Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#69 - reapsparrow (11/30/2012) [-]
my only answer
#71 to #69 - kennyroks (11/30/2012) [-]
i ******* love full metal alchemist
#54 - amandatoddd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#49 - boomdady (11/30/2012) [-]
You've never studied the bible, have you OP?
You've never studied the bible, have you OP?
User avatar #51 to #49 - noblexfenrir (11/30/2012) [-]
I have to agree, the christian god would never say this. He would be much more occupied with telling people to take slaves and take virgins.
User avatar #68 to #51 - ivoryhammer (11/30/2012) [-]
Yeah God is kind of an asshole in the bible, he tells people to kill eachother, then calls Satan evil, what the hell God?
User avatar #52 to #51 - boomdady (11/30/2012) [-]
User avatar #55 to #52 - noblexfenrir (11/30/2012) [-]
Yahweh is a pretty big perv.
User avatar #103 to #55 - liftplus (11/30/2012) [-]
i thumbed all your comments becuase you were stating your valid opinion and i dont like it when butthurt christians thumb people down for stating their opinions
User avatar #46 - TheOneKing (11/30/2012) [-]
Um actually he made quite a few rules about who it is not only OK but your moral duty to kill, gays included. And really if he's eternal and unchanging then why the **** would he change his rules? I mean clearly he'd foresee this **** coming somewhere down the line right if he's supposed to be all knowing and all powerful. It's one thing for humanity to change it's moral outlooks but it's another for a being that is supposed to be infinitely wise, eternal and all powerful. Or am I somehow missing the concept of what it means to be a god?
#96 to #46 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
Seeing as humans only have a folk understanding of perfection none of us can say with any certainty that a perfect being can't change it's mind. If the perfect being was all powerful and wasn't able to change what it meant to be perfect then the all powerful being would in fact NOT be all powerful. Maybe people shouldn't follow "someone" that tells them that it's ok to kill random people because "someone" made them that way, "Damn, I messed that last one up guys. Can you go ahead and kill it?" Does a perfect being mess up? If not then how can being gay, presumably the way God made you, be bad?
User avatar #239 to #96 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
That's kind of the point of what I was getting at. If they're supposed to be perfect then nothing about them should change, ever. If it has to change then it's not perfect.
#97 to #96 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
Forgot to log in, there ought to be a way to claim posts that you make when not logged in. IP verification or something.
#45 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
lol its funny because he's not real :)
#42 - verticalvampire (11/30/2012) [-]
and so the internet was born
and so the internet was born
User avatar #36 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
It's one thing for someone to post atheistic content. Freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion, I get it. But this person is just trying to piss off those of us with faith. It's not even about truth or logic for them, it's just about getting a rise out of us. **** off OP.
User avatar #163 to #36 - theexo (11/30/2012) [-]
but its not. i'm christian and i laughed.
User avatar #48 to #36 - noblexfenrir (11/30/2012) [-]
First of all, this was funny. You didn't think so? Too bad I did, moving on.

This points this comic makes are also valid, so I hardly see why it's antagonistic if it's pointing out something that actually happens.
User avatar #167 to #48 - fenrir (11/30/2012) [-]
Get out you petty knockoff. There can only be one.
User avatar #165 to #48 - theexo (11/30/2012) [-]
sup fenrir. and yeah this dude needs to learn to laugh more
User avatar #66 to #48 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
They're not valid though. The only valid point being made by it is that we should love each other and not judge. That's one good thing it's saying. But like I said in the comment below this one, the comic is trying to say that God has changed His tune since Bible times, and aside from the switch made between the Old and New Testaments, He still gives us all the same commandments and **** . The New Testament still applies. I'm fine with comics that make fun of our faith, but this one is trying to pass itself off as serious (besides the last panel of course). It's trying to make actual claims about Christianity that aren't true. And that's what upsets me.
User avatar #238 to #66 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
So he still gives the same commands to kill witches, non-believers, unruly children, homosexuals, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night and married women who were raped?
User avatar #240 to #238 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Cite those commandments. I'll respond to them in their respective contexts.
User avatar #244 to #240 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 20:10, Romans 1:24-32, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 and Deuteronomy 22:20-2. I could add more but I delight in seeing you defend these.
User avatar #246 to #244 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Okay well aside from Romans, all of those verses are from the Old Testament, and Jesus' teachings supersede them. So moving on to Romans 1:24-32:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Where in those verses does it say anything about us killing anyone?

User avatar #247 to #246 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
"Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death," And I knew you wouldn't defend the rest of them cause you can't. Especially considering that Jesus said he didn't come to override the old teachings.
User avatar #250 to #247 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
He said He came to fulfill them, because He knows we can't. That was the point of His coming, to obey the laws that we would fail to abide by.

And that line about deserving death doesn't say we are the ones to deal the death. That's God's job. He is the judge, not us. And by the way, a lot of the time when the Bible talks about death, especially in this context, it's not talking about physical death of the body. it's talking about death of the spirit, in which the spirit goes to hell instead of heaven. So no, you have no argument there.
User avatar #251 to #250 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
******** where does it say death of the spirit? Spoiler! No where. And yes, he came to fulfill them, not supersede them. I know that you must be having issues defending your position but you have yet to refute what any that I listed, only that you cast them aside as if they somehow don't count and then the one you attempted to refute you failed miserably at by claiming it's talking about death of the spirit when it says nothing of the sort.
User avatar #254 to #251 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
I did refute what you said, because nowhere in the new Testament does it say that God wants us to kill sinners. It says He will deal with them as He sees fit. Fine, let's say the "death of the spirit" thing is just my personal speculation. if that will help simplify my argument, we'll go with that. My point still stands that God is the one to kill the sinners, not us. And you cannot defend against that statement, because as I said, there is nothing in the New Testament that says otherwise. The only exceptions are specific incidences when God commanded certain individuals to kill people, but that doesn't apply to all people, and I'm pretty sure most if not all of those incidences occurred in the Old Testament.

And also, when I used the word "supersede," I was referring to Jesus' teachings being more important than the teachings of the Old Testament, not saying that He was cancelling them out completely. The rules are still there, but thanks to Jesus fulfilling them for us, we aren't being judged for violating them.
User avatar #255 to #254 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
So ******* what? You yourself said that your god gives the same commandments. And do you really need to repeat your rules in the sequel? Also since Jesus never said outright that "You know, all these old rules about killing these people, and slavery and all this other stuff? Yeah, no longer applies." Since he doesn't say that these no longer apply, then I find it hilarious you think you refuted them because they still stand that your god commands you to kill these people.
User avatar #258 to #255 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Again, I'm not saying they no longer apply. Hell, Jesus outright stated explicitly that they still apply. But He also said other things besides that. I refer you to Matthew 5:21-22:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Not only does Jesus reiterate that killing is sinful, but even if you're pissed off at someone, that's just as sinful.
User avatar #260 to #258 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Also to add to you're quoting of Jesus saying that "Anyone who says "You fool" will be in danger of hellfire" How hilarious are the statements made by the same guy at Matthew 23:17-19, Luke 11:40 and Luke 24:25 where he himself calls people fools.
User avatar #265 to #260 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
The reason we can't call each other fools is because we are all fools. But Jesus is not a fool, and we are fools compared to Him. So He's being accurate when He says it, which makes it not sinful.
User avatar #266 to #265 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
He said anyone. That means anyone. Anyone who does it. He was specific. I don't know if you're making this **** up as you go along or are just this stupid. I am betting on the former but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the latter.
User avatar #268 to #266 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
No. Jesus can do whatever the hell He wants because He is perfect. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to catch up on your other comments from several minutes ago that I haven't gotten to yet.
User avatar #271 to #268 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Isn't he supposed to be a role model? Then why the **** is he excused from his own rules? This is what I was talking about in wondering if you're just making this **** up or are just insanely stupid.
User avatar #275 to #271 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
It's not that He is excused from the rules, it's that by calling people fools He isn't breaking any rules, because the point of the no-name-calling rule was that it was hypocritical of us. But since He's no a fool, it doesn't make Him a hypocrite for calling others fools.
User avatar #291 to #275 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Well what you believe contradicts what is said in your own holy book
User avatar #294 to #291 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Not if you understand it.
User avatar #288 to #275 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
I agree, unfortunately for you the reason I find them funny is that I expected more than what you presented. Maybe I've gotten into this type of conversation before and so having seen just about every argument that people have tried to pull to defend their beliefs I was almost hoping for a challenge.
User avatar #290 to #288 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
My goal in this discussion is not to defend my faith, as I have no need to. My goal is to simply educate you on what I believe.
User avatar #282 to #275 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Oh so instead of arguing the point, you play with semantics? And here I thought you had a legitimate argument.
User avatar #286 to #282 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
You never thought I had a legitimate argument. This whole thread you've been saying how "hilarious" you think my views are. And yes, I'm exploring more than one interpretation, because I don't claim to have all the answers and I don't think it's wrong for me to use some research in my debates.
User avatar #276 to #275 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Yes it does because he said that anyone who calls someone a fool will be in danger of hellfire. You're adding qualifiers and exceptions to this when they were never there and it is hilarious that you're putting words into your own god's mouth.
User avatar #280 to #276 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Okay, fair enough. I found another interpretation. Here ya go:

http://www.tektonics. org/lp/namecallfool.html
User avatar #259 to #258 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
No **** it's sinful that's why it's hilarious that the same book that says killing is wrong demands the slaughter of thousands. How is this not funny to you?
User avatar #263 to #259 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
It doesn't command us to slaughter thousands. It commanded specific individuals to slaughter thousands. God gave them the green light, but the rest of us still aren't allowed.
User avatar #264 to #263 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Prove it. Show where it says only certain people can kill these people and no one else can.
User avatar #267 to #264 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
You already showed me that you're familiar with the passages that talk about guys like Samson being told by God to kill Pharisees and such. Yet in Exodus 20:13 God very clearly says "You shall not murder." He doesn't say "You shall not murder except if the person is a sinner." He says no killing anyone, which means that people like Samson were chosen exceptions.
User avatar #269 to #267 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Oh please, do I really need to bring up those other passages you refused to try and refute where this god of yours demands that you kill unruly children, women not virgins on their wedding night, married women who were raped, homosexuals and infidels?
User avatar #272 to #269 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Those commandments are in the Old Testament. Jesus said no killing. His word overrules those laws. Plain and simple.
User avatar #274 to #272 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
But he never said that the rules made in the old testament are null and void ever. I dare you to prove me wrong.
User avatar #47 to #36 - TheOneKing (11/30/2012) [-]
How the **** is this going to piss off those of you with faith? Are you sympathizing with the fundamentalist twats who use religion as an excuse for their bigotry? If not then I don't see how you're not agreeing with this even if you do have some faith because if anything it is pointing out how disappointed your god must be assuming he really exists. Unless of course he does really endorse the slaughter of infidels, homosexuals, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unruly children, witches, etc. which it DOES say in that book of fables many put their stock in.
User avatar #64 to #47 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
It's trying to make our God seem more liberal-minded. Yes, He is disappointed in us, but some of those things just aren't accurate. Just because He made some people gay doesn't mean He wants them to give in to their gay urges. He wants them to challenge it. And while the Old Testament is kind of no longer applicable (some of it is, some of it isn't), the New Testament applies just as much today as it ever did. Just because it's old doesn't mean we should stop using it.
User avatar #237 to #64 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Why the **** would he do that? That's like sticking a heroine addict in a room full of syringes and expecting them not to shoot themselves up. He already knows if they'll fail or not so why bother?
User avatar #241 to #237 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
It's not about whether He knows that we'll succeed or fail. He's giving us challenges because He wants us to overcome those challenges.
User avatar #245 to #241 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
But he knows if they will fail or pass. What is the point? The only logical answer is that he is a complete asshole (assuming he exists). My analogy still stands because if you know someone will fail then there is no point in challenging them with it. To put it in another way, that's like a college professor making a test so that only those he likes will pass and those he doesn't will fail. There's no point in it other than to have an excuse to ridicule the failures and praise the winners. Again, it's the equivalent of dangling a syringe of heroine in front of a heroine addict. You know that they'll take it and when they do you spit in their face, kick them and call them scum. You do the same to a person who has a fear of needles and then set up a parade in honor of them not shooting up. That's ******** and there was no point to it.
User avatar #248 to #245 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Dude, it's not for God's benefit. You're right, He does already know what we'll decide. But He doesn't take away our ability to decide it. We can still succeed. He just makes it harder for some of us than others. That's how God works. He loves us all equally but He challenges us according to our ability. If He gives a person gay urges it's because He knows that they're strong enough to resist those urges. I understand why you say that makes Him an asshole, but seriously, He's giving us eternal life in paradise. That doesn't seem like an asshole move to me.
User avatar #249 to #248 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Really? Then why do people fail these tests? It doesn't matter if they CAN, it's whether or not they WILL. And since he KNOWS if they'll fail or succeed then why bother? You don't seem to be getting the point. There is no point in testing anything if you already know the results other than to stroke your ego.
User avatar #252 to #249 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
To improve us. We become stronger in spirit by taking on these challenges. But if we do nothing, and God just says to Himself "Well, I know they would have done the right thing, so it's all good," then we haven't become any wiser or stronger. All we are then is better in theory.
User avatar #253 to #252 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Again you don't get the point. Why bother testing if it's going to fail and you know it will fail? You know it won't work. I know that trying to look at things with a different perspective is hard but if you try it you might realize that what you're saying are the excuses of someone who doesn't question the fairy tales their parents spoon fed them and really doesn't want to think critically. If you truly tried pondering what it means to be all knowing and all powerful you might realize that this testing your god does as you claim is pointless.
User avatar #256 to #253 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
When we ask why God tests us, or allows us to be tested, we are admitting that testing does indeed come from Him, as clearly taught in Scripture. Although we are forbidden to test Him (Deuteronomy 6:16; Matthew 4:7), when God tests His children, He does a valuable thing. David sought God’s testing, asking Him to examine his heart and mind and see that they were true to Him (Psalm 26:2; 139:23). In both the Old and New Testaments, the words translated “test” mean to prove by trial. Therefore, when God tests His children, the purpose is to prove that our faith is real. Not that God needs to prove it to Himself since He knows all things; rather, He is proving to us that our faith is real, that we are truly His children, and that no trial or test will overcome that faith.

- http://www.gotquestions . org/why-does-God-test-us.html
User avatar #257 to #256 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Your logic, or rather the logic of who ever you copied is flawed miserably. That's like saying that "When we ask why Batman fights for our safety, we are admitting that our safety is because of him." It's a presupposed assertion and anyone who has no legitimate arguments can do it. Also how are you sure that it's your god who does it and not some other person's deity? It's a logical fallacy brought about from either your ignorance or your inability to conjure up a good argument.
User avatar #261 to #257 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Because we don't believe other deities exist. That's actually a really stupid question to ask a person of faith. If you know I only believe in one God, then how could I attribute divine works to another?
User avatar #262 to #261 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
So just because you don't believe in them instantly makes them non-existent? Well then what about the countless others who don't think your god is real?
User avatar #270 to #262 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
We believe they are wrong and we are right. Now I feel like I'm explaining the general concept of religion to a child.
User avatar #273 to #270 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Again, you're not getting the point. They believe you are wrong and they are right. So how exactly does that prove your point other than you have your own bias and they have theirs. You and the Hindus can't both be right since you believe in different gods so how can you be sure who is right or wrong? That's right, you can't. And that's why your logic fails.
User avatar #277 to #273 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Logic? Logic?

Oh, TheOneKing, honey...the thing you label as "logic" isn't the same as what the actual definition of logic is. See, logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." But those principles of validity are subjective. Those of us who put our faith in a deity have our own system of logic, and you have yours. Our logic is simple: We believe in a deity and worship Him without question, because we know our faith will carry us into heaven. You, on the other hand, have a logic system so complex I'm surprised you don't kill yourselves out of the sheer overwhelming realization that, according to your beliefs, your existence amounts to nothing in this universe. Our logic is flawless sir. Yours is terrifying.
User avatar #279 to #277 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
I also find it funny how you tell me what my beliefs are when I never stated any of them other than my belief that you're either incredibly stupid or making this **** up as you go.
User avatar #281 to #279 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
I will admit that I'm shooting from the hip right now, but I'm not giving you any information that I don't believe myself.
User avatar #284 to #281 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Which is exactly why you've provided me with so much mirth that I couldn't care less if you were trolling or not. You who can't refute my points other than to play semantics or add qualifiers/exceptions to rules where none exist.
User avatar #287 to #284 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
I reiterate: I wouldn't be stating them if I didn't believe they were there.
User avatar #278 to #277 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
Um, so, how is what I labeled as your logic not so when you yourself called it your logic? Does the phrase "internally inconsistent" mean anything to you? Cause I am not sure you realize this but you kind of shot yourself in the foot with your own statement.
User avatar #283 to #278 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
I wasn't saying it wasn't logic, I was saying it's not our logic. My point was that you think your logic is the only kind there is, and it's not.
User avatar #292 to #283 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
There's no good reason to believe in something that cannot be proven to be evidently true. If it's to make you happy then why choose belief in a god when there are other ways of doing so? I don't know if a god exists or not but I reserve the right to be skeptical until evidence shows that one does. When the evidence comes up then I'll change my mind. I might not worship them but I prefer to believe in things that are evidently to be at least mostly true.
User avatar #293 to #292 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Evidence existed at one point. That's good enough for me.
User avatar #285 to #283 - TheOneKing (12/01/2012) [-]
So you're telling me what I think now? Oh how rich is this? You must not have taken a course in debate or looked into logical fallacies before.
User avatar #289 to #285 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
No I just have a lot of experience with discussions such as this one, and I know that my opponents wiill inevitably fall back on what they call "logic" and "reasoning" and it always involves earthly evidence or small-mindedness limited only to what the human brain can conceive of, and the fact of the matter is there is much more to the universe than what the human brain can understand, which is why the endless attempts of humans to wrap their minds around big questions like meaning and origin and God will always be futile. You cannot understand everything, and neither can we. But at least we have the humility to admit that and be content with just living in blissful ignorance of meaning.
User avatar #175 to #64 - graydiggy (11/30/2012) [-]
" Just because He made some people gay doesn't mean He wants them to give in to their gay urges. He wants them to challenge it."

What the **** . That is the biggest load of **** I have ever heard. Free will mother ****** . This is why I am an Atheist. Bigoted ********* like you. I am proud to not believe in your **** stories and myths. I am glad that I am not a judgmental, bigot.

I support people with religion. Some people need to believe that there is a higher being watching over them, just to make it through the day. But people like you, are a cancer. I don't honestly believe half of your type even believe in a god. You just use religion as a justification for being a cunt.
User avatar #82 to #64 - blashyrkh (11/30/2012) [-]
" Just because He made some people gay doesn't mean He wants them to give in to their gay urges. He wants them to challenge it."

That is the single most ignorant thing I've ever heard a human say.

I'm not a religious person myself, however I don't identify as atheist, because I believe in the POSSIBILITY of a god.

But still, that statement makes you sound like a bigoted ******* .
User avatar #242 to #82 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
#77 to #64 - bummerdrummer (11/30/2012) [-]
wow for a mortal you sure know a lot about what god wants, what god is thinking. talks to you a lot i bet
User avatar #243 to #77 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
I know what I've been taught and what I've read. I don't have all the answers, no one does. But I know enough to form an interpretation. God gives us the exact amount of information we need to exist in this world. No more, no less.
#295 to #243 - bummerdrummer (12/01/2012) [-]
well good luck with that.
User avatar #296 to #295 - jokeface (12/01/2012) [-]
Thank you.
User avatar #43 to #36 - verticalvampire (11/30/2012) [-]
You have to be the dumbest cunt to walk this earth since they worshiped cats.... well we kinda do. the process of a meme was kinda born with lolcatz but still... don't question us the bible says so
User avatar #44 to #43 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
Don't question whom?
#33 - Myfoot (11/30/2012) [-]
I must find this planet, the people here are assholes.
#31 - daddycool (11/30/2012) [-]
Yeah! Stop hating on rapists! God made them that way, why would He not want them to rape!? And pedophiles, too![/sarcasm]

That's a terrible, horrible argument.
User avatar #41 to #31 - nucularwar (11/30/2012) [-]
yeah, except for the whole consent part
User avatar #34 to #31 - satakas (11/30/2012) [-]
not being sarcastic: how could we compare gays with rapists and pedophiles?

have you ever heard of a logical fallacy, called "slippery slope"?
#35 to #34 - daddycool (11/30/2012) [-]
The comparison is simple.

1. They're all based upon sexuality.

2. They're all made by God.

Easy peasy. No slippery slope here, just understanding the common denominators.
User avatar #299 to #35 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
not sure, if serious or sarcastic
#161 to #35 - candidvres **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #37 to #35 - trollwoopnazi (11/30/2012) [-]
I think the idea is that people are born neutral, and they can then go on to choose to commit crime, where as sexuality isn't a choice. Note, I am an agnostic, i'm just trying to understand.
User avatar #300 to #37 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
you think so? really?

OK! well, i think that red sucks and blue is way better!

#39 to #37 - daddycool (11/30/2012) [-]
I'm not suggesting that sexuality is a choice. I can accept the idea that sexuality is innate to a person and they simply have desires with no choice in the matter.

The problem comes when you ACT upon your desires. That is a choice. You see, despite what people like to say, sexual desire is not a "need" it's a "desire." You want to have sex, you don't need it.

Just as society expects pedophiles and rapists to keep it to themselves, perhaps the same should be expected of other sexualities.
User avatar #301 to #39 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
although true, but a little fallacy: there's no difference, what "people like to say". i like to say, that red sucks totally. my neighbor likes to say, that blue is disgusting. well...wait a moment, i'll go and burn my neighbor until this comment uploads...
#99 to #39 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
You're right it's about ACTING upon your desires. And two adult men/women having sex in private has absolutely no relation to an adult man/women acting out there desire on a child that doesn't understand what's going on. You really don't understand math if those are what you call the "common denominators". With your reasoning, any from of sex would be bad, because they're both based on sexuality and made by God. If you don't think the aspect of consent matters you yourself might as well go rape some kids.
#212 to #99 - daddycool (11/30/2012) [-]
1. I'm not going to go rape some children because I don't find them sexually desirable and because I find the action morally terrifying.

2. Consent has nothing to do with it. Would you like to know why?

Because my argument was not that homosexuality and rape are morally equivalent. My argument is that his argument sucks. That by saying "gays are made that way by God, so God clearly wants them to act out their gay" you're effectively saying "rapists are made that way by God, so God clearly wants them to act out their rape."

I'm not making a moral judgement or argument here. I am preying upon your sense of what is justifiable, but only to go so far as to state that his justification is flawed and unethical.

Now, you would have understood this if you had tried to understand what I meant when I said in my first post "That's a terrible, horrible argument."

For the purposes of this conversation, I don't care about the morality of homosexuality OR rape. Not at all. The purpose of my argument is to shut down HIS argument, because it's backwards and if taken to its logical conclusion(which is what I've done above that you have so many problems with) leads to a horror show.
#221 to #212 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
Except there is a fundamental difference between a homosexual person and a rapist. Rape is an act performed, anybody can be a rapist. Being homosexual has nothing to do with having gay sex. Anybody can have gay sex, in fact there was a straight married man in the news recently because he was a famous gay porn star. If you wanted to compare gay sex and rape you would have slightly better footing, but the OP wasn't talking about rape. You brought rape up and compared it to homosexuality, but like everyone has been saying CONSENT MATTERS HERE. Acting out your "gay" on another gay person who consents to it is completely and utterly distinct from acting out your urge to rape somebody. Whether you brought up the morals of it is irrelevant, because the moral issue does matter. The comic was more a referendum on the hateful language in the bible because society better understands basic humans rights and sexuality today than we did 1000's of years ago.
#225 to #221 - daddycool (11/30/2012) [-]
Ya know, I just realized that I could spend the next 5 hours trying to explain this very simple concept to you, going through the argument process little by little until you finally understand that I wasn't actually comparing rape and homosexuality in the way you describe.

Then I realized, you're just an idiot. And I don't have to justify myself to idiots.
#227 to #225 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
Yeah man that's how you win an argument! Call the other guy an idiot, don't argue any of the points he made, just call him an idiot! You're assumption is that you can substitute rapist for homosexual in that statement and come to the same conclusion. But you can't! The God of the bible supposedly gave us free will, which means God did not make rapists into rapists, as rape is an act. Homosexuality is not a choice you ARE born that way, which would mean that God did make them that way. As an atheist what some fake "God" did literally means nothing to me and it does come down to an argument of which one infringes upon another humans rights.

Your argument could easily have been used by racists. Let's assume that a group of people hate black people. Somebody comes up to them and says, "Stop hating black people! God make them that way, why would he not want them to be black?" The racist group would probably find your post a great response to the not racist person. But it stills has the same pitfalls.
User avatar #302 to #227 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
you're wrong. not that I think, you're wrong, but you made a logical error

if god made homos, as you suggest, he couldn't have announced homosexual act to be a sin. thus, homosexuality has nothing to do with god-stuff (i have to mention, that i don't believe any of that bible-stuff anyways).

but coming back to the beginning of that thread....despite of banning homosexuality, i can't find any passage in the bible, that bans pedophilia! So, watch out for your li'l girls, all bible-heads, because here i come and you have NOTHING against me :P
User avatar #115 to #99 - TastyBurger (11/30/2012) [-]
What he's saying is God made pedophiles and rapists that way. They are just as much of a sexuality as the others. A gay person was made by God to be gay. A rapist is made by God to rape. A pedophile was made by God to be attracted to children. And if they weren't born that way, God still created the reasons for them to become that way. God made someone that would sooner or later molest someone and because of that the molested person went on to have a sexuality problem that made them do the same.

It's kind of like the "act of God" clause that insurance companies like to rely on. When a tornado strikes and destroys your home, it was an "act of God". Technically, everything is God's will. From the hurricane to the drunk driver. If its all a part of his "plan" than everything is God's fault basically.
#213 to #115 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
I understand what he's saying, but there is something morally wrong(fun fact: morals have absolutely no causative relation to religion) with performing a sexual act on an A) non-consenting person B) Someone who we have deemed incapable of giving consent (ie: children/minors). And there is not any evidence that Giving gay people equal and fair treatment is detrimental to society at all. Bottom line, adult consensual gay sex does not harm or infringe upon anyone's rights, rape/pedophilia does.
User avatar #234 to #213 - TastyBurger (12/01/2012) [-]
That's just picking and choosing what sexuality is and isn't okay. Morals are all subjective. It depends on the angle you're looking at it. Morals for Attila the Hun were probably pretty different to ours, but he isn't wrong because morals can't be wrong. It's just your opinion about whether or not something is good. To me, morals are no different than music taste or political choice. They're all an opinion.

Think about the death penalty. It's murdering to show murdering is wrong. But those people are still probably bad enough to deserve death. Or does anyone "deserve" death? Everything in the world is subjective. There is no right answer to anything.
#235 to #234 - audiolife (12/01/2012) [-]
Except that we as a civilized society understand that the most basic aspects of morality exhibited in animals are empathy and fairness. Did Attila the Hun think what he was doing was morally right? Probably not. Most mass murderers didn't concern themselves with the morality of what they were doing. We have agreed, in the UN at least, on what some basic human rights are. We have also agreed that infringing on the rights of others is bad. So it's not picking and choosing what sexuality is and isn't okay randomly or on a basis of what I like. It's about the act of rape fundamentally infringing upon someone else's rights and the fact that neither being homosexual or having consensual homosexual sex infringe do. For the record I don't agree with the death penalty for a couple reasons. One, it costs more money to keep people on death row than to keep them in prison for life. Two, though I would personally want to kill someone who murdered a love one of mine, I do not think that it is up to the government to kill people.
User avatar #236 to #235 - TastyBurger (12/01/2012) [-]
Look, I really don't care. I'm not getting into psychological/philosophical/political/moral debate here because my overall point is that no one is right. Everyone should shut the **** up, because there is no answer for anything. Only "answers" and opinions.
#28 - marlkarxthethird (11/30/2012) [-]
MFW the Bible.
MFW the Bible.
User avatar #27 - satakas (11/30/2012) [-]
no, it wasnt DEFINITELY the first thing he )supposedly) said.

1) I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me, You shall not make for yourself an idol.

and actually he (supposedly) never forbid killings in his name. quite opposite ;) he commanded to kill the whole cities and nations who didn't bow to him. so stop the ******** !
User avatar #29 to #27 - satakas (11/30/2012) [-]
are we talking about the christian god?
User avatar #38 to #29 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
First of all, you should have asked this before posting the first part of your comment. Secondly, your argument is flawed for a couple of reasons.

1. The actual first thing He ever told humans not to do was eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That was the first rule He ever made.

2. When He told people to kill the nonbelievers He was talking to specific individuals. The no-killing rule still applies to the general public.
User avatar #297 to #38 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
how is my argument flawed? you don't even point out any flaws :-s

but answering your points:

1) the first thing god told to any human after days mumbling to himself how good his work was, was "Be fruitful, and multiply". well, there is actually another creation story too in the bible that is quite different of the first one and thus also the first words are different but let it be.
2) don't you ******** me too!
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

i would REALLY love to continue (and i actually did!) but unfortunately there's a limit for FJ comment and these passages are quite long. but if you want, i can make a continuous post about all mass murder commands. do you?

User avatar #303 to #297 - jokeface (12/15/2012) [-]
Okay, fair enough. You don't have to give any more examples. But consider the following:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 states:

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead the out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more."

What this means is that the laws given in the Old Testament were not permanent. They were always going to be changed. And Jesus said Himself in Matthew 5:17 that He came to fulfill the old law because man couldn't. When He died on the cross, the laws of the Old Testament died with Him, ushering in the new law.

For further reference, here is my source:

User avatar #309 to #303 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Matthew 5:17
User avatar #310 to #309 - jokeface (12/15/2012) [-]
That doesn't counter my argument. I said He came to fulfill them.
User avatar #50 to #38 - noblexfenrir (11/30/2012) [-]
Except in the cases of unruly children, witches, really any pagan group, gays, etc. but I mean comeon what all-powerful deity wouldn't make those types of people and then demand their slaughter?
User avatar #298 to #50 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
oh, silly you! GOD didn't make them! god made everyone the same and equal in every way. it was that damn devil, who ruined all the fun ;)
User avatar #305 to #298 - noblexfenrir (12/15/2012) [-]
and my apologies if this sounds like I took you serious....I thought you were jokeface responding......
User avatar #306 to #305 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
you just cant always presume a joker-face from everybody. can you? especially in those argues?
User avatar #308 to #306 - jokeface (12/15/2012) [-]
User avatar #304 to #298 - noblexfenrir (12/15/2012) [-]
Well gosh darnit I think I've been had! But wait how does god not make them if he is omniscient and omnipotent thus making essentially anything that happens his own doing?
User avatar #307 to #304 - satakas (12/15/2012) [-]
i probably didnt quite get it but i presume, the correct answer would be: "god works in mysterious ways" (joker-face)?
User avatar #24 - muhcocksafloppin (11/30/2012) [-]
Ohmygod. My sides.
User avatar #22 - alexalive (11/30/2012) [-]
Anyone ever get the feeling that God created gay people as a test to common people, to gauge our compassion, willingness to accept, and capacity to love? And those that you degrade and judge are actually who will judge you, either saving or damning you based on what they experienced from you. Something to think about next time...
User avatar #40 to #22 - jokeface (11/30/2012) [-]
My theory is that He created them with an innate compulsion to be gay, but His intention is that those born with this compulsion choose to overpower it and refrain from homosexual relationships anyway. It may not seem fair to them, but it wouldn't be the first time God gave harder challenges to certain people.
#95 to #40 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
I concur.
#23 to #22 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
Reminds me of Matthew 7:3, Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Also, God does not want homosexuals, but he wants people to actually be loving to them and try to change their mind and not judge them.
#21 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
Did you know that the ten commandments were for local tribes? Anyone outside your tribe you could rape murder and pillage them as much as you want. God was a tribal god, his favorite people were the Jews, why else would he try to erase Egypt from the map?
#14 - Brass (11/30/2012) [-]
I will find a use for this image.
#74 to #14 - itsmypenis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #5 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
The bible isn't that old when you compare it to how old the world is.

Anyhow, why would god change his mind, he's omnipotent.

I don't believe in the bible, I'm just saying this comic is full of **** .
#101 to #5 - audiolife (11/30/2012) [-]
IF he is omnipotent (all powerful) and didn't have the power to change his mind he would not be omnipotent.
#19 to #5 - deadlyambitions (11/30/2012) [-]
hiw mind would change due to the fact that times changed
User avatar #58 to #19 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
No. He would punish you for changing. Changing away from his rules is sin.
User avatar #32 to #19 - largilloquent (11/30/2012) [-]
if he was omnipotent he wouldnt change his mind, he would have already known this was going to happen
#16 to #5 - anonymous (11/30/2012) [-]
no one cares, shut up.
User avatar #60 to #16 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
Then I guess you're no one.
User avatar #15 to #5 - lorddarkskull ONLINE (11/30/2012) [-]
i believe that since the bible was written by humans, not god, there are obviously going to be some flaws in it
User avatar #13 to #5 - ryantheatheist (11/30/2012) [-]
I've learned that you shouldn't follow the stories themselves, but instead the morals they teach. They all (or at least most of them) seem to be metaphorical instead of literal.
#6 to #5 - selfdenyingbeggar (11/30/2012) [-]
But there has been a lot of change in our way of life since the bible was written.
User avatar #7 to #6 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
Which makes god angry, according to the bible. That's why religious people want to go back to how it used to be, and why they hate gays.
#20 to #7 - deadlyambitions (11/30/2012) [-]
so women cant speak unless spoken to. you can only wear one type of material, if u were a preist u cant own anything.
#17 to #7 - ThumbingUp (11/30/2012) [-]
No. No no no. Christians do NOT want to go back to how things "used to be." Because I see NO ONE fighting against eating pork, or saying people who work on Sundays should be stoned to death. No one says crippled people aren't allowed in churches, or that we shouldn't wear polyester because it's a mix of fabrics. No one complains that they can't have slaves. No on complains that women are no longer property.

No. There are two kinds of Christians, based on everyone I've met in my life: There's the type who genuinely believes in God and just wants to live life as a good person and is tolerant and polite. Then there's the type of Christian who uses **** in the bible to be hateful and control the lives of others and thinks it's ok to do so.
User avatar #62 to #17 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
At least some of it was true that is.
User avatar #56 to #17 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
True, buy you can't be selective with the rules, and yet people do it to avoid admitting their religion is barbaric.
User avatar #30 to #17 - satakas (11/30/2012) [-]
about eating pork: jesus (supposedly) said that "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (mt 15.11)

but...then again...he also (supposedly) told, that "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (mt 5.17)

so...hehe...think whatever you want to think and get more and more twisted in you fairy-tale ;)
#8 to #7 - selfdenyingbeggar (11/30/2012) [-]
Oh. Yeah I also think that if the Bible is the word of God he wouldn't have changed his mind. I thought that the God in the comic didn't take the bible as being his word so apart from that I didn't see a problem.
User avatar #9 to #8 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
In that case the comic wouldn't exist because it makes that assumption itself.
#10 to #9 - selfdenyingbeggar (11/30/2012) [-]
Oh, I see what you mean. Still he could be referring to when he gave Moses the 10 commandments which were followed before the Bible.
User avatar #11 to #10 - gorginhanson (11/30/2012) [-]
he directly mentions the bible in the comic.
#12 to #11 - selfdenyingbeggar (11/30/2012) [-]
Yes he does, in the third panel. And it's separate from the first where he actually means that HE told humanity not to kill. When he refers to the Bible he calls it "that book". So, I'm more inclined to think that Comic God isn't referring to the bible as his word.
#4 - kallesmange (11/29/2012) [-]
and thus the planet "internet" was born
User avatar #3 - landartheconqueror (11/29/2012) [-]
a planet of kittens :P
#2 - phagot **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1 - creativemystery (11/29/2012) [-]
A bit preachy but I agree.
 Friends (0)