Obey God and live forever or disobey God and die

@fmf said
Here is the thread's question:

Does this religion** - this God and His promise and his wishes - make moral sense?

Why is your question so awkward..?

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 said
Why is your question so awkward..?

I do not really get it.

It's fine by me if you don't really get it.

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 said
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.

Thanks for your input.

@fmf said
It's fine by me if you don't really get it.

Jeez, you're no fun to play with.

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 said
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.

I have explained the thought exercise to you now. What are you on about?

@fmf said
What are you on about?

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 fixed in you that you brush aside others statements merely on principle rather than on a well thought out and objective rebuttal.

@secondson said
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.

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 exercise. This is all stuff you have tried to add to the God/religion of the OP. It's about "striving" not about "perfection".

@fmf said
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".

Then why isn't this a thread about striving?

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.

@philokalia said
Then why isn't this a thread about striving?

It is about striving.

@philokalia said
This isn't well structured.

Thanks for your advice.

@philokalia said
And others are saying that you have edited the content that was on the first page!

I edited some typos.