Love or Commitment? Which is better to have?

[Tropical Wilds]

So, then commitment is better than "love."

Again, since commitment is an aspect of what I’d consider to be love, it’s not an either/or question. By choosing what I define as love, I get commitment too as that is an aspect of love. If I choose commitment, in order for somebody to commit to a lifetime with you there has to be a degree of affection or love in there somewhere as people don’t generally attach themselves to another forever without profound feelings of some sort.

In short, unless you specifically define love to exclude commitment, or commitment from somebody who has no love, the question is so vague that when one chooses one, they end up with the other anyway.

What you’re asking is on par with asking people if they were only allowed one food for the rest of their lives, would they choose french fries or McDonalds. When you choose McDonalds, you’re still getting french fries.

 

[com7fy8]

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?

"When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren." (Genesis 29:31)

So, God expected Jacob to love Leah, even though he did not want her to be his wife . . . and even though her father tricked Jacob into becoming one flesh with her.

So, from God's standpoint, I see, God expects you to dearly love your wife, no matter how you got her!

That is God's commitment.

 

[RDKirk]

Again, since commitment is an aspect of what I’d consider to be love, it’s not an either/or question. By choosing what I define as love, I get commitment too as that is an aspect of love. If I choose commitment, in order for somebody to commit to a lifetime with you there has to be a degree of affection or love in there somewhere as people don’t generally attach themselves to another forever without profound feelings of some sort.

But as I mentioned, ancient marriages and many marriages today don't have love before commitment, but some time after commitment.

 

[Bradskii]

But as I mentioned, ancient marriages and many marriages today don't have love before commitment, but some time after commitment.

First there often lust. Wow, your friend is hot - what's her name? Which was pretty much how I was introduced to my wife. Then, after a while, you might fall in love. Which then might lead to you being in love with each other. And at some point you have to make a decision? Forsaking all others? Till death do us part? No, that was too scary. At least until a point where there was a fork in the relationship road and I was looking at where one path might lead. And then decided that, yeah...I'm already on the right path so I want to make that commitment. And I hope that she wants to as well.

She did (45+ years ago), so we had the benefit of making the commitment on top of the love that we already felt. I'm not sure that it might work the other way around. That you can commit as a couple and then fall in love.

 

[JoyAlton]

First, what is adultery?

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

 

[JoyAlton]

All reasonable thoughts. I know my current view of relationships and marriage are based, partly on my repeated failures at marriage but mostly on what God has done for me in spite of my previous invincible ignorance. As I look back now, for myself personally, I now see clearly that what was missing in my life was a relationship with my Creator and, in particularly, the grace to abide and remain in Christ. That grace infused me with an understanding of what had been missing in all my relationships. I had let my feelings and passions guide my decisions when, instead, I should have used my reason to guide my passions. In that way, I would have been able to see the passions and feeling for what they are ie. God given gifts to be be used prudently. Now that I have that grace and, through that same grace, I cling to it, I am better able to use my God given reason to control my passions so that now I can see a beautiful woman and thank God for the gift I was given to be the man He made me all without giving into my passions of lust and desire which, before that grace, I had zero control over. So, yes, I agree that we are created with certain desires and passions but we also have reason to help control them so that we are able to live a healthier more satisfying life instead of being tossed about by our feeling and passions. Now, some may be gifted to achieve this measure of reason without as much grace but, for me, I needed a huge dose of grace since I was completely unable to control, let alone, understand my passions. God bless.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

But as I mentioned, ancient marriages and many marriages today don't have love before commitment, but some time after commitment.

Ok, but I wasn’t talking about those. The question was what the royal we would prefer, not what ancient marriages preferred. Nobody would know what people in ancient marriages would prefer.

So I say again, part of my definition of love is a commitment, so by choosing love I still get commitment, meaning the two wouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I'm not aware of this. Can you send me to a verse to start with?

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?

I mean starting a marriage with the intent its a life long commitment. Even with the best intentions, I think the challenge becomes too much over time when you lack a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not aware of this. Can you send me to a verse to start with?

I mean starting a marriage with the intent its a life long commitment. Even with the best intentions, I think the challenge becomes too much over time when you lack a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other.

What does "a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other" actually mean?

 

[durangodawood]

What does "a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other" actually mean?

The usual things. Some sense of humor overlap. Similar personal values. Sexual chemistry. And an oft overlooked one: energy level. We can probably think of others in the same vein.

Its not like you need complete agreement in every arena. But too many big misses will show up in destructive ways.

 

[JoyAlton]

Ok, but I wasn’t talking about those. The question was what the royal we would prefer, not what ancient marriages preferred. Nobody would know what people in ancient marriages would prefer.

So I say again, part of my definition of love is a commitment, so by choosing love I still get commitment, meaning the two wouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

Agreed!

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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?

I consider Love to be an action and a decision, not a feeling.

 

[Zaha Torte]

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?

In my opinion love is a state of being and you should be committed to those you enter into sacred covenants with.

 

[com7fy8]

I mean starting a marriage with the intent its a life long commitment. Even with the best intentions, I think the challenge becomes too much over time when you lack a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other.

What does "a certain degree of natural disposition toward each other" actually mean?

I consider Love to be an action and a decision, not a feeling.

There is commitment, I would say based in character so we are able to stay with one another and stay creative and growing. And as we grow in Jesus, we can outgrow what maybe we liked to share while less mature. And we discover how we become and what we do with each other.

And there are feelings in God's love. You do feel how this love is. God has feelings. And God is beautifully wonderful in pleasant rest and kindness which we do feel.

So, love can have the best of everything

 

[Reasonably Sane]

There is commitment, I would say based in character so we are able to stay with one another and stay creative and growing. And as we grow in Jesus, we can outgrow what maybe we liked to share while less mature. And we discover how we become and what we do with each other.

And there are feelings in God's love. You do feel how this love is. God has feelings. And God is beautifully wonderful in pleasant rest and kindness which we do feel.

So, love can have the best of everything

Good point about the feelings. I suppose I see love as something that can cause feelings. I know that I love my wife so much that sometimes it brings tears to my eyes. And we're going on 26 years. And I know she feels the same way about me. It shows in our actions.