” and John Locke’s “Second Treatise”. Hobbes is very systematic and starts by defining several things (like human nature, natural law, the state of nature) and then building his argument on that. Locke more critiques Hobbes and other popular authors that pushed a Monarchy as the only good form of government.
Now I’m not going to get into the pit on these guys, just come talk to me if your interested, but I want to start to define some things so I can continue to build my argument, which kind of coincides with their’s, sometimes, but I won’t talk about that here. Ready? go.
1) God is Love.
2) I am Self.
3) Self is not Love.
4) I am Selfish.
5) Love is not being Selfish.
The End.
The Continuation
Good logic. I feel compelled to encourage you to go further with number 5, however. It seems to me to be a bit limiting. For example, if I was to come home to find you famished and near death from starvation, and if I was to buy us some cheese doodles, and if I was to split them 50/50 with you for dinner, you would say I was not being selfish. I would agree. Since, you know, I gave you the same amount of cheese doodles as I myself had. Say this left you somewhat satisfied. You were no longer starving, but were merely content. I not been selfish, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I was loving. I would categorize that as simple kindness. Had I exuded a truly loving spirit I would have given you all of the cheese doodles you required to satisfy your hunger, and would continue to feed you cheese doodles until you were in fantastic health, even if it meant that I went without cheese doodles myself. mmmm….cheese doodles. So here’s my addition, take it as you will (and I know it doesn’t follow your format) Kindess : not being selfish. Love : being selfless.
Comment. I just lost all the stuff I wrote in a super drawn out explanation as to why I would take greater pains to define Love in number 5. Webster defines “selfish” as being (and i’m not one to argue with a guy named Merrium) ‘concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others’. based on that I’d feel comfortable making the statement that if you are NOT being selfish, you are simply being benevolent or benign. You are a kind person. But I believe you would agree that love goes beyond simple kindness, but extends into complete selflessness. Not merely being satisfied with achieving a state in which you simply refrain from taking from others or even give others what they need to be content. But giving of yourself completely until your own self has run out and the new self that you are continually giving is the love that God himself has filled you with as a replacement for the self that you are continually giving.
xoxo,
Joel
Ok i’m a dummy and thought my first entry got lost. since i can’t delete it, you can read both and see how i revised it. hahaha.
I like that angle and i think it’s more true to The Mission than what I was getting at. I was making a list, again, as we humans so often like to do. “Don’t do this, don’t do that”, even as noble as “don’t be selfish”. The problem is that if we keep not doing things then that becomes all that we do: nothing.
I like the approach of actively being selfless because it actually makes us be active, it makes us move, it causes us to change, it’s not just another set of boundaries to break time and time again. Instead it’s a vast, rolling expanse with hills and valleys, for us to explore and push to the limits.
Thanks for the other angle.