A question about "love"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pallas_Athene

Guest
When you (whoever you are) say that you love

your spouse
your child
your pet
a good dinner
a pleasant vacation
a good movie…

I understand what you mean by the word “love”.

However, when you say “I love God”, I have no idea what the word “love” means in that context. Enlighten me, please. I would like to understand.
 
I don’t think it has to be about feelings. Maybe of gratitude. Subjective feelings.

I think loving is about choice, choosing to do what the loving good God desires for good.
Even loving others doesn’t amount to a whole lot unless we choose to act and think towards others’ good, (spouse, child, community).

No point either in saying we love our animals unless we feed the and care for them.

Feelings are nice, but love is really about choice, I believe, choosing to do right by God and by people.

The other things, we can’t actually theoretically love them, only want them, if we don’t do anything about it, go on a vacation, eat an good dinner. We act, then we remember we enjoyed it, or it looks good and we want to do it.

Feelings of ‘love’ are nice, but don’t add up or mean much without action.

I think the word ‘love’ is often used in unclear ways.

So God, loving God is consciously choosing to live by God’s Word, by good moral actions, by being good to others, even when it’s hard.
 
St. Catherine of Genoa: “O my God, Thou commandest me to love my neighbour, and I can love no one but Thee.”
Jesus: “My daughter,** whoever loves Me loves everything that is loved by Me**.”

If we love God, we love His adorable Will: His creation, His gifts (existence, grace etc.), His nature. Basically, we seek to unite ourselves to God’s Will, and therefore, to God. That is love. All else is an illusion.

That’s not an in-depth explanation, but I have to run…
 
In Spanish, we have more words for “love”. We have “amar” which is a deep love, like with a spouse. We have “querer” which we use with relatives. We have the word “encantar” which is what you use if you say you “love” spaghetti.

In English, we need more words for love, because we use the word “love” for spaghetti AND a beloved spouse!
 
When you (whoever you are) say that you love

your spouse
your child
your pet
a good dinner
a pleasant vacation
a good movie…

I understand what you mean by the word “love”.

However, when you say “I love God”, I have no idea what the word “love” means in that context. Enlighten me, please. I would like to understand.
The third and greatest of the Divine virtues enumerated by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13:13), usually called charity, defined: a divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish God for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God. …

(1) Its origin, by Divine infusion. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” (Romans 5:5). It is, therefore, distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order. Theologians agree in saying that it is infused together with sanctifying grace, to which it is closely related either by way of real identity, as some few hold, or, according to the more common view, by way of connatural emanation.

(2) Its seat, in the human will. Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship. To love God is to wish Him all honour and glory and every good, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain it for Him. St. John (14:23; 15:14) emphasizes the feature of reciprocity which makes charity a veritable friendship of man with God.

(4) Its motive, i.e., the Divine goodness or amiability taken absolutely and as made known to us by faith. It matters not whether that goodness be viewed in one, or several, or all of the Divine attributes, but, in all cases, it must be adhered to, not as a source of help, or reward, or happiness for ourselves, but as a good in itself infinitely worthy of our love, in this sense alone is God%between% loved for His own sake. However, the distinction of the two loves: concupiscence%between%, which prompts hope; and benevolence, which animates charity, should not be forced into a sort of mutual exclusion, as the Church has repeatedly condemned any attempts at discrediting the workings of Christian hope.

(5) Its range, i.e., both God%between% and man. While God alone is all lovable, yet, inasmuch as all men, by grace and glory, either actually share or at least are capable of sharing in the Divine goodness%between%, it follows that supernatural love rather includes than excludes them, according to Matthew 22:39, and Luke 10:27. Hence one and the same virtue of charity terminates in both God%between% and man, God%between% primarily and man secondarily.
Sollier, J. (1910). Love (Theological Virtue). In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm
 
English is notorious for using a single word to mean many.

Italian, which is more elucidate than English but not so as Greek, uses ‘‘ti quiero bene’’ to describe love of God or neighbor.

Greek uses Agape for love of God, Philia (φιλία) for love of neighbor or an old friend. Storge (στοργή) is further used to describe a love found in families or in empires in reference to dictators. The word carries a connotation of being obligated to love.

Greek uses Éros (ἔρως) to describe a sexual love. In Italian, ‘‘ti amo’’ has the same connotation as eros, but only a limited similarity ‘‘to love.’’
 
For me, it’s a matter of entrusting myself to His will. It’s not always easy to remember that in all things.
 
Thank you for the answers.

They were what I expected them to be. You equate “love” with “obedience” and “submission”. However there must be a difference, since one can be obedient out of fear. And since the threat of eternal damnation is real (for you, of course) I seriously doubt that it can be discarded as irrelevant.
 
Yes, one can be obedient out of fear, as a slave may be obedient to a master. One can also be obedient out of love, as a son can be obedient to his father. I’m not sure what the issue is.

Some do fear God in the sense you are using it. In regards to repentence, this is called imperfect contrition. If you are repentent out of love, it is called perfect contrition.

Christians are called to love God, to be children of God. Not just slaves and creatures, but to look to him as a father.

Anyway, I could go on forever, but could you please clarify your point? I’m certain some only act out of fear. But I don’t think you can just assume all Christians are just acting on this fear. It would be like saying every child (even adult children) only obey or “love” their parents out of fear of punishment and that love doesn’t exist. I love my wife out of fear she’ll leave me. I love my children out of fear they’ll reject me. It just sounds absurd.

Christians do see love, even love between spouses, as mutual submission to each other. Love is self-sacrifice.

Perhaps I have assumed you were implying something you never meant to say.
 
Hi,

Fundamentally, love is a principle of the will’s action, so it is a principle of either sin or virtue. What makes these loves sinful or good is whether they are directed to God or to the self. Self love builds the city of Babylon. Love of God builds the city of God. Love that is directed to God makes the agent good and promotes the common good of the community. Love that is directed to self destroys community and sort of fragments the human person in that the person becomes more of an animal than a human being.

On this account, it is vitally important the we know the truth about ourselves and about God. That we understand that we have a desire for goodness (or beatitude) built into our very nature that points beyond particular things of the material world towards the eternal unchanging God. In this view, our submission to and love for God is nothing other than the fulfillment of our natural desire for happiness. Our submission leads us to have well ordered desires that we express as the cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

God bless,
Ut
 
Thank you for the answers.

They were what I expected them to be. You equate “love” with “obedience” and “submission”. However there must be a difference, since one can be obedient out of fear. And since the threat of eternal damnation is real (for you, of course) I seriously doubt that it can be discarded as irrelevant.
As Wesrock pointed, we are obedient out of love, and that is our relationship with Him.

When we decide to love Him, usually because we are thankful for His work, we do things that are pleasing to Him. And if we do something that displeases Him, we are not loving Him in that situation.

As to some people who “love” Him out of fear (that is: do things that pleases Him out of fear for punishment), I can only quote:
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (John 4:18)
Mostly what everyone said here is on point, specially concerning how to love God (we love Him by loving His creation - other people, our own existence, nature, the world, etc), and that love is an action and not a feeling.
 
I would say I loved God as my Creator, Friend, and Protector.

If we do not feel the presence of God in our lives, that is not because God does not exist.

It is because we have not begun the adventure of knowing Him. We can only begin that adventure when we open our hearts to him. So long as our hearts are closed to him, our minds will be too.

Augustine was right. We must first believe in order to understand. 🤷
 
For me, it’s a matter of entrusting myself to His will. It’s not always easy to remember that in all things.
Trusting His will did wonders for me this past year. There is so much we are able to achieve when we stop worrying over the future (what is going to happen now that I failed an exam, or now that I lost my grandfather, or now that I am unemployed…)

Now I can simply live and enjoy life, while fixing my own problems on the side (or learning to live with them :p)

Also, to Pallas:

There is a fear involved in loving God (which is required of us, I believe): the fear of displeasing Him! But not because we will be punished, but because we will be hurting someone we love (don’t we all fear hurting those we love? Is there worse punishment than hurting them?)
 
Yes, one can be obedient out of fear, as a slave may be obedient to a master. One can also be obedient out of love, as a son can be obedient to his father. I’m not sure what the issue is.
That is precisely the question. Obedience alone is not sufficient. You say: “One can also be obedient out of love”… and that is what I am interested in. What is “love” in this context? It must be more than simple submission.
Christians are called to love God, to be children of God.
That is just an allegory. God and humans are different “species”, we are not the children of God. (And God definitely does not behave as one would expect from a loving father. But this is better be left to another thread, that I intend to start, once this one is concluded. :))
Christians do see love, even love between spouses, as mutual submission to each other. Love is self-sacrifice.
That does not make sense. A self-sacrifice MIGHT be necessary, but in 99.999… % of the cases there is no need for any sacrifice.

The concept of “mutual submission” is strange. Mutual trust, mutual caring, trying to come to a mutually acceptable solution - yes. These make sense. But mutual “submission”? Playing master-slave, and then switch roles? That “role-playing game” is only acceptable as a wonderful sexual escapade.

No, I was not implying anything. Sheer curiosity of my part. There are many words, concepts which are used differently by secularists and Christians. “Love” seems to be one of them. I am curious, why this incredible resistance to the obvious definition: “love is a positive emotion, which must be expressed in actions”?
 
Mostly what everyone said here is on point, specially concerning how to love God (we love Him by loving His creation - other people, our own existence, nature, the world, etc), and that love is an action and not a feeling.
I certainly love (emotionally) many people, I take care of nature (as well as I can), I help the needy - these are all actions. If you say that this is “love toward God”, then I simply 🤷, because I don’t see God to be “there” to be loved. My positive actions do NOT come from taking God into consideration.

Now, something else. If you decouple emotions from love, then a perfectly designed robot also loves humans, acting in their best interest, taking care of them… and so on. And the “love” of this robot is much superior compared to the inadequate “actions” that can be performed by humans.
 
I don’t see any resistance to the idea of love as a positive notion in this thread.

Also, how can you have love without self-sacrifice? Have you never compromised? Or given someone time and work? Do you make unilateral decisions in all your relationships and just go your own way? Love involves self-sacrifice, and certainly we do this most for the ones we love most.

I hope I’ll have more time later.
 
There are fundamentally two types of love:

Love as in friendship where we see something in the other that corresponds to ourselves. Thus, when we love another in this way, we are loving them as another self.

Concupiscible love where we see something in the other that we lack that tends to our perfection, or joy, or pleasure, or any combination of these. This is the love of the man for the woman or the woman for the man, or a person for money, or another person for chocolate cake, or ultimately, God.

Concupiscible love is a power that must be perfected by participating in reason, because reason and free will is what differentiates us from the animals. Reason is what sets up our concupiscible love and directs it towards an object. So we have the duty to properly inform our reason so that rationally apprehended object of love can be sort of embedded as an object towards which our concupiscible love tends.

We can know some things about God through natural reason, but that will only take us so far. Natural reason gives us the preambles of faith, but that does not get us to the person. And human love…at least properly ordered human love, is always directed towards a person. We must also have the data from revelation. This is where we come to know God as a person. This we read the Bible. We read the New Testament. We read the Psalms.

God bless,
Ut
 
Now, something else. If you decouple emotions from love, then a perfectly designed robot also loves humans, acting in their best interest, taking care of them… and so on. And the “love” of this robot is much superior compared to the inadequate “actions” that can be performed by humans.
Why should we decouple emotions from love?

The principle emotion we have concerning God is desire. We all desire to know God because God planted that desire in us from the start. The desire to know God is a universal desire. Even the atheist recognizes this desire in himself, in that he has to work at suppressing it as best he can. When he stops working at that, the desire surfaces and becomes recognizable for what it is. Every atheist converted to God acknowledges this experience.
 
Love is essentially a voluntary dedication of oneself to another person which may even entail dying for that person. The truth makes us free from ignorance and self-deception but the greatest freedom is to be found in love because it liberates us from slavery to ourselves. Yet it is only when love is reciprocated that people are perfectly united and live in peace and harmony.
 
I certainly love (emotionally) many people, I take care of nature (as well as I can), I help the needy - these are all actions. If you say that this is “love toward God”, then I simply 🤷, because I don’t see God to be “there” to be loved. My positive actions do NOT come from taking God into consideration.
For starters, you love due to your feelings (this is your major ‘source’ of love) and then due to your reason (your second source); from a Catholic understanding, there is a third encompassing source (God) that you ignore, but that to us exists.

I’ll try to explain this third source, and I’ll use “like” to refer to the feeling of love you expressed, and “love” to refer to the action we Christians mean.

You love your friends because you like them. This is basic enough: we want to do nice things to people we like. In other words:
1) You **love **others because of your **will **to do so.

You love Nature because you feel it is important. You know you need it to exist in order to life (yours, specially) to thrive. So you (love) take care of nature because you **reason **it is beneficial to do so. In sum:
2) You love others because your **reason **leads to it.

In both these cases, we Catholics attribute YOUR actions to God’s Grace: Actual Graces moves both the will and the intellect into… doing what God wants (that is, love). Grace is that “push” or “tugging” we feel into doing the right thing.

And this “tugging” in the right direction is where we see God in YOUR acts of love, and in that of atheists/pagans as a whole. To you, they are just actions you do because you want. To us, it is God not giving up on you - He wants you to succeed at reaching eternal life!

God’s Grace is an act of His will - it is a part of His love for us. So, even thought you don’t consciously think of Him when doing nice stuff, to us it is still Him that is acting through you.

To put in a parent/son comparison: you saying you “don’t do good because of God” is like a child saying they can ride the bike without help, not noticing that their father never stopped holding them upright. He wants you to succeed at riding that bike!

Back to Grace. This is better felt when neither intellect nor will moves your actions. You know, the “random” acts of kindness? This is where we forgive those who hurt us - people we hate and would reason their existence as a hindrance; we hold no feelings nor reason to forgive them, but we do either way. I do it because of God: I alone cannot hold so much love for someone I hate. You do it because of God: no one can love to that level without God.

No one can love to any level without God.

I have included God into my reasoning (my intellect), you haven’t; this is all that differentiates us but, at the core, our love comes from the same source.

You just need to look back and see who is holding the bike.
Now, something else. If you decouple emotions from love, then a perfectly designed robot also loves humans, acting in their best interest, taking care of them… and so on. And the “love” of this robot is much superior compared to the inadequate “actions” that can be performed by humans.
By our understanding: as a robot has no supernatural soul, it cannot act based on Love (as it receives no Grace from God to do so).

It would simply be another action without any supernatural effect. Just like with other animals: my cat likes me (mostly; she’s a lil devil, we are thinking of calling for an Exorcist…), err… better example, my OTHER cat likes me, but he is incapable of loving me (he only has a natural soul - no Sanctifying or Actual Grace acting on him).

To put it under perspective: if an apple falls from a tree and feeds someone under it, the tree (nor the apple) didn’t act out of love - they simply did their thing.

If a cat purrs and helps someone become calmer, the cat didn’t act out of love - it simply did it’s thing.

If a robot gives part of his savings to a poor person, the robot didn’t act out of love - it simply did it’s thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top