February 9, 2013

"Faithful is not love. Faithful is a subservient position..."

"... in which insecure people can not accept that, despite their tremendous talents, they might be wrong. That's why I like cats and independent dogs."

So says Dante in at 3:01 a.m. in The Faithful Dog Café.

Faithful is not love? That made me think Love is faithful and kind... But it's "Love is patient and kind..."
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. 
Does that sound like a cat or a dog?
It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful....
Cat?
... it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 
Cat?!

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Cat?!!
Love never ends. 
That sounds like what we mean when we say faithful. (I know Paul goes on to put "love" in a category with "faith" and "hope" and says "love" is the greatest, but the love he describes includes complete faithfulness to the loved one.)

23 comments:

Mitchell the Bat said...

Dante is correct in the sense that "faithful" is followed by "servant" the same way "blazing" is followed by "inferno."

. . . just walk beside me, and be my dog.

pm317 said...

Faithful could also mean trusting.. to arrive at a position of trusting someone is very difficult for many, humans and other living beings alike. It also means loyalty because of the trust earned. I don't see subservience in 'faithful'.

MadisonMan said...

We have a doglike cat.

This cat has endured many things. She was a stray that we got from the Humane Society and her behavior makes me think she is grateful for comfort and warmth.

Also an awesome mouser. Mice or chipmunks who find their way into the house regret it.

annk said...

Faithful is an adjective and love isa noun. Of course they are not the same. Who could take such a moron seriously?

Craig said...

I know someone who named her cat Fawn Hall. Fawn's boss was 'loyal" to his wife.

Craig said...

My dad's cousin was named Loyal.

madAsHell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Althouse takes the 3 AM call.

Pogo said...

"Faithful" does contain a promise of loyalty, a habit born to dogs but only embraced with reluctance by men. For it indeed demands service to another, loyalty, fealty, sometimes even an oath.

Jesus was the Suffering Servant, a king whose love was so great he died for his subjects.

Independence means never having to say you're loyal.

m stone said...

For the record and the tag, Paul is not accepted as the author of Hebrews where your verses are taken. The author is unknown.

Oh, and by the way, Dante is wrong.The ultimate act of faithfulness is choosing to be a servant, as in a bond servant.

rhhardin said...

What inclines even me to believe in Christ's Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. - If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. He is dead and decomposed. In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer help ; and once more we are orphaned and alone. So we have to content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if I am to be REALLY saved, - what I need is certainty - not wisdom, dreams or speculation - and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what is needed by my heart, my soul, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say : Only love can believe the Resurrection. Or : It is love that believes the Resurrection. We might say : Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection ; holds fast even to the Resurrection. What combats doubt is, as it were, redemption. Holding fast to this must be holding fast to that belief. So what that means is : first you must be redeemed and hold on to your redemption (keep hold of your redemption) - then you will see that you are holding fast to this belief. So this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth but suspend yourself from heaven. Then everything will be different and it will be `no wonder' if you can do things that you cannot do now. (A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces within him is nevertheless quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man.)

Wittgenstein, Culture and Value p.33

traditionalguy said...

Loyalty is like love because both are decisions men make.

In today's multiplicity of options we don't so trust anyone's loyalty. They could get a better offer.

But we still see love as a force that people cannot resist, so is we say love is better.

But loving loyalty is the thing. Or perhaps we should call both of them kindness.

Most Hebrew rifts on God's nature that keeps covenant (which are His sworn oaths) are translated as "God's loving kindness."

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The standard teaching today that Paul was not the author of Hebrews, despite 1900 years of Church tradition that Paul was its author. This new teaching is only a speculation from the German Textual Criticism assertions popularized in the late 1800s.

The same Apostle Paul that wrote that he cross culturally became all things to all men to win some to Christ is accused by today's so called textual experts of being too stupid to write in one tone and grammar in Greek to the Gentiles and use a different tone and grammar in Hebrew writing to the Jews.

That is no way to run a theology school, unless you are a true lover of German Philosophy created by late 1800s atheists set out to prove the Bible to be a total fictional myth. Asserting their findings as if they are facts about who wrote Hebrews is nonsense.

Professor Chaos said...

m stone: "For the record and the tag, Paul is not accepted as the author of Hebrews where your verses are taken. The author is unknown."

traditionalguy: "The standard teaching today that Paul was not the author of Hebrews, despite 1900 years of Church tradition that Paul was its author."

It's not Hebrews. Click the link, people!

wyo sis said...

KJV uses the word charity which gives a completely different meaning.

kentuckyliz said...

The quote isn't from Hebrews.

It's 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

(Yes, I am a Catholic who knows my Bible.)

Paul's authorship of 1Cor is undisputed.

edutcher said...

True love is faithful.

MadisonMan said...

We have a doglike cat.

The Blonde's youngest brother calls all our Yorks dogs in cat suits.

Of course, when Quasy gets mad, she sounds like Donald Duck in a dog suit.

Penny said...

Yeah I read that Dante comment last night and decided he needed to buy himself a new flashlight.

It's a bitch when you get lost on your way home at 3am.

ricpic said...

We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven.

I think this is the great dividing line. Though I don't for a minute doubt the sincerity of Wittgenstein as he describes the agony of earthly existence without the certainty of faith...for him; for me there is no such agony and therefore no such need. Not better, not worse: different. A different temperament. And over that we have no control.

m stone said...

I stand corrected chaos and kentuckyliz. Apologies.

R. Chatt said...

I, too, had a doglike cat. Very loyal and sweet. Traveled with me across the country by car 4X. Still, I had to laugh.

Dante said...

To Annk, I'm not a "moron," anymore than you are a "moron" for the typo "love isa noun".

And to Penny, I was at home working the whole day, and there is a two hour difference between here and there, and due to some incredibly long work hours, my clock is all messed up.

If it helps, Love engenders Faithfulness, caring, and understanding. But Dogs have a strong tendency to Faithfulness, even when it isn't reciprocated. it isn't derived from love, it is the base emotion.

And a lot of people are the same way. Needy people who are faithful because they are either too scared to live their lives, or because they can't confront their issues.

I'm not saying these people deserve no compassion, but it isn't love. Love comes first, then being faithful. And as a person who obviously has many things that I need to mature about (from stopping being a moron to requiring a flashlight to get home), what I want is someone secure enough in themselves that they can grow, not because of blind faithfulness to any behavior, but in a caring way in which people can grow.

In any event, I'm quite excited Ann felt this was worthy enough to make it's own post, to discuss the subject.

Faith to me is the subjugation of reason.

Regarding the Cat vs. Dog, cats can be very affectionate, providing love, cuddles, purrs, and if they really like you they will scent you with their cheek and mark you.

Yes, I want love that comes from independence, not from neediness, fear, or some screwed up quality that humans have breed into dogs.

It's not love. It's a cheap way to have our egos stroked and to improve our self-esteem.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with cheating, if that's what people think.