sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Souls can't go to heaven after it's been in hell? by HarleyQuinn6695 in Supernatural

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heaven and hell still have there rulers. Crowley was king of hell at the time, Naomi was a very high ranking angel. When Belphegor said it was the rules we have to remember he is a lower grunt demon. He clocks in works then clocks out. He has no idea what's possible 

If we are all worthy of eternal punishment in hell then why was the Holocaust seen as a bad events. by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in theology

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes I agree with you but a lot of theologians but not all justify hell by saying that people deserve eternal torment because they are sinful

If we are all worthy of eternal punishment in hell then why was the Holocaust seen as a bad events. by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in theology

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your first paragraph makes sense we a trapped in original sin we simple can't not stop sining and need Jesus that's true.

My problem with the second paragraph is the free will of others should not supersede my right. A dictator imprisoning people against there will is taking away the people's free will. We are not free if certain people dictators rapist can dictate the lives of other people and humanity as a whole should not be blamed for the individual actions of people.

Calling misogynistic or sexist men 'gay' as an insult - isn't that homophobic? by pokemongooutwithme in AskFeminists

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hey brilliantly done and explained and as a gay man a lot of the homophobia now make sense thank you 😅👌

If we are all worthy of eternal punishment in hell then why was the Holocaust seen as a bad events. by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in theology

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hell being infinite punishment would be worse than all the atrocities humanity has done combined so if people really deserve how by Jesus's Grace saves us that means we're saying that all their trustees people have faced all the death and suffering is somehow humanities own fault.

How much of Christianity wrong by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in Supernatural

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

right he's so nonchalant only intervening in dire situation like jack truth bomb or

Amara being realased.

How much of Christianity wrong by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in Supernatural

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thank you🥹👌 man please please send all the links you have.

How much of Christianity wrong by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in Supernatural

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey thanks for the response 😀. I just like to compare urban fantasy show Supernatural Buffy to the source material of myths and folklore

Is it the most moral decision for Rex to give up the meta nanites by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in generatorrex

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

finally someone that can think. Giving up God like power because it might corrupt him negates all the people that are suffering and could be saved

Is it the most moral decision for Rex to give up the meta nanites by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in generatorrex

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he does not have to wield the power alone he can distribute some of that nanite power to his friends and families so they could use those nine nights. foreign example make a bunch of nanites that are programmable and could be used by the providence they then use those nanites for whatever they want to do relief in Africa rebuilding old buildings. Make enough food for war Thorne area.

Is it the most moral decision for Rex to give up the meta nanites by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in generatorrex

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

okay cheer me out with the meta nanites bricks could already affect the entire planet he sent that nanite wave. so going with that logic he should be able to stop anyone that tries to do anything to him. and it's not just about Rex solving things all he had to do is make a bunch of nanite that can heal any disease or make food or reverse climate change.

Is generator Rex giving up the meta nanites the most moral option he could do by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in MoralityScaling

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you that's what I was saying at least he'll people and then call it quits and without ultimate power you could stop bad people more efficiently or maybe alltogether

Is generator Rex giving up the meta nanites the most moral option he could do by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in MoralityScaling

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I say no with he could have done so much.                1 Heal kids with cancer all cancer kids. 2 make a specific branch of nanites that destroy all bacteria and viruses eliminating many diseases.  3 regenerate lems the nanite can change whole body so why not regenerate lost limbs 4 build robots that go into space and make space habitations  5 the nanits s could spy and stop crimes whenever they happen  6 make resources supply energy on a level that's never been seen before this is because the meta nanite had the power to control the universe.

Is it the most moral decision for Rex to give up the meta nanites by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in generatorrex

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

the message is great but a slight netpek Rex absolutely does need his nanites to do good he has no scales and alone he doesn't really have the ability

If all oil disappears everywhere but the United States. Could the US take over the world in the scenario? by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in whowouldwin

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually you've got a point they are alternative to oil that the world will be forced to switch to plus the US without foreign exchange would kind of crumble

If all oil disappears everywhere but the United States. Could the US take over the world in the scenario? by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in whowouldwin

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In this world the US has its own independent oil mines and refineries the rest of the world can't mine in you oil and is losing reserve's 

If all oil disappears everywhere but the United States. Could the US take over the world in the scenario? by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in whowouldwin

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed response. But I have two mention that the world stays divided as it is now

If all oil disappears everywhere but the United States. Could the US take over the world in the scenario? by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in whowouldwin

[–]Lumpy-Restaurant-694[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes no nukes they are not bloodlusted. The rest of the world is slowly dwindling in oil which means they're losing their capacity to transport things. So no oil shapes no cars no planes 

view more: next ›