@fmf saidWhy is your question so awkward..?
Here is the thread's question:
Does this religion** - this God and His promise and his wishes - make moral sense?
I do not really get it.
You quote the sermon on the mount, and then there is some emboldened text at the start of the thread, and then you pose this question -- and each time you say religion there is two asterisks with it...
"Does this religion - this God and His promise and his wishes - make moral sense?"
I don't really see how this is the best way to phrase a question.
It feels like a whole lot is left out for such a question to be posed.
@philokalia saidIt's fine by me if you don't really get it.
Why is your question so awkward..?
I do not really get it.
05 Feb 19
So...Umm, sure. Yeah, it makes moral sense.
I have not seen you raise any complaints about it making moral sense... I see no controversy.
I also do not see you backing it up, either, as if this does make the most moral sense.
So, IDK.
Let's see what's behind the next door, I guess, if there is another door.
@philokalia saidThanks for your input.
So...Umm, sure. Yeah, it makes moral sense.
I have not seen you raise any complaints about it making moral sense... I see no controversy.
I also do not see you backing it up, either, as if this does make the most moral sense.
So, IDK.
Let's see what's behind the next door, I guess, if there is another door.
05 Feb 19
@fmf saidJeez, you're no fun to play with.
It's fine by me if you don't really get it.
I answered the question and explained why, then you modified the OP, after the fact, circumventing my input and rendering the whole intent of your thread obsolete.
That's the way I see it.
Now you'll say, "it's Fine by me if that's the way you see it."
There's nothing resembling a genuine debate going on in this thread.
@FMF says
"It's fine by me if that's what you think". 🐥
@secondson saidI have explained the thought exercise to you now. What are you on about?
I answered the question and explained why, then you modified the OP, after the fact, circumventing my input and rendering the whole intent of your thread obsolete.
05 Feb 19
@fmf saidIt's simple. I answered your question, and explained why I thought it made no moral sense, then you started adding modifications to the OP to discredit my answer and explanation to obviously avoid addressing what I said.
What are you on about?
That's what I'm on about. I really don't think you take the time to think through what posters are saying to you. I think your opinions have become so fixed in you that you brush aside others statements merely on principle rather than on a well thought out and objective rebuttal.
@secondson saidThe God of the OP requires "striving to be good and loving". It's in the OP. Concepts of what is "good and loving" follow and draw on the beatitudes. It's not about humans being "flawed" or not being "flawless". That is a Christian concept that you introduced. You talked about "a standard of perfection necessary for obtaining everlasting life". That isn't part of this thought exercise. This is all stuff you have tried to add to the God/religion of the OP. It's about "striving" not about "perfection".
It's simple. I answered your question, and explained why I thought it made no moral sense, then you started adding modifications to the OP to discredit my answer and explanation to obviously avoid addressing what I said.
That's what I'm on about. I really don't think you take the time to think through what posters are saying to you. I think your opinions have become so f ...[text shortened]... side others statements merely on principle rather than on a well thought out and objective rebuttal.
06 Feb 19
@fmf saidThen why isn't this a thread about striving?
The God of the OP requires "striving to be good and loving". It's in the OP. Concepts of what is "good and loving" follow and draw on the beatitudes. It's not about humans being "flawed" or not being "flawless". That is a Christian concept that you introduced. You talked about "a standard of perfection necessary for obtaining everlasting life". That isn't part of this thought exe ...[text shortened]... you have tried to add to the God/religion of the OP. It's about "striving" not about "perfection".
If you read the OP you get... the sermon on the mount, some vague quotation, and the question of whether or not this is moral,
and now you make it sound like the OP is all about striving. And others are saying that you have edited the content that was on the first page!
This isn't well structured.
06 Feb 19
@philokalia saidI edited some typos.
And others are saying that you have edited the content that was on the first page!