Thursday, April 16, 2009


Follow the logic. Help me out if I am wrong.

Premise #1 - the following definition of love is an accurate one.
Love is choosing what is best for another despite the cost to yourself.
-My own definition cobbled together from several others.

Premise #2 - the following statement is true.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
from Matt 22:39 / Mark 12:31 / Lev 19:18 / Gal 5:14 / James 2:8

Premise #3 - if we love as we defined love in #1 and we follow the command of #2, then we are supposed to choose what is best for ourselves, even if it costs us everything, including our lives.

Premise #4 - the "best choice" for ourselves is eternal beatitude, also known as heaven.

Premise #5 - if the best choice for ourselves is heaven and we are to love others as ourselves, then we should love others enough to choose what would help get them to heaven - even if it costs us everything, including relationships, our reputations, our possessions, or our lives.

Makes sense to me. If only it were easy.


eric said...

If it were easy you would have no investment in it. It wouldn't be yours. Almost as if it existed outside of free will. Precisely why it IS so difficult is why it is love.

marycatelli said...

Premise 1: Love is the desire for the good of another. The unfallen angels, the saints in heaven, and God all love each other without their being any cost to themselves.

Wise, therefore, to leave cost out of it. Especially as there are those who confuse themselves and think that because something costs them, it is therefore loving.

Marcel said...

Mary - the problem I see with your correction is that "desire" does not equal love. I can desire to do something, but if I choose not to, then it isn't love. We must choose it.

I see your point about "cost". But, my definition says regardless of it, not that it is always necessary.