How about this one, next time you cast your eye over a woman? How many 'christians' are going to take this advice?

5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Christian "scripture" has bugger all to do with what Christians do; never has, never will.
How many Christians would follow THIS advice from Matthew?
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
None! — charleton

Well, I am a Christian, and I do follow that. It doesn't just apply to clothing, but also other aspects of one's life. I have put up with a lot from other people when it hurt me a lot. Being angry at another doesn't benefit anyone, so why not give more?

How about this one, next time you cast your eye over a woman? How many 'christians' are going to take this advice? — charleton

I am a woman, and I do follow this principle. If you are stuck in a completely literal interpretation, then, of course, it will mean something entirely different than the intended concept. It simply means to avoid things that will cause you to fall.

Neither of your responses are relevant. It is simply a case in point that Christians do not follow scripture and I prefer to judge them by their deeds and not their words.

Please tell me where in the Christian Scripture that murdering and torturing are encouraged. — Lone Wolf

You shall not suffer a witch to live.
Aside from that the Bible is basically a litany of smiting, war and conquest.

You act as if all two and a half billion of the Christian population are warmongering lunatics. Please, cut the hyperbole.

Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians.

If you think that all the world's wars are a direct result of Christian thinking, you're smoking something quite sharp.

Love is the state of maximum acceptance.

As opposed to evil, which is the state of maximum denial.

God is the one who is absolute love, for example. As such, He allows even evil on this world to exist. And He gives us command to love our enemies and bless them.

On the other hand, as a state of maximum denial evil ultimately wants to cease to exist, to be destroyed, and that's what will happen.

"Christian thinking" is an oxymoron.
I don't think Christians think much, but there's no doubt that Christians are locked in an ideological war with Islam.

Pretty sure it's now apparent that most Christians think more than Charletons.

Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians. — charleton

Christians have plenty to atone for, but it's a very tired canard that religion is the cause of war, or that Christians are unusually war like.

War is far too expensive to be justified by religious interests. There is usually a quite earthly reason to go to war: political expedience, economic resources, failed diplomacy (war is diplomacy carried out by other means), control of resources, power, and so forth. There have been some wars which have more religious roots. One example would be the Peasants War of 1524.

"Reformation preaching, changing economic conditions, and a history of revolts against authority also likely played a part in the rebellion’s initiation.

The rebels were not rising against the Holy Roman Empire, which had little to do with their lives in any case, but against the Roman Catholic Church and more local nobles, princes, and rulers."

The expansion of Islam out of Arabia was kind of war-like. The Crusades were kind of war like. Do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies over different strands of Islam? Some, but mostly it's about regional control, politics, and power.

People may confuse "religious people being in charge of a war" with "war being fought for religion".

Christians are proud to state that belief is in the majority. Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith.
But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West. And the West seems to thrive on warfare. If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it?
They prefer to support Israel and jump at any excuse to attack countries all over the world.

Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith. — charleton

Yes, it's a disgusting performance.

But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions. — charleton

That's true, but then, which religious/ideological power block actually does take responsibility for their actions?

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West. — charleton

It is certainly one of the tap roots of western thinking, going back to the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Whether it is still the dominant ideology of the west is doubtful. I think capitalism and a soft-peddled authoritarianism is a competing ideology.

And the West seems to thrive on warfare. — charleton

The West has certainly been warlike enough, but really, warfare is endemic in the species. EVERYBODY wages war, when what they want can't be obtained by other means, and there is no territory on the face of the earth free of local warfare.

If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it? — charleton

I find quite a bit of truth in what you are saying, but I am not responsible for the so-called Christians, who will have to decide to do something about it -- themselves. I am more of an apostate/heretic/heathen. The problem with many believers (Christian, Islamic, Hindu...) is that they have come to believe very deeply in their own bullshit. But then, so have a lot of atheists. Belief in one's own bullshit is probably the one TRUE faith.

It's interesting to read exchange about Christians between those who don't seem to have read the Word of God in any meaningful way.

Jesus Christ clearly states that many will speak of Him as their Lord and will claim to do acts in His name, but He will reject them at the judgement day with words: "Get away from me, I never knew you."

So right away we have direct testimony from God Himself that there are many who profess Him but they are not of Him, He never knew them.

Next we have direct command from Jesus to turn the other cheek, love the enemy and not take up arms.

Next we have direct revelation from Jesus that narrow is the way to salvation and wide is the road to destruction.

No human is perfect and every Christian fails in following God's commandments. But to talk about mostly masonic presidents and other "movers and shakers" who govern the society as being Christians' representatives, while they basically never mention words "Jesus Christ" let alone talk about Jesus as their saviour, is absurd.

Bible clearly reveals that governance of the world is given to the fallen one.

There is only one representative of Christians and that's Jesus Christ.

No true Scotsman fallacy.
See what Christians do, not what they say.

No it's not. Direct testimony from God reveals that many will claim to be His followers yet He never knew them.

So when did God tell you that? LOL

[redacted] lol

Attraction: this one's pretty obvious, but one simply cannot maintain a healthy relationship with someone that they don't personally find attractive, it's the "imagine kissing him" test. What I'm arguing here is that lust in fact does play a real role in love — Cosette Brazeau

Given that the attractiveness of a person is substantially objective (at least within cultures) does that mean that an "unattractive couple" are less likely to be in true love compared with an "attractive couple"?

Given that the attractiveness of a person is substantially objective (at least within cultures) does that mean that an "unattractive couple" are less likely to be in love? — Jake Tarragon

If both people in the relationship are attracted to each other, there is a potential for love. So, to answer your question, an "unattractive couple" isn't necessarily less likely to be in love, but I suppose its more likely that one or both members wouldn't find the other attractive.

But I thought you said that attractiveness is a necessity for love??!!

YUP
so sorry. i didn't make that clear in my last post. what i mean is, "unattractive couples," in general, aren't necessarily less likely to be in love, but case by case, it may be more likely that one or both members wouldn't find the other attractive.

Sorry to sound like a bullying barrister/antagonistic attorney, but are you, or are you not saying that attractiveness is necessary for love? Or are you now saying that attractiveness is merely a help towards love?

Nope, no worries. I am saying that attractiveness is necessary for love

Therefore, an unattractive person cannot be loved - this is a logical corollary of your claim, yes?

Well yeah. Attractiveness is subjective of course (someone might find me attractive, and you might not), but if one finds a person to be unattractive, that unattractive person cannot be loved by them, in a long term, marital scenario. True love, encompasses some lust, I believe

OK, so what you mean to claim is "subjective attractiveness is necessary for love".

That is a much watered down claim. It is almost like saying "only lovable people can be loved". Almost a tautology.

That's true. I thought it necessary to include it, because, in the experiences of some of my piers, it's possible to walk into a relationship, thinking that you may be able to pursue a person romantically, and find out that you just don't feel comfortable kissing that person, etc.

However, attractiveness is only partly subjective. It is perfectly reasonable, scientifically speaking, to rank people in order of attractiveness. It's not an absolute ranking order,because of the subjective element, but generally speaking people occupy a rank for general attractiveness . The objective part of this rank is partly due to reasons of evolutionary psychology, partly cultural influence.

My question is this: do objectively more attractive couples enjoy sex more than plainer couples?