(June 3, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 10:09 am)Irrational Wrote: Missed that one.

No, I don't. My love is selective and conditional, but it is nevertheless, based on how I am wired by genetics/environment as an individual.

So we're conditioned to love and to hate, but God desires that we love everyone. So he commands us, knowing that it is against our human nature to do so. Only through his power will we be able to do so.

Don't be silly. That's scientifically impossible for humans.

Quote:This number was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can only comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[7] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.[8][9

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Shit, that means most of my Facebook friends are only using me.

(June 3, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: So we're conditioned to love and to hate, but God desires that we love everyone. So he commands us, knowing that it is against our human nature to do so.

If God wants us to do something, "do as I say, not as I do" is the worst way to make it happen. You'd think an omniscient being would figure out a concept that simple.

(June 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Lek Wrote: So we're conditioned to love and to hate, but God desires that we love everyone. So he commands us, knowing that it is against our human nature to do so.

If God wants us to do something, "do as I say, not as I do" is the worst way to make it happen. You'd think an omniscient being would figure out a concept that simple.

Except that it is "do as I do". Jesus was our example.

(June 3, 2014 at 10:19 pm)Lek Wrote: Except that it is "do as I do". Jesus was our example.

The worst example you could have come up with is to cite the cross between Omnihitler and Overly Attached Girlfriend who committed multiple genocides, one of them global, and sends people to hell forever if they don't love him back.

Lek do you understand that Jesus is god in your religion?

(June 3, 2014 at 10:47 pm)Luckie Wrote: Lek do you understand that Jesus is god in your religion?

Gee, I think so.

Well I was just wondering how you justified the actions of the god of the Bible with being a loving being whatsoever?

(June 3, 2014 at 10:19 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: If God wants us to do something, "do as I say, not as I do" is the worst way to make it happen. You'd think an omniscient being would figure out a concept that simple.

Except that it is "do as I do". Jesus was our example.

Jesus is a bad example. He was a hypocrite.

(June 3, 2014 at 11:00 pm)Luckie Wrote: Well I was just wondering how you justified the actions of the god of the Bible with being a loving being whatsoever?

Been through this a million times. I say "unless he a pussy cat and doesn't hold us accountable for anything, then he doesn't love us"? Then you say "how can he hold babies accountable"? Then I say "they're in heaven and are much happier". Then you say "what about all those people he killed who had never heard of him"? And I say "read chapter 1 of the book of Romans where he says he reveals himself to everyone through creation and no one is without excuse". Then you say "if that's what you call a loving God, the he can go *!#*! himself".