# Self Love?



## panta dokimazete

I have seen a couple of threads that have referenced self love in fairly negative terms. This got me thinking in terms of a logical syllogism (as I am wont to do) based around the great commandment: _edited to add - I see and confess that I am not actually thinking in a formal logical syllogism, but something else entirely - read on for enlightenment_



> Luke 10:27
> And he answered, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."



---------------------------------------------------

p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND

p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF

c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.

c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors

---------------------------------------------------

So - does the logic hold water?

How about the conclusions?

What other conclusions, if any, can logically follow?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No, I don't think it holds water.

The love for self is not something that needs to be developed according to the Scriptures. It's quite natural for us to focus inward, to care for our bodies, to look out for ourselves, to literally obsess about ourselves.

I don't know how you derived c1 from p1 and p2. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. The loving of yourself is in reference to how we love our neighbors.

The reason for the Law is because we are naturally bent inward. Paul, later in Romans, talks about the fact that love does no harm to a neighbor. The reason we harm our neighbor is always selfish self-interest. The fact that we don't love God with all our heart, soul, and mind is because we're too focused upon ourselves. Too obsessed with ourselves.

The solution isn't to learn how to better look within but to more properly look outside of ourselves.

Even our view of what we're redeemed _for_ is profoundly outward focused. I was just criticizing last night the "Jesus is my Boyfriend" view that pictures our relationship with Jesus as this weeping fellow outside the door of our hearts that is pleading with us that He won't be able to live in eternity without us. If we would just let Him in then not only we would be complete but then He would find the joy of His heart.

In contrast, our redemption is to be seen as God glorifying Himself in the redemption of a people that the Father brings to the Son, who are converted and perfected by the Holy Spirit, to be presented spotless to the Bridegroom, that He might, in turn, give back to the Father in an expression of a profound intra-Trinitarian Love. Love is explicitly God-focused and even the fact that God is Love is expressed in the sending of His Son and not in the fact that He teaches us to love ourselves.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Semper Fidelis said:


> The love for self is not something that needs to be developed according to the Scriptures. It's quite natural for us to focus inward, to care for our bodies, to look out for ourselves, to literally obsess about ourselves.



Acknowledged - I am not referencing this type love - unless you believe that is the love referenced in the Scripture quoted?

"as you love yourself"




> I don't know how you derived c1 from p1 and p2. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. The loving of yourself is in reference to how we love our neighbors.



loving yourself logically predicates loving your neighbor in the Scripture quoted




> The reason for the Law is because we are naturally bent inward. Paul, later in Romans, talks about the fact that love does no harm to a neighbor. The reason we harm our neighbor is always selfish self-interest. The fact that we don't love God with all our heart, soul, and mind is because we're too focused upon ourselves. Too obsessed with ourselves.
> 
> The solution isn't to learn how to better look within but to more properly look outside of ourselves.



I'm not sure you actually read what I posted - I think your presuppositions have stained your discernment - please, go back and read the post again.



> Even our view of what we're redeemed _for_ is profoundly outward focused. I was just criticizing last night the "Jesus is my Boyfriend" view that pictures our relationship with Jesus as this weeping fellow outside the door of our hearts that is pleading with us that He won't be able to live in eternity without us. If we would just let Him in then not only we would be complete but then He would find the joy of His heart.



ok... how does OP point to this?



> In contrast, our redemption is to be seen as God glorifying Himself in the redemption of a people that the Father brings to the Son, who are converted and perfected by the Holy Spirit, to be presented spotless to the Bridegroom, that He might, in turn, give back to the Father in an expression of a profound intra-Trinitarian Love. Love is explicitly God-focused and even the fact that God is Love is expressed in the sending of His Son and not in the fact that He teaches us to love ourselves.



which is what the OP expressed...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

J.D.,

I answered your question. If you don't like the answer I gave then I have no further information I can provide. I don't believe that the basis for learning to love our neighbor is learning how to love ourselves in a Godly way. That thought is never repeated in the Scriptures.

As I've stated, c1 is faulty. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.


----------



## A5pointer

As Rich said, self love is assumed. Self love is sinfull as it is naturally exclusive to self. I just read an excellent article in by Horton in Modern Reformation where he alludes to this point in contrast to the self love gospel being carried by many evangelicals today. It is a very good article.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

*Loving Yourself*

We all love ourselves whether we try it or not. Even the suicidal person who kills himself because "nobody loves them" is actually doing so _because _he loves himself. That is he puts his feelings and desires above everyone else to the point that he will end his own life because he did not get his own way.

The ultimate reason we do anything is due to a love of self. That does not mean such is evil in every case, but it is a love of oneself nonetheless. We marry because we want to fulfill a selfish desire for love, companionship, pleasure, etc. Part of our motivation for having children is to please oneself. To pursue a particular vocation is to satisfy a personal desire either to perform some action or obtain some sort of reward/earnings. I believe all our actions are tainted with some sort of self fulfillment and gratification. To love my neighbor as myself makes this command all that more daunting and reveals how yet again I fall short of the glory of God.

I read the scripture for _my _benefit. I read and interact on this board for _my _edification. I eat food to satisfy _my _needs (I don't eat for others sake). When we see just how much we do love ourselves, obeying the perfect law of Christ is not clear cut and simple (not suggesting that anyone said it was).


----------



## JBaldwin

I struggled with this idea of self-love for a long time, and this is pretty much the conclusion I came to. We already love ourselves, and so that command to love our neighbors as ourselves, as I see it, is saying "love others in the way you already love yourself. Think about others first."

_In contrast, our redemption is to be seen as God glorifying Himself in the redemption of a people that the Father brings to the Son, who are converted and perfected by the Holy Spirit, to be presented spotless to the Bridegroom, that He might, in turn, give back to the Father in an expression of a profound intra-Trinitarian Love. Love is explicitly God-focused and even the fact that God is Love is expressed in the sending of His Son and not in the fact that He teaches us to love ourselves_

I agree with this statement.

There was another discussion on this thread about forgiving yourself, and I think that there is some connection here. When we look at ourselves, we can only see sin and the guilt we feel can drive us to despair or it can make us arrogant at how sinful we see ourselves (oh the gymnastics that our depraved hearts make). As was already said on the other thread, when we look at our sinful selves, we have to remember that though we are totally sinful, in Christ there is no condemnation. Our righteousness is found in Christ alone. 

How does this connect to the self-love idea? I believe that once we have a Scriptural view of ourselves, we can begin to understand the sanctifying work that Christ is doing in us and be thankful for that. He has gifted us with spiritual gifts. Each of us is unique and, and God is doing a work in us to perfect us for His Son. I find great delight in knowing that God will one day complete my sanctification, and I will be ready to love and serve Him for eternity. There is a hope and an understanding that God will complete the work in us. In that sense, we can be thankful for what God is doing in us, and that brings great joy to our hearts. Is that love for self? No, but I think it fits in this discussion.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Folks - couple of questions to clarify the OP:

1. Is natural self-love godly? 

2. Is natural self-love what Christ is truly referring to or is it self-love overwhelmingly influenced by loving God?

3. Should God's love be the model to reform our natural self-love?

4. Won't that reformed self-love help us better love our neighbor?


----------



## BobVigneault

You guys are all using the word 'love' and I don't think anyone has defined it yet. Could someone define the word and then we will test it to see if it is a sin or not?

Love in it's simplest form is 'self-preservation'. Love without sentiment is 'election'. Love in Romans is putting another's needs before your own. Love in it's basic form is 'setting one's preference upon another'.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Another question:

Is is possible to have an outward-focused God-centered self-love?


----------



## JBaldwin

panta dokimazete said:


> Folks - couple of questions to clarify the OP:
> 
> 1. Is natural self-love godly?
> 
> 2. Should God's love be the model to reform our natural self-love?
> 
> 3. Won't that reformed self-love help us better love our neighbor?



In reference to your first question--If I understand you correctly, you are asking this: Is natural self-love part of our sinful nature or is natural love something that was part of man in his innocency and is now going to be renewed in our sanctification? I would like to throw out this same question, because I think it is valid. 

What would we look like if we were completely sinless, i.e. if our sanctification were complete? My answer is that we would be like Jesus was. If that is the case, did He love Himself? Does God love Himself? I think so, but not in the sinful way that man loves Himself. In the sense that God is completely satisfied with Who He is, He has no longing to be something other than He is, I believe God loves Himself.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Greek Lexicon on "Love" in Luke 10:27:

_Agapao _

Definition

1. of persons
1. to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly 
2. of things
1. to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing 

Used 109 times in the NT:

Matthew	7
Mark	4
Luke	9
John	27
Romans	6
1 Corinthians	2
2 Corinthians	3
Galatians	2
Ephesians	7
Colossians	2
1 Thessalonians	2
2 Thessalonians	2
2 Timothy	2
Hebrews	2
James	3
1 Peter	4
2 Peter	1
1 John	17
2 John	2
3 John	1
Revelation	4


----------



## A5pointer

As Rich said, self love is assumed. *Self love is sinfull as it is naturally exclusive to self. *I just read an excellent article in by Horton in Modern Reformation where he alludes to this point in contrast to the self love gospel being carried by many evangelicals today. It is a very good article.

You missed my definition. We know what love means, it is self love that needs defining.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

*KJV Dictionary - love*



> LOVE
> 
> LOVE, v.t. luv. L. libeo, lubeo. See Lief. The sense is probably to be prompt, free, willing, from leaning, advancing, or drawing forward.
> 
> 1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection, on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification. We love a friend, on account of some qualities which give us pleasure in his society. We love a man who has done us a favor; in which case, gratitude enters into the composition of our affection. We love our parents and our children, on account of their connection with us, and on account of many qualities which please us. We love to retire to a cool shade in summer. We love a warm room in winter. we love to hear an eloquent advocate. The christian loves his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, whether animal or intellectual; and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things, as the sum of all excellence and all the attributes which can communicate happiness to intelligent beings. In other words, the christian loves God with the love of complacency in his attributes, the love of benevolence towards the interest of his kingdom, and the love of gratitude for favors received.
> 
> Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind -
> 
> Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Matt. 22.


----------



## panta dokimazete

JBaldwin said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks - couple of questions to clarify the OP:
> 
> 1. Is natural self-love godly?
> 
> 2. Should God's love be the model to reform our natural self-love?
> 
> 3. Won't that reformed self-love help us better love our neighbor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to your first question--If I understand you correctly, you are asking this: Is natural self-love part of our sinful nature or is natural love something that was part of man in his innocency and is now going to be renewed in our sanctification? I would like to throw out this same question, because I think it is valid.
> 
> What would we look like if we were completely sinless, i.e. if our sanctification were complete? My answer is that we would be like Jesus was. If that is the case, did He love Himself? Does God love Himself? I think so, but not in the sinful way that man loves Himself. In the sense that God is completely satisfied with Who He is, He has no longing to be something other than He is, I believe God loves Himself.
Click to expand...


Which is the point of the OP  - as we strive more and more to love God as we are in the process of being sanctified, our "natural" fallen self-love will become more and more turned toward the type of self-love God has - which will then influence us to love others as a perfect expression of godly self-love.


----------



## panta dokimazete

A5pointer said:


> As Rich said, self love is assumed. *Self love is sinfull as it is naturally exclusive to self. *I just read an excellent article in by Horton in Modern Reformation where he alludes to this point in contrast to the self love gospel being carried by many evangelicals today. It is a very good article.
> 
> You missed my definition. We know what love means, it is self love that needs defining.



Which is the point of the OP. Self-love is not evil - otherwise the great commandment is flawed.

The refinement needs to center around:

Natural, Fallen, self-centered self-love vs God-centered, Christ-like self-love.


----------



## BobVigneault

I disagree. I define love as found in the Bible as 'setting one's preference on another.' The greatest expression of love is found in God's election. The aim of true love is to preserve the object of love.

When scripture tells us to love God as we love ourselves it means we must preserve our relationship with God, we are to preserve the holiness of his name just as we naturally (by design) and unconsciously seek to preserve ourselves. It is not sinful, it is a design element. All God's creatures have a sense of self-preservation. Man is also given the command to preserve others (put their needs above our own) and preserve and strengthen our relationship with the creator.

I think you are over reacting to modern psychology's effort to esteem man above all things. We do have an innate dignity that comes from the image of God stamped on us. We are to love that image within us.



A5pointer said:


> As Rich said, self love is assumed. *Self love is sinfull as it is naturally exclusive to self. *I just read an excellent article in by Horton in Modern Reformation where he alludes to this point in contrast to the self love gospel being carried by many evangelicals today. It is a very good article.
> 
> You missed my definition. We know what love means, it is self love that needs defining.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Christ helps us understand self-centered, self-love vs Godly love:



> Matthew 5:46-48 (New American Standard Bible)
> 46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
> 
> 47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
> 
> 48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


----------



## panta dokimazete

BobV said:


> I think you are over reacting to modern psychology's effort to esteem man above all things. We do have an innate dignity that comes from the image of God stamped on us. We are to love that image within us.



 

I'd thank your post, but I seem to have used my limit today!


----------



## A5pointer

Bowing out, danger danger semantics warning on the horizon


----------



## panta dokimazete

I think this is relevant, also:



> Matthew 26:39
> And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."


----------



## JBaldwin

A5pointer said:


> Bowing out, danger danger semantics warning on the horizon


----------



## panta dokimazete

Semper Fidelis said:


> J.D.,
> 
> I answered your question. If you don't like the answer I gave then I have no further information I can provide. I don't believe that the basis for learning to love our neighbor is learning how to love ourselves in a Godly way. That thought is never repeated in the Scriptures.
> 
> As I've stated, c1 is faulty. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.



And as has been clearly demonstrated, your assertion is false.


----------



## VictorBravo

panta dokimazete said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.D.,
> 
> I answered your question. If you don't like the answer I gave then I have no further information I can provide. I don't believe that the basis for learning to love our neighbor is learning how to love ourselves in a Godly way. That thought is never repeated in the Scriptures.
> 
> As I've stated, c1 is faulty. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as has been clearly demonstrated, your assertion is false.
Click to expand...


??? I don't think it has been clearly demonstrated at all. The following is *not* a proper syllogism:



> p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND
> 
> p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
> 
> c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.
> 
> c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors




Leaving aside the other parts of the discussion, this is not a syllogism. It contains two fallacies: equivocation and an undistributed statement. In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.

P1 is a command to love God in a defined fashion.

P2 is a command to love your neighbor in a potentially different fashion: "as yourself".

The command in P1 is potentially different from the command in p2, so there is equivocation. There is no overlapping statement in p1 that p2 falls under so we have an undistributed statement. Because of this lack of connection, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn. Rich is correct.


----------



## BobVigneault

Leeanne is right, there is not an argument here, we are just using a word (love) that has been drained of all meaning in some corners and infused with different meaning as per context.

I love language, I love ice cream, I love my wife, I love the Father, and I love these discussions, I love love.


----------



## BobVigneault

Your syllogisms remind me of a quote I heard just this morning:

Logic is the secular equivalent of 'speaking in tongues'. The main difference is that angels CAN understand tongues.


----------



## A5pointer

BobVigneault said:


> Leeanne is right, there is not an argument here, we are just using a word (love) that has been drained of all meaning in some corners and infused with different meaning as per context.
> 
> I love language, I love ice cream, I love my wife, I love the Father, and I love these discussions, I love love.



But do you love me Peter? Is that philo or agape? BTW Does anybody see that text as using different words as stylistic or to give different meaning? Off Topic


----------



## JBaldwin

A5pointer said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leeanne is right, there is not an argument here, we are just using a word (love) that has been drained of all meaning in some corners and infused with different meaning as per context.
> 
> I love language, I love ice cream, I love my wife, I love the Father, and I love these discussions, I love love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you love me Peter? Is that philo or agape?
Click to expand...


Both


----------



## panta dokimazete

victorbravo said:


> In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.



Are you seriously stating that the 2 elements are not inter-related?



> Matthew 22
> 
> 40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."


----------



## ChristopherPaul

victorbravo said:


> Leaving aside the other parts of the discussion, this is not a syllogism. It contains two fallacies: equivocation and an undistributed statement. In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.
> 
> P1 is a command to love God in a defined fashion.
> 
> P2 is a command to love your neighbor in a potentially different fashion: "as yourself".
> 
> The command in P1 is potentially different from the command in p2, so there is equivocation. There is no overlapping statement in p1 that p2 falls under so we have an undistributed statement. Because of this lack of connection, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn. Rich is correct.





panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously stating that the 2 elements are not inter-related?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 22
> 
> 40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is the verse saying we are to also love ourselves with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? I think your premise assumes a lot. We are to love our neighbor in a different fashion than we are to love God. That is what I believe Vic means when he says they are not necessarily related.


----------



## panta dokimazete

How can we love our neighbor correctly if we do not love the Lord first?

How can we love ourselves correctly unless we love the Lord first?

I am having trouble understanding why this is a hard concept to grasp...


----------



## Hippo

As the Shorter Catechism says so eloquently:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, And to enjoy him forever.

I would suggest that the concept of glorifying God necessarly includes loving God and as finite creatures anything that dilutes this love (as self love would necessarily entail) is to be looked at negitively.

I do not really see the point of even trying to look at self love positively. Any move away from attempting to be God centered to being self centered or man centered is anathema to the Reformed view.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Who said anything about self-centered self-love?

Again - our presuppositions are staining our thoughts.

Please respond to the OP - not a strawman.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I guess what you're trying to ask is why does it state love your neighbor "as yourself". Why even include the concept of loving yourself? 

I think JBaldwin may have answered it already. It is to exert the care and preseveration you have of your own life onto your neighbor. - I think?


----------



## Hippo

panta dokimazete said:


> Who said anything about self-centered self-love?
> 
> Again - our presuppositions are staining our thoughts.
> 
> Please respond to the OP - not a strawman.



Please consider what I wrote without your own presupposition that we can have neutral or even positive self love.

The question is not only what to think but also why to think, in view of our fallen natures do you not think that encouraging any element of self love is at best distasteful?

Even withsome neat logical argument that we should love all that the creator has created (including self) all you are doing is leading tp error, even if it eas not error itself because it goes against the grain of Biblical, and hence reformed, thought.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Hippo said:


> Please consider what I wrote without your own presupposition that we can have neutral or even positive self love.



I do not have that presupposition.



> The question is not only what to think but also why to think, in view of our fallen natures do you not think that encouraging any element of self love is at best distasteful?



See Bob's response above - we are imago Dei...and loving your neighbor is predicated on loving ourselves - thus loving ourselves *in the proper context* cannot always and in every circumstance be evil.



> Even withsome neat logical argument that we should love all that the creator has created (including self) all you are doing is leading tp error, even if it eas not error itself because it goes against the grain of Biblical, and hence reformed, thought.



Let God be true and every man - even Reformed men - a liar.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Simply_Nikki said:


> I guess what you're trying to ask is why does it state love your neighbor "as yourself". Why even include the concept of loving yourself?
> 
> I think JBaldwin may have answered it already. It is to exert the care and preseveration you have of your own life onto your neighbor. - I think?



I'm sorry, Nikki - did not see this.

The question I have is - in what context is self-love appropriate? 

Is there some appropriate context - or is it evil and loathsome in every context for every person?



> Matthew 5:46-48 (New American Standard Bible)
> 46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
> 
> 47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
> 
> 48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



How do we contextualize this perfect love for ourselves and others to the perfect love of God?


----------



## toddpedlar

A5pointer said:


> As Rich said, self love is assumed. Self love is sinfull as it is naturally exclusive to self. I just read an excellent article in by Horton in Modern Reformation where he alludes to this point in contrast to the self love gospel being carried by many evangelicals today. It is a very good article.



You're spot on. Self love is what the Bible assumes we all have for ourselves. Recall the discussion in Matthew 5: 



> 46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?



Love for one's own (including onesself) is completely expected and natural - and the supreme love we have for anyone, let's truly be honest!

How are we to love our neighbor? Exactly as we (already) do ourselves. I think there's no justification at all for promoting the idea that "you need to learn to love yourself in a God-glorifying way". It just isn't found in Scripture.


----------



## toddpedlar

Methinks I should read the rest of a thread before replying, since many below the post to which I just replied have already said just the same as I have....


----------



## toddpedlar

panta dokimazete said:


> How can we love our neighbor correctly if we do not love the Lord first?
> 
> How can we love ourselves correctly unless we love the Lord first?
> 
> I am having trouble understanding why this is a hard concept to grasp...



Perhaps because the concept has nothing to do with (edit: does not properly follow from) the verses you quoted in the OP?


----------



## VictorBravo

panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously stating that the 2 elements are not inter-related?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 22
> 
> 40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, I am serious. You asked if the logic holds water in your original post. I said no because it is a faulty syllogism.

Your argument requires you to establish a bunch of other premises. The syllogism you laid out is defective. That's my only point. Whatever your argument is, it is not supported by the syllogism you presented.

It's syllogism 101: your conclusion must not add additional terms not included in the premises.

Just to review:



> p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND



Quite true, no issue at all with this. It tells us how we should love God.



> p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF



Also no argument with the truth here. It tells us how we should love our neighbor. Note the command to love our neighbor has a different standard: "as yourself", not "with all your heart", etc. So the command is a separate and independent command, not subject to the first (because that command was directed to our behavior to God).

Your conclusions introduce new elements:



> c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.




"If you strive to love God completely. . . ." 

Nothing in either of the two premises discusses your striving or desire. The command is a command, regardless of your desire.

"you will love yourself in a godly manner, . . . ." 

There is nothing in the two premises that states that any result comes from loving God in the right manner. So this is another element introduce that was not included in the premises.

And there is nothing at all in the premises that support the "thus allowing you to love your neighbor" clause. It's a completely new element.

Same with the second conclusion, for the same reasons:



> c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors



Of course the first clause is true, but nothing in the premises support those terms—that is, there is nothing in the premises that describes God's love at all. It is an introduced element.
And there is no imperative "should" in either of the premises that connects our "self love" to God's love at all.

BTW, the Matt. 22:40 quote also clearly establishes that the two commands are logically independent of each other (otherwise Jesus would have said something like: "on this one commandment the other necessarily follows").

Again, whatever your argument is, it is not supported by your syllogism. That is all I'm saying, nothing more. I suggest a different approach.


----------



## shackleton

Question: Are you saying in the original post that as we love God more we love ourselves in a more godly way and we should then seek to love others in that same godly way we have come to love ourselves? 

Note: I always took this verse to mean that, we already love ourselves in that our main goal in life is self-preservation by way of food, clothes, shelter, water etc. and we should then seek to love others in this way. I guess one could say that we should seek to do these things for others, put their primary needs above our own and in this way we are loving God the way he has commanded since Jesus states, after listing some ways that one would show love to Christ, 

Matthew 25:31-46
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35*For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ *37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,£ you did it to me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42*For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
* (ESV)

Just thinking


----------



## panta dokimazete

victorbravo said:


> BTW, the Matt. 22:40 quote also clearly establishes that the two commands are logically independent of each other (otherwise Jesus would have said something like: "on this one commandment the other necessarily follows").



I think you proved my point by attempting to refute it. 

see bolded



> Matthew 22:34-40
> 
> The Great Commandment
> 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39*And a second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."


----------



## Davidius

victorbravo said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.D.,
> 
> I answered your question. If you don't like the answer I gave then I have no further information I can provide. I don't believe that the basis for learning to love our neighbor is learning how to love ourselves in a Godly way. That thought is never repeated in the Scriptures.
> 
> As I've stated, c1 is faulty. There is no logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as has been clearly demonstrated, your assertion is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ??? I don't think it has been clearly demonstrated at all. The following is *not* a proper syllogism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p1 YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND
> 
> p2 [you shall also love] YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
> 
> c1 If you strive to love God completely and correctly, you will love yourself in a godly manner, thus allowing you to love your neighbor in the same way.
> 
> c2 God's love is abundantly self-sacrificial and long-suffering, so also should our self love and love for our neighbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the other parts of the discussion, this is not a syllogism. It contains two fallacies: equivocation and an undistributed statement. In other words, the two premises are not necessarily related. Because of that, there can be no conclusion.
> 
> P1 is a command to love God in a defined fashion.
> 
> P2 is a command to love your neighbor in a potentially different fashion: "as yourself".
> 
> The command in P1 is potentially different from the command in p2, so there is equivocation. There is no overlapping statement in p1 that p2 falls under so we have an undistributed statement. Because of this lack of connection, no syllogistic conclusion can be drawn. Rich is correct.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for some time now, JD. You really do need to read a logic textbook before attempting to impress everyone by whipping out syllogisms. I don't know why you haven't listened to me, but maybe now that someone else is raising the same objections you will take heed.


----------



## VictorBravo

panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the Matt. 22:40 quote also clearly establishes that the two commands are logically independent of each other (otherwise Jesus would have said something like: "on this one commandment the other necessarily follows").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you proved my point by attempting to refute it.
> 
> see bolded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 22:34-40
> 
> The Great Commandment
> 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39*And a second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


JD, I won't use the head banging smiley, but I really think you are missing the point.

An analogy to what I perceive your point to be. My commands to a child:

"You shall, with great joy and thanksgiving, eat everything on the plate that I put there."

"And a second command, similar to the first (like unto it): finish your juice."

Just because I said "like unto it" doesn't mean one is _logically connected_ to the other. They are two separate commands, similar because they deal with consuming something, but the objects of the command are different.

That's as far as I can go. Follow David's advice and go back to the logic texts.


----------



## toddpedlar

panta dokimazete said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the Matt. 22:40 quote also clearly establishes that the two commands are logically independent of each other (otherwise Jesus would have said something like: "on this one commandment the other necessarily follows").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you proved my point by attempting to refute it.
> 
> see bolded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 22:34-40
> 
> The Great Commandment
> 34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the great and first commandment. 39*And a second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Quite honestly, JD, I think your bolded part doesnt do what you think it does. The second is "like unto the first" only because it instructs us as to HOW we are to love. The thing to which our love to God is compared is not necessarily AT ALL related to the thing to which our love to neighbor is compared.

BTW, when I say "not necessarily" there I'm not expressing a lack of certainty, as we usually mean today when we say "not necessarily" - i.e. I'm not saying "well, it could be, but it ain't necessarily so".

Rather, what I'm emphasizing is that with these two verses juxtaposed, there is no NECESSARY connection between the two. Loving God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength is unquestionably a good thing - these two verses together do NOT NECESSARILY mean that self-love is good or bad. This is because there is no NECESSARY connection between the two things to which our love to God and our love to neighbor are compared in verse 37 and in verse 39, respectively.


----------



## panta dokimazete

ok - ya'll bear with the weaker brother:

You are asserting that Jesus was not logically connecting the 2 commandments? Even though he was answering a specific question?

What is the greatest command?

You are saying he added the neighbor portion as an "Oh, by the way?"


----------



## panta dokimazete

> This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for some time now, JD. You really do need to read a logic textbook before attempting to impress everyone by whipping out syllogisms. I don't know why you haven't listened to me, but maybe now that someone else is raising the same objections you will take heed.



Why do you think I am trying to impress anyone, Dave?

If it will make the nitpickers happy, I will use "syllogistic-like" when I employ the form.

Maybe:

Statement 1 that is true or contains truth.

Statement 2 that is true or contains truth.

Leads me to make some conclusions.

I am much more concerned about the content and context than getting logic 101 lessons - it is a red herring.


----------



## VictorBravo

panta dokimazete said:


> ok - bear with the weaker brother:
> 
> You are asserting that Jesus was not logically connecting the 2 commandments? Even though he was answering a specific question?
> 
> What is the greatest command?
> 
> You are saying he added the neighbor portion as an "Oh, by the way?"



OK, brother, I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm critical because you asked for criticism in the OP. 

The original question in the passage was "which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus answered that there were two greatest commandments. So he corrected a misconception that they were previously arguing about (while skillfully negating their trap) and, at the same time, set out the foundation for the entire law.

So the second is not a "by the way." Jesus said it was an equal commandment. So now we understand better that there are two distinct commandments that undergird the whole law: one focused on God, the other focused on the one aspect of God's creation that bears his image: your neighbor. Just as we see in the 10 commandments. They are interrelated because they both deal with love, but their focus (objective) is separate.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I was presupposing *constructive* criticism 

so - they *are* interrelated but they are not interrelated like I am proposing? 

That is - *there is appropriate, valid and God-centered self-love.*

Help me work through this - are these valid premises?

p1 - As a Christian, I must love God with all myself - this is the greatest commandment

p2 - As a Christian, I must love my neighbor like I love myself - this is the 2nd greatest commandment and it is like (equal) to p1


----------



## panta dokimazete

If those premises are valid, then would this conclusion not be accurate?

C1 - As a Christian, I must love my neighbor like I love myself - when I am loving God with all myself.

or

As a Christian, I must love my neighbor like I love myself loving God.


----------



## panta dokimazete

or the converse:

As a Christian, I must not love my neighbor like I love myself when I am not loving God with all myself.


----------



## panta dokimazete

oh, BTW ...







*3000 posts!*


----------



## Davidius

panta dokimazete said:


> This is exactly what I've been trying to tell you for some time now, JD. You really do need to read a logic textbook before attempting to impress everyone by whipping out syllogisms. I don't know why you haven't listened to me, but maybe now that someone else is raising the same objections you will take heed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think I am trying to impress anyone, Dave?
> 
> If it will make the nitpickers happy, I will use "syllogistic-like" when I employ the form.
> 
> Maybe:
> 
> Statement 1 that is true or contains truth.
> 
> Statement 2 that is true or contains truth.
> 
> Leads me to make some conclusions.
> 
> I am much more concerned about the content and context than getting logic 101 lessons - it is a red herring.
Click to expand...



This is what you said in the OP:



> I have seen a couple of threads that have referenced self love in fairly negative terms. *This got me thinking in terms of a logical syllogism (as I am wont to do)* based around the great commandment:]



After such an opening statement, I would have expected you to be already familiar with logic 101, and if not, to be willing to take some time to look into it if you really want to use syllogisms. 

Also, to say that it's a red herring to request that you follow the rules of formal logic when using formal logic is no good. You chose to make comments about the way you think, and you chose to argue syllogistically. If you are "wont" to thinking in syllogisms, I don't see why you get so defensive when we expect real ones. 

So if you're so concerned about content and context, it would be better to just have a normal discussion.

Congratulations on 3000 posts.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I'd say I am more of an informal logician  which is why I like the syllogism, but may break some of the formal structure.

Thus *in terms of* rather than - _in strict adherence to_ 

Also - see above as I am working to "toe the line" more, my brother.


----------



## BobVigneault

JD, I do wish you would have left out the syllogistic format in your first post. It's a darn good question and I would have enjoyed seeing it discussed. Unfortunately this has just become a 'I can logic higher than you' contest and we will never know the answer to your question.

I think we will learn who has the least amount of patience soon. I'll probably close it at that point and we can start again.

Remember everyone, God gave us logic and reason to make the scriptures MORE understandable, not more complex and abstruse. Unfortunately the logic text books rarely deal with winning people, only winning arguments.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Bless you, Bob, me too!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

BobVigneault said:


> JD, I do wish you would have left out the syllogistic format in your first post. It's a darn good question and I would have enjoyed seeing it discussed. Unfortunately this has just become a 'I can logic higher than you' contest and we will never know the answer to your question.
> 
> I think we will learn who has the least amount of patience soon. I'll probably close it at that point and we can start again.
> 
> Remember everyone, God gave us logic and reason to make the scriptures MORE understandable, not more complex and abstruse. Unfortunately the logic text books rarely deal with winning people, only winning arguments.



I don't get it. Can you rephrase this in the form of a syllogism?


----------



## Davidius

BobVigneault said:


> JD, I do wish you would have left out the syllogistic format in your first post. It's a darn good question and I would have enjoyed seeing it discussed. Unfortunately this has just become a 'I can logic higher than you' contest and we will never know the answer to your question.
> 
> I think we will learn who has the least amount of patience soon. I'll probably close it at that point and we can start again.
> 
> Remember everyone, God gave us logic and reason to make the scriptures MORE understandable, not more complex and abstruse. Unfortunately the logic text books rarely deal with winning people, only winning arguments.



Bob,

JD asked a question about logic. Therefore I don't understand why what followed should be considered an "I can logic higher than you" contest (by the way, you're "poisoning the well" by using a term that makes it seem worse than it is ). We answered his question. Perhaps you would have preferred to see the discussion go somewhat differently, but he asked what he asked, and we answered in the way demanded by the terms of the OP. I do not see how those of us who answered "logically" are acting inappropriately, and hence think it's unfair to imply that we're just tossing knowledge around for the sake of winning the argument when we're merely speaking in the same terms JD implied that he was looking for.


----------



## Davidius

Btw, I apologize for the sarcastic comments I made above in #54. Edited!


----------



## VictorBravo

Davidius said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> JD, I do wish you would have left out the syllogistic format in your first post. It's a darn good question and I would have enjoyed seeing it discussed. Unfortunately this has just become a 'I can logic higher than you' contest and we will never know the answer to your question.
> 
> I think we will learn who has the least amount of patience soon. I'll probably close it at that point and we can start again.
> 
> Remember everyone, God gave us logic and reason to make the scriptures MORE understandable, not more complex and abstruse. Unfortunately the logic text books rarely deal with winning people, only winning arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> JD asked a question about logic. . . .
Click to expand...


David, duly noted. 

Following Bob's lead, let's get to a more fruitful track. I think the questions are these:

Is Self-Love commanded? Or is it assumed to be innate in everybody?

Probably a new thread is in order. I'm off for a meeting, and I'll be out of the loop until bedtime.


----------



## VictorBravo

Davidius said:


> Btw, I apologize for the sarcastic comments I made above in #54. Edited!



Heh, now I suppose you want me to edit my quote of yours.  (Done)


----------



## Davidius

victorbravo said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I apologize for the sarcastic comments I made above in #54. Edited!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, now I suppose you want me to edit my quote of yours.  (Done)
Click to expand...


Well, that would be nice.


----------



## panta dokimazete

David - I have never had a day of formal logic training - I'd like to think that my thoughts are logical, so I try to present them in a way that I think makes logical sense. 

I have looked at the definition of syllogism, premise and logic and conclusion , as well as read a few articles on logic and have been strongly convinced that my thoughts are presented in accord with the general principles of these ideas.

When I am strongly convinced of something, I do not typically just roll over based on the criticism of one man - no matter how great a model of patience and gentleness. Victorbravo has thrown in his crtiticism as well as Toddpedlar, so I will bow to the collective and never, ever try to use a formal syllogism or pretend to be logical again.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!


----------



## panta dokimazete

BTW - I was *NOT* asking for critique of my formal logic *form* - I was asking for critique of the logical (or "logic like" or "logic seeming") proposition.

That is - it *seems* as if Christ words *somehow* could *possibly* mean that there is *some way* a person can love themselves in a *God-centered* way that would therefore lead to a *God-centered love* for our neighbors.


----------



## Davidius

I read back over the thread, and I think the disagreement has to do with the way JD is understanding the phrase "as you love yourself" vs. the way others are understanding the phrase. 

JD is saying that "as you love yourself" implies that there is a good love which we show ourselves and that we should show this love to other people.

Others seem to be saying that the hidden premise is that "self love is bad," and that what Jesus means when he says "as you love yourself" is that _we are wrong for loving ourselves the way we do_, and that this energy ought to be directed towards our neighbor. In other words, he is saying: "Love God, and all that energy that you spend caring about yourself, use it to love your neighbor _instead_!"

Am I off?


----------



## toddpedlar

Davidius said:


> I read back over the thread, and I think the disagreement has to do with the way JD is understanding the phrase "as you love yourself" vs. the way others are understanding the phrase.
> 
> JD is saying that "as you love yourself" implies that there is a good love which we show ourselves and that we should show this love to other people.
> 
> Others seem to be saying that the hidden premise is that "self love is bad," and that what Jesus means when he says "as you love yourself" is that _we are wrong for loving ourselves the way we do_, and that this energy ought to be directed towards our neighbor. In other words, he is saying: "Love God, and all that energy that you spend caring about yourself, use it to love your neighbor _instead_!"
> 
> Am I off?



NO, you are right on. That is a very nice succinct presentation of what the 2nd commandment means. 

"You love yourself - naturally of course, you do, and you do everything in your power to maximize your own comfort, advantage, pleasure and happiness. Without commenting on whether that's good, bad or otherwise, I am merely saying that your love for your neighbor should encompass all those goals for HIM." 

Quite honestly I don't think the statements of the 1st or 2nd commandment affirm or deny the appropriateness of self-love. They merely point to the love we naturally express toward ourselves and command us to direct the same love to our neighbor.


----------



## panta dokimazete

What I am trying to explore is this thought:

If I love God with everything I am, an activity He enables, then the paradigm of natural self-love is transformed.

How I love myself *now* (post conversion) is by loving God with all I am. That is - I only love that within myself that reflects and glorifies God. I _still_ *despise* the remnants of the old me, but I love the Christ, through the Holy Spirit, that dwells within me.

If I love myself *that way* - then my love for my neighbor will be enabled by a God-centered rather than man-centered self-love. A self-love that is ok.


----------



## Davidius

toddpedlar said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read back over the thread, and I think the disagreement has to do with the way JD is understanding the phrase "as you love yourself" vs. the way others are understanding the phrase.
> 
> JD is saying that "as you love yourself" implies that there is a good love which we show ourselves and that we should show this love to other people.
> 
> Others seem to be saying that the hidden premise is that "self love is bad," and that what Jesus means when he says "as you love yourself" is that _we are wrong for loving ourselves the way we do_, and that this energy ought to be directed towards our neighbor. In other words, he is saying: "Love God, and all that energy that you spend caring about yourself, use it to love your neighbor _instead_!"
> 
> Am I off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you are right on. That is a very nice succinct presentation of what the 2nd commandment means.
> 
> "You love yourself - naturally of course, you do, and you do everything in your power to maximize your own comfort, advantage, pleasure and happiness. Without commenting on whether that's good, bad or otherwise, I am merely saying that your love for your neighbor should encompass all those goals for HIM."
> 
> Quite honestly I don't think the statements of the 1st or 2nd commandment affirm or deny the appropriateness of self-love. They merely point to the love we naturally express toward ourselves and command us to direct the same love to our neighbor.
Click to expand...


I agree. Grammatically all the sentence says is: "Love others in the way you love yourself."

In Ephesians, Paul says:

[bible]Ephesians 5:28-30[/bible]


----------



## Davidius

Tell me if it's a bad idea for me to do this after all the hubub and I'll change the format, but here is (I think) a syllogism which would make your argument, JD:

P1 All the love with which we should love others is good. (love your neigbor...)

P2 The love with which we love ourselves is love with which should love others. (...as yourself)

C The love with which we love ourselves is good. 


Now, a syllogism can have three terms: A, B, C. The formula for this particular example is: All A is B, C is A, therefore C is B. Here, (A) is "The love with which we should love others", (B) "good", (C) "The love with which we love ourselves." In order for a syllogism to be valid, the terms must retain the same meaning throughout. If "love" means the same thing in (A) and (C), then this syllogism is valid. Those who disagree must disagree, then, on the notion that we have equivocated the meaning of love in (A) and (C), and that when Jesus says "love your neighbor" he means a good kind of love, and when he says "as you love yourself" he is speaking of a different (or bad) kind of love (energy, dedication? greed?). As I see it, it must be shown that Jesus means something different when he speaks of "loving" yourself.


----------



## BobVigneault

David, I was just dying to use the phrase "I can logic higher than you". I can't follow you guys, you're too smart for me. I just think up cute and clever sayings so I can sound cute.... and clever.

You guys are doing great. Carry on.


----------



## MW

John 12:25, "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."


----------



## py3ak

I would like to suggest a couple of distinctions, as I suspect that people are using love and self-love equivocally.

Self-complacency or self-satisfaction, which is when you are pleased with yourself. As sinners, if not as human beings, this seems very inappropriate: what is there in this body of death, in this flesh where no good thing dwells, to be pleased about? (I don't think this necessarily includes being pleased when a difficult reverse shot in squash comes off or one of your jokes really lights up a room.)

Self-seeking, where I am who matters to myself: I really don't care about anything else. That, again, is clearly wrong.

Self-absorption: this can be positive, as in the case of someone who is head over heels in love with themselves; or negative, as in the case of someone who finds a constant source of irresistible depression in themselves --they're still focussed inward. That second aspect gets a lot of attention in our days, but people diagnose it as a lack of self-esteem, rather than treating it as garden-variety selfishness. Am I so important that my shortcomings are more significant than anything else in God's universe? People who are this way think of themselves enjoying things, instead of enjoying them.

But none of this means that we are to be therapy fodder, or that self-destruction, or discontentment with God's creation of us is the Biblical norm to be pursued. If man in the garden was given food, it ministered to his self-preservation, did it not? If God gave good things, it was for man to enjoy (to enjoy God in enjoying the things, but that doesn't diminish but rather enhances the pleasure of the things). And to unconverted and regenerate alike there is an appeal to self-interest. "Why will ye die?" "...continue in them: for in doing this _thou shalt both save thyself_, and them that hear thee." So there is a legitimate self-interest. The horror of losing my own soul certainly ought to move me. 

Perhaps the way to put these things together is to acknowledge that there is a legitimate self-abhorrence because of sin; there is a legitimate self-interest which should drive me to seek salvation; and there is a legitimate degree of comfort with the body and personality that God has decreed for me. But that legitimate comfort doesn't make me self-absorbed: to the degree that such comfort is legitimate, it enables me to focus on others, to lay aside my feelings and needs and preferences in order to minister to those around me. 

So sometimes (as with a person in the grip of self-despite who stabs themselves with scissors but isn't telling anyone about it --hence it's not for attention--) you may have to address a person who loathes himself in the wrong way: and one of the things you have to address with them is the colossal selfishness that gives them the perceived right to wreak vengeance on themselves. But I think if you pursue legitimate self-love directly, or as an end in itself, you'll never arrive: you have to come to grips with the basic facts of revelation: Creation, Election, the freeness of God's grace; and you have to learn to care about others. This isn't for the grand end of having a "healthy self-esteem": this is because others really matter, because God's glory really is more important than my paltry little self. Or to paraphrase Lewis, "If you play games to get exercise you won't do it much; if you play games for fun, you'll find yourself taking violent exercise."

Those are my off the cuff thoughts, but I hope this thread will help me to understand more clearly and communicate more precisely the relationship between legitimate self-interest and all forms of self-absorption.


----------



## toddpedlar

panta dokimazete said:


> If those premises are valid, then would this conclusion not be accurate?
> 
> C1 - As a Christian, I must love my neighbor like I love myself - when I am loving God with all myself.
> 
> or
> 
> As a Christian, I must love my neighbor like I love myself loving God.



I don't dispute your conclusion, JD, I just honestly don't think it is a case that can (or need) be made on the basis of these verses. You can find OTHER teaching that talks about what a proper love of self looks like, but I just can't see it in these verses without adding to what is actually being taught in these verses.


----------

