Finding "the one"

[Lemur]

I have a christian friend. She believes that God will magically come along and show her who she should be with. God created her and him for each other. They were meant to be together. [...]

Does it work like that?

In a word, no, and there's no scriptural basis for it. That's some kind of Barbie Dream Pony logic mixed up with the Gospel.

On the Biblical front, the good book describes polygamy and monogamy without ever suggesting that one is better than the other. Even incest and rape are given air time, with no indication that these are bad things. Your friend's belief that Heavenly Father will pick out a perfect match for her has more to do with the movie Pretty Woman and the novels of Jane Austen than anything in scripture.

Taking it from a practical perspective, we're all capable of loving many, many people. Honestly, think about the odds if there were only one suitable match out there for you. What if she was born in Madagascar? What if she dies in a car crash before you meet her? What if she's put in an arranged marriage before you find her? In all these scenarios, you're borked.

No, the truth of the matter is that there are many, many people with whom we can be happy. It's a question of finding such a person and doing the work necessary to have a successful relationship.

This Cinderalla-inspired junk where the girl finds Mr. Perfect and is swept off her feet ot live happily ever after, well, it's a joke that has been selling books, movies, toys and TV shows since the dawn of time. No relationship to reality.

[pevergreen]

Would I be wrong in assuming you are a Protestant?

No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.

In a word, no, and there's no scriptural basis for it. That's some kind of Barbie Dream Pony logic mixed up with the Gospel.

On the Biblical front, the good book describes polygamy and monogamy without ever suggesting that one is better than the other. Even incest and rape are given air time, with no indication that these are bad things. Your friend's belief that Heavenly Father will pick out a perfect match for her has more to do with the movie Pretty Woman and the novels of Jane Austen than anything in scripture.

Taking it from a practical perspective, we're all capable of loving many, many people. Honestly, think about the odds if there were only one suitable match out there for you. What if she was born in Madagascar? What if she dies in a car crash before you meet her? What if she's put in an arranged marriage before you find her? In all these scenarios, you're borked.

No, the truth of the matter is that there are many, many people with whom we can be happy. It's a question of finding such a person and doing the work necessary to have a successful relationship.

This Cinderalla-inspired junk where the girl finds Mr. Perfect and is swept off her feet ot live happily ever after, well, it's a joke that has been selling books, movies, toys and TV shows since the dawn of time. No relationship to reality.

Which is pretty much what another christian friend of mine said. And of course, thats much more reassuring.

but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.

The scary thing for me though is, that while we were at school (graduated 14 or so months ago) she was a female version of AP. Then in December 07 she magically converted after years of anti-christian behaviour. And it completely changed her. Now, I don't think that it can't happen, i just, yet again, don't believe why she thinks she has to give up, as she says, 'smart things' to be happy. (science etc, she used to speak about stuff so complicated only 1-2 out of 20 could understand her) However, she still studies french and russian.

[Scienter]

No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.


Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.

Originally Posted by That first friend I was talking about in the OP
but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.

I don't mean to be insensitive here, but if this is how she feels, do you think that she would be compatible with you if you're agnostic? She sounds very devoted to her religion, to the point where she wouldn't date outside of it. Also (keep in mind I have no idea how old you are), since she is very religious, my guess is that most er... physical aspects of a relationship would be out of the question. Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.

[naut]

I think the important question is: Is she cute?

Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.

As a former Christian, those types of Christians tended to freak me out. So enthusiastic. Yet, often with time people give up their faith, especially if it is gained during adolescence, (myself included), much like how many young ladies go through the vegetarian phase.

Honestly she sounds harmless, but a little naive. If anything I think she'll end up getting her heart-broken by someone down the line, but that's for her to experience. And in my honest opinion I don't think she's a fool for believing in "the one true love", some people need that sort of idealistic hope to help them get through life. It's a similar to the hope her faith provides her.

If you want to go after her, do so. If it doesn't go anywhere what has either of you lost?

[Beskar]

[rory_20_uk]

I hope he rents her by the hour rather than goes for a lifetime contract.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?

[Myrddraal]

B)For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine...

Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. ... Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.

Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't. All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds. Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid? That love is nothing but a mental disorder? That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion? Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time? Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.

To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.

[Beskar]

Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.

[Subotan]

So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?

Yes. There wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't.

Who said it was earth-shattering? Of course it is not, the chemicals still have to be touched off. But the point is, once they are touched off, we lose quite a bit of independent thought. We become addicted to the chemicals in a certain sense. They are a mind-altering chemical, and they do affect us more than we would be comfortable with. This is not an intellectual decision we make here. We do not weight the pros and cons, logically examine the situation. Well, we do, but the deleterious influence of the chemicals prevents many from thinking straight – males in particular.
I used the bio- chemical argument in tandem with the socio-cultural and the psychological arguments to create a case for the lack of probability for randomness or logical thought which could be influenced by some higher entity. Nowhere did I reach the same conclusion as you did.

All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds.

Aber naturlich. This was my argument, and I used this to dispel any romantic or deterministic arguments which the OP pointed to. That is the purpose of this thread, n’est-ce pas? Alternatively, if one believes that God is so involved and so prone to meddling that he actually manipulates the chemicals and genetically imprinted responses for the sake of our romantic harmony, then that implies that God regularly alters the very rules he created. This line of thought will swiftly veer off into absurdity, also known as ‘Last Thusdayism’ where there is no limit to how much a deity twists the universe to fit into various dogmas. Really, I see little choice but to accept agnosticism or atheism as a reality.

I was not implying lust was somehow special, as what you seem to have taken it as.

Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid?

Not necessarily the point I was making, or at least not the main one. My main point was as I have stated it before. No such thing as true love. As for this point, I will say that all emotions are simply releases of various chemicals, and that yes, in part, that makes them less valid. Mainly lust and love, however. Emotions are mainly expressions, and while they influence us, they do not do so directly, and depend much on our own rational thought to trigger them.

In this respect, lust is slightly different, as it has a direct effect on whom we choose as a mate and with whom we stay in a romantic relationship. It has a direct, intended effect. Oxytocin makes sure the parents stay attached to the children to care for them, as it makes evolutionary sense from the mammalian perspective. Mothers are slaves of oxytocin. So often their logic is unimaginably warped by the desire to keep their offspring safe, which goes far into irrationality. This has profound societal impacts, such as on policymaking.

My mother, for instance, sees no reason why any cost should be spared in things such as airport security. I give her all sorts of arguments, yet she cannot accept the fact that some people will have to die, and that airport security hurts us far more than the actual acts of terrorism. A person who has no regard for his life is immensely dangerous, and there are not many ways we can stop such a fanatic. I know this is teenage-ish cold logic, but I do not mind dying, for instance. If you think I have no experience with death, then how about spinal meningitis when I was 14? I realised I could have died back then, but it did not matter to me, and I was fortunate to have survived with no after-effects. Nor does it matter to me now. Death is a part of life, and there is no reason why cost:benefit ratio cannot be considered in such cases. Of course, life should have a high value, but the current situation is inexcusable.

But really, my prime example of the oxytocin overdose would be the child-protection laws, due to their close relationship with maternal/paternal instincts. US sex offender laws, namely. They contradict all common and legal sense. We already had a thread on this in the past, and I have mentioned those Economist articles. I will not go into great detail on this, but if anyone wishes to see if my assertion is valid, you can request my sources.

To sum it up, the lust/love chemicals have far too much intended, direct effect on us for me to regard them in the class of regular emotions. Our ‘normal’ emotions are dependant on personality and make plenty of sense, notwithstanding the fact that they are illogical often times. These emotions have no intended direct effect. Sure, they are influential, but they have no set purpose, but instead feature numerous applications and are not as biologically essential. They are a much milder version of the long-term attachment to, say, children. That is designed to be a biological prison, to ensure a certain evolutionary behavior.

That love is nothing but a mental disorder?

Yeah, I know it sounds sensationalist, but it is true. Brain scans show a flurry of highly irregular and peculiar patterns which do not compare to any normal state of emotions. Namely serotonin. The brain is literally alight and working around the clock, feverishly when under that short-term intense infatuation ‘spell’. As I said, the only parallel is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Every bio-psychological disorder has a distinct brain signature. So does the first one-two weeks of new love.

That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion?

I very much understand the point you are making, but regular emotions are not the same as no emotions. Emotions are normal, and the brain signatures are fairly balanced, with normal activity. The scientists are not comparing lust with a blank slate – they are comparing it with regular brain activity. Severe depression and certain powerful disorders have an immense effect on those brain activity patterns/signatures. So does love, and its signature is very similar to OCD. The activity is intense, and can never be rivalled by regular emotions, which register a comparatively insignificant and momentary impact on the brain activity.

Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time?

This point, is undeniably true. But I never attempted counter this point. It would be most stupid of me to say that chemicals cause love. No, they maintain it, and perpetuate it, but they are still triggered by outside forces. Since I am not a professor on a lecture, I did not go into every detail and thus left off the part about the causes of the release of those chemicals.

Your conclusion was that I view us as total slaves to chemicals. No, the chemicals are still released based on non-random factors, but alas, too much of that is genetics. Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them. The only decisions we really make are the personality/intelligence/interestingness-of-a-person type factors. But those carry influence after the initial impact of lust has been made, as research shows. Sadly, these factors are secondary.

Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.

Yes, you are correct, but this often goes into a circle. Dopamine is released because one finds a person attractive, but the dopamine perpetuates that, it reinforces the infatuation which is based on inaccurate data of first impression and such. Infatuations are not logical, you have to admit. It is not as simple as you would have it. Once again, I re-iterate, nothing is simple in psychology, or any field of study for that matter. We are neither the first nor the second quote you made.

Think of it as a drug addict – a regular person jabs the needle with the heroin in the arm, and finds the first ‘squirt’ pleasing. So he/she continues the injection. However, after this first time, the rest of the injections are done as much because of the addiction as they are because of love. Yeah, you are screaming bloody murder by now, most likely, due to the perceived sensationalism of this claim, in particular due to the parallel I make between narcotics and love. However, you are dead wrong. Numerous drugs stimulate the release of the same ‘pleasure’ chemicals present in love. Dopamine is the main culprit here. Cocaine and love both stimulate the release of it. Love addiction exists, and the main defining characteristic of dependency – especially the physical withdrawal symptoms, are very much present in love – they are called breakups. Sure, my claims sound sensational, and in a manner this is intentional, to reinforce the effectiveness of my argument, but this does not make them false – au contraire.

To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.

I believe I already answered this in the aforementioned paragraphs . Love is a mental disorder. The brain is in a highly disordered state, and the body is very noticeably affected (sleepless nights, obsessions, passion, other torrents of emotions). You could claim that love=addiction/narcotic is sensationalist, which it can be, but the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.