Debate:What is the real love?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:What is the real love? as edited by WesleyS (Talk | contribs) at 17:13, 20 November 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Well, I have talked with a couple of different people on the net, there seems to be quite different meanings on what love really is. Also, I must say that I thnk there are two different forms of love, the first one being the one a man feels to a woman or oppisite and the love that Jesus talked about (which is the one I am interested to talk about). Can somebody give a clear and honest explanation on what true love is, without fearing to be critizised for their view, I am open to ideas. --Nabroon 18:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not much of a biologist or neuroscientist but from what I understand all feelings of love and affection are caused by the chemical (or hormone :S) oxytocin. This is responbsible for the love between mother and child, lovers in a relationship, other family love, friendship and in some cases, lust. What causes this hormone (or chemical!) to be released into the brain is something I am not certain of. But that's pretty much my limited understanding of the matter. Bolly 13:51, 17 August 2008
Well, that's more or less the funny way our religion/christianity book told us about the subject of love, that it sure is sad to express something as fundamental as love as simply some reaction caused by our hormones and that that's the only thing it is, a chemical recation, (as some would claim all of human evolution is, only a simple reaction of chaos and coincidence).
To me I feel that the cause for our love toward each other (both couple realations and unselfish love) is a product of a much deeper level, that in the plane of our spiruality, perhaps just as our physical world there exists other worlds which are connected to us, and which work on all our other senses. :)
Even though I'm not religious, I think that simply explaining all of our feelings and creative powers as a result of a chemical coincidence (which of course the whole Darwin idea is based upon) is like creating something out of nothing. Impossible ;) --Nabroon 17:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry i took so long to reply. *ahem*. I see where you're coming from, and I understand you're view because it was one that I subscribed to for a while. But now I find it funny that you feel the need to invoke a whole new level of alternate planes of existence just to explain something that is already explained in the world of biology and chemistry. Especially when there is no scientific evidence for those planes. But hey, its a free world (mostly). I just feel that it devalues the amazing abilities of the human brain, especially because that is a world that is far more worthy of our awe and respect. Oh and I'm not going to rise to your last sentence cos I know there's no point. Nice try though :P Bolly 23:22, 23 August 2008
Bolly, man, I know what you're saying but you do come off sounding a little bit smug. Don't be trollin', yo. :D Underscoreb 00:17, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Sorry underscoreb, I don't mean to sound smug or know-it-all. But thankyou for the friendly warning. Bolly 19:39, 15 October 2008 (EDT)