Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Latest users (2): lulzformalaysiaair, syrianassassin, anonymous(2).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10857 - improbablyyourdad (02/13/2013) [-]
So is anyone here because they genuinely believe in a god or religion or is everybody here just to "troll"?

Anyways, I have a questions for the people that are genuine, why should we believe your god is any more true than the next even though you have no more evidence than the last guy?
User avatar #10935 to #10857 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
Because religion isn't influenced by personal desire, it is influenced by culture and where you grow up.
And where you grow up, it is taught that all other religions are false even though they are likely as fake as yours.
User avatar #10937 to #10935 - darkrighteosnight (02/13/2013) [-]
My Sunday school teacher once told me, "I am not here to force you to believe in my beliefs or to take my testimony, i'm here to teach it in hope you learn from it and discovery your own personal testimony ".
User avatar #10938 to #10937 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
I hope you see the irony in that.
User avatar #10939 to #10938 - darkrighteosnight (02/13/2013) [-]
nope, explain it to me please.
User avatar #10943 to #10939 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
You were going to sunday school. A school that teaches only one religion, in this case Christianity. And the teacher is says...

"I am not here to force you to believe in my beliefs or to take my testimony, i'm here to teach it in hope you learn from it and discovery your own personal testimony "

There are only two results.
1. You believe in God.
2. You become an atheist.

They are not teaching you other religions, therefore you cannot possibly make an accurate personal decision on what life to live because you have been narrowed to the choices of the culture.

Your experience only proves that you grow up believing what your culture teaches you.
User avatar #10945 to #10943 - darkrighteosnight (02/13/2013) [-]
Well, i guess that's my bad, i took this event out of context.
Yes, we're were actually learning about other religions, such as Jewdism, Islam , etc. And no not about how they are inferior or wrong to Christianity. He was teaching us this as to not be religious bigots and also reviewing the mistakes of the Church in the past as to not repeat them.

But yes, he was referring to Christianity with that little speech, but he was referring to not blindly following the teachings of others because not all because then you will never have a true relationship with Christ.

User avatar #10946 to #10945 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
I went to Sunday school. We covered other religions. But we did not cover the purpose of their religion. We simply understood it existed, who followed it and what their God/Gods are, we were never shown their teachings (because that could result in a change of our perception).

Judaism is simply the teaching of the Old Testament and is the basis for Christianity. It really isn't different. Islam uses the Old Testament as well as other religious scriptures.

"not blindly following the teachings of others because not all because then you will never have a true relationship with Christ. "

Sorry to burst your bubble, but by following Christ, you are doing it blind. There is no physical evidence of the existence of God. There is no outside evidence of the existence of miracles. There is no archeological evidence to support the biblical events of the Old Testament. You take everything you read, minus bits of the history, on faith. Faith is faith, because you believe in it blindly.
Faith is the act of believing in something beyond your comprehension, but accepting it as truth in your pursuit to better understand it.
User avatar #10948 to #10946 - darkrighteosnight (02/13/2013) [-]
Also, Didn't we already have a conversation like this the other day?
I told about how the Parting of the red sea was possible through "wind displacement".You said it was hardly a miracle.
What do you call a miracle? something with a lack of scientific evidence? You would most likely dismiss it as impossible.
What if there is scientific evidence? "then i would hardly count that as a miracle"
Why is there so much disbelief?
User avatar #10950 to #10948 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
Wind displacement only proves they got lucky. Or the events have been exaggerated just like the children's game of telephone.
User avatar #10947 to #10946 - darkrighteosnight (02/13/2013) [-]
Sorry to burst you bubble dude, it isn't blind.
I have my own reasons for believing in Christ but as for the "there is no biblical events of the Old Testament. You take everything you read, minus bits of the history, on faith. Faith is faith, because you believe in it blindly.

Yes there is archaeological evidence of the Old testament events
1. there is Sumerian tablet showing the "raining of fire" on Egypt.
2.Many of the Cities of the Old testament that "Never existed" have been found, such as Sodom and Gomorrah.
You need to login to view this link

I don't know what you mean by " You take everything you read, minus bits of the history, on faith. Faith is faith, because you believe in it blindly. " but as far as im aware, The bible goes pretty toe to toe with history, such as wars and the civilizations at the time.
And also, Faith is a simply a trust in something, not necessarily a trust with out proof. with out proof.
User avatar #10949 to #10947 - eight (02/13/2013) [-]
"Yes there is archaeological evidence of the Old testament events
1. there is Sumerian tablet showing the "raining of fire" on Egypt.
2.Many of the Cities of the Old testament that "Never existed" have been found, such as Sodom and Gomorrah.
You need to login to view this link :

1. If this tablet exists...what does it prove? This Earth has been pummeled with asteroids, and comets for millions of years. Back then, they would have taken that as a sign of an angry God because they did not understand what we now know about the universe.

2. Those are two cities. Where is proof for the supernatural? The city of Troy exists as well, but does that mean there are Greek Gods and a man named Achilies who was a nearly invincible demi - God? No. Just like today, much of their fiction was based around the reality of what they knew. They incorporated history, buildings, famous people and past events into their stories.

You are blind. It is just reality. When you talk about other religions and how you believe they are blind, the irony is that you yourself are blind and other religions are talking about you in the same way you talk about them. It is a never ending circle of "you are wrong, we are right, we have proof we are right and you don't have any."

Faith has many definitions. This is one of them "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust ".

Belief in something, even strong beliefs without does not make it fact, especially when the belief is shrouded in fallacy, questionable events, contradictions, mistakes and non provable events which hold no ground in science.
It just makes a fool. A sucker is born every minute, my mother used to say.
User avatar #10953 to #10949 - darkrighteosnight (02/14/2013) [-]
This is exactly what i'm talking about with you. "You are blind. It is just reality. When you talk about other religions and how you believe they are blind, the irony is that you yourself are blind and other religions are talking about you in the same way you talk about them. It is a never ending circle of "you are wrong, we are right, we have proof we are right and you don't have any."
I have never said any of these things about other religions. You attempting to make a point that does not exist, you are basing this on the actions of others but on me, The entire time i have talked to you i have done nothing but defend and explain my own beliefs while you just slander it repeatedly. You are guilty much more than me of these actions. Don't hold yourself high and look down on religion when you are just as blind if not more so than that which you hate. You are literally being nothing but being a hypocrite.

You have also been doing nothing but denying proof, not of God, but of the Bible like it's load of bull. " No Archaeological evidence"; I've done nothing but proof that these people and places existed and that most of these events are possible. You look much more blind then me right now. It's actually funny that your implying that I'm a fool. The only good argument that you have any more is proofing hoe it is supernatural.
User avatar #10957 to #10953 - eight (02/14/2013) [-]
Having no belief in any religion, I am allowed to slander it, but that does not make me a hypocrite, and if it does, so be it. I can self forgive, I do not need a magical deity to erase my mistakes.
I base my arguments off what I can see, taste, touch and prove. I slander religion because of narrow mindedness and foolish statements people make. I slander religion because of your inability to comprehend that you are no different than any believer of any religion. You all think exactly the same, you are so close to each other, but yet you believe you remain far apart.

Blind people do not ignore facts, therefore I cannot be blind. Religious folk ignore facts that question the validity of their beliefs.

"I've done nothing but proof that these people and places existed and that most of these events are possible"

Not once did I say or even imply that the HISTORICAL events of the bible are fictional. Buildings, cities are all apart of history as well as some of the events in the bible which are supported by outside sources which coincidentally feature no mention of miracles or supernatural occurrences..
Your argument is null on that end and seems to be a grasp at straws, by inventing information that I did not say and taking my quotes out of context to mean something different. This is likely an subconscious attempt to protect your mind from rational thinking and block out all the facts and reasonable arguments that could very well change your mind. This phenomenon has been well documented by psychologists, most notably Freud.

And the only events you claimed and provided evidence for is "the parting of the Red Sea." and your two cities.
User avatar #10999 to #10957 - darkrighteosnight (02/14/2013) [-]
"You take everything you read, minus bits of the history, on faith" + "There is no archaeological evidence to support the biblical events of the Old Testament." = Not once did I say or even imply that the HISTORICAL events of the bible are fictional."
Dude you are contradicting yourself .

"And the only events you claimed and provided evidence for is "the parting of the Red Sea." and your two cities."
let me fix that for you.
1. the ten plagues of Egypt
www.theweeklyconstitutional.com/news/we-cant-explain-it/458-scientist-prove-the-ten-plagues-of-egypt-really-did-happen
2. creation.com/new-archaeological-find-affirms-old-testament-historicity
3. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557124/Tiny-tablet-provides-proof-for-Ol d-Testament.html

Have some fun with that.

And as for "Your argument is null on that end and seems to be a grasp at straws, by inventing information that I did not say and taking my quotes out of context to mean something different." please explain how i did this. you are the one who is simply denying and contradicting yourself here. I'm not grasping at straws nor taking your texts out of context. You are the only one Who has done that.-"Having no belief in any religion, I am allowed to slander it, but that does not make me a hypocrite, and if it does, so be it." if you do not see the irony in that , or how much of a bigot you are; then there is really no hope for you.

you are most likely no more than a troll and I have been doing nothing wasting my time but just because this is fun, I want you to Explain to me why exactly religion is narrow minded / how you have come to the conclusion of "I base my arguments off what I can see, taste, touch and prove". I am extremely curios.
User avatar #11001 to #10999 - eight (02/14/2013) [-]
>minus bits of history
>BIBLICAL events. A city is hardly a biblical event, tis history.

You see contradictions where you WANT to.

1. I forgot about the plagues, but the link you gave is supporting science...What side are you on? You are a hypocrite according to one of the links posted below.

2. You serious? This is why I slander your kind. You think because one thing is proven true, it is ALL true. Okay then, The Iliad actually happened. The Odyssey actually happened and so did millions of forms of historical fiction in the last couple thousand years. Because they all feature real life people, buildings and wars.

3. Same thing. And notice in this article they specifically say "view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.", not factual supernatural occurrences.

" I want you to Explain to me why exactly religion is narrow minded / how you have come to the conclusion of "I base my arguments off what I can see, taste, touch and prove". I am extremely curios. "

Religion is narrow minded because most people will deny the existence of scientific fact that could discredit their views. They refuse to believe that anything other than their precious religion could be true. They have no inclination to search out other religions to possibly expand their mind and seek deeper spirituality with something else that could also be a "true" religion.

To have faith in God, you are not basing your arguments off of what you can see, taste, touch, smell, and prove. If you were, you wouldn't believe in God.

Naturally, The Bible also depicts inaccurate history.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGPoYdbYBFo

And have a lot of fun with this. It will make you pull out your hair. Even the sarcasm got to me a little bit.
You need to login to view this link

User avatar #10895 to #10857 - sheepysquirrel (02/13/2013) [-]
I am here to ask genuine questions.
I like religion, I may not practice it but it interests me.
What I don't like is people blindly following their religion.
Someone who blindly follows, if there was a verse that existed that said "Fuck bitches, get money" would say "no no, you interpret that wrong. What god means is to appreciate the things you have, procreate and provide for your family".
#10896 to #10895 - improbablyyourdad (02/13/2013) [-]
Well, look at it from their perspective, if they don't alter it and make it for everyone they wont get as many sheep *cough cough* I mean followers.

The most apparent case I can think of is when it came to homosexuality in the bible. Personally, I think its wrong to lie to people's face when they say homosexuals can go to "heaven" so long as they worship god, in the bible it says quite the opposite.


I love that quote/song.
User avatar #10900 to #10896 - jokeface (02/13/2013) [-]
I beg to differ. Romans 3:20 states: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

This means that our sins are not what God will be judging us on when we die. The only reason God gave us laws was because He knew we would be unable to abide by them, and thus we would realize that we are not perfect. This was to humble us so that we would recognize Him as God and worship Him as our Lord and Savior.
User avatar #10916 to #10900 - improbablyyourdad (02/13/2013) [-]
There are a few quotes on there, I suggest reading it all though.
carm.org/bible-homosexuality


"This means that our sins are not what God will be judging us on when we die. The only reason God gave us laws was because He knew we would be unable to abide by them, and thus we would realize that we are not perfect."

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? That just begs the question, if he knows how all of this is going to pan out then why do it in the first place?
User avatar #10954 to #10916 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
Because He's God and He can do whatever He wants. And it's not ridiculous. Galatians mentions it two more times:

"“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."" - Galatians 2: 15-16

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”" - Galatians 2:21
User avatar #10897 to #10896 - sheepysquirrel (02/13/2013) [-]
The bible doesn't mention homosexuality too much in the new testament and most verses from corinthian were rephrased to not mention homosexuals.

(this is of course the way I personally interpret it) I feel that when the bible says "A man shall not herp derp derp with a woman so on and so forth" it is referring to not committing sodomy, a man could not possibly have vaginal intercourse with another man so it is saying that you shouldn't commit sodomy which was the only way to have sex with another man.

It all comes down to morals though, the bible obviously supports having a polygamist marriage as Abraham and many other figures had multiple wives.

But if we are to take everything said in the bible literally than most things we do today would not be done.

As people have said before, the bible is more for guidelines and people pick and choose which ones to follow usually. Some feel that you must be 100% free of sin to get to heaven, others feel you can sin a bit, others feel you can sin a lot. But no matter which way they interpret it, everyone feels as though the way they practice is the only true way.
User avatar #10898 to #10897 - jokeface (02/13/2013) [-]
Polygamy was only acceptable in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Jesus said a man will leave his father and mother to take a wife and the two shall become one flesh. Only two. But not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. However, some of it is, and it's the literal stuff that we use as a base in order to interpret the other things that aren't so clear. Namely, we focus on what Jesus taught, and interpret everything else to align with that, since Jesus is the core of our faith.
User avatar #10899 to #10898 - sheepysquirrel (02/13/2013) [-]
What about the dead sea scrolls? Parts taken from the bible by the church and gotten rid of so that the bible would look better?
Some people deny them but there was a thing in the news last september that said Jesus himself may have had a wife or two and that he had children in them. Scholars are supposed to be studying that and if they find it's legit then apparently priests will be allowed to marry.
User avatar #10901 to #10899 - jokeface (02/13/2013) [-]
Jesus never married unless you count metaphorically. The Bible explicitly states that He is the groom of the church, which is His bride ("church" meaning all the people who worship Him). But He never literally got married. And as for the Catholic Church...they're really fucked up. I mean they do some good things but for the most part they've corrupted the faith if you ask me.
User avatar #10902 to #10901 - sheepysquirrel (02/13/2013) [-]
That may be what the bible says, but who is to say someone didn't leave out other parts? I can metaphorically be a brother to someone as well as being a husband to another. He could just as easily be a husband to some and be a husband to all who worship him metaphorically. But if that is the case, metaphorically Jesus is gay.
User avatar #10903 to #10902 - jokeface (02/13/2013) [-]
If there's anything left out of the Bible, it wouldn't change any of what the Bible already says. And the notion of Jesus being married would go against what Jesus was supposed to be, which was a symbol of purity. For Him to have a wife and children would make Him impure, because true purity means no sex. So if there are indeed any parts left out of the Bible, none of them say anything about Jesus marrying, and if there are any documents saying He did, they didn't come from the Bible.
User avatar #10904 to #10903 - sheepysquirrel (02/13/2013) [-]
That is only because that's what your faith teaches you to believe.
If I wrote a story where the main character was portrayed as a saint and it got famous, kids grew up reading it, all that. No one would probably believe anyone if they said they found the original manuscript which said the character was actually evil and raped and murdered all the people he "saved" in the story.

Let's put it this way, the way the bible is made, everything is vague. There is nothing absolute in it, everything is made to be subject to change with the times. 70 years ago it was believed that the bible said that if you weren't white that you were automatically going to hell. These days we know better, but use the same arguments to say gays are going to hell.
As expressed in another comment on this board, someone with blind faith can not interpret what the bible says. They will assume it is all good.

If god said "Fuck bitches, get money" they would say "No, no it doesn't mean have sex and get rich. It means you should appreciate what you have, procreate and provide for your family" when in truth it could have meant exactly what it said.
User avatar #10955 to #10904 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
You don't seem to understand faith very well. What you just told me was, basically, "The Bible is nice but if there were parts missing that made it not nice, it wouldn't be nice." And you're right about that. But we accept that there is nothing missing from the Bible that would change its meaning. You saying such parts might exist holds no more weight than if you said there might not be a God. Do you understand? It doesn't affect us.
User avatar #10959 to #10955 - sheepysquirrel (02/14/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it does affect you, and I'm not saying it would change your faith.
I'm saying that if there was 100% solid evidence proving that Jesus had a wife and was a murderer most Christians would say it is bullshit still and that they believe that Jesus was a good guy and wouldn't have done such a thing.
That or they would say it must have been for the greater good.

That is blind faith. People need to open their eyes and realize that even if god is their path to heaven, that some things that exist in the bible are contradictory and that you can live a life god wants without acting like the bible is his actual literal word.
User avatar #10961 to #10959 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
I agree that not everything in the Bible is literal. But the messages are clarified in the New Testament by Jesus. Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. If anything in the Bible (or at least the NT, since things changed between the Testaments) seems to contradict those two commandments, then it's being misunderstood. Jesus said a lot of straightforward things that weren't metaphors and based on those things we can get a clearer idea of what the metaphors mean.

And you're right, if there was evidence that Jesus married, we'd likely claim that it's referring to a different Jesus. Blind faith is necessary. God commanded us to put our trust in Him above everything else. It's okay to believe in things like science and medicine but we must acknowledge that those things come from God giving us the resources and intelligence to produce them.
User avatar #10964 to #10961 - sheepysquirrel (02/14/2013) [-]
I'm not saying you can't believe god puts forth things like that, I'm saying you can't think literal literal things. Like the whole thing where you said you'd kill your family if god said so, the bible is pretty evident in the story of Abraham that god wouldn't do that so that would mean you were tricked by the devil.

Also if everything Jesus said is straightforward than we must not ignore the old testament. Matthew 5:17 "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."
Of course people interpret that differently, but if it's straightforward as you said than the old testament is still in play.
User avatar #10965 to #10964 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac, but there were other people whom He commanded to kill and He didn't stop them.

As for the verse form Matthew, keep reading. He said nothing would change about the law "until everything is accomplished." He was referring to His ability to fulfill the laws to completion the way the rest of us can't. He meant that the Old Testament laws were not wrong, but that only He could complete them. Mankind can never be perfect and that's what He was emphasizing. He was basically saying "Look, you guys will never be able to live up to the laws God set for you, so I'm gonna do it for you so that you don't have to go to hell." We know this is what He meant because He told us to love and forgive each other even when we sin, which contradicts several things in the Old Testament. And Jesus is infallible. So the message to take away from this is that God loves us and forgives us in spite of our inability to follow the law perfectly. Old or New.
User avatar #10966 to #10965 - sheepysquirrel (02/14/2013) [-]
So by that argument if Jesus came to fulfill the laws then Jesus must have murdered at some point because the old testament laws require you to murder people who don't do certain things or do, do certain things.
And if Jesus is a murderer what makes him any better than Muhammed?
User avatar #10967 to #10966 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
Okay, you got me there. But I don't believe Jesus ever killed anyone. And this is why I think He didn't. Bear in mind this is only my personal guess and I don't claim it as definitive truth. I think that maybe the laws commanding people to kill others only applied to certain groups of Israelites during that time and were separate from the universal laws such as the Ten Commandments. And Jesus certainly lived up to the Ten Commandments. And He denounced killing, and we can therefore assume He never killed anyone.

By the way, most of the verses that talk about killing sinners don't actually command us to kill. They just say the sinners "shall be put to death." But they don't say who is to put them to death. I think they may be referring to God killing their spirits when their bodies die. But I'm aware that there are a few verses that do specifically command people to kill, so I didn't use this paragraph as my primary response.
User avatar #10969 to #10967 - sheepysquirrel (02/14/2013) [-]
I'm glad you covered that there ARE some that do say you directly should cause I was gonna mention that but now I don't have to.

I would assume Jesus followed the commandments but I would also assume that he was human too and that he may have been married at one point. Jesus himself was a jew and knowing the jewish community a male at the age of 30 would be married off quickly to a female at 30 who has never been married as well. The chances of his family saying he is exempt from it regardless if he is the son of god or not are low. They would more likely WANT him to be married and throw women at him.
User avatar #10970 to #10969 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
But why would He get married knowing He was about to be crucified? Seems like that would cause unnecessary heartache. And the marriage would have to be consummated, and like I said Jesus died a virgin.
User avatar #10972 to #10970 - sheepysquirrel (02/14/2013) [-]
I don't recall the bible saying Jesus was a virgin, that would be speculation.
A lot of people claim he was with Mary Magdelan and if they were married and had sex he was technically still free of sin.
Plus by the definition of sins Jesus himself would have had to commit quite a few to have done the things he'd done unless it is the same situation as god where just being Jesus means he is free of sin, which in that case he could have been having orgies 24/7.
User avatar #10976 to #10972 - jokeface (02/14/2013) [-]
I'm going to borrow a quote that I found on Yahoo Answers (just this next paragraph, not the one after it):

"Jesus (the groom) and Christians (His bride) are in the engagement period right now. Jewish history shows that during the engagement period the man would go away for a little while to prepare a house for them to live in and get everything in order before they got married. This could take weeks, months, or years. After he got everything ready he would come back to the woman and they'd have the wedding ceremony and be married. This is what Jesus is doing right now. He's getting everything ready. When he's finished He's going to come back for us and then Christians will be married to Jesus."

And I don't think Jesus was able to use what I call "the Nixon Defense" because the Bible talks about His encounter with Satan where Satan tempted Him again and again, and He kept resisting. If He was literally the same as God then He wouldn't have felt any temptation, nor would He have a need to resist sinning. The fact that He did shows that He knew He couldn't sin or else His purpose could not be fulfilled.
User avatar #10893 to #10857 - jokeface (02/13/2013) [-]
There's no solid reason. It's entirely up to choice, which is the essence of what separates the heaven-bound from the hell-bound. But we really hope you choose to join us (Christians).
User avatar #10891 to #10857 - cleverguy (02/13/2013) [-]
im jewish
User avatar #10875 to #10857 - thezillis (02/13/2013) [-]
There are a lot of true Christians,and a few pantheistic/satanic/bullshitpaganthing heretics.
But mostly us atheists
 Friends (0)