Love Thy Neighbor

We REALLLLY need that "rolling eyes" smilie back.......


c'mon now, you're really only 9 years old, aren't ya?

 

^^Why do you say that?

 

and this is all you have to say about a pure heart?....

 

What's a pure heart? A really good person? A really bad person? A bluntly honest one or a subtilely empathic one? I get Nox's reaction. There's something like intuitive truth. If such a truth is based on how a child sees the world: a bit black and white, a bit too naive at times it may seem and sound very evidently right but when we know the details we often have to conclude its not that simple.
A statement about pure hearts seems an excellent example.

 

(S)he also could have given us eyes in the back of our heads. Those would have been handy. And what's with all the ebola, earthquakes and tornadoes? For reasons like this, I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient , all benevolent Dude (or Dudess) in the sky whose paramount objective is to provide us with a happy, stress-free existence. I think God created natural laws that we have to work within, including the ones that we had to adapt to in becoming us. But it's all still pretty nifty. Leibniz even thought it's the best of all possible worlds. BTW, some early Christians (i.e., the Ebionites) were vegetarians who thought that Jesus' sacrifice took care of the need for animal sacrifice. i.e.,Christ died for our sins and to spare other animals. Instead of portraying John the Baptist as surviving on a diet of honey and locusts, the Gospel of the Ebionites has him living on honey and pancakes--much more appetizing, in my opinion.

 

It's hard to define a 'pure heart'. The heart is thought of as the seat of emotion and feeling, as distinct from the thinking mind, or as some Buddhists for example say, the heart/mind is one thing.
I'd say that heart and mind under such definitions are not the same. Philosophy is sometimes defined as 'a systematic rational inquiry into truth', and the pure thinker has to guard against the emotions influencing the thoughts. I'm not sure what would be meant by 'pure' emotions. Something like unconditional love perhaps, but that's quite a rare thing. The only common example I can think of is a mother's love for her child, where the mother loves the child even if the child acts badly.
God's love for humans as depicted in Christianity isn't unconditional. It depends on belief in Jesus, and/or sticking to the rules. There's no love in consigning someone to eternal torment IMO. That's about as nasty and unloving as it could possibly be.

We've seen that love for other creatures isn't unconditional. Bacteria are excluded, and probably a lot of other things too if they become an annoyance. Yet our bodies can't function properly without the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut. More of them than actual cells belonging to the body.

Christianity isn't a philosophical system as such, and many of the terms are not very well defined. 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God' sounds ok until you start to wonder exactly what the terms actually mean. Does purity mean no personal desires or preferences? If so, I wonder how many people can hope to attain that. Or does it mean something else?

 

Probably the world is the only way it could be. That's just my personal opinion of course. I'm also of the view that this world, including sentient life forms, is actually a work-in-progress. Maybe the end will ultimately justify the means. Humans I think have much unrealized potential. No doubt religion has a role in steering us toward its realization. At least that's perhaps how it was meant to be.

I've come across the idea that Jesus death was meant to do away with animal sacrifices before, although I can't recall where off hand. And probably it did succeed in that. The Roman state cult and other forms of pre-Christian paganism did sacrifice animals, and after conversion, that ceased. One of the plus factors in Christian history.

No doubt there have been and still are many Christians who are vegetarian, and that's good. The thing that concerns me about religions who say you must eat only veggie is that it can become an end in itself, and can be mistaken for something much greater. I've seen this at work among Krishna Consciousness followers some of whom seem to have the idea that this alone confers some kind of moral superiority or even spirituality. It can also be divisive. I tend to think that it's best left to personal choice.