Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Rampant.A.I.]

...and?

[Cyberman]

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".

This is a textbook example of Battered Housewives' Syndrome - “Yes, I know he treats me like shit and beats me, I know he makes me beg for death... but that's how he shows me he loves me.“ Now, that's fine if you're happy enough with that such that you don't want help, but don't try to sell others on what you consider its merits.

[Mystical]

In that case, I'll ask you why taking the babies choice away and just sending them straight to heaven is congruent with a god of free will and choice? What's the point of us even coming here if we don't get to choose what happens to us?

[Mystical]

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.

god commands you to love instead of hate and yet the overwhelming reflection of your religion in people features hatred of certain groups of people. Jesus does not love the red yellow black and white children equally. Especially if the boy wants to be himself instead of the macho stereotypes your kind indoctrinate kids minds with.

[GrandizerII]

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.

I never said I agreed with your premises. It's not against my nature to love others, only that it is selective and conditional, the same way my hatred is selective and conditional. Is it now against my nature to hate others?

And there you go again with the "command" word.

[Tonus]

And there you go again with the "command" word.

Heh, yeah... ever notice that the same god who supposedly is very concerned with allowing us to exercise our free will can't stop "commanding" us to do things?

[Esquilax]

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".

Romans is demonstrably wrong with this claim, and you need to let go of what it says for a decent conversation to take place. God has not revealed himself to us, to simply assert "creation" as evidence of god without demonstrating that it is a creation then you're using circular reasoning, and that's just the beginning of the problems there.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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".

Romans is demonstrably wrong with this claim, and you need to let go of what it says for a decent conversation to take place. God has not revealed himself to us, to simply assert "creation" as evidence of god without demonstrating that it is a creation then you're using circular reasoning, and that's just the beginning of the problems there.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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".

Romans is demonstrably wrong with this claim, and you need to let go of what it says for a decent conversation to take place. God has not revealed himself to us, to simply assert "creation" as evidence of god without demonstrating that it is a creation then you're using circular reasoning, and that's just the beginning of the problems there.

[Mystical]

Lek in case you missed it I did reply to you.