Love or Commitment? Which is better to have?

[RDKirk]

I listened again to the song "Do you love me?" from the play "Fiddler on the Roof."

It gave me pause to wonder: Which is better, love or commitment?

I think I'd rather someone be committed to my benefit rather than being in love with me.

Is there even a functional difference? If a person is committed, does love matter?

 

[AlexB23]

I listened again to the song "Do you love me?" from the play "Fiddler on the Roof."

It gave me pause to wonder: Which is better, love or commitment?

I think I'd rather someone be committed to my benefit rather than being in love with me.

Is there even a functional difference? If a person is committed, does love matter?

Man, this question straddles ethics and Christianity. I will try to answer, with both ethics and Christian verses.


Alright, here is the sauce:

According to the Bible and ethical concepts, both love and commitment are important in relationships, and they are interconnected rather than mutually exclusive. Let's explore some relevant verses and ethical principles to help answer your question.

Firstly, the Bible emphasizes the importance of love in relationships. In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV), Paul describes love as patient, kind, and not easily angered. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. In Ephesians 5:25 (NIV), husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

However, commitment is also essential in relationships. In Proverbs 20:24 (NIV), it says that a man's steps are directed by the LORD, but he delights in firm plans. Committed relationships provide stability and security for individuals, allowing them to grow and develop together.

Moreover, love and commitment strengthen each other. In Song of Solomon 8:6 (NIV), it says that love is as strong as death, and its jealousy unyielding as the grave. Love can lead to a deep sense of commitment, while commitment fosters the growth of love.

Regarding your question about whether it's better for someone to be committed rather than being in love with you, both have their merits and challenges. Love can bring great joy but also pain, while commitment provides stability and security.

Therefore, it's not a question of which is better, but rather recognizing that both love and commitment are crucial elements in healthy relationships. If someone is committed to your benefit, it doesn't negate the importance of their love for you. In fact, commitment can deepen and strengthen that love over time.

TLDR: Both love and commitment are essential in relationships. Each support each other and provide stability, joy, and growth for individuals. Therefore, neither is better than the other – they work together to create strong, healthy relationships.

 

[Bradskii]

I think I'd rather someone be committed to my benefit rather than being in love with me.

There's a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. I'd say that if you love someone you are also committed to them. But you might be committed and not love. So I'll go the former. You get both.

 

[RDKirk]

One of the things notable in the song "Do you love me?" is that the couple committed themselves to one another before there was love. The commitment was there before love and perhaps through the stretches that there was not love.

But I notice in so many of today's Western marriages, love is claimed, but no commitment is made...and the marriages fail.

Nearly all biblical marriages were arranged, whether Hebrew, Greek, or Roman. The commitment was made before love was even a notion. So, does scripture really even discern "love" in Western terms, or is scriptural "love" always actually commitment?

 

[durangodawood]

I listened again to the song "Do you love me?" from the play "Fiddler on the Roof."

It gave me pause to wonder: Which is better, love or commitment?

I think I'd rather someone be committed to my benefit rather than being in love with me.

Is there even a functional difference? If a person is committed, does love matter?

We ask way too much of the word "love".

For instance we have "in love" which is like this wonderful accumulation of feeling-chemicals. We might tell the object of those feelings "I love you".

Then we also have senses of "love" which are just enduring care and concern for another's well being. We might tell that person "I love you".

I wont even get into "I love ice cream".

 

[RDKirk]

We ask way too much of the word "love".

For instance we have "in love" which is like this wonderful accumulation of feeling-chemicals. We might tell the object of those feelings "I love you".

Then we also have senses of "love" which are just enduring care and concern for another's well being. We might tell that person "I love you".

I wont even get into "I love ice cream".

Well, some people are deeply committed to ice cream.

 

[durangodawood]

One of the things notable in the song "Do you love me?" is that the couple committed themselves to one another before there was love. The commitment was there before love and perhaps through the stretches that there was not love.

But I notice in so many of today's Western marriages, love is claimed, but no commitment is made...and the marriages fail.

Nearly all biblical marriages were arranged, whether Hebrew, Greek, or Roman. The commitment was made before love was even a notion. So, does scripture really even discern "love" in Western terms, or is scriptural "love" always actually commitment?

Ive heard of the supposed wisdom of growing feelings of love from a starting point of commitment.

Otoh I think we each have important natural affinities for certain people over others, and blind commitment can produce a bad fit thats continuously imperiled by contention and temptations of adultery.

 

[bèlla]

I know someone who doesn't love his companions but they love him in return and seem devoted. I don't think he's incapable of love. I suspect he chooses partners that allow him to maintain that stance. But there's a craving for something more that peeks out every now and then.

For me, love and commitment are intertwined and duty is the alternative. As it pertains to a companion, love may foster a sense of duty that reflects my commitment. But I will not have a man I don't love. Irrespective of his desire or qualities. I won't force the issue.

On the other hand, @RDKirk raises important questions. That's the tricky part if we're honest. Especially for singles. Most of us could have settled a long time ago. But we're holding out for this and that.

I have two songs in my head. Which is right?

I Would Do Anything for Love but I Won't Do That (Meatloaf)
Just for Your Love (Memphis Horns)

I'm in the latter camp. That's my nature with God in mind of course. But both perspectives have merit.

~bella

 

[JoyAlton]

Man, this question straddles ethics and Christianity. I will try to answer, with both ethics and Christian verses.


Alright, here is the sauce:

According to the Bible and ethical concepts, both love and commitment are important in relationships, and they are interconnected rather than mutually exclusive. Let's explore some relevant verses and ethical principles to help answer your question.

Firstly, the Bible emphasizes the importance of love in relationships. In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV), Paul describes love as patient, kind, and not easily angered. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. In Ephesians 5:25 (NIV), husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

However, commitment is also essential in relationships. In Proverbs 20:24 (NIV), it says that a man's steps are directed by the LORD, but he delights in firm plans. Committed relationships provide stability and security for individuals, allowing them to grow and develop together.

Moreover, love and commitment strengthen each other. In Song of Solomon 8:6 (NIV), it says that love is as strong as death, and its jealousy unyielding as the grave. Love can lead to a deep sense of commitment, while commitment fosters the growth of love.

Regarding your question about whether it's better for someone to be committed rather than being in love with you, both have their merits and challenges. Love can bring great joy but also pain, while commitment provides stability and security.

Therefore, it's not a question of which is better, but rather recognizing that both love and commitment are crucial elements in healthy relationships. If someone is committed to your benefit, it doesn't negate the importance of their love for you. In fact, commitment can deepen and strengthen that love over time.

TLDR: Both love and commitment are essential in relationships. Each support each other and provide stability, joy, and growth for individuals. Therefore, neither is better than the other – they work together to create strong, healthy relationships.

Here's another perspective I like. Love is an act of the will that expresses itself is good deeds toward others. So, in marriage, for example, the correct decision, when things get rough, is to use the will to do the right thing which always involves the good of the other. Secular society has confused the meaning of love to mean a feeling but feelings wax and wane. We are created to use our reason and will to control our feelings but society has taught us the opposite so that, when times get rough, we many times allow our feelings to override our will which often results in divorce. Then we find someone else only to often make the same mistake over and over simply because we do not have a healthy and correct understanding of love which is an act of the will to control our feeling which always change. In this way, commitment might be said to be a characteristic of love so that we use prudence and justice to seek to make the correct decisions which result in the good of the other. Now, having said all this, one could still say my words are merely semantics which is fine but I still believe what I've shared is worthwhile and has been missing from the conversation for too long. That is, love is not a feeling but an act of the will to make the best decisions for the good of the other. That's what Jesus did when He went to the cross giving us the ultimate example of love. God bless.

 

[RDKirk]

Otoh I think we each have important natural affinities for certain people over others, and blind commitment can produce a bad fit thats continuously imperiled by contention and temptations of adultery.

First, what is adultery?

Second, how does love do any better against contention and temptation than committment?

 

[RDKirk]

I know someone who doesn't love his companions but they love him in return and seem devoted. I don't think he's incapable of love. I suspect he chooses partners that allow him to maintain that stance. But there's a craving for something more that peeks out every now and then.

For me, love and commitment are intertwined and duty is the alternative. As it pertains to a companion, love may foster a sense of duty that reflects my commitment. But I will not have a man I don't love. Irrespective of his desire or qualities. I won't force the issue.

On the other hand, @RDKirk raises important questions. That's the tricky part if we're honest. Especially for singles. Most of us could have settled a long time ago. But we're holding out for this and that.

I have two songs in my head. Which is right?

I Would Do Anything for Love but I Won't Do That (Meatloaf)
Just for Your Love (Memphis Horns)

I'm in the latter camp. That's my nature with God in mind of course. But both perspectives have merit.

~bella

Being a deontological kind of person myself, I'd have to think a while to determine if there is a functional difference between commitment and duty. Both are matters of intention, whereas "love" as we commonly think of it, is not a matter of intention...but accident.

That's why I think "love" as the apostle Paul defined agape is probably better defined as commitment than what we call "love" today.

 

[durangodawood]

First, what is adultery?

Second, how does love do any better against contention and temptation than commitment?

First, adultery is having sex with someone who isnt your spouse when youre married.

Second, love can provide a natural bond between people. For a long term marriage to succeed I think you also need commitment. My concern was with people entering into a long term commitment absent any natural disposition (love, as you seem to call it) toward each other. I think they will wind up looking elsewhere, not just for hot sex, but for satisfying companionship.

 

[bèlla]

Being a deontological kind of person myself, I'd have to think a while to determine if there is a functional difference between commitment and duty. Both are matters of intention, whereas "love" as we commonly think of it, is not a matter of intention...but accident.

That's why I think "love" as the apostle Paul defined agape is probably better defined as commitment than what we call "love" today.

I view duty as the right course of action. It isn't dependent on love or commitment for compliance. The pair may be absent and the task is performed.

Agape deserves its on discussion. It isn't a guarantee but it takes a lot to break it. I spoke about it a couple of years ago with someone I've known over 20 years on the site and we weren't immune to fracture.

~bella

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I listened again to the song "Do you love me?" from the play "Fiddler on the Roof."

It gave me pause to wonder: Which is better, love or commitment?

I think I'd rather someone be committed to my benefit rather than being in love with me.

Is there even a functional difference? If a person is committed, does love matter?

Depends. In business, commitment. In friends, either/or. In relationships, love.

That said, love and commitment go hand-in-hand. If you’re in love, like, love love, there is a degree of commitment that exists.

 

[RDKirk]

Depends. In business, commitment. In friends, either/or. In relationships, love.

That said, love and commitment go hand-in-hand. If you’re in love, like, love love, there is a degree of commitment that exists.

Is that true? When people these days say, "I love you," do they really believe they're making a commitment?

Here is are a couple of questions: Is a commitment limited? If so...is it really a commitment? Or is "committed" an absolute?

 

[RDKirk]

I view duty as the right course of action. It isn't dependent on love or commitment for compliance. The pair may be absent and the task is performed.

Agape deserves its on discussion. It isn't a guarantee but it takes a lot to break it. I spoke about it a couple of years ago with someone I've known over 20 years on the site and we weren't immune to fracture.

~bella

I'm looking at "duty" deontologically, in which it is a "right course of action" in ethical terms when a person has committed themselves to duty to a moral authority and acts in accordance with that duty. As an ethic, duty cannot be imposed, it can only be accepted. That is, nobody can say, "You have a duty," it can only be said, "I have a duty."

In that manner, it is dependent on commitment. Functionally, it is a commitment.

 

[RDKirk]

First, adultery is having sex with someone who isnt your spouse when youre married.

Is it? When we look closely at Jesus discussion of adultery, it appears to involve more than a one-time dalliance, but rather a complete abandonment.

Second, love can provide a natural bond between people. For a long term marriage to succeed I think you also need commitment. My concern was with people entering into a long term commitment absent any natural disposition (love, as you seem to call it) toward each other. I think they will wind up looking elsewhere, not just for hot sex, but for satisfying companionship.

Is that a commitment, then? When someone says, "I am committed," is there a parenthetical, ("Unless I call it off")? If you can "call it off," is that truly a commitment?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Is that true? When people these days say, "I love you," do they really believe they're making a commitment?

No, I mean like in the sense of true, perfect, romantic love then, for me, it would include a commitment of some sort. So, with my idea of love, for me, choosing only love or only commitment would imply they’re mutually exclusive when for it to be what I’d qualify as love that I find satisfying it would involve a commitment.

I don’t think saying “I love you” means a commitment is being made, nor do most people. I also don’t think saying “I love you” means you’re actually in love, or in love in a way that both find satisfying or qualified to be called love.

Here is are a couple of questions: Is a commitment limited? If so...is it really a commitment? Or is "committed" an absolute?

Depends.

 

[AlexB23]

Here's another perspective I like. Love is an act of the will that expresses itself is good deeds toward others. So, in marriage, for example, the correct decision, when things get rough, is to use the will to do the right thing which always involves the good of the other. Secular society has confused the meaning of love to mean a feeling but feelings wax and wane. We are created to use our reason and will to control our feelings but society has taught us the opposite so that, when times get rough, we many times allow our feelings to override our will which often results in divorce. Then we find someone else only to often make the same mistake over and over simply because we do not have a healthy and correct understanding of love which is an act of the will to control our feeling which always change. In this way, commitment might be said to be a characteristic of love so that we use prudence and justice to seek to make the correct decisions which result in the good of the other. Now, having said all this, one could still say my words are merely semantics which is fine but I still believe what I've shared is worthwhile and has been missing from the conversation for too long. That is, love is not a feeling but an act of the will to make the best decisions for the good of the other. That's what Jesus did when He went to the cross giving us the ultimate example of love. God bless.

From my Catholic perspective, I completely agree with you that love is an act of the will and that it involves making selfless decisions for the good of others. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Love is an act of the will that tends toward an external goal: 'God is love.' (1 John 4:8) Love as expressed in the human heart is a response to God's love. It 'consists in the will to total self-offering and in the unity of this offering and the good received.' A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. (CCC 1760)"

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacrament, a visible sign of God's love for us and our love for one another. In marriage, spouses are called to love each other with the same selfless love that Christ showed on the cross. As St. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Regarding your point about society's confusion of love as a feeling, the Catholic Church agrees that feelings can be fleeting and unstable. However, true love goes beyond mere feelings and involves a deep commitment to the other person's good. As you mentioned, this commitment is expressed through good deeds and acts of self-giving.

In times of difficulty or distress in a marriage, it is essential to remember that love is an act of the will and not just a feeling. It requires patience, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. The Catholic Church provides various resources, such as marriage counseling and retreats, to help couples strengthen their commitment to each other and deepen their understanding of God's love for them.

In conclusion, from a Catholic perspective, your perspective on love as an act of the will is in line with our teachings about marriage and the importance of selfless commitment to one's spouse. We believe that this understanding of love is essential for building strong, lasting marriages and fostering healthy relationships between spouses.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I mean like in the sense of true, perfect, romantic love then, for me, it would include a commitment of some sort. So, with my idea of love, for me, choosing only love or only commitment would imply they’re mutually exclusive when for it to be what I’d qualify as love that I find satisfying it would involve a commitment.

I don’t think saying “I love you” means a commitment is being made, nor do most people. I also don’t think saying “I love you” means you’re actually in love, or in love in a way that both find satisfying or qualified to be called love.

So, then commitment is better than "love."