Thoughts?
Both are paralels to the new covenant.
Circumcision is a carnal act, and shows that the demands of the old covenant are also carnal, the Pascha is unleavened, just flesh but no spirit, and the Law is based on carnal justice instead of spiritual love (it even uses very carnal terms as its basis, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth).
The sacrifice was important, because it highlighted that God rejected the sacrifice of one's firstborn (in contrast to Moloch), yet God gives *us* that, illustrating that we love because God loves us, God doesn't love us because we love him.
![r-GHENT-HEADSCARF-BAN-large570[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fV4EH5n.jpg "r-GHENT-HEADSCARF-BAN-large570[1].jpg")
> And then he said "I don't listen to the voices in my head"! الحمد الله ونبيه محمد
>>465010
> fictional character
> hearing voices
pick one, get consistent
>>465028
How he is fictional?
>>465023
Give in a language that atheist will understand.
>>465027
Source?
>>465031
Does Dawkins think he existed?
>>465031
Richard Dawkins surely considers Abraham as a legendary character.
Hearing voices as an explanation of the supernatural should be reserved for historical figures.
>>465028
Really? You've never seen, heard or read a story about a guy hearing voices?
>>465045
Dawkins is implying he was insane. If Abraham was an entirely fictional character, then how can you imply he was insane when God talking to him was very real in the context of the Bible?.
>>465045
but he existed, and followed god's word and put the knife on his sons throat, but even after much effort the son was still alive and his neck intact.If god really wanted the sacrifice, he wouldn't have rendered the knife useless.
>>465053
The point is, if Araham was real, he was insane. How does this go over your head?
>>465059
>how does 100% begging the question go over your head?
>>465054
That doesn't change the significance of Abraham's effort, now does it?
>>465059
If Abraham is real, shouldn't Noah and Adam be real to?
If so, Abraham shouldn't be insane in that context.
Considering that Abraham is real, but not the rest of the Bible, sounds like nitpicking
>>465069
>If a character all three abrahamic religions believe existed, had actually existed, he would have been a madman
Now, you master of logic, were is this begging any questions? And how is not, by contrast, a valid critique?
>>465010
Cutting up your genitals was genuinely beneficial to health and hygiene in bronze age Middle East. That's not an argument against abrahamic religions. It might be outdated or useless now, but you can't argue it was done for no reason back then.
Not to mention that he's letting his filthy western liberal bias loose again. Richard Dawkins' morality and set of social mores is not absolute, no matter what he thinks. If he says circumcision is bad, what makes it worse than cutting your hair, clipping your nails or having tattoos or piercing?
>>465080
>If Abraham existed, he'd be a madman, because God doesn't exist
>>465083
not that part, the one about sacrificing the son?
>>465088
What about it? Abraham has faith that God knows what he's doing and he had a damn good reason for asking for it. God is omniscient, ffs. Abraham didn't even know algebra.
>>465087
Nice strawman. So, people who believe that god exists are not in favour of putting people who hear voices telling them to mutilate themselves and kill their children, in the looney bin, on the off chance that the voice might be god's?
>>465088
But it mentions circumcision in the same sentence, implying that it's a sign of mental illness as well. This shows that Richard Dawkins has no ability whatsoever to understand anything divergent from his own ideas about stuff.
So what's the point in even arguing with him?
As to Isaac, I could write up a lengthy post about the meaning and methodology of sacrifice in traditional religions, on how you needed a sacrifice to achieve any effect, how even deities made sacrifice to achieve some results (like Ahura Mazda praying and sacrificing before creating the world), etc, etc. In this context, God not accepting Isaac's sacrifice and offering a covenant is quite novel and unprecedented. But you can just read some Eliade for that.
>>465102
Not when he and his sterile wife are like a hundred years old and they have a kid after God told her she would bear one, no.
>>465116
T O L D
O
L
D
I'm sure he's just as well read on this as he is on everything else he propagandises.
>>465116
He lived till he was 175, still relative young at ~90, at least compared to Moses being 950 years old
>>465124
Moses lived to 125, Noah to 950.
I believe this is possible, as Noah was probably also far larger than modern humans.
>>465132
my mistake
>>465132
Could you say he was a big guy?
>>465135
In Islamic lore, the maximum life expectancy (and size) of all living creatures has dropped considerably since the beginning.
I've seen it explained scientifically, akin to how many dinosaurs were massive and then shrank over time.
>>465144
Probably at least proportionally 9 feet tall. They had more oxygen, better nutrition, etc. 10,000+ years ago.
>>465144
4 Hebrew
>>465073
makes me wonder, if you pick up a gun that you didnt know was empty and try to fire it at someone before you are disarmed, can you be convicted of attempted murder?
In the Quran, the prophecy of the sacrifice is said to have been fulfilled by the readiness of Abraham and Isaac to do the deed, rather than an attempt.
God stopped Abraham before he could attempt to sacrifice Isaac, and told him he had done what was needed.
This isn't as incriminating as the Biblical version of events.
>>465176
Absolutely. Same for a knife.
>>465200
So the Quran is basically a remake?
Twitter was the worst thing to happen to Dawkins. When people heard the name Richard Dawkins ten years ago, they thought "oh I hear that guy is a brilliant scientist", but now its just a bunch of people reposting "le god delusion." Don't get me wrong, I hate this euphoric faggot like the rest of you, but boy do I feel bad for what he's done to himself.
>>465221
more of retconing the database containing info about history, than history itself.
>>465227
have heard that he is not good in science either, just a meme of an atheist ciclejerk,is it true?
>>465232
like most popular scientists, he hasn't done any research in a loooooong time.
>>465073
it was to show god's mercy and not the cruelty of the abraham, even though he was not ready to it for long time and kept crying during the act.
>>465154
same as the crocodiles
>>465172
Kekke
>>465687
These are not the first instances Abraham heard God, and he had solid reason to believe in God's voice at this point.
>>465023
it's not against child sacrifice because abraham is provided with a substitute sacrifice rather than being commanded not to perform a sacrifice
child sacrifice was a real thing in early abrahamic religion btw
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2015/11/the-legacy-of-child-sacrifice-in-early-judaism-and-christianity/
>people who have visions should see a doctor
t. helmut
>>465221
the quran is literally christian fan fiction
its clear through textual evidence that the author of the quran had some knowledge of pop christianity but that he hadn't actually read the bible
the four main points of evidence are:
1) when he writes about jesus and the creation myth, the author writes almost exclusively apocryphal pop culture stories that were widely believed by laymen but have no actual basis in the bible or church teachings (e.g. it was satan that tempted eve in eden, god commanded the angels to bow before adam and satan refused to, jesus talked as an infant, jesus made a bird out of clay and breathed it to life, etc. etc.)
2) many terms are borrowed from non-arabic languages like syriac, the language of christianity in the region, including the word 'quran' itself (which means 'the recitation')
3) some troubling borrowed terms can only be explained by misunderstanding christian teachings (e.g. the disciples of jesus are called 'the white dudes' in the quran, due to a translation error from ethiopian to arabic that i won't get into)
4) at one point jesus is called 'christ', which is strange because muslims don't consider jesus the messiah (it's obvious that the author thought 'christ' was just another name for jesus when in fact it is the greek translation of the title 'messiah')
to be fair though the new testament is just jewish fan fiction anyway
>>465715
>Voices in your head that tells you to kill your children are reasonable
How do you differentiate between god and mental illness in this case m8? How would you even know? There are plenty of cases of mothers for example murdering their children because God told them to do it.
>>465716
>Ezekiel 20:25
>God expresses outrage at human sacrifice
>therefore God demands it
>checkmate, Christfags
>>465798
Are you familiar with everything that preceded this between God and Abraham?
>>465765
>to be fair though the new testament is just jewish fan fiction anyway
Do the Jews have the most consistent religion? I know they kind of slip up in genesis and reference the existence of multiple Gods.
>>465808
>Are you familiar with everything that preceded this between God and Abraham?
I don't need to be familiar with everything that preceded in order to understand that trying to kill your children is insane regardless of the motive.
>>465825
It's not insane if you have very hard and verifiable proof God is the one telling you to do it.
>>465823
islam actually has the most consistent religion, except its founded on myths without any basis
this still works because muslims don't read the bible (and if they do they claim its corrupt)
as for the old testament its more than a "slip up", rather the text is a compilation of texts and the same stories are repeated multiple times (for example, moses goes up on a mountain and receives the ten commandments, twice, and they are a different set of commandments each time)
when it comes to genesis it's also two (or more) texts mashed together, so the newer monotheistic opening text (in the beginning... page 1) is literally incompatible with the older polytheistic story of the garden of eden (page 2)
>>465835
Islam is incredibly inconsistent. Imagine if the Christian Reformation took place right after Christ died, and a bunch of different denominations had a different canon of holy texts on top of the Bible with varying degrees of recognition from each other. That people like al-Sadr and Khomeini recognized Alawis as Shia Islam is a testament to how inconsistent Islam is as a religion.
>>465834
I'd consider insane any way, because distinguishing between what is mental illness and what would really constitute an actual supernatural entity talking to you is impossible.
I mean, have you even read David Hume? Apparently not.
>>465868
It's not impossible if you have supernatural empirical evidence to prove it.
David Hume's entire philosophy consists in critiquing begging the question, which he then proceeds to do with miracles.
>>465880
>It's not impossible if you have supernatural empirical evidence to prove it.
Can you even read m8? What would constitute "supernatural empirical evidence" and how would you know it wouldn't be your own mind fucking with you, i.e mental illness?
The fact is that you cannot know at all, you can only assume. And I think murdering your children because you assume you are hearing god in your head, is insanity.
>>465886
>Can you even read m8? What would constitute "supernatural empirical evidence" and how would you know it wouldn't be your own mind fucking with you, i.e mental illness?
If it were, then Isaac doesn't even exist, so what's the big problem?
>>465895
>If it were, then Isaac doesn't even exist, so what's the big problem?
The point is the principle. All three great monotheisms consider Abraham admirable for demonstrating his faith by obeying God's command to kill his own son.
So regardless of it happening or not, millions of people think it is something worthy of emulation, and millions of people hope that one day they will have the possibility to show the same devotion.
Do you see the problem this? If you don't, then there's no pointing continuing this discussion.
>>465864
There are disagreements but the basic doctrine is remarkably consistent.
Also you make it sound like Christianity didn't split until well after Jesus died, but actually it split almost right away into different factions, one led by James (brother of Jesus) and one led by Paul, and then they splintered into literally dozens and dozens of different factions.
>>465909
No, Christians consider the ultimate expression of faith for God to be willing to die for him. The point of Isaac in Christianity is to show God doesn't want this from you, but is willing to give it.
>>465923
The beautiful thing about Christianity was that theological differences were made uniform through Apostolic councils.
>>465941
But they were made uniform in a way that is inconsistent with the NT or logic. Case in point: trinitarianism.
Good. If 4chan taught me anything, it's that abrahamic faggots deserve all the shit they get
>>465941
>The point of Isaac in Christianity is to show God doesn't want this from you, but is willing to give it.
Right, so being ordered to kill your own son and obeying that order is good, even though God was just trolling?
Sounds ridiculous to me, but whatever m8, believe whatever you want to believe.
>>465949
How is Trinitarianism in consistent with the NT? Try reading Hebrews 1:8-9.
"But unto the Son he [the Lord] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
>>465975
It's about Isaac's faith more than Abraham's, dude.
>>465999
It might be, but in what sense is human sacrifice good then?
>>466021
It's not per se, but it is required that God the Son be sacrificed in death, in order to fully commune with humanity. God became man so that men could become gods, and to fully become man he had to experience the gamut of the human condition. Isaac's sacrifice prefigures that, to show that God does not want us to die for him, but that our willingness to die for him is a mark of the highest love and faith. But God instead reflected that highest love and faith *in us*. Every single day we let God down, and still he keeps a faith in us far stronger than ours in him.
>>466043
>but that our willingness to die for him is a mark of the highest love and faith.
Well I contest that.
Why does behavior that is abhorrent in every other instance become good if god orders it so? Isn't morality absolute?
Or are you a proponent of Divine Command theory?
>>465023
>Both are [parallels] to the new covenant.
You're forgetting that Hebrew religion predates Christianity by a few thousand years, son.
>>466061
>Well I contest that.
Explicitly says it in the NT
>Why does behavior that is abhorrent in every other instance become good if god orders it so? Isn't morality absolute?
>Or are you a proponent of Divine Command theory?
God is beyond morality
>>464060
>>465054
>but he existed
[citation needed]
>>466078
>God is beyond morality
Right, so you are a proponent of Divine Command theory.
>>466083
No, I'm a proponent of Kierkegaard's view of the matter.
>>465864
>Imagine if the Christian Reformation took place right after Christ died, and a bunch of different denominations had a different canon of holy texts on top of the Bible with varying degrees of recognition from each other.
What, like early Christianity?
>That people like al-Sadr and Khomeini recognized Alawis as Shia Islam is a testament to how inconsistent Islam is as a religion.
I don't think you're qualified to talk about the intricacies of Shi`i, never mind Islamic, theology and history.
>>466085
That if you believe hard enough it is justified to suspend the ethical?
Sounds like moral relativism to me.
>>465982
>How is Trinitarianism in consistent with the NT?
How about Christ claiming even in the NT that only the Father should be worshiped? Or the fact that trinitarianism has no basis in Hebrew or Jewish tradition? How about the fact that it took hundreds of years before Christians actually formulated a trinitarian formula and even then they still didn't all agree to it, even to this day they don't all agree on what it actually means? The reason for the latter, of course, is because it makes no sense and the best defense of the thing is that "it's a mystery how it isn't polytheism!"
>>466113
>It's not necessarily moral relativism so much as the idea that what is ethical and what is pious aren't always synonymous
I agree that what is ethical is not always pious which is what I have been trying to tell you for the last hour or two.
The idea that something that is otherwise considered horrific behavior for most of humankind, becomes ethical because of an authoritative statement from a supernatural being we cannot even know if exists, is an extremely dangerous belief and it has clearly caused a lot of misery throughout the centuries, but I'm pleased to see that at least one Christian in the world agrees that that is what Christianity teaches.
>>466113
>Are you qualified to talk about the intricacies of Christian theology and history?
Not really, but looking at this thread and your extreme biases I'm thinking I can do a better job than you.
>>466136
>That's literally what the "teleological suspension of the ethical" is all about.
I know, and was trying to tell you why I think it is retarded, but apparently you can't read.
>>466139
Why is it retarded? Do you think Divine Command Theory, or perhaps Leibniz's idea, makes more sense?
God is beyond the ethical, because the ethical in Christianity is the process of following the goal of being more like God, and God of course is already God, so beyond this struggle. But unless you affirm God as an existential value, ethics can never have this meaning for you.
>>466136
>Did you actually read the passage I quoted?
Yes, and it's one of many contradictory commentaries in the NT. It's also a piss poor and ahistorical quotation of the Psalms.
>>466160
God might be beyond the ethical as a property, but either morality is absolute or it is not.
If the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of an action can be changed according to God's whims, it means that morality is simply relative to God's wishes, and therefore religious people should stop acting like morality is absolutist.
>>466167
Philo was a Trinitarian theologian before Christianity even started.
>>466171
Morality is absolute in the sense that aesthetics are. From a Christian perspective, what is more Godlike is absolutely what is more beautiful, but this perspective on aesthetics requires an existential affirmation.
>>466171
>If the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of an action
These are purely existential values, by the way. God is beyond right and wrong. Sin exists, but the Orthodox do not see it as something legalistic.
>>466197
So morality is relative to God's whims, because you consider God's whims perfect compared to human whims, and therefore murder will become an intrinsically good action if God commands it.
And the irony with this, is of course that God never directly appears to give orders, so it is done in his name by religious demagogues and leaders.
>>466216
Morality is relative to God's being. God doesn't have whims.
>>466223
Sounds like a euphemism for the exact same thing.
>>466228
Then you probably don't understand the philosophical concept of Being.
>>466234
Nobody does.
Not even you.
But this is clearly just something you are using right now to evade actually answering my inquiries, so I'm done with you to be honest.
You have a nice day now.
>>465010
Whether or not God is real you shouldn't listen to voices in your head. I'm sure God manifests himself in a much better way than a symptom of schizophrenia
>>466250
That's nice. I don't think there's anywhere to go if you can't distinguish between an entity's whim and an entity's existence.
>>466273
Mate, stop being a fucking retard.
YOU are the one who EQUATED god's whims with god's being right fucking here >>466223
You are clearly an expert theologian, because you deliberately obfuscate every fucking objection to your pathetic religion.
But good for you, I guess actually reading all those books m8 you an expert in something, even if it is being a pathetic sophist.
>>466291
made you an expert*
le smarmy bee man of many fedoras is always on point.
>>466269
A manifestation of god would be considered a symptom of schizophrenia by fedora tippers no matter what it was.
>>465132
Are you a young earth creationist per chance?
>>466722
No, for example if God sat in a big throne in the Vatican and you could visit him and chat or whatever
>>466820
How would you know he is actually God?
>>465765
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
>2) many terms are borrowed from non-arabic languages like syriac, the language of christianity in the region, including the word 'quran' itself (which means 'the recitation')
The word Qur'an is a regular pattern (fu3lān) in Arabic applied to the q-r-' root. Jeffrey Arthur suggested it could be a Syriac borrowing, but that is not a commonly held contemporary view. Furthermore, both you and Arthur make to stupid fallacy of saying that having loanword in a book makes in not Arabic. So is the English translation of the Bible not English because you have French/Latin/Old-Norse loanwords? Most if not all of the words were understood.
>3) some troubling borrowed terms can only be explained by misunderstanding christian teachings (e.g. the disciples of jesus are called 'the white dudes' in the quran, due to a translation error from ethiopian to arabic that i won't get into)
"White dudes" isn't in the book. There isn't even a proximate term like that applied to them. And what borrowed terms do you refer to? Give an example.
>4) at one point jesus is called 'christ', which is strange because muslims don't consider jesus the messiah (it's obvious that the author thought 'christ' was just another name for jesus when in fact it is the greek translation of the title 'messiah')
This is the biggest proof you know nothing of the subject. Jesus is called the Messiah in the Qur'an many times, clearly as a title, not a name. Muslims definitely believe he is the Messiah and that you don't know this shows you don't even understand the basic Islamic view of Jesus. That being said, "Messiah" - masīh - in Islam has a significance different from Judaism and especially Christianity.
As for your first point, there's not much to say. In the Islamic view, some of these stories that weren't in the Biblical canon belonged there, and some in the canon did not. Secularly, the biblical canon was very fluid at the start anyways
>>465765
Actually, regarding "white dudes", I found out what you meant. I just didn't realize it because I'd never translate the term that way even though the triliteral root means white. I still don't see your claim as valid.
>>466836
>>465982
I don't understand how that supports trinitarianianism.
>>467037
One is specifically in the context of trying to get God to jump through hoops. Christ is quoting the OT, which is talking about how the people of Israel kept demanding this and that from God (which they were going to get anyway, but were impatient for).
>>465010
It is an exegesis that is refutable from a relatively simple reading of the text. He didn't try to murder his child, he prepared to murder his child until the same voice[s] told him to stop and make a lamb kebab.
>>466987
>both you and Arthur make to stupid fallacy of saying that having loanword in a book makes in not Arabic
I never claimed it wasn't Arabic, I was saying that the loanwords are evidence that the author was exposed to Christianity (because those terms were used by those Christians).
>not a commonly held contemporary view
Yes it is.
>That being said, "Messiah" - masīh - in Islam has a significance different from Judaism and especially Christianity.
Exactly. And though I can't recall the verse he's referred to as 'christ' as a name once (not as 'the messiah').
>As for your first point, there's not much to say. In the Islamic view, some of these stories that weren't in the Biblical canon belonged there, and some in the canon did not. Secularly, the biblical canon was very fluid at the start anyways
That's mostly true.
My point is that the canonical gospels are the oldest and most authoritative texts on Jesus (written in the 1st Century), whereas the apocryphal stories that the Quran draws on can be reliably dated to being later traditions (second century or later texts and traditions). Mark was written about 70 CE for example, whereas infancy gospels are believed to only started appear around 145 CE or later. Of course you're right that there's no problem with this in the Islamic view, but in the any non-Islamic view obviously this is a suspicious quality of the Quran.
>>468333
>*exposed to a specific type of Christianity
rather (typo)
>>467037
That's the difference between the Jewish neviim and the goyishe notzrim
I think he's trying to be deep and cool but really he just seems like a douche. We get it, you're an atheist.
>>466095
Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?
>>465010
Abraham didn't invent circumcision, the Egyptians did.
>>465132
larger people die younger though
>>465132
Elephants are far larger and they don't live to 950, you know.
>>465010
Once 99% of people become secular atheists who believe in science, logic, and reason, almost all wars would stop, trillions of dollars would be freed up for welfare and science, and we could start colonizing the galaxy. This is why once atheism becomes accepted as fact, and theism is treated as the mental illness that it is, there should be a three step program to secure the scientific advancement of the human race.
1. Rehabilitation: Teach religious people how their god is not real. I think this would be successful for at least 90% of cases.
2. Sterilization: If people don't renounce their religion they should be sterilized. This way, they die alone and won't be able to spread their stupidity to children and out breed atheists. This would prevent an idiocracy situation from occurring.
3. Imprisonment: If there are still people preaching their religion after this, they should be thrown in either an asylum or in a prison. They can make license plates for cars after that along with picking up from trash by the road.
Only in the worst case scenarios though should a 4th step be implemented; execution. Only after all religious people worldwide are rehabilitated or removed from society, a near utopian society episode would be possible.
Proof of this method working though can be found within any decent history text book about the USSR. Despite being a "dirty communist" country the USSR transformed from an agrarian society to the first nation in space in a few decades by eradicating theism. The PRC also implemented similar policies during the 60’s and 70’s which led to the confiscation of religious property and opened the way to the economic successes of today. Likewise, Russia's economic failures during the 90’s can be linked to a rise of religion.
>>465123
>Islam is the greatest force for evil today
Dawkins is a tool.
>>471022
>Proof of this method working though can be found within any decent history text book about the USSR.
>>465823
I think you mean Exodus and/or Leviticus. Unless you mean the majestic plural employed in some translations of Gen.
>>465010
Lot of old testament is essentially saying old traditions of older religions in the era were bad right?
Like Don't kill your kids/sacrifice babies, instead you should cut off your foreskin and sacrifice goats/lambs.
Then the new testament altered some dietary restrictions written down in the old testament.
Remember that the old testament was written for people living nearly 2500 years ago and perhaps many metaphors are now lost on us.
>>471022
>>465083
This.
>>465059
No, if Abraham was real, he was Sane, because he was obeying Gods will.
Jean Luc-Picard is a character who believes he is regularly contacted by aliens, that they can speak to him through his clothes, that he holds the power to destroy cities if he only wished to. He also believes he's a respected published archaeologist and a powerful civil servant.
If Jean Luc-Picard was real, he would clearly be insane, correct?
>>466273
That pretty much is the modern ideology, yeah. Whatever my whims are are the essence of my real being, freedom is only the form of persuing my whims endlessly.
>>473026
But he is real, thanks to analytical philosophy.
>>473055
>conatus
>>473059
I thought that only applied to Waifus.
>>473104
It applies to every kind of person who isn't a logical impossibility afaik.
Have anyone told /a/ we've made waifus real AND found a way to communicate with them?
>>473059
>>473104
>>473117
OK then. Jean Luc Picard exists, and he is King Lunatic of the People's Republic of Crazy Town.
>>473210
In another one of infinite multiverses, sure.
>>473253
No, in all of them. In every one of them, he acts like a crazy person.
He has no way of knowing Data is actually an android, that Troi can read thoughts, or that he makes contact with aliens, or that he is a starfleet officer.
>>465010
Dawkins is one of those cunts who makes me sad to be an atheist
>>465088
Except that the caption refers to circumcision.
If the attempted murder were enough, he wouldn't have needed to include that.
Circumcision is no more barbaric than the ritual scarification practiced by the Maori, and actually served a practical purpose.
Abraham didn't sacrifice Isaac, that's the point of the story. Lots of cultures have that myth attached. It probably reflects the transition from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.
It's not a literal event from history.
Dawkins is a fucking meme man who's helped turn Atheism into exactly the same cancer Organized religion is.
>>465010
Based St. Dawkins. I wish St. Hitchens was still alive.
The problem in the dialogue among atheists and believers is that atheist firmly believe that religion ends in the symbolic tales teached to children during their early ages, they don't care if religion, in fact, is a vast argument that need to be studied in deep for ages like any other subject; it's like to think that science ends with the four base operations teached during the first years of school.
>>475223
Agreed. You should get a PhD in dungeons and dragons before you can criticize it as fiction
>>473296
Why?
