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

hide menu

MosKunas    

Rank #7372 on Subscribers
MosKunas Avatar Level 49 Comments: Sammich eater
Offline
Send mail to MosKunas Block MosKunas Invite MosKunas to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:2/12/2010
Last Login:8/03/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 404 total,  585 ,  181
Comment Thumbs: 101 total,  222 ,  121
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 40 Content: Sammich eater → Level 41 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 49 Comments: Sammich eater → Level 50 Comments: Sammich eater
Subscribers:10
Content Views:19593
Times Content Favorited:19 times
Total Comments Made:150
FJ Points:512
I basically play anything and talk while I do it. Then put it on here. I try to provide the best content and be as original as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LilMoskyOfficial

latest user's comments

#29 - That was poorly written, and I'm not quite sure what your argu…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/28/2013 on Something that puzzles me -2
User avatar #30 - thereoncewasaman (05/29/2013) [-]
The point is there are people (both theists and atheists) that regard the extraordinary claims of some religions as wild and absurd, and the extraordinary claims of other religions and somehow less absurd or more valid. I simply asked the question why? Why do people want to believe some religions but not others; they all make wild assertions and provide no evidence, so what differentiates some claims from others. I stated that people who reject some religions because their claims seem too crazy, but accept the claims of other religions because they somehow see them as less crazy are complete nutjobs.
Also why do you think this comes off as if I don't know what I'm talking about? I don't see where I made any false statements or illogical arguments.
User avatar #31 - zeref (05/31/2013) [-]
Propably because somre religions are more thrustworthy than others. The crusifiction for example has more chance to be true than a flying spaghetti monster (Actual religion)
User avatar #32 - thereoncewasaman (05/31/2013) [-]
Well the crusifiction could have happened, but all that means is a guy was crucified. Doesn't mean that jesus was the son of god or anything of the sort. The flying spaghetti monster has as much proof going for it as any other religion has for their god.
User avatar #33 - zeref (05/31/2013) [-]
But lets be reasonable, wich one of those sounds more logical to you? And as far as ''the same amount of proof'' goes. It has been proven that there were crusifictions at that time period but i haven't seen any proof that flying spaghetti monsters are real. Religions are also based on cultures and indoctrination (Repeating the same thing over and over again until someone believes it.)
User avatar #34 - thereoncewasaman (05/31/2013) [-]
Like I said, crusifictions are not proof that jesus was divine or that any religion that believes so is correct. Also, there has been as much proof for the existence of a divine being as there is for the flying spaghetti monster, that's just a fact.. Logic has nothing to do with it, considering both of these things are highly illogical. And yes religions are based upon cultural beliefs at the time the religion was created and are kept going though indoctrination, but that doesn't make them correct. If the flying spaghetti monster had been pounded into our heads from childhood on then we would probably believe it existed.
User avatar #35 - zeref (05/31/2013) [-]
That was the points, i never claimed that crusifictions are proof of jezus being devine. I just tried to answer your original qeustion: Why do people want to believe some religions but not others. And that is because of indoctination. ^^
User avatar #36 - thereoncewasaman (05/31/2013) [-]
Yeah that's true, I simply posed the question because I want people to think hard about why they actually believe some stuff but not others. Unfortunately the people who have responded to me about this have no answer, so I guess they are still trying to find their brains.
User avatar #37 - zeref (05/31/2013) [-]
Well i think the reason some people like to believe in an religion is because it offers the guidance and/or security they need and because the religion they chose appeals more to them then other religions. People who like to eat bacon for example woulden't want to have a religion where they forbid that (muslims.) Old people tend to believe the hardest because they are scared of death so they want to believe in heaven to ease the pain.



And sorry to all muslim people here for only using your religion as an example, i am just tired since it is late atm and i coulden't be bothered to think up some more. I would also like to say sorry for any grammar mistakes since i don't live in a country where english is the native language.
User avatar #38 - thereoncewasaman (05/31/2013) [-]
People like to believe because it is comforting to them, but that's a poor reason to believe. Ignoring reality to take solace in what you want reality to be like is dangerous. Believing because something matches up to your values is also a poor reason to believe, but I won't get in to that. It just surprises me when people say there is good evidence that what they believe is true, and then offer up nothing that is actually evidence and refuse to be persuaded that what they said was wrong.
#3 - I would of gotten into all of that on top of what I already sa…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/27/2013 on Messages I Get on Religion #1 +4
User avatar #4 - thereoncewasaman (05/27/2013) [-]
haha yeah it is pretty sad when there are so many ways of refuting one of their arguments that you run out of characters to use.
#14 - I didn't have enough space, and I got tired of typing all of t… 05/20/2013 on Some of My Favorite Quotes... +1
#360 - "The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked … 05/19/2013 on Religion =/= Peace 0
#334 - Yes, like Christianity. Everyone who believes in God will spen…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/19/2013 on Religion =/= Peace +1
User avatar #352 - jokervsbatsy (05/19/2013) [-]
Only fanatic priests say that kind of shit, nowhere in the Bible such thing is mentioned
User avatar #360 - MosKunas (05/19/2013) [-]
"The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
(Psalm 145:20)

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
(John 3:36)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
(John 3:16)

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
(Acts 4:12)

#329 - People kill in the name of religion. But no one has ever kille… 05/19/2013 on Religion =/= Peace 0
#3 - If you say the "war on terror" then there is no limi…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/18/2013 on Eternal War +9
User avatar #32 - ponchosdm (09/11/2013) [-]
yup, spreading terror and death to other countries, is way better than getting it back, so the attacks should kept going
User avatar #4 - konradkurze (05/18/2013) [-]
exactly why usa has been vague on who its attacking, no designated target means no designated conclusion to war
#12 - It's not implying that religion is the only way for good peopl… 05/18/2013 on Some of My Favorite Quotes... 0
#8 - What's hard to understand? With or without religion there will…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/18/2013 on Some of My Favorite Quotes... 0
#11 - masterboll (05/18/2013) [-]
its implying that religion needs to be present in order for "good" people to do bad things

in other words, good (bad) people doing bad things only exist in religion

by simply being not a part of a religion doesnt automatically mean that people will start doing good things

the quote is atheist faggotry, not reasonable wisdom
User avatar #12 - MosKunas (05/18/2013) [-]
It's not implying that religion is the only way for good people to do bad things. It just gives people a justifiable reason to do said things.

If you honestly can't interpret that simple quote for what it means, without regarding it as "atheist faggotry" then there is no argument here.
#2 - This is one of the reasons why I am an atheist/anti-theist. If…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/17/2013 on Some of My Favorite Quotes... +3
User avatar #3 - gibroner (05/17/2013) [-]
I just don't believe in any God but I'm not really anti theistic I don't care what people believe as long as they aren't a dick about it
#39 - It honestly scares me how human beings that think this way exi…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/17/2013 on Good Parenting 0
#47 - quiescat (05/17/2013) [-]
it scares me to i just hope this kids brothers and sisters end up better people after watching this unfold

and what the fuck 5 years of parole .... no jail time nothing
#22 - Oh, alright, I know what you mean. People like that amaze me. … 05/10/2013 on fucking squirrels 0
#6 - What's the argument here? Sorry if it's obvious, I don't see it.  [+] (10 new replies) 05/09/2013 on fucking squirrels +1
User avatar #9 - noblexfenrir (05/10/2013) [-]
The .gif is a runoff of the "joke" argument (I say joke, even though many creationists use it seriously) that atheists believe the universe/life formed out of nothing but randomness. Which we have proven false time and time again, yet they still bring the damn point up.
User avatar #22 - MosKunas (05/10/2013) [-]
Oh, alright, I know what you mean. People like that amaze me. Don't understand how human beings can think that way and feel logical. Thanks;)
User avatar #12 - Shramin (05/10/2013) [-]
proven false?
I was under the impression that we have no firm proof on how life came to be one way or the other.
User avatar #13 - noblexfenrir (05/10/2013) [-]
Well, for life we do know, it's evolution. That we know as scientific fact.

However, whether the process of biological evolution or universal evolution (essentially the same steps as biological except in the case of the fundamental laws and working of the universe. Summed up as basically "What works, works".), creationists don't seem to understand how the process works and chalk it up to being "random" which is the exact opposite of how it works.
#23 - kanedam (05/13/2013) [-]
uhm... i'm no creationist just so you know.

bu from the scientific view you're not quite right.
evolution doesnt explain where life comes from... it explains how lifeforms change on a large scale of time. lifeforms wich already have reproduction and an ecosystem.
there has not been a single experiment validating any theory of how life started existing. how the very first membrane developed is one of the greatest miracles for every biologist...

and then about the universal laws: there's quite a few physical constants in the universe. the slightest change in their size would mean the complete annihilation of the universe (gravity for example. if it was bigger the mass could have never spread out and the whole universe would be one giant ball or black hole. if it was lower mass wouldnt build planets or stars). Why they have exactly the value they have is not known, it is accepted, tested and is beeing worked with. But no real scientist would dare to say "i know why it is the way it is!" they only say that they know that it is.

not meaning to argue for religion.
i'm just a science fan and i like to point out these falsely used arguments about how science explains these things already. there's a whole bunch of wordl-specialist scientists that believe in some kind of religion because of what they find out with theyr experiments too.
User avatar #24 - noblexfenrir (05/13/2013) [-]
Well to be fair, I read his comment as pertaining to evolution as the formation of life. I know evolution isn't the answer for how life came to be but either way I digress you are correct. Except that experiments for abiogenesis have been incredibly promising and and are showing how specific formations of archaic life and the development to more complex life occurred.

Second, yes there are many laws that are required for this current form of universe to exist. However, if those variables were adjusted slightly or greatly, the universe (or whichever outcome develops) would form to equalize with those new laws. They have this value because basically, they just do. It doesn't mean anything outside of this is why certain things are able to occur.
#25 - kanedam (05/13/2013) [-]
there is a big difference between something evolving or getting better and something starting to exist.

a once created lifeform that already has all the important aspects covered (intake,outtake, energy use, reproduction, senses, and so on) is not that hard to reproduce and change. but the very first form to have all of the aspects covered is something completely differen.
and about the second:
a universe could exist with different values thats true. but matter, atoms, electrons, planets, and so on couldnt. and thats quite an important difference. the universe as "the wholeness of existence and room" would still exist, but there would be no matter or existence in it.
User avatar #26 - noblexfenrir (05/13/2013) [-]
"there is a big difference between something evolving or getting better and something starting to exist. "
"a once created lifeform that already has all the important aspects covered (intake,outtake, energy use, reproduction, senses, and so on) is not that hard to reproduce and change. but the very first form to have all of the aspects covered is something completely differen. "

Yes I know this. I said you were right when I didn't explain that in my original comment, I understand this concept fairly well, again though, thank you.

"a universe could exist with different values thats true. but matter, atoms, electrons, planets, and so on couldnt. and thats quite an important difference. the universe as "the wholeness of existence and room" would still exist, but there would be no matter or existence in it."

Well first we cannot make that assumption. Not only does the matter we currently have have a fairly decent wiggle room, we also don't know how the adaptation would result if the universe began with completely different variables (Minus the ones that would have caused the singularity from the big bang to stay relatively stable).

Either way though, it does not matter. Our universe in it's current state is beautiful and allows for very magnificent things to form such as life, but on a grand scale it is nothing special since it simply adapted to the forces acting upon it and it will do so again if those forces ever change. Excluding some rather extreme variables.

#27 - kanedam (05/13/2013) [-]
Sorry! Seems i got the first part wrong... but thats exactly the kind of thing religious people often talk about when saying "randomness" because its hard (and unscientific) to explain the forming of the first membrane and after that the first lifeform as "it just happened". there needs to be an explanation.
and about the second part, might be that i misunderstood again so let me ask:
(Minus the ones that would have caused the singularity from the big bang to stay relatively stable).
Do you mean the ones that made the big bang possible or those that made the universe (singularity) stay stable?

but on a grand scale it is nothing special since it simply adapted to the forces acting upon it and it will do so again if those forces ever change
The universe doesnt adapt, it is formed by these forces. its like temperature of evaporation. water doesnt adapt that if its 200°C it changes to stay fluid, it has to evaporate as a fact. (under normal pressure) and the analogue things happen to matter or anything if the forces work on them. so if you change the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic force a bit planets/matter couldnt stay stable. (maybe i got this argument wrong... its jut the way i understood it)
User avatar #14 - Shramin (05/10/2013) [-]
Ah that makes more sense, thanks.
#19 - If you honestly don't see my point, there's no reasoning to co… 05/06/2013 on Question On Religion #1 0
#171 - Because religion is destructive at it's core. It indoctrinates… 05/03/2013 on The world's first supervillian 0
#168 - Explain to me how Richard Dawkins is an "asshole".  [+] (2 new replies) 05/02/2013 on The world's first supervillian 0
User avatar #169 - Gandalfthewhite (05/02/2013) [-]
because he can't just let religious people be, he has to force his own opinions on them people while complaining about religion for doing the same things. i don't necessarily think religion is a good thing but he goes over the top by plastering his views on buses. makes atheists look like bigoted dickheads
User avatar #171 - MosKunas (05/03/2013) [-]
Because religion is destructive at it's core. It indoctrinates children with absurd views that compare to the likes of Thor and Zeus, and telling them that there is a magical sky fairy that is personally invested into everything they do.

If someone came along and started saying their waffles and apple juice were the body and blood of Elvis, and started teaching children that Elvis is eternal and will love them forever. And for those children to be with Elvis forever they have to follow his music and if they don't they will go to "hell" forever.

You would say that belief is outrageous and resembles some sort of cult/following, yet insert Jesus and his body/blood and boom, you have a religion.

Religion gives people bad reasons to be good people, when better reasons to be good are already available. (If those people are actually being "good", and not blowing themselves up or harming others.)

It's for all those reasons and more that people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Bennett, Hitchens, etc. seek to abolish religion. I'm hoping you know who those people are since you are confidently calling Richard Dawkins an ass.
#146 - Yes one of the most influential thinkers/biologists of our tim…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/01/2013 on The world's first supervillian 0
User avatar #158 - Gandalfthewhite (05/01/2013) [-]
just because he's achieved things doesn't suddenly make him a nice guy
User avatar #168 - MosKunas (05/02/2013) [-]
Explain to me how Richard Dawkins is an "asshole".
User avatar #169 - Gandalfthewhite (05/02/2013) [-]
because he can't just let religious people be, he has to force his own opinions on them people while complaining about religion for doing the same things. i don't necessarily think religion is a good thing but he goes over the top by plastering his views on buses. makes atheists look like bigoted dickheads
User avatar #171 - MosKunas (05/03/2013) [-]
Because religion is destructive at it's core. It indoctrinates children with absurd views that compare to the likes of Thor and Zeus, and telling them that there is a magical sky fairy that is personally invested into everything they do.

If someone came along and started saying their waffles and apple juice were the body and blood of Elvis, and started teaching children that Elvis is eternal and will love them forever. And for those children to be with Elvis forever they have to follow his music and if they don't they will go to "hell" forever.

You would say that belief is outrageous and resembles some sort of cult/following, yet insert Jesus and his body/blood and boom, you have a religion.

Religion gives people bad reasons to be good people, when better reasons to be good are already available. (If those people are actually being "good", and not blowing themselves up or harming others.)

It's for all those reasons and more that people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Bennett, Hitchens, etc. seek to abolish religion. I'm hoping you know who those people are since you are confidently calling Richard Dawkins an ass.
#31 - I don't see why not 04/26/2013 on Regret 0
#28 - I'm just joking, sorry. But i'm actually not an atheist, i'm a…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/26/2013 on Regret 0
#30 - Womens Study Major (04/26/2013) [-]
i take everything back. can we fuck?
User avatar #31 - MosKunas (04/26/2013) [-]
I don't see why not
#9 - Do you honestly think that? I'm just wondering.  [+] (4 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Regret 0
User avatar #10 - wrinklynewt (04/25/2013) [-]
yeah, i'm christian
like i said though, i don't believe everything in the old testament happened or that it's exactly what God said, because there have been so many translations and corrupt people in the world that could have changed it

but i believe this story was true
#15 - cheaphats (04/25/2013) [-]
jew weighing in here. while the new testament is really messed up translation-wise, the torah (what you call the old testament) actually isnt. every time you read torah in synagogue it should be from a torah scroll or a book that has the same exact words as a torah scroll. every time you make a new scroll you must count the letters of the paragraph you copied to make sure you didnt miss one. this leads to the hebrew word for "scribe" literally meaning "one who counts". every usable torah scroll has the exact same words in it and most of us in the orthodox movement read hebrew as a first or close second language so translation isnt a problem. so while you guys cant handle keeping your books straight dont accuse us of the same.
User avatar #38 - patrickmiller (04/26/2013) [-]
YEh the stuff in the new testament is always misinterpreted by those who would discredit it because of the poor translations,
User avatar #11 - darkslayer (04/25/2013) [-]
That's fair enough, man. You're entitled to your opinion :)
#3 - I'll be sitting here waiting for the Christians to arrive and …  [+] (12 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Regret -3
#25 - Womens Study Major (04/26/2013) [-]
i was hoping you would be a mildly intelligent atheist. my hopes were shattered
User avatar #28 - MosKunas (04/26/2013) [-]
I'm just joking, sorry. But i'm actually not an atheist, i'm an anti-theist. (Not saying to should have known lol.) But that comment was a joke.
#30 - Womens Study Major (04/26/2013) [-]
i take everything back. can we fuck?
User avatar #31 - MosKunas (04/26/2013) [-]
I don't see why not
User avatar #5 - wrinklynewt (04/25/2013) [-]
no, that is what he said
but he this is having to do with Noah and the ark, where humans had become super corrupt and stuff

i don't think everything in the old testament should be translated directly though
User avatar #7 - darkslayer (04/25/2013) [-]
I'd say humans are MORE corrupt now, and certainly have much more power to flaunt but I don't see any serendipitous ecological disasters about to wipe us out- other than ourselves.
User avatar #8 - wrinklynewt (04/25/2013) [-]
...thats because right after the flood God looked back down on the earth an promised never to do it again
User avatar #9 - MosKunas (04/25/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think that? I'm just wondering.
User avatar #10 - wrinklynewt (04/25/2013) [-]
yeah, i'm christian
like i said though, i don't believe everything in the old testament happened or that it's exactly what God said, because there have been so many translations and corrupt people in the world that could have changed it

but i believe this story was true
#15 - cheaphats (04/25/2013) [-]
jew weighing in here. while the new testament is really messed up translation-wise, the torah (what you call the old testament) actually isnt. every time you read torah in synagogue it should be from a torah scroll or a book that has the same exact words as a torah scroll. every time you make a new scroll you must count the letters of the paragraph you copied to make sure you didnt miss one. this leads to the hebrew word for "scribe" literally meaning "one who counts". every usable torah scroll has the exact same words in it and most of us in the orthodox movement read hebrew as a first or close second language so translation isnt a problem. so while you guys cant handle keeping your books straight dont accuse us of the same.
User avatar #38 - patrickmiller (04/26/2013) [-]
YEh the stuff in the new testament is always misinterpreted by those who would discredit it because of the poor translations,
User avatar #11 - darkslayer (04/25/2013) [-]
That's fair enough, man. You're entitled to your opinion :)
#14 - I'm not confused at all. But once again, I am referring to the… 04/21/2013 on Question On Religion #1 0
#12 - No, i'm not. I'm assuming you realize that the church teaches …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/21/2013 on Question On Religion #1 0
#15 - winstonsmith (04/21/2013) [-]
You are assuming that the doctrine of one church leaves no interpretation to the individual. Your are also assuming that religions have now room to evolve. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, all have different interpretations on certain aspects of religion, and therefore have formed different branches. Yet, they all consider themselves Christian. What we have in this case is an individual who belongs to a branch of Christianity that doesn't believe in universal condemnation for non-believers.

Also, I don't think you have the right to define what being Christian means. If you say that to be christian one must fully believe in all values of an orginally set doctrine, then you are being a little naive. Deciding that christians cannot have differing interpretations on religious doctrine is comparable to defining humans as having only have one specific genome, and any individuals with the slightest mutation from this genome is not human BY DEFINITION, although that would exclude all of humanity. People may have different interpretations, but that doesn't automatically make them a different religion. Proof of concept, Catholic officials have been debating for centuries on the exact nature of the Holy Trinity, yet all of them can safely call themselves Christian.

#8 - Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, b…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/18/2013 on Question On Religion #1 0
#13 - winstonsmith (04/21/2013) [-]
Once again, Thinking for himself is exactly what he HAS done by providing his own interpretation, yet you continue berating his belief system. I don't dislike atheists, but I dislike atheists like YOU. Congratulations on being an asshole.
#5 - The teachings of Christianity say that those who do not follow…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/17/2013 on Question On Religion #1 +1
#11 - winstonsmith (04/21/2013) [-]
I hate to be an asshole, but I'm on the internet and have that privilege. From what your saying, you sound like the kind of person who'd say "Traditional Christians doctrine is unfair and immoral and holding back society" or whatever. Now a christian comes on this site and says that he doesnt believe in the "go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus" doctrine and that all the priests he knows teach likewise. Then you just say "well then you are just have an individual interpretation Christians are still assholes". This guy's trying to be tolerant and all you're doing is ridiculing him. Doesn't it sound a bit like you're just trying to find ways of hating Christians?
User avatar #12 - MosKunas (04/21/2013) [-]
No, i'm not. I'm assuming you realize that the church teaches that if you don't believe in the Christian God you go to hell, we have established that. Then the person you are defending proceeded to tell me that's not what he chooses to believe. Then at what point is what you choose to believe still considered Christianity? All inter-faith denominations of Christianity believe that if you don't believe in God you go to hell. Therefore if someone says they don't think that's how it works, then they aren't Christian. (By any definition of any branch of faith under the term.)

I could say: "I am Christian, and I think that everyone that has a name with the letter "z" in it goes to heaven."

Just because he states that he is "Christian" at the beginning of his sentence doesn't mean everything following it is accepted Christian values, and that I should be ashamed because I am criticizing someone who is so graciously presented an alternate view of "Christianity."

I put Christianity is quotations when referring to him because if he truly believes in what he saying then he is not Christian by the definition. I can't say, ya i'm an atheist, and I believe in God. It doesn't work like that. And by saying that he thinks if you are good you go to heaven, and it doesn't matter what religion you are, then he is not Christian by the meaning of the word.

I hope you understand why you and him are both wrong, because this is quite a clear concept.
#15 - winstonsmith (04/21/2013) [-]
You are assuming that the doctrine of one church leaves no interpretation to the individual. Your are also assuming that religions have now room to evolve. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, all have different interpretations on certain aspects of religion, and therefore have formed different branches. Yet, they all consider themselves Christian. What we have in this case is an individual who belongs to a branch of Christianity that doesn't believe in universal condemnation for non-believers.

Also, I don't think you have the right to define what being Christian means. If you say that to be christian one must fully believe in all values of an orginally set doctrine, then you are being a little naive. Deciding that christians cannot have differing interpretations on religious doctrine is comparable to defining humans as having only have one specific genome, and any individuals with the slightest mutation from this genome is not human BY DEFINITION, although that would exclude all of humanity. People may have different interpretations, but that doesn't automatically make them a different religion. Proof of concept, Catholic officials have been debating for centuries on the exact nature of the Holy Trinity, yet all of them can safely call themselves Christian.

#10 - Womens Study Major (04/21/2013) [-]
I understand your confusion, but most churches (not including the Catholic Church at this point) are actually advocating for personal interpretation of the bible to find moral truth. That is why there are more churches nowadays advocating for things such as religious tolerance in schools, teaching of evolution, and marriage equality. I know that pretty much all of the christians I know are very tolerant, and do not treat anybody as if they "are going to Hell". It just so happens that most of these less traditional movements are overshadowed in the public eye by strong opposition from christian traditionalists.
User avatar #14 - MosKunas (04/21/2013) [-]
I'm not confused at all. But once again, I am referring to the actual meaning of the term, not individual interpretation. I could say that to me bible is saying that the flying spaghetti monster will come again because it is just subliminal. And no one can say that I am wrong. Obviously most Christian people don't walk around smiting people, but their faith still sends me to hell regardless.

And what you're saying has nothing to do with the question I am presenting in the post. The underlying theme of Christianity is: If you don't worship almighty God, you will go to hell for eternity. You can't question that, because it is true.

In no way am I questioning the legitimacy of the "moral truths" people individually find in the bible. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I presented.
#7 - djoka has deleted their comment.
#6 - djoka (04/18/2013) [-]
I would like You to point me who said (or in what book is it written) that all people of different religion are going to hell.I am Eastern Orthodox Christian,and for example Catholics are saying that we are schismatics and that we are going to burn in hell.And i dont give a damn.Because if you are Christian,you know that no man can say that somebody will burn in hell,or go to heaven.Only God knows that (if you believe in Him).NO MAN,not pope,no patriarh,not anyone.
User avatar #8 - MosKunas (04/18/2013) [-]
Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

That was just to show you an example of what I am referring to.

Therefore the billions who don't believe, and aren't baptized, will go to hell. Christianity and Religion as a whole is ground for such hypocrisy and immorality. I honestly feel bad for how misconstrued your idea of religion is, and how you don't see the problems with your faith. Think for yourself.
#13 - winstonsmith (04/21/2013) [-]
Once again, Thinking for himself is exactly what he HAS done by providing his own interpretation, yet you continue berating his belief system. I don't dislike atheists, but I dislike atheists like YOU. Congratulations on being an asshole.
[ 142 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)