He can claim he doesn't want to start that. However if he makes a great deal of statements along that line 9n his previous post, and then ends with I don't want to start anything in the next post; too late. All I have for him is Pascal's wager. Other than that I don't like to debate atheists on the internet.
You don't seem to be getting the point here. When you post something like this:
For Christians (most denominations) Jesus died for our sins. He takes away the sins of the world. Therefore all of our sins are taken away, and we are pure in the eyes of the Lord. You can deny this fact then making any sin you have ever committed your ****ation. All in all lust is sin. All sin is equal. ALL SIN IS EQUAL! Watching porn is sin. Lying is sin. Murder. If you are repentant you are saved by the grace of God.
You are making bombastic insupportable claims about sin and salvation and purporting your beliefs as fact. The first person to contradict this is not to blame, you are.
From what I am aware of, it is essentially a place of cleansing the soul. Go there for some time, get cleansed, go to heaven.
we don't have any means to prove whether Hell is eternal or only a temporal residence. we even have no means to prove whether Hell or Heaven exist or not. but i maybe that's why they call Christianity a religion
For Christians (most denominations) Jesus died for our sins. He takes away the sins of the world. Therefore all of our sins are taken away, and we are pure in the eyes of the Lord. You can deny this fact then making any sin you have ever committed your ****ation. All in all lust is sin. All sin is equal. ALL SIN IS EQUAL! Watching porn is sin. Lying is sin. Murder. If you are repentant you are saved by the grace of God.
i'm a catholic, so i have read well about the scriptures and i can assure you, i never heard that all sins are equal. also, if you say porn is on the same category as murder, then we should respectively punish murderers and rapist the same way. now, we now it isn't right to do that right? it's like saying a serial murderer and a serial rapist should be treated the same way. also you CAN deny the "fact", as what we termed "religion" is based on beliefs so you can essentially deny the fact by not believing it. it is never a fact to begin with anyways, as "fact" must be able to be proven, otherwise you addressed it as "beliefs".
i personally am disgusted with the act of porn, yet all human would do it in time. making a child required the act of it.
You are making bombastic insupportable claims about sin and salvation and purporting your beliefs as fact.
Fish Preferred, obviously people with religion will tend to treat "religious stuff" as "fact" since that is the basis of religion itself. how the "hell" you're going to prove the existence of god, or heaven, or angels? someone have to believe religion in order for the religion to become, well "religion". perhaps a little "bombastic", but as long as it is not evangelical i don't mind
then we should respectively punish murderers and rapist the same way. now, we now it isn't right to do that right? it's like saying a serial murderer and a serial rapist should be treated the same way.
I hate to break it to you but rape is arguably the worst possible thing a human being can do short of murder and while a person who rapes 10 people is different to a person who murders 5 people they are both disgusting and should be treated more or less the same way.
i personally am disgusted with the act of porn, yet all human would do it in time. making a child required the act of it.
I think you just mixed up porn and sex.
Though I concede that for a religious person the difference may be a bit different, dependent of beliefs and degree of beliefs. And here comes up a question. In the context of (christian) religion and sin, is sex only 'acceptable' if it is purely for reproduction (so does honest and intimate sex between two lovers count as a sin in the same way as porn); or is it only a sin if the act is performed out of pure lust, for example one-night stands?
... then we should respectively punish murderers and rapist the same way. now, we now it isn't right to do that right? it's like saying a serial murderer and a serial rapist should be treated the same way.
Certainly not. The murderer would have to kill people in a painful, brutal, and very degrading way if I'm to consider him/her the equivalent of a serial rapist.
Fish Preferred, obviously people with religion will tend to treat "religious stuff" as "fact" since that is the basis of religion itself. how the "hell" you're going to prove the existence of god, or heaven, or angels? someone have to believe religion in order for the religion to become, well "religion". perhaps a little "bombastic", but as long as it is not evangelical i don't mind
You don't seem to be getting my point (which is that royalguy was not getting the point). I was explaining the distinction between "starting an argument" and responding to an argument-starting statement.
Do you think if you view porn you will go to hell?
I'll ignore the fact that I'm an atheist and rephrase the question for argument's sake: Do I believe there is anything in the Bible that states that the simple act of watching pornography is enough to send a Christian to hell?
The answer is no. My knowledge of the Bible is already limited, and there are a few extremely vague quotes that suggest masturbation could be enough to send a person there, but find me one passage that says anything about watching people commence this act and I will reconsider my argument. I can't imagine there being anything about it, as it would be an oddly specific punishment for the time period. This was also during a time when large families lived in one-room houses if they were poor enough. You can't expect me to believe that at one point, at least one kid didn't witness the conception of one of his siblings. Did he go to hell just because the god he worshipped couldn't give his parents their own bedroom?
