Re: Why do people believe in the God of the Bible?

by TerryRC Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:01 am

How can that be if one is willing to sacrifice their own life for the one they love?

Your question doesn't make sense. Essential means essential. Without my wife and kids, my life wouldn't be worth living, at least to me.

by SamCogar Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:04 am

I keep having to look up at the header of the Post ...... to see whether it is Ziggy or you replying.

by TerryRC Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:08 pm

I keep having to look up at the header of the Post ...... to see whether it is Ziggy or you replying.

Trite and typical.

Your "how can that be..." statement doesn't have a logical basis. Can't deal with that, reach into the trite comment bag.

by **SheikBen** Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:41 pm

TerryRC wrote:What is love?

That state when someone's happiness and wellbeing is essential to your own.

I would take exception to that. Obviously to love someone entails you wanting the best for them, but somehow calling their happiness essential to your own strikes me as a bit co-dependent. We can't make anyone else happy, even if we love them. We can wish their happiness and success, but we can hardly insist on it, and if base our own happiness and wellbeing on the state of others, I fear that we are doomed.

by TerryRC Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:01 am

I would take exception to that. Obviously to love someone entails you wanting the best for them, but somehow calling their happiness essential to your own strikes me as a bit co-dependent. We can't make anyone else happy, even if we love them. We can wish their happiness and success, but we can hardly insist on it, and if base our own happiness and wellbeing on the state of others, I fear that we are doomed.

Your wife's happiness isn't essential to your own? If she is upset, that doesn't affect your mood?

You can be happy when your kids are crying and hurt? If they get depressed or are bullied?

You don't have a heart, you have a stone where you should have a heart.

We can't always have those we love be happy, but don't say that it doesn't affect your well being when they aren't.

It hasn't doomed us for tens of thousands of years and I don't expect that to change.

by SamCogar Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:05 am

TerryRC wrote:
We can't always have those we love be happy, but don't say that it doesn't affect your well being when they aren't.

It hasn't doomed us for tens of thousands of years and I don't expect that to change.

Now which is it silly boy, ...... does it not affect your well being ...... or does it doom you?

.

by TerryRC Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:48 pm

Now which is it silly boy, ...... does it not affect your well being ...... or does it doom you?

Mike brought up the "doom" thing.

I fear your reading comprehension is slipping (and, perhaps Mike's is, also).

My definition of love revolved around happiness and well being, not death.

Still trying to find fault with my definition and still failing so miserably. I feel bad for you, Sammy.

by ziggy Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:10 pm

Still trying to find fault with my definition and still failing so miserably. I feel bad for you, Sammy.

It a female (or girlyman) thing. He can't help it.

by SamCogar Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:25 pm

SamCogar wrote:
TerryRC wrote:
We can't always have those we love be happy, but don't say that it doesn't affect your well being when they aren't.

It hasn't doomed us for tens of thousands of years and I don't expect that to change.

Now which is it silly boy, ...... does it not affect your well being ...... or does it doom you?

.

by TerryRC Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:15 am

Now which is it silly boy, ...... does it not affect your well being ...... or does it doom you?

Sam, you are a moron. I said having those you love be unhappy affects your well being but it doesn't necessarily doom us.

Learn to comprehend what you read.

Love is when someone's happiness and well-being is essential to your own.

Mike said this he didn't think it was so and, if he was wrong, he feared we were doomed.

I said it hasn't gotten us yet.

You come in with irrelevancies because your hatred of me clouds your thinking..

Now you have the playbook.

BTW, no one has found actual fault with my definition of love.

by SamCogar Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:07 am

TerryRC wrote:
Now which is it silly boy, ...... does it not affect your well being ...... or does it doom you?

Sam, you are a moron. I said having those you love be unhappy affects your well being but it doesn't necessarily doom us.

NO YOU DIDN'T, ...... MORON.

You stated, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:We can't always have those we love be happy, but don't say that it doesn't affect your well being when they aren't.

It hasn't doomed us for tens of thousands of years and I don't expect that to change.

TerryRC wrote:Learn to comprehend what you read.

Learn to quit lying about what you write.

HELL, I've learned to quote everything you and Ziggy post ....... so that you won't/can't lie about it, ....... but even that doesn't seem to help.

TerryRC wrote:Love is when someone's happiness and well-being is essential to your own.

HORSEPUCKY

TerryRC wrote:You come in with irrelevancies because your hatred of me clouds your thinking.

HORSEPUCKY

One reason I dislike you, among several things, is because you are a pathetic liar ..... and unable to accept and/or admit to truths and facts when said are presented that proves you wrong. And therein is the reason for your lying.

TerryRC wrote:BTW, no one has found actual fault with my definition of love.

I chose to not comment on "your definition of love" ..... because you would reply with the same old crap about how much "I hate you" and expect everyone to feel sorry for because of that.

Your definition of love is FUBAR: self-centered, self-rewarding.

Why do people believe in the God of the Bible? - Page 5 49761

.

by ziggy Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:25 pm

Your definition of love is FUBAR: self-centered, self-rewarding.

Love itself is often self-centered and self-rewarding, just like hate.

by TerryRC Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:55 am

Your definition of love is FUBAR: self-centered, self-rewarding.

Sam? Do your kids still speak to you?

How many times have you been married?

I doubt, very highly, if you know what love is.

BTW, you still haven't poked a hole in my definition.

by TerryRC Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:56 am

One reason I dislike you, among several things, is because you are a pathetic liar ..... and unable to accept and/or admit to truths and facts when said are presented that proves you wrong. And therein is the reason for your lying.

Blah, blah, blah.

by sodbuster Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:12 am

Well TRC I think that is a good definition.

Did it originate with you?

by TerryRC Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:22 am

Did it originate with you?

Robert Heinlein, and, yes, it it the best definition of love that I have yet come across.

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:04 am

TerryRC wrote:What is love?

That state when someone's happiness and wellbeing is essential to your own.

Hey Terry!

The word essential--does it not mean necessary?

And if you require someone ELSE'S happiness and wellbeing for your own, does that not make you a slave to the despondent, the wicked, or the just plain mentally disabled?

How many henpecked husbands have ruined themselves and ultimately their families only to say at the end of it all, "I just wanted her to be happy."

by TerryRC Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:51 am

And if you require someone ELSE'S happiness and wellbeing for your own, does that not make you a slave to the despondent, the wicked, or the just plain mentally disabled?

Love is blind.

How many henpecked husbands have ruined themselves and ultimately their families only to say at the end of it all, "I just wanted her to be happy."

And they did it out of... LOVE! Regardless, how many stay happily married and/or get along just fine? Many. This is a moot point

I notice, now, that you are starting to see some merit in my definition of "love".

by **SheikBen** Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:54 am

Not at all, Terry. I reject completely making someone else's happiness essential to your own and then calling it love.

It is "codependence."

Love is wanting the best for another, even if it may come at your expense. "There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

But if a loved one (for whom I want the best) insists on being unhappy, my happiness is not going to be "essentially" lost. I prefer greatly that my wife be happy and fulfilled, but it is not essential to my own happiness and fulfillment, and I surely hope that my happiness and fullfillment is not necessary for my wife's wellbeing.

Useful and desired, but hardly required.

Color me anti-codependent. It's probably from my years dealing with people in very dysfunctional environs.

by TerryRC Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:18 am

Not at all, Terry. I reject completely making someone else's happiness essential to your own and then calling it love.

Do you have a choice in the matter? I have never had control over whom I love.

But if a loved one (for whom I want the best) insists on being unhappy, my happiness is not going to be "essentially" lost. I prefer greatly that my wife be happy and fulfilled, but it is not essential to my own happiness and fulfillment, and I surely hope that my happiness and fullfillment is not necessary for my wife's wellbeing.

Bull. See if you can be happy if your wife and kids are miserable.

I call shenanigans.

by Sponsored content