Looking At Love To Understand Its Nature

Looking at love may allow greater understanding of its nature and practice.

This is an original essay written by Edward fagan.

Looking at love in greater detail can help us gain a clearer and better understanding of the importance of love. It can also help us understand the wonderful quality and practice that constitute love.

A clearer understanding of the wonderful quality and practice that make up love can help us in several ways. Such understanding can help us develop love’s quality more completely, and master its practice more perfectly.

We’ll start with the correct, though different, definition of the word love. Love is outgoing care and concern for the next person. It is necessary to know that love exists through action. We give and receive love through the actions we perform toward each other.

The practice of outgoing care and concern for the other person, active practical love is important. This active practical love always indicates the presence in us, of love the inner quality.

Love, the personal quality and practice

In terms of language, love is both a verb and an abstract noun. Both love in action, expressed and practical, and love, the inner quality, are spiritually good. Love, the good spiritual quality, can be a permanent trait of our character during every moment of our existence.

When love, the inner quality, is present in us we practise love, the expressed action toward others. Our outgoing care and concern toward others will aim at helping their person, or their circumstances, or both.

Practised love builds or repairs all types of relationships. Love helps, gives to, cherishes, protects, maintains and preserves the other person and their circumstances.

Love never leads to harm or destruction of the other person. It is therefore impossible for someone to truthfully claim that they killed or harmed someone because they loved them.

We experience the presence of love, the good spiritual quality, when we practise it toward others. We also experience this quality when others practise it toward us.

Our response to our experience of the presence of love as givers or recipients matters.  That response may involve our experiencing a certain emotional state. This may result in the expression of one or another type of emotional behaviour. This happens, for example, in romance and marital situations.

Love’s permanence 

Love is always permanent. Emotional experience and expression do not perform the role of love, they come and go, they are not love.

They are, in a way, similar to sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse. These are not love, but are activities through which a husband and wife can express their love for each other.

There is a course of behaviour that can get in the way and prevent us from practising love. This course of behaviour can be avoided if we uphold certain practices in our daily living.

The practices we can uphold in our daily living to prevent behaviour that obstructs the practice of love include:

Honouring our parents, as well as others in authority over us, and our elderly

Avoiding to commit murder, and avoiding to harm the other person physically or otherwise

Practising faithfulness to the other person with whom we have a romantic or marital relationship

Refusing to steal from the other person

Speaking the truth or remaining silent about the other person, instead of telling lies against him or her

Refusing to covet that which belongs to the other person; refusing to practise envy or jealousy toward him or her.

Love, or outgoing care and concern for the other person, whenever it is practised, always faithfully serves its intended purpose. The practice of love can be the backbone of all human relationships if we would allow this to happen. It can be of great spiritual and other benefit to individuals and groups alike, wherever and whenever it is practised.

Expressing Love And The Ways of Doing So

By Edward Fagan

Nation And State, Terms We Should Understand

Nation and state are two terms whose differences we ought to understand.

Nation and state are important terms that should be clearly understood, especially by those of us who have an interest in politics. There is a distinct difference between the two terms nation and state; but to some of us, that difference seems unclear. A nation can be defined as, “a large aggregate of people united by common decent, history, culture and language”. A state can be defined as, “a territory considered as an organized political community under one government”.

dancing_girl

“Nation” refers to People, those of the same ethnicity whose size is large enough to allow them to be deemed a nation as defined above. “State” refers to Territory, Government and its Institutions, the territory and Government of a nation or nations. Government institutions are those arms of government which implement government policy, directly or indirectly, in part or whole, for the benefit of the people and the state.

The state may or may not be a partial or full provider of welfare assistance to people. It must, however, be the provider of  services in such areas as: the judiciary, law and order, national security, piped drinking water, ports of entry, education and the political economy. These and several other areas are vital to the perpetuity of a nation and state.

brown_bird_worm

It is through the state that the most noble ideals and aspirations of a nation are realized. It is through the state too, that the practical and common good is realized. It is also through the state that a nation sometimes realizes the lowest depths of failure, degradation and disgrace. We remember Hitler’s Third Rich.

A nation can exist without a state. A nation does not have to be settled and have a physical homeland to be a nation. A nomadic people who meet the criteria of a nation above is a nation.

The Biblical nation of Israel, before its exodus from Egypt, was not settled in a homeland of its own but it still was a nation.  They were slaves in the land of their masters but still saw themselves, and were treated by others, as another nation.

man_posing_small

They did not have statehood. They demanded of Pharaoh to let them go, and he did. They then journeyed to their homeland and created a homogeneous state. A state needs at least one nation for its existence.

A colonized people who meet the criteria of a nation and live in their own settled homeland is a nation without statehood. Colonization does not destroy the nationhood of a people; and independence does not confer nationhood upon a people. Colonization and independence are related to statehood, they are not related to nationhood.

A state can be comprised of one nation or it can be comprised of more than one nation. A nation-state or homogeneous state is a state comprising of only one nation. A multinational-state is a state comprising of two or more nations.

boy_homework

Poland is a good example of a single-nation or homogeneous state (about 98% of its population are ethnic Polish). Belgium is an example of a multinational-state. Its northern region is home to ethnic Dutch people (54%); and its southern region is home to ethnic French people (36%). The US also is an example of a multinational state.

A nation is a mass of people who share the same ethnic connections and gene pool. A state is a land area and its functioning government and political machinery, and the body of laws by which it governs.

by Edward Fagan

Daddy Of The Human Race, An Ape?

Daddy of mankind was an ape-like creature according to some anthropologist.

Daddy of mankind was an ape-like creature? Here are a few questions for evolutionists about an animal that they claim is the daddy of all mankind. That animal, by the way, is the daddy of all mankind except those of us who came by another means, namely, the creation of the God of the Holy Bible.

It is known as “The Theory of Evolution”. Has it become scientific fact or is it still theory or hypothesis?

Can anybody say at what point along the evolutionary road does our animal daddy start to evolve from his not having a human spirit to his having one.

alert

At first he had no human spirit (He was an animal.); at last he had a human spirit (He became a human.). He had no spirit and then he had a spirit? His body evolved and a human spirit just turned up out of the blue?

Shouldn’t he have had something in existence in the first place to start the evolutionary process from that something to the human spirit? What was that something if he had such a something? (Some fish, they tell us, rubbed their scales against rocks and feathers evolved after some time. These fish had a body which evolved to become a bird body. These fish had a body from which to start the evolution journey.)

banana_head

The Holy Bible tells us that there is a spirit in man, Job 32: 8. Animals do not have this spirit and they do not need it. Do evolutionists have any theories about the existence of the human spirit (the living spirit that dwells in us humans)? Can they tell us anything about the source and evolution of that spirit? Can they tell us if it evolved from nothing at all or if it evolved from something?

Can something evolve from nothing? Do evolutionists deal with physical evolution only or do they also deal with spiritual evolution? Do evolutionists have an explanation for my experience of the human spirit that lives inside of me?

cowboy_riding

Not only the human spirit, what about the mind, intellect, intelligence, the wisdom faculty, memory recall and reproduction, and will? These faculties are all symptoms of the spirit that dwells within us humans. Did our animal ancestor evolve these non physical faculties from nothing into what they are, too? It looks like fairy tale magic to me if the evolutionists answers to these questions are rooted in hypotheses.

By Edward Fagan