This is not bait m8. .. Inb4 cognitive dissonance
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - teranin ONLINE (04/07/2014) [+] (17 replies)
Inb4 cognitive dissonance
Inb4 cognitive dissonance
#2 to #1 - faimbot (04/07/2014) [-]
"All i'm saying is, when God does it, it isn't bad."

#39 - dyslexicspiderman (04/08/2014) [+] (20 replies)
One of the major things that really bothers me about the bible is the story of Adam and Eve. So God being all powerful and all knowing creates a situation in which he KNOWS that the humans will fail and will be kicked out of paradise. He allows for Satan to be there which is the main reason humans are banished. It seems like the entire story is an excuse to punish humans for eternity.
#10 - felixjarl ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
This is going to be interesting to watch.
#5 - Ken M (04/07/2014) [+] (11 replies)
Except the people were killed because they were wicked and beyond help or saving. (according to the bible anyways) But yeah I guess it's okay for you to have an abortion using this logic if you're an omnipotent, all knowing being and the reason for aborting was because you knew for a fact that the fetus would grow to be wicked.
User avatar #7 to #5 - tittylovin (04/07/2014) [-]
Wait, so you ACTUALLY believe that all the unborn children at the time just before the flood were wicked and beyond saving?
#85 - hybridxproject (04/08/2014) [+] (1 reply)
#140 - gmacdotcom (04/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#75 - tehwheelman (04/08/2014) [-]
love me some *********
#66 - drhat (04/08/2014) [-]
*********		 has landed.
********* has landed.
#175 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/08/2014) [-]
It makes me laugh when people defend god's killing of all these people for being wicked since he knew that they were going to be wicked before he created them. He knew they wouldn't meet his high standards, and he knew he would kill them, and yet he created the people anyways, even the infants that had had zero chance to engage in said wickedness. The quote, "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." is extremely relevant here.

Same thing goes for the story of Adam and Eve: people say that it was a test to see if Adam and Eve loved him willingly or because they had no other options, but it wasn't a test. God knew exactly what was going to happen before he ever created Adam and Eve, he knew Original Sin would come into being, and yet he ******* did it anyways. God strikes me as a sociopath.

Of course, you can claim that these stories are all figurative stories that are meant to teach life lessons and morals, but how do you determine what's figurative and what's literal? It seems like things stop being taken literally once they're either shown to be scientifically impossible or no longer in vogue with society.
#155 - ultimatefusion (04/08/2014) [-]
A warning to any brave soul who wants to travel further into the comment section: There´s a pretty ugly 			*********		 back there, nothing really worth reading, go forth at your own risk. You have been warned.
A warning to any brave soul who wants to travel further into the comment section: There´s a pretty ugly ********* back there, nothing really worth reading, go forth at your own risk. You have been warned.
User avatar #124 - tonkkax ONLINE (04/08/2014) [-]

#17 - Ken M (04/07/2014) [+] (14 replies)
I feel like I have to explain this too often. God knows the hearts of everyone. He killed all of those people because they were evil, because the earth had come to something God did not want it to be, and he preserved Adam's lineage because they were the only ones living the way they were supposed to live.

"But babies aren't evil!"

They can be from a biblical perspective, as all humans are born with the burden of the original sin. God may give life and take it away, because he gave it in the first place. We can't because we didn't.
User avatar #27 to #24 - anenemy (04/07/2014) [-]
"Create evil babies?"

Nice try, troll.
#156 - seizure (04/08/2014) [+] (9 replies)
I'm not religious, but I'm pro life and think that abortion should be limited to rape, incest and in cases when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.

If you are a 17 year-old who decided to have unprotected sex, I'm ******* sorry, but you're just gonna have to live with the "consequences" (I'd prefer to call it "end results", because after all, by observing life, we can say that the point of life is to produce offspring, so therefore having a kid isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone). Same goes if you kill someone. For every action there's a reaction, so if you just wanna kill an unborn human being with unique DNA and get away with it, I sure as hell will take the Creationists' point of view and not support you.
User avatar #164 to #156 - fizzor (04/08/2014) [-]
I disagree with you, especially with your opinion about how teenage mothers, who in most cases can't take care of themselves, let alone a child, should live with the consequences. Sometimes they do stupid **** , which they shouldn't, but like the idiots they are, they still do. But unless they are mentally AND financially prepared to take care of the kid, they should either get an abortion or give him/her to adoption. Let's face it. Only a small fraction of a huge group, which are teenage mothers, can provide a good life for the child during the first 15-20 years of his/her life. They simply are not prepared for such a burden, not when they have just touched the adult life themselves. Abortion is not the best choice, adoption is, but I think it is incredibly selfish and cruel to keep a child and have him/her live an awful life for most of his/her early years. If giving him/her to adoption is not possible, then they should abort the child.
#106 - damitfel (04/08/2014) [-]
Look at all of these tldr comments all these butt hurt religious and non-religious people are posting!
Look at all of these tldr comments all these butt hurt religious and non-religious people are posting!
User avatar #59 - theologyexplain (04/08/2014) [+] (17 replies)
Alright, people, listen up. Every biblical story must be read in light of the larger context and teachings of Scripture. While one could go into the individual aspects of the justness of this act, it is really only necessary to recall, aside from the facts from the story itself, the fundamental teachings on the nature of God and the human condition:

1. God is (among other things) good, loving, and just.
2. Death, in Christianity, holds little fear for those who are saved.
3. The Bible says in Gen. 6:5 that "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that the intentions of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.

Thus, several resolutions present themselves:
1. One could assume that God somehow prevented all wicked people from reproducing before sending the flood, thus all who died in it would have willfully assented to and confirmed their own wickedness. Conclusion: unlikely.
2. Although difficult for us to understand, it may be that even the hearts of the unborn children were already wicked and damnable. Conclusion: Not desirable and/or difficult.
3. In agreement with the common argument, "Why make humanity if they will only sin (or, in this case, will surely and only sin)?" one might say that God, (eternally) knowing that all these children would sin, prevented them from increasing their own damnation. Conclusion: Maybe a little better.
4. Comparable to #3 above, (but) if one instead holds to the view (which is commonly held today) that humans are not damnable unless willfully consenting to their own sin, and if one also considers the biblical teaching, stated above, that death is of little consequence for those who are saved, then God not only preserves these children from increased damnation but even saves all who are not yet capable of willfully separating themselves from His love. Conclusion: Preferred interpretation(?)

I fully expect, and so will now entertain, your responses:
User avatar #96 to #86 - coolcalx (04/08/2014) [-]
some of your points are incorrect.

>1) Wooden boats cannot be made that large
yes they can. Check out the ships used by Zheng He. they were even bigger.

>2) People do not live to be 950
they were using a Lunar calendar, not a Solar one.

>3) There would be a massive genetic bottleneck about 4000 years ago with incest going wild. There is no evidence for this at all
1. by dating back 4,000 years, you're using the same logic as young-Earth creationists, which is beyond illogical.
2. There were multiple genetic bottleneck events, just not to the degree involved with every animal going extinct. so yes, you're correct here, I just wanted to point out your faulty logic in the first part.

>7) There is not a scrap of geological evidence or otherwise that this event ever occurred.
that depends on what you think happened. there WAS a massive flood event near the Mesopotamian region, and it was recorded by many civilizations, as evidenced in the presence of the great flood story in many different religions from the region, and geological evidence of this flood event does exist.

it did not cover the entire world, obviously, but this flood was massive, and as far as the people who lived in the region, seemed to cover everything in existence.

You have to realize the historical context behind early religious documents. most of the stories in the Old Testament are meant to explain physical occurrences, and shouldn't be taken literally. The story of Noah's Ark is one of these stories: it was an explanation for a giant geological event, which was then used to teach a moral lesson.
User avatar #145 - mrjweezy (04/08/2014) [-]
imagine all of the swaggots having babies.
thats pretty much what his solution was.
User avatar #121 - cumbersome (04/08/2014) [-]
omg but that was god's will you guize
User avatar #116 - vortexrain (04/08/2014) [-]
But he's God, and that makes it okay. Duh!
#99 - wajaa (04/08/2014) [-]
Noah was a pretty messed up movie, in a good way

especially with Ham trying to get in dat ass and Noah being Captain Insano
#4 - atrocitustheking (04/07/2014) [+] (1 reply)
I... hadn't actually thought of that.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)