Debate religion/God with me

[Insuperable]

'Eternal' is the keyword, doesn't matter what stripe of awful the qualifier is. Either way it's heresy.

I don't know what you have understood, but the eternal annihilation means there is no eternal torment. People are awful not God. Although for centuries the doctrine of eternal torment was imposed on people there are more reasons to believe there is no eternal torment.

[Longbowman]

I don't know what you have understood, but the eternal annihilation means there is no eternal torment. People are awful not God. Although for centuries the doctrine of eternal torment was imposed on people there are more reasons to believe there is no eternal torment.

It could be 'eternal forced pillow fights' and it would still be heresy. Your entire religion is built on heresy, though. Furthermore, 'eternal annihilation' does not sound pleasant.

[Insuperable]

It could be 'eternal forced pillow fights' and it would still be heresy. Your entire religion is built on heresy, though. Furthermore, 'eternal annihilation' does not sound pleasant.

Why is it heresy?

[Longbowman]

Why is it heresy?

Your religion is based on the idea that Christ was the Messiah, which is heretical. You add to the heresy by saying that since he's the Messiah, all the difficult laws like 'don't eat shellfish,' 'don't eat pork,' 'don't wear stuff made of two fabrics,' 'don't get tattoos,' 'foreskins are no,' are no longer valid. Although for some reason 'stone the [male] gays' is still valid (yes I've looked it up, specifically male ones, and judging by the phrases around it it doesn't seem like lesbianism is a problem because women get call-outs for other fuck-ups). Of course Christ said nothing of the sort, it's just Peter and Paul who changed the rules to get more converts, but it's still heresy. BTW: in Judaism failure to keep the Sabbath, which you do not do, and failure to be circumcised, are quasi-excommunicable offences if the perpetrator does not repent.

[Insuperable]

Your religion is based on the idea that Christ was the Messiah, which is heretical. You add to the heresy by saying that since he's the Messiah, all the difficult laws like 'don't eat shellfish,' 'don't eat pork,' 'don't wear stuff made of two fabrics,' 'don't get tattoos,' 'foreskins are no,' are no longer valid. Although for some reason 'stone the gays' is still valid. Of course Christ said nothing of the sort, it's just Peter and Paul who changed the rules to get more converts, but it's still heresy. BTW: in Judaism failure to keep the Sabbath, which you do not do, and failure to be circumcised, are quasi-excommunicable offences if the perpetrator does not repent.

Save your Judaism vs Christianity debates for another time.

[Longbowman]

Save your Judaism vs Christianity debates for another time.

What? This thread is about debating religion and God.

It is entirely on-topic to point out what ridiculous, airy-fairy let's-compromise-on-everything heresy your entire religion is. Don't even get me started on Islam.

[Insuperable]

What? This thread is about debating religion and God.

And I said save them for another time since I am not very good with time lately nor in the mood for broad debates. I have just pointed out what I wanted to point out and that was it.

[Ghaleon]

Could someone enlighten me; what's the beef that many religions and societies throughout history have with homosexual it, exactly?
Even if you believe it's unnatural, a chosen lifestyle, et cetera, why does that make it reprehensible?
Surely, removing such people from the gene pool would be advantageous as far as maintaining the status quo. Why that's a prerogative, I'm uncertain.

Maybe, it's just me, but why should the preservation of superficial qualities such as ethnic and cultural identity matter above individuals pursuing consenting relationships that meet their own criteria?

Society will cease to be at some point, anyway, and I'm certainly not advocating for purposeful bucking of the system for petty 'fighting against oppression, blah blah' type actions. Simply, if a subsection of society is doing little to further global cohesion, and merely catering to their own whims, is it really reasonable to expect that everyone follows the established order?

In the grand scheme of things, I believe that the diversity of the human experience is by and large positive. The past serves as a reminder of what we're capable of as a species, not as painstaking instructions to be endlessly repeated.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[Longbowman]

And I said save them for another time since I am not very good with time lately nor in the mood for broad debates. I have just pointed out what I wanted to point out and that was it.

So don't post here.

[Petalpusher]

Atheists will slowly convert back to Spinozism, they already show the early symptoms of knowledge.

Sent from space using cheap predictions.