I believe that it is a two part command, and that not everyone loves themselves. In fact, I would say that in particular, most Christians and almost all Fundimentalist or Evangelical Christians definitely don't love themselves.
In my observation, loving oneself is no problem at all. People in general are very egotistical. They think the world of themselves.
Don't let a mans struggle with sin fool you into missing the big picture. Life is rich when there are struggles to face. Not fun at times, granted. But rich.
In other words iano loves his sorry self. I don't have any problem loving myself either. My problem is in loving all those others. Many of them are not very lovable, for one thing, and for another thing, I only have so much love in me too pass around. I have to be frugal.
In this case I think the term love refers to an inate, internal and brutal honesty about yourself and the will to actually do something based on the analysis. You need to look at your own weaknesses and strengths and actually work to strengthen where weak and temper where strong.
And we are supposed to "love" others like that? It doesn't sound very nice. I don't know if I want to go around being "brutally honest" with everyone.
Now if you define love as "good will," it makes more sense to me. We wish ourselves well; in the same way, we should wish others well.
I don't think I ever said you should be brutally honest with everyone, but it is probably good to be brutally honest about everyone.
You asked me how one should love oneself, then in a typical fundie footdance changed the goalposts
I don't know about this fundie stuff, since I'm no fundie, but I thought the rule was that we were to love others as we love ourselves. I took that to mean that we are to love others in the same way that we love ourselves.
(Incidentally, the rule seems to me impossible to carry out).
My understanding is that I am charged to love myself first. That includes trying to determine those areas where I am weak and to try to improve those, to determine my strengths and try to temper them. As I said, it does not mean being brutally honest with others, but it is a good idea to be brutally honest about others as well.
Once you work to get your house in order, look around to see what you can do for others.
I don't see how you get all that out of the word "as."
If someone comes along though, and shows you just how loveable you are and you find that nigh-on impossible to accept (for you know of your own unlovable-ness - in detail) then it becomes easier. Not simple but easier.
That's all very well, iano, but if you are like me and have all these good points, it's hard to see past that to the bad stuff. Just to give you a small sample:
1. I have "robust enthusiasm for the wonder of life." 2. I "just try." 3. I have "exemplary moral character."
If you were to use the word compassion as in be compassionate, view others compassionately, have compassion for the suffering and difficulty of others, or treat others with compassion would that change your feelings in any way?
The claim that morality cannot exist without belief in an archaic mythology is simply false. By my own existence as an atheist and a man of exemplary moral character, my existence (as well as the vast number of moral atheists out there) I disprove the first premise. Thus, the entire argument is invalid.
As for my friend from across the pond, Mr. Brian.....
Phat, Brian is correct. But there's no reason why you have to call yourself a Christian. You can be something else.
If you want to be reasonable, I suggest nihilism.
Just a suggestion.
"Your friends, if they can, may bury you with some distinction, and set up a monument, to let posterity see that your dust lies under such a stone; and when that is done, all is done. Your place is filled up by another, the world is just in the same state it was, you are blotted out of its sight, and as much forgotten by the world as if you had never belonged to it."--William Law