C
coolduude
Guest
Indeed. Just making sure
- Status
T
The_Geographer
Guest
I was initially trying to make a point.Indeed. Just making sure
If the feelings fail you, that doesn’t mean you should leave a spouse. It means you go to agape, willful love and hope that one day the erotic, brotherly and friend return in due time. True happiness/joy will be achieved by sticking it out to the end.
I don’t like to make all or nothing statements, but for the sake of my position on this I’ll say that all lasting relationships will be the ones that endure through agape at one point in their life.
R
roselily
Guest
Sorry, I agree with her mother…
I think one chooses to act off of those feelings of love…that is my view of love…
Otherwise we should just go marry the first person we care enough about to get to heaven right? That would cause some very bad marriages…
Love is a choice, but is one that is chosen after those feelings are involved…
And there is also a slight difference between romance and love…which I believe in both, and others do not…
I believe that, LilyElain;“Heart felt affection”.
Well, then, I will burn in hell, since I don’t always have a “heart felt affection” for everyone I meet and consequently, according to this definition, I don’t really “love” a person, and consequently cannot fulfill the great commandments (according to this definition).
I’ll answer, once more, NO.
- I canNOT always choose how I feel. That’s a matter of chemicals in my brain. I can’t control the chemicals in my brain. I CANNOT always choose how I feel, I will once more re-emphasize this.
- I CAN, however, choose to perform acts of kindness for others and to consider themselves as human beings made in God’s image. I have to force myself at times to care about another person…but I have made the choice, even if it is not always my duty to go out of my way for a person.
- Does that the fact that I don’t always have the touchy feely feelings for another person mean that I don’t really care for them?
In fact, I rise above my animal state by CHOOSING to care about another person than just going with my “feelings”. I can reason—animals cannot. I don’t always like my siblings, especially when they are in a sour mood. But I will defend them to the death if they come face to face with threats from the outside, whether they be intruders or animals. Why? Because I care about them…I love them truly, and I’ll add no disclaimers to this statement. I can CHOOSE to give consideration to another person and not just follow my plain old gut. I can CHOOSE not to act like an animal—is that not as worthy, if not more so, than a person who acts because they feel good (at the moment—that is, the chemicals in their brain made them feel good and consequently like “loving” another person) and the like?
I ask, once more, by God’s grace are we not more than the animals? Even animals have “feelings”…and with them they tear each other apart such that flesh no longer sticks to the bone and there is nothing reconizable in their bodies.
Tell me what you think of this:
“Love your enemies…” How can you love your enemies if your immediate feeling is to rip their throats out? How do you love them? The next statement Christ tells us gives us a clue; “Pray for those who persecute you”. Eventhough these are two different statements of Christ, they are related, and tells how we are to act: by actually acting (in this case, praying), instead of just having fleeting feelings (which are here today, and gone tomorrow).
Love without “feelings is…nonsensical”? I once more respectfully disagree that you have to have “feelings” to love another.
You tell us, what are we to do when we don’t have the “feelings” or “emotions” but we offer (and decide) to do good to another? Consider # 1) as posted above.
What then are we to say about persons with anti-social personality disorder, who supposedly are not in control of their feelings, but who do not go out killing, etc.? Are they incapable of loving another, if they choose to do good instead of evil? Have they not fulfilled the two great commandments by choosing to do good instead of evil? I propose that they have fulfilled the command to love, and even more so, since according to medical science they may not be able to have feelings, but in this case, they would act against their nature and actually do good rather than evil.
I (I don’t have ASPD) CAN’T always choose how the chemicals in my brain work. So, then, how am to fulfill the great commandments, if the chemicals in my head do not function well?
By rising above my animal state of “feelings”.
(I really do not wish for anyone to take offense at this, but I think I just had to reiterate my point once more. I only write this because you say that it is not only “nonsensical but dangerous” to not have feelings “and dutiful good works without love are meaningless”—I’ve have shown you that my feelings are not always in my control—is Christ asking us to do the impossible?----what is in my control, however, is my ability to rationally act, and by acting contrary to my animal feelings and the chemicals in my brain at the moment, can I not fulfill God’s will?)
I will be very glad to read fairytales.
I will be pleased to read fairytales.
Oh, angelic, I agree with you consider what must a religion be love even for our enemies, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself called to the Father to remove that bitter cup from Him; His feelings at that time, still He drank it. Christ Himself died on the cross, for those who nail Christ to the cross. O God! Your precious blood!
but He only said: Father , forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.
He do not choose, but accepted it willingly.
For God love us, He want to give us into eternal life eternal happiness!
That True love is a feeling and choice and happiness.:angel1:
R
roselily
Guest
:hug1
earest sister in Christ! :heaven:
T
TaraJoBean
Guest
Exactly.
Agapewolf, it seems that you are taking what I say sometimes and then reading into it to extremes. Even if what I say is true (I know you disagree) that love is an “affection that moves one to will the good of another,” that does not in any way mean that if you fail to have this love you should take off on your spouse and quit. It means you should pray to God that He would give you love for your spouse, and do things to foster your love for him/her.
I honestly don’t understand how this definition can be wrong since with very simple logic you can deduce it quite clearly from the statements from the catechism I quoted. And I want to reiterate again, if my definition stands, it DOES NOT mean that there is no choice in love and it’s pure emotion. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying both feelings are an act of the will (choice) is essential to love.
Also, with regard to what some others have said, I think we have to remember that there are different degrees of love. I don’t think you have to feel touchy-feely fuzzy love for every person on the street, obviously. But I think to will the good of another in itself implies that you CARE for the person in your heart (even just knowing that God loves him, and he’s a sinner like you, and he’s made in the image of God)… and that care / affection / emotion (even if it’s small) is what moves you to will the good of another.
I could be wrong! But I seriously don’t see where I went wrong since the catechism says clearly: “Love is a passion” and “‘passion’ refers to the affections or feelings” and ALSO, “Love is to will the good of another person.”
Why, then, can we not say “Love is the affections or feelings which move one to will the good of another person” ? I don’t get it.
The only thing I added / inferred was the words “which move one.” That could be off. But even if we say “Love is the affections or feelings which coincide with the willing of the good of another person,” still, feelings are essential to love, right?
We need a love scholar in here.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Because in your definition, it is the feelings that are the cause, and the act that is the effect.Exactly.
Why, then, can we not say “Love is the affections or feelings which move one to will the good of another person” ? I don’t get it.
The only thing I added / inferred was the words “which move one.” That could be off. But even if we say “Love is the affections or feelings which coincide with the willing of the good of another person,” still, feelings are essential to love, right?
THIS is a very problematic issue. It is the opposite. It is the choice first, the actual definition of love that creates emotions, etc. Emotion is the “symptom” and wonderful benefit of love. It is not and cannot be love itself. When one defines love as the emotion (even as co-existing along with as equal to the choice) it makes no theological sense in reality. When a couple first start dating and get all butterflies and stuff, the secular world wants to label this as “being in love”. Love has nothing to do with it. If you could insult a word, it is insulting the word “love” by defining it as emotion. It is not letting the word fulfill its deepest potential.
It is unfortunate that this world has deteriorated the word love to mean something that you use to describe your yearning for chocolate.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Also, The Douey rheims bible translation has the word “charity” instead of love.
“Charity is patient, charity is kind”, etc.
God is love.
Emotions are fleeting.
“Charity is patient, charity is kind”, etc.
God is love.
Emotions are fleeting.
T
TaraJoBean
Guest
I see your point on the chocolate thing, but of course that doesn’t fit the definition I proposed anyway since you don’t will the good of the chocolate
.But if emotion is not essential to love at all, how do you explain what the catechism says regarding “Love is a passion” and “Passion refers to the affections or feelings.” ??
That’s what I was hoping you’d respond to.
T
The_Geographer
Guest
Speak for yourself. I will the chocolate to be mine.I see your point on the chocolate thing, but of course that doesn’t fit the definition I proposed anyway since you don’t will the good of the chocolate
A
agapewolf
Guest
You are taking the one line out of the context of the whole section
1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, "either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way."44 It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.
Love IS a good and is never evil. Therefore, what the catechism is defining is the aspect of emotion that comes with it…such as fear. Fear is a reaction. The emotion that comes from love can be felt outside of love as well, as shallow as it may be. Gotta read the whole context.
1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, "either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way."44 It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.
Love IS a good and is never evil. Therefore, what the catechism is defining is the aspect of emotion that comes with it…such as fear. Fear is a reaction. The emotion that comes from love can be felt outside of love as well, as shallow as it may be. Gotta read the whole context.
C
chevalier
Guest
Wow, there’s so plenty of charity in this thread.
As for the princess thing, overall it’s good, but it relies on one powerful factor: if it includes class act or just expectations. With only expectations, it’s awful and offputting. With class act (goodness, charity, consideration, acting honourably), it’s something lovely and endearing.
Yeah, and they get friended.
As for the princess thing, overall it’s good, but it relies on one powerful factor: if it includes class act or just expectations. With only expectations, it’s awful and offputting. With class act (goodness, charity, consideration, acting honourably), it’s something lovely and endearing.
T
TaraJoBean
Guest
I did read the whole context. Besides, if it’s a true statement that love is a passion, and a true statement that passion refers to the affections or the feelings, it MUST be true that love is an affection or feeling.
Sorry, but context or no context, that’s exactly what it says. It literally defines “passion” and also says that love IS a passion.
There is no way around it. But I think I might as well be done with this conversation since you are unwilling to admit plain logic.
T
TaraJoBean
Guest
A
agapewolf
Guest
No, it does NOT literally define love is a passion, it is listing some passions and uses that as the same level as fear. God is Love, Love is Charity. Your description here is what refusing to look at logic.
You are not reading the context, especially what I quoted.
“1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil” this CANNOT be describing the complete definition of love because God is love, and God is not evil.
I only have access to the catechism in English. I would be curious which form of love is said to be a passion. I find it hard to believe that the line in the catechism was meant to be a definition (in the logical/mathematical sense of “definition”) of agape-love. But I’m willing to believe it could be referring to the other kinds of love.
P
Pug
Guest
1765 Passiones multae sunt. Passio maxime fundamentalis est amor attractione boni provocatus. Amor desiderium causat boni absentis et spem illud obtinendi. Hic motus in fruitione boni possessi et in gaudio de illo expletur. Mali apprehensio odium, aversionem causat et metum mali futuri. Hic motus expletur in tristitia mali praesentis et in ira quae illi opponitur.
Some other place in the CCC: Deus caritas est
Latin available on the vatican.va site.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
True love is not a choice, not at all. If it were, there would be no broken hearts.
C
coolduude
Guest
So Jesus’ Passion was a warm, fuzzy feeling?
T
The_Geographer
Guest
D
DL82
Guest
This all turns on the difference between eros and agape, and the reconciliation between the two that Christ, God and man, has accomplished. I don’t have much to say except that you might want to read the Pope’s letter Deus Caritas Est:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
If you want more on how this relates to marriage, Pope John Paul’s catechesis on the subject was profound:
catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/Theology+of+the+Body
For what little it’s worth, I guess my own opinion on the matter is that it is a choice to continue to love, and all committed relationships, especially those which are sacramental (marriage or the priesthood, or religious life for that matter) hinge on a fundamental choice to love and to go on loving. All the same, the choice of who to choose to love (whether a spouse or a religious community) isn’t a choice we make without feeling. While it might be noble for a man to go on loving his wife after the warm feelings have worn off, I’d be very worried about any man who thought he could choose that kind of permanent love without ever having had any warm feelings for his future spouse.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
If you want more on how this relates to marriage, Pope John Paul’s catechesis on the subject was profound:
catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/Theology+of+the+Body
For what little it’s worth, I guess my own opinion on the matter is that it is a choice to continue to love, and all committed relationships, especially those which are sacramental (marriage or the priesthood, or religious life for that matter) hinge on a fundamental choice to love and to go on loving. All the same, the choice of who to choose to love (whether a spouse or a religious community) isn’t a choice we make without feeling. While it might be noble for a man to go on loving his wife after the warm feelings have worn off, I’d be very worried about any man who thought he could choose that kind of permanent love without ever having had any warm feelings for his future spouse.
- Status