Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1603 to #1584 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
comparing something that was written before the printing press and casual reading was common... to something made long after the printing press made expressly for the sake of entertainment...

GENIUS
#1728 to #1603 - anonymous (05/04/2012) [-]
How was 8th grade this year Seth?
User avatar #1740 to #1728 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
says the man hiding behind anonymity
#1773 to #1740 - anonymous (05/04/2012) [-]
I'm anonymous and you're retarded. So what?
We're both behind computers and even if we weren't I would still say what is on my mind. I don't like to lie.
User avatar #1845 to #1773 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
difference is that I'm accepting red thumbs for my opinions and you aren't. Despite the fact that they have the value of monopoly money, having the integrity to put your name by your beliefs is something to be admired far more than anonymously shouting slander.
User avatar #1609 to #1603 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Your argument makes exactly zero sense.
User avatar #1619 to #1609 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
Oh really? There were no casual readers in the ancient world. All texts had a purpose ascribed to them, be it for recording algebra, philosophy, or legal documents, the rare commodity of parchment and papyrus was something that was rarely wasted. So to compare something like the bible, that was written back in a time where every work was made with a purpose to something which could be printed thousands of time with little to no expense... It seems a bit callous and rude to be honest.
User avatar #1628 to #1619 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Yes, because the authors wrote the books within the Tanakh only with reprinting costs in mind.
User avatar #1648 to #1628 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
They wouldn't be able to afford it unless they were in the upper class of society, yes. There's a certain aspect of questioning why something would continue to be reprinted if it's just some crappy book with no basis in fact at all when it costs insane amounts of gold just to get one copy...
User avatar #1658 to #1648 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Yeah exactly, because if you can afford to get it printed and copied, then it is factual.
User avatar #1682 to #1658 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
You'd want it to be proven factual before printing it...
User avatar #1687 to #1682 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Yup. So in your defense, every single religious text is true, and every god and afterlife written about is true.
I'm converted.
User avatar #1696 to #1687 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
All could be true.
User avatar #1701 to #1696 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
And so could be a warping Heineken bottle inside a 2 millimetre peanut shell in a volcanic crater.
If I invest my finances in writing a book about that, does it add credulity to the hypothesis?
User avatar #1726 to #1701 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
well see, this is why I lack faith.

I just never could make the jump in saying that God is real. I can respect the work. But the leap of faith... not so much.

All is true and all is false until we choose which is which. You've decided that religion is false, I have as well. Does that mean it must be despised?
User avatar #1734 to #1726 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Who mentioned despising it?
User avatar #1744 to #1734 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
this entire thread began because I disapproved of equating the bible to an issue of spiderman.

I'd say one is slightly more influential to man's development than the other...
User avatar #1748 to #1744 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Influence to mans development has no relevance to the current debate.
User avatar #1753 to #1748 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
perhaps. But you must be able to see WHY there is a problem comparing the bible to spiderman when you claim to approve of all views...

I find it funny that both of us are getting red thumbs
User avatar #1756 to #1753 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
I don't particularly care about thumbs tbh. Probably because we're debating.
I am drunk as **** right now. I'll respond in a few hours when I've finished college and caught a few zzz's.
User avatar #1709 to #1701 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Bearing in mind, that Heineken bottle created YHWH.
#1608 to #1603 - nyancatfuckyeah (05/04/2012) [-]
take your religious views to church bud, no one gives a 						****					 here.
take your religious views to church bud, no one gives a **** here.
User avatar #1623 to #1608 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
it's sad because I'm not religious, I just respect religion and bother to actually read the book that I don't believe in. You'd be surprised at some of the things you can learn from it even if you don't ascribe to a belief in God...
User avatar #1693 to #1623 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Why do you respect religion?
What aspects of it makes it worthy of respect.
And this is a serious question, by the way. Not trying to annoy you, or debate.
User avatar #1705 to #1693 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
because much like any ideology or school of thought it is worth considering before refuting. Aristotle was wrong about almost all of his assertions, yet still we admire him and his peers. Why? Because Greek thought inspired contemporary thought. Similarly, even if religion is completely archaic and wrong, we can still learn it for the sake of reflecting on its applications to our modern day society.
User avatar #1712 to #1705 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
There is a difference between respect and learning.
Nothing deserves respect by default.
Respect must be earned.
And not by being a blood thirsty archaic way of controlling the herd.
User avatar #1737 to #1712 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
We're talking ancient texts here. Blood was the name of the game back then. It's kind of unfair to enforce 21st century values on religions made in 800 BCE... Society was arguably primitive and it's a wonder a work that preached any form of morality ever managed to take root. It was much easier to worship idols and commit all kinds of horrid things to your neighbours for self benefit. I consider it a stepping stone. Like evolution. We started off primitive and uncivilised and as we steadily climbed upward in sophisticated thought we created a text that would scare those too brutish to be civil into being civil while we continued to advance... Nowadays Religion may have lost its use but still, it helped us get here to an extent. A lot of modern principles have roots in religion.
User avatar #1745 to #1737 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
We were always civilised. Morality is a reflection of the zeitgeist, the ideologies of the times. You cannot consider the Bible, or any religious text, as a stepping stone. It is either absolute, or absolute ******** .
User avatar #1749 to #1745 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
it had to be absolute. Otherwise, as you said, the morality of the times would have taken control of us. What do you think advanced our moral perspectives? It certainly wasn't the Greeks. They believed that sick children should be killed to leave more food for strong children. Religion introduced individual rights to a species that had previously only thought in a utilitarian fashion.
User avatar #1754 to #1749 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Morality is subjective, not objective and absolute. It evolves. And that is not an argument for religion,
User avatar #1844 to #1754 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
sorry for not replying, I passed out.

I'm saying that it introduced absolute morality which helped to create a sort of safe net for us to...well survive... With that safety we were able to develop our own intellectual theories and evolve. I'm just saying what religion gave us, not that it's true. Remember, I'm not religious xD
User avatar #1627 to #1623 - nyancatfuckyeah (05/04/2012) [-]
I understand your reasoning but if there's one thing I can't stand it's people who force their beliefs and ideals on other people, convinced that they're right, which is what you're doing on every comment.
User avatar #1654 to #1627 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
but here's the thing. I'm not forcing beliefs. I'm educating.

If you go on here and shout "LOLOLOL GOD IS FEG"... what do you think will happen? People will respond.

Now I am a religious centrist. I comment on religious intolerant comments and atheist intolerant comments alike in an attempt to foster an acceptance of all thought. I'm not saying you're wrong to be atheist, I'm saying that insulting the other side is rude. If you honestly think that's me "forcing my beliefs" onto you... that's kinda sad... I think we can all be civil, right?
#1670 to #1654 - anonymous (05/04/2012) [-]
That has to be the most 						********					 response I've ever read.   
   
"I'm not forcing my beliefs; I'm educating."
That has to be the most ******** response I've ever read.

"I'm not forcing my beliefs; I'm educating."

User avatar #1678 to #1670 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
yes... I'm not telling you that you will burn in hell... I'm explaining the religious perspective...
User avatar #1666 to #1654 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
Well, in an open environment, you're free to explain your beliefs, and to respectfully listen to others.
If you agree or not is entirely up to your own beliefs.
I don't care what anyone believes in, just as long as it's a personal belief that isn't forced upon others. Be it a theistic, deistic, gnostic, agnostic, or a form of atheistic, belief.
User avatar #1680 to #1666 - Sethorein ONLINE (05/04/2012) [-]
As an I. I just disapprove of comments that serve as incitement against someone else's views... I.E. comparing the bible to spiderman -_-"
User avatar #1686 to #1680 - Daemonseed (05/04/2012) [-]
I'm not trying to deviate, but boo-yeah! On a religious post, I got a comment titled 666! The irony?
 Friends (0)