1. You may not make any modifications to the text.
2. When distributing, please be sure to attach the image files that accompany the document.
3. You may not charge any fee for distributing this document, not even fees for costs you may incur for copying, storing, or distributing it.
4. You may not include this document in a larger document unless that larger document is also distributed free of any charge or fee.
5. You may not paraphrase this document unless the paraphrase and any document that includes it is distributed free of any charge or fee.

Readers who wish to prepare themselves for understanding Angelo Amberson's essay  may wish to consult the short list of preparatory texts we have supplied at www.hellos.com/angelo/books.html.  These texts should be available at a local bookstore or library, but you may also purchase them by following the links supplied to Amazon.com, a trusted and proven source for books and other media.

This site is made possible by the generosity of Angelo Amberson and a grant from Mywitz.  Mywitz has also established an award fund for Angelo Amberson as a means of thanking him for his efforts.  Small donations can be sent to Mywitz at the address above.  Please make checks payable to Mywitz and print "Gift to Angelo Amberson" in the memo line.

-Ed.

When we are concerned with ethics, we are concerned with how people treat one another whether directly or indirectly.  We are not concerned with matters such as man's treatment of animals, or his use or abuse of nature or the planet Earth except insofar as these actions impinge on other human beings.  Thus destroying a healthy crop is not unethical per se, but, insofar as it may deprive others of food, it is.  For this reason, it is sufficient that we formulate our ethical imperatives with a view to how humans treat one another.  For this reason we can set aside such things as Kant's categorical imperative as being too broad (we need not mention how unwieldy they may also be for daily use).

Jesus, quoting Leviticus 19:18, said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 5:43, 19:19, 22:39, and Mark 12:31, see also Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8).  He went on to add, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27, 35).  For many, this has been a sound foundation for personal behavior, but there is one issue that must be addressed if we are to understand what he said.  We must come to a proper understanding of what the word 'love' means.

We receive some additional insight from Jesus' recommendations that, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12) and "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31).  This is the golden rule which spells out how those who love others treat them.    Yet this only gets us so far and the formula as we have it needs to be filled out.   To see the need for this, let us think of a man who is sick and in need of medicine.  If we want a doctor to give him medicine, we would be foolish to suggest to the sick man that the way to get the medicine is by having him give some to the doctor.  What we must do to prevent such foolish misunderstandings is fill out the formula by inserting the idea of role reversal.  That is, 'Do to others just as you would want them to do to you were your roles reversed.'  So now, when the doctor encounters the sick man, he thinks 'What if I were ill and this man were a doctor, what would I want him to do?' The answer, of course, is that he would want the doctor to give him medicine. Knowing this, the doctor now knows to give the sick man medicine.

This is a good start, but some additional examples show a new problem.  If, instead of the sick man and the doctor, we now think of a drunkard who wants a bartender to give him a drink, then certainly, if the bartender thought purely in terms of role reversal, he would give the drunkard a drink.  Similarly, if a child wants to eat only candy, then certainly a parent who thought purely in terms of role reversal would allow the child to adopt that unhealthy diet.  Our formula, therefore, must be corrected so as to avoid recommending such foolishness.

The root of this problem is that the formula as we have it assumes that both parties (doctor and sick man, drunkard and bartender, parent and child) are equal in their physical, emotional, spiritual or intellectual maturity.  Yet more often than not such equality is not present.  We must, therefore, develop a formula for how to deal with those who are more mature and one for dealing with those who are less mature.  This gives us three rules:

1. When dealing with peers, do to them just as you would want them to do to you were your roles reversed;
2. When interacting with those who are less mature, help them become more mature; and
3. When interacting with those who are more mature, be obedient, respectful, attentive and humble.

1. So long as the issue of relative maturity is ambiguous, do to them just as you would want them to do to you were your roles reversed; and
2. Keep a diligent watch for signs which indicate the if the other is more, less or equally mature as you.

All this, however, is a digression.  We have filled out the meaning of the golden rule, but we have not come much closer to figuring out what love is.  After all, love is an attitude, not a course of action.  The course of action is (or should be) the product of the attitude, but we want to know what the attitude itself is.

St. Paul's famous poetic description love occurs at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Perhaps here we can discover what love is:

Love suffereth long, and is kind, love envieth not, love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked; thinketh no evil, Rejoiceth not in inequity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth.

One of the most famous attempts at defining love was provided by a Medieval philosopher, Duns Scotus.  He suggested the equation "Amo te, volo ut sis" (I love you, I wish that you exist).  The translation of 'volo' has a range from a mere willingness (I am willing that you exist) which would point to mere tolerance, to ardent desire (I wish that you exist) which points to a (perhaps selfish) internalized emotional condition.  There is a need to get beyond this point (it only guarantees a lack of aggression or, at best, a desire to preserve the other's life).

We can make a start towards a fuller understanding by taking on what Duns Scotus has said and filling it out.  If we begin with the fullest sense of his formulation (I strongly desire that you exist), we can add to it by noticing that we do not simply want the subject of our love to exist, but to flourish.  We are not content when our beloved is barely alive, or sick but still kicking, or injured but likely to pull through.  No, we want the persons we love to be healthy, whole, energetic, and full of life.  We want them to achieve, to succeed, to overcome obstacles with ease (and, indeed, we would prefer that they meet with no obstacles at all).  We want them to enjoy life, to smile, laugh and be happy.  In short, we might say that we want them to be all that they can be.  This strengthens our formula to 'I strongly desire that you exist to the fullest degree that you can.'

Here, we might quibble with the word 'exist.' It says a lot, but it does not quite capture the spirit of what we are saying.  A statue exists, a portrait exists, a literary figure exists, but a person does more, a person lives.  We do not want our loved ones to exist as mere memories or biographies.  We want them there with us in the fullness of their personality and personal presence. We can, therefore, upgrade our formula to this: 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that you can.'

This looks good, but it harbors a problem.  It is a bit too willful on our part.  It does not grant enough freedom to our beloved.  To see this, an example may help.  Let's think of a woman with a beautiful singing voice.  She has the talent to become a great vocal artist. But let us also suppose that she is shy, and that she finds performing in public to be very distressing.  According to our latest formulation, our love would cause us to push her to make the most of that talent.  Yet what would be the value of pushing her to actualize all of her potential if it makes her unhappy?  Does our love not cause us to prefer her happiness to the actualization of her full potential?  Surely the answer is yes, and so our formula must be again changed.  This time we have, 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit.'

We can check the accuracy of this formula by returning to Jesus' saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This formulation assumes that we will love ourselves, so we should see if our current formulation is one which we would be happy to apply to ourselves. That is, do each of us strongly desire that, individually, we live to the fullest degree that our happiness and abilities permit?  The answer, I think, must be yes.  We all want ourselves to be happy and so we work toward that goal. Actualizing our individual potentials is what makes each of us who we are.  When we do it in a natural and unforced way, it makes us happy.  We are comfortable with it.  We rejoice in the results.

It looks, then, as if we have reached our goal, but lo! another difficulty looms.  What shall we do about a person who, for one reason or another (perhaps they are drugged, demented, extremely selfish or innately antisocial), takes delight in doing evil and wicked things?  Surely we do not want to encourage or foster anyone in fulfilling their potential for doing evil, even if it does make them happy. Instead, we would want to turn them away from such behaviors and attitudes. So once again we must amend our formulation.  This time we have that 'I love you' means 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit if, in general, you seek what is good; but, if you deliberately seek evil and wickedness, then I strongly desire that you seek what is good instead.'

This formulation allows us to foster and encourage the actions of those who accidentally commit evil and even of those who don't exactly seek to do the most good (there are many actions that are morally neutral, for example, and some good things are better than others).  This formulation, however, does raise some further issues which we must clarify, because now we need to know what constitutes goodness as well as evil and wickedness.

Figuring out what is good and what is evil is not an easy task.  For a glimpse at how intricate it can be to sort out virtues from vices, see the Appendix on Sexual Ethics in Imam Nuel's Paradigms of Human Sexuality. In order to accommodate such complexities, we will steer clear of the extremes (good and evil) and instead focus on that which is better or worse.  In this way, we can lay out a general plan which others may consult when deliberating on how to behave.  In general, then:

• That which fosters life is better than that which does not
• That which fosters good health is better than that which does not
• That which fosters pleasure is better than that which does not
• That which fosters wisdom is better than that which does not
• That which fosters empathy is better than that which does not
• That which fosters communication is better than that which does not
• That which fosters cooperation is better than that which does not
• That which fosters justice is better than that which does not
• That which fosters collective unity is better than that which does not

We should also note that there is a progression built into this system.  Someone who is merely alive is nothing compared to someone who is alive and in good health.  Similarly, someone who is in good health stands in a poor relation to someone who is in good health and who is feeling joy.  But then too, the delight of a fool is not much when compared to that of a wise man.  A joyful but heartless wise man, however, is petty when compared to one who recognizes other's thoughts and feelings.  Of course, a wise man who keeps all these gifts to himself is nothing compared to one who lets others know what he knows and who uses his knowledge to steer them or to provide for them.  And even a wise man who does all that is no match for a team of such men working together.  And the power of this team is nothing when compared to that of a team who fairness inspires others to join them.  And the might of this community is surpassed by that of the universe when it acts as a single organic being which harmoniously brings about its own joy and the joy of all its parts.

In light of all this, we can now reformulate once again.  This time we get: 'I love you' means 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit if, in general, you seek what is good; but, if you deliberately seek what is worse, then I strongly desire that you seek what is better instead.'

It now appears, however that there is a redundancy in our formulation.  If seeking what is better involves seeking that which promotes life, good health and pleasure, is that not included in living to the fullest degree?  Those who are familiar with the Second and Third Existence Debates of Outis Metis and Himanu El may also recognize that intelligence, empathy, communication, cooperation, justice and collective unity are fundamental properties of all things that are properly called 'beings.'  Thus, 'seeking what is better' is the same as 'living to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit.'  Consequently, we are saying, in effect, 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit if, in general, you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit; but, if you deliberately seek what is worse, then I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit instead.'  But there is, then, no contrast between what we desire for the one who seeks what is better and the one who seeks what is worse.  We may, therefore, revert to our earlier formulation, 'I strongly desire that you live to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit.' Now, however, we have a fuller understanding of what the verb 'live' entails.

Since we are condensing things, we can also note that one is truly and completely happy when one lives to the fullest degree that his happiness and abilities permit, so 'being happy' is the same as 'living to the fullest degree that your happiness and abilities permit.'  Thus we can collapse our formulation down to 'I strongly desire that you be happy.' And, since the word 'want' typically means an earnest or strong desire, we can collapse the formula a bit further and end up with a handy, memorable and yet quite full definition: 'I love you' means 'I want you to be happy.'

We can, however, pack a bit more into this formulation.  When we love somebody, we do not simply want them to be happy as an act of mere volition. We do not sit idly by while our hearts burn with passion.  Instead, we get involved.  Our emotion is so strong that it causes us to act.  Thus, one who says, "I want you to be happy," but who does nothing to provide for or accommodate that state is not a true lover.  Love shows in actions.  The parent nurtures the child.  Friends make sacrifices for each other, support each other, teach each other, and so forth.  Thus, 'I want you to be happy' encompasses as well the necessary corollary  'I am making an effort to secure your happiness.'
 
 

The word 'love' is used in many contexts with meanings that are quite different from the one we have established in the previous section.  Some of these meanings are metaphorical, others are abuses of the term.  It is, of course, possible to concoct myriads of ways of using a term.  We shall here be concerned only with other socially common uses of the word 'love.'
 
 

Strictly speaking, we cannot desire the happiness of an inanimate object.  Thus if one says, "I love your new house" or "I love chocolate," one does not mean the word 'love' to denote a desire for happiness. The metaphorical connection that makes this usage possible lies in the fact that the target object (the house, the chocolate) makes the lover happy.  Thus, 'I love your new house' is equivalent to 'I find your new house delightful' and 'I love chocolate' means 'Chocolate makes me happy.' If the pleasure is simple and indulged without interfering with one's responsibilities in life, then all is well and good.  Seeking pleasures of this sort, however, can be addictive and the addiction becomes destructive when one neglects one's responsibilities (either to oneself or to others) or when one is led into harmful or evil practices in order to sustain the pursuit of the pleasure (for example, becoming a prostitute in order to fund one's love for drugs or alcohol, or constantly degrading oneself in pursuit of the pleasures of sex). There is a need, then, for one to develop a sufficient degree of self-control in regard to such pleasures.

Sometimes love expressed for an inanimate object takes on a further degree of meaning, a desire to possess.  Thus, 'I love your new house' may express the wish 'I wish this were my house' and 'I love chocolate' may mean 'I wish I had some chocolate.' This usage grows out of the metaphorical use we just described because everyone naturally desires the things that make them happy. This meaning of the word 'love,' however, is slightly tinged with vice, because it invites the lover to covet the target object.  And indeed, sometimes the word 'love' is used as a euphemism for 'covet.' When things have reached this point, the word 'love' is clearly being used to disguise a vice.

This range of meaning suggests that those who have the purer form of this metaphorical love of an object would be better served if they expressed their delight in other terms, lest they be confused with those who have more selfish aims.  The more selfish and the linguistically lazy will, of course, continue to use 'love' in all the senses we have described in this section.
 
 

Quite often, however, the love expressed for an animate target object is nothing more than an expression of the lovers delight in that object.  Thus, 'I love my dog' may mean nothing more than 'My dog makes me happy.'  This is a lesser level of love than the one we have just discussed, but it is relatively benign, provided that it inspires the lover to take good care of the target object. Thus if my love for my dog causes me to train him, feed him, groom him, protect him from harm, nurse him when he is sick and give him exercise and a variety of life experiences, then there is no harm involved.  What this level of love lacks is the desire that the target object be happy, that is that it fulfill its proper potentials and experience the delight of having done so.

As with inanimate objects, this form of love can go awry.  An excessive pursuit of the pleasures that the target object gives to the lover may lead the lover to neglect to take care of his own affairs, and so, in the long run, lead to an unpleasant outcome. Love for animate beings may also amount to little more than a desire to possess.  Thus, "I love tulips" or "I love horses" may mean little more than 'I wish I had some tulips' or 'I wish I owned a horse.'  Here again we see that the temptation for coveting arises if the desire to possess becomes too strong and the target object already belongs to someone else.

In this case, the ambiguity of language is more difficult to overcome.  Indeed, if one is looking to determine exactly what is meant when someone says they love an animate being is to look at how they act in relation to the target object.
 
 

As we discussed above, the proper way to love another person is to desire and work for their happiness. We see this most frequently in the love that a parent has for a child, though it can occur between lovers in various other relationships as well. The expression 'I love you,' however, is very often used to mean other things.

One frequent meaning is as a euphemism for sexual desire.  Thus, 'I love you' is used to mean something like 'I would like to have sex with you.' This can have a whole range of meanings.  When stated by someone of a more noble character, this is an altruistic expression meaning something like, 'I would like to give you sexual pleasure.' When coming from one who is fair minded, it may mean, 'I would like for us to please each other sexually.'  When coming from someone who is selfish, it means something like, 'I would like to use you for my own sexual pleasure.'  Thus we see that the same expression can have a range of meanings from virtue to vice. The phrase itself tells us nothing about the speakers true frame of mind.  We can, however, set out some guidelines which can help to reveal the speaker's intentions:

• Generally, if the lover says 'I love you' before he has had a chance (or made an effort) to get to know the beloved, he probably has a selfish heart.
• If the lover shows great reluctance in saying 'I love you' this is often a sign that he has great respect for the meaning of the term and hesitates to abuse it.
• If the lover is generally selfish, fair, or altruistic in other matters, he is probably the same way when it comes to sexual matters.
• If the beloved is are uncertain, she should postpone any sexual activities.  True love is patient.  Selfish desires on the other hand can not stand to be made to wait.
• The beloved must not hesitate to investigate into the lover's reputation.  Chances are he will treat the current beloved the same way he treated others.

A second meaning for 'I love you' is 'I want to be you.' This form of love usually finds its expression in hero-worship and the imitation of role models. If this form of love helps one to grow and mature and, eventually, outgrow this desire, then it can be beneficial.  On the other hand, this form of love may lock a person into a certain stage of their development in which they always see themselves as subordinate to another. In this form, the desire may even change focus and become 'I want to belong to you.' This is not a healthy thing, and it can become equivalent to enslavement, especially if the beloved becomes aware of the attachment and abuses the lover's devotion. Caution, therefore, must be exercised by those who feel this form of emotional attachment, for again, it is something which must be overcome.  Perhaps the wisest course for them is to keep in contact with other friends who can serve to help to keep them grounded in reality and point out potential abuses of trust.

A third meaning is 'You make me happy,' or 'You are delightful.'  Again this is a metaphorical use of the word which arises from seeing the beloved as the cause of happiness rather than as the prospective recipient of happiness.  If the delight one gets from another person causes one to wish to reciprocate, then this form of 'love' serves to inspire the true form of love we identified above.  On this ground, this second meaning is clearly acceptable and virtuous.  If, however, such an inspiration does not arise, then we are dealing with a more selfish emotion. It is natural for one to want the cause of one's delight to be present as often as possible, thus this more selfish form of love easily gives rise to a desire to neglect one's responsibilities or to possess and control the beloved. Neglecting one's responsibilities is, of course, harmful to oneself and others. Pursuit of pleasure on this level is self-defeating and should be avoided. The desire to possess and control another person is repugnant, whether it is done in the name of 'love' or under the more honest banner of enslavement.

Here again, then, the ambiguity of the statement calls for one to be more circumspect when hearing it, and more precise about one's meaning when using it.
 
 

It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that one join groups and actively participating in their activities. However, it is equally or even more important to join the right groups and to join with the right motivations. It is not appropriate, for example, to join just any group simply because one feels lonely or feels a desire to belong. It is the case that some groups exist solely for the purpose of preying on the lonely, lowly and insecure.  Those who join are emotionally manipulated into a kind of slavery. This is not the path to growth and maturity.  Similarly, it is not appropriate to join a group simply because it is a fun group. While having fun is an important ingredient in being happy, fun can be destructive if it is irresponsible or directed at the wrong goals.  There are, for example, groups that 'have fun' by doing harm to themselves (for example, by drinking too much) or by picking on or abusing others.  It is not possible to fulfill one's own potential as a human while mistreating oneself or others. When joining or belonging to a group, one should take care to be sure that the group meets these criteria:

• The group must be active. It must meet on a regular basis and accomplish things.
• The group must be fun. One must enjoy the time spend with the group, and the activities it does.
• The group must be directed towards what is good. One can not find fulfillment in a group that has any other goal (see above for a discussion on what is good).
• The group must be (or show reasonable promise of becoming) relatively successful. There is no point in expending energy and time with a group which is fun and has fine goals and accomplishes things if the things it accomplishes are not in line with its goals, or if its means of accomplishing those goals are self-defeating, overly complex, or otherwise less efficient or effective than other known methods. (Note: This does not mean that it is necessarily better to join a sewing circle that sews with machines than to join one that sews by hand. If the point is to produce garments quickly, then, sure, the machine-users have the advantage.  If the point is to promote socialization within the group, then the hand-sewers have the advantage.  If the goal is a mix, then the issue must be determined by the personalities and abilities of those involved.)
• The group must have a clear conception of its relation to the grand scheme of things. A sewing circle which sees its affairs as taking precedence over those of the families of its members probably has a twisted sense of priorities.  Similarly, a government which requires that its citizen's allegiance to it take precedence over their allegiance to God has got its priorities confused (such was the case when the Roman's required the Christians to put their 'deified' emperors on a par with God).  And it can even be the case that religious organizations can expect their members to be more loyal to them than to God (such was the case when the Pharisees saw adherence to their 'laws' as more important than curing the sick). In general, the ultimate goal is ultimate goodness (see the discussion above on goodness). Any lesser goal is subordinate to this.  Those groups and activities that aim for something better take precedence over those that aim at something worse.

We can begin by noticing the strange play between the singular and the plural.  There are two commandments, but Jesus says in the singular "There is none other commandment greater" and he offers the two in answer to the question, "Which is the first commandment of all?" (Mark 12:28). Something peculiar is happening here which we need to attend to.  A further peculiarity arises from what is said.  We are given three objects to love: God, ourselves and our neighbor.  We are told to love God with 100% of all of our resources.  We can presume that we do love ourselves with 100% of our resources, so we are instructed to love our neighbor likewise.  When we realize that our neighbor is not merely 1 person but many, and then add in Jesus' instruction to "Love your enemies," we find that the number of 'neighbors' encompasses every person we meet.  Yet how is this mathematics supposed to work? If you devote 100% of your resources to the love of God, there can not be any left over with which to love yourself and all these neighbors.  Jesus' expression, therefore, must allow for an overlap. That is, the love of God is not something different from the love of self and of one's neighbors, and the love of oneself is no different from the love of one's neighbor, and the love of one neighbor is no different from the love of all of them, when love is properly understood.

As we said at the outset of this section, there is no point in desiring that God be happy.  God, however, has given us commandments and free will, so we are capable of obeying or disobeying.  When we obey His commands, we please Him.  When we do not, we disappoint Him.  Yet whether we please God or disappoint Him, it has no bearing on His happiness, for His happiness is already permanently secured. And besides, God already knows that whatever path we choose to follow, the ultimate outcome will be good, so the choices we make moment by moment do not make such a big difference relative to the ultimate, cosmic outcome of the universe. [There is a good deal of metaphysics behind this statement, see the existence debates of Outis Metis and Himanu El.]  These decisions do, however, impact greatly on our own happiness from moment to moment, particularly since God's commandments are designed to lead us to our own happiness. Thus, by pursuing a selfish gratification, we may temporarily feel pleasure, but God recognizes the extent to which we have set ourselves back in our quest to obtain true happiness.  Over time, we may come to recognize the harm we have done to ourselves as well, but God sees it right away.  Thus God's empathy for us results in His being pleased or disappointed.  Loving God, therefore, means striving to please Him.

Yet we do not please God by doing anything for Him or to Him. Rather, we please God by doing things for ourselves, namely by working towards being all that our happiness and abilities allow us to be.  That is to say, we please God by loving ourselves in the proper sense of the term.  Yet humans are by nature empathetic, communicative and cooperative rational creatures with a sense of justice.  Thus fulfilling our nature as humans requires us to deal with others in ways that maximize these traits.  The best way for us to do this is to actively desire and work towards what is good for others.  Thus, loving one's neighbors is an intrinsic part of loving oneself, for by working towards their happiness, we make progress toward our own.  Thus, the single act of loving oneself (when the meaning of 'love' is properly understood, and when one has the correct understanding of human nature) fulfills simultaneously the requirements to love God and all of one's neighbors.  Similarly, whether one focuses primarily on pleasing God or promoting the good of one's neighbors, the tripartite task of loving God, self and neighbor is accomplished through the proper pursuit of that goal.  It is for this reason that God's commandment to put all of one's energies into these tasks makes sense, because it is not really three tasks, it is one.

Striving to please God is not, however, the only way to love Him. There are those who love God through their worship of Him. Most often, this takes the form of devotion or servitude to God, a desire to 'belong to God,' or to 'obey Him.' In general, this is not a bad thing, since God directs people to do what is good, but the role of subordinate that the lover plays may eventually get in the way of their own progress toward their own perfection.  If this stage is reached, it actually becomes a hindrance.  The worship of God properly has three stages: Obedience to God, imitation of God, and partnership with God.  In the first stage, we stand in need of direct instruction from God.  In the second stage, we become capable of guiding ourselves by seeking the answer to the question, 'What would God do in this situation?' In the third stage we no longer need to look to God's example because the correct course of action arises from within ourselves spontaneously.

Some may see in this progression the potential to go one step further and become greater than God.  This is an impossibility. Once you find what is truly good, you can not get beyond it.  The desire to surpass God, therefore, is misguided and probably indicates an extremely selfish desire for self-aggrandizement.  As such, the desire does not indicate that one is at or even near God's level of maturity.  The desire itself, therefore, necessarily prevents one from achieving its object. In short, therefore, superiority to God is not something that one should ever strive for.

A second way to love God is to take delight in Him. God is good.  God is fun.  The emotion is appropriate. It can, however, go too far.  Just as addictive pleasures may prevent one from attending to the necessities of life, so too an excessive indulgence in the pleasures of God may actually prevent one from developing as one ought.  Some degree of moderation, therefore, may be appropriate to those who feel this way.

A second complication that may arise is that the lover may seek to possess or control God. Here again we see a desire to be superior to God, and, again, not only is the desire inappropriate, but its goal is impossible to obtain.  In order to prevent themselves from entering into a life of perpetual frustration, such lovers should find ways to redirect or curb this desire.

It is my hope that, with these explications of what 'love' means and what is meant by the golden rule, we can all come to a fuller understanding of God's message to man in His instruction to love one another just as we love ourselves.  And now that we know better what He meant, I suppose we have a duty to obey.  Yet, according to our explication, the labor should be sweet and rewarding.  I'll meet you out in the field.