Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:12pm

PDN wrote: »

I would think you do have a choice whether to love your daughter or not.

What? :eek: :eek: :eek:

PDN wrote: »

They had a choice - and they chose not to love.

They didn't choose not to love their children. They didn't love their children, and as such choose to do things that hurt them.

PDN · 03-12-2007 7:13pm

bogwalrus wrote: »

So when they say the love of god is in your hearts (or something like that) does it mean gods love is a choice or something. Please explain that for me please, the whole gods love to his flock if it is based on what you say then it doesnt really mean much no?

For some reason i get the feeling that the atheists should be arguing for your point of view PDN and you for the atheists one.

Not at all. If love is something you can't help then it would be pretty pointless of Jesus to command you to love your enemies, wouldn't it? The same would apply to the commands for us to love God and to love our neighbours and our fellow men.

I think the issue of God's love towards us is a bit different in that God is Love - ie love is an integral part of His nature. But it is certainly our choice whether we have God's love in our hearts or not - in other words, whether we choose to love other people.

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 7:13pm

PDN wrote: »

I would think you do have a choice whether to love your daughter or not. As a pastor I deal every day with the consequences of men who deliberately took choices that harmed their children (ie having an affair, knowing full well that it would destroy their marriage and devastate their kids). They had a choice - and they chose not to love. Love, and hate, are not some cosmic forces that hold us helplessly in their grip. We choose whether to love or not, and we choose whether to hate or not.

Ah, there I think we obviously have a difference of definition. I would say that someone who chose to have an affair may well love their children just as much as the person who didn't - but is not as wise. You, I think, concatenate the two where I would separate them.

I suspect, however, that there is little practical difference between the two approaches. I imagine you would urge such a man to "love his wife and children more", meaning to act practically towards them in a loving way - whereas I would say that "if you love your wife and children, you should act towards them in a loving way".

I must admit, though, I think that having a list is actually quite self-serving, although there is the opt-out of "the woman God picked for me". I may be a little biased at the moment, for various reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 03-12-2007 7:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

They didn't choose not to love their children. They didn't love their children, and as such choose to do things that hurt them.

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

By the same logic Martin Luther King wasn't a good person at all - by some biological quirk he just didn't fall victim to the blind forces of hate. Equally Fred Phelps is blameless since he just hasn't happened to fall in love with most of the human race.

robindch · 03-12-2007 7:18pm

PDN wrote:

We choose whether to love or not, and we choose whether to hate or not.[...] IMO the whole concept of 'falling in love' is an unthinking and irrational denial of personal responsibility.

If you hadn't posted your earlier posts, I'd have said that you were trolling at this point, but it seems that you're not.

Personally, I can't understand it at all. I can't choose whom to hate, detest, enjoy, like or love (or anything else) any more than I can choose who to find funny.

Perhaps it's different with you and Brian? Are you really able to keep your emotions under conscious control to that extent? I can't believe that anybody could, but perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps that's the difference that I was wondering about in that earlier post about religious control and irreligious passion.

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:19pm

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. If love is something you can't help then it would be pretty pointless of Jesus to command you to love your enemies, wouldn't it? The same would apply to the commands for us to love God and to love our neighbours and our fellow men.

Yes but it is something you can't help, so when you do this you are just pretending. You don't love them, but you can still act as if you do.

Its like eating food you don't like. [EDIT]Or as Robin said, finding something funny[/EDIT]

You can't decide to like a food that you don't like. You either like it or don't like it. It is a involuntary response.

You can still eat the food. You can still pretend to like it. You can choose to do all these things. But you cannot physically alter the way your taste buds are processing that information into your brain.

TBH saying that love is something one chooses to do simply demeans love down to a level where it ends up being something fake and shallow, like when teenage girls run around the place saying "Oh I love this new outfit" or "Oh I love the new Britney Spears song"

It becomes just a word

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:21pm

robindch wrote: »

I can choose who to find funny.

Excellent example.

Its like saying "I thought about that joke, it matched a number of criteria, and I've decided to find it hilarious .. har har har"

Our emotions simply do not work like that

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:25pm

PDN wrote: »

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

Of course it is there fault! They have to look after and provide for their children, even if they don't love them. I would strongly recommend they fake it as much as they can for sake of their children. That is called parental responsibility. None of that has got anything to do with if they love them or not. They either do love them or they don't. Either way they decide how to react based on that.

Allah, this is the weirdest conversation I've ever had, I swear to Allah.

PDN · 03-12-2007 7:28pm

robindch wrote: »

If you hadn't posted your earlier posts, I'd have said that you were trolling at this point, but it seems that you're not.

Personally, I can't understand it at all. I can't choose whom to hate, detest, enjoy, like or love (or anything else) any more than I can choose who to find funny.

Perhaps it's different with you and Brian? Are you really able to keep your emotions under conscious control to that extent? I can't believe that anybody could, but perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps that's the difference that I was wondering about in that earlier post about religious control and irreligious passion.

So you admit you are more prone to emotionalism than a Pentecostal preacher? That must be a first.

I must admit that I am surprised that something that is so commonplace for Christians seems to be blowing everyone's minds. This is the centre of who we are as believers. We believe that the presence of God the Holy Spirit within us enables us to choose to love anyone, even our enemies.

An example of this would be Corrie ten Boom who was sent to Ravensbruk Concentration Camp because she and her family sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland. The rest of her family perished, but she survived. Years later she was speaking at a Christian meeting and met one of the most sadistic guards from the Camp - now a born-again Christian. Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him. That was a choice.

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 7:30pm

PDN wrote: »

So it's not their fault that they're selfish pigs? They just weren't lucky enough to fall in love with their children?

Or they love their children, but not as much as themselves (selfish) - or they love their children, but don't think through the outcomes of their actions (stupid).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:36pm

PDN wrote: »

Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him.

What do you mean "love him" ... they started dating?

See I don't think you are talking about emotions, you are talking about actions. Like the dead beat dad ignoring his children instead of "loving them", or you deciding to commit to your wife.

This woman didn't decide to forgive the guard. She decided to see if she could forgive the guard, and found out that she could. Big difference

PDN · 03-12-2007 7:39pm

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean "love him" ... they started dating?

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 7:43pm

PDN wrote: »

So you admit you are more prone to emotionalism than a Pentecostal preacher? That must be a first.

I must admit that I am surprised that something that is so commonplace for Christians seems to be blowing everyone's minds. This is the centre of who we are as believers. We believe that the presence of God the Holy Spirit within us enables us to choose to love anyone, even our enemies.

An example of this would be Corrie ten Boom who was sent to Ravensbruk Concentration Camp because she and her family sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland. The rest of her family perished, but she survived. Years later she was speaking at a Christian meeting and met one of the most sadistic guards from the Camp - now a born-again Christian. Everything in her wanted to hate the man, but she prayed and received the grace of God to forgive him and love him. That was a choice.

And one that, as so often with religious beliefs, makes it clear that good things come only from God. Corrie ten Boom is not a better person because she was able to forgive and feel compassion for camp guards - which is what I would say - but "she prayed and received the grace of God". Of course, one might say that she was a better person because she chose to pray.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 7:46pm

PDN wrote: »

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

True, but there is more to love than mere actions.

This woman didn't love the guard.

She forgave him and treated him with the same respect that she gives everyone else. She shook his hand. That in itself is amazing. But its not love, the emotion.

She didn't long to be with him, as a husband may for his wife. She didn't say up all night when he was out late in case something happened to him, as a mother may do for her daughter. She didn't visit him every day for 40 years as two friends with platonic love may do.

Of course she doesn't have to love the guard for that act of forgiveness to be amazing. You are talking about different emotions.

Calling that "love" simply devalues what the word "love" means. Just because Jesus said "love your enemy" does mean that any time someone shows compassion to a current or former enemy that is "love"

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 7:46pm

PDN wrote: »

No, there is more to love than romance or sex.

There is also more to love than compassion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 03-12-2007 10:14pm

Wicknight wrote: »

On what grounds do you choose who you fall in love with someone PDN?

Do you make a list? Why would you choose someone over anyone else? Do you tell the person that you decided to love them, and you could equally decide not to love?

TBH I my be being a little harsh on you. I think you are simply confusing love with commitment. I find it inconceivable that you would really have decided to fall in love with your wife (and I imagine she would divorce you tomorrow if you said that to her). What you did do is decide to commit to her because you loved her and wanted to be with her and wanted to make her happy. The reason it was her rather than any of the other 3 billion women on the planet is because you fell in love with her.

Yep, a list is made

She has to be a she.

She has to be able to commit and just fall in and out of love whenever she feels like it.

A commitment first to God, then to family.

An understanding of the importance to unconditional love.

There is the start.

I am finding the atheists here making out that choosing to fall in and out of love as a switch that can be turned on and off. That is so far from the truth.

When someone make sthat choice it is followed by heartbreak, tears, periods of grieving, hurt relationship, etc, etc.

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Sorry to be harsh guys but that is what you are coming across as.

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 10:23pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yep, a list is made

She has to be a she.

She has to be able to commit and just fall in and out of love whenever she feels like it.

A commitment first to God, then to family.

An understanding of the importance to unconditional love.

There is the start.

I am finding the atheists here making out that choosing to fall in and out of love as a switch that can be turned on and off. That is so far from the truth.

When someone make sthat choice it is followed by heartbreak, tears, periods of grieving, hurt relationship, etc, etc.

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Sorry to be harsh guys but that is what you are coming across as.

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

Whether atheist or not, anyone who stays married knows that marriage requires commitment, and commitment requires a decision. What I would argue is that there is more to love than just the commitment. If you love your wife only because it is your duty as a Christian to do so, that debases the term to be equivalent to 'duty'. If you argue that you do not love your wife "only because it is your duty", then you admit that there is more to it than that. Which is it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 03-12-2007 10:31pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whether atheist or not, anyone who stays married knows that marriage requires commitment, and commitment requires a decision. What I would argue is that there is more to love than just the commitment. If you love your wife only because it is your duty as a Christian to do so, that debases the term to be equivalent to 'duty'. If you argue that you do not love your wife "only because it is your duty", then you admit that there is more to it than that. Which is it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course there I smore to it than that. It is a special gift from God. The ability to love. It is the part of being made 'in His image'.

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

SubjectSean · 03-12-2007 10:39pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

I know people who are married to many wives who love all of them I don't think that when they were falling in lust with the newer ones they fell out of love with the older ones.

Scofflaw · 03-12-2007 10:59pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Of course there I smore to it than that. It is a special gift from God. The ability to love. It is the part of being made 'in His image'.

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

Well, there you go - identical to the atheist picture. Apart, obviously, from the 'special gift from God' belief.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There have been many times over the last 22 years where the lust has come up for others, especially when being away, but recognised it as lust, as how can one love without knowing the person? Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

Er, no - that's what you and PDN are accusing us of. None of us have suggested any such thing.

Essentially, you've set up what I would consider a false dichotomy - lust on the one hand, and committed marital love on the other. Every intimate relation between a man and a woman is then corralled into those two categories. It has the 'political' advantage of making everything outside marriage necessarily lust, of course, but it's a falsehood, and rather an obvious one at that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 11:05pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But from the atheists point of view, I guess that they can choose absolutely notyhing as they are just a mindless product of their environment bent on satisfying their current needs.

Er, excuse me. You are drawing up lists as to who you will or will not decide to be in love with.

Isn't that the definition of "satisfying your current needs" PDN decided to be in love with his wife because she supports Arsenal (at what point did he say "Yes, now I will be in love with you"?)

The atheists are saying that love is a magical emotion that comes over someone, often without them even realising it is happening. We don't control and decide who we love any more than we decide what art we find beautiful, what music moves us, what jokes we find funny or what food we like the taste of. We choose none of these things.

No one has ever said "I didn't like rice, but I have decided that it will be my favourite food now". No one has ever said "I have decided I am going to find Dane Cook hilarious"

The idea that one would decide to be in love with someone is utterly alien to most people here. You might as well say I decided to cry at the end of Awakenings because I decide I would find it really sad. You either find it really sad or you don't. You can't choose to find it really sad.

Yet the Christians (bizarrely) are saying that love is in fact a bit like buying a car, more a life style choice than an emotion. Tick of the boxes and then decide to make yourself love the person. Simple as that. Does it come in red?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If it doesn't feel good to me now, I guess I have fallen out of love, so on to thenext pleasure.

But that is the point BC. The atheists are the ones saying that you cannot decide to fall in or out of love with someone. It is an emotion beyond rational choice. You can't decide to fall out of love with someone.

The Christians (well you and PDN) are in fact saying you can actually decide to be in love with someone, and you can logically decide not to be in love with someone, since it isn't an emotion it is just something you do.

PDN · 03-12-2007 11:08pm

Normally these threads go in a fairly predictable direction, but I must admit that I am totally amazed by the reaction I've got to something that is very common among Christians. It is a part of our faith that we should not be dominated by our impulses and emotions. Maybe I have been wrong in assuming that all people have the power to choose to love - maybe this is just a Christian thing?

After all, the concept of the spirit overcoming the flesh is a Christian doctrine, and the Bible does say that before we were saved our spirits were dead. So maybe the problem is that the atheists have something missing?

Your choice of marriage partner is, apart from the decision to accept or reject Christ, the most important decision you will ever make. IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons. Some of the posters on this board appear to be on an emotional par with the women who marry an obviously violent and abusive man and say, "But I can't help it - I love him".

PDN · 03-12-2007 11:09pm

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN decided to being love with his wife because she supports Arsenal.

Oh get a sense of humour will you? :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 11:17pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

When I first saw my wife I thought 'hey alright, I want to see her again.' In fact looked forward to it al week with great anticipation. That was the connection part. Then we became great friends, part of the falling in love bit. First night I met her was lust and desire. But as I grew to know her, love followed. I then choose to stick around and then decidid that I loved her enough to make that commitment to her for life.

So what are you talking about then? You didn't choose to fall for her, you just did. You didn't choose to have strong feelings for her, you just did. You didn't choose to be in love with her, you just where.

You choose to stick around because you wanted to stick around. You didn't choose to want to stick around.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although I get th esense that you guys all think that when away and seeing the hottie that I have fallen in love and that moment I have fallen out of love with my wife?

No? Why would we think that?

As Scofflaw suggests I think that is both what you and PDN wish we were saying so you could dig yourself out of the hole of saying that being in love with someone is something you rationally decide to do.

I don't think either you or PDN actually believe this.

Your description of falling for your wife certainly doesn't suggest that you rationally decided to fall for her. You rationally decided to continue seeing her, right up to your now, but you did that because you were falling for her.

Zombrex · 03-12-2007 11:27pm

PDN wrote: »

It is a part of our faith that we should not be dominated by our impulses and emotions. Maybe I have been wrong in assuming that all people have the power to choose to love - maybe this is just a Christian thing?

"to love" ... PDN you are talking about actions, not emotions.

You can choose to be kind, considerate, even loving, to others. But you can't choose to be in love with someone. You can either be in love with someone, or you can fake it and do it anyway, for what ever reason.

Its like eating a meal. You either like the food or you don't. You can't decide to like the food. You can choose to eat it or not, even if you don't like it.

The two things are separate. You either do or do not like the food. You don't decide this. But either way you can eat or not eat the food.

PDN wrote: »

So maybe the problem is that the atheists have something missing?

Well to be honest PDN if I took your posts on face value I would have to conclude that you have never actually been in love, because if you think that love is something a person rationally decides to do, then you aren't experiencing the emotion of love as I, or most of the posters here, understand it. You are simply going through the motions, acting in a loving manner towards someone else, without the genuine emotion behind that action.

Now I seriously doubt that is the case, but I do have wonder about your insistence that being in love with your wife was something you decided to do.

PDN wrote: »

Your choice of marriage partner is, apart from the decision to accept or reject Christ, the most important decision you will ever make. IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons.

Of course. But we aren't talking about choosing to marry someone. We are talking about choosing to be in love with someone.

As I said a good number of posts ago, a person can rationally choose to marry someone they love (or don't love), or they can rationally choose not to marry someone they love (or don't love), for a large number of reason. I've seen this happen before.

But you seem to have completely removed the emotion, and you are just left with the decision.

Schuhart · 03-12-2007 11:43pm

PDN wrote: »

IMO only a fool would make such a decision on a purely emotional level without weighing up all the pros and cons.

As I see it, you're using the word 'love' in a context that I'd see as meaning 'commitment'. I'd see 'love' as what you seem to be referring to as 'lust' - its the thing that puts you into the frame. But, indeed, the decision for marriage shouldn't proceed without a couple investigating what they think they are committing to.

I'm not sure about the extent to which there's a real disagreement here. Is 'love' the same as 'I walk a line'? Do incompetent parents necessarily not love their child?

PDN · 03-12-2007 11:45pm

Wicknight wrote: »

"to love" ... PDN you are talking about actions, not emotions.

Well to be honest PDN if I took your posts on face value I would have to conclude that you have never actually been in love, because if you think that love is something a person rationally decides to do, then you aren't experiencing the emotion of love as I, or most of the posters here, understand it. You are simply going through the motions, acting in a loving manner towards someone else, without the genuine emotion behind that action.

Now I seriously doubt that is the case, but I do have wonder about your insistence that being in love with your wife was something you decided to do.

Love is so much more than an emotion. It is a choice, and emotions follow that choice.

We are not mere animals that are controlled by impulses and emotions. We can make decisions, and our decisions can determine our emotions rather than the other way round.

You can choose to be afraid or you can choose to have faith. You can choose to be joyful or you can choose to be miserable. My wife and I chose to love one another many years ago. We believe that the number one ministry God has entrusted to us is to one another, and so for 21 years of married life we have worked to increase that love and to serve one another. The result is that we are head over heels in love with each other, and totally secure in the knowledge that we're not about to fall out of love with other. We don't have to worry about 'magic' (your word, not mine) taking our love away because magic didn't give it to us in the first place. We have built a wonderful marriage on choice and principles, not because we kissed our brains goodbye to be brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking love is some kind of mystical feeling.

Scofflaw · 04-12-2007 12:00am

PDN wrote: »

Love is so much more than an emotion. It is a choice, and emotions follow that choice.

We are not mere animals that are controlled by impulses and emotions. We can make decisions, and our decisions can determine our emotions rather than the other way round.

You can choose to be afraid or you can choose to have faith. You can choose to be joyful or you can choose to be miserable. My wife and I chose to love one another many years ago. We believe that the number one ministry God has entrusted to us is to one another, and so for 21 years of married life we have worked to increase that love and to serve one another. The result is that we are head over heels in love with each other, and totally secure in the knowledge that we're not about to fall out of love with other. We don't have to worry about 'magic' (your word, not mine) taking our love away because magic didn't give it to us in the first place. We have built a wonderful marriage on choice and principles, not because we kissed our brains goodbye to be brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking love is some kind of mystical feeling.

Again, who says these are the only two choices? No-one is arguing that marriage should be on the basis of infatuation (well, no-one here), and everyone here accepts that commitment is a decision.

However, you have both used the word 'love' to indicate only commitment, and nothing more, as if that commitment was something that happened once you'd ticked off sufficient points on a list of compatibility questions - that's what the amazement is over. BC has made it clear that that is not actually happened in his case. Perhaps it is what happened in your case - if so, I don't think we're the ones with "something missing".

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus · 04-12-2007 12:15am

When i was born i was wired as a sentient conscious being to feel the vast number of emotions that all sentient beings feel (like dogs and other animals alike). It was not a choice as a child or teenager to feel all those emotions of heartbreak and love as when it is a first time there is lack of knowledge of those feelings.

I understand that people who had consistently felt bad emotions over their lives from trying to be loved start to adapt psychologically by means of logical reasoning and thus destroying their capability of loving (this could also be a psychological problem).

I believe this might be somewhat related to your beliefs as christians also where your beliefs are preventing yourself from ever feeling the true emotion of love. I am just speculating and cannot give you a reason how your beliefs as christians can prevent you from truly loving someone. But maybe it is due to the lack of mystery where you know of your existence and origins through your bible and god and this is limiting you to not be able to immerse yourself in the unknown and true beauty of the universe, humanity and life. As you can see from other posts by atheist we are open to the idea of a "love" which is something that is abstract such as creativity in music and art. I am a musician myself and i truly engulf myself in music i like and i dance to it and let go to it and the feelings & emotions that you feel are just too complicated to explain and to be honest cant be explained.

PDN · 04-12-2007 12:24am

bogwalrus wrote: »

I believe this might be somewhat related to your beliefs as christians also where your beliefs are preventing yourself from ever feeling the true emotion of love. I am just speculating and cannot give you a reason how your beliefs as christians can prevent you from truly loving someone.

Nonsense. I feel true love & I truly love people. I am simply saying that I got there by choice. I went through all that teenage stuff and it wasn't true love at all. It doesn't come close to what I have now with my wife.

The funny thing is that we have hundreds of youth from non-Christian homes in our church. My wife and I go away camping with them each year. Again and again they come to us and ask for advice about relationships and marriage because the love they see in our marriage is much more real than what they see in their parents' lives. Our 19-year old daughter has told me that she wants a marriage like ours.

Scofflaw · 04-12-2007 12:30am

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. I feel true love & I truly love people. I am simply saying that I got there by choice. I went through all that teenage stuff and it wasn't true love at all. It doesn't come close to what I have now with my wife.

The funny thing is that we have hundreds of youth from non-Christian homes in our church. My wife and I go away camping with them each year. Again and again they come to us and ask for advice about relationships and marriage because the love they see in our marriage is much more real than what they see in their parents' lives. Our 19-year old daughter has told me that she wants a marriage like ours.

Good for you, but your enormous success still doesn't make it the only possible option, I'm afraid. My grandparents, who eloped in a fit of passion when they were 17 and 15, were still together on loving terms 60 years later.

That you can love from an initial position of decision is obvious, since arranged marriages generally fail at the same rate as other marriages. That does not make it the only option, or even the best option, nor even the normal option for Christians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart · 04-12-2007 12:49am

Scofflaw wrote: »

That you can love from an initial position of decision is obvious, since arranged marriages generally fail at the same rate as other marriages.

Is it fair to say that this points to the need for people to have a common understanding of what they are getting into. In my own case, we'd both share a picture of marriage based as an irreversable step - which I'll freely admit comes from our Catholic heritage. Because we have that common picture of what it is, we find we are in the situation that we both desire.

Equally, its possible to imagine that people who see arranged marriage as normal and accept the idea that they'll be partnered with someone that their family chooses as compatable will actually get behind that union. If they each fulfill their partner's expectations, clearly that would be the basis for a lasting relationship.

bogwalrus · 04-12-2007 12:55am

I am sure you have a very happy marriage PDN and you seem like you are a very loving person but in the words of take that "how deep is your love?"...:D

sorry i had to throw that in.

I said in an earlier post that you did truly love your wife before you made the choice to love her. Would you disagree with this? If yes then tell me was there ever a point after all the lusting and stuff where you were both on a couch staring into eachothers eyes, completely at peace, all there is is you and her and a sense something amazing, and then!! something engulfs, a realisation about something....possibly love? If sooooo......Did this by chance happen a milli second before you made the choice to love her???

I do believe compatability is quite important to finding the perfect one but i dont think people could possibly know who is most compatable judging on a list of likes and dislikes. The human soul goes deep and it is a clicking that occurs "unknowingly" and "by surprise" between two humans that i would feel is when love emmerges...nothing logical or calculable at all.

PDN · 04-12-2007 10:17am

bogwalrus wrote: »

I am sure you have a very happy marriage PDN and you seem like you are a very loving person but in the words of take that "how deep is your love?"...:D

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law to ban anything connected to the Bee Gees. Those three ugly blokes with high voices must surely be more detrimental to intellectual discourse than one puny German corporal?

I said in an earlier post that you did truly love your wife before you made the choice to love her. Would you disagree with this? If yes then tell me was there ever a point after all the lusting and stuff where you were both on a couch staring into eachothers eyes, completely at peace, all there is is you and her and a sense something amazing, and then!! something engulfs, a realisation about something....possibly love? If sooooo......Did this by chance happen a milli second before you made the choice to love her???

No, I made the choice to love her first. I was attracted to her, but attraction is nothing like love - and as a normal red-blooded young man I was attracted to just about every female that wasn't absolutely hideous.

I believe I am simply being more honest than most posters here. We all have criteria in our head that we use to assess whether someone is worthy of our attentions. Jared Diamond discusses this quite well in The Third Chimpanzee. The notion of involuntarily 'falling in love' is simply a romanticising of this process. It seems to me that many of the atheists here, while pretending to be more rational than Christians, desperately want to cling onto this last little shred of magical belief.

Scofflaw wrote:

That you can love from an initial position of decision is obvious, since arranged marriages generally fail at the same rate as other marriages. That does not make it the only option, or even the best option, nor even the normal option for Christians.

Some of my Indian Christian friends insist that arranged (not forced) marriages tend to be much more loving and long-lasting among Christians than other marriages. Of course that may be because they occur more in societies where adultery and divorce are much less likely to be tolerated.

We should remember that the idea of marrying because people are in love has not been the norm for most of human society throughout history. Even in Western Europe it was much more common for people to choose their spouse by various criteria (often finance being uppermost) and then the happiness of the marriage depended on learning to love one's spouse.

Zombrex · 04-12-2007 11:09am

PDN wrote: »

Love is so much more than an emotion. It is a choice, and emotions follow that choice.

You have it exactly the wrong way around. Love is an emotion, and this emotion effects what our choices are.

PDN wrote: »

We are not mere animals that are controlled by impulses and emotions.

Why do you and BC keep saying that? No one is claiming we are or should be controlled by our impulses (I assume you mean sex) or our emotions.

What we are saying is that we don't control our emotions. We still control our actions

This seems to be a really difficult concept for you to get and TBH I've no idea why. If you and BC would just listen to the analogies people have using I'm sure you would understand straight away.

For example, no one controls what they think is funny. No one can decide to find something funny that they otherwise wouldn't. You either find something funny or you don't.

Now say your girlfriend makes a lame joke that you don't think is particular funny. Now you can't decide if you find it funny or not. You just don't find it funny, to you it is a bad joke. You can of course decide how you are going to react to her.

You could decide to just say "That wasn't funny". That might hurt her feelings and its a bit rude. You might give a smile, as if to say "Sweetie that was a lame joke, but you are cute for trying". Or you might give a fake laugh and try to make it seem real.

None of that changes the fact that you don't find the joke funny and there is nothing you can do to change that. But equally that in no way means you are "controlled" by that emotion, or lack of emotion.

PDN wrote: »

You can choose to be afraid

TBH PDN if I didn't know better I would swear, like Robin, that you are trolling.

We choose to be afraid? Are you serious? Who in their right mind would choose to be afraid of something if they could simply not choose to be afraid of something.

You can buy a T-Shirt in America supporting the NY Fire Department that has the following on the back referencing 9/11

"Were you afraid?"

"Terrified"

"They why did you do it"

"Because its my job"

Now I don't know if that is a real quote (I hope it is), but the point is the same regardless. The fire fighters at 9/11 did what they did despite the terror. They were not simple "not afraid", while everyone else was. They were afraid like everyone else. Of course they were. You would have had to have been insane not to be afraid They did what they did despite being afraid. That is why they are heroes

The idea that they decided in the truck on the way down to the towers to be afraid, when they could have decided not to be afraid, is utterly ridiculous.

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. I feel true love & I truly love people. I am simply saying that I got there by choice.

Well PDN, that isn't "love" as I would understand it or have experienced it, nor I think as most people here would.

There is a difference between feeling the emotion, and simply going through the motions that one associates with that emotion. You can choose to go through the motions, but you can't choose to feel the emotion behind that, in the same way that you can pretend you really like caviar but you can't force yourself to actually enjoy it

PDN · 04-12-2007 12:02pm

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, no one controls what they think is funny. No one can decide to find something funny that they otherwise wouldn't. You either find something funny or you don't.

Your arguments by analogy are particularly unconvincing. You can control what you find funny, or indeed what taste you like. Have you never heard the expression "an acquired taste" or "an acquired sense of humour"? Do you really think any one naturally likes the taste of Guinness or Marmite?

Your 9/11 illustration is a poor analogy because most fear is of stuff that will never happen. For example, after I watched 'Jaws' I was afraid to swim in the sea. By reminding myself of some basic facts (no Great White Sharks in this area, more chance of getting killed crossing the road etc) I chose not to be afraid. A case of rational thinking controlling emotion.

Well PDN, that isn't "love" as I would understand it or have experienced it, nor I think as most people here would.

Poor you.

This thread is a strange inversion of the usual pattern. A theist is arguing for rationality and logic whereas atheists are insisting on submitting to a magical force.

Scofflaw · 04-12-2007 12:04pm

PDN wrote: »

No, I made the choice to love her first. I was attracted to her, but attraction is nothing like love - and as a normal red-blooded young man I was attracted to just about every female that wasn't absolutely hideous.

I believe I am simply being more honest than most posters here. We all have criteria in our head that we use to assess whether someone is worthy of our attentions. Jared Diamond discusses this quite well in The Third Chimpanzee. The notion of involuntarily 'falling in love' is simply a romanticising of this process. It seems to me that many of the atheists here, while pretending to be more rational than Christians, desperately want to cling onto this last little shred of magical belief.

Perhaps, although personally I was mostly rejecting the claims that conscious selection according to explicit criteria was the only path that leads to real love, and that Christians were somehow specially blessed in their ability to feel such love.

PDN wrote: »

Some of my Indian Christian friends insist that arranged (not forced) marriages tend to be much more loving and long-lasting among Christians than other marriages. Of course that may be because they occur more in societies where adultery and divorce are much less likely to be tolerated.

Other analyses have suggested that where society is both materialistic and conservative, arranged marriages are both more common and more stable, the stability of marriages on average being largely a matter of social convention.

PDN wrote: »

We should remember that the idea of marrying because people are in love has not been the norm for most of human society throughout history. Even in Western Europe it was much more common for people to choose their spouse by various criteria (often finance being uppermost) and then the happiness of the marriage depended on learning to love one's spouse.

That is, of course, quite true. The current rejection of such criteria has not, as far as I know, had much impact on either the stability or the happiness of the average marriage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 04-12-2007 12:09pm

PDN wrote: »

Your arguments by analogy are particularly unconvincing. You can control what you find funny, or indeed what taste you like. Have you never heard the expression "an acquired taste" or "an acquired sense of humour"? Do you really think any one naturally likes the taste of Guinness or Marmite?

Your 9/11 illustration is a poor analogy because most fear is of stuff that will never happen. For example, after I watched 'Jaws' I was afraid to swim in the sea. By reminding myself of some basic facts (no Great White Sharks in this area, more chance of getting killed crossing the road etc) I chose not to be afraid. A case of rational thinking controlling emotion.

Even so, I'll bet if something bumps your foot under the water you jump like the rest of us!

PDN wrote: »

This thread is a strange inversion of the usual pattern. A theist is arguing for rationality and logic whereas atheists are insisting on submitting to a magical force.

Feh - we're all just arguing our preferred brand of magical force, really. Your wife was chosen for you by God, Wicknight's will be selected by unconscious criteria.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 04-12-2007 2:19pm

PDN wrote: »

Your arguments by analogy are particularly unconvincing. You can control what you find funny, or indeed what taste you like. Have you never heard the expression "an acquired taste" or "an acquired sense of humour"? Do you really think any one naturally likes the taste of Guinness or Marmite?

You can choose to drink Guinness until you like it, that isn't the same thing at all. You body will eventually become used to the chemical reactions it causes, like with coffee.

But again you are not deciding to like coffee. The coffee is physically altering your brain chemistry. You can decide to do this if you like, knowing what will happen (for example starting to smoke). But the actual process is chemical and out of your control.

For example if it was possible to simply decide not to like coffee or alchohal or cigarettes you would have no alcoholics or people who need a cup of coffee in the morning to function in work.

PDN wrote: »

Your 9/11 illustration is a poor analogy because most fear is of stuff that will never happen. For example, after I watched 'Jaws' I was afraid to swim in the sea.

So you decided to be afraid of swimming in the sea?

No of course you didn't.

You were afraid of swimming in the sea because you were scared. You didn't decide to be scared.

PDN wrote: »

By reminding myself of some basic facts (no Great White Sharks in this area, more chance of getting killed crossing the road etc) I chose not to be afraid.

You didn't choose to not be afraid. You rationally considered the odds of a shark attacking you and because that was so low you were no longer afraid because of that knowledge

Fear is not something we choose to feel or not feel. Our rational brain can attempt to calm our emotions. But again that is not the same thing at all.

PDN wrote: »

A case of rational thinking controlling emotion.

If you could control your emotion in the first place you wouldn't need to rationally consider the odds of a shark attacking you.

You would simply not be afraid, irrespective of whether a shark is likely to attack you

You only rationally considered the likelihood of an attack because you cannot simply stop being scared. You have to convince yourself that there is nothing to be scared about. And then you will stop being scared, assuming you are convincing.

PDN wrote: »

Poor you.

I was about to say the same thing. But I suppose if you are content with what you call "love", that is all that matters.

PDN wrote: »

A theist is arguing for rationality and logic whereas atheists are insisting on submitting to a magical force.

Its not magical, it is simple beyond our rational control. Love is an emotional response, one that is no doubt electrons in the brain, but none the less still out of our rational control. Which adds to its wonder I guess. If we could decide our emotions we would probably all end up simply being robots.

As I said "love" isn't a life style choice.

Schuhart · 04-12-2007 8:41pm

PDN wrote: »

This thread is a strange inversion of the usual pattern. A theist is arguing for rationality and logic whereas atheists are insisting on submitting to a magical force.

Next you'll be telling us there's no Santa.

Kipperhell · 06-12-2007 5:00pm

Ok if god created everything why did he create cancer? What is the design plan there? Is god punishing people? If god designed us to mutate fine. I think you can claim there is an intelligence to existence but you can't really claim god created everything in 6 days.
If you believe the theory that god designed all things then you have to ask why do such a bad job?
I can accept a theory that he set things in motion like baking a cake but not that all individual things were designed specifically. I have heard some people claim that mutation and disease are the work of the devil. Which is just belief I can't follow. In general the theories of gods tend to follow some sort of human reactions with little intelligence of superior beings. The Roman,Greek,Norse tribal gods for example. Then the Jewish god seems to be full of hate and anger and somehow becomes a god who is all wise and planned out that were can barely comprehend. It seems a lot more logical to see that as people understood more the concept of the old style gods lost popularity and the more difficult gods to discredit remained. That combined with tyrannical rule destroying old ways.

Zombrex · 12-12-2007 11:09am

Antarctic dinosaurs ... Young Earth creationists want to have a crack at explaining that one

Just saw on /. this

I suppose 6,000 years ago antarctic was nice and warm and only became cold because of the Fall

Belief in God versus the Evolutionist's put down

Comments