To defend my statement about love, I would like to examine what it means to love. I said that love it not a feeling. Love may make you feel good, it may make you happy and all giddy inside, and that is good. But love also can make you feel like crap, love is tough. If love can cause any number of feelings, how can it itself be a feeling? Simply put, it cannot be a feeling. Love is a state that is permanent and lasting. It cannot be ephemeral. If you think that you're in love, but you get your jollies from another person and it lasts a week, then that undermines the true power of love.
Love is not always easy: a lot of times, it hurts and it feels awful. Feeling "good" (by the modern understanding of "good," not "Good") is always. It's much easier to leave the person you if they mess up than to stay with them. It hurts sometimes to tell someone that you love that they might not accept. But in order to truly love, both parties must be in a
state of complete trust and faith in the other person. If love were only a feeling that is the same as "feeling good," then people could eat, drink, or do any number of other activities to reach that same "feeling good."
Furthermore, you don't say to your loved one "I feel like I love you." You tell her or him "I love you." There, no feeling is involved. You are saying that you trust that person and wish to spend time with him or her and that you are willing to live your life for that other person. You are not telling him or her that you get butterflies in your stomach whenever you see him or her (while, that very well might be a side-affect of love). To limit love to a feeling is to really undermine love
s true meaning and power.
Also, I as I figured, I would get a mouthful from somebody about my remarks concerning Easter. We wouldn’t have Valentine’s day today as we know it if it were not for a Catholic Saint who
died professing his love for Jesus, the “zombie” of whom you spoke. I was not attacking any religious points of view (or lack thereof) that you may hold, and I certainly would appreciate it if you did not attack mine on this friendly board.
Come on people. Stop whining every single holiday because you have to buy crap for greedy people. It's just how it works. Like taxes for your social life.
I am afraid that this is an extremely shallow and cynical view of the human person and society. Shouldn’t friendship be something
freely given, and not bought? Gifts are great, they are a sign of friendship and fraternal love (the Greeks called this
Philos). Gifts, however, are not “taxes” as you suggest. You seem to say that all holidays are the same as tax day. Most people, including myself, loathe tax time. Using simple Aristotelian logic, we can be sure that you, too, hate all holidays.
Taxes are expected, as part of a social contract of sorts between man and his government. Gifts do not act in the same way at all. “I am your friend only if I get
x, y, and z for Christmas (or should I say
the holiday that falls on December 25?).” I desire no friendships that involve my bank account as its main source. To reduce gifts to “social taxes” is to suggest that we have no true friends, just partners in business. While gifts may be symbols of our affection toward our friends, they cannot BE our friendships. Friendship must be based on a open, free choice to stand by another person through all times, regardless of gifts.
I can honestly that my best friend since 4th grade has still never purchased for me one gift. I have returned the favor. We remain best friends, and no “social taxes” are involved.
I am sorry that I wrote so much. I certainly hope that this does not evolve into a theological debate or a flame war. I am sincerely hoping to simply share thoughts. Please, if you will, be respectful in your responses.
Thank you.
