Do you believe in God and why

[Bluedan]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am of course referring to romantic love, not mother love or love of country etc.

 

No evidence for "love". It's only what some person says, but no way to prove it.

People often say they are in love when in fact they are in lust. Plenty of evidence for lust.

its an interesting question perhaps worthy of research as to whether there is any neurological evidence 

on a quick search I found this

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/scientists-find-a-few-surprises-in-their-study-of-love/

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Bluedan said:

its an interesting question perhaps worthy of research as to whether there is any neurological evidence 

on a quick search I found this

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/scientists-find-a-few-surprises-in-their-study-of-love/

Interesting article, but doesn't find evidence for "romantic love" IMO. Dopamine can be released for many reasons eg looking at porn, sex or masturbation etc.

"Love" can be described in many ways, but "romantic love" has no evidence, IMO. It's a feeling that can be described as caring, lust, sympathy, empathy, etc. Most of us have been in love, including myself, but it's an illusion, IMO and fades away quite quickly. If we are lucky we become friends, but if not we become enemies as "love" turns to hate. IMO hate has more evidence for its existence than "love" does.

People that have sex are described as "lovers" and there is evidence for that, of course, but that's sexual love, not romantic love.

 

Been real, but end of for me. Bye.

[onthedarkside]

A trolling post, a meme graphic post and replies have been removed.

 

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Interesting article, but doesn't find evidence for "romantic love" IMO. Dopamine can be released for many reasons eg looking at porn, sex or masturbation etc.

"Love" can be described in many ways, but "romantic love" has no evidence, IMO. It's a feeling that can be described as caring, lust, sympathy, empathy, etc. Most of us have been in love, including myself, but it's an illusion, IMO and fades away quite quickly. If we are lucky we become friends, but if not we become enemies as "love" turns to hate. IMO hate has more evidence for its existence than "love" does.

People that have sex are described as "lovers" and there is evidence for that, of course, but that's sexual love, not romantic love.

 

Been real, but end of for me. Bye.

Well, there are so many facets there to be discussed, and surely everyone has got some hard lessons for believing in the wrong person.

Not wishing to disparage romantic love, and there's already a load of literature glorifying its beauty, but I'm inclined to think that it's just a clever trick by the spirit to encourage our reproduction.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, there are so many facets there to be discussed, and surely everyone has got some hard lessons for believing in the wrong person.

Not wishing to disparage romantic love, and there's already a load of literature glorifying its beauty, but I'm inclined to think that it's just a clever trick by the spirit to encourage our reproduction.

The urge to reproduce is a hard wired genetic imperative. Because it tends to lead one astray, IMO it was frowned on by religious leaders who mandated such atrocities as Catholic priests being forbidden to have sex.

However that is true for all species, and is just sex, not romantic love. IMO that was invented by writers of books for women in Victorian times.

[mauGR1]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

However that is true for all species, and is just sex, not romantic love. IMO that was invented by writers of books for women in Victorian times.

Well, Helen of Troy run away with the young prince before the invention of the script, at least you have to concede that.

If romantic love didn't exist before the great flood, I cannot say, but I would bet that since, ad humans, we are able to discern the beautiful from the ugly, romantic love did exist.

Sorry if it sounds a bit sexist, but I guess there are not many women reading this thread ????

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, Helen of Troy run away with the young prince before the invention of the script, at least you have to concede that.

If romantic love didn't exist before the great flood, I cannot say, but I would bet that since, ad humans, we are able to discern the beautiful from the ugly, romantic love did exist.

Sorry if it sounds a bit sexist, but I guess there are not many women reading this thread ????

Script certainly existed back then, IMO, and we only know about it because Homer wrote a poem about it. Perhaps he was the first romantic novelist. I doubt it was historically accurate.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Script certainly existed back then, IMO, and we only know about it because Homer wrote a poem about it. Perhaps he was the first romantic novelist. I doubt it was historically accurate.

As far as I know, Homer' s poems were transmitted orally for undetermined time before being written, and there's not even the certainty that Homer existed, or that he created both of the major poems which made him famous.

However, my point was that romantic love is not an invention of the Victorian era, even if it's certainly true that marriages were a kind of business agreement between families until recently.

Another example is the biblical king David of Israel falling in love with the beautiful wife of a soldier.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/25/2020 at 6:05 AM, mauGR1 said:

As far as I know, Homer' s poems were transmitted orally for undetermined time before being written, and there's not even the certainty that Homer existed, or that he created both of the major poems which made him famous.

However, my point was that romantic love is not an invention of the Victorian era, even if it's certainly true that marriages were a kind of business agreement between families until recently.

Another example is the biblical king David of Israel falling in love with the beautiful wife of a soldier.

Siege of Troy was about 1250 BC and first known script was about 3200 BC.

I'm pretty sure someone wrote down the Iliyad at that time.

 

I would describe "falling in love" as more like "falling in lust". I fell in love all the time in LOS, but it was only lust, after all.

 

I believe that Wikipedia is on my side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)

The more current and Western traditional terminology meaning "court as lover" or the general idea of "romantic love" is believed to have originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, primarily from that of the French culture.

 

????

[mauGR1]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Siege of Troy was about 1250 BC and first known script was about 3200 BC.

I'm pretty sure someone wrote down the Iliyad at that time.

 

I would describe "falling in love" as more like "falling in lust". I fell in love all the time in LOS, but it was only lust, after all.

 

I believe that Wikipedia is on my side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)

The more current and Western traditional terminology meaning "court as lover" or the general idea of "romantic love" is believed to have originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, primarily from that of the French culture.

 

????

Thanks for doing the homework, but it's all arguable, and actually being argued.

Of course I can fully agree that falling in love is different than lust, but I've noticed that for most people, including myself, it can take many years to understand the difference.

Yet, love is just a word with infinite meanings, and it is always a hard task even trying to describe its infinite facets.

[Sunmaster]

I think a good general definition of what love is, is when you put someone's needs before your own needs, without expecting something in return.

If one seeks companionship to fill a void in oneself, then the motive is not selfless and will inevitably cause problems down the line. We can blame love or the shortcomings/imperfections of the lover, but if we are honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that the shortcomings are really within ourselves. 

"True love" is selfless and is not influenced by the external ups and downs. But yeah, like MauGR1 says, this is the ideal and in reality there infinite shades of gray in between.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think a good general definition of what love is, is when you put someone's needs before your own needs, without expecting something in return.

If one seeks companionship to fill a void in oneself, then the motive is not selfless and will inevitably cause problems down the line. We can blame love or the shortcomings/imperfections of the lover, but if we are honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that the shortcomings are really within ourselves. 

"True love" is selfless and is not influenced by the external ups and downs. But yeah, like MauGR1 says, this is the ideal and in reality there infinite shades of gray in between.

Well, a famous modern philosopher said, and I fully agree, that the closer to true love, is mother's love for her children.

Saying that " God is love" sounds about right to me, but I would be careful not to tell that to a victim of a natural disaster, or a victim of any social injustice.

Anyway, we've got some freedom on this thread to discuss almost anything, but surely " love " and its million facets would deserve a thread on its own.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think a good general definition of what love is, is when you put someone's needs before your own needs, without expecting something in return.

If one seeks companionship to fill a void in oneself, then the motive is not selfless and will inevitably cause problems down the line. We can blame love or the shortcomings/imperfections of the lover, but if we are honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that the shortcomings are really within ourselves. 

"True love" is selfless and is not influenced by the external ups and downs. But yeah, like MauGR1 says, this is the ideal and in reality there infinite shades of gray in between.

The problem with using the same word for something that is many different things is obvious. IMO it happened because when English was created "love" meant something very different from what we think it does now.

Eg saying God loves us, when nature ( part of God's creation ) does not love us at all and kills millions over the centuries.

IMO one would have to go back to Aramaic to understand what they thought God's love was.

I believe some cultures have no word for romantic love, as it's a new concept.

I don't believe that romantic love exists, but I sure was fooled for a long time.

I believe in mother's love

I believe in love of country

I believe in love of friends

I believe in love of nature

I believe in love of God

 

but I think romantic love is just sexual desire and the hoops we jump through to get lucky. All the emotions we feel when in love are caused by the release of certain chemicals as a result of certain stimuli, and that's because it's a genetic imperative to reproduce for the survival of the species. One such stimuli apparently is that our eyes dilate when we want to "get close" which is why lovers go to poorly lit restaurants, as low light levels cause eye dilation. It's all just a genetic program, IMO.

Babies have big eyes, as apparently big eyes cause people to feel protective- just a genetic response to help babies survive.

Nature is very clever.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Anyway, we've got some freedom on this thread to discuss almost anything, but surely " love " and its million facets would deserve a thread on its own.

Please not. It would just end up with us discussing how we got used by women that claimed to "love" us. Enough of that already on many threads.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think a good general definition of what love is, is when you put someone's needs before your own needs, without expecting something in return.

If one seeks companionship to fill a void in oneself, then the motive is not selfless and will inevitably cause problems down the line. We can blame love or the shortcomings/imperfections of the lover, but if we are honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that the shortcomings are really within ourselves. 

"True love" is selfless and is not influenced by the external ups and downs. But yeah, like MauGR1 says, this is the ideal and in reality there infinite shades of gray in between.

IMO no such thing as "unconditional love" from humans, which is why if I was allowed animals in my accommodation I'd get a dog- IMO the only animal that loves humans unconditionally. I could have a cat, but they don't love us IMO- they pretend to so we feed them.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please not. It would just end up with us discussing how we got used by women that claimed to "love" us. Enough of that already on many threads.

Oh, I am happy we are here discussing the holy and high principles and the laws of nature.

Women, anyway, are also wired to be practical in a way that's not always easy to understand for us. If you haven't seen yet, I recommend you to Google           , " Briffault law", which explains a concept on a shoestring ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO no such thing as "unconditional love" from humans, which is why if I was allowed animals in my accommodation I'd get a dog- IMO the only animal that loves humans unconditionally. I could have a cat, but they don't love us IMO- they pretend to so we feed them.

As a cat person I disagree. From my experience they just show their love in a different way. 

Would you say that a mother's love for her child has some strings attached?
I think it would fit my earlier definition of love quite well. A mother (but a father just as well) would gladly sacrifice herself to protect her offspring....which is putting her child's needs (safety) above her own.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Eg saying God loves us, when nature ( part of God's creation ) does not love us at all and kills millions over the centuries.

 

 

IMO dying is just a necessary part of a process and doesn't negate God's love for us at all, quite the contrary. If we agree that the soul is eternal, then dying is just a shift from one stage to another. For me, it would be very cruel to be stuck in this world without the opportunity to move on, so I welcome death when the time comes. 
Further, if we accept the notion of "God is Love", then we can not just pick and choose what we think love is and what not.

If God is love and God is everything there is, then death must be an act of love as well. I believe it is.

Whether we see and recognize this depends on our perspective and understanding.

 

I'm reading a very interesting book right now. The author, a long-time meditation practitioner and teacher, was talking about the guru-disciple relationship. [guru means literally dispeller of darkness] He said that a (true) guru is someone who can show you the way and that his love is unconditional, because his only wish is to see you advance on the path, as from his point of view there is no distinction between him and the disciple. But he also said that the guru is ultimately only an expression of the SELF (your true identity) and that in the end, EVERYTHING is your guru...a particularly meaningful passage in a book, a casual conversation with a stranger that gives you an insight, a relationship with another person (good or bad as you may see it)....all these life experiences have the potentials of dispelling the darkness. 
How wonderful! 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Sunmaster

[Peter Denis]

14 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

As a cat person I disagree. From my experience they just show their love in a different way.

...

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

As a cat person I disagree. From my experience they just show their love in a different way. 

I've had cats. IMO they only love us till they get fed.

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Would you say that a mother's love for her child has some strings attached?
I think it would fit my earlier definition of love quite well. A mother (but a father just as well) would gladly sacrifice herself to protect her offspring....which is putting her child's needs (safety) above her own.

I'm not a mother so I don't know. I do know that my mother loved my dead brother more than me. She never got over his death which was rather horrible, so perhaps not a good example. She abandoned me quite easily when it came to it.

Plenty of mothers that don't care about their children. My first partner cared more about her "career" than her children. She pretended that she did love them, but she didn't really.

Yes, some mothers would sacrifice themselves for their kids, but I don't know any that would. I do believe it exists though.

 

Yes, death is inevitable but a difference between dying peacefully in bed at 90 and dying screaming with cancer.

 

Personally I believe that God is beyond such human emotions as love. God created a universe that kills untold numbers of life forms with black holes and asteroids the size of a house that kill everything when they hit a planet and diseases that kill small boys that hardly lived. Doesn't seem very loving on a human level, but after all, God is not human, so not bound by human emotions.

Edited November 26, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, I am happy we are here discussing the holy and high principles and the laws of nature.

Women, anyway, are also wired to be practical in a way that's not always easy to understand for us. If you haven't seen yet, I recommend you to Google           , " Briffault law", which explains a concept on a shoestring ????

IMO men will never understand women, and I worked with hundreds in my nursing career. They claim to understand men, of course, but they don't either.

 

I was working with one female that was having an affair with a married man and claimed that he was going to leave his wife for her. I told her he just wanted sex, but she refused to believe me because, she "knew about men". I did refrain from saying "I told you so" when he went back home to his wife. We were all working overseas from our respective countries at the time.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO men will never understand women, and I worked with hundreds in my nursing career. They claim to understand men, of course, but they don't either.

 

I was working with one female that was having an affair with a married man and claimed that he was going to leave his wife for her. I told her he just wanted sex, but she refused to believe me because, she "knew about men". I did refrain from saying "I told you so" when he went back home to his wife. We were all working overseas from our respective countries at the time.

I think it's quite possible to understand human beings, men and women, just taking a step back from the chaos of the material world. 

..a bit like sitting on the top of a mountain, and watching the human activities from above.

Nothing new under the sun.

[Tagged]

Love is easy, at once you have past all the years from attraction to dissasters, and still feel, see, and touch your partner, and feel good at hearth and in life after 10 years, you can call it love. 

 

Our biggest problem, is that we want more from our partners than we can give ourselves back, and we expect far more from them, than from ourself. 

 

Ego must die

 

love is to forgive

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

Love is easy, at once you have past all the years from attraction to dissasters, and still feel, see, and touch your partner, and feel good at hearth and in life after 10 years, you can call it love. 

 

Our biggest problem, is that we want more from our partners than we can give ourselves back, and we expect far more from them, than from ourself. 

 

Ego must die

 

love is to forgive

That sounds quite reasonable, and lucky indeed the one who can enter a state of selfless love for everything.

As for the love for a partner, it's a game of give and take, and to find a point of balance seems to me easier said than done.

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

That sounds quite reasonable, and lucky indeed the one who can enter a state of selfless love for everything.

As for the love for a partner, it's a game of give and take, and to find a point of balance seems to me easier said than done.

I would say it is as difficult being in a faith of a god, you just have to let go of your doubt, and se the beauty in the person, instead of all the weaknesses and fauls. 

 

But common sense is immportant, and also know when the trust is broken. If you are not sure,, you are sure! Next

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, I am happy we are here discussing the holy and high principles and the laws of nature.

Women, anyway, are also wired to be practical in a way that's not always easy to understand for us. If you haven't seen yet, I recommend you to Google           , " Briffault law", which explains a concept on a shoestring ????

Thanks for letting me know about Briffault law. Very interesting. Explains why my partners thought they could stop having sex with me once they had got everything they wanted from me.

 

Perhaps someone can explain why women seem to lack a gene for gratitude? Seems no matter how much I do for them it's never worthy of "thank you".

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That sounds quite reasonable, and lucky indeed the one who can enter a state of selfless love for everything.

As for the love for a partner, it's a game of give and take, and to find a point of balance seems to me easier said than done.

With me it seems to be a case of taking and not so much giving. Perhaps I have a sign only women can see on my forehead saying "I'm a sucker, feel free to use me, and once used up can dump".

 

What I really don't understand about women is why they choose bad men to love unconditionally and fiercely, then complain when the bad men treat them badly, and almost always after they have children with the bad men. My first partner was one such. Had 2 children to a very bad man, and although I treated her well treated me really badly, but only after she had used me up for everything she could get out of me.

I guess I really am a sucker to be fooled so badly.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I think it's quite possible to understand human beings, men and women, just taking a step back from the chaos of the material world. 

..a bit like sitting on the top of a mountain, and watching the human activities from above.

Nothing new under the sun.

A good book on how to deal with women is

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (1992) is a book written by American author and relationship counselor John Gray, after he had earned degrees in meditation and taken a correspondence course in psychology.

[Tagged]

Double post 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Tagged

[Tagged]

Still it is up to us, and us to find happiness. Happiness comes trough mistakes you have done and improve for every time you realize and admit your own mistakes, as it also lower the bar for what you think is real love and happiness. Noise dissapears, and you will know what real happiness is. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Tagged

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A good book on how to deal with women is

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (1992) is a book written by American author and relationship counselor John Gray, after he had earned degrees in meditation and taken a correspondence course in psychology.

I still have that book in the deep darkness of some shelf, and to be honest, I never liked it.

Thanks anyway for the suggestion.