Religious debate

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

When I said vices, it had to do with how we judge our own actions, and it was somewhat ironic.

[Yukaphile]

Then you're barking up the wrong person, because I have extremely poor self-image. I'm not a criminal, never committed a crime, yet I still feel like a bad person, so... hit a dead end here?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Then you're barking up the wrong person, because I have extremely poor self-image. I'm not a criminal, never committed a crime, yet I still feel like a bad person, so... hit a dead end here?

Well I was referring to you insinuating it is a violation to apply such practices to a something as reprehensible as a murderer. However, the practice of applying an all-human encompassing sacredness between people, whomever that person may be, is a valiant characteristic.

[clearspira]

What humans define as murder has changed many times over the years and has still yet to reach a uniform definition across the world in 2019. As has/is what constitutes rape, theft, slavery, assault, taboo, sin etc. Our perception of Heaven and Hell changes accordingly, but if these are real places, it doesn't mean that theirs automatically does too.

What I am basically saying here is that just because we disagree with something does not mean that the doorman to Heaven does too. You will find Heaven to be a very horrible place if it is still running on rules from a thousand years ago.

[Yukaphile]

Exactly my point. Hell, some interpretations are that it's a place where there's only blind obedience to the tyrant who runs it, while at least in hell, you get to meeting interesting people, and Satan tried to bring us knowledge, which makes him our liberator.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Exactly my point. Hell, some interpretations are that it's a place where there's only blind obedience to the tyrant who runs it, while at least in hell, you get to meeting interesting people, and Satan tried to bring us knowledge, which makes him our liberator.

Postmodern.

Developments of the how modern people of non-practicing directives assess religion doesn't change the logical validities of the adherence to the practice that might apply rationally also today to not respect the original construct with respect to its contemporary reasoning.

Otherwise it's just how people interpret interpretations of the original events. One interpretation being people who practice it based on the book, and the other interpretation being the book itself.

[Yukaphile]

Any God that tells someone to sacrifice his own son to make a point is a tyrant, as I see it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Any God that tells someone to sacrifice his own son to make a point is a tyrant, as I see it.

That gets a bit deep in the interpretative elements, a little too much for contextual consideration.

[clearspira]

Any God that tells someone to sacrifice his own son to make a point is a tyrant, as I see it.

That gets a bit deep in the interpretative elements, a little too much for contextual consideration.

Why? Yuka is right.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I thought he was talking about the holy trinity.