seriously though. .. as a gay hairdresser.... Leviticus really hates me... -.- seriously though as a gay hairdresser Leviticus really hates me -
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (95)
[ 95 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #6 - actinglead
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
as a gay hairdresser.... Leviticus really hates me... -.-
User avatar #7 to #6 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
who cut's hair dressers hair?
#79 to #7 - hylebus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Russell's paradox
User avatar #8 to #6 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
if you don't like someone who your giving a hair cut, do you cut their hair badly?
#58 to #6 - anon id: fe335d37
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Faggot.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Tis old testament.
User avatar #10 to #9 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #11 to #10 - Vandeekree
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
i will look these over to make sure i understand but from reading it once it looks like there is a lot of misunderstanding in these quoted verses. Such as when Jesus says none of the law will pass away but only after founding the "second covenant ."

"...I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers." (Heb 8:8-9)

The old testament is about bondage and the new testament is more focused on freedom.
The Old Testament was enacted with a curse saying, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Galatians 3:10) But the New Testament was enacted with a promise, "For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise." (Galatians 3:18)
The new testament, when looking at the bible as a whole, is in fact not only an extension but a rewriting of much of the old testament.

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose." (Galatians 2:21)
"He abolishes the first in order to establish the second." (Heb 10:9)

The law still stands as an example of what is right, but not what must be followed. Salvation no longer comes from actions, but from intent.
"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4)

This needs a lot more explanation but there is limited room here so i invite you to study on your own and see why this is true.
#41 to #11 - fedexman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #12 to #11 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I looked at it my own and I'm sure it meant that you should follow it because Jesus said he has not come to abolish the law but fulfil it and every sentence and letter in the old testament is legit. I'm an atheist btw
User avatar #13 to #12 - Vandeekree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Yes, i do not contend that. The law still stands, what has changed is how important it is and how it affects a modern Christian as opposed to an ancient follower of the Jewish faith.
The law still tells what is right and what should be done, but no longer must you follow it to get into heaven, you must simply love and believe in Jesus and when you love God you will try to do what is right.
You used to have to follow that law and you were saved by YOUR righteousness and judged by your deeds and the law dictated what deeds you were to do to earn heaven. But in the new testament Jesus came and died for our sins allowing us to be saved by believing in him, we are saved through God's righteousness sense we will all fall short.
This is where the tricky part comes in, see, if you believe in God and Jesus and love them then you will try to do what is right and follow the law because it is right even though you already will be allowed into heaven, but you don't have too anymore. As opposed to the old testament rules where there was no Jesus and so you had to be taken up by faith and deeds i. e. saved by the things they did rather than the modern christian who is saved by the things God did for us.
To put it as simply as possible:
Old Testament = follow the laws to be saved
New Testament = believe that Jesus died for you to be saved
#14 to #13 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
well it says in Revelations that if you don't love Jesus more than your family, your ******. Also if you are gay or atheist among other things. what it says in the old testament isn't right at all, it says to beat your slaves along with the concepts of religion.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Just as the bible mentions divorce many times but does not condone it in the least, these rules were set in place because slavery was a fact of like, like divorce, and so to ignore it was to act like it didn't happen, so laws were set down to protect slaves and limit slavery and regulate it.
Secondly, slavery was not like modern day slavery or that of the American colonies. Slavery was never allowed to be forced on a person although parents could have their children go into slavery but the idea was more like a job than being forced into it. Your family was paid for your work and you were given rights, you could be punished, but never killed and the majority of these slavery pacts were initiated by the slave in order to escape poverty.
And while it seems logical that abuse did occur it was strictly forbidden by the old testament and slaves were treated as and given the same rights as a normal citizens, they were simply under contract and couldn't stop working till the contract expired or they were let go. To kill a slave was to be put to death yourself. If you permanently harmed a slave he would be let go immediately (such as scars or knocking out a tooth).
So when you quote that verse you are misquoting it. It's not saying that the master could beat his slave, it is limiting the mistreatment of the slave for his or her protection.
User avatar #16 to #15 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
********, it says you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within two days
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
That is out of context again. You can beat your slave but not to death. That is, you can punish him with corporal punishment but if he dies from it then you will be put to death but if you beat him and he only dies 2 days later then you are safe because if it took that long it is not likely your beating is what killed him. It is to protect the owner, giving him the right to punish and enforce rules on the slave but protecting the slave from being punished to death.
It's not exactly easy to beat someone so hard they survive for two days and then suddenly die on the third. It is not condoning the beating of slave, just limiting how harsh the harshest punishment can be. Do not just assume that this is saying you should beat your slave as a regular punishment nor that you should consider beating to be anything more than a last resort, it protects from the owner becoming angry and hitting his slave.
User avatar #19 to #17 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
if it said "don't beat your slave" it would protect the slave damn it!
User avatar #38 to #19 - sniperfumbles
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
You can't really threaten them with termination of contract...
User avatar #18 to #17 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
this is just ridiculous, it's protecting the slave owner? wtf is it protecting the slave owner from? I can't believe you are suggesting that it is necessary and good to beat your slaves
User avatar #20 to #18 - Vandeekree
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I'm saying that a slave owner just like an employer needs to have some form of punishment or else they have no control and the workers will not work.
And when you will be put to death if one of your workers dies from your mistreatment then you have to be able to not come under fire if that slave dies later from what could have been your beating. i.e. if they died from a sickness a week later and the family of the slave tried to blame it on your beating.
And there is nothing wrong with punishing someone who works for you. What else would you do? Ground them from working? That hurts you too. Stop feeding them? hat seems a bad idea if you want them to work well later. So pain is the only threat you really have. But that comes with the risk of hurting a slave and so this law is there to keep you from doing permanent damage. It makes the owner responsible.
User avatar #21 to #20 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
we just shouldn't have slaves then, it is really bad
User avatar #22 to #21 - Vandeekree
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
A slave back then was little more than an employee under contract. All the same rights as a modern worker only it was more personal relationship with your boss. The word slave is not the same thing as the modern usage like referring to colonial America or African diamonds.
#30 to #22 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
A CIVIL DISCUSSION???
A CIVIL DISCUSSION???
#92 to #30 - fedexman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I actually enjoyed reading this thread...intelligence on fj
I actually enjoyed reading this thread...intelligence on fj
#24 to #22 - hangingtree
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
This whole thread.
User avatar #25 to #24 - Vandeekree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I thought it was a rather civil discussion actually....
#26 to #25 - hangingtree
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Oh it was. Just opinions. Opinions and funnyjunk don't mix.
Oh it was. Just opinions. Opinions and funnyjunk don't mix.
User avatar #27 to #26 - Vandeekree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I would disagree, so long as you are polite you get some really interesting conversations. That's been my experience.
User avatar #31 to #27 - phuckinthingsucks
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
You made a very intelligent rational argument up there. good stuff man, good stuff
User avatar #32 to #31 - Vandeekree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
A'thank you. I really enjoy coming on funnyjunk and pretending I'm smart.
User avatar #33 to #32 - phuckinthingsucks
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Seems a little more then just pretending, pretty based in fact and logic, so again good show!
#77 to #33 - scarsofinfinity
+1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
User avatar #87 to #22 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I missed the part were I get beaten at work, if it is good why did it say only get slaves from outside of Israel
User avatar #88 to #87 - Vandeekree
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Can you show me the verse it says that please?
#23 to #10 - thetjester
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
What most people don't know is that the first five books of the bible (Genesis,exodus, Leviticus, numbers, Deuteronomy) are also called the Torah, most of the laws from those books aren't followed by modern day Christians because it was meant for the chosen people of god (Israel and/or the Jews) and even then only some of the jews nowaday follow those laws to the book. Also christianity as we know it wasn't a religion until after Jesus died and went back to heaven, and his disciples went around and spread his word around the known world.
#69 - xrainbowdashx
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Am I the only one here that doesn't have an opinion on gay marriage?
#72 to #69 - anaphase
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Eh, I'll just think the opposite of whatever Tony Abbot thinks
User avatar #73 to #72 - xrainbowdashx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
after seeing him in budgies, id have to agree
User avatar #94 to #69 - mickeymichleson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/14/2013) [-]
No.

...says the gay man who thinks that marriage is a christian thing and christians hate us so **** marriage i'd rather just buy a ring and devote myself instead...
User avatar #95 to #69 - thewisedane
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/30/2013) [-]
Na. You can get married in our churches, so it isn't all that bad. People even stopped bickering about it.

In my opinion, anyone is free to do anything, as long as they only affect their own life. If you affect others directly by your actions, you must reconsider them.

Have no friends and family and perform suicide? Good trip!
#80 to #69 - EdwardNigma
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to be married but I don't care. Just like I don't care about race, religion or anything, I just don't give a ****. If someone is kind, they're nice, if they are complete assholes, **** them.

I have a good feeling my indifference will one day get me called racist.
#82 to #80 - xrainbowdashx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
i feel i am in the same boat as you.   
   
**** this planet
i feel i am in the same boat as you.

**** this planet
#40 - ettripod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
what are the versus that it says u cant get a hair cut
#43 to #40 - anon id: d4231c44
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
*verses

Leviticus: 19:27
#44 to #43 - ettripod
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I was going to thank you but then you corrected me, so **** you.
User avatar #78 to #44 - tylosaurus
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, because **** learning. There's nothing wrong in being corrected, really. Whether it's a spelling mistake or not. I thank those persistent grammar nazis today. Why, you might ask? Because my english is more advanced than many of my classmate's. Then again, it's not that hard to have more advanced english than them.
User avatar #93 to #78 - danrmanalt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/22/2013) [-]
ya, fuk lerning
User avatar #35 - corundum
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Can't have sex with a man as you would with a woman.

Well.... "I'd NEVER have sex with a woman."

Problem solved.
User avatar #1 - steedawwg **User deleted account**
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
So... many... colours... why?!
#2 to #1 - anon id: 1a794638
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Because he's gay and is making a point out of the Leviticus entries that we are choosing to ignore versus those we apparently heed to.
User avatar #4 to #2 - steedawwg **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Wait a minute, how the **** is your name worthlessanon?
User avatar #28 to #4 - ohemgeezus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
His name shows as "anonymous pussy" to me
User avatar #5 to #4 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
because magical fairy princess changed it
User avatar #3 to #2 - steedawwg **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Well ****. I really need a haircut as well.
User avatar #56 to #1 - funnyfuuuuuu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Because you've got a gay
User avatar #62 - whipptron
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Yeah man. Why can't I sell my daughter into slavery? (Exodus 21:7)

....seriously... why not?
#60 - bazda
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
The laws in Leviticus also only applied to priests from the tribe of Levi, but I guess we're skipping context.
#64 to #60 - anon id: d4231c44
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
When only 9 states in the united states allow gay people to get married you should realize that more than a few people are ignoring context.
#61 to #60 - caau
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
That is the only place in the bible that says homosexuality is prohibited, thank you! You just completely ruined every single argument for prohibition :D
#63 to #61 - bazda
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I suggest you reread the Bible.
#65 to #63 - caau
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Then please enlighten me, where is it stated otherwise?
User avatar #66 to #65 - Kamesakke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
LOOK GUISE! :D A RELIGIOUS DEBATE ON THE INTERNET! LET'S SIT AND WATCH! I'M SURE SOMEONE WILL BE RIGHT AND THE OTHER WILL AGREE TO ADMIT HE'S WRONG!
#68 to #66 - caau
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Most likely we wont :) but up until now we haven't started to just dis each other :P when that happens(if it does) I, for one, am just going to ignore it at leave the discussion
User avatar #84 to #65 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
when Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the rules but to fulfil them and every word is sacred and must be followed
#74 to #65 - caau
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#71 to #65 - bazda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.
You can also look at how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their wickedness, which included homosexuality. (Genesis 19)
#76 to #71 - caau
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I looked up my old source, turns out it states that Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin and then proceeded to the usual arguments of Levictus, including my mistaken fact. Guess i should check my sources better
#75 to #71 - caau
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Just for the sake of chronology i deleted my coment #74 and posting it here:

Yup you are right :) Sorry i got my facts wrong.
Kamesakke is right too though, we still do not agree.
User avatar #29 - mexicandudeinsd
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
gggggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
User avatar #37 - badsamaritan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
but that is the old testament, and the old law.
Christians believe int the new testament and the new law
User avatar #47 to #37 - churrundo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
the ones that bash gays quote leviticus
User avatar #48 to #47 - badsamaritan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
You mean WBBC
Don't group us with the christian-muslims
#85 to #48 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
what?! they burnt the Quran at a muslim funeral
what?! they burnt the Quran at a muslim funeral
User avatar #89 to #85 - badsamaritan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I mean like there ideology.
User avatar #90 to #89 - thebritishguy [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
most Muslims are ok just like Christians but it is the concepts and the bible that I don't like rather than the people
#53 to #37 - anon id: f28bfcdc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Since you can amend everyone now must be naked on the sabbath.
[ 95 comments ]
Leave a comment