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.

Sure makes cocoa skin smell an feel lovely..

This has EXACTLY the right look and feel. Love the style!

Come and catch a fire baby, don't let me fade away, don't let me fade away

Come and catch a feeling, it's a electrifying me
With eyes wide open, I'm dreaming
Breathe for me baby, a wake before I'm down
Come and free me baby, a wake before I'm down,
a wake before I'm down

Come and touch me baby
I need to be loved
Come and hold me baby
I need to feel loved, I need to feel loved
Come and catch a fire, don't let me fade away
Come and catch a fire baby, don't let me fade away
Come and catch a feeling, it's a electrifying me
Eyes wide open, I'm dreaming
Pray for me baby, awake before I'm down
Pray for me baby, awake before I'm down
Come and touch me baby
I need to belong
Come and hold me baby
I need to feel loved
I'm in love, in love, in love
I'm in love, in love, in love
I'm in love
I'm in love

I'm in love, in love, in love
I'm in love, in love, in love
I'm in love
I'm in love

Come and touch me baby
I need to be loved
Come and hold me baby
I need to feel loved
I need to feel loved
I need to feel loved
I need to feel loved
I need to feel loved

"Effect" can be a verb: To make or bring about; to implement.
"Affect" can be a noun: (psychology) A subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus; mood, emotion, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

Even the image you referenced says, "Most of the time...">> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.
Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.
See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

Actually, according to the OED.com effect can be a verb:

a. To bring about (an event, a result); to accomplish (an intention, a desire).

e.g.: "The requirement that a life assurance contract could be effected only if an insurable (financial) interest could be proven."

Did I just out-grammar nazi you?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.
Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.
See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

@messenger

Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.

Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.

See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

OK, It does not help that I had a drink after trying to get one of my evil demon German Shepherds to go potty (when she said she'd rather kill the neighbors' little yappers - whatever tiny dogs they have.. I mean teeeeeeny.. but very yappy! Thank goodness we all have fenced yards!)

But anyway, thank you all for the pqueue visits. The upvotes. The nice comments and congrats. Everybody has been nice, and a drink or not, I feel loved And thanks Lucky for your extra nice words

I sift - therefore I am. Even if that's sporadically! Right now I will sift until my fingers turn into these little stubbly things, and that would not be pretty! OK, I will sift and use hand moisturizer until it turns ugly!

>> ^bareboards2:

promote
You tell it sister.


Did she mention that African tribes were the sellers of other Africans who she would say were "kidnapped?" In fact, Africans are still being sold by Africans today--just America isn't buying them anymore.

I don't ask that first part to belittle her thoughts and expressions, I ask that first part to note the difference of the vast world hundreds of years ago.

And you know what's truly sad? I can respect this woman immensely (Even if I doubt she might understand the world isn't a static concept or that right or wrong isn't as easy as 1+1.) But the new culture trying to emerge in the African American society itself is scary and she would be disappointed. QM might use Oprah, Bill Cosby, and all the other role models as a flag piece for his own opinion, but that means little to the fatherless child who doesn't feel loved. Unfortunately, that's a lot of African Americans. These, I think, are worse than the past because self-corruption is by far worse than fighting other people's corruption. IMHO.

What do I have to do to get you to stop putting words in my mouth, Genji honey?

It is sooooooooo tiring defending myself from things I never said and don't believe.

From now on, whenever you do it, I am going to respond with "kumquat."

Just "kumquat."

I used to do this with a boyfriend who loved baby talk. I hate baby talk. He was feeling loving and he would bugey goo goo at me and I would want to hit him. When he was feeling loving. So we worked out a deal -- I would look at him with all the love in my heart, eye to eye, and say "kumquat" as sweetly as anything.

It meant stop it now or you aren't getting any nooky because I am grossed out.

So....

Kumquat, genji. No nooky for you if you keep putting words in my mouth that aren't mine.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
So is this where you draw the line?
She did resist so she deserved it, right?
Or she wasn't resisting in a place designated as a "no disturbing/dancing area" so it's not deserved?
Just trying to understand why you can empathize with this sort of violence but not violence directed against "those silly" protestors.

I knew when I saw it it was to good to be true, that is to not have it sifted already. I went on a limb, glad I never wasted any points on it.

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Breaks my heart to do this but... the blue man "I feel love" is a dupe of this one: http://videosift.com/video/Blue-Man-Group-I-Feel-Love

But your embed is much better

Aliens travel across the galaxy only to succumb to our inferior weapons. It turns out their weakness is they cant feel LOVE!