JudgeRight

Prager on Love

nobody@vox.com(JudgeBob) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:04:51 -0700

For those of you who are not familiar with Dennis Prager, I wanted to bring a sample of his work. His clarity of thought and ability to express those thoughts are renowned in matters of morality. He is very religious though not Christian, he speaks at Christian venues all the time. He is Jewish and teaches the Torah on a regular basis in Synagogue. I listen to him daily on his three hour talk show Monday through Friday. Here is his take on the subject of love. He doesn't bother to separate the four different meanings our concept of love has been translated from. He simply approaches the subject from the modern perspective which is based in the ancient traditions of nearly all cultures.

In my past studies on the topic from the Bible, I discovered that our English single word to express the concepts of what took four different words in the Greek and simalarly in the Hebrew, has facilitated our confusing verticle and horizontal love. In this article Dennis describes the relationship of equals and draws a comparison of differences between love of authority to its charges. ie. the love of a man and woman or between adult same-sex friends as opposed to the love of a parent for their child and God for His people. I wanted to expand just a little on Dennis' thought about unconditional love, so I will add a paragraph at the end of Dennis' article.

With Valentine's Day approaching, some thoughts on love.

1. The love relationship between a man and a woman is unique. There is no love like it for two primary reasons: First, it is the love of equals -- all other love relationships (except same-sex friends) are between unequals. Second, it is sexual.

2. Because it is the only love relationship between equals (again except for friends), it is the only relationship in which it is a good thing to seek to be loved. In other relationships, it is bad to seek to be loved. Parents who seek to be loved by their children will inevitably do a poor job as a parent. They may even damage their child. Leaders who seek to be loved by the public will be ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. One can only lead if he does not yearn to be loved. A teacher who tries to be loved by her students will likewise fail. Parents, leaders, teachers have jobs to do, and seeking to be loved compromises their ability to do those jobs properly. They should seek to do the right thing, and doing the right thing often means being not loved, even hated. If they seek any response from those they lead, it should be respect, not love.

But in the love of equals -- i.e., the love between a man and a woman and the love of friends -- it is not only all right to seek to be loved, it is a good thing. Taking the love of a spouse or friend for granted is perhaps the single greatest cause of marital divorce and the breakup of friendships. "What can I do to ensure his/her continuing love?" is a wonderful thing to keep in mind.

3. That is one reason the notion of "unconditional love" is foolish. The fact is, we all earn love, and it is a good thing to have to do so. What possible good purpose can the belief that your spouse loves you unconditionally -- i.e., no matter how you act -- serve? If we believe our spouse loves us no matter what we do, what would motivate us to be on our best behavior at all times? Why be kind even when we are in a foul mood? Why work to stay attractive if he will love me no matter how much I neglect how I look? Why continue to pay attention to her -- like regularly calling her from work -- if I know that even if I ignore her, she will continue to love me?

Unconditional love is not a good idea. I don't know where it originated, but I am quite certain it's relatively recent, a product of an age that has put primary importance on feelings. With the possible exception of a parent's love for a young child, unconditional love is not a good idea among people, and it's probably not a good idea concerning God's love for us. I am familiar with no biblical basis for the notion that God loves us no matter how much cruelty and evil we engage in (God's love of His Chosen People, Israel, is specifically depicted as conditional upon Israel's behavior), or for the notion that God loved Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa equally. Frankly, I would be disappointed in such a God. It renders Him a love machine whose love cannot be affected by our behavior, not a loving being who is affected by how we act. It renders His love amoral. And it prevents us from growing up.

4. "God is love" is a half-truth. God is many things, and love is only one of them. One can just as accurately say "God is punishment" or "God is justice" or "God is truth."

5. We show love to those we love by doing what they consider loving, not necessarily by what we consider loving. A young man once called my radio show and told me he was not planning to give his girlfriend flowers or even a card, or to do anything special for her on Valentine's Day. His reason was that he considered Valentine's Day a creation of American capitalism -- just another way to sell cards, flowers and gift items and increase companies' profits. I asked him if his girlfriend agreed with him about the insignificance of Valentine's Day. He said she didn't, that, in fact, she thought it important that he do something special for her on Valentine's Day.

I then asked him if he considered birthdays special and expected his girlfriend to do or get something special for him on his birthday. He said he did. How would he react, I then asked, if his girlfriend dismissed the significance of birthdays the way he dismissed the importance of Valentine's Day and ignored his birthday? He acknowledged that he would be hurt.

Just as his girlfriend should make his birthday special whether or not she believes in the importance of birthdays, he should make Valentine's Day special for her whether or not he deems the day special. We show love to the other in the way he or she understands it, not the way we do.

6. Finally, to the extent that emotions can be measured, it may be difficult to say whether love or hate is the stronger emotion. But this can be said with certainty: Among the psychologically healthy and morally decent, there is no comparison. Love is the most powerful force in our life. And the more the merrier.

End of Dennis' article.

Dennis expressed an understanding of God's love to be more closely to that of equals. While not implying that we are in any way equal to God, this love description is accurate if incomplete. According to the scriptures, God views us as both children and a bride. While we are yet sinners we are His children. As we become the devoted we grow into a people in line with His will. As we mature in this spiritual sense we move from being children to friends of God. As friends of God we become eligible for partnership with God. This is again, not to suggest we are ever equal with God, but a match for co-love as compared to that between a husband and wife. This is the whole premise of the classic book by Madam Guyon titled, "Song of the Bride" which is a commentary on the wisdom book in the Bible, "The Song of Solomon." If you've had trouble making heads or tails of this poetic prose translated from its original language, then I suggest you grab a copy of "Song of the Bride" and read both books side by side. You won't be disappointed.

Send to a friend

Clinton's Indoctrination Agenda

nobody@vox.com(JudgeBob) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:00:15 -0700

http://www.amazon.com/Takes-Village-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/0684825457

Hillary Clinton wrote a book a decade ago called, "It Takes a Village." The premise is that parents cannot be held solely responsible for the upbringing of their children. This much is true and I agree wholeheartedly that teenagers especially, but children in general must be held accountable for their behavior by whoever catches them in their unacceptable behavior on the spot. I take this very seriously and act personally on this principal. Funny enough, I saw an example in a Hollywood movie called 'Second Hand Lions' that cemented this principal in me.

A few weeks ago I was driving through a nice neighborhood on a very quiet street in the middle of the day when something thumped against my vehicle. I quickly checked my rearview mirror and saw a nerf football bouncing around on the pavement. Looking around, there wasn't a soul in sight. I still hadn't come to a complete stop so I immediately decided to keep going. Before I'd traveled 6 houses along the street I thought better of it and decided to pull over where the street curved and watch what happened where the ball rested. It didn't take but a minute or two and there they were, about five pre-teen boys creeping out into the street to retrieve their ball. They didn't hang around to continue their play but slipped back behind the backyard fences to wait for another car to come along. Sure enough, the next car had the ball bouncing off the side of it as it passed the house.

I turned around and headed back down to the house and they saw me and broke in three different directions. When I got there and stepped out they were well out of sight. Rather than call the police and make a much bigger deal of it than it had to be, I called out to them that I wanted to talk to them.... no answer. I waited a few seconds them said, "You can talk to me or you can talk to the police!" That did it. Three of them came out to face my wrath rather than have names recorded, addresses noted for trouble makers and parents ire lit to the heavens. At first they tried to deny they'd done anything, then tried to claim it was an accident, but I wasn't having any excuses. I described who and what I saw in as clear detail as I could muster then proceeded to chew them up one side and down the other about endangering drivers, about common courtesy, and about their use of time. If I were involved in any sort of youth activities, I would have talked to their parents about involving them in my program. As it was, I let the scare of my anger and the 'could have been' consequences ride their reasoning abilities. The worse they can imagine and the less you explain what those consequences might be, the better. I didn't have to press charges, I didn't have to hit anybody, and I didn't have to press their parents to "do something." All I had to do was express my intolerance of their abusive behavior, but it has to be done on the spot, when it happens. This is love, not ignoring them, and not pressing the advantage because you're in the right.

Another time, some teens had taken somebody else's wheeled trash can and drug it along the street beside their speeding vehicle to slam it into my garbage cans. These kids were videoing their handy work to post it on the web. They were finding glory in their mis-behavior. (following the influence of the movie 'Jackass' no doubt.) This is far worse behavior for society and is the same mindset that has lone gunmen walking into schools to shoot kids and faculty en masse so their story will be plastered all over national and international news. This is where you call the police and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Judges and defenders are wrong to write this off as 'just kids' stuff' when they are glorifying it on YouTube. This too, is love. Measuring your response based on what is best for all of society, those who would harm it, what would correct it. Not assuming they will get their due, not allowing glory to Jackass copycats, and not chasing them down with a baseball bat to damage their property, (car) in retaliation for damaging your property.

Back to Hillary's book, she doesn't want to just uphold the common decency standards we can all agree on. She is talking about state run programs expanding educational and Child Protective Services' authority and using it to enforce her standards on our children and their parents. If you don't find that scary, consider the results of every government run social program to come out of Washington. What has welfare done to the biggest recipient group, inner city blacks? What has Social Security, whose funds were stolen by the welfare program, done to retirement planning and the social responsibility we must have for our own futures? What has federally funded education and it's requirements done for our kids' ranking in the world? What has price regulation done for fuel supply? (repealed within one year due to shortages in the 1970's) I could go on, but I'd only be repeating myself from earlier articles on this blog. Imagine if you will, the parenting police ensuring you are teaching your children according to state proclaimed standards or worse, keeping your kids in various after school programs to give you less access to them. That was Hillary's vision in the book, but stated in softer tones and covered over with examples of the inevitable atrocities committed by so few parents against their own children in relation to the norm.

Add to this authority the propensity of groups like the Lesbian/Gay/Trans-sexual Lobby foisting their agendas upon parents under the threat of removing the children from your home and incarcerating you if you refuse. Last week, a three judge panel in the Los Angeles area gave a ruling effectively dissolving all California parents' option of home schooling unless they can become accredited teachers. This in the face of the fact that home schooled kids consistently rank at the top of 4th and 8th grades according to a government sponsored study and are preferred recruits for college. Hillary's agenda is dangerous and there are plenty of co-conspirators within our courts, within our Federal and Local Government, and among the lobbyists.

Accounts of current indoctrination:

Evan Coyne Maloney on Fox News

A Student's Mandatory 'Truth'

The Legos Ban And Grade School Communist Indoctrination

Evolution: Lies in the Texbooks Part 1

This is an article in World Net Daily about Anita Bryant. Anita's story is about the sacrifice necessary to combat lies like these and the moral fortitude required to stand in the gap. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=58600

Read and post comments | Send to a friend