I get so mad I sometimes. I really do hate G-d at times

I liked your other analogy better. And...after going in circles we're still at the same spot.

 

Esp I think we have our terms mixed up. I think you were referring to being shallow and I agree that many women aren't. Its not all about things and social status but being superficial at least to me is the acknowledgement that the material does matter. I know you don't think like that but as you've agreed in the past with me a lot if not most women are like that.

 

If there is no deeper meaning than it is not what we are referring to as Love.

As I said originally, not everyone believes in romantic love.

Is it necessary, btw, to put down Women every time you disagree with them? Every time you have a difference of opinion with a Woman, is that because she's a Woman? Must it always be because Women are somehow deficient? Can you never simply disagree, without it being about how Women are inherently wrongheaded?

It really bugs me when you do that.

 

No, I've actually refuted every one of your arguments, and you're still just clinging to your initial theory without any evidence.

It's pretty disappointing for an atheist to be so stubbornly devoted to his views that he's unable to engage in debate. Most of the atheists I've known are far more open.

 

LOL, you fixed it just as I hit reply... lucky for you babe!

I agree that the majority of people who profess to be Christians don't act like they should. I think that's a pity because I believe that's why so many people have such disdain for religion in general, hypocrisy is unattractive to just about everyone who endeavors not to be a hypocrite.

As for the rest, all I can tell you is I firmly believe God has a plan, and I don't need to know what it is. I believe He loves us, but I also know that it's easy to profess to have faith when it's never tested. I think the trials and tribulations are what separate the hypocrites from the faithful. I think like Chi pointed out, by giving us free will He set the stage for the way life is. He could have made us all blindly obedient, but He chose not to. Why? I don't know, but personally if given the choice between being programmed and happily set for life, or finding my own way, I'd choose free will.

 

I'll give you 'some', I'm not going with 'a lot' or 'most'. I know women on both sides of that, but I couldn't accurately quantify the percentages of superficial to non-superficial women. If I can't back it up with fact or logic, I'm not going to say it. I will say that people like that annoy me greatly, and I think they do themselves a great disservice when they measure other people by anything other than who they are. What you have isn't who you are.

 

Very true love. I agree but society dictates otherwise. The fear of never having enough and needing validation through things has us so many people going after the wrong things.

 

Agreed, but you don't have to go over to the dark side.

 

Hey, you're the one who decided to be little Miss Condescension.

I was merely firing back. You'll have to excuse me, my sense of chivalry has been worn down over the years.

Didn't like a taste of your own medicine eh? They never do.

Oh, please. You have an inflated sense of self importance...as if converting you would just make my day. Right...I could care less. Calling you out on your closed-mindedness was unnecessary because your statements already reveal that.

Could have fooled me.

Right...

Well, you said that when you're a Christian, nobody is kicked out of the club so...hypocrisy much?

I could never conform to that type of thinking. I actually consider my actions before carrying them out. The Bible preaches free will but it's actually just brainwashing. The Christian that I previously spoke of pretty much said the same thing as you. My response was "Jacob Abbott said that to be a good soldier, it is almost absolutely essential that he be a very bad man. It's the same with Christianity...you have to be able to just do whatever God says even if it is bad", but he just shrugged it off with his blind dutifulness.

I have been to church. I was raised to be a Christian and I even had a Bible study teacher who came to my house on weekends.

Of course killing men, women, and children doesn't take place at your church. We are living in the 21st century, whereas the Bible was written by primitive people in primitive times, therefore Christians have to omit or ignore certain parts of the Bible. For example, in The Bible it's perfectly fine to own slaves, but you're not going to see anyone at your church who owns one.

Bringing up examples from The Bible is casting dispersions?

Cool beans.

 

I apologize for the typo love lol. So tired and I wasn't wearing my glasses. I respect you Espy and I respect your beliefs and whatever medium you choose to express your spirituality is your business babe. I will say this is closing because this is an unwinnable arguement but consider this our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in comparison to eternity. Do you think any actions done in such a short time should determine the span of let's say millions of years? It seems a bit unfair don't you think.

 

What exactly have you refuted?

 

People who lived thousands of years ago, can hardly be called primitive. What they accomplished back then (building megaliths, irrigation, domestication, running water, to name a few) we take for granted today.

They were the trailblazers for modern science, art, engineering, etc....

 

No, I'm happy with having probably no more than a hundred years of life here followed by a potential eternity of peace. I think God likely did it that way on purpose, knowing life would be difficult at times. I think it shows His love that the time we spend here on Earth in frail bodies, with hurtful people, and difficult circumstances is but a mere fraction of what's to come. I certainly wouldn't have it the other way around. I also think if you don't get it during your lifetime, another couple hundred years wouldn't help you with that.

 

Even so, they would still not be considered 'civilized'. I'm aware of the accomplishments of the Mesopotamians. It was in Mesopotamia that the first written language was created, the wheel, the first calendar, the first schools, the first concept of a mailing system, the first glass making process, etc. Oddly enough, The Bible regards them all as evil "heathens".

 

But I look on the punishment side of things. Take child soldiers in parts of the Sudan who kill people because they were forced to and are now soldiers. They never had a chance, what happens to their souls. Or people who are sociopaths, people who have something physically wrong with their brain through no fault of their own but have a need to be a serial killer what happens to them. Or people who were born in a country where buddahism or islam was the religion of the land and never had a chance to learn of your christian god what happens to them? Do you see why it makes no sense to me.

 

My personal belief is that anyone who never has an opportunity to choose God goes to Heaven, same with children prior to reaching sufficient maturity to make that choice even if they are raised in a Christian home. As for children forced to commit horrible acts, same thing. I believe God looks in your heart and He knows what's there, and what your potential is even if you don't get the chance to achieve it. I also believe scripture backs that up, though a lot of people would argue with me on that. Ultimately it's my beliefs I'll have to answer for, so what anyone else thinks really matters not to me.

 

-Donald Trump as an example of finding love more easily with greater attractiveness advantages

-Short term relationships as examples of love

-Romantic relationshis as the only types of relationships that end in love

-"Getting the girl" as equivalent to getting love



Have you advanced any evidence that those with more opportunities for attraction have a greater opportunity at Love? Aside from just saying it over and over.

More opportunities at attraction do indeed lead to greater opportunities at short term relationships. We've already established that these are not examples of love.

People born rich have greater opportunities to start out their careers in higher level jobs. This is made clear when you see how many people from rich families start out their careers in higher level positions, compared to the number of people from poor families who start at the bottom.

Can you make the same comparison between people with attractiveness advantages and those without them? No. You have not disputed this obvious fact. How does this fit into your view? Or do you simply ignore it because it doesn't support your view?

 

And how did you do that? Instead of just leaving it as "that's your opinion", you say that you disproved it.

I believe that short term relationships are usually lust, but I won't rule out the possibility that love can't be short sometimes.

Elaborate. I don't know what you're talking about.

I never said that getting the girl was getting love. My view is that getting the girl is the first step of getting love.

Well, I posted a link to some material written by one of the most respected researches of the science of love (Helen Fisher), but you obviously ignored it. There's a ton of material that supports my views but this one link should get the point across. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102123/

 

He obviously cannot find love more easily, as he has already been through multiple marriages. If he had advantages, one would be able to tell by his results. So far, his results have been a series of failures.

You said that love takes time to cultivate. In a short relationship, that time is not available.

Business relationships. Friend relationships. You said a relationship is required for love, I pointed out that there are more relationships than romantic relationships that can lead to love.

That's simply not always the way it works. Sometimes the girl gets you. Sometimes one of you is already in love, before anyone gets "got". Sometimes you get girl after girl, and never get any love.

It keeps happening, for all kinds of people. Why do so many people with no attractiveness advantages keep falling in love? How come some guys almost never get the girl, but then one day do?

I did not ignore it. I pointed out that the definition of Love used in the piece that you quoted considered Love to require attachment lasting only long enough to bring a child into infancy. I think that does not fit with most people's definition of Love. It is certainly not what I'm referring to.

First, I gotta point out how outrageously old that article is. I remember reading it, four years ago. There are references to evolutionary psychology there, and that's pretty much been discredited across the board.

The very idea, for instance, that Men are motivated by the same visual cues, on this message board where the size of booty debate rages on like the world depended on it, is ridiculous. The waist-hip ratio from the girls on one thread varies highly from those on another. Clearly Men have far more widely differing views of "hot" than such theories allow.

Second, nothing in that article supports your views.

Having more attractiveness advantages does not equate with having more trust, loyalty, and determination to maintain a long-term relationship.