>>18128319
>>18128297
>>18128304
Tick tock.

>>18122998
>Even figures like Richard Dawkins have discussed how religion is more complex than people usually admit,
It's not complex. Christians actually believe Jesus died on the cross and rose again. """Pagans""" do not believe in Odin. OrthoLVRP fags do not believe in God. Richard Dawkins is going to burn in Hell, forever.

>>41354695
Christ hates you.

>>18064575
I wonder how long Catholics have to burn in Hell before they realize that it isn't Purgatory.

I'm not going to try and whip out verse quotations and citations, but it seems to me that the principal point of the Gospel was to bring Heaven to Earth, with Jesus Christ acting as instruction and saviour, first to the Judeans and then to the rest of the world (gentiles). However, as part of that role, He repeatedly chastises Pharisees and their legalistic ways, and he repeatedly violates the laws they enact, to the point that he is eventually crucified. Now of course, the Pharisees simply draw their code from the Tanakh, their doctrine is a simple execution thereof.

If one is then to take issue with the Pharisees, as Christ evidently did, then how can one come to the conclusion that the Tanakh is truly the word of God? It seems to me then that there are two options. Either:
>1) The gnostics were correct in their assessment that the "God" of the Tanakh is in fact not the true God/Father in Heaven, in which case they are not actually a heresy at all
>2) The Tanakh is not a reliable account of what God actually instructed, and thus ought to be discarded as non-canonical
I simply don't see how else these things make sense.

>>17844945
It always warms my heart to see a worthless frogposter stumbling blindly into the great burn pit. Have fun burning, rodent.

>>17815560
>Meanwhile, Mohammed:

>>17779679
Great! Have fun burning.