53001

[hazzack]

l-mao

 

[Richman]

Rodando en el suelo riendo.

 

[sterven]

LMAO im fucking dying!

 

[Teddy]

@bigtiddyoneesan @BlackGeneral
@EOTFOFYL @Halo @hazzack
@Ivegotnolife @pandascepter @Richman
@sterven @Tamerlane @Teddy
@justforthelulz

I've repeated before I'm Christian and I'm actually against gay marriage as well.

My belief is that everyone is prone to different temptations as a result of both nature and nurtue which when acted upon is sins . Alcoholism, Violent Tendencies, Beastality, Pedophilia, Horniness to not your spouse, Greed, Killing intent and yes this applies LGBT+ in my heart.
I know the phrase, "As God intended is a joke phrase" but I do believe God has a plan as written about in Revelations and some things that aren't evil to some humans are evil to God

That was the preface to a discussion that I welcome both the inveitable criticisms to my faith and also on the following thread I'm about to discuss.

Which is the yuri rejected thread. I don't understand the hate in that thread. It just calls for extra tags. I understand that extra tags can just be a bother to implement for so few titles and may slippery slope to even more useless tags. HOWEVER it seems that there are also lots people hating on it just because it is LGBT+.

Like everyday I see more replies with insults on that thread, I'm like I literally believe these sexualities to be evil and I'm not hating and hurling insults on them. All people are sinners in my eyes, people just deal or embrace different sins. I'm not sinless so I'm not gonna be the first stone. But neither will I accept and embrace it. So I'm so confused why there is so much hate on that thread.

This is half me being confused and half a rant.

 

[pandascepter]

Some of people be like that @Teddy, don't you worry about it pretty much. I just feel sorry towards the people like that who hate a thing that they're supposed to pity and the people that's on LGBT thingy highway.

Liking a Yuri and Yaoi is not wrong, as long as you stay on the "Like line" only. As a muslim, i know well pretty much about this problem.

 

[justforthelulz]

@Teddy
Thinking too much about why people feel the irresistible need to express polarizing opinions to complete strangers on the internet will drive you insane.
Even moreso, given that these forums are mostly about fictional characters in fictional settings who literally have no control over their words and actions.

 

[pandascepter]

^ true.

i agree with @justforthelulz.

 

[hazzack]

@teddy
don't worry. I, myself, believe that we all exist to pray. and i believe that will never going to be false.

I don't understand the hate in that thread

this is the Internet. As i often say, "we all hate each other here". and everyone have their own way of hating. do remember that i made a lot of custard pudding out of spite; you're not going to tire yourself thinking about my way of expressing spite, do you?
Now, the question is: "how do you want to hate" and "how do you want to be hated"

 

[Teddy]

Making custard pudding out of spite

I need to try that out.

 

[Tamerlane]

@teddy The issue is that your argument presupposes that all of those notions are morally equivalent, which they are not, and how can we truly know if something is "evil to god" or was the result of man inserting his own biases into the texts? How do we even know any of the words of the texts are valid in that case?

The issue is that homosexuality and bisexuality is behavior that is not just shown within humans, but in other animals, even non-mammals like ducks, in similar proportions to our own species. This is not to say that because this behavior is natural that is it is good or bad, but that if I am to believe a benevolent creator thinks of homosexuality as something morally culpable on the same level as bestiality, then he ought to have made it so it was not innate within some beings. The same issue exists with transgender people, which have been shown to have neurological features that match the sex they wish to transition into, indicating the issue is a software vs hardware conflict, rather than something ideological (usually).

These traits are not on the same moral level as something like bestiality because an animal is not a rational actor that is able to consent to intercourse, and is therefore being abused. Homosexual intercourse, if both parties agree to it, is between two individuals who are able to reasonably consent to the act and usually will not lead to anyone being harmed or hurt by the engagement.

It's a false moral equivalence. Being gay or trans doesn't affect anyone but yourself and how you, individually, decide to act, whereas the other traits you listed (barring horniness, which is a paracognitive trait outside of one's control and so vilifying people for it is counterproductive) will lead to the harm of yourself or another person more often than not.

I make no secret that I draw heavily form Buddhism and Taoism, and I feel Stephen Mitchell draws the best commentary on why I take umbrance with the Abrahamic faiths and their concept of "sin."

The teaching of the Tao Te Ching is moral in the deepest sense. Unencumbered by any concept of sin, the Master doesn’t see evil as a force to resist, but simply as an opaqueness, a state of self-absorption which is in disharmony with the universal process, so that, as with a dirty window, the light can’t shine through. This freedom from moral categories allows him his great compassion for the wicked and the selfish.

Thus the Master is available to all people
and doesn’t reject anyone.
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn’t waste anything.
This is called embodying the light.

What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.​

 

[Teddy]

So in Chrisitannity, we believe that the whole bible NT and OT is God-breathed, I believe for Judaism and Muslims they also believe it is God-breathed but only as far as the OT and Torah respectively. God-breathed being written as commanded by God/within God's plan.

Baring the interpretation of what lead to destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Geneis 19 and references to it in other books. Leviticus has “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 18:22" NIV as apart of the laws that were given to the israelites.

Its true that Christians don't live under the israelite law due to Jesus( which leads to accusations that Christians pick and choose what's right) we don't observe Passover as we weren't saved from Egypt, we don't slaughter bulls because we couldn't find out who the culprit to a murder between 2 cities anymore; resources are used to further detective techniques/equipment instead rather than make a sacrfrice/an expensive memory as a reminder to do better(not a solely Christian thing). But we do 'or atleast ought' to do try understand what's pleasing to God/moral compass we ought to take/how to be an image of God, so yes interpretations of laws can corrupt but when it states that its 'detestables' I'm not sure what other interpretation there is.

In terms of the fault is with God, that its inate with people to be homosexual or bisexual. In James it has "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:13‭-‬15 NIV

As said before I do believe that people are more inclined to different sexualities but thats is the same as to say some people are more risk takers or some are more S or M. Rather than categories I believe it is more or a continuum of how easily tempted people to some sins. Sin in itself means trespass of God's will; not that it will necessarily harm other humans per say (though I personally do also believe that neighbours can tempt neighbours to sin). First four commandments do not harm other humans either if broken but is still a sin to break them. My intrepretation of evil in that way is different from yours.

And Yes I agree, defining people by just their sin is useless. I believe all are sinful so there's no point in saying a black wall is painted black. When we ignore that blackness, we might be able to see that the wall is actually a window and connect with others and understand the psychosocial factors that cause people act in certain ways thus we can encourage, ignore or try advise against their actions. That's why neither will I +1 the yuri thread but I won't trash on the person suggesting it either.

Rather than embracing being sinful and enjoy those temptations, I am more inclined to be as blameless as I can and encourage others to the same; not that I will ever succeed in either.

Obviously my arguement draws heavily on whether the God of Abram/ham exists, and that the scripture is God breathed. If either is false. I have no argument.

Thankyou for indulging in me and discussing this without hurling any insults or taking moral superiority as other might.

P.s Sorry for wall of txt

 

[justforthelulz]

Apparently, the _{Will of 'D'} Wall of 'T' is strong in the GFG. @Tamerlane @Teddy

 

[Tamerlane]

@justforthelulz If you think this is bad, wait until you get to Nietzsche

@Teddy my brother in text^tm

(Mandatory precontext stuff that doesn't have much to do with my central argument
It should be said: Leviticus covers Mosaic law, which is said to no longer be applicable because when Jesus was crucified, all of the sins of humanity were washed away. The reason for this is because many of the Jewish traditions of the Bible were not as easily spread, the most notable being circumcision, and so to make it more marketable, the Law of Moses was abandoned in favor of the law of Jesus, which is demonstrated in some of the gospels such as Matthew 5:17, which describes his sermon on the mount.

Ever wonder why Christian are allowed to be uncircumcised, eat shellfish and pork, can work on the Sabbath, and can wear linen? That's why.

Also note that Leviticus was written within the context of the Jewish people trying to separate themselves from their neighbors and their traditions, having recently been under Babylonian Captivity by the Persians, who the Jews revered despite them being Zoroastrians, even making Cyrus the Great a messiah, despite being a gentile. In that sense, Leviticus can be read less as a moral code, and more of the writers of the time trying to rebel against the traditions of the previous rulers.

(Slight note, as well, a lot of Christian sects observe Passover as well, just not in the same ways. Messianic Jews do it, obviously, but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians do their own traditions, with Catholics integrating it into Lent and Good Friday, but that's neither here nor there)


Onto the main argument:

There's a lot of ethical dilemmas involving God and the question of evil, and, in fact, I'd argue that the Abrahamic God is definitely not the moral authority the bible makes him out to be. The issue here is why does an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God allow suffering to exist if he is capable to stop it?

Some answer that it interferes with mankind's freewill, but if the God of the Bible is to be believed, he has had no qualms in the past in messing with the affairs of man before, Jesus most prominently, but also Jonah, and basically all of the Prophets, were interfered with by God in their lifetime. Additionally, by nature of the fact God knows everything, it means that there would be no free-will, because either everything would be fated to happen in one way, and therefore God knows everything in advance and so the entire exercise is futile, or, if each of man's choices does result in different outcomes, then God would know every possible outcome, as well as which ones will happen because God is omniscient, leading us back to square one. So if there is an all-knowing God, there is no free-will.

Additionally, the fault is only culpable with God as he is the one who facilitated existence and decided arbitrarily what he considers to be moral or immoral, right and wrong, and then proceeded to define himself as always moral and his enemies as always immoral. It's a moral dichotomy that believes you are either with him or you are against him, and there is no room for recourse, grievance or debate. He is never wrong in his own eyes, and so believes all his creations must view himself as always in the right no matter how often he contradicts himself or lays out kafka traps that you can never win in.

Let's not forget that the concept of Hell alone debunks any notion that God is a moral actor. It is a place of infinite torment, unending agony and suffering, and a torture of the worst kind. Why would an all-loving God make a creation he knows will only end in perpetual suffering, an unending series of the worst and most grievous actions taken against them for the rest of all eternity, all for the crimes that God knew he would commit from the start and would implant within him from the get-go?

Even then, by nature of infinity, even if a single person was in hell for all eternity, then the amount of wrongs done to him is an infinite amount of times worse than even the worst atrocities he had ever committed, or could ever be capable of committing. Every atrocity mankind has committed from man-made feminine, genocide, total wars, etc. (All of which God is also responsible for not preventing) are infinitely less wrong than hell by their very nature. And for what purpose? Because of something as inconsequential by comparison as lust or greed that affect none other than yourself?

As such, using God as any form of moral authority is not only counterproductive, it would lead to an incoherent world view, especially because most of what is seen as "christian morality" is more or less based on cultural perceptions that have arisen in certain areas, regardless of if there is a large amount of textual evidence to support them or not. It is more likely that the texts were written within the specific contexts of their time and what the governing authorities believed would be most beneficial to them and what they thought would help society, using religion to push specific movements and beliefs, rather than as a goal in and of themselves.


Side Arguments:

it iSin in itself means trespass of God's will; not that it will necessarily harm other humans per say (though I personally do also believe that neighbours can tempt neighbours to sin. First four commandments do not harm other humans either if broken but is still a sin to break them. My intrepretation of evil in that way is different from yours.
[/i]

The fundamental issue here is that the argument is circular. It doesn't matter if the first four commandments don't harm anyone, they're a sin. Why are they sins? Because God says that they are. No further explanation given. Additionally, the first three of the commandments all seem simply there to pad God's ego, not to underlay anything that is objectively moral or immoral or anything that even a Utilitarian would view as inherently wrong or degrading towards society. It seems more likely they were made to keep the Jewish masses in check, so that they can use the fear of God to cause people to behave in certain ways, rather than to anything fundamentally wrong with the concepts of believing in other gods, using God's name in a way he personally doesn't like, or ignoring the sabbath. These are supposed to be the 10 fundamental rules he wants everyone to govern their lives by, and yet he wastes the first three on menial things about himself that are extremely inconsequential in the greater scope of humanity. (He doesn't even include things like Rape, Genocide, etc. and yet somehow being a gentile is on the same moral level as saying a naughty word)

Also, if sins are trespasses to God's will, and god is all-powerful, why does God not just stop the sin in the first place? Why does he even allow it to occur if it is so egregious to him? Why would he even make a being capable of transgressing against him to begin with, for, if these things were truly against his will, he should be able to make the very concept, the very notion, of sin an unfathomable idea, something so alien to the human mind that it is unthinkable that it would ever occur. He should be like the Party in 1984, actively trying to make it so the very concept of doing something against him, the idea of rebellion in any way, unthinkable.

And Yes I agree, defining people by just their sin is useless. I believe all are sinful so there's no point in saying a black wall is painted black. When we ignore that blackness, we might be able to see that the wall is actually a window and connect with others and understand the psychosocial factors that cause people act in certain ways thus we can encourage, ignore or try advise against their actions. That's why neither will I +1 the yuri thread but I won't trash on the person suggesting it either.

Then that's the contradiction with the text, because it seems to be how God judges people, and the issue is that you can define some people by what actions they have committed, but only if those actions can lead to some form of harm, such as murder or rape. But, those actions are fundamentally different from feeling lust or merely wanting something someone else has.

Also the issue is that if all are sinful, and some sins are worse than others, can we not categorize them in ways to which are most harmful to least? And why then would homosexuality be an issue if everyone is sinful, and it is a kind of sin that leads to no harm?

Thankyou for indulging in me and discussing this without hurling any insults or taking moral superiority as other might.

I should also note that I do not believe in good and evil, really. But that's another matter entirely. Partially tied to a mixture of philosophies I have, but also because those that preach morals and view themselves as the ones who are morally superior are often the ones you ought to be the most afraid of.

 

[Teddy]

@Tamerlane

Edit: I don't know why some became bolded

Leviticus part

Spoiler

Yes I also addressed that Christians are no longer under law due to Jesus. most of this section will just be me parroting what you said to show my understanding of it. Paul talks about it in Romans, physical circumcision and food restrictions are no longer necessary because those set aside Israelite from everyone else; but because of Jesus Gentiles can also become God's people ergo there is no longer a need for distinction between Jew and Gentile. Some may still choose to do so that is also fine.

"Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." Romans 14 NIV

I will add why I believe diet restrictions and sabbath were in place. Sabbath was a rest for man; though it was then corrupted as man being forced to rest. This is my assumption; due to the low technology in Moses era it was difficult to sanitize pork/shellfish and cook properly; the agricultural/production technologies was poor thus labour was tougher and required longer hours, so Sabbath was made so that the humans would remember to rest and to remember to revere God (when one does not revere God, they will naturally drift from God and go their own way), however in Roman times technology has advanced well that fire could be more well controlled and some labour became easier with technology. Unfortunately Israelite forced that any work, taxing or un-taxing was forbidden. Insert famous story about Jesus healing on Sabbaths, Jesus had enough rest and he revered God thus Sabbath was obsolete to him. I believe the laws were to both to set aside God's people but also because those laws were practical for Israelites whose medical/culinary advancements were lacking. There are also many hygiene and quarantine laws in Leviticus that are now obsolete as we understand how infections work.

No new points here, just parroting.

Onto the main: (rewritten whilst I was thinking about my response so I want to try answer the question that can't first but also tl'dr my points aren't valid )

1. Does Hell torture sinners infinitely in time?

Spoiler

I honestly don't know where this was written. I honestly tried and couldn't find it...

“The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9).

This seems to say that no one is in hell yet until the time of judgment. This would then mean that sinners aren't burnt for an infinite number of time.

So it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matthew 13:40–42).

Which seems to be in the end of the age ,the fiery torture will start?

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea...4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. Revelations 21 (note I paraphrased)

I'm assuming that Hell is included with the old order like heaven and earth. So it ought to also have an end.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Revealations 21

This doesn't help my point, but it wouldn't be right not to include it otherwise I'd be taking verses out of context. Does this mean that the sinners will be gone with the 'hell' or will the second death allow them to be purified because hell will be gone; leading those burned into new creation?

2. What was the human purpose for being made?

Spoiler

I wrote a lot of stuff about God omniscient + Human Free will = God knowing all outcomes but humans still had the free will to go into the predestined destinations. This then lead to as you said God has interfered with creation too. I agree; otherwise the scriptures could not be God-breathed. But the crux of the issue was why were humans made as it will lead whether all humans can be saved or not, I personally believe not but I don't have any substantial proof because I can't answer why humans were created. To clarify why; read on why I think that initial question has to be answered first.
Why were humans made? To glorify God? If we assume that God created humans to glorify God (or pad his ego as you say) it might be a necessary component that humans with their free-will could be influenced thus unpatchable exploit for Satan. But was creating glorifying humans worth the known exploit? Was it instead to lure out Satan and force him to admit his plan to overthrow God? If so why not some other method? Were there no other methods? This leads to humans as seeing God to be evil.

Because I can't well answer this question beyond reasonable doubt all of my later arguments and thought experiments can not be said to be valid. But here are some of my summarized thoughts that assume humans were purely created to glorify himself. Humans have this unpatchable exploit because of free-will are inherently sinful as such.

God omniscient + Human Free will = God knowing all outcomes but humans still had the free will to go into the predestined destinations. God can also interfere to create his intended outcomes. God has knows that humans have been corrupted by Satan. Because Satan's punishment is hell all people are predestined to hell too and God cannot allow for sin, God has tried to kill everyone and start over but God loves humans so saves them but to no avail because humans are inherently sinful (unpatchable exploit). To be saved then, one has to believe in God with their free will; see Abraham and Rahab. Humans are still capable of sinning despite God appearing before them, see Adam and King of Kings. God reveals himself so that they by their free will they are saved. All has been revealed via Jesus, humans who still cling to sin instead will go to hell. Does not answer about those who were before Jesus. Israelites were chosen as a people for God so that he can reveal himself to all with Jesus in Typology. God has also revealed himself to others in OT that weren't Israelites see Abraham and Rahab. Though God reveals himself people in OT people also cling to their sin. God can't save all without infringing on human nature and free will thus uses Typology instead. God is powerless then; yes because he is unchanging and cannot deny himself; then why create humans > circular arguement.

I spent quite a few hours going through a few different scenarios, I will say it was worth the brain exercise, thankyou for that. Yup in the end I can't create a valid arguement. See below for ideas I had that created this response.

On side arguements:

Spoiler

First 3 laws if kept; reduces Israelites temptation to fall away from God thus death. Adultery includes rape as it is sex outside of marriage. Genocide falls under killing.

Why doesn't God stop the notion of sin completely. Yup I can't answer see main.

Why does God judge people by their actions. This did change my thinking too actually. Lust to others is not a manifested action that is sin however because of the main arguement, I'm now thinking is it just because it is another temptation that could lead to manifested sin. To rephrase; Lust isn't a sin but a temptation; acting upon that is a sin. Jesus says to not even think of sinning; this would eliminate the temptation that might lead to sinning. But irregardless because humans are already inherently sinful and can't follow the Law anyways they were already predestined to hell. Bring backs to believing in God allows them to go to heaven instead, so the sin and level of sin does not matter in this case. Still going to hell. Will the punishment in hell be dealt differently according to the sin; I do not know. Return to then if homosexual will they go to hell. Yes like all humans unless the believe in God. Then why not believe in God and just do any sin you want? If you believe in God and accept that you have been saved why would you want to back to sin?

Final words: Honestly I agree; these are some big questions that I definitely can't properly answer. Do I think that I will abandon Christianity because I can't answer these questions? Also no, these are some tough questions and I can only provide my thoughts but I can't say for certain they are correct at all. Thought provoking but I am disappointed that I could not answer to a reasonable degree; but ay gotta keep learning.



Thought process

Spoiler

Yes I agree a lot with what you say here. I will give my take. God is omniscient+Humans have freewill=God knows every outcome thus all human interaction as well ergo by God creating humans specific starting stats; they have already been predestined to heaven or hell.

"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" Romans 9 NIV

No I don't believe that everyone will be saved but I believe anyone can be saved. This lies in the fact that humans aren't all knowing, so we will act in a way that is God's plan. Christians can afford to try to reach out to anyone precisely because we don't know who is in God's plan to be saved. In using that God can save those he has predestined. God has also interfered with prophets and individuals leading to outcomes that he desires. The idea that the Bible is God-breath relies on this point. People are predestined to heaven and hell but precisely because we aren't all knowing though, we can evangelise.

"for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g] Romans 10 NIV

Going back to the Romans 9 passage yes this would mean that God has created himself to be the moral authority and what he says right is right and says wrong is wrong. He has commanded wars and distributed punishments that we humans find horrible. But that is because he is God though; his moral compasses is directly connected to his plan because he wants creation to be saved. OT things are an example of this, recorded so that descendants can avoid those sins that are against his will/His plan is to save his people; God has let people go to hell for the purpose of saving others. He has tried to save them too but cannot as he cannot deny himself, he can not accept sin so cannot loosen the requirements thus enact typology plan to reveal all so that all may be saved.

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

(Included end of 13 cause it might seem to undermine the point I am making. Although God will know our choice, we still have the free will to embrace or avoid those temptations)

But that leads to the argument in that God is evil in that he allows some (the non-elect) to go to hell. I would say for humans; yes that is evil for us because of our sense of self-preservation and our moral compass (shown though our agreed upon laws) is guided by harm. I am no stranger to the fact that God has let humans be destroyed. God literally destroys cities and commands wars. But God's plan from beginning to end was to have humans faith so that they would be saved as he can't allow sin that he has ordained which requires such a roundabout method such as typology.

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4 NIV

Most by their free-will would not follow God thus God has interfered in scenarios to increase the number that would be saved, eg Creating Abraham into a great nation. This will then lead to why were humans created to be evil or why can they be capable of evil? You've got me here and I have no proof of any substance here; is it to allow us the capacity to glorify God, therefore we must be influence-able?
Not to subtract from my resignation of my non-knowledge (ignorance?)

"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while." Revelations 20 NIV

I have no bloody clue about why this is written and for what purpose either.

I also don't know where it is written that torture in hell is infinite; I really did try to find it. It is written multiple times that Hell is definitely a horrible place and that punishment will be dealt out to non-believers and I don't know anywhere myself whether there are different levels of hell for different sins I was under the impression that all sin is equal.

...regarding sinning as a Christian
"Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6

 

[Teddy]

Also my thoughts were a mess I tried to rewrite it neatly but failed dramatically at that too qwq

 

[pandascepter]

@bigtiddyoneesan @BlackGeneral
@EOTFOFYL @Halo @hazzack
@Ivegotnolife @justforthelulz @Richman
@sterven @Tamerlane @Teddy

Have you guys ever have a feeling liek....
"I hab nothing to do, so i just sleb.", but then a sudden realization, you're just lazy.

 

[hazzack]

not really. only regret and guilt.
everything need to be done, yet nothing is finished.
there's nothing but a simple wish, that everything will be put on hold.

 

[Teddy]

Do push ups, to let the hormones engulf you

 

[Richman]

I wish i could just sleep whenever.

 

[justforthelulz]

Found another thread that got banished to the Shadow Realm: https://mangadex.org/thread/315766
OP immediately remade it: https://mangadex.org/thread/316262, though it lacks any meaningful changes, so it's probably getting the same treatment eventually.