I saw somebody say this on a thread a while back, and just remembered it, "It would be better to reign in hell that serve in heaven."
That's not word for word, and I don't remember who said it, but that is the just of it.
This seems ridiculous to me for several reasons. First, no one will reign in hell, not even Satan himself after God casts him back to hell permanently in the second coming. In hell, you will not have any other human contact, and be forever tortured with the worst pain imaginable, and every second will feel like an hour, and every day like a year. In heaven, you will be a servant of God, but you will want to serve Him. It will not be like being a slave, heaven will be perfect, everything you've ever wanted times ten, with no pain, sadness, or boredom.
In my opinion, that statement is horribly false, but what do you guys think?
It bcame wide spread in late 20th century b4 that it was very less.
you mean, when people started to get more comfortable with them? the fact people dont say they are gay doesnt mean they arent.
there is an increase of blood type O people. not only this is proven its also proven that a long time ago this was much more rare. but you wouldnt say THAT is unnatural would you?
what is natural? something that most people have? then i can say that having red hair/small eyes/darker skin colour or whatever is unnatural too. but then id probably be lonely and hated. why? because people are getting more comfortable with the things that are different then them and i believe that the same will happen with this subject as well. also there is a paragraph in the torah (which the christians and i think the muslims also believe in) that talks about king davids song to jonathan. any person can take that and say that david was gay . and actually. they already did that XD.
but you will respond and say that this is not what is meant. well how can you know? you werent there. all you have is your unproven subjective belief.
Simply put... if it was not as vast as it is now, it does not mean it is unnatural. And, there were probably a great many scenarios that show homosexuality being oppressed that we've no knowledge about because the homosexuals themselves didn't let others know, convinced them they're not gay, or etc.
I did not said it was not practiced, it was practiced but not as widely as today. If u remember spartans u must remember Persia too compared to persia Spartans were a minority.
And they did not practiced homo sexuality.
Your argument doesn't really seem to make any sense. Sparta is but one example and is not necessary to compare to Persia. As for Persia not practicing homosexual acts I beg to differ. Homosexuality in Ancient Persia-The Truth
Homosexuality can be found through out history and cultures around the world. The only reason it might seem more prevalent today is because of the increase of our ability to obtain information and it's media coverage.
I'd easily choose Reign in hell. KNow why? 'Cause I don't wanna spend all ****ing eternity praising someone. I wanna make my OWn choices. Jeez.
In the first couple pages when we were talking about what this thread is about, I said that we will not reign in Hell, or make choices. Hell is going to be, "hell."
Well, remember the Divine Plan? Isn't everyone's fare decided already? So He has already predestined some of us to go to Hell. Which to say makes the Creator seem like a schmuck.
This is a theory that some Christians believe. Not everyone believes this.
In the first couple pages when we were talking about what this thread is about, I said that we will not reign in Hell, or make choices. Hell is going to be, "hell."
And that is why the saying 'I'd rather reign in hell...' is not to be taken literally, like you always do. Because even if heaven and hell were true, there wouldn't be such a choice. The phrase is meaning to say 'I would rather IF I could choose', not 'I want to'. So why have such a fuss about it? Why so serious?
To religious people it does. Well not the literal question, but on where does one end up in the afterlife. It's not a choice issue more of a ''I-want-to-go-to-heaven-hence-I-must-be-good'' issue.
I assume you mean "To religious people it does matter."
To religious people it does. Well not the literal question, but on where does one end up in the afterlife. It's not a choice issue more of a ''I-want-to-go-to-heaven-hence-I-must-be-good'' issue.
I know that for religious people, going to hell or going to heaven does matter. But this isn't exactly what I meant, I was just saying that making a thread because you think the phrase "I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven" makes no sense, only because you take it too literally, makes no sense. It is to be taken figuratively, and not literally. Therefore I can't udnerstand the fuss being made around a literal interpretation of a metaphor.
