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 #44 - tooanontoquit (05/23/2013) [-]
what about the 7th commandment?

Thou shalt not commit adultery = you can only have sex with your spouse
User avatar #69 to #44 - megatrollinator ONLINE (05/23/2013) [-]
Adultery =/= Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse
#48 to #44 - anonymous (05/23/2013) [-]
Adultery =/= lechery.
User avatar #51 to #48 - tooanontoquit (05/23/2013) [-]
Lechery =/= rape

It's not rape if it's with your spouse. You can only have sex with your spouse. Therefore you cannot rape.
User avatar #100 to #51 - jedimindaugas ONLINE (05/23/2013) [-]
As far as I know rape is any sexual advance towards an unwilling person, therefore that commandment allows rape as long as it is between the spouses. This commandment is not there to protect individual people, but rather to protect the society from bastards( or whatever were those children called).
Those preached commandments are severely outdated, just like the whole religion.
User avatar #200 to #100 - tooanontoquit (05/23/2013) [-]
In that case it still wouldn't be considered rape at the time. When two people got married (often arranged) the husband had to consummate the marriage by having sex with his bride, this "transferred ownership" of the girl from her father to her husband. Back in these time the wife didn't get the right to say no to sex it was her obligation as the husbands property to do his bidding.

Times have changed and with women's rights now there can now be rape between married people, but in the context of the time their wasn't this loop hole.

As for the religion being outdated I think it's doing pretty well for being 2000 years old, you can't exactly update a religion. Yes times and customs have changed and some people twist words for politics but they stray from the overarching principals
User avatar #235 to #200 - jedimindaugas ONLINE (05/23/2013) [-]
Emphasis on "at the time". As you mentioned, the society has received multiple patches for improvement while the commandments remain the same and do NOT cover it. Hiding it behind interpretations is like giving make up to a dead horse and claiming it to be a stallion.
Die already you evil religions.
User avatar #240 to #235 - tooanontoquit (05/26/2013) [-]
You can't just take the ten commandments and make "multiple patches for improvement" the Bible is 2000 years old; they don't make revisions. Yes they are out dated but it's a matter of honoring the original and ideals that still hold true.

Christianity is about being good, kind, and helpful people. It's not about being a stickler to obscure rules. The ten commandments were about preventing people from making bad choices. At the time the ten commandments covered all rape because rape is bad. Now there's a lope hole, but that loop hole doesn't mean it's now allowed its still a bad action.

If you go into a church and claim it is okay for a husband to force sex on his wife, not many people will agree with you. Society has moved forward.

Individual christian sects have conferences and debate about these same issues. For instance while some infamous groups are against gay marriage, some like the United Methodist Church have agreed to allow it.
User avatar #241 to #240 - jedimindaugas ONLINE (05/26/2013) [-]
Then what about the ideals that are no longer true and are repulsive? Why do we just skip the horrible parts, promote the right ones and then claim that it's what religion is all about?

You keep talking what religion is all about, but instead of looking at the core, you refer to its community, the people that were influenced by outside factors and have improved. The core, from which it all stems is beyond rotten and unchangeable - the Book, that is supposed to be The Guide, is all about a cruel and vicious deity nobody would ever want to worship, let alone fallow. Yet still it is the most sold book in the world and is quoted time and time again to oppose something people do not agree with (yet). When people went to war, they found a line promoting it, when there were slaves, it justified it, but when there's a good line, we do it and proclaim that it was done only because "the Bible tells so". Convenient, isn't it?

This is illogical. We have a guide, but act on our own, and then recommend the guide to the others.
User avatar #242 to #241 - tooanontoquit (05/27/2013) [-]
Apparently you have never read the Bible.

It's about a caring, loving, and forgiving God. If what you describe "nobody would ever want to worship, let alone follow" then why do people follow it? Why do people say that it had turned their life around? Why has the religion lasted for thousands of year if "nobody would ever want to worship, let alone follow" it?

Now the Bible has lots of parables (stories with important lessons) in it. The "evil" quotes you're talking about are from these stories where people make the wrong decision and at the end of the story you're supposed to see why that was a bad decision. The "evil" quotes (not that you could actually think of any) are taken out of context.

As for war, God promotes peace and being friendly to neighbors and looking for peaceful solutions. However you can agree that there are times when it is necessary to defend your self or others. An example you can relate to is having to go to war to stop the Nazis from killing so many people. As for slavery the Bible does not say for or against it but merely mentions it in passing because it was a custom at the time. It does say that we should treat slaves better like they are real people.

You might want to actually read the Bible before you claim to know what it is all about.
#55 to #51 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (05/23/2013) [-]
You could rape your spouse.
#168 to #55 - chromefile (05/23/2013) [-]
that's just boulderdash
User avatar #171 to #168 - timmity (05/23/2013) [-]
your just a retard
#172 to #171 - chromefile (05/23/2013) [-]
you're*
#174 to #172 - timmity (05/23/2013) [-]
thank you
#177 to #174 - chromefile (05/23/2013) [-]
you're welcome
 Friends (0)