Okay, Okay, Okay! So, I admit that I came across as a bit of a know-it-all in my last post. Sue me! LOL I just have strong views about love, that are strictly biblically based. I will say, I don't KNOW what love really is, but like everyone else that doesn't KNOW, I have views and opinions that have shaped my belief of the definition of love.
The last post sparked conversations between me and a number of people about what love is. But there was one conversation in particular that has me writing on my winter vacation. Shot out to Ms. Thomas for provoking this post. I appreciate your insight!
In 'At First Sight' when I spoke about love and it not being a feeling, I offered infatuation as an alternative to that feeling. One word that came up with almost everyone I talked to was lust. I intentionally left out lust because I didn't want people to think I was disrespecting whatever they felt for their significant other. If you consider that though, it brings up an interesting concept. Love and lust are confused often enough for it to be a viable argument that what you could be experiencing with someone you just met, isn't love. I would never want to piss on anyone's parade, but there is someone out there that thinks they are in love, when in actuality they are in lust. Now, I've been known to lose my mind over a big butt and a smile, but I almost always realize that this is poison. Even when I engage in conversations with a woman that are really stimulating mentally, I still know that this doesn't bring about love.
In order for you to understand my argument, you would have to understand my definition of what love is. Like I said before, I don't KNOW what love is, but I know what the Bible says and that's the only book I feel comfortable taking information from on this issue. Now, I am by no means a bible beating, fire breathing preacher. Actually, my family would probably identify me as a heathen (My sister's a jerk). I do, however, take pride in the fact that I know (for the most part) my Bible. So, 1st Corinthians 13:4-7 states:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserves.
The first word that is used to define love in this passage is patient. This is really the basis of my argument. Dictionary.com's defintion of patient says,"having or showing the capacity for endurance." Endurance doesn't happen quickly. It takes time. You have to go through some stuff to endure. That is why it is my belief that any intial "feeling" that you have, can not be considered love. Love is battle tested. Whatever you feel when you first meet someone is strictly a feeling. Whether it be infatuation or lust, it can't be put into the same category with love. So, the term "Love at first sight" is oxymoronic, in a sense. If love takes endurance, how can it be felt at the moment of sight?
To speak to my over analyzation of the statement, "Love at first sight" (Thanks Crystal! lol): I do understand that some people use the statement as a means of expressing, in retrospect, the view of their significant other upon the intial interaction, but what is the basis for that statement if they hadn't made it to the point that they're at today? Maybe I am taking the statement a bit too literal, but consider the people who consistently "fall in love" quickly. They think that love is found with every partner. Would you take their claims of love serious?
I feel like I'm being a little long winded, so I'll just end with this. I consulted my mother about this issue the other day (because she's more of a know-it-all than I am lol) and her words were, "If you base love on how you FEEL about a person, or what they can or can not do for you, you miss the point of what love really is..." I'm Just Sayin' (Well actually, she's just saying lol)
6 comments:
I also ascribe to the definition of love found in 1st Corinthians, however, the definition of patience you provided says suggests that love has the capacity to endure over time, which I believe wholeheartedly. Therefore, it could be possible to love 'immediately' but the evidence of that love will be shown over time. It does not imply that love can only develop over the long term. I think the best example of this is a parent's love of a child. I know this is not the type of love you are speaking to in your post, but the passage you referenced encompasses love in every context.
In respect to loving every partner...that may not be the case, but I do think it's possible to love the person you are in a relationship with even after that relationship ends and you move on and are no longer 'in love' with them, particularly, if we are using the definition of love you provided.
So I guess it seems that we'll continue to disagree on this one... ;)
Additionally, if we were to go with your notion that love can only exist after time has passed...who's to say how much time?? Two months, two years, or 10??
Love is the ability to love someone when they deserve it the least. Thats what Jesus did on the cross for all of us!! Just saying ~ Kirsten
Hey there! I found your blog via Crystal Marie Grant. Great post.
I agree that the term "love at first sight", can seem nonsensical, but I think that's because of the context in which most people view love. If we are truly being biblical with our view of the word "love", then that would mean that we can't just view that word within a romantic realm. I think we do a disservice to the magnitude of love when we only equate it to what we feel towards [potential] mates.
God wants us to love everyone, just as He does. His son loved us and died for us without even laying eyes on us. There was no time minimum, no stipulations, no requirements or criteria. The Word says "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 19:19). Whether we've been living next to that neighbor for years, or even if we just met them, we have to love them.
We are called to do more than love someone at first sight. We are called to love them before (or if) we even come in contact with them. How's that for nonsensical? lol
But then again, maybe love isn't supposed to make sense. "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts, says the LORD. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine."If God is love, then sometimes we won't always fully comprehend it/Him. But it's/He's still beautiful and real nonetheless :-)
Kenya D. Morris
I'm the Momma! Yes it is possible to love at first sight. That would be the visual. However, looks can be deceiving because, what looks good can turn out to be not so good. Now you've wasted a valuable emotion on LOOKS. Without knowing the true meaning of 'love' would limit you to accepting someone base on 'first sight' theory. In time, you can grow to love someone with the 1 Cor love definition(God's kind of love) beyond 'first sight' because, you got to be willing to hang in there, when 'first sight' appearences change. Ideally, when we first meet a person we find them physically appealing to look at. And because of that we think we are in love or we love them. Trust me after a period of time, appearences change (looks become deceiving) that when real love should kick in. There comes a time in a relationship (I'm speaking of marriage) where physical intimacy is no longer of importance. That's when real love kicks in.
@Kenya- I love the way you broke that down. I think I would have to agree more with you now than my intial argument. You've actually expanded my mindset on what love is or supposed to be. For that I thank and appreciate you!
@Dukes (AKA Anonymous, AKA My Mother)- The only thing that you wrote that I would disagree with, is your words that love is an emotion. Thank you for finally commenting on something though! :-P lol
Post a Comment