How do you react?

[Spock]

When your child or grandchild comes to you, hugs you and says: “I love you Dad!”, or “I love you Mom!”.

Let me make a guess (based upon your posts here): “you look at him and think: Bah, that is not love! This is just a biological automaton, which is programmed to say those meaningless words! After all he is incapable of doing anything evil, so his love is worthless!”.

Or, maybe, just maybe, your heart melts, tears come into your eyes and you appeciate the selfless love he displays. No hate in his little heart, just pure love. Nah, cannot be. My first guess is the correct one. Or is it?

 

[In_Spiration]

I have neither kids nor grandkids of my own, but I’ll nevertheless presume my capacity to respond accurately.

I would regard the little one as, for the most part, having acted according to the normal biological and psychological dispositions common to most kids of his young age and developmentally limited mind. Instead of interpret his expression in terms of my own mature logical concepts, I’d (prudently) decide to attribute meaning to the boy’s utterance according to the most rationally warranted conclusion based on known facts re: his precise probable motivation. This motivation would be mostly the result of neurolinguistic composition that’s reflexively induced after a mere emotional reaction to internal bodily stimuli coming from his environment. The boy’s mind is weak; his naive concept ‘love’ is employed mostly out of training, less out of intentionally rich reflection or knowledge-based will. Tears?? Pssshhh. The very slight amount of love involved would be pitifully sophomoric!

On the other hand, I’d be pretty comforted by the fact he’s apparently endowed with a well-functioning brain and healthy body, two fundamental factors that ground his capacity for and facility toward genuine, spiritual love.

Of course, I’m assuming that my own psychologically adapted response to heavily emotional expressions by those with familial bonds will not overpower my rationality and cause me to judge incorrectly.

But hey, as I stated and as you’re aware, this is complicated guesswork, for I’ve got no kids and I don’t remember my childhood professions of “love”. I do know this: if I judge rationally, I do more than react according to the emotive weight and stimuli of the situation; if I am a biological or psychological automaton, I do, and my “judgment” of the event would be only incidentally related to the true fact of the matter.

 

[tonyrey]

The pure love of a child is certainly not selfless!

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

Dear friend, a child showing love is part of the gift God has given us in children. Children shows love in a way adults always can’t. It is honest,and I only wish that adults could be honest in a way only a child can,when it comes to love and how to show it.
May God bless You all.

 

[tonyrey]

Dear friend, a child showing love is part of the gift God has given us in children. Children shows love in a way adults always can’t. It is honest,and I only wish that adults could be honest in a way only a child can,when it comes to love and how to show it.
May God bless You all.

A warm welcome to the forum!

Jesus said:

“Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

But we also have to model ourselves on His example of love when He was no longer a child…

 

[Santi2]

When your child or grandchild comes to you, hugs you and says: “I love you Dad!”, or “I love you Mom!”.

Let me make a guess (based upon your posts here): “you look at him and think: Bah, that is not love! This is just a biological automaton, which is programmed to say those meaningless words! After all he is incapable of doing anything evil, so his love is worthless!”.

Or, maybe, just maybe, your heart melts, tears come into your eyes and you appeciate the selfless love he displays. No hate in his little heart, just pure love. Nah, cannot be. My first guess is the correct one. Or is it?

I am a mother and a grandmother. I do not analyse my reaction towards my children and grandchildren when they hug or tell me that they love me. I simply respond with love. Do you have children and grandchildren, Spock?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

When your child or grandchild comes to you, hugs you and says: “I love you Dad!”, or “I love you Mom!”.

Let me make a guess (based upon your posts here): “you look at him and think: Bah, that is not love! This is just a biological automaton, which is programmed to say those meaningless words! After all he is incapable of doing anything evil, so his love is worthless!”.

Or, maybe, just maybe, your heart melts, tears come into your eyes and you appeciate the selfless love he displays. No hate in his little heart, just pure love. Nah, cannot be. My first guess is the correct one. Or is it?

I sense you’re trying to make a Devil’s advocate point here, but I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Little help here

 

[slywakka250]

I often hear that we are not capable of “mortal sin” until we reach a certain “age of reason.” It seems possible that a child could say “I love you” before reaching the age of reason. So if the child is not capable of actual mortal sin, is he ALSO not capable of true love?? Thus Spocks comment about being an automaton?? Not sure exactly what you are asking Spock.

 

[tonyrey]

I often hear that we are not capable of “mortal sin” until we reach a certain “age of reason.” It seems possible that a child could say “I love you” before reaching the age of reason. So if the child is not capable of actual mortal sin, is he ALSO not capable of true love?? Thus Spocks comment about being an automaton?? Not sure exactly what you are asking Spock.

You’re right! A child is “innocent” in the same way that an animal is “innocent”, i.e. incapable of sin.

 

[Spock]

I am a mother and a grandmother. I do not analyse my reaction towards my children and grandchildren when they hug or tell me that they love me. I simply respond with love. Do you have children and grandchildren, Spock?

One of each by blood, and a lot of “unofficial” children and grandchildren. Indeed, we also respond with love, it is only natural. And we love to “collect” other “children” and “grandchildren”. We value their feelings and their love.

I sense you’re trying to make a Devil’s advocate point here, but I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Little help here

It will come at the end of this post.

I often hear that we are not capable of “mortal sin” until we reach a certain “age of reason.” It seems possible that a child could say “I love you” before reaching the age of reason. So if the child is not capable of actual mortal sin, is he ALSO not capable of true love?? Thus Spocks comment about being an automaton?? Not sure exactly what you are asking Spock.

Ok, I will explain.

When there is a thread about “free will”, the apologists always declare that love is “meaningless” if there is no ability to “hate”. They keep on asserting that we must be “free” to hate, otherwise love is merely a preprogrammed response, and thus without any value.

Obviously, children under a certain age are not capable of “hating”. Their love is a response to the love they receive. As long as the parents and grandparents approach the child with love and care and good will, the child will learn to reciprocate that. In a very good sense they are programmed by the surrounding atmosphere. Yet, no sane person would say that this love is “meaningless”.

This is what I wanted to highlight. To have genuine love it is not necessary to be able to “hate”.

 

[hazcompat]

Father/Grandfather+

I can see the difference between the "I want/got my way love"and the “I;m hurt love” My three year old grandaughter asked “What is lub?” To God my most erudite prayer must sound like a baby crying at mass. Deus Caritas Est.

peace

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Ok, I will explain.

When there is a thread about “free will”, the apologists always declare that love is “meaningless” if there is no ability to “hate”. They keep on asserting that we must be “free” to hate, otherwise love is merely a preprogrammed response, and thus without any value.

Obviously, children under a certain age are not capable of “hating”. Their love is a response to the love they receive. As long as the parents and grandparents approach the child with love and care and good will, the child will learn to reciprocate that. In a very good sense they are programmed by the surrounding atmosphere. Yet, no sane person would say that this love is “meaningless”.

This is what I wanted to highlight. To have genuine love it is not necessary to be able to “hate”.

If there are threads about “free will”, and the apologists always declare that love is “meaningless” if there is no ability to “hate”, then those “apologists” are stating something you won’t find in Catholic doctrine (I wonder if you really “always” see this stated here, sounds more like a strawman argument to me). Anyway, Free Will allows you to choose between Right and Wrong, not Love and Hate. And the emotional “Love” you’re discussing here isn’t the same as Christian “Love”, i.e. the virtue of Charity. Christian Love does not consist in emotional feelings of affection. It is first with regard to God, putting your will in complete union with the will of God. And with regard to other people, it is wanting what is good for them, you Love them if you care about their well being, just as you naturally care about your own well being.

 

[In_Spiration]

To God my most erudite prayer must sound like a baby crying at mass.

The key difference being just that He would never will for someone to shut us up.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Assume that there’s no such thing as God or meaning of life or meaning of after life, I’ll assume love as a reaction, an emotion of an ordinary human which came from a chemical reaction of the brain. Then what good is there for love? Then if I run out of love for my wife, I’ll assume that I’ll just go out there and have an affair with an another woman.

 

[timotheos]

This is what I wanted to highlight. To have genuine love it is not necessary to be able to “hate”.

Absolutely agree.

A little off-topic, but here’s a follow-up question: To have genuine hate, is it necessary to be able to love?

 

[Spock]

If there are threads about “free will”, and the apologists always declare that love is “meaningless” if there is no ability to “hate”, then those “apologists” are stating something you won’t find in Catholic doctrine (I wonder if you really “always” see this stated here, sounds more like a strawman argument to me).

All you have to do is look. I have been around for many years, and I have started and participated in many threads about this subject. It always happened as I said it. And when I say “always” I mean “always”. There was not one exception.

And the emotional “Love” you’re discussing here isn’t the same as Christian “Love”, i.e. the virtue of Charity. Christian Love does not consist in emotional feelings of affection. It is first with regard to God, putting your will in complete union with the will of God. And with regard to other people, it is wanting what is good for them, you Love them if you care about their well being, just as you naturally care about your own well being.

Ok, let’s have it your way. If someone is about to help you, what do you care if he is “compelled” to help you, or if he chooses volitionally to help you? Suppose the helper could choose to hurt you, instead of helping you, but he chooses to help. Does the possibility to hurt “add” something to the helping? Is the act of helping more valuable if he could have hurt you instead?

 

[Spock]

Absolutely agree.

A little off-topic, but here’s a follow-up question: To have genuine hate, is it necessary to be able to love?

Very well said!

 

[Spock]

Assume that there’s no such thing as God or meaning of life or meaning of after life, I’ll assume love as a reaction, an emotion of an ordinary human which came from a chemical reaction of the brain. Then what good is there for love? Then if I run out of love for my wife, I’ll assume that I’ll just go out there and have an affair with an another woman.

What is wrong with it? It happens all the time. People fall in love, and then realize that it is built on “quicksand”. They have very little in common, and the emotion is gone. Why would it be preferable to keep a meaningless relationship alive? Better to end it and start a new one.

But, as long as the emotion is there, it is worth to keep it there. Better to be loved for a while than never to be loved at all.

Still, I have to point out that this has NOTHING to do with the question at hand.

 

[promethius]

When your child or grandchild comes to you, hugs you and says: “I love you Dad!”, or “I love you Mom!”.

Let me make a guess (based upon your posts here): “you look at him and think: Bah, that is not love! This is just a biological automaton, which is programmed to say those meaningless words! After all he is incapable of doing anything evil, so his love is worthless!”.

Or, maybe, just maybe, your heart melts, tears come into your eyes and you appeciate the selfless love he displays. No hate in his little heart, just pure love. Nah, cannot be. My first guess is the correct one. Or is it?

That’s just silly. Lack of moral culpability is based on the lack of knowledge to understand what actions are gravely sinful. When a baby strikes with it’s fist, it is not doing so with an understanding of violence so it is NOT sinful.

But lack of knowledge about what constitutes grave matter does not constitute an inability to love. Don’t be silly.

 

[slywakka250]

Obviously, children under a certain age are not capable of “hating”. Their love is a response to the love they receive. As long as the parents and grandparents approach the child with love and care and good will, the child will learn to reciprocate that. In a very good sense they are programmed by the surrounding atmosphere. Yet, no sane person would say that this love is “meaningless”.

This is what I wanted to highlight. To have genuine love it is not necessary to be able to “hate”.

According to many people on this forum arguing for God and free will, love is meaningless if it does not come from a freely willed choice for the other. The only way this choice can be free is if the possibility of choosing evil exists.

We all are given a choice.

I find this notion difficult… This child’s love is more than an emotion. There is something deeper going on, even if the child is not aware of it. A child is more than a bundle of emotions. The child truly loves, as much as anybody else.

I believe so many of our actions are the results of our “programming.” Spiritual development to me is more about gaining knowledge of who we are, than it is about making “good” choices.

For me, love and charity, is not so much this whole idea about “willing the good”. I get sick when I hear people say that true charity is "helping someone get closer to God. i.e. get to heaven. i.e. avoid hell. If all love is is helping someone get their bags packed for heaven (after which if I go to hell, I may never see them again), I want nothing to do with this “love.”

For me, love is more the event of being drawn out of oneself into the being of the other. Love seeks a mutual understanding. It doesn’t judge good and evil. It simply cherishes, accepts, much like the child.