RE: New Levels of Low
November 22, 2013 at 8:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 22, 2013 at 8:09 pm by Mystical.)
I just want a good debate, Lion. Yet agaIn you're missing the point. I don't want to have a debate with you about specific Christian events and members' legitimacy in their beliefs. How many times do I have to say this??
I want to have the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU ASKED FOR. Simple. Concise. Should be easy. Compare the good effects to the bad effects. I don't want to waste my breath with you 'qualifying' who is and isn't a Christian. That's not what the debate is about. The mere fact that Christianity and the bible exists, is enough. Anyone who uses it to do 'bad' need not have to be a "True Christian"--because without Christianity they would not have been enabled by decree and will of a god.
I'd argue the same with hindu's, muslims, etc.
As for limiting your 'good' acts, I have yet to say a single thing about that and you still continue to accuse me of wrong-doing and are plain out making up my intentions. What's happening, and I know I've said this several times now, is that you are trying to change the pulp of the debate. Not only that, but you're taking one simple debate and turning it into a time intensive multiple subject debate, something I simply do not have the time for. I said I'd have a debate with you about the original subject you yourself posed. If you don't want to do that, then fine. Stop projecting your insecurities onto me.
I want to have the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU ASKED FOR. Simple. Concise. Should be easy. Compare the good effects to the bad effects. I don't want to waste my breath with you 'qualifying' who is and isn't a Christian. That's not what the debate is about. The mere fact that Christianity and the bible exists, is enough. Anyone who uses it to do 'bad' need not have to be a "True Christian"--because without Christianity they would not have been enabled by decree and will of a god.
I'd argue the same with hindu's, muslims, etc.
As for limiting your 'good' acts, I have yet to say a single thing about that and you still continue to accuse me of wrong-doing and are plain out making up my intentions. What's happening, and I know I've said this several times now, is that you are trying to change the pulp of the debate. Not only that, but you're taking one simple debate and turning it into a time intensive multiple subject debate, something I simply do not have the time for. I said I'd have a debate with you about the original subject you yourself posed. If you don't want to do that, then fine. Stop projecting your insecurities onto me.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
