The Weirdness of Commanding Love
February 3, 2012
Howard P. Kainz
The greatest commandment, Jesus tells us, is: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Well, of course. But a commandment? I tend to empathize with the Danish Philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, who writes, in Works of Love,
‘You shall love...’ is the very mark of Christian love and is its distinctive characteristic–that it contains this apparent contradiction: to love is a duty.... Is it not remarkable that in the whole New Testament there is not a single word about erotic love in the sense in which the poet celebrates it and paganism idolized it? Is it not remarkable that in the whole New Testament there is not a single verse about friendship in the sense in which the poet celebrates it and paganism cultivated it?
But how can love ever be commanded? How can it be a duty? If it is a duty, doesn’t this detract from its worth? Isn’t love something that happens spontaneously when we are confronted with something or someone that is immensely good and attractive? It almost seems that the commandment to love is a command to do the impossible. Sigmund Freud, in his Civilization and Its Discontents, categorizes it as an unhealthy psychological ideal that can become embedded in a culture:
‘The commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is the strongest defense against human aggressiveness and an excellent example of the unpsychological proceeedings of the cultural super-ego. The commandment is impossible to fulfill; such an enormous inflation of love can only lower its value, not get rid of the difficulty.
In other words, the commandment, although noble and imbedded in Christian culture, seems to imply per impossibile that we can have control of our inner emotions—something for which we can grit our teeth, stiffen our upper lip, and just . . . do.
Could anyone, for example, credibly order even their children to love? Rather, we order our children to do things connected with love: “Be generous with your little sister.” “Forgive the boy who said that mean thing.” “Give your Aunt Emma a kiss, even though she scolded you.” “Pray for those bad people you heard about.”
The challenge seems greater when it comes to loving enemies; and immensely greater with God, whom we cannot see.
One might surmise from Our Lord’s admonition that we can, by an act of will, just start loving God, of whom even the best of us have only the slightest knowledge and little first-hand experience. Of course, grace is supposed to help us overcome recalcitrant feelings. But what if we just don’t seem to have the grace?
The key seems to be in the prepositional phrases that accompany the great commandment:
“With all your mind.” We can, by an act of will, work to increase our knowledge of God—in the Scriptures; in creation, especially living things; and in particular by recognizing the goodness of fellow human beings, developing the ability to discern the image of God in others (maybe, in some exceptionally difficult cases, looking for redeeming qualities or insufficiently activated potentialities).
“With all your heart.” We are told, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be.” And we can control where we put our priorities, and what we “treasure.” We can make efforts to move our focus from distractions that interfere with our service of God. Even in prayer or meditation, the effort to avoid distractions and a wandering imagination is itself a loving act.
“With all your soul.” It is quite possible to carry out tasks just bodily or mechanically; or half-heartedly; or with resignation; or with commitment. We do have control over whether our “soul” is invested in what we are doing.
And “loving our neighbor as ourselves” is basically a restatement of the Golden Rule—doing unto others as we would want them to do to us. We are “hardwired” to love ourselves. So the commandment consists in extending to others the same rights and care that we would want from others—acts which may or may not be accompanied by feelings of love.
It must have been difficult for Jesus’ fellow Jews to understand that “the whole law and the prophets” were based on this commandment of love. The multiple ceremonial laws and sacrifices in the Old Testament were said to number exactly 613—even more than the laws we are faced with in our country, governing income taxes, Obamacare, etc. The Old Testament laws included laws in the Decalogue about avoiding theft, murder, adultery, lying, idolatry, and working on the Sabbath; laws regarding circumcision and ritual purity; abstaining from pork and other forbidden meats; observance of Passover, Atonement, and the other five feasts; tithing; laws regarding marriage, slavery, retribution for crimes, etc. Carrying out these duties in the right spirit could translate for Jews into the love of God and neighbor that Jesus characterized as the “greatest” commandment. The danger, of course, was that some Jews, like some of the Pharisees, would become involved in this law-keeping mechanically and ritualistically—the sort of legalism that St. Paul in his epistles contrasted with Christian freedom.
But for the Jews in Jesus’ time, as well as for contemporary Christians, the fulfillment of the greatest commandment boils down to the duties of increasing our knowledge of God, constantly resetting our priorities and purifying our intentions, and implementing the Golden Rule.
Howard P. Kainz is Professor Emeritus in the Philosophy Department at Marquette University.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.3.2012 | 5:44am
Michael PS says:
"To show that the true Jews and the true Christians have but the same religion.- The religion of the Jews seemed to consist essentially in the fatherhood of Abraham, in circumcision, in sacrifices, in ceremonies, in the Ark, in the temple, in Jerusalem, and, finally, in the law, and in the covenant with Moses. I say that it consisted in none of those things, but only in the love of God, and that God disregarded [réprouvait] all the other things. " Pascal, Pensées 610
2.3.2012 | 8:11am
patricksarsfield says:
In the first place, the author is wrong to say:
"The multiple ceremonial laws and sacrifices in the Old Testament were said to number exactly 613—even more than the laws we are faced with in our country, governing income taxes, Obamacare, etc. "
In truth, Obamacare alone is longer than those 613 plus their surround (the text of the Bible).
More importantly, to call God's command "weird" is an unfortunate choice of words. As though God were a witch.
Likewise, it is hardly Christian to say that "If it is a duty, doesn’t this detract from its worth? Isn’t love something that happens spontaneously when we are confronted with something or someone that is immensely good and attractive?" God so loved the Whole World--the bad and the ugly, as well as the good and the attractive--that He gave it His Only Begotten Son. God in His Wisdom is saying that we ought to love them as He has loved us. That is good enough for me. I believe that His ways are so far above mine that I ought to heed what He says, not question it.
"The multiple ceremonial laws and sacrifices in the Old Testament were said to number exactly 613—even more than the laws we are faced with in our country, governing income taxes, Obamacare, etc. "
In truth, Obamacare alone is longer than those 613 plus their surround (the text of the Bible).
More importantly, to call God's command "weird" is an unfortunate choice of words. As though God were a witch.
Likewise, it is hardly Christian to say that "If it is a duty, doesn’t this detract from its worth? Isn’t love something that happens spontaneously when we are confronted with something or someone that is immensely good and attractive?" God so loved the Whole World--the bad and the ugly, as well as the good and the attractive--that He gave it His Only Begotten Son. God in His Wisdom is saying that we ought to love them as He has loved us. That is good enough for me. I believe that His ways are so far above mine that I ought to heed what He says, not question it.
2.3.2012 | 9:55am
jansci says:
Why do almost all Christian writers talk about Jesus and the Jews as if he were not a Jew. He was the uber Jew!!! It puts a weird confrrontational slant on whatHe is sayinghe was teaching not criricizing he was clarifying ...
2.3.2012 | 10:36am
Craig Roberts says:
It's only 'weird' in the sense that it is not 'natural'. Jesus knows that we require super-natural love to really obey the first commandment. That's why He sent the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit our 'love' will never be worthy of God.
2.3.2012 | 10:41am
Michael Black says:
No, it is not likely that Jesus' contemporaries found it difficult to understand his command to love. Quite apart from their presumed familiarity as Jews with the relevant text from Deuteronomy 6:5, Rabbi Hillel, who was still alive during Jesus' lifetime, summarised his view of the Law:
"What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellowman;
this is the whole Law. The rest is but commentary."
I suggest Dr. Kainz is merely repeating an age old but unfounded Christian prejudice against rabbinic Judaism in his suggestion that it was dominated by legalism.
"What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellowman;
this is the whole Law. The rest is but commentary."
I suggest Dr. Kainz is merely repeating an age old but unfounded Christian prejudice against rabbinic Judaism in his suggestion that it was dominated by legalism.
2.3.2012 | 11:44am
GC says:
Prof Kainz says: “It must have been difficult for Jesus’ fellow Jews to understand that ‘the whole law and the prophets’ were based on this commandment of love.”
I don’t understand why so many Christians seem to think that the only way to make Jesus seem wise/great/divine is by making ridiculous caricatures of the spiritual crudeness of his contemporary Jews and the Jewish religion. Prof Kainz’ comments here are - at best - bizarre. Why on earth would it have been difficult for the Jews of Jesus’ time to have ‘understood’ that the law and the prophets were based on the commandment of love? After all Jesus’ second great commandment is simply a quotation from Leviticus 19:18: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, which would have been perfectly familiar to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries. Not only that, but the great Mishnaic Sage, Hillel – who died while Jesus was still a child – explicitly took a form of this verse to be central to the whole outlook of the Torah and the Law. He said to a prospective proselyte: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat, 31a). Furthermore, this same Hillel – considered one of the greatest of the Rabbis, before Jesus had even been born –said: “Be like the students of Aaron, who love peace and pursue peace, who love all creatures and bring them close to the Torah” (Tractate Avot, 1:12).
And it is hardly as though Jesus’ first great commandment would have shocked the Jews with its originality! After all, the Rabbis had chosen Deuteronomy 6:5 to stand at the pinnacle of both the Jewish daily morning and evening prayer services: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind”. Is it really plausible to think – as Prof Kainz says – that “It must have been difficult for Jesus’ fellow Jews to understand that ‘the whole law and the prophets’ were based on this commandment of love”? I find this extremely patronising, as well as ridiculous.
I am not saying that Jesus and the Rabbis were of exactly the same opinion. Certainly it is possible – indeed plausible – to see nuanced differences between Jesus and his Rabbinic-Mishnaic predecessors. But what precisely those differences are is hardly easy to tease out. And Jesus is adding to a conversation on precisely these topics (the centrality of love, the relation between love of man and love of God, the relation between the command to love and the other laws), that was already fully up and running well before he was around. Thus one could certainly see Jesus as contributing to this conversation, but hardly as revolutionising it in such a way that would have been “difficult for the Jews to understand”!
When I read this kind of comment by Christians, it makes me suspicious of whether they really believe in Jesus’ divinity, and whether they really believe in the divinity of the Christian religion. For it seems that the only way that they can get Jesus and Christianity to look special, or to stand out, is by playing it off against a false, caricatured, and slandered distortion of the Jewish religion. Why is that? To think that one’s God only stands out in a good light if one slanders the others who were around at the time is hardly to think very highly of one’s God...
I expect more of First Things.
I don’t understand why so many Christians seem to think that the only way to make Jesus seem wise/great/divine is by making ridiculous caricatures of the spiritual crudeness of his contemporary Jews and the Jewish religion. Prof Kainz’ comments here are - at best - bizarre. Why on earth would it have been difficult for the Jews of Jesus’ time to have ‘understood’ that the law and the prophets were based on the commandment of love? After all Jesus’ second great commandment is simply a quotation from Leviticus 19:18: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, which would have been perfectly familiar to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries. Not only that, but the great Mishnaic Sage, Hillel – who died while Jesus was still a child – explicitly took a form of this verse to be central to the whole outlook of the Torah and the Law. He said to a prospective proselyte: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary" (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat, 31a). Furthermore, this same Hillel – considered one of the greatest of the Rabbis, before Jesus had even been born –said: “Be like the students of Aaron, who love peace and pursue peace, who love all creatures and bring them close to the Torah” (Tractate Avot, 1:12).
And it is hardly as though Jesus’ first great commandment would have shocked the Jews with its originality! After all, the Rabbis had chosen Deuteronomy 6:5 to stand at the pinnacle of both the Jewish daily morning and evening prayer services: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind”. Is it really plausible to think – as Prof Kainz says – that “It must have been difficult for Jesus’ fellow Jews to understand that ‘the whole law and the prophets’ were based on this commandment of love”? I find this extremely patronising, as well as ridiculous.
I am not saying that Jesus and the Rabbis were of exactly the same opinion. Certainly it is possible – indeed plausible – to see nuanced differences between Jesus and his Rabbinic-Mishnaic predecessors. But what precisely those differences are is hardly easy to tease out. And Jesus is adding to a conversation on precisely these topics (the centrality of love, the relation between love of man and love of God, the relation between the command to love and the other laws), that was already fully up and running well before he was around. Thus one could certainly see Jesus as contributing to this conversation, but hardly as revolutionising it in such a way that would have been “difficult for the Jews to understand”!
When I read this kind of comment by Christians, it makes me suspicious of whether they really believe in Jesus’ divinity, and whether they really believe in the divinity of the Christian religion. For it seems that the only way that they can get Jesus and Christianity to look special, or to stand out, is by playing it off against a false, caricatured, and slandered distortion of the Jewish religion. Why is that? To think that one’s God only stands out in a good light if one slanders the others who were around at the time is hardly to think very highly of one’s God...
I expect more of First Things.
2.3.2012 | 12:23pm
Howard Kainz says:
@Michael Black: The negative rule, "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellowman," is called the Silver Rule, and besides the Old Testament is also found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. The Positive version, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is the Golden Rule that Jesus commanded for His followers.
2.3.2012 | 1:10pm
Howard Kainz says:
@patricksarsfield: There are more than 613 regulations in Obamacare? You've just ruined my day! As to the "Weird" in the title, that was an editorial change. My original submitted title was "On COMMANDING Love." Editors often march to a different drummer.
2.3.2012 | 3:02pm
Gil says:
"But how can love ever be commanded? How can it be a duty? If it is a duty, doesn’t this detract from its worth?"
This is the question, and one like it: How can we be commanded to be perfect as our Father is perfect?
I liken it to St. Thomas and St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila who, after entering a contemplative life—a praying all the time, with the occasional slipping away, if only subtlety; a joyful participation in the life of God, what we call charity—discovered how rich this life of praying is, and then proceeded in earnest to help us journey through our rabid willfulness, our resistance to residing in God's Love in our rabid commitment to our willing-the-legalistic-good-on-our-own-terms form of Christianity. And often the results of these efforts end in Christians being addicted to the methodologies, to the entanglements of idolizing the command itself and losing sight of the goal: instead of being inspired to let go and live in the Love that is God and is being pointed to within the command, they become trapped in the command itself, what they now perceive as a legalistic duty instead of a path promised to lead us to the freedom of Love.
Saintly men and woman accepted he command to love, and after finding themselves inside and living that Love, they proceeded to help other Christians to follow the command until all the methodologies of abiding in the command fall away and find themselves living and breathing Love.
This is the question, and one like it: How can we be commanded to be perfect as our Father is perfect?
I liken it to St. Thomas and St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila who, after entering a contemplative life—a praying all the time, with the occasional slipping away, if only subtlety; a joyful participation in the life of God, what we call charity—discovered how rich this life of praying is, and then proceeded in earnest to help us journey through our rabid willfulness, our resistance to residing in God's Love in our rabid commitment to our willing-the-legalistic-good-on-our-own-terms form of Christianity. And often the results of these efforts end in Christians being addicted to the methodologies, to the entanglements of idolizing the command itself and losing sight of the goal: instead of being inspired to let go and live in the Love that is God and is being pointed to within the command, they become trapped in the command itself, what they now perceive as a legalistic duty instead of a path promised to lead us to the freedom of Love.
Saintly men and woman accepted he command to love, and after finding themselves inside and living that Love, they proceeded to help other Christians to follow the command until all the methodologies of abiding in the command fall away and find themselves living and breathing Love.
2.3.2012 | 4:14pm
Cliff says:
I agree with Mr. Black. Even certain Jewish circles (namely, non-religious) cave under the weight of the christianized "pharisaic jews" motif so imbedded in our interpretation of NT "Jews." On the other hand, practicing Jews will never cave under the notion of "legalism" to describe their religion because the entire law is ascribe under love. God gave the law out of love for his people; he gave the law to begin an era counter to its pagan contemporaries, and the "love for thy law" is replete throughout the psalms as God's own will (esp. Ps. 119).
Equivocating Judaism with legalism is a very old and tired notion and is the antithesis of the gospel message. Jesus did not come to take away the law but came to fulfill it; try as we might, I don't think anyone would argue that Jesus came to "fulfill" Jewish legalism.
Equivocating Judaism with legalism is a very old and tired notion and is the antithesis of the gospel message. Jesus did not come to take away the law but came to fulfill it; try as we might, I don't think anyone would argue that Jesus came to "fulfill" Jewish legalism.
2.3.2012 | 4:53pm
John W. Martens says:
Interesting article, though I agree that there is a strange undercurrent in it of separating "Jews" and "Christians" at the time of Jesus and repeating a trope that should have been put to bed long ago: "the sort of legalism that St. Paul in his epistles contrasted with Christian freedom." Paul contrasts the Law with Christ, not legalism, and states that Christians fulfill the Law through love (Galatians 5:14). On the topic of fulfilling the Law, see the piece in http://www.biblejunkies.com/ from yesterday, my short discussion of Paul's claim that the Philippians and Thessalonians should love one another "more and more" and that they (at least the Thessalonians) have been "taught by God" to do so. It is, to my mind, a means by which to understand how the command of God to love might be fulfilled.
2.3.2012 | 6:45pm
Howard Kainz says:
@GC: Possibly most Jews saw the connection between the law and the commandment of love very well. But the Gospels give quite a few examples of Jews attacking Jesus for breaking the Sabbath (Mt. 12:2, 12:10-14; Mk. 2:24, 3:2; Luke 6:7, 13:14; Jn. 5:10, 9:16); for not following rituals for washing hands (Mt: 15:2; Mk. 7:2-4); for associating with sinners (Mt. 9:11, Mk. 2:16, Lk. 5:30, 7:39, 15:2); for eating prohibited foods (Mt. 15:11); and for ignoring laws of stoning for adultery (John 8:3). Jesus also castigated some for tithing at the expense of family obligations (Mt. 15:4-6). But as I mentioned in the article, regarding the duties of the Mosaic law, "carrying out these duties in the right spirit could translate for Jews into the love of God and neighbor that Jesus characterized as the 'greatest” commandment'." Of course my main point in this article was to point out the philosophical issue that we don't usually connect love with "duty," and my reference to the Jewish law, which Jesus came to fulfill, and not to destroy (Mt. 5:17), was just an example meant to show how love and duty can be either at odds or coordinated.
2.3.2012 | 7:52pm
patricksarsfield says:
Prof. Kainz,
You ask:
"There are more than 613 regulations in Obamacare?"
The Act is literally thousands of provisions long. Per the Tax Lawyer's Blog, an early (2009) edition of the Obamacare Bill already was 1900 pages and that would itself have been 12 pages longer than the entire KJV Bible (http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/10/29/obamacare-bill-is-12-times-the-size-of-the-u-s-constitution/ ).
Once the politicians "edited" the bill, it ended up being 2700 pages ( http://trentderr.com/2011/03/28/obamacare-%E2%80%93-8-metrics-they-don%E2%80%99t-want-you-to-know/ ).
So, yes, Obamacare has a good deal more than 613 regulations, even at 4 pages a regulation.
You ask:
"There are more than 613 regulations in Obamacare?"
The Act is literally thousands of provisions long. Per the Tax Lawyer's Blog, an early (2009) edition of the Obamacare Bill already was 1900 pages and that would itself have been 12 pages longer than the entire KJV Bible (http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2009/10/29/obamacare-bill-is-12-times-the-size-of-the-u-s-constitution/ ).
Once the politicians "edited" the bill, it ended up being 2700 pages ( http://trentderr.com/2011/03/28/obamacare-%E2%80%93-8-metrics-they-don%E2%80%99t-want-you-to-know/ ).
So, yes, Obamacare has a good deal more than 613 regulations, even at 4 pages a regulation.
2.4.2012 | 9:15am
NPSmith says:
Nice article. Helpful.
If only Obamacare & IRS regulations would be so succinct!
I wonder if government regulations were fewer, if we might be more urgently compelled to love one another -- instead of tithing ever more to an ever-growing government and expecting the state to do it for us -- remotely, dependably, soullessly.
If only Obamacare & IRS regulations would be so succinct!
I wonder if government regulations were fewer, if we might be more urgently compelled to love one another -- instead of tithing ever more to an ever-growing government and expecting the state to do it for us -- remotely, dependably, soullessly.
2.4.2012 | 3:29pm
G says:
“ ‘You shall love your fellow as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18). Rabbi Akiva says: This is the greatest principle of the Torah.” (Sifra, Kedoshim 4:12).
“Ben Azzai said: ' "This is the book of the descendants of Adam" (Genesis 5:1) is a great principle of the Torah'. Rabbi Akiva said: ' "And you shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) is an even greater principle'. Hence, [from Ben Azzai's statement you can deduce that] you must not say: 'Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbour be put to shame. Rabbi Tanchuma said: If you do, know Whom you put to shame, [for] 'in the likeness of God did [God] make him' (Genesis 5:1)”. (Bereshit Rabbah 24:7)
(taken from: http://www.tabick.abel.co.uk/love_of_neighbour.html)
“Ben Azzai said: ' "This is the book of the descendants of Adam" (Genesis 5:1) is a great principle of the Torah'. Rabbi Akiva said: ' "And you shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) is an even greater principle'. Hence, [from Ben Azzai's statement you can deduce that] you must not say: 'Since I have been put to shame, let my neighbour be put to shame. Rabbi Tanchuma said: If you do, know Whom you put to shame, [for] 'in the likeness of God did [God] make him' (Genesis 5:1)”. (Bereshit Rabbah 24:7)
(taken from: http://www.tabick.abel.co.uk/love_of_neighbour.html)
2.4.2012 | 4:56pm
Goodman says:
A good article.
No doubt the Jewish people knew "love"; but it was not quite as central to their commandments, as it was to become, for the Hellenized Judaism that was to lead to Christianity.
And the author's main point here is good too: it is strange indeed, to think that we could be commanded to "love"; most would think that love is a spontaneous thing; no one would think that we can be successfully commanded to love. And yet? Just as the author says, it finally makes some sense. No doubt, many people have thought deeply, when told not to "hate"; when told to love. And then? When their minds saw the sense of that, their emotions followed.
Interestingly by the way, therefore the "mind" plays a role here. And though many think the Bible condemned the "mind," in fact, the Bible orders us to have "the mind of Christ," after all.
So that it is finally? Both "hearts" ... but also "minds," that are involved in becoming Christians. Which is a point worth making.
Today, many Christians are rather sentimentalistic; they think it is just about "love" and sentiment; while they ignore and fail to develop their "mind"s. But here the author begins to make a very important point: finally, our minds are part of even, the command to "love." And are central after all, to becoming a true Christian.
As the Bible said, after all.
No doubt the Jewish people knew "love"; but it was not quite as central to their commandments, as it was to become, for the Hellenized Judaism that was to lead to Christianity.
And the author's main point here is good too: it is strange indeed, to think that we could be commanded to "love"; most would think that love is a spontaneous thing; no one would think that we can be successfully commanded to love. And yet? Just as the author says, it finally makes some sense. No doubt, many people have thought deeply, when told not to "hate"; when told to love. And then? When their minds saw the sense of that, their emotions followed.
Interestingly by the way, therefore the "mind" plays a role here. And though many think the Bible condemned the "mind," in fact, the Bible orders us to have "the mind of Christ," after all.
So that it is finally? Both "hearts" ... but also "minds," that are involved in becoming Christians. Which is a point worth making.
Today, many Christians are rather sentimentalistic; they think it is just about "love" and sentiment; while they ignore and fail to develop their "mind"s. But here the author begins to make a very important point: finally, our minds are part of even, the command to "love." And are central after all, to becoming a true Christian.
As the Bible said, after all.
2.5.2012 | 5:57pm
claudio says:
Jesus said that because he was a good jew. You love precisely because is a Commandement. Conscience came later with Paul, who took it from the stoics.
2.5.2012 | 11:01pm
DIGDIGBY says:
Monsignor Gilbey of England in his superb little book 'We Believe' says that love is an act of will NOT of 'feelings'. Feelings may or may not be 'helpful' to love. He also says that 'love' and 'like' are totally confused in the modern world. If we were commanded to "Like the Lord your God" we would see how absurd that is. But what we often call love is really 'like' - a subjective preference that can change in an hour. Love is a 'free will conviction infused with faith'.
2.6.2012 | 1:28pm
Imdb says:
Acting with free will is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility.
