What's so great about faith?

[_Nephi]

Let's pretend for a moment, however, that someone could fake it. What difference would it make? The net result is the same. If you're trying to tell me that genuine love is more about having warm fuzzy feelings then it is about performing loving actions, well, I pity you. Is it really possible for someone to be loving for malicious reasons?

Hmmm... Let's see, how many countless times do we hear in the news how some person married some other person for "ulterior motives"? I seem to recall I read a story of two people who married in their twenties, had children, kids went off to college, and afterwards, he comes "out of the closet". He admitted the whole time he was "going through the motions" trying to be something he was not. He admitted that after the divorce and when he had his first homosexual relationship he finally understood what love was, and before he was only guessing. Therefore, it is possible to go through 17 years of a marriage and fake the whole thing. So length of a relationship is not proof of love.

Are "warm fuzzies" what make you know the other loves you? I never implied this. I am just stating that there is not a solid bit of proof that one loves the other in a relationship that cannot be explained in some other reasonable answer. The "evidence" one gives that they are loved or that they love someone else is not definitive proof.

It seems to me what you are saying is the actions of the other IS the love itself, as though emotion and feelings have NOTHING to do with it. If the actions themselves are the LOVE, then I am sorry you miss the whole mental connection between the two, the emotions, and the whole of the experience. Love is all these things, not just the outward signs.

So no, it's not in the least like saying "I know the church is true." There is absolutely no evidence that the church is what it claims to be, let alone regularly reinforced evidence.

Great, prove to me that your wife loves you. I need proof.

Well, you'd have to come over and watch my wife be who she is for a length of time, and I could then highlight the distinguishing characteristics that would document her loving actions, but quite frankly, it's not that important to me that you believe it.

Its not important to me either, but it is key to my argument that faith is something needed in life. If your relationship was based on something that is definitive proof, then faith would not be required during any step of that relationship. If, on the other hand, you cannot give any definitive proof, then you had to use something to support this relationship. Proof? You give her characteristics as proof, as though these cannot be faked. I am sure you think she loves you, but these actions are not what qualify as proof, since they can be faked. Your proof is about as solid as a missionary showing a Book of Mormon and telling others this is their proof that the Church is True. Hrm....

[_Some Schmo]

Hmmm... Let's see, how many countless times do we hear in the news how some person married some other person for "ulterior motives"? I seem to recall I read a story of two people who married in their twenties, had children, kids went off to college, and afterwards, he comes "out of the closet". He admitted the whole time he was "going through the motions" trying to be something he was not. He admitted that after the divorce and when he had his first homosexual relationship he finally understood what love was, and before he was only guessing. Therefore, it is possible to go through 17 years of a marriage and fake the whole thing. So length of a relationship is not proof of love.

Well, couple of things here:

- Did the spouse in this story really feel "loved?"
- If so, then the act of "going through the motions" was a demonstration of love.
- It sounds like this person is using the word "love" interchangeably with the word "intimacy" and that is perhaps where your own demonstrated confusion lies. Love is not synonymous with intimacy (especially sexual intimacy). You love your kids, parents, and siblings without being intimate with them (must... resist... Alabama jokes...) I'm willing to bet that if asked, a large number of homosexuals from these cases would claim they still loved their ex spouse, even if they aren't "in love" with them.

Its not important to me either, but it is key to my argument that faith is something needed in life. If your relationship was based on something that is definitive proof, then faith would not be required during any step of that relationship. If, on the other hand, you cannot give any definitive proof, then you had to use something to support this relationship. Proof? You give her characteristics as proof, as though these cannot be faked. I am sure you think she loves you, but these actions are not what qualify as proof, since they can be faked. Your proof is about as solid as a missionary showing a Book of Mormon and telling others this is their proof that the Church is True. Hrm....

Again, not the same thing at all. If you're doing a loving thing for someone, you're doing it. You can't "fake it" because you're either doing it, or you aren't doing it. The homosexual in your example said he "was going through the motions." He didn't say he was faking the motions.

If what you're getting at is that I can't prove an emotion, fine. I agree. I fail to see, however, why faith is required to believe in someone's emotional state when the net result of their actions demonstrates love. And going back to your original point, it's not the belief in other people's emotional state that causes people to stay together; it's what people actually do in a relationship that keeps them together.

[_Nephi]

Hmmm... Let's see, how many countless times do we hear in the news how some person married some other person for "ulterior motives"? I seem to recall I read a story of two people who married in their twenties, had children, kids went off to college, and afterwards, he comes "out of the closet". He admitted the whole time he was "going through the motions" trying to be something he was not. He admitted that after the divorce and when he had his first homosexual relationship he finally understood what love was, and before he was only guessing. Therefore, it is possible to go through 17 years of a marriage and fake the whole thing. So length of a relationship is not proof of love.

Well, couple of things here:

- Did the spouse in this story really feel "loved?"
- If so, then the act of "going through the motions" was a demonstration of love.
- It sounds like this person is using the word "love" interchangeably with the word "intimacy" and that is perhaps where your own demonstrated confusion lies. Love is not synonymous with intimacy (especially sexual intimacy). You love your kids, parents, and siblings without being intimate with them (must... resist... Alabama jokes...) I'm willing to bet that if asked, a large number of homosexuals from these cases would claim they still loved their ex spouse, even if they aren't "in love" with them.

Its not important to me either, but it is key to my argument that faith is something needed in life. If your relationship was based on something that is definitive proof, then faith would not be required during any step of that relationship. If, on the other hand, you cannot give any definitive proof, then you had to use something to support this relationship. Proof? You give her characteristics as proof, as though these cannot be faked. I am sure you think she loves you, but these actions are not what qualify as proof, since they can be faked. Your proof is about as solid as a missionary showing a Book of Mormon and telling others this is their proof that the Church is True. Hrm....

Again, not the same thing at all. If you're doing a loving thing for someone, you're doing it. You can't "fake it" because you're either doing it, or you aren't doing it. The homosexual in your example said he "was going through the motions." He didn't say he was faking the motions.

If what you're getting at is that I can't prove an emotion, fine. I agree. I fail to see, however, why faith is required to believe in someone's emotional state when the net result of their actions demonstrates love. And going back to your original point, it's not the belief in other people's emotional state that causes people to stay together; it's what people actually do in a relationship that keeps them together.

Love is a thing that manifests itself in actions. Sorry you think it is somethign different. Hope your wife never goes into a coma. You'll end up leaving her because she doesn't love you.

[_Some Schmo]

Love is a thing that manifests itself in actions. Sorry you think it is somethign different. Hope your wife never goes into a coma. You'll end up leaving her because she doesn't love you.

Wait! Are you saying we can identify love via how it manifests itself through actions?! Holy crap!

Um... that's what I've been saying all along. Glad you agree now.

And thanks. I hope my wife never goes into a coma too.

[_Nephi]

Love is a thing that manifests itself in actions. Sorry you think it is somethign different. Hope your wife never goes into a coma. You'll end up leaving her because she doesn't love you.

Wait! Are you saying we can identify love via how it manifests itself through actions?! Holy crap!

Um... that's what I've been saying all along. Glad you agree now.

And thanks. I hope my wife never goes into a coma too.

Lemme rephrase... Love (a noun) is something that manifests itself in the verbs you are referring to as love. It is easy to copy these things, though. To "know" the noun "love" is there, one must exercise faith.

[_Scottie]

Schmo, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to say that there is no such feeling as love?? That love is simply a set of actions that shows the other person you respect and care for them?? I don't think I need to point out how ludacris this is, right?? I think you know this is BS. The feeling and emotion of love is an all too real, all to powerful force in this world.

The actions that show love are very easily mimicked and can be faked. Trophy wives do it all the time to old, rich guys. Do you really think Anna Nicole Smith loved what's his face?? Haven't you ever heard these guys claim, "I really thought she loved me for me and not my money!!" Nope. She faked the actions. He had faith that she loved him.

I agree with Nephi here. There is absolutely no way you can possibly know your wife REALLY loves you. You must have faith that she does. Do you really think that you are so special and so smart that you are immune to anyone faking these actions on you? I know I'm not. It's highly unlikely that your wife is doing this, but to claim you KNOW she isn't is no better than an apologist claiming to KNOW the church is true.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to say that there is no such feeling as love?? That love is simply a set of actions that shows the other person you respect and care for them?? I don't think I need to point out how ludacris this is, right?? I think you know this is BS. The feeling and emotion of love is an all too real, all to powerful force in this world.

The actions that show love are very easily mimicked and can be faked. Trophy wives do it all the time to old, rich guys. Do you really think Anna Nicole Smith loved what's his face?? Haven't you ever heard these guys claim, "I really thought she loved me for me and not my money!!" Nope. She faked the actions. He had faith that she loved him.

I agree with Nephi here. There is absolutely no way you can possibly know your wife REALLY loves you. You must have faith that she does. Do you really think that you are so special and so smart that you are immune to anyone faking these actions on you? I know I'm not. It's highly unlikely that your wife is doing this, but to claim you KNOW she isn't is no better than an apologist claiming to KNOW the church is true.

I never said I know my wife loves me, I said that she shows me love every day.

I'm not denying that there's an emotional component to love, but I do not consider that emotion to be love, especially the emotion that one gets when they first meet someone new, and "falls in love." Those emotions never last. The loving emotion is all over the place. Some days it doesn't exist at all. Are you trying to tell me that when the emotion goes away, that means you don't love your spouse that day? If so... well, holy shallow thinking, Batman!

And again, it's not faith that's needed to believe my wife has the feelings associated with giving love, it's trust. If I needed faith, it would be because there's no evidence for it.

It's just so silly to equate "faith in god" with "faith in love" anyway. They aren't even in the same country, let alone ball park. We see acts of love all the time. We see nothing that indicates god ever.

[_Scottie]

I never said I know my wife loves me, I said that she shows me love every day.

Fair enough.

I'm not denying that there's an emotional component to love, but I do not consider that emotion to be love, especially the emotion that one gets when they first meet someone new, and "falls in love." Those emotions never last. The loving emotion is all over the place. Some days it doesn't exist at all. Are you trying to tell me that when the emotion goes away, that means you don't love your spouse that day? If so... well, holy shallow thinking, Batman!

I agree with you that labeling the high that you get when you find someone new as love is stupid. It's infatuation. However, what about the love that I feel for my kids. That certainly doesn't go away. It is definitely a feeling, and I don't think that cheapens it in any way to call it such.

And again, it's not faith that's needed to believe my wife has the feelings associated with giving love, it's trust. If I needed faith, it would be because there's no evidence for it.

Wrong. As I said before, the "evidence" of love can be faked. Therefore, since you can't completely trust the evidence, a certain amount of faith is required.

It's just so silly to equate "faith in god" with "faith in love" anyway. They aren't even in the same country, let alone ball park. We see acts of love all the time. We see nothing that indicates god ever.

Sure we see acts of love, and we know love exists. The argument being made here is does YOUR partner love YOU? You claim that faith and religion are inextricably combined and there is no way anyone can make a case that faith is needed outside of religion. I think this shows a great example of faith in something besides God.

[_asbestosman]

I think this shows a great example of faith in something besides God.

I don't.

--because the Bible sayeth that "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

[_Some Schmo]

And again, it's not faith that's needed to believe my wife has the feelings associated with giving love, it's trust. If I needed faith, it would be because there's no evidence for it.

Wrong. As I said before, the "evidence" of love can be faked. Therefore, since you can't completely trust the evidence, a certain amount of faith is required..

I've already said in this thread that I can't prove someone is having an internal feeling. (I can feel some hairsplitting coming on...) Let's apply what you've been saying about love to the other example people use to somehow give weight to this idea of faith: that people will drive on their own side of the road.

People are driving on their own side of the road. We see that every day. Do I know they want to drive on their side of the road? How do I know they aren't faking a desire to keep to their side of the road? I can't prove they feel good about keeping to their side of the road. Does that mean I need faith to believe they'll keep to their side of the road?

Of course not. I trust they want to keep to their side because there's a ton of evidence that people drive on their side all the time. The fact is, it's not really that important whether they want to or not; the fact that they act that way is the key. If they stopped acting that way, then it's a whole new ballgame, but as long as they're acting that way, my trust is well placed.

It's just so silly to equate "faith in god" with "faith in love" anyway. They aren't even in the same country, let alone ball park. We see acts of love all the time. We see nothing that indicates god ever.

Sure we see acts of love, and we know love exists. The argument being made here is does YOUR partner love YOU? You claim that faith and religion are inextricably combined and there is no way anyone can make a case that faith is needed outside of religion. I think this shows a great example of faith in something besides God.

Let me say this one more time, and hopefully, if I say it a new way, people will begin to understand:

Faith and trust are synonymous in one respect, but they are not synonymous in another. It is in their distinguishing meanings that I am referring to the two words. It is not useful to conflate the meaning of faith as it is synonymous with trust with how the two words are different for the purposes of this discussion.

To review:

Faith: belief in the unknowable without evidence
Trust: belief in the unknowable with evidence