Ability To Love

[Jaime]

People can have disorders that make it incapable of loving. If someone has a borderline personality disorder or anti social, talking to them about love would be like talking to me about physics.

It can happen. I'm not suggesting that this girl suffers from that. But I am suggesting that therapy can help.

[carrdero]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1386997' date='Sep 17 2007, 10:22 AM']People can have disorders that make it incapable of loving. If someone has a borderline personality disorder or anti social, talking to them about love would be like talking to me about physics.

It can happen. I'm not suggesting that this girl suffers from that. But I am suggesting that therapy can help.[/quote]
Some people could have unqualified role models or unpleasant experiences. Sometimes before one can know what love is, they have to know what love is not.

Edited September 17, 2007 by carrdero

[Jaime]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1387158' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:38 PM']Some people could have unqualified role models or unpleasant experiences. Sometimes before one can know what love is, they have to know what love is not.[/quote]

I'm not sure why you're quoting me.

[prose]

I dated a guy once who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He explained to me that he would never be capable of "feeling" love for me because his medications basically muted all of his feelings. So, as he explained, he could never "Feel" love.

HOWEVER, he was adamant that he could still "love" me.

I think, looking back, that he did love me, as he knew how, and as he was capable. He chose to treat me with respect, honor me, and hold me to high regard. He never degraded me (well, at least he tried not to), and he never just shoved me aside like dirt.

He was one of the best examples, to me, about how love is sometimes a choice.

He never understood love, but he certainly was never evil or broken. He loved as he knew how, and it was even more difficult for him because he never "felt" it.

I hope this makes sense.

[carrdero]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1387179' date='Sep 17 2007, 03:04 PM']I'm not sure why you're quoting me.[/quote]
To explain that there are also other reasons than the ones you posted.

[pippo buono]

An absolute necessity for love is the ability and the freedom to choose. More specifically, it is the choice of God and neighbor in one's faith and moral life that does not seek one's self interest. Therefore, as long as human beings continue to be born with this capacity, they will always be capable of love.

But hot stuff brought up some excellent food for thought: What of those people with major disorders? Are they capable of these moral choices?

[Semalsia]

[quote]Love for others means that we choose to make THEIR needs as important or more important than our own needs.[/quote]


I've been kind of thinking about this and it doesn't feel quite right. If we can choose to love someone, then we can also choose [i]not[/i] to love someone. But if we can choose not to love someone, then doesn't that mean we didn't really love them in the first place? So which comes first, the love or the choice? It's a chicken and an egg problem and they should come at same time. But it's not really a choice then, is it?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1393505' date='Sep 26 2007, 03:35 PM']I've been kind of thinking about this and it doesn't feel quite right. If we can choose to love someone, then we can also choose [i]not[/i] to love someone. But if we can choose not to love someone, then doesn't that mean we didn't really love them in the first place? So which comes first, the love or the choice? It's a chicken and an egg problem and they should come at same time. But it's not really a choice then, is it?[/quote]
Yes you can choose not to love someone, since love is an act of will as well a an emotion.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1393505' date='Sep 26 2007, 02:35 PM']I've been kind of thinking about this and it doesn't feel quite right. If we can choose to love someone, then we can also choose [i]not[/i] to love someone. But if we can choose not to love someone, then doesn't that mean we didn't really love them in the first place? So which comes first, the love or the choice? It's a chicken and an egg problem and they should come at same time. But it's not really a choice then, is it?[/quote]

Yes, you can choose not to love someone. I would not recommend this avenue of free will however. However, love is a choice, and does not follow nor precede. Now, feelings of love can at times flow though the choices we make, but love itself is not the emotion we all call "love". I wish I could explain better, however, the English language, though it has the largest vocabulary in sum words, lacks horribly the many forms and feelings that are called "love".

It is possible to love someone, then to betray that love. It is also possible to redeem that betrayal, though it is a harder, and sometimes painful to do so. Consider Peter, who but a couple short hours before pledged his life's blood for Jesus, then denies Him three times. Even so, he was forgiven, though the price of that betrayal left three wounds upon his heart.

We are called to love everyone. We certainly won't fall in love with them. Some people are vile, nasty people. We still have to love them. This all sounds well and good, but what does it mean? Well, everyone we meet, we must treat with the dignity and respect of someone made in the likeness and image of God. Those close to us must be treated with honor, and those we have never met before must be honored as well, and even our enemies we must respect and treat with decency and politeness. Now, mind you, I'm a poor example of this love, and I am the first to admit it, however I am trying to improve. Always trying to improve...

[uruviel]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1385612' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:22 PM']Let's say someone hasn't ever really understood what love means. She's never been in love or loved anyone, as far as she can tell. She always gets confused when others speak about love.

Would you consider her to be a bad person? Would you think that there's something wrong with her? Is she broken? Would she be intrinsically immoral and evil? Can she be a good person?

The reason I ask this is because of the great emphasis on love by the Church. Love your neighbor, God is love, God is good (love is good). I wonder what this means spiritually. Would she, being incapable of love, be as far a way from God as possible?
I'm not sure if this is an debate, but I didn't know where else to put it. I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.[/quote]

I don't know what has already been stated in this thread, because I didn't take the time to read more of the reply's, so pardon me if I repeat anything you've already read.

Love is not only an emotion, it is a choice. When you choose to not treat your neighbor with unkindness, when you choose to be charitable, it is not limited to the emotion. Your emotions should have little control over your actions if you trust in God. Love as an emotion is not the vehicle for virtue, because you cannot force your heart to feel a certain way. We cannot choose our emotions. Thus it would be impossible to live a life controlled by them, it would be more than hectic! Your good actions to your neighbor, and the things you do for God should not rely on your emotions, but on your faith and your will to please even those you do not love. And when you pray, you would not say, "I love you Lord" for that would be a lie. You would say "I do not love you God, but I desire with all of my heart to love you." He will teach you how so long as you will.
If someone could not, for some abnormal way, love with an emotion, where as I cannot judge her soul, I cannot imagine that salvation would be denied her if she CHOSE God even when she could not love with her emotion. Love is an act of the will, not just an emotion. If our lives were based on our feelings, and our hearts expressions, we would be living for no one else but ourselves.