TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

How do you prove love????

---

I already answered that.  

---

No you didn't.  You said actions prove love.  Most certainly NOT the case... 

---

 Of course it is.

DH's ex claimed that she loved him, but treated him like a doormat. He was convinced that he was "old, ugly and fat."

So the guy who smacks his wife around & says, "Sorry, Baby, I love you" really does love her????

flan

---

 The bolded is exactly why emotions can't be proven. You could do a brain scan on your DH's ex and it would probably light up with love chemicals even though her actions aren't loving.

Same thing with domestic violence. The guy might truly love his wife but still beat her.

Lindley wrote:

---

There is a big difference between infatuation and love. Infatuation gets you together and love is what keeps you together. Love is not only a feeling but more in actions. My dad took care of my mom till she died, he bathed her, helped her to the bathroom and when she was no longer able to do even that he changed her diaper. He cooked for her and did everything he could to make her comfortable till she passed away. He said he loved her to long to put her in the nursing home.

---

I have done all of that for my mother, yet I do not love her.   

msrock wrote:

---

Well I already stated that to me, it's the actions that prove the love and that's where I'm at. It's really not that complicated for me. It took me awhile to get here, but I'm so glad I did.

---

msrock wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

Well I already stated that to me, it's the actions that prove the love and that's where I'm at. It's really not that complicated for me. It took me awhile to get here, but I'm so glad I did.

---

 

And, we have just shown you that one can perform actions without love .

---

People do that all the time, everyday.  That's possible too.  It may be because they are doing it out of a sense of responsibility.  Doesn't make the other untrue.  

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

Well I already stated that to me, it's the actions that prove the love and that's where I'm at. It's really not that complicated for me. It took me awhile to get here, but I'm so glad I did.

---

 

And, we have just shown you that one can perform actions without love .

---

People do that all the time, everyday.  That's possible too.  It may be because they are doing it out of a sense of responsibility.  Doesn't make the other untrue.  

---

 

WHo said otherwise? We are talking about what science can "prove".

---

Well since none of us are scientists that I know of, I was just giving you what proves it to me.  I was answering the question, How do you prove love? 

flan327 wrote:

---

chef wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

How do you prove love????

---

I already answered that.  

---

No you didn't.  You said actions prove love.  Most certainly NOT the case... 

---

 Of course it is.

DH's ex claimed that she loved him, but treated him like a doormat. He was convinced that he was "old, ugly and fat."

So the guy who smacks his wife around & says, "Sorry, Baby, I love you" really does love her????

flan

---

 The bolded is exactly why emotions can't be proven. You could do a brain scan on your DH's ex and it would probably light up with love chemicals even though her actions aren't loving.

Same thing with domestic violence. The guy might truly love his wife but still beat her.

---

 I disagree.

flan

---

 You can disagree all you want but you can't change a chemical reaction in the brain.

When a person is in love, the brain releases certain chemicals. Those chemicals are present irrespective of a person's actions. Unless you've done a brain scan on your DH's ex, you're making an assumption based on what you think is happening. You're also being hypocritical in that you say that love can be proven via brain scan yet you refuse to accept that even when you don't see love, it could still be present.

ed11563 wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ok. Seeing a ultrasound of a baby isn't enough proof for some people to call it a baby so how can we expect them to believe God exists when we don't have visible proof.

---

I think people either believe, or they don't. 

---

 The point is that whether you believe or not does not change what IS.

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ok. Seeing a ultrasound of a baby isn't enough proof for some people to call it a baby so how can we expect them to believe God exists when we don't have visible proof.

---

I think people either believe, or they don't. 

---

 The point is that whether you believe or not does not change what IS.

---

Exactly.  I don't believe people are born gay. And there is no scientific proof that they are... 

---

 I feel sorry for you.

flan

---

LOL!  No need.  Where is the proof?  Please show me proof that people are born gay... 

msrock wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

msrock wrote:

---

Well I already stated that to me, it's the actions that prove the love and that's where I'm at. It's really not that complicated for me. It took me awhile to get here, but I'm so glad I did.

---

 

And, we have just shown you that one can perform actions without love .

---

People do that all the time, everyday.  That's possible too.  It may be because they are doing it out of a sense of responsibility.  Doesn't make the other untrue.  

---

 

WHo said otherwise? We are talking about what science can "prove".

---

Well since none of us are scientists that I know of, I was just giving you what proves it to me.  I was answering the question, How do you prove love? 

---

 

And, again, people can perform actions and not love. Sooo, not sure what you are arguing about?

---

I'm not arguing.  You are.  

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Exactly. I don't believe people are born gay. And there is no scientific proof that they are...
- Ohfour

______________________________

Since I was born straight. I am willing to believe that people who are gay were born that way. I believe the prohibition on homosexuality to be one of the things human men added to the Bible when they were being influenced by the Holy Spirit. If you believe in God, then you have to believe that God makes us as we are. If people don't choose to be straight, how can one believe that they could choose to be gay?

---

 Homosexual sex is a sin, period. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a sin. It would be a sin regardless of whether the participants were homosexual or heterosexual.

I believe God makes us as we are but that does not give us a free pass to sin. Everyone has their own thorns, so to speak, to overcome.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

But saying "I hope" you rot in hell is FAR different than saying "I believe you will go to he!!.
- huskerbb

____________________

Same basic thing in my opinion. Hope or belief, either one is still referring to them being in a place of eternal torment. I could just as easily have typed "I believe you are going to hell" in my example.

---

No, it isn't. Not remotely.  The intent is 100% different.

I BELIEVE that non-believers will go to he!!.  I HOPE they turn to Jesus and avoid that.   

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Yes. I agree that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin. I also said I believe the prohibition on homosexuality to be one of the things human men added to the Bible when they were being influenced by the Holy Spirit. So I don't see it as sins handed down by God such as murder or thievery or blasphemy.

Unlike most, I don't believe the Bible to be the literal word-for-word text of God.

I do agree with you though, chef, that God makes us as we are but that doesn't give us a free pass to sin.

---

Your beliefs are rather irrelevant and shaped by PC nonsense.  Humans can find ANY excuse for the particular sin they want to commit.   

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

And the Bible says the marital bed is sacred.

It also says homosexual sex, regardless of marital status, is an abomination.

So any homosexual sex is a sin.

Period.

---

 Where does it say that??

Here is all of it. Addressing every sexual sin.

Punishments for Sexual Immorality

Leviticus 20:

10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their bloodshall be upon them. 14And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 18And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 20And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Oh no, weltz. You just pick through the Bible a only live by the parts that make you feel good about yourself and what you're doing.

The rest of it was just thrown in there for filling.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Where does it say that??
- Tangerine

_______________________________

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)

---

Are all the laws in Leviticus to be followed, or just some of them? How about consulting horoscopes, planting different seeds in the same field, eating shellfish, touching pork, men cutting the hair on the sides of their heads or eating fruit of a tree planted less than 4 years ago?

---

 Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Christianity knows how ridiculous such assertions are.

Mark 7:19

for it doesn't go into their heart but I to their stomach, and then out of the body.  (I saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).

beyond that, the early church fathers wrestled with the issue of making gentile converts follow Jewish ceremonial law.  Peter and James were on one side, Paul on the other.  Paul won the issue and Gentiles are not required to follow Jewish ceremonial law--including circumcision.

most non-Christians are ignorant on that point and it's laughable that they try to dictate to Christians what they should believe.