₦airaland Forum

Cuddlemii:
Smh. Says who? The ones that I have witnessed, the couples make sense. They are educated, intelligent, cultured, resourceful & good looking. So what makes them emotionally starved. What makes the couples that met in real life more special than them with the rate of divorce of people that got married ages ago.

Since when did the meeting point  become the bone of contention. Are we not suppose to focus on the happiness & peace of mind of the couples in a relationship or marriage. So what would you say about people that met in the night club? I think human beings need to stop the criticism, judgmental  & sanctimonious blabbings. Nigerians will never be realistic or say what is happening in the real world. We like to justify, pretend & lie.

I am not saying they would fall in love with each other asap but they would still go through the normal processes that real life meeting people go through. They would also apply the necessary safety precautions too.

Some people are going through emotional blackmail & turmoil with their partners they met in real life. Some have been dating for years with nothing to show for it. Some have been ripped off, Some even bought their men with money & sex so those ones are not emotionally starved but emotional stabbed, right?
So tell me how is real life meeting better than online meeting, is it a determinant of lasting relationship free from heartbreaks.

I know there are hazards involved in online meeting but there are hazard involved with friends we have known from childhood too. Life is a risk. Trust no one & anything can happen. Follow what people think or what people assume to know & stay stagnant.

You think real life meeting can not involve two liars deceiving themselves & cheating on each other. You guys should wake up man & smell the coffee.

I thank God for making me a realist & it has always worked well for me. So for cuddles, whether you people meet in the gutter or spring, they should stand for who they are, earn their respect & enjoy every bit of it.

Well after reading this post I do feel ashamed and believe I was carried away with my judgement and preconceptions. . . I will just clarify one point however, that in response to a particular poster who mentioned that some people are desperate to get attention that they don't even mind who offers such - which is where I introduced the word emotionally starved in the sequence.

I am sorry however if I might have caused offence to those involved in such union. . . I was pretty narrow minded there for a while I humbly apologies.

claremont:
The conclusion of this whole matter is that it bothers on insanity;
Emotionally starved + Online fantasies + delusions = Insanity.
If this doesn't define insanity, then how else can insanity be defined?!

I then wonder what Emmotionally starved + Offline fantasies + delusions = . . . ?

At least there is a carriage for the insane posters online - if such people carried such delusions with them in real life then I suspect there will be a lot of nefarious activities.

Better "in" than "out" I say

[quote author=Mynd_44 link=topic=745550.msg9017358#msg9017358 date=1314401997]^^^
some people are also desperate for attention that they don't mind who gives them as long as they get it[/quote]Precisely - however as selfish as it sounds I'd rather these emotionally starved people carry out their fantasies online than in real life because others might just end up as collateral damage.

claremont:
Portrait? Which Portrait?What if the character that is being portrayed ONLINE is totally opposite what the person's real character is, what now happens to the "love"? Do you fall-OUT-of-love when this happens? Personally, I don't agree that being online creates a safety net for 2 characters to mingle; on the contrary, the mere fact that both parties are starting something ONline without even seeing each other physically, has pulled whatever safety net an OFFline meeting would have provided.

[b]Portrait? I mean that people who are involved in this sort of game then rely on their imaginary lover's words to sketch a portrait. They use their imaginary lovers words to stitch together a physical embodiment. . .you know kinda like when blind people try to picture a persons face their use their sense of touch to gather data so as to assemble a figure in their minds.

I'm not disagreeing that characters appear different online than they do offline. Some may actually find the mask attached to a character intriguing because whilst getting to know each other some do unravel the others identities. . making the liaison for some more amusing

I doubt such an occurrence can be clipped to love . . the foundation was built on lies more so if a person on the internet so happened to "fall in love" with a character then they cannot be in love with the person behind the mask - they are chasing an illusion instead.

I said for some people (to them) it might actually make them feel some elements of danger has been reduced. . as in they can rest assured that such characters on the net will not be getting to meet them face to face (not everybody on the internet wants their pseudo relationship to translate into real life. . . some could very well be married lol and like I said some people will be busted because they are just posers all along). . .so the further away the better for some because I wonder if some of these characters will think twice about what they are doing if they were stringing along a person that lived within their locale thus much more reachable as a meeting is more likely to be realized[/b]
[center]--------------------[/center]
Well it's not something I will encourage I personally find it unsophisticated but some people have gotten out of it what they hoped to seek for - so each to their own I guess.

[quote author=Mynd_44 link=topic=745550.msg9016919#msg9016919 date=1314397634]This is a very dicey thing but if you ask me I wounld think it's possible as the idea of love really has noting to do with physical contact but sort of an idealism which means you fall in love with a person based on a certain idea or character traits the person potrays.[/quote]

claremont:
Therein lies the problem! What's the logic/rationale in supposedly "fallen-in-love" with a faceless character halfway around the world? What motivates people to do it? Is it by the way the character writes, argues e.t.c.

I think that might be the most attractive aspect of the whole internet flirting - the other person is kinda like a mystery and so one can weave in their words to create some kind of portrait.
Also some may ironically actually feel safer in the knowledge that if a particular character is in another region then there's a safety net attached to the whole kiss chase i.e. they won't have to be confronted with each other (most likely their real identities) if they resided in the same abode. An exotic fantasy perhaps. . .

@ OP also if one gets to meet their imaginary lover in real life they might just fall out of love quicker than they landed in it

@ OP like you rightly said some people pose on the internet. . . therefore I would just safely say that perhaps a person could become enthralled by a character on the internet. Actually a few months back I made a thread questioning the logic behind emotional attachment over the internet. I personally believe it's a dangerous and emotionally exhausting game to play if people dare equate such fellowship with love.

However I do think it's possible to fall in love with someone you have never met before (and not only via the internet, other means too)

pendo89:
OP this is what I believe.

Marriages or relationships are not spiritual. The reason we say they are is cz 2 spiritual beings who believe in God and allow Him to guide their day to day living come together in a union called marriage.

Okay I think your conflating certain issues or perhaps just misinterpreted what I was trying to convey.

I definitely know that marriages and relationships are not spiritual - I believe I have tried to distinguished between the constituent of a Spiritual relationship (an individual committed to God) and a Physical relationship (Man and Wife) multiple times.
My question was not trying to decorate marriage as a Spiritual union but whether those with a Spiritual life (relationship with God) and possessing a life partner recognized similar attributes in both their physical and spiritual relationship and whether the similar components that sustain both their Physical and Spiritual relationship facilitated both unions (Physical and Spiritual) or if they were indeed interdependent.

The original question was not even intended to compare divorce rates with atheists etc but to enquire if having a Spiritual relationship with a higher Being makes it easier for a devout muslim/christian etc in their own marriage as there are similar attributes within both Physical and Spiritual relationships. . .

They purpose to be guided by the principles outlined in the word of God.

Exactly.

Anybody can marry including a pagan.We call that a marriage as well. And who said there will be marriages in heaven?
The place is only for spiritual stuff and not physical stuff like marriage.

. . erm I know pagans do marry, and this topic is directed to them as well because I am enquiring of those who have an active Spirtual life (whether Buddhism/ Islam/ Christianity etc) to see if having established a commitment with a higher being will facilitate their own relationship with their partners as there are attributes that transcends both unions.

I used the Bible to support my points many times because I am more familiar with that scripture than the Quaran for example. So really I did not intend to make Christianity the central faith - it was just easier for me to employ examples from the Bible.

Now we need to differentiate btw the 2 kinds of love Agape and[b] Ero[/b]s
The love you have for God (agape)helps you connect with him spiritually and helps you develop a christian character which should in turn help you in making decisions pertaining to relationships. The word becomes your guide.
See,things of God are about peace love patience endurance etc and all those are fruits which anybody professing christianity must posess.
It however takes real life challenges to cultivate these qualities as they don't just drop like manna when you pray.

lol @ bolded. . . *nods head in agreement*

When it comes to human relationships we apply eros love. I cannot claim to love my partner the way I love God No.

Precisely - I absolutely agree. That love is certainly different. I wanted to make a comparison with two different types of relationships which cross over similar attributes. . that's where the juxtapostion of a Spiritual relationship with God and a Physical relationship with Man/Lady came into play and hence the comparison between love and faith.

Theres a big difference.
I must love my partner romantically. Now that 'eros' love knows no religion or boundary.Its felt by everybody and anybody can be romantic.
The guiding principles for eros love apply to both believers and non believers.
I am talking about mutual attraction,the loveydovey feelings,and what it takes to sexually or romantically sustain such a relationship.

*stores this information in my memory bank*

If I profess agape love and I don't know how to express the eros,then my relationship will go down the drainage.
But you can lack agape love and be able to express the eros and build a very stable and longlasting relationship.

Why is that so? because human relationships are just that human. Not really spiritual.
How you sustain them will depend on what you believe works. Bottom line is 'they can be sustained regardless of faith or religion.

Thank you for your very coherent post. I perceive things differently now and have gained a lot

On topic: . . .@ believers, I'm still eager to hear from those who have a sustaining relationship with God. When one inspects and considers the components invloved in a spirtual relationship with God such as commitment, love etc,  one will perceive that similar attributes are also present between Man and wife. Does the spiritual tie you have with God effect, strengthen and enable the way you manifest your love in your matrimony/union due to excercising those cornerstone ingredients in your spirtual life? Or perhaps did your spiritual life prepare you for married life? Does your faith enable you to manifest love in a wholesome way as there is a spiritual factor here?
If you had lacked God in your life do you believe that the love you would have reflected would exist on a different dimension towards your loved one. .?

claremont:
Firstly, let's stick to some form of romantic connotation in this dialogue; and leave out the biblical verses and religious dogma, otherwise the MODs will not hesitate to fling this thread from the romance section to the religion section.

Good idea. . .I was running out of bible verses to quote anyway plus I didn't want the faith aspect to be centered around Christianity alone.

The concept of God=Love is a myth anyway which any avid reader of the bible will diagnose, except you are not talking about the God of the bible. The biblical God is certainly NOT love, there are enormous amounts of biblical passages which unequivocally show that the biblical God is quite the opposite of love. I shudder to think how "loving" a God is when words such as jealous, vile, murderous, are being used to describe him in the same bible.

hmm yet he is the same One that abased Himself to die for His creations and assume their sins on that cross.

Anyway if I lift the sheild of the scripture for a second I am also very questionable about the Biblical God as well as the Quaran-ic God and and all other Beings/Creators/God and so forth.

But then again I rationalise this "Creator" and I doubt I could use human rational to figure out a supernatural Being.

Okay back on the topic at hand.  Faith? "belief in the unseen" . .right?

The things I do not see are more real to me than those that I do see. I see people kiss but I don't know what's embedded in their hearts, I see people cry but is that a facade?

The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

1.Really?

Well they are not excluded from love - like you said there are some involved in long lasting relationships, they must be familiar with an aspect of love. However I must express when I say they believe in love. . .I pretty much mean they believe in the reality and it's existence not necessarily the essence.

2. Agape Love-Yes, but Romantic Love- Not all believers do because if they did, then why do we have a large number of singleton believers?

Maybe for some they choose to solely commit to God, for others they probably haven't found a partner as of yet.

3. False, Atheists don't believe in a god. A belief in a god is not necessary to function as a normal rational thinking human being.

Well for many science fills that void, Claremont.

5.Where is the evidence that God and god exists? Our belief in a God or gods may be borne out of our upbringing and societal influence, but that in itself doesn't absolve such beliefs from the test of proof.

I agree.

6.Maybe you are talking about another God here, but the God of the bible is clearly not love.

Hmmm I'm trying my best to refrain from employing Bible verses but I'm going to have to to counter your assertion with one , "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
1 John 4:8

^^ that single quote in facts highlight a fundamental element to this topic at hand.

However I will confess that my numerical points are gross generalizations.

Actually, I will argue that it is the media that has actively propagated the "love myth". The images on our TVs, Newspapers e.t.c. all point to the illusion that romantic love is a concept which people should imbibe in order to sustain their relationship.

The media is guilty in prostituting love as a cinematic fairy-tale thus stripping it from it's substance which I believe is just detrimental.
In their promotion of of a false brand of love they have actively succeeded in underrating it and hence you will see today impressionable people, who perhaps are quite immature declare to anyone they first meet their disillusion notion of love. . . "love at first sight" etc

This is as far apart from the truth that it can be, it totally goes against the scientific evidence. I do agree that people have a right to believe in such things like "love" and "faith", but attempting to say that there is some form of objective rationale for such a belief system is not only mischievous, but it is also an unforgivable sin to humanity for anyone to knowingly/unknowingly give people irrational hope.

Do you believe in lust? If so then you should know that lust is the counterfeit version of Love which ironically proves the existence of Love. In order for a counterfeit to exist there must first be an original for the duplicate to copy and pervert it.

claremont:
When you say "love surely must exist since it's the epitome of all human emotion", this random phrase may be your personal opinion about "love", but we all know that it is not backed by any scientific evidence whatsoever. If you have a study that explicitly states that a misnomer such as love is the "epitome" of all human emotion, kindly paste the link here so we can read the conclusions ourselves. I strongly believe such a study does not exist!

Yes it is my "opinion" and I don't believe I should rely on science to back this up when it's quite evident.
If I give into hate (for example). .I could most likely inflict pain on others or in a worse scenario eliminate a perceived enemy. .but if I give into Love I would learn to "love my neighbours as myself". If God "loves the whole world" and if I claim to be a follower of God I would surely emulate his demonstration and love the whole population also (which is not the easiest of tasks I imagine). However the greatest manifestaion of love is narrated in John 15:13 "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends", that separates and elevates love from every other emotion because Love is selfless and sacrificial, that single emotion should enable me to put others before myself.

. .and that is how that "random phrase" was born

Finally Sir, can I ask you. . . if science were to prove the existence of love would you buy into it? would you reflect love? Would that begin to thaw your stance on the non-existence of God?

Nayah:
Hello Emofine and Claremont
Well, such an interesting topic I would just say that science and studies have nothing to do with human beings' feelings, sometimes science can give us some clues to understand some acts but I don't really think it's the key to understand people in general since people are different according to their personality

Life is not science else everything would be black or white but we know that things happen even you don't plan it, so Claremont for me you should be careful with science and do not be confused between technical progress and what I call "school of life"

hello Nayah , yes science has limits

sexkillz:
Emofine & Nayah!

Pls STOP wasting your time on this ATHEIST! HE DOESNT EVEN KNOW WHERE THE LIFE HE IS LIVING CAME FROM! Not to talk of EMOTIONS or LOVE!

You'll find this thread interesting! ATHEISTS ARE REALLY DUMB!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-743212.0.html

lol leave my buddy alone I'm learning from him though

Let me attempt to view this issue from your point of view, and work on the assumption that love does exists. Does a belief in a deity grant religious adherents the exclusive privilege to experience and practise such love as compared to non-religious adherents? In attempting to answer such a question, we need to look at it from 2 subjective definitions of love. Firstly, the love that occurs between a religious adherent and his/her deity cannot be experienced by unbelievers because such love stems from a faith in the unseen. It is impracticable for an unbeliever to exercise love for a God(s) when he/she has in fact not exercised faith in the first instance. Therefore, there is no basis for a logical comparison of that in the first place since we cannot compare something-ness with nothing-ness.

@ the portion in red No it does not but the projection of love will be different. . .

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up"
1 Corinthians 13: 4

. . .due to the principles upheld in their faith I do expect that they (believers) should be able to reflect a certain type of love that is pure and perfect.

Secondly, the love that exists between 2 religious adherents in a relationship is totally different from that between a creator and his supposed creation. 2 religious adherents in a relationship are guided by the way they believe love should be practised, it doesn't involve faith, but rather, they are guided by the very same earthly principles non-religious people use to sustain their own relationships. How is a "believers" relationship with his/her partner different from that of a non-believer? Surely, there cannot be any difference, since if they both believe in love, it follows that they would practise the same societal tenets of the concept they believe in.

I do disagree with that, well maybe I should say the Bible disagrees with that.

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church"
Ephesians 5:25

I don't imagine a believers love is guided by earthly principles or motivated by such however if this were to be so I imagine that the trajectory they may choose to embark on will be discouraged . . ."be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", clearly there are conditions for a believer that have to be met - such stipulations may not govern the decision of non-believers.

"adultery" "jealousy" "lust" are some of the vices" highlighted in the scripture that should be obsolete in a [I]believers[/I] interpretation and manifestation of love.

"Perfect love casteth out all fear"
1 John 4: 18

Thus the property of love differs for a non-believer and a believer. A non believer will most likely say the opposite of love is hate. A true believer who knows the word will confidently tell you the opposite of "perfect" love is fear

@ portion in blue

Yes I do believe that. . .however believers (Christians) are not supposed to reflect a worldly disposition.


Spiritual Arithmetic:-

Non-believers believes in [b]l[/b]ove
Believers (christians) believe in [b]L[/b]ove
Non-believers believe in [b]g[/b]od (a god pertaining to any instrument that rules a persons life i.e. money, celebrities etc)
Believers believe in [b]G[/b]od

God > god

In christianty the equations has it that God = Love, "God is Love", and God in his omnipresence encompasses all the spectrum of [I]perfect[/I] Love  just as he eclipses all other gods.

So I'm primarily using christian principle and doctrines to calculate a spiritual sum of Love. . .not science which frankly hasn't rendered a unanimous fixed conclusion on the term.

Claremont, I'm going to have to respond to you in installations lol, your response is pretty loaded - bear with me.

claremont:
[b]The major problem with the love concept lies in an absence of an objective definition for it, therein lies the problem. The lack of a holistic definition of what love is, basically means that we end up with 1001 subjective definitions. Like you rightly asked "what kind of love did science try to evaluate?"; it was actually romantic love, a love between 2 people in a relationship; a scientific evaluation of romantic love concluded that a belief in love is NOT necessary to sustain a relationship, but rather, what was necessary for sustaining long-term relationships is mutual compatibility between both parties. When this conclusion is viewed logically, we would realize that there is an element of truth in it; our ancestors in Africa never knew what love was, they married on the basis of both parties recognizing what their mutual roles are in a relationship, yet their marriages lasted the test of time. In this modern age which has been awash with the love dogma, there has equally been an upsurge in divorce rates and short-term relationships, is it not logical for us to conclude that there is a strong positive correlation between the "practise" of love in a society, and the high rate of divorce present therein? We would be in denial of the facts staring at us in the face to suggest otherwise.[/b]

Yes there is. There is a correlation between the [b]mal[/b]practice of love and divorce rates in society.
Some people do not comprehend love (because it is everlasting and endures). Some due to the influence of the media and societal trends are not emulating true love and in their immaturity misinterpret theirs or another person's feelings for love. Then there are those who have given up and just allow their emotions to guide them whether the ruler be lust, addiction or a mere fantastical fairy tale and hence get hitched on a whim which inevitably hints at a foreboding.

Not everybody in a union love each other (yes mutual compatibility is important but love must be present in order to make our connection sweeter)

I'm pretty sure that an individual can be mutually compatible with more than one person but when choosing a life partner love will obviously influence such a persons final decision and furthermore enhances harmony.

Some people are just accustomed to each other and so they remain as a couple however such a relationship is already dead, it's akin to someone like me going to church regularly but not digesting anything, feeling numb, not enjoying the company and being there only for eye service - it's a routine.

. . .just like arranged marriages some people's relationship with their "God" was already dictated to them via birth or by force. That involuntary "relationship" they have with "their" God is as stale and false as two unhappily or possibly content married people who just habitually stick together.

As for our ancestors own form of love - I doubt they were unfamiliar with expressing that particular emotion with a chosen partner.

@OP "I don't mind living in a man's world so long as I'm a woman in it"


[quote author=deal_ordea link=topic=743933.msg9000813#msg9000813 date=1314232263]Did you know that men themselves create the illusion that the female is equal to himself?[/quote]I believe that men did create such an illusion or at least planted the seeds to such a notion so that some women will be disillusioned by that caption and if you like stunted because their goal is to reach a man's level sub-conciously confirming men's superiority because in all honesty humans only compete with those who are ahead whether the gap be marginal or significant.

. . .so whilst such women are busy trying to equate themselves with men, men are one step ahead and trying to compete with God.

pro01:
IGender equality is a mirage.

I agree. There is no gender equality when our properties are different (both internal and external).

[quote author=deal_ordea link=topic=743933.msg9000813#msg9000813 date=1314232263]How could this happen? The answer is that women only get unholy power over men when men worship her sexually; when they abandon their discipline and higher sense, and come to be controlled by lust for her. Only then does the woman take, finally, the superior position in society. Only then does the male end up on his knees as her thrall, forgetting his unique greatness as a man.[/quote]*nods head in agreement*

toyemz:
good point
but i  swear i heard somewhere
behind every successful man there lurks a woman!

Precisely. Great men are nurtured by great women

na wa oh . . these names reach to mek tower mek una climb for heaven. .
no be Genesis to Revelation una dey name pikin?

I thank God for my 16 digits after viweing this thread

skypon2002:
are these names for human beings?

Please help me ask

[quote author=Shola (f) link=topic=740666.msg8989366#msg8989366 date=1314114578]shokolokobamgbose.[/quote]I love this one . . maybe because of the way it rolls of my tongue

claremont:
Firstly, I strongly doubt if there is any connection between faith and "love". In fact, any assumption that there is such a connection tends to raise more questions than answers e.g. How do we explain relationship break-ups that occur between two religious people? Surely, their mutual belief in the existence of a "loving" deity should have sustained their physical relationship with each other, How do we explain the long-lasting mutually compatible relationships enjoyed by two people who don't believe in the existence of a "loving" deity? Surely, their non-belief in God should have spelt doom from the onset for them since like you say God=Love.

I see you embedded quotes for love lol. . .but I will confess I'm glad if such a topic raises more questions - I want to garner other people's thoughts not just a clinical closed one worded answer. Well in my opening post I listed a few components that is generally required in faith and in a serious relationship. Relationships break down for various reasons but I bet if one or more of those ingredients dissolve between a couple it would just become a catalyst to the the inevitable demise of their relationship.

I have already admitted that I am aware of long lasting relationships existing amongst "non-believers" however I did state that the nature of a "believers" relationship is likely to be different to a non-believer's one due to a spiritual context. I believe believers are spiritually bound to one another and thus have another dimension to the love in which they share.

Secondly, all human emotions have been objectively explored by science. Emotions such as anger, happiness, joy, sadness e.t.c have all passed the objective test of science. Love on the other hand has never been conclusively proven to exist; the few scientists who tried to prove the existence of love used the word interchangeably with obsessive lust/unbridled passion/irrational desire e.t.c. Therefore, except love is defined in some way to mean an obsessive lust for someone/something, it's existence as an independent concept is yet to be proven.

Ok. . . Science has spoken now I want to know what your defintion of love is?
How does one use science to prove Love's existence? So science could establish emotions such as anger and joy but could not conclude for love. I tell you why, it's because love just so happens to operate on a higher frequency Lol.

Individuals interpret love differently and so they project love in different kinds of ways, Science cannot measure the depth of someones heart let alone millions.

Greek is a beautiful reference to the richness and property of love. The language has so many words to encapsulate the degrees of love. The love I have for my friend is not the same love I have for my sister or a partner etc or the fact that I love talking to you . . . so how does science determine Love's validity/existence or better yet which type of love was being evaluated? I know I love my mum and it certainly isn't the "obsessive/lust" kind of love lol

Love surely must exist when it's the epitome of all human emotion

Powerful words. . I wouldn't have imagined I would arouse such a response - anyway stimulating dialogue all the same.

claremont:
Permit me to take you up on the above-highlighted. If God=Love according to the religious adherents; it then follows logically that if "love" exists, therefore, persons who are God-less e.g. Atheists, are incapable of such physical love. The mere fact that God-less persons have nurtured long-lasting relationships which rival that of the religious goons has put to jeopardy your hypothesis.

That is a solid point you make and I believe that everybody has loved and experienced love in spite of the presence or absence of God in their lives. I just think it's harder to emit than to acquire. I think compassion would have been a more appropriate term to equate the Christian God with however.

Moreover, I don't believe there is any statistical report which has proven beyond doubt that religious adherents are better relationship-wise as compared to non-religious people. I will argue that the reverse may be the case due to the narrow-minded way in which religion defines how a "true" relationship should be conducted.

You are right there is no statistical report to prove this. I was just teasing out a connection between faith and love so I tried to evaluate the connection believers have with God and concluded if the same raw ingredients present in such a spiritual union could also exist in a physical relationship then surely these shared components will be beneficial in the introduction of a physical union and thus could help sustain a physical accord.

I deliberately made a distinction between spiritual relationships (presence of God) and a physical one to see if one affects the other or could create a perfect compund but I guess it's the way I behold love. I see it as spiritual element. so I've obviously assumed (rightly or wrongly) whether the presence of a spiritual bond via ones faith could amplify such a person's physical manifestation of love.

claremont:
BTW, science can measure everything; if "love" can't be measured by science, that in itself lends credence to the "love does not exist" theory.

Can love be dissected by science? I am not talking about "hormones" and "chemistry". . love is translated via actions not physics

claremont:
@OP: Pardon me for having penile erections whenever I see intellectually challenging topics like this in the romance section, quite a sweet departure from the drivel we are used to on here!

I'm glad I have your attention sir.

Now to answer your questions, there are two mutually exclusive (in my opinion) issues you have raised here. The concept of love, faith, and the inter-relationship between the two concepts. Firstly, most scientific studies on the "love" concept have proven that love does NOT exist. The feeling most people misconstrue as love is mere infatuation, or at most unbridled passion; there has never been any study that irrevocably proved that a concept of "love" exists. Therefore, love is a misnomer.

I respectfully disagree. I would never use science to define love nor measure it. Following the nature of the purpose of this thread, and if I was to heed onto a particular faith for counselling such as the Bible. The Bible states that God is love so thus "God" and "Love" are interchangeable. So I asked such a question as God (well at least according to Christianity) is marked as the source, so I wondered if loving Him and being a partaker of his love would affect an individuals personal relationship. . . I guess you are directed by science I was inspired by faith

This brings me to the other issue which is faith. I do agree that there may be a rational behind faith in such things like the sun rising in the morning, or the moon shining at night, but scientifically, faith lacks reason. Faith is a belief in the unseen, the unheard; on the other hand, science lives on hard facts/proof. Does a belief in the existence of a God somewhere make some people better in relationships? Of course not! If it does then Atheists wouldn't have long-lasting relationships, which would then mean that long-lasting relationships will be the exclusive preserve of the religious adherents, this in itself is absolutely ludicrous!

Well I believe in God for instance but I must confess I am not in a relationship with Him because I am slightly afraid of commitment. My belief in him is not necessarily the same as being in a nurturing relationship with him where I pray etc. . .so after noting such difference I think now you'll understand that I was solely referring to those that honour their relationship with God and how it correlates with their own physical relationship?

I agree that Atheists and others that do not befall this category can sustain a long-lasting relationship. . . but then there are degrees to love.

In summary, there is no documented scientific correlation between a belief in a God, and ability to maintain a long-lasting relationship. It may be just another myth perpetuated by religious goons to promote the perceived benefits of being in a religion.

Lol it's not a myth, it's a thought that I've often pondered about. . . "religious goons" are not responsible for this theory. . only my vivid imagination

despite the fact we don't see eye to eye on certain topics I appreciate your input, I gather it can't be fun nor easy digesting doses of biblical  extracts or subtle reverence of God - so thank you sir for taking your time

Sweetnecta:
@Thehomer; « #26 on: Today at 11:21:45 PM »Allah does not restrict Paradise to only martyrs. Every muslim, male of us and female of us shall enter Paradise inchaAllah, except the people who refuse it for themselves; the non muslims and hypocrites if Allah does not will to forgive them foe  their hypocrisy.

raisin is from grapes and thats no hourin,

what you should have asked is what will a woman in Paradise get?

her husband will be her male hourin, because families are reconnected together.

if a woman enters and her husband is in hell, she will have her own male hourin created for her.

dont forget that even in this life, a single muslim woman has choices of mate from the pool of muslim men who have not have the 4 mates yet. Whereas muslim man is restricted to those muslim women who are not married.

so if wife's follow their husbands to paradise will the men still be granted these hourin or will she thus pose as a hourin herself?

How intertwined are these two concepts? I ask this as a seasoned believer. . .


Regarding the relationship people have with their individual God one may notice some parallels mirrored in a prospering relationship between spouses.

Both pretty much acquire the same foundation:

Love
Trust
Discipline
Faithfulness
Commitment
etc


Since I've drawn my inspiration from faith I will relay a particular episode in the bible to solidify the points I'm trying to present. . .

Hosea under the instruction of God was married to a Harlot, which God later explained was a reflection of how the Israelites had prostituted themselves to other gods hence portraying "spiritual adultery" . .then there's a description of Jesus as the "Groom" and the Church as the "brides" etc (of course these are just Christian examples because I'm not too familiar with any other Holy Books pertaining to other faiths)

I know those extracts are all figurative and spiritual but it does carry features that bare resemblance to relationships between ordinary couples.

In Greek Terminology . . . Agape - meaning unconditional love can thus be applied to a person whom one is in love with or the God that they serve.

I often wondered that one that faithfully ties themselves with a particular God and has thus matured spiritually, does such a spiritual bond facilitate a successful relationship. . .as such individuals have gotten to experience the basic components needed to make a relationship last?

. . .makes me wonder who the oldest ashawo in the world is

after all those marriage "advice" they were generously donating to the public. . .e don happen

Sweetnecta I very much appreciate your reply. Thank you

You know when there is a race in which we take part in, and no doubt it will require much discipline the prize will be of much incentive to the participant. The paradise that is described in the Quaran is very different (which of course is expected) to the paradise that is described in the Bible. As someone who believes in the superiority of the spirit I was a little disappointed in what I found in the Quaran. I would have imagined that a place that is promised to me if I persevere on this earth will contain things I have never seen or experienced in this earthly abode. I would have expected the unexpected. In addition what will become of the obedient Muslimahs? what rewards will they acquire in paradise? The difference I can mark out in the paradise highlighted in the Bible is that it appeals to a higher nature (the spirit and not the flesh). Our bodies will be different (incorruptible) our desires will change (i.e. not feeling sleepy like an ordinary man/ or having carnal knowledge) I assumed in a place which is meant to be sacred and set apart from the earth that certain desires will be erased and no more emitting - well that's just my thoughts on the issue.

come in to islam. sisi, you will be even be more than e mo fine.

LOL