>>509602837
Yes, you use intellectualism to compensate for the lack of realisation in your religion. And it is characteristically jewish legalist debate, not the higher Platonic dialogues of the Greeks. In fact, I was reading a page a while ago about how this term changed meaning in the Christian context. The old dialogues were not 'debates', but more of a rhetorical style that later classicists upheld faithfully. Your anti-religion poisons everything it touches. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Caesar did not debate, he exuded pure spirit. It is true that debate did exist before, however the Jewish tradition is enmeshed in covenental contractualism and 'debating with god'. You have a hypertrophy of intellectualism. The Romans do not debate. The Indians do not debate. The Japanese do not debate. You think you can talk your way into heaven.
It's a bit like going to a race circuit and bragging that you are good at pogo stick. Different genres entirely. You want to 'prove' what you lack. Even when the Greeks debated, it took a secondary posture. Your religion is about being nagged to death, usually by women or jews. You think you can 'talk' your way out of it because of your singular Marxist 'truth'. A Christian says 'have you read the bible', a marxist says 'read Marx.' Same energy, spiritual nigger. I've never been challenged to debate by a guru.