The redefinition of "love"

Thousands of years ago, the Apostle Paul defined love in a letter to a church in Corinth.  On my wedding day, my husband and I used his words to reaffirm to the congregation and to one another what love meant to us:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant, or rude.  It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  - 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 7

 Love was an action.  Not a feeling.  But that was thousands of years ago.

In the last 100 years or so, we have seen the word "love" drastically transformed from an action and a practice to a feeling.  Fewer than half of couples stay together and most of those couples have had other partners beside their spouse that, at the time, they would have said they were "in love" with.  While I count myself as one of the people that believes in traditional marriage in the eyes of God, as being between one man and one woman, it would be ridiculous to say that heterosexual couples have not been making a mockery of marriage for thousands of years.  While I won't go into my own individual sins here, I will say that I am an adulteress under Christ's definition, and so are you if you're being honest with yourself:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  - Matthew 5: 27 - 28

Because I am a Christian, all I can do is confess and try to do better.   What grieves me is not that the traditional definition of marriage has changed, we lost that battle many years ago.  What grieves me is that the traditional definition of love has changed.

Today's definition of "love" is nothing like the Biblical definition of love.  Love is not patient or kind.  Where formerly it didn't boast or wasn't arrogant or rude, today's definition of "love" grabs itself a hashtag on Twitter and screams, "IN YOUR FACE" to anyone who holds an opposing view.  The definition of "love" in today's society is fungible because it is whatever you want it to be and if it isn't, then you make it whatever you want it to be.  If other people don't like it, then just accuse them of "hate" and "bigotry", because today's definition of "love" demands that you fall in line, or else.  Hate still supposedly means the opposite of love, which probably means that hate now stands for what love stood for at the time that Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians.  Whether "love" rejoices with the truth or with wrongdoing is certainly up for debate because "truth" and "wrongdoing", like "love" in today's society, is up for debate.  If you end up falling out of "love" with your selected partner, not to worry, for a little money you can each go your separate ways.  After all, today's "love" doesn't bear all things, hope all things, believe all things and it sure as hell doesn't endure all things.  In short, today's societal definition of love means nothing more than that you get to bump uglies with whomever you happen to be most attracted to at the time and everyone else better shut the hell up about it or face your wrath.

Truly what makes me sad about all of this is that the odds of my children finding a spouse that loves them in the same way that the Apostle Paul defined love to the Corinthians is about the same as their odds of getting struck by lightning.  The odds of my grandchildren finding that in their marriage is fast approaching the odds of them winning the lottery after they were struck by lightning during a shark attack.

 Or does it?

Democrats - Enslaving African Americans for over 200 years!

Recently Sheila Jackson Lee once again tried to characterize the Republicans as racist for opposing raising the debt limit ceiling. She urged Americans to "Read between the lines,"..."What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not recieve the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th Amendment." "I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate,"..."But historically, it seems to be nothing more." As with most things that come out of this blithering idiot's mouth, this is historically inaccurate or perhaps she doesn't remember the crap the Democratic party pulled regarding the debt ceiling in 1984.

It isn't about the facts though. It's about the race card. The Democrats have to play the race card because if they fail to do so, the truth may come out that the Democratic party has a long history of enslaving and subjugating African-Americans for political benefit as the despicable Ms. Jackson-Lee and other members of the Democratic establishment continue to do to this day. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at where the Democrats have decided to stand on race relations in the past:

13th Amendment -Abolishing slavery (but not giving blacks equality) - The Republican Party (which was formed for the purpose of abolishing the abomination of slavery) voted 100% to pass it. 77% of Democrats opposed this measure.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed over the veto of Democrat President Andrew Jackson because the majority in House and Senate was REPUBLICAN!

14th Amendment - Yep the Republicans struck again for the equality of all people regardless of skin color.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had higher support from Republicans than Democrats. Albert Gore, father of the former VP and current environmental fear-monger, voted against it as did Robert "KKK" Byrd, and J. William Fulbright (who I assume was so close to President Bill Clinton because of his kindred spirit to Al Gore's daddy).

The Democratic Party even ran a segregationist for president in 1972, George McGovern. The Democrats racial history is abysmal. The only way that they can possibly avoid facing the facts about their history is to use the slight of hand known as the race card. The charge is so reprehensible that those who are unable due to a lack of intelligence or unwilling because it requires effort and challenges the worldview they have adhered to for 40 years repeat the lie that Republicans are racist over and over again. In the meantime, when a Democrat actually does something racist (such as the white thug who beat up Ken Gladney as he spewed racial epithets) there is a cognitive dissonance throughout the Democratic party.

All facts point to this: The Democrat's use of the race card is not about race. The Democrats have never held the best interest of the African American community. It is a way to shut down debate...a shell game if you will. If you are not an indentured servant today, thank a Republican, if you are a slave to the Government because you receive public assistance, thank a Democrat.