Love is an action word; it is something that you do. People today think love is a feeling but what happens when the feeling runs out?

"I'm not in love with you anymore" = I don't feel love for you anymore

This is an inferior type of love which is based on feelings and physical desire. In greek it is called Eros.

There is another type of love called Agape love, which is unconditional love. It means I love you whether I feel it or not, and regardless of whether you return it to me or not.

Eros is selfish love, and Agape is unconditional love. Many marriages have ended because they were based on Eros, and not Agape love.

I'm unclear is he a sighted Daredevil or a white Luke Cage?

Either way, is anyone else getting sick of the punch-em-up Marvel series they keep throwing out? I mean, I love Jessica Jones and I'm really excited about Legion (too early to tell after just one episode, but I think it could be awesome), but every time I tune in to one of these, I feel like I did watching Daredevil.

Ep1: Cool! Nice fight scenes.
Ep2: Hmm... still good, but felt a lot like Ep1
Ep10: Wait... didn't I watch this episode before?... I'm sure I remember that bit.

"these kind of assholes."

You mean Christians?

Love to vote them off the planet. Sadly it seems they run the place.

fuck me i love you creepy chan i mean i love my wife

Too bad they used the tech in such a lame way. The inherent instability could have been used for a positive outcome rather than them trying desperately to do accurate light reflections. They also didn't do much of anything that couldn't be done by other means. Would love to see what The Chemical Brothers and their visual designer would come up with. More randomness, more use of the axis towards the crowd, things that would be hard to do with less mobile lights.

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

This website is open to the public, is it not? If so, then in what sense am I uninvited?

My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing..

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

What the scripture says is that God is love. Not that He is loving, but that He is love itself. Yes, it is true that God took the lives of thousands of people in the Old Testament because of disobedience. That is indisputable. What you're claiming is that this was "mass murder". The fundamental question being posed here is, does God have the right to take a life? If He does, then there is nothing unjust about what He did, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His love.

Now, God is the author and sustainer of life. Meaning, that life is a gift and a privilege for human beings. There is no fundamental right to be alive. Neither is there anything we can do to continue our life a second longer than God ordains. When we are born and when we die is entirely in His hands. He is the one who is causing our lungs to receive breathe, who is maintaining the coherence in our atomic structure. So what life we do have is a tender mercy from God, especially considering the fact that all of us abuse His creation and spit in His face on a constant basis.

Further, God has ordained that the punishment for sin is death. The people you speak of in scripture were all sinners, and most of them grievous sinners at that. Why is God unjust for enforcing His law? What is wrong with God enforcing His law at His prerogative?

Considering that we live because of God, and that it is a gift which can be revoked at any time because of sin, why is it unjust for God to do so? If you're going to say I am being intellectually dishonest, then prove it and explain why. Where is the flaw in my reasoning here?

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

Some Christians may feel that way, but only because they don't understand scripture:

Luke 4:12

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Lord doesn't perform on camera for skeptics because He isn't a guinea pig subject to our experiments. Those who test the Lord will not get any results.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>> ^messenger

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

If you disagree that you're being intellectually dishonest, find a definition of the term that you agree with, and I'll show you what I mean.>> ^shinyblurry:

You have said to me that you attempt to give me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, however most of those here tell me I am wrong, so is that somehow less arrogant in your eyes? In any case, it is both falsifiable and provable. You could find Jesus' grave for instance. It is also provable in that God does reveal Himself, as billions of people today, and billions more throughout history have found out. Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. The point is, if you demand evidence, tell me how we should find it. How would you test for God? If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. How would you tell if you were in a Universe created by God or one created by random chance?>> ^messenger:
"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.

There there little Bone, uh, I mean Err [love your pleading clown avatar] =o)

I do love that song "Laughter in the Rain." I mean, not love like I'd like to give it a rimjob or anything...or oral sex...not like he's Annie Lennox...but it was a happy song in a time/space continuum when I was around ten years old and more monkey than man, climbing trees and chewing on dandelion stems, scouring unlikely places for thrown-away Playboy's and Penthouses and dreaming of a secret hiding place where I could have sex with women twice my age....

>> ^budzos:

I really loved, and I mean really LOVED the 2001 album. The writing, singing and instrumentation is amazing... and then it's also hilarious. Example: "You broke the rules, now I'll pull out all your pubic hair!"


You motherfucker...

I really loved, and I mean really LOVED the 2001 album. The writing, singing and instrumentation is amazing... and then it's also hilarious. Example: "You broke the rules, now I'll pull out all your pubic hair!"

Sex can also be about one other strong emotion--control. It is the reason, mostly, for rape (Sorry to use the word.)

But I am glad I could provide a secondary perspective in the previous comments. And, these comments you make in this post, really awesome--and you taught me a secondary perspective too.

>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^messenger:
I agree with everything you said except that sex, demonstrably, isn't love, unless I'm missing your meaning. Do you mean that sex should only happen between people who love each other, or that if someone desires sex with someone else, it means they love them?>> ^Enzoblue:
Sex is love in my opinion. I've always thought the "I love you but you don't satisfy me physically" is just an excuse for a deeper need not being met. Namely sexual freedom. Most women seem repressed when in a relationship they want to work, and more free with someone whose consequence free.


This is my theory k? I believe sex is love, and when someone wants sex without love, what they essentially want is the feeling of being loved without all the hassle. Like if you want to be happy without making your life better, you can do drugs or drink. It's an end run around the work. What's more like love than complete freedom where you can tear into someone passionately with no barriers? Most women feel thay can only really do that with a stranger who won't judge them, (or they don't car if they judge them), and that there's no consequence to their behaviour. If it is purely physical, why not just masterbate? Because they want that feeling of complete acceptance from another human being. Isn't that the definition of love?

>> ^messenger:

I agree with everything you said except that sex, demonstrably, isn't love, unless I'm missing your meaning. Do you mean that sex should only happen between people who love each other, or that if someone desires sex with someone else, it means they love them?>> ^Enzoblue:
Sex is love in my opinion. I've always thought the "I love you but you don't satisfy me physically" is just an excuse for a deeper need not being met. Namely sexual freedom. Most women seem repressed when in a relationship they want to work, and more free with someone whose consequence free.



This is my theory k? I believe sex is love, and when someone wants sex without love, what they essentially want is the feeling of being loved without all the hassle. Like if you want to be happy without making your life better, you can do drugs or drink. It's an end run around the work. What's more like love than complete freedom where you can tear into someone passionately with no barriers? Most women feel thay can only really do that with a stranger who won't judge them, (or they don't car if they judge them), and that there's no consequence to their behaviour. If it is purely physical, why not just masterbate? Because they want that feeling of complete acceptance from another human being. Isn't that the definition of love?

I agree with everything you said except that sex, demonstrably, isn't love, unless I'm missing your meaning. Do you mean that sex should only happen between people who love each other, or that if someone desires sex with someone else, it means they love them?>> ^Enzoblue:

Sex is love in my opinion. I've always thought the "I love you but you don't satisfy me physically" is just an excuse for a deeper need not being met. Namely sexual freedom. Most women seem repressed when in a relationship they want to work, and more free with someone whose consequence free.

hello
how are you doing today? i hope all is well.
My name is Favour., In search of a man who understand the meaning of love as Trust and faith in each other rather than one who sees love as the only way of fun, but a matured Man with Nice Vision of what the world is all about, and after reading your profile here in( .) I took Interest in you, so pleas reply me with this Email ( Favour_ndadaye20@hotmail.com. i will be very happy to read your reply so that i will send my picture to you then we can start know more about each other. Thanks for reading my mail and be Bless.
Favour. ( Favour_ndadaye20@hotmail.com

Awesome