What is love to you?

[Flawed_Ravvn]

Me and my Grandma were having this conversation last night and I thought it would be interesting if I got others opinion. What do you think love is? or do you even thing it exists?

I'm in high school and I've always wondered how a couple could date for a month or two, say that they are madly in love with each other, then break up and then a week later they are back to dating someone else. I've never gotten how they could do that. I hear girls all the time say that they are madly in love with a guy that just met about a week ago. In my mind I'm thinking how can you love a guy you just met a week ago? Better yet, do you even know what love is? Does anyone know what love is?

it was from this that I started thinking does love even exists or is it just a figure of are imagination? Kids at my school say that love is when you get butterflies in your stomach or your can't stop thinking about them or you can't stop staring at them in class. Are you sure that's not you being kind of like a stalker ( theres another word for it I just think of it right now) to them?

Me and my grandma talked about can a person fall out of love? She said that she didn't how a person can fall into love, back out of love, then back into love. I kind of agree with this cause if you really love a person, I think they will always have a place in your heart throughout your life. That's why I also think the phrase "I will give you all my heart" is a lie because I do think that their will be people you come across that just have a special place in your heart. Now of course if you get married, that person will have the majority space in your heart and they rightfully should, they are your spouse.

Any thoughts guys?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Happiness = continual majority of being/feeling content (as opposed to a majority of discontent)

Love = Happiness^2

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@ Times Asylums: Makes sense lol!

 

[Cognisant]

Love is two people too afraid to be alone, to not break up rather than work through difficulties in their relationship.

 

[The Void]

Cant be expressed in language.
Just some feeling.

 

[The Void]

Sure love do exist, but not nessecarily permenant, a temporary chemical rush,
but beyond that romantic love, there can be many forms of love,
in short love is not exactly the chemicals, but the feelings induced by it, and a feeling is just feeling
which can never be truly described in language,
love is not necesserily only the chemical rush thing, it can be just a state of attraction (well I am just playing with semantics, using the word as I want at this point, but oh well so do everyone,)

like love for family, love for money, love for violence, and what not....

primarily love is just a concept trying to point a specific feeling or state of mind,

also no one cuts out and give your heart, heart is again an abstract concept,
heart is just a blood pumping organ, why so much romaticizing it geez,

it is just in old days, the philosophers used to think it is the centre and stuff,
but some pseudoscience still tries to give value to heart as more than heart pumping organ,

but whatever it is, it is still an organ, doesnt matter,

the romantic love thing can change anytime and stuff, but there are other forms of compassion beyond this swallow two people stuff,

humans are actually wired to love and co-operate with each other, forming groups and all that,
love is a natural way to live, loving everyone and all that,

also loving everyone and everything can be very healing, it can liberate from many negative feelings, especially fear, I had some personal experiences,

but still does not matter much, I hate everyone, still.

 

[Duxwing]

Love is a tender, passionate affection; e.g., from mother unto son.

-Duxwing

 

[Red myst]

Sure love do exist, but not nessecarily permenant, a temporary chemical rush,
but beyond that romantic love, there can be many forms of love,
in short love is not exactly the chemicals, but the feelings induced by it, and a feeling is just feeling
which can never be truly described in language,
love is not necesserily only the chemical rush thing, it can be just a state of attraction (well I am just playing with semantics, using the word as I want at this point, but oh well so do everyone,)

like love for family, love for money, love for violence, and what not....

primarily love is just a concept trying to point a specific feeling or state of mind,

also no one cuts out and give your heart, heart is again an abstract concept,
heart is just a blood pumping organ, why so much romaticizing it geez,

it is just in old days, the philosophers used to think it is the centre and stuff,
but some pseudoscience still tries to give value to heart as more than heart pumping organ,

but whatever it is, it is still an organ, doesnt matter,

the romantic love thing can change anytime and stuff, but there are other forms of compassion beyond this swallow two people stuff,

humans are actually wired to love and co-operate with each other, forming groups and all that,
love is a natural way to live, loving everyone and all that,

also loving everyone and everything can be very healing, it can liberate from many negative feelings, especially fear, I had some personal experiences,

but still does not matter much, I hate everyone, still.

I think love is associated with the heart because of the effect it can have on your heart rate when you are caught up in the feeling of love, infatuation, lust, whatever.
I think if you can fall into love, you can fall out of it. If the relationship is right, when the chemical rush is over, you will discover an even deeper and enduring kind of love.

 

[Aerl]

Guess I'm the only one who had the chance to come by an idea that "Love" as a definition is wrong as it is set right now and should be considered as a skill which one develops and cultivates. (someone wrote a "little" book about it in my native language)

My definition of "Love" would be: To understand someone before getting angry, help them without seeking any profit, not rush them and let them advance at their own pace. To rid yourself of all negative emotions and present to others only positive feedback.

An alternative way to put it would be, buddhists are true students of Love.
Also you could say that, that is the way God loves his creation.

But if we are to define Love as butterflies in stomach, what do butterflies mean to that person and why in stomatch. What does stomatch correalate to.

If one is obsessted with thinking about something, depends in what way.
Imagining intercourse, perhaps to take pleasure in activity.

If making someone express happiness by receiving gifts of chocolates or flowers,
maybe that person just feels good when that particular person smiles at him, etc.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@ Void- if love is a temporary chemical rush, then explain why people can be married for 50 or so years and still be madly in love? That doesn't sound like a temporary chemical rush to me. When I say 'Give all my heart to you' I don't me you literally do it cause that would be nasty. What I mean is that they have a spot in your brain that's associated with love. I don't' think can really fall out of love if they truly love someone, but I do believe that it could dull a bit, not be as strong as it once was.

@Red Myst- What do you mean by when the chemical rush is over?

 

[The Void]

I think love is associated with the heart because of the effect it can have on your heart rate when you are caught up in the feeling of love, infatuation, lust, whatever.
I think if you can fall into love, you can fall out of it. If the relationship is right, when the chemical rush is over, you will discover an even deeper and enduring kind of love.

well may be, never fell in love, so I shouldnt comment.

 

[The Void]

@ Void- if love is a temporary chemical rush, then explain why people can be married for 50 or so years and still be madly in love? That doesn't sound like a temporary chemical rush to me. When I say 'Give all my heart to you' I don't me you literally do it cause that would be nasty. What I mean is that they have a spot in your brain that's associated with love. I don't' think can really fall out of love if they truly love someone, but I do believe that it could dull a bit, not be as strong as it once was.

@Red Myst- What do you mean by when the chemical rush is over?

I was just taking the giving heart thing literally in a joking manner.
Anyway, sometimes love can be more intense due to chemical rush or something,
but there had been cases and you know, that people love each other, and then one day dont feel as much,
well the mind to maintain consistency, and for the sake or responsibility and duty,
can keep two people still kind of close to each other, even if the chemical rush type love is faded,
also I said love can have much more forms...

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@ the Void- Sorry, I was thinking that you were joking but I wasn't sure lol! If people feel love one day then not the next, wouldn't that be known as lust then? Or maybe the hormones kicking in and making you feel like your in love?

I do believe love can have many forms, that's why I think there is not just one definition of love, as its been proven by this discussion. If theres many forms of love, then do you think there are many forms of other emotions as well like happiness, sadness...?

 

[The Void]

@ the Void- Sorry, I was thinking that you were joking but I wasn't sure lol! If people feel love one day then not the next, wouldn't that be known as lust then? Or maybe the hormones kicking in and making you feel like your in love?

I do believe love can have many forms, that's why I think there is not just one definition of love, as its been proven by this discussion. If theres many forms of love, then do you think there are many forms of other emotions as well like happiness, sadness...?

isnt romantic love more about the hormones anyway?
You grow up, hit puberty, then some hormonal stuff happens and all that,
we are conditioned to do that,
also these hormonal stuff may even give a overall boost to feeling of love,
in normal life, it is most of the type lust, or conditioned love and stuff more than anything,
"when you pick a flower it dies, love is about letting it be'
well love is more about a game of semantics, this are not something that can be defined, but that doesnt stop people from defining it in endless ways,
and in modern world people more often tries to pick the flower, to posses and stuff,
and thats why all jealousy and all,
lots of social conditioning are coming into play for this,
yes I guess most probably happiness and sadness can have different shades...
they are more of a generalized concept anyway,
who even knows what I feel is what you feel,
or what one feel as love is the same as what other feel as love or whatever,

 

[Red myst]

What "The Void" says is pretty much how I see it. I think the different cognitive types will experience their own "flavor" of what love is and how they express it.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

 

[Cavallier]

Infatuation/Passion and Love are different things to me. Teens get jerked around by their hormones. They say "love" but mostly they mean they want to mate. Their bodies are so very ready to start pumping out little humans.

I did not want to have anything to do with the kids in my high school. College was different. There I found a few people I could stand to spend time with.

I've never felt true infatuation as I hear people describe it. I have felt a need to have someone to share my life with though. A compatriot, a friend, somebody with similar life goals, someone I can trust implicitly. This person didn't need to be a sexual partner. I've been lucky (?) enough to compartmentalize those parts of my relationships.

However, I did find somebody that I have chosen to share my life with and who is also a good sexual partner. We have a serene relationship. I value it deeply. Is it love? I have no idea. I guess at this point it must be. If they died I'd be bereft.

Guess I'm the only one who had the chance to come by an idea that "Love" as a definition is wrong as it is set right now and should be considered as a skill which one develops and cultivates. (someone wrote a "little" book about it in my native language)

This mostly.

 

[Pyropyro]

@ Void- if love is a temporary chemical rush, then explain why people can be married for 50 or so years and still be madly in love? That doesn't sound like a temporary chemical rush to me. When I say 'Give all my heart to you' I don't me you literally do it cause that would be nasty. What I mean is that they have a spot in your brain that's associated with love. I don't' think can really fall out of love if they truly love someone, but I do believe that it could dull a bit, not be as strong as it once was.

Love's chief chemical in the "madly in love part" is serotonin while the "let's stay together" part is influenced oxytocin. Serotonin overload gives you that stalkerish "I just can't get you out of my head" thing going on. Oxytocin's influence is more subdued but relatively more enduring.

For me love is the thing that remains after the madly-in love phase have faded away (around 1-2 years). If you didn't bond after this period then what you felt is probably just plain old lust.

BTW, all this talk about chemicals doesn't mean that I feel that love isn't magical or sweet. I was almost at squee level for around half a day while helping my INTJ mentor arrange his marriage proposal.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

That's good to hear.
I have similar priorities.
The picture was aimed at the behaviour of the OP's peers, yes.

 

[Etheri]

A friend of mine described (romantic) love as being a mixture of friendship, obsession and lust. I think it's a fair description, but I think that over time lust (or rather, the rush you have at the start of a relationship / when you fall in love / whatever) diminishes and makes place for some strange kind of understanding / appreciation for the other person. Familiarty perhaps?

Infatuation/Passion and Love are different things to me. Teens get jerked around by their hormones. They say "love" but mostly they mean they want to mate. Their bodies are so very ready to start pumping out little humans.

I did not want to have anything to do with the kids in my high school. College was different. There I found a few people I could stand to spend time with.

I've never felt true infatuation as I hear people describe it. I have felt a need to have someone to share my life with though. A compatriot, a friend, somebody with similar life goals, someone I can trust implicitly. This person didn't need to be a sexual partner. I've been lucky (?) enough to compartmentalize those parts of my relationships.

However, I did find somebody that I have chosen to share my life with and who is also a good sexual partner. We have a serene relationship. I value it deeply. Is it love? I have no idea. I guess at this point it must be. If they died I'd be bereft.



This mostly.

I've attempted copartmentalizing as you so called it. Various people for various needs... It works fine with friends, but I cannot manage to have a meaningful relationship with anyone for just sex.

When I have sex with someone I completely trust and can have open conversations about anything with, I'll often feel completely satisfied and quite happy the 15 minutes or so after sex.

Having sex with people that will never understand you just doesn't bring that feeling. It's like watching porn. You want it until you're done, and as soon as you're done you're wondering why on earth you wanted it to begin with and you get out of there as quick as possible to avoid any additional awkwardness.

Consider early hormones and such as a learning tool. Relationships at your age aren't likely to be permanent, keep that in mind. They can however be fun. (But they usually end in drama)

 

[Grayman]

Lust is temporary and powerful. It can be obsessive. It is about satisfying your own desires.

Love is lasting but its power exists in ways that are more subtle. It is not obssessive but it is loyal and caring.

Love can exist in different ways. One is a selfish love. It is the enjoyment of another and an attraction based on something greater than physical.
The other love is called agape` in greek. It is a selfless love. It is putting the needs, not wants, of another before you own needs.

In a healthy relationship. Agape` is priority but you need the other love as well.

Love of this kind is a choice and it is nurtured by self sacrifice. It is the key to marriage.


Butterflies in your stomach is the feeling of excitement. This excitment is a combination of the pleasure of being wanted by someone and the body reacting to sexual attraction.
The butterflies do not relate to love like a mature couple would have.

You can choose to love anyone but some people are easier to love.

 

[Amagi82]

Love is a blanket term for several different concepts. The Greeks did a better job separating these, so I'll reference their terminology.

As a whole, love is a profound psychological attachment and concern for the wellbeing of an individual or group. We can break this down into Eros love, meaning erotic love, intimate passion, or that feeling that you get when you really like everything about someone and desperately want to bang them. This one is strong in the beginning of a relationship and fades somewhat over time. It's biochemical, an evolutionary way to encourage the continuation of the species. Then there is Agape love, which is the selfless, mostly altruistic concern for the wellbeing of a large group. Then there is Philia love, or the bonding and loyalty you make with friends or close family, where you feel a concern for their wellbeing. This is evolutionarily important toward the success of your social unit.

There are a myriad of other forms of love, other nuances, but I think these are the most important to understand. The common thread to the concept of love is a biochemical attachment and concern for the wellbeing of another human being or group. It is an emotion, but one built into us on a genetic level, which aids in social harmony and evolutionary success on multiple levels.

 

[BigApplePi]

Me and my Grandma were having this conversation last night and I thought it would be interesting if I got others opinion. What do you think love is? or do you even thing it exists?

Whatever love is, there are a few definitions out there. It is a very useful concept because of the great interest in its presence or absence.

I'm in high school and I've always wondered how a couple could date for a month or two, say that they are madly in love with each other, then break up and then a week later they are back to dating someone else. I've never gotten how they could do that. I hear girls all the time say that they are madly in love with a guy that just met about a week ago. In my mind I'm thinking how can you love a guy you just met a week ago?

I would call this "potential love." After all, something so important in this case requires preparation. That is what is going on here: preparation, data collection, theory, verification. Sounds familiar? Why if it isn't the scientific method in action!

 

[Spirit]

The next question is, "Do INTP's feel love?"

Basics:
Love is when the thought of losing the other person feels like you would lose an extension of you. The person has your support and they recharge you when you are around them. You are committed to this person.


Companionship and partnership is not love. A relationship is not love. Dating is not love. Marriage is not love.

You can love more than one person over a life time.




Do you have issues with their level of commitment? You can have issues with commitment and still love someone.

 

[Nick]

Just use caution and know, that, love ain't nothing but a loss of control.

but when you have it.. there's nothing like it, you get excited
seeking those who provide it, on phones talking to psychics
some fear it... spend their entire lives trying to fight it

cause over all it's an emotion I can not comprehend.. it's love

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

I think anyone can feel love, they just have to find the right situation or person to feel it towards.

Its just a matter of how they express it to their mates.

I read somewhere that INTPs can feel love, it's just that we have a hard time expressing it because we are not in tune with other peoples feelings, we have a hard time fulfilling the emotional desires of our companions. I also read that INTPs have what's call a pure love, they either love you or they don't, theirs no in between. So from that, I think if we allow ours selves to love someone then I think we can.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Sometimes it's obvious what other people want but for some reason I don't feel like being arsed to deliver... Sometimes feels like I'm being forced. This makes people spread rumors that I'm slow or late, but I'm mostly probably being passive aggressive. It's also kind of annoying how passive people can be. A lot of things root from forgetting that.. I think people are passive but the catch is that they don't expect you to be. [removed some last part about proving something and people getting all excited but it being found lame contrary to what the purpose seemed to be - eliminating stuck up ness. I'm sure a few different approaches could be taken] such a minuscule part of anything

 

[kora]

A hell of a lot of fun

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

@Higs-how can love be a hell of a lot of fun?

 

[Jennywocky]

Me and my Grandma were having this conversation last night and I thought it would be interesting if I got others opinion. What do you think love is? or do you even thing it exists?

Love is commitment to someone you've chosen to care about. It often coincides with feelings, although you might not always feel those feelings. It involves doing what's best for them or things that will contribute to them, even if they mean some sacrifices on your own part.

I'm in high school and I've always wondered how a couple could date for a month or two, say that they are madly in love with each other, then break up and then a week later they are back to dating someone else. I've never gotten how they could do that. I hear girls all the time say that they are madly in love with a guy that just met about a week ago. In my mind I'm thinking how can you love a guy you just met a week ago?

I had that view too until the first time I really"fell in love." Then I had a little more sympathy. I was in high school, "first love" crazy stuff, and it felt very very real, so much that I started to believe it...and then after about three months, things went bad, I "fell out of love," and then felt like an idiot about it.

It gave me a little sympathy for people with no experience of that and who then "fall for someone." The feelings are very very intense and feel very real... but in the end they are just feelings and not enough to base an enduring relationship on.

Me and my grandma talked about can a person fall out of love? She said that she didn't how a person can fall into love, back out of love, then back into love. I kind of agree with this cause if you really love a person, I think they will always have a place in your heart throughout your life. That's why I also think the phrase "I will give you all my heart" is a lie because I do think that their will be people you come across that just have a special place in your heart. Now of course if you get married, that person will have the majority space in your heart and they rightfully should, they are your spouse.

It depends on what you mean by "falling in love." people often mean the "feelings" which can go away over time.

But there are gentler, deeper, more enduring feelings that can be generated when you become truly familiar with another human being, respect and care about them, have invested in them and learned to understand and relate to them... I think those kinds of feelings endure and are part of a long-term relationship working.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Love is an internal feeling, an expression, a state of being, and a process. Words themselves are not enough to capture it.

 

[Grayman]

Love is commitment to someone you've chosen to care about. It often coincides with feelings, although you might not always feel those feelings. It involves doing what's best for them or things that will contribute to them, even if they mean some sacrifices on your own part.

I agree.



I only wish the young could understand the dangers of what they believe to be love. It seems we must all mistake these other emotions for love as part of learning what it really means to love. Perhaps we need better words to describe real love vs passion. Maybe if we communicated the difference better the young would not have to suffer the same misunderstandings. Perhaps we would all grow into more mature and functional relationships.

 

[Aerl]

Love is commitment to someone you've chosen to care about. It often coincides with feelings, although you might not always feel those feelings. It involves doing what's best for them or things that will contribute to them, even if they mean some sacrifices on your own part.

That is a much better version of what I wanted to say.

I only wish the young could understand the dangers of what they believe to be love. It seems we must all mistake these other emotions for love as part of learning what it really means to love. Perhaps we need better words to describe real love vs passion. Maybe if we communicated the difference better the young would not have to suffer the same misunderstandings. Perhaps we would all grow into more mature and functional relationships.

That view point probably corelates with the change sexual revolution and
Rock 'n' Roll brought about, along with changing community into consumer type.

 

[Spirit]

That is a much better version of what I wanted to say.



That view point probably correlates with the change sexual revolution and
Rock 'n' Roll brought about, along with changing community into consumer type.

I would say it coincides with a focus away from the arts to technology. People aren't taught why abstract ideas are important.

Love is abstract and when you try to confine it to logic and concrete terms, we fail because it is much more than that.

 

[Aerl]

I would say it coincides with a focus away from the arts to technology. People aren't taught why abstract ideas are important.

Love is abstract and when you try to confine it to logic and concrete terms, we fail because it is much more than that.

This reminds me that we have a lot more people not believing in gods existence than
when we had at previos times. I mean, once a lowly peasant no longer believes in
a supreme power that can judge him and decide his fate, he is no longer in awe
of it, what allows him to commit all sorts of crimes without much responsibility:
theft, telling lies, commit adultery.

This is like walking in the woods and meeting a stranger, I believe we'd all be
relieved on some level if we knew that he believes in a christian god.

p.s. atheists are scarier than religios people, because they don't conform to any
set of spiritual rules.

 

[Grayman]

I would say it coincides with a focus away from the arts to technology. People aren't taught why abstract ideas are important.

Love is abstract and when you try to confine it to logic and concrete terms, we fail because it is much more than that.

Art?

I think this intuitive abstract way of trying to understand love is what is causing the issues. People simply define love as something or someone who causes a large amount of positive feelings in them.

I see thier feelings as a complex combination of desires, happiness, excitement, joy, and other feelings.

Love in an active form is simply defined as selflessness.
Love in an emotional form is a recipe of...
Loyalty
empathy
Understanding
These things are consistent with every type of relationship. Loyalty takes different shape with each person and relationship type. For the purpose of this, loyalty is defined as the feeling of responsibility and duty toward another individual.

A marriage or sexual relationship should have the same love as above. It should also have sexual attraction, mental attraction, common core beliefs, a general enjoyment of eachothers company, and a balanced abilty to satisfy eachothers emotional needs. These things are often considered a part of love but really they should be understood as seperate. By seeing them as seperate they will be better able to define where thier needs in a relationship are lacking. If they simply view it as "falling out of love" when these needs are not met, they are blinding themselves to the real source of the problem and miss a possible solution.

 

[Grayman]

This reminds me that we have a lot more people not believing in gods existence than
when we had at previos times. I mean, once a lowly peasant no longer believes in
a supreme power that can judge him and decide his fate, he is no longer in awe
of it, what allows him to commit all sorts of crimes without much responsibility:
theft, telling lies, commit adultery.

This is like walking in the woods and meeting a stranger, I believe we'd all be
relieved on some level if we knew that he believes in a christian god.

p.s. atheists are scarier than religios people, because they don't conform to any
set of spiritual rules.

I thought maybe you were joking until I read the last part and realized you are being serious. Comparing the acts of religion in the past to the acts of the people today in the age of reason, I find that history would prove your statement false.

 

[Aerl]

I thought maybe you were joking until I read the last part and realized you are being serious. Comparing the acts of religion in the past to the acts of the people today in the age of reason, I find that history would prove your statement false.

While I see how you perceive it to be so. I'm still led to believe that religion gives a
little twist to Love's definition, as something sacred. As such, you don't go
jumping from one man onto another and having sexual intercourse with every 3rd.
Believing that it's perfectly fine. Because it is not, and each such intercourse
actually can affect what kind of children one may have.

As for being relieved by meeting a christian in woods, I believe that majority are just common type folk and not lunatics or on a mission of inquisition.

What we had durring middle ages, all that sloughter... it's less about spreading religion and more about robbing the land off treasures. You can't forget that there was low to no education of peasants. Imagine a bunch of kids, you tell them about how God is all mighty and all seeing. You also tell them you are the messenger of God and God commands them to slaughter their neighboring village... but we, having sofisticated education, doubt such things could happen when we are encouraged to think for our selves.

If we take buddhism for example, once it was first introduced, the whole country stopped participating in warfare. Although it's hardly a religion as in a sense believing in a supreme God. It's more along the lines of A set of rules.

Christianity in a sense also provides A set of 10 rules, God is just extra to keep everyone listening. and in awe.

 

[Jennywocky]

To be honest, my personal experience is that the zealots are capable of much more damage against other human beings, versus the moderate/casual crowd. They take their values so seriously that they are willing to punish, abuse, ostracize, discriminate against those who don't share those values with them.

Also, in the last week, I saw a Bible-believing politician get caught frenching a mistress on surveillance tape and firing his mistress rather than punishing himself. I also saw the head of a big megachurch down in Florida get removed from his position for some undisclosed sexual sin (although apparently he's had two affairs + something else in the last year). A bigger problem? This isn't even a rarity. it's rather the norm. Each week and month, we hear yet another story, typically.

Love, purity, respect for others, etc., comes from the heart and is not really contingent on belief in a divine being -- I'd say anyone can have a "moral code" that they can commit to, regardless, and that is what makes the difference. These guys I mentioned claim to believe one thing and maybe even do, but they are not committed to a particular style of behavior. You either grapple with your animalistic impulses or you give yourself over to them.

 

[Grayman]

While I see how you perceive it to be so. I'm still led to believe that religion gives a
little twist to Love's definition, as something sacred. As such, you don't go
jumping from one man onto another and having sexual intercourse with every 3rd.
Believing that it's perfectly fine. Because it is not, and each such intercourse
actually can affect what kind of children one may have. .

Not love but marriage. The sacred part being the promise to god about holding to your marriage vows.

Love is known in the heart. Adam and Eve where given the knowledge of good and evil. They knew love before the ten commandments and marriage laws. The laws are created for the same reason we have them today; people ignore the good in thier hearts. Because of this, even people who read gods word can interpret it into condoning their hatred toward other men.

 

[Aerl]

@Jennywocky

zealots are capable of much more damage against other human beings, versus the moderate/casual crowd. They take their values so seriously that they are willing to punish, abuse, ostracize, discriminate against those who don't share those values with them.

That implies one thing, their understanding of God would follow as such: God enforces the use of force and brutality to convert people, more over, abuse of minors, physically and mentally ill. What kind of human being would approve such behavior. This sounds more like that person believes in the wrong type of God.

Also, in the last week, I saw a Bible-believing politician get caught frenching a mistress on surveillance tape and firing his mistress rather than punishing himself. I also saw the head of a big megachurch down in Florida get removed from his position for some undisclosed sexual sin (although apparently he's had two affairs + something else in the last year). A bigger problem? This isn't even a rarity. it's rather the norm. Each week and month, we hear yet another story, typically.

Politician obviosly believes he's too much of an important person to be punished. He is doing Gods work, again, his perception of God is clouded, and he doesn't understand his crime's significance.
As for the holyman, it's usually the true monsters that take on the guise of an innocent to commit crimes of great significance. "You either grapple with your animalistic impulses or you give yourself over to them."

Love, purity, respect for others, etc., comes from the heart and is not really contingent on belief in a divine being -- I'd say anyone can have a "moral code" that they can commit to, regardless, and that is what makes the difference.

I agree with that completely.

These guys I mentioned claim to believe one thing and maybe even do, but they are not committed to a particular style of behavior. You either grapple with your animalistic impulses or you give yourself over to them.

When population sees such people as christians, and they are in a crowd or in public. They suppress their urges, and they act in a fashion of what is expected of him as a christian.

Take for example ethics, table manners. While we're with friends or in a
restaurant, we don't pick our noses, fart or do something like that. What
happens when there is noone to enforce these set of rules but us alone.
When asked if we abide by ethics, we surely would want to say yes, it's
"noble", but just how much of it do we enforce on our selves when we are left
alone...

Depending on how many people are involved particular behavior is expected of others and enforced. Even to act Humane. Are we all Humane here? Are we really?

My point: While someone saying that they are a good person is not to be taken without consideration it does imply that such person is more likely to act in a good manner rather than evil. As such, religion is one way to force upon someone particular qualities.

 

[Aerl]

Not love but marriage. The sacred part being the promise to god about holding to your marriage vows.

Love is known in the heart. Adam and Eve where given the knowledge of good and evil. They knew love before the ten commandments and marriage laws. The laws are created for the same reason we have them today; people ignore the good in thier hearts. Because of this, even people who read gods word can interpret it into condoning their hatred toward other men.

Marriage is actually something that church frowns upon, they'd much prefer
couples to live as partners without the need of marriage. It's just a couple of
papers and rings and a ceremony because someone wanted god to bless their
love so it would become "eternal".

As for "even people who read gods word can interpret it into condoning their hatred toward other men.", I stated my opinion on this in the post directed at Jennywocky.

 

[Jennywocky]

That implies one thing, their understanding of God would follow as such: God enforces the use of force and brutality to convert people, more over, abuse of minors, physically and mentally ill. What kind of human being would approve such behavior. This sounds more like that person believes in the wrong type of God.

Or there is some kind of disconnect where someone can think they believe in a particular deity but not really grasp how their behavior does not actually reflect the deity they serve to claim.

In any case, any belief system can have adherents who do or do not follow the code. What makes the difference? The person and how willing they are to submit to the code in truth.

People are also capable of submitting to their own PERSONAL code without following some kind of predigested religion. This is where I think you are off-track, by suggesting that somehow laying claim to a particular religion will mean you're more likely to be a good person.

It's usually not the atheists who go around throwing acid in their daughter's faces for not adhering to the religious lifestyle, or who have power over the community that they are tempted to leverage and abuse.

Politician obviosly believes he's too much of an important person to be punished. He is doing Gods work, again, his perception of God is clouded, and he doesn't understand his crime's significance.

As for the holyman, it's usually the true monsters that take on the guise of an innocent to commit crimes of great significance. "You either grapple with your animalistic impulses or you give yourself over to them."

Thanks for agreeing with me that it's the person, and not the religion they claim to follow, that determines how "moral" they happen to be.

Take for example ethics, table manners. While we're with friends or in a
restaurant, we don't pick our noses, fart or do something like that. What
happens when there is noone to enforce these set of rules but us alone.
When asked if we abide by ethics, we surely would want to say yes, it's
"noble", but just how much of it do we enforce on our selves when we are left
alone...

you're talking about farting and I'm talking about people being beaten to death or ostracized from their families because God is holy and cannot abide sin according to the religion's tenets? Okay.

My point: While someone saying that they are a good person is not to be taken without consideration it does imply that such person is more likely to act in a good manner rather than evil. As such, religion is one way to force upon someone particular qualities.

My point: I think religious affiliation isn't worth much nowadays. You'd do better to take people on their own commitment to a particular moral code -- even if it's just their own -- than being suggesting that those who aren't involved in organized religion are less moral.

In fact, I find your comment about religion as a way to "force qualities on someone" to be particular unnerving. It's the opposite of what spirituality is supposed to be and actually reveals one of the great weaknesses of religion. It was never supposed to be "outside-in". If you need to force qualities on someone, then they are not moral to begin with, and as soon as they get a chance, they'll slip out from under the rules to satisfy themselves.

 

[Spirit]

This reminds me that we have a lot more people not believing in gods existence than
when we had at previos times. I mean, once a lowly peasant no longer believes in
a supreme power that can judge him and decide his fate, he is no longer in awe
of it, what allows him to commit all sorts of crimes without much responsibility:
theft, telling lies, commit adultery.

This is like walking in the woods and meeting a stranger, I believe we'd all be
relieved on some level if we knew that he believes in a christian god.

p.s. atheists are scarier than religios people, because they don't conform to any
set of spiritual rules.

Religious people commit these crimes while believing in god. Anyway you derailed the topic to proselytize. You should be flagged.

 

[Aerl]

@Jennywocky

I think religious affiliation isn't worth much nowadays. You'd do better to take people on their own commitment to a particular moral code -- even if it's just their own

Point taken, and I now conclude that lower belief in God is not the reason for low morality and Love's status as not something sacred. I admit I was wrong in suggesting that.

 

[Aerl]

Religious people commit these crimes while believing in god. Anyway you derailed the topic to proselytize. You should be flagged.

My humble apologies.

I was noticing it was getting out of hand and if it went further on, I'd much have prefered to make another thread to discuss such possibility. It was not my intention to do so, if anything, I was just pointing out that someone going public about their religion is letting others know what values they uphold "in public".

Once again, I'm very sorry it got like this.

 

[Josteen]

Love is a generalization of many concepts, everyone interpreted it differently.

In my understanding it was like a feeling of attachment to something and like all things it is not permanent, nothing can last forever everything have an end, you might just be lead into believing that it was an eternal feeling through childhood stories and ideas, when in fact it is not, it's just like how happiness and sadness is, just like the human life they are all finite
Asking why someone loves a guy for only a week is like asking why a fly is dead today when yesterday or just a moment ago it was alive.

 

[Spirit]

Art?

I think this intuitive abstract way of trying to understand love is what is causing the issues. People simply define love as something or someone who causes a large amount of positive feelings in them.

I see thier feelings as a complex combination of desires, happiness, excitement, joy, and other feelings.

Love in an active form is simply defined as selflessness.
Love in an emotional form is a recipe of...
Loyalty
empathy
Understanding
These things are consistent with every type of relationship. Loyalty takes different shape with each person and relationship type. For the purpose of this, loyalty is defined as the feeling of responsibility and duty toward another individual.

A marriage or sexual relationship should have the same love as above. It should also have sexual attraction, mental attraction, common core beliefs, a general enjoyment of eachothers company, and a balanced abilty to satisfy eachothers emotional needs. These things are often considered a part of love but really they should be understood as seperate. By seeing them as seperate they will be better able to define where thier needs in a relationship are lacking. If they simply view it as "falling out of love" when these needs are not met, they are blinding themselves to the real source of the problem and miss a possible solution.

Yes, love is abstract.

So, if I decide to stay at my company despite better opportunities elsewhere it is because I love my company?

If I decide to let the lady in front of me at the checkout, does that mean I love her?

If I decide to help a guy push is broken down vehicle out of the road and be late to work, I love him?


Selflessness is not the active form of love. Love is abstract. Selflessness is a trait of a committed relationship. You can be in a committed relationship and not love someone. You can love someone and not be in a committed relationship.


Love and commitment not the same thing
Love and marriage not the same thing
Love and relationship is not the same thing

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, love is abstract.

So, if I decide to stay at my company despite better opportunities elsewhere it is because I love my company?

If I decide to let the lady in front of me at the checkout, does that mean I love her?

If I decide to help a guy push is broken down vehicle out of the road and be late to work, I love him?

I would propose that you have shown acts of love in all of those situations, if your intention was to give to those people or institutions for their sake.

If you were doing it out of guilt or for yourself or for whatever else, then you were not doing anything loving.

Selflessness is not the active form of love. Love is abstract. Selflessness is a trait of a committed relationship. You can be in a committed relationship and not love someone. You can love someone and not be in a committed relationship.

I don't think love is "abstract" in the sense that it is a special action rather than just a warm fuzzy feeling. You cannot "love" something without a direct object to show love to. until love is manifest, it's just an idea. Otherwise we're back to the alcoholic blubbering at the bar about how he loves his family, while in reality he hasn't shown them any love towards them at all.

 

[Grayman]

Yes, love is abstract.

So, if I decide to stay at my company despite better opportunities elsewhere it is because I love my company?

If I decide to let the lady in front of me at the checkout, does that mean I love her?

If I decide to help a guy push is broken down vehicle out of the road and be late to work, I love him?

Jenny is correct. In these cases your are loving them. Loving them like a friend if that helps you understand it. The first is only true if they did it for the companies sake and not out of fear of new territory.

Selflessness is not the active form of love. Love is abstract. Selflessness is a trait of a committed relationship. You can be in a committed relationship and not love someone. You can love someone and not be in a committed relationship.

That is true but it does not mean that love is not selflessness. Selflessness is not a trait of a committed relationship. A committed relationship exists as a "give and take" but love exists as a "give without expectations". You can commit to love someone within a committed relationship as well as out of it.

Love and commitment not the same thing
Love and marriage not the same thing
Love and relationship is not the same thing

I never stated that it was. They have connections but having connections is not the same as being the same thing.

Marriage can exist without love but I would not recommend it.
Commitment exists as a small part of love, but this commitment is very personal.
A relationship without some love is not a very promising relationship. I would never have such a relationship as it is a waste of time and often destructive.