Why ought I follow?

[thenexttodie]

If God exists, then He would have a better ability to gather and correctly interpret data than you do. I think this would be a reason to follow him. What do you think?

The Christian God would have no need to gather or interpret data because one of the god's primary characteristics is that 'he' is omniscient. No gathering or interpreting needed for omniscience...

In the bible, God uses angels to aquire data about Sodom and Gemorrah.

But even if what you say were true, God would still have a better understanding of reality than we do. I think this would be a good reason to "follow him".

If you propose something that contradicts itself, then you are wrong at a most elementary level. That's when you should go 'oh wait' and start inspecting the thought processes that lead you to assert a contradiction...

You've had them inspected for you here, all the hard work is done, but all that seems to mean is that you use the energy you saved by not independently thinking, to contrive distractions for yourself to not process the necessary implications.

Again, no offense meant at all. This doesn't make you less of a human being, doesn't make you a bad person, it just explains why you are religious.

That's fine. But you and Dragan Glas are both putting words in my mouth and then saying "Look you contradicted yourself". Maybe this is not intentional.

Overall, the Bible does not seem to present God as being Omniscient. This is why I never said He was.

If Dragan Glas thinks God cannot be omnibenevolent and at the same time have the ability to do evil, that's fine. I am don't really see the point in arguing about it. I never even did argue it which is why I called it a strawman.

 

[Sparhafoc]

In the bible, God uses angels to aquire data about Sodom and Gemorrah.

But even if what you say were true, God would still have a better understanding of reality than we do. I think this would be a good reason to "follow him".

See how easily you turned a logical contradiction into yet another expression of belief?

That's exactly what I mean. A large number of religious people simply will not accept any degree of challenge to their inherited notions. Even the Law of Non-Contradiction is a barely distinguishable bump in the reaffirmation of belief.

That's why one cannot apply logic to your belief system, and why you shouldn't pretend that logic has anything to do with it, because you can't just use logic when it suits and ignore it when it doesn't. And honestly, not intended as a put down or provocation, it's precisely why many of us stopped believing - because we cannot entertain metaphysical claims both absent of evidence and of logic.

That's fine. But you and Dragan Glas are both putting words in my mouth and then saying "Look you contradicted yourself". Maybe this is not intentional.

Neither intentional, nor true. No one is proposing that you made up the ontological characteristics of Yahweh, you clearly didn't and you clearly struggle to even formulate a clear understanding yourself of the things you feel you are obliged to believe.

Instead, I, and I imagine James too, know about Christianity, dogma, faith positions, ontologies, metaphysics and the like, and we are pointing out how they result in contradiction.

Yes, there was an instance of me pointing out a contradiction you had made, but then I explained very clearly why what you said resulted in a contradiction, so not only was that intentional, but I reject any notion that I was putting words into your mouth. Instead, as I explained to you in that text many times, you say X, which necessarily results in Y, and Z. That you didn't say Y and Z is both irrelevant, and part of the problem. You didn't say Y and Z because you didn't identify them as necessary results of the X you did say.

Incidentally, and no pressure meant at all, but you haven't addressed the contradiction I pointed out. You have evaded it by talking about other things. I explained why this happens to, and again, it's not a criticism of you, but a well documented way in which people can hold contradictory positions without inspecting them.

Overall, the Bible does not seem to present God as being Omniscient. This is why I never said He was.

Sorry, but that just means you are unfamiliar both with the Bible and with all Christian traditions that have existed for the last 1800 years.

Isaiah 46:10
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

Isaiah 40:13-14
Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?

Psalm 139: 1-3
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways

Psalm 139 (can't recall the verse and too lazy to check)
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be

Psalm 147
He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit

Job 37:16
Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?


How many verses do you want? I can probably quote at least 20-30 more that Christians have historically used to declare the omniscient ontological element of Yahweh's nature.

Remember, this is not an atheist's ontology, this it the exact argument made by Christians historically, and is written in the supposedly divinely dictated holy scripture. Neither myself nor James are saying that this is Yahweh's characteristic because we both maintain that Yahweh is a fictional character made up by Bronze Age pastoralists in their ignorance of the natural world and their true predicament.

Obviously, if you don't believe in that bollocks, then great, it's one less silly thing you feel obliged to lend credence too, and that can only be healthier... but it definitely IS an ontological characteristic claimed for YHWH, and your rejection of it probably makes you a heretic in the eyes of most Christians who give a damn about such stuff.

So yeah, if you have a special god, with special definitions that aren't shared by most Christians, then why are you arguing for Christianity? Surely, it would be like a Muslim arguing for Christianity - suspect.

If Dragan Glas thinks God cannot be omnibenevolent and at the same time have the ability to do evil, that's fine. I am don't really see the point in arguing about it. I never even did argue it which is why I called it a strawman.

It's not a strawman, you are mistaken.

For it to be a strawman, James would need to suggest you claimed the opposite of what you actually said.

What you said is that God could potentially do evil, and James pointed out that this contradicts the ontology of the Christian God. It still is a contradiction, regardless of whether you lend that particular characteristic credence or not, and it can't be a strawman because it's James' argument to you.

It's easy to toss out labels of fallacies, but you have to actually show they're fallacies before you can do so, and even when you've identified a fallacy, you still should address the question or argument made. Incidentally, failing to do so is itself fallacious, often termed 'the fallacist's fallacy':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

It has the general argument form:

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.[6]

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I see Sparhafoc beat me to it.

Thenexttodie, I pointed out that god can't be omni-benevolent (all-good) if he's capable of doing evil.

The only way you can do evil is "if you have evil in your heart" - which god, being "good", is incapable.

Pointing out this contradiction in what you're saying is not a strawman.

As regards omni-benevolence, one can infer it from scripture: I John 4:8 (NIV) "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." And, in case you argue that it's not the KJV: "8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

Note that god is defined as "love" - not that god merely "loves".

The "Problem of Evil" is another contradictory issue that occurs due to the above contradiction.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

But even if what you say were true, God would still have a better understanding of reality than we do. I think this would be a good reason to "follow him".

And the first time you mentionned this, you asked "what do you think ?". The reply remains:
What makes this a good reason?
How does "he's really good at interpreting data" lead to "you ought follow him"?
Any scientist would understand reality better than you do. Which scientists do you follow?

Overall, the Bible does not seem to present God as being Omniscient. This is why I never said He was.

The bible says a lot of things, like god knowing everything (the definition of omniscience) but also not knowing where Adam was in his own garden.

So there are things god does not know yet... he's supposed to have the bestest understanding of reality too. Care to elaborate? How do you mesh god's ability to have the better understanding of reality with god's imperfect knowledge of reality?

What trollish thing will you come up with next?

 

[Sparhafoc]

And to add to what James has edified, no honest Christian can escape the Problem of Evil - no honest theist whose god possesses the ontological characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence can escape the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil has stood untouched by any but snake-oil salesman and whackjob zealots for the 2500 years of its history. Zoroastrians, Cathars, some schools of Islamic theology - they 'solve' it by positing the existence of a titanic struggle between the forces of Good and Evil, so they can simply blame the existence of evil on the other side and their god is unable to stop it without human help. But Christianity can't use that get-out clause, because they posit God as being the one firmly in charge, the one with all the power, and humans make choices concerning good and evil only for themselves, and only they reap the outcome of that. This, of course, doesn't explain why evil exists, and any honest theist in possession of a god with that set of ontological characteristics has to address it, or others will address it for them.

Ironically, the Arch-Bish of Canterbury, the Head of the Anglican Church, has said he struggles with the Problem of Evil, and that it keeps him awake at night.

At least he's honest even if he can't muster the intellectual fortitude to let logic, reason, rationality and evidence take precedence over his emotionally held beliefs. The 5th wheel is the God claim. Take that God, with all 'his' characteristics out, and you're left with a much more coherent understanding. There is evil because humans have traditionally used symbolic ways of labeling the morality of actions, and they employ (as with many other things) a scale of opposing paradigms with platonic quantities on either end.

 

[thenexttodie]

Yes, there was an instance of me pointing out a contradiction you had made, but then I explained very clearly why what you said resulted in a contradiction, so not only was that intentional, but I reject any notion that I was putting words into your mouth. Instead, as I explained to you in that text many times, you say X, which necessarily results in Y, and Z. That you didn't say Y and Z is both irrelevant, and part of the problem. You didn't say Y and Z because you didn't identifyI them as necessary results of the X you did say.

Incidentally, and no pressure meant at all, but you haven't addressed the contradiction I pointed out. You have evaded it by talking about other things. I explained why this happens to, and again, it's not a criticism of you, but a well documented way in which people can hold contradictory positions without inspecting them.

You asked me if God could do evil("can god be bad"). I told you that what I believe is that; yes god could choose do evil. I think you understood this part. I added that I believed the temptation of Jesus was real. I think you understood this part too. Then I said I thought that if God did do evil, then He would no longer exist in a Trinity because I think the Bible shows this relationship of 3 parts existing as one is held together by being able to testify that all parts are good. I think you took this as meaning that they force each other to be good. I don't believe this.

If you think I am wrong, fine. I could be. Being right about everything all of the time is not a requirement of Christianity. However I don't see anything illogical about what I have said about this.

Let's move on.

Overall, the Bible does not seem to present God as being Omniscient. This is why I never said He was.

Sorry, but that just means you are unfamiliar both with the Bible and with all Christian traditions that have existed for the last 1800 years.

Isaiah 46:10
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

Isaiah 40:13-14
Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?

Psalm 139: 1-3
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways

Psalm 139 (can't recall the verse and too lazy to check)
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be

Psalm 147
He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit

Job 37:16
Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?


How many verses do you want? I can probably quote at least 20-30 more that Christians have historically used to declare the omniscient ontological element of Yahweh's nature.

I'm sure you could. So could anybody. These would make up less than 0.03% of the Bible. To me, none of these verses you gave must mean that God is in a continuous state of knowing everything there is to know and knowing everything that will be. Let me suggest to you that in this case, it might be more helpful to first look carefully at everything God says and does throughout the Bible.

Remember, this is not an atheist's ontology, this it the exact argument made by Christians historically, and is written in the supposedly divinely dictated holy scripture. Neither myself nor James are saying that this is Yahweh's characteristic because we both maintain that Yahweh is a fictional character made up by Bronze Age pastoralists in their ignorance of the natural world and their true predicament.

I reject your claim that Omniscience in not part of an atheist's ontology. An atheist will, of course, maintain that God does not exist but they will also maintain that if God did exist then He must be omniscient.

Obviously, if you don't believe in that bollocks, then great, it's one less silly thing you feel obliged to lend credence too, and that can only be healthier... but it definitely IS an ontological characteristic claimed for YHWH, and your rejection of it probably makes you a heretic in the eyes of most Christians who give a damn about such stuff.

Well, I appreciate your sympathies. There are probably many Christian churches I would not be allowed to be a member of. But some would allow me.

So yeah, if you have a special god, with special definitions that aren't shared by most Christians, then why are you arguing for Christianity? Surely, it would be like a Muslim arguing for Christianity - suspect.

I think my beliefs are well founded in the Bible. Though many Churches might not except me as member, I think most would not deny that I am a Christian.

If Dragan Glas thinks God cannot be omnibenevolent and at the same time have the ability to do evil, that's fine. I am don't really see the point in arguing about it. I never even did argue it which is why I called it a strawman.

It's not a strawman, you are mistaken.

For it to be a strawman, James would need to suggest you claimed the opposite of what you actually said.

What you said is that God could potentially do evil, and James pointed out that this contradicts the ontology of the Christian God.

Smash the ontology! Burn it and throw it out of the fucking window! I could not give a fuck less about it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You asked me if God could do evil("can god be bad"). I told you that what I believe is that; yes god could choose do evil. I think you understood this part. I added that I believed the temptation of Jesus was real. I think you understood this part too. Then I said I thought that if God did do evil, then He would no longer exist in a Trinity because I think the Bible shows this relationship of 3 parts existing as one is held together by being able to testify that all parts are good. I think you took this as meaning that they force each other to be good. I don't believe this.

If you think I am wrong, fine. I could be. Being right about everything all of the time is not a requirement of Christianity. However I don't see anything illogical about what I have said about this.

Let's move on.

It's not logical because you are having your cake and eating it.

You can't escape God doing X by saying that God in another form wouldn't allow God do X because that's the same as saying God wouldn't let 'himself' do X. (No mention of force was ever made)

The problem is the trinity. It's senseless and self-contradictory, which is why anything relying on it becomes so as well.

I can show you, but you keep avoiding the strongest arguments.

Here:

Let's say God is G1, Jesus is G2, and Holy Ghost is G3.

They are all G because they're all God, right? Trinitarian assumption, right?

So if G1 knows something, do G2 and G3 not know it? That would mean that they are separate entities, and therefore this would contradict the trinity (which I declared I would accept as a postulate, and therefore follow its ramifications). Instead, I am accepting the trinitarian postulate by saying that anything G1 knows, so G2 and G3 knows and vice-versa.

If I accept your argument, it destroys the trinitarian postulate you forwarded and I tried to accept even though it's nonsensical.

What I am saying is that you defeated your own argument, because there's no coherent way in which G2 and G3 could know, or do something that is not consistent with G1, as they are all the same being. You can't call your response 'logic' because you've not explained how that's possible, and in fact, it reads as nonsense.

I'm sure you could. So could anybody. These would make up less than 0.03% of the Bible. To me, none of these verses you gave must mean that God is in a continuous state of knowing everything there is to know and knowing everything that will be. Let me suggest to you that in this case, it might be more helpful to first look carefully at everything God says and does throughout the Bible.

Firstly, are you saying that the importance of things in the Bible is adjudicated by the amount of the Bible they take up?

I don't see how or why that's a valid argument.

The supposed Original Sin only takes up about 0.03% (making up numbers) of the Bible, but you still must hold that or some version of it as necessary, so how do you pick the bits you will accept and the bits you won't accept?

Secondly, again I am not making this argument. This is not me telling you that God has these ontological quantities. It is Christianity that has been saying this for 1800 years. The reason why I know these verses is because I studied Christianity under a number of sects, and they used these verses to justify their belief that God is omniscient.

With all due respect, sir... if your preferred Christian tradition doesn't hold this dogma, then please tell me which church you belong to. As far as I can see, my rendition is accurate and yours is heretical.

However, if you're just riffing without adhering to Christian tradition, then I am not sure that anything you say is important. If you don't accept the ontological characteristics of the Christian God as argued by essentially all Christians, then we're playing darts with a moving board. Plus... and I am not trying to be a cunt here... but aren't you setting yourself up as some kind of prophet figure? Are you better at divining the nature of God than all the other Christians which came before you?

How about this: all our criticisms stand for the mainstream Christian dogma, and obviously if you possess a heresy you want to expound, you'd need to do that first rather than retrofit God's ontologies onto the end of other people's arguments?

Does that seem unfair to you?

I reject your claim that Omniscience in not part of an atheist's ontology. An atheist will, of course, maintain that God does not exist but they will also maintain that if God did exist then He must be omniscient.

Well, that's a self-defeating argument.

An atheist's ontology of God doesn't exist because atheists don't believe god exists.

Here, I will show you.

Do you believe in Kali?

What ontological characteristics do Hindus ascribe to Kali.

Please answer because it will show you are wrong and that will result in you learning something.

Well, I appreciate your sympathies. There are probably many Christian churches I would not be allowed to be a member of. But some would allow me.

Please don't misunderstand me - I think you're entitled to believe anything you like. I am glad the Christian orthodoxy no longer has the power to hurt you for disbelieving in their dogma.

But it's kind of hard to accept that you are arguing for the Christian God when you reject components that all other Christian denominations subscribe to.

How is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about?

Perhaps you could make a thread where you explain exactly what god it is you believe in, and where you're getting that belief if it isn't the content of the Bible.

I think my beliefs are well founded in the Bible. Though many Churches might not except me as member, I think most would not deny that I am a Christian.

/scratchy head emoticon

But you've just rejected the significance of parts of the Bible which contradict your claims, and which are used by all other Christians to formulate their Christian God's ontological characteristics.

Smash the ontology! Burn it and throw it out of the fucking window! I could not give a fuck less about it.

Sure....... but then what are we talking about here if not the Christian god?

I am not saying you are doing this, but imagine if I used a word universally known to mean X, then whenever you pointed out a way that something was inconsistent in X, I simply shifted away from what everyone else knows X means and made up characteristics which seem designed only to defeat your identified problem.

We can't have a discussion like that, can we? It would basically be a creative writing exercise for you, and we'd get nothing out of it.

Regardless, as mentioned, the contradictions are there in the CHRISTIAN God's ontologies. If they're not present in whatever God it is you believe in - great!

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, I don't know where you're from TNTD, but in most parts of the world where Christianity is a part of their heritage, churches wouldn't turn you away nearly regardless of what you believe. You wouldn't even need to say you're a Christian, or actually be one. I think most would accept Muslims, Jews, Hindus - anyone who will listen, basically!

I certainly don't recall having a doctrinal questionnaire requisite for entrance into any of the numerous churches I've been in. Although, I would love to have seen the effect my answering it would have produced!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am not saying you are doing this, but imagine if I used a word universally known to mean X, then whenever you pointed out a way that something was inconsistent in X, I simply shifted away from what everyone else knows X means and made up characteristics which seem designed only to defeat your identified problem.

That is the dandan/leroy school of argumentation. All you are missing is accusing your opposition of playing word games.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That is the dandan/leroy school of argumentation. All you are missing is accusing your opposition of playing word games.

Pff, you're just playing word games now, he_who_is_nobody! :roll:



Like that, you mean?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That is the dandan/leroy school of argumentation. All you are missing is accusing your opposition of playing word games.

Pff, you're just playing word games now, he_who_is_nobody! :roll:



Like that, you mean?

Spot on.

:lol:

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,

I see Sparhafoc beat me to it.

Thenexttodie, I pointed out that god can't be omni-benevolent (all-good) if he's capable of doing evil.

The only way you can do evil is "if you have evil in your heart" - which god, being "good", is incapable.

Pointing out this contradiction in what you're saying is not a strawman.

As regards omni-benevolence, one can infer it from scripture: I John 4:8 (NIV) "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." And, in case you argue that it's not the KJV: "8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

Note that god is defined as "love" - not that god merely "loves".

The "Problem of Evil" is another contradictory issue that occurs due to the above contradiction.

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you.

Love without hating evil is meaningless. If I told you that I love your 5 year old son and then I told you I was also the loving the man while he was raping your 5 year old son, would you call me Omni-benevolent? (Sorry for the disgusting illustration, I hope this never happens to you)

Love demands Justice. Joshua put the king of Ai's body on a fucking stake. God held the sun in the sky so Joshua could finish killing certain people.

You will go straight to hell when you die. God will not be loving you while you are in hell. Do you think otherwise?

 

[Steelmage99]

Greetings,

I see Sparhafoc beat me to it.

Thenexttodie, I pointed out that god can't be omni-benevolent (all-good) if he's capable of doing evil.

The only way you can do evil is "if you have evil in your heart" - which god, being "good", is incapable.

Pointing out this contradiction in what you're saying is not a strawman.

As regards omni-benevolence, one can infer it from scripture: I John 4:8 (NIV) "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." And, in case you argue that it's not the KJV: "8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

Note that god is defined as "love" - not that god merely "loves".

The "Problem of Evil" is another contradictory issue that occurs due to the above contradiction.

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you.

Love without hating evil is meaningless. If I told you that I love your 5 year old son and then I told you I was also the loving the man while he was raping your 5 year old son, would you call me Omni-benevolent? (Sorry for the disgusting illustration, I hope this never happens to you)

Love demands Justice. Joshua put the king of Ai's body on a fucking stake. God held the sun in the sky so Joshua could finish killing certain people.

You will go straight to hell when you die. God will not be loving you while you are in hell. Do you think otherwise?

* Looks around *

Am I the only one that finds most of the above somewhat incoherent?

 

[Bango Skank]

* Looks around *

Am I the only one that finds most of the above somewhat incoherent?

Like ravings of a madman?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Love without hating evil is meaningless.

So not omnilove then.

You aren't instructed to love your enemy?

What religion is it you practice, again?

If I told you that I love your 5 year old son and then I told you I was also the loving the man while he was raping your 5 year old son, would you call me Omni-benevolent? (Sorry for the disgusting illustration, I hope this never happens to you)

Yeah, maybe different pronouns there, that's really a bit too creepy.

Love demands Justice.

This isn't Christianity. This is Judaism.

Joshua put the king of Ai's body on a fucking stake. God held the sun in the sky so Joshua could finish killing certain people.

Indeed, rather nice of God to tinker so manifestly in the laws of nature so he could get one meatbag to kill another meatbag. Not like he could just wiggle his nose and make everything right.

Those ancient barbaric gods all really just represent the psyche of bronze age, belligerent, xenophobic, small-minded, egotistical asshats.

Lucky no one believes in those gods today, right?

You will go straight to hell when you die. God will not be loving you while you are in hell. Do you think otherwise?

Yes, I think otherwise.

I think, for example, that Hell's a load of old cobblers, and that anyone who believes in it is possibly mentally deranged.

 

[Sparhafoc]

* Looks around *

Am I the only one that finds most of the above somewhat incoherent?

What it looks like to me is what happens when a life long Christian first reads the Bible from the start and pays attention.

Usually, somewhere along the way, the person's brain folds up into pieces, pops a stamp on itself and sends itself off for some much needed reality. The god character changes dramatically throughout, so if we were to posit that TNTD has now read about the first 8% of the Bible, this is where the god would be in his emotional, ontological, and metaphysical arc.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So, either a very strange and fundamentalist sect of Judaism.... or we've got a real life Prophet on our hands.

Wait until you get to those verses, TNTD... you might want to reconsider around then whether such a career will pay off if you actually believe in it.

 

[thenexttodie]

Love without hating evil is meaningless.

So not omnilove then.

You aren't instructed to love your enemy?

Yes Christians are told to love and pray for their enemies. But its fine if someone for instance tried to rape my wife and she shot him in the head.

Atheists have a hard time understanding these things. An Atheist would say that since God told us to love our enemies that my wife should love her rapist while being raped.

 

[thenexttodie]

Anyway my main point still stands:


If God exists, then He would have a better ability to gather and correctly interpret data than you do. I think this would be a reason to follow him

 

[MarsCydonia]

Yes Christians are told to love and pray for their enemies. But its fine if someone for instance tried to rape my wife and she shot him in the head.

Atheists have a hard time understanding these things. An Atheist would say that since God told us to love our enemies that my wife should love her rapist while being raped.

All these comments and still no reason why we ought follow.

Only assertions of the like "love means blowing someone's head off" or "God knows stuff".

Not only am I not convinced, it really makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with christian trolls that they are.