After my post "ABC," I had some further insight into my belief in God and my belief in love.
I asked a friend a question that has been asked many times before, "is it better to have loved and lost? Or to have never loved at all?" Almost immediately, she replied that she would rather have loved and lost... but she is a Mormon, shouldn't she believe the latter?
Here is my case:
2 Nephi 31:14
"...after ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me."
Im not going to pretend that this idea of mine is scripture, or correct by any means; more than anything, it was just an interesting thought I had. If you believe as I do (thanks again, Watsky) that God is love and love is all that we have, doesn't this scripture suggest that it is better to have never known love if you deny it?
Let me know, because I don't quite have my own answer to this question.
I don't think so, I agree with your friend, but I want to ask you if you think there are more than one definition of Love? Or is it love? Is it a feeling, title, idea, action, noun? Because I agree that yes, God is love, and I agree with you to a point when you say that love is all we have, but when I think of love of God or God's love it feels different than, say, romantic love. Do you get what I mean? Is that weird? Probably.
ReplyDeleteLoving is better for the universe even if it does produce something for you.
ReplyDelete