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

hide menu

Vandeekree

Rank #7879 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:12/25/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7879
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3981 total,  5815 ,  1834
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1698
FJ Points:3641

latest user's comments

#16 - Why would you not make B-The Dark and W-Knight? Honestly 02/08/2014 on what is your name? 0
#74 - The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting.… 02/08/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -1
#73 - Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look … 02/08/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -1
#72 - First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not su… 02/08/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -1
#68 - Interpretations can vary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a …  [+] (5 new replies) 02/08/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -1
#71 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Religion fills that whole, and that question that people need filled, if you had been born into a buddhist family and raised on the beliefs of buddhism you'd be sitting here preaching a different story with the exact same meaning.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look at all religions and all philosophies. I can't think of a bigger question than what the purpose of life is and so one should explore every aspect you can get your hands on. I'm still in the process of doing that but, as of yet, Christianity still seems to be the only right way as far as I can tell.
#70 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Ultimately people believe what they want to believe, you went into religion hoping for something and you were always going to interpret that religion into the one single conclusion that would only make sense for you. Thats why there is so much segregation in religion, it's so obscure you can pull whatever you want out of it.
#69 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
"But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible." I can back up what I believe with actual observable evidence, not something that is written in another part of the bible, and I didn't say neither was wrong, ultimately one has to be wrong and one has to be right, "do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible?" that's a loaded question, that's like me saying, "do you think there were dinosaurs. I do." and no i dont have to decide anything about the bible because i dont believe in it, Im here offering an understanding that religious people wont change their views and you cant show me the common courtesy of returning the favour. Whats to say your meaning is the true meaning, there are many other christians out there that interpret it differently and still come out with the basic god is good, look at christianity and its segregations that caused riots and bombings in my home country. And i dont like resorting to swearing but this made my blood boil, "But not if you are looking for the true meaning." that is the epitome of asshatery, its so.... i dont even know the word, cant you see what that looks like, its " youre entitled to your opinion, you can be as ignorant as you like" that is basically what that sentence means, dont be one of those guys. You are the guy that I try not to be, always forcing your side of the argument to validate yourself, i couldnt give two shits what you believe in, stop telling me how you interpret it the true way, because as far as im concerned you can sit there and interpret your pile of horse shit into whatever god you want it to be.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not sure how it compares to dinosaurs. It was an opinion question.

Also, return what favor? I already know that religious people are often firm in their beliefs. Although "won't change" is a bit harsh. Religious people are people too. Show us something that makes sense and we(or at least me and those I know) will consider it just like you consider anything else. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are lying to themselves.

Lastly, you completely misunderstood what I said. In fact, you took what I said to be the exact opposite of what I meant. My statement said that, if there is a true way to view the bible, then study will get you there. I also said that My way is not necessarily correct. That you shouldn't worry about interpretation and focus on what the bible says. That to get the real meaning, the meaning God intended. You just have to study it, not looking for anything that isn't there.
I really don't know what got you so angry but I sorry if my wording was off.
#65 - Not at all. The bible is full of places and people that can be…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/08/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -1
#67 - popeflatus (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection accounts are all completely different. There is no evidence of a global flood at all, but that story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh that existed prior to the Israelites. Science does not say that people came from 2 individuals at all, especially not 2 people from about 6000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Africa some 150-200 000 years ago. This is a verifiable fact.The bible makes many claims that have been shown to be false such as the sun stopping in the sky. Funny how that is not recorded anywhere by anyone else outside of the bible. The bible is a man made document who's contents were voted(!) on at the council of Nicea. No Adam and Eve. No global flood. Hideous violence in the old testament that would be expected of a primitive ignorant people with out any evidence to support it at all. If graves really did 'open up and the saints walked the earth' wouldn't anyone else have written about such an extraordinary event? Why doesn't god ever show up anymore? Why doesn't he heal amputees? Why is his book so full of errors? Go to Aronra's channel on youtube and watch his excellent series entitled 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. Its over 3 hours long but is worth it. You seem like a smart person, but smart people are also good at making excuses for believing in nonsense. Free your mind from the poison!
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting. They describe the same events but don't include all the same details. One says "Peter went to the tomb" another says "Peter and John went to the tomb" both agree, the later just leaves out a detail. If you read the passage you will find all the so called contradictions follow this format.

And I agree with you about the global flood. There was, however, a biblical flood. If you look at the original Hebrew text you will find it describes the place that was flooded as "kol erets" meaning "earth,"(not Earth) "land," "country," or "ground." And there is a lot of geological evidence for a great flood happening in that region, it also explains how there can be multiple races after the flood.

And the is, in fact, evidence that we came from a single genetic pair. It's not definitive of course. But evidence is evidence even if you choose not to accept it. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/new-studies-suggest-an-adam-and-eve-link.html?_r=0
Although I do agree that we started around that African region, very close to where the bible claims the garden of Eden to have been.(wink wink)

As for the sun stopping. That seems to be just one of God's workings. Him doing the impossible to prove he is, in fact, God. Although there are some records of the sun and moon stopping in the sky around the same time period, it wasn't an era where such things were recorded terribly well either and what was recorded wasn't likely to last. So lack of proof doesn't really equal proof against.

And yes, the bible is, in fact, a man made document. But the men who made it were divinely guided.

As for why God doesn't do works anymore. In the past, while the bible documents his works. If you look at them in the scope of history, they were very very rare. So it's no wonder he still doesn't do them on the daily.

And thanks for the video suggestion, I'll check it out.
Kind of weird how this poison makes me want to love everyone though
#62 - Of course. My personal reasons are that I have studied the…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/06/2014 on Homosexuals are gay -2
#66 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
I find, in most cases, the argument of religion is pointless, I'm not trying to belittle you here but the idea behind religion is the complete and total belief, if I were to change your mind in a single sentence, you were never a Christian in the first place. I myself am not religious, and I have no idea why people try to convince Christians to give up their faith, it seems to be just to validate it for themselves, "stop believing what you believe and believe what I believe, so that I know it's right." the fact of the matter is, to be a Christian you have to TOTALLY believe in God, so no matter what I, or anyone else said, you would find some way to refute it, case in point, the misunderstood verses, in my eyes it's a contradiction clear as day, and in yours it's misunderstood verse, because interpretation is a very powerful thing, you can read one thing and say, oh it means this, you just have to know the context, and i could say the exact same thing, and mean something entirely the opposite. I don't understand why people still have this same stupid argument. One of my best friends growing up was very religious and the only difference between him and my other friends was that he wasn't out to play till Sunday afternoon.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Interpretations can vary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a right one. I'm not saying mine is right, but according to what I have so far studied it is right. And if someone disagrees with me, it's because, from what they have so far seen, they believe they are right.
So you have to decide, do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible? I do.
The more I study the bible the more I realize it is one big package and if you leave parts out, it starts to contradict itself. But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible. It can only take you to a single conclusion. It's just that people at various stages of that journey to conclusion will disagree and make it look like interpretations are possible. Which they are. But not if you are looking for the true meaning.
#71 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Religion fills that whole, and that question that people need filled, if you had been born into a buddhist family and raised on the beliefs of buddhism you'd be sitting here preaching a different story with the exact same meaning.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look at all religions and all philosophies. I can't think of a bigger question than what the purpose of life is and so one should explore every aspect you can get your hands on. I'm still in the process of doing that but, as of yet, Christianity still seems to be the only right way as far as I can tell.
#70 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Ultimately people believe what they want to believe, you went into religion hoping for something and you were always going to interpret that religion into the one single conclusion that would only make sense for you. Thats why there is so much segregation in religion, it's so obscure you can pull whatever you want out of it.
#69 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
"But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible." I can back up what I believe with actual observable evidence, not something that is written in another part of the bible, and I didn't say neither was wrong, ultimately one has to be wrong and one has to be right, "do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible?" that's a loaded question, that's like me saying, "do you think there were dinosaurs. I do." and no i dont have to decide anything about the bible because i dont believe in it, Im here offering an understanding that religious people wont change their views and you cant show me the common courtesy of returning the favour. Whats to say your meaning is the true meaning, there are many other christians out there that interpret it differently and still come out with the basic god is good, look at christianity and its segregations that caused riots and bombings in my home country. And i dont like resorting to swearing but this made my blood boil, "But not if you are looking for the true meaning." that is the epitome of asshatery, its so.... i dont even know the word, cant you see what that looks like, its " youre entitled to your opinion, you can be as ignorant as you like" that is basically what that sentence means, dont be one of those guys. You are the guy that I try not to be, always forcing your side of the argument to validate yourself, i couldnt give two shits what you believe in, stop telling me how you interpret it the true way, because as far as im concerned you can sit there and interpret your pile of horse shit into whatever god you want it to be.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not sure how it compares to dinosaurs. It was an opinion question.

Also, return what favor? I already know that religious people are often firm in their beliefs. Although "won't change" is a bit harsh. Religious people are people too. Show us something that makes sense and we(or at least me and those I know) will consider it just like you consider anything else. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are lying to themselves.

Lastly, you completely misunderstood what I said. In fact, you took what I said to be the exact opposite of what I meant. My statement said that, if there is a true way to view the bible, then study will get you there. I also said that My way is not necessarily correct. That you shouldn't worry about interpretation and focus on what the bible says. That to get the real meaning, the meaning God intended. You just have to study it, not looking for anything that isn't there.
I really don't know what got you so angry but I sorry if my wording was off.
#63 - popeflatus (02/07/2014) [-]
The bible is definitely not well attested to by history. The stories of Jesus were written down many decades after his alleged life and there are zero contemporaneous accounts of his existence. The prophecies are self fulfilling, that is, people read the prophecy and then make it come true. That is not any kind of proof at all. And when you look at the gospels, they each give a different version of the resurrection. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist (that story is taken from previous Mesopotamian mythology), we know that there was never a global flood as a fact and the story of Moses is also fictitious. The bible is scientifically debunked.
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Not at all. The bible is full of places and people that can be shown to have actually existed. There are numerous third party accounts of the people and events. Roman records list Pontius Pilate(he ordered Jesus excited) as Prefect of Judea during the exact time the bible claims. Records from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus attest that Pontius put to death "Christus." Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, another Roman, recorded Jews being kicked out of Rome 40 years after Jesus's death because they were raising a ruckus over the rising Christian religion. And many other records that both directly confirm and indirectly hint at not only Jesus, but many other biblical figures and events. But it's also not surprising there aren't many records of Jesus until shortly after his death. Christians were heavily persecuted during the early parts of Christianity so writing things down was dangerous. Not to mention writing in general was already relatively rare.

While I do agree that some of the prophesies do seem self fulfilling, I attempted to avoid those in my examples. If you read the exact text of those prophesies, many are so exact and specific that it's hard to argue they were just vague coincidences.\

As for the contradictions in the resurrection. These are all over minor things and are very debatable if they actually are contradictions. Such as when the different books say "in the morning" "still dark" and "after sunrise" while these are semi contradictory, it really is just the same event described with different words. Not to mention very minor details in the story.

Secondly, science supports the idea that humans came from a single pair of "first humans." Now if the Jews copied the Mesopotamians or the other way around, that is pure speculation.

And as for the flood. There is evidence for the great flood. Some think it was a regional flood. Some thing it was global but progressional. But if it's scientifically impossible depends on which scientist you ask.
#67 - popeflatus (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection accounts are all completely different. There is no evidence of a global flood at all, but that story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh that existed prior to the Israelites. Science does not say that people came from 2 individuals at all, especially not 2 people from about 6000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Africa some 150-200 000 years ago. This is a verifiable fact.The bible makes many claims that have been shown to be false such as the sun stopping in the sky. Funny how that is not recorded anywhere by anyone else outside of the bible. The bible is a man made document who's contents were voted(!) on at the council of Nicea. No Adam and Eve. No global flood. Hideous violence in the old testament that would be expected of a primitive ignorant people with out any evidence to support it at all. If graves really did 'open up and the saints walked the earth' wouldn't anyone else have written about such an extraordinary event? Why doesn't god ever show up anymore? Why doesn't he heal amputees? Why is his book so full of errors? Go to Aronra's channel on youtube and watch his excellent series entitled 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. Its over 3 hours long but is worth it. You seem like a smart person, but smart people are also good at making excuses for believing in nonsense. Free your mind from the poison!
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting. They describe the same events but don't include all the same details. One says "Peter went to the tomb" another says "Peter and John went to the tomb" both agree, the later just leaves out a detail. If you read the passage you will find all the so called contradictions follow this format.

And I agree with you about the global flood. There was, however, a biblical flood. If you look at the original Hebrew text you will find it describes the place that was flooded as "kol erets" meaning "earth,"(not Earth) "land," "country," or "ground." And there is a lot of geological evidence for a great flood happening in that region, it also explains how there can be multiple races after the flood.

And the is, in fact, evidence that we came from a single genetic pair. It's not definitive of course. But evidence is evidence even if you choose not to accept it. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/new-studies-suggest-an-adam-and-eve-link.html?_r=0
Although I do agree that we started around that African region, very close to where the bible claims the garden of Eden to have been.(wink wink)

As for the sun stopping. That seems to be just one of God's workings. Him doing the impossible to prove he is, in fact, God. Although there are some records of the sun and moon stopping in the sky around the same time period, it wasn't an era where such things were recorded terribly well either and what was recorded wasn't likely to last. So lack of proof doesn't really equal proof against.

And yes, the bible is, in fact, a man made document. But the men who made it were divinely guided.

As for why God doesn't do works anymore. In the past, while the bible documents his works. If you look at them in the scope of history, they were very very rare. So it's no wonder he still doesn't do them on the daily.

And thanks for the video suggestion, I'll check it out.
Kind of weird how this poison makes me want to love everyone though
#19 - Alright. Going in order: For Matthew 5:18-19: Jesus s…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/06/2014 on Homosexuals are gay +1
#20 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
So, can I ask why you're so convinced of the validity of the bible?
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Of course.
My personal reasons are that I have studied the bible and found it to be without contradiction. Of course a lot of people assert that there are contradictions. You can google it and get long lists of contradictions in the bible but I have followed up on each one and found that none of them are actually contradictions. They are simply misunderstood verses.

These perceived contradictions come from two places. Either a verse is taken out of context and so it looks like it is saying one thing when in reality it's not. An example of this would be when someone says "The bible says and eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." Yes, the bible says those exact words, but it's at the point where Jesus says "Some say 'An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say turn the other cheek."
The other place these false accusation of contradiction come from is misstranslation. The bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and these languages are rather different from English so sometimes the translations can be a bit off. Many contradictions disappear when you take the time to look at the original text and its meaning instead of the different English translations,
My other reason would be the evidence. Most people get annoyed when you use the bible as evidence of the validity of God. But it's hard to deny that Christianity(and by extension Judaism) is the most well documented and most backed up texts in the world. There are third party souses that affirm many of the historical claims. No claim in the bible has ever been discounted as historically false yet.
Also the bible is full of prophecies. Every one of these has come true and none have failed to come true as of yet. From predictions of Alexander the Great, to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation, and many others. A lot of these prophecies are supported by third party evidence.

But, of course, you should really look at it all on your own and decide for yourself.
#66 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
I find, in most cases, the argument of religion is pointless, I'm not trying to belittle you here but the idea behind religion is the complete and total belief, if I were to change your mind in a single sentence, you were never a Christian in the first place. I myself am not religious, and I have no idea why people try to convince Christians to give up their faith, it seems to be just to validate it for themselves, "stop believing what you believe and believe what I believe, so that I know it's right." the fact of the matter is, to be a Christian you have to TOTALLY believe in God, so no matter what I, or anyone else said, you would find some way to refute it, case in point, the misunderstood verses, in my eyes it's a contradiction clear as day, and in yours it's misunderstood verse, because interpretation is a very powerful thing, you can read one thing and say, oh it means this, you just have to know the context, and i could say the exact same thing, and mean something entirely the opposite. I don't understand why people still have this same stupid argument. One of my best friends growing up was very religious and the only difference between him and my other friends was that he wasn't out to play till Sunday afternoon.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Interpretations can vary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a right one. I'm not saying mine is right, but according to what I have so far studied it is right. And if someone disagrees with me, it's because, from what they have so far seen, they believe they are right.
So you have to decide, do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible? I do.
The more I study the bible the more I realize it is one big package and if you leave parts out, it starts to contradict itself. But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible. It can only take you to a single conclusion. It's just that people at various stages of that journey to conclusion will disagree and make it look like interpretations are possible. Which they are. But not if you are looking for the true meaning.
#71 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Religion fills that whole, and that question that people need filled, if you had been born into a buddhist family and raised on the beliefs of buddhism you'd be sitting here preaching a different story with the exact same meaning.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look at all religions and all philosophies. I can't think of a bigger question than what the purpose of life is and so one should explore every aspect you can get your hands on. I'm still in the process of doing that but, as of yet, Christianity still seems to be the only right way as far as I can tell.
#70 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Ultimately people believe what they want to believe, you went into religion hoping for something and you were always going to interpret that religion into the one single conclusion that would only make sense for you. Thats why there is so much segregation in religion, it's so obscure you can pull whatever you want out of it.
#69 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
"But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible." I can back up what I believe with actual observable evidence, not something that is written in another part of the bible, and I didn't say neither was wrong, ultimately one has to be wrong and one has to be right, "do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible?" that's a loaded question, that's like me saying, "do you think there were dinosaurs. I do." and no i dont have to decide anything about the bible because i dont believe in it, Im here offering an understanding that religious people wont change their views and you cant show me the common courtesy of returning the favour. Whats to say your meaning is the true meaning, there are many other christians out there that interpret it differently and still come out with the basic god is good, look at christianity and its segregations that caused riots and bombings in my home country. And i dont like resorting to swearing but this made my blood boil, "But not if you are looking for the true meaning." that is the epitome of asshatery, its so.... i dont even know the word, cant you see what that looks like, its " youre entitled to your opinion, you can be as ignorant as you like" that is basically what that sentence means, dont be one of those guys. You are the guy that I try not to be, always forcing your side of the argument to validate yourself, i couldnt give two shits what you believe in, stop telling me how you interpret it the true way, because as far as im concerned you can sit there and interpret your pile of horse shit into whatever god you want it to be.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not sure how it compares to dinosaurs. It was an opinion question.

Also, return what favor? I already know that religious people are often firm in their beliefs. Although "won't change" is a bit harsh. Religious people are people too. Show us something that makes sense and we(or at least me and those I know) will consider it just like you consider anything else. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are lying to themselves.

Lastly, you completely misunderstood what I said. In fact, you took what I said to be the exact opposite of what I meant. My statement said that, if there is a true way to view the bible, then study will get you there. I also said that My way is not necessarily correct. That you shouldn't worry about interpretation and focus on what the bible says. That to get the real meaning, the meaning God intended. You just have to study it, not looking for anything that isn't there.
I really don't know what got you so angry but I sorry if my wording was off.
#63 - popeflatus (02/07/2014) [-]
The bible is definitely not well attested to by history. The stories of Jesus were written down many decades after his alleged life and there are zero contemporaneous accounts of his existence. The prophecies are self fulfilling, that is, people read the prophecy and then make it come true. That is not any kind of proof at all. And when you look at the gospels, they each give a different version of the resurrection. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist (that story is taken from previous Mesopotamian mythology), we know that there was never a global flood as a fact and the story of Moses is also fictitious. The bible is scientifically debunked.
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Not at all. The bible is full of places and people that can be shown to have actually existed. There are numerous third party accounts of the people and events. Roman records list Pontius Pilate(he ordered Jesus excited) as Prefect of Judea during the exact time the bible claims. Records from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus attest that Pontius put to death "Christus." Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, another Roman, recorded Jews being kicked out of Rome 40 years after Jesus's death because they were raising a ruckus over the rising Christian religion. And many other records that both directly confirm and indirectly hint at not only Jesus, but many other biblical figures and events. But it's also not surprising there aren't many records of Jesus until shortly after his death. Christians were heavily persecuted during the early parts of Christianity so writing things down was dangerous. Not to mention writing in general was already relatively rare.

While I do agree that some of the prophesies do seem self fulfilling, I attempted to avoid those in my examples. If you read the exact text of those prophesies, many are so exact and specific that it's hard to argue they were just vague coincidences.\

As for the contradictions in the resurrection. These are all over minor things and are very debatable if they actually are contradictions. Such as when the different books say "in the morning" "still dark" and "after sunrise" while these are semi contradictory, it really is just the same event described with different words. Not to mention very minor details in the story.

Secondly, science supports the idea that humans came from a single pair of "first humans." Now if the Jews copied the Mesopotamians or the other way around, that is pure speculation.

And as for the flood. There is evidence for the great flood. Some think it was a regional flood. Some thing it was global but progressional. But if it's scientifically impossible depends on which scientist you ask.
#67 - popeflatus (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection accounts are all completely different. There is no evidence of a global flood at all, but that story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh that existed prior to the Israelites. Science does not say that people came from 2 individuals at all, especially not 2 people from about 6000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Africa some 150-200 000 years ago. This is a verifiable fact.The bible makes many claims that have been shown to be false such as the sun stopping in the sky. Funny how that is not recorded anywhere by anyone else outside of the bible. The bible is a man made document who's contents were voted(!) on at the council of Nicea. No Adam and Eve. No global flood. Hideous violence in the old testament that would be expected of a primitive ignorant people with out any evidence to support it at all. If graves really did 'open up and the saints walked the earth' wouldn't anyone else have written about such an extraordinary event? Why doesn't god ever show up anymore? Why doesn't he heal amputees? Why is his book so full of errors? Go to Aronra's channel on youtube and watch his excellent series entitled 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. Its over 3 hours long but is worth it. You seem like a smart person, but smart people are also good at making excuses for believing in nonsense. Free your mind from the poison!
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting. They describe the same events but don't include all the same details. One says "Peter went to the tomb" another says "Peter and John went to the tomb" both agree, the later just leaves out a detail. If you read the passage you will find all the so called contradictions follow this format.

And I agree with you about the global flood. There was, however, a biblical flood. If you look at the original Hebrew text you will find it describes the place that was flooded as "kol erets" meaning "earth,"(not Earth) "land," "country," or "ground." And there is a lot of geological evidence for a great flood happening in that region, it also explains how there can be multiple races after the flood.

And the is, in fact, evidence that we came from a single genetic pair. It's not definitive of course. But evidence is evidence even if you choose not to accept it. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/new-studies-suggest-an-adam-and-eve-link.html?_r=0
Although I do agree that we started around that African region, very close to where the bible claims the garden of Eden to have been.(wink wink)

As for the sun stopping. That seems to be just one of God's workings. Him doing the impossible to prove he is, in fact, God. Although there are some records of the sun and moon stopping in the sky around the same time period, it wasn't an era where such things were recorded terribly well either and what was recorded wasn't likely to last. So lack of proof doesn't really equal proof against.

And yes, the bible is, in fact, a man made document. But the men who made it were divinely guided.

As for why God doesn't do works anymore. In the past, while the bible documents his works. If you look at them in the scope of history, they were very very rare. So it's no wonder he still doesn't do them on the daily.

And thanks for the video suggestion, I'll check it out.
Kind of weird how this poison makes me want to love everyone though
#15 - Mind giving the source for the exact verse you're paraphrasing…  [+] (15 new replies) 02/06/2014 on Homosexuals are gay 0
#17 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
Here you go!
Matthew 5:18-19 RSV
Luke 16:17 NAB
Matthew 5:17 NAB
2 Timothy 3:16 NAB
2 Peter 20-21 NAB
Mark 7:10 NAB

The bible is the biggest lie of all time.




User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Alright. Going in order:

For Matthew 5:18-19: Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it he is saying that he is a continuation of the law. The old Jewish law foretold of Jesus and now he comes to fulfill it without abolishing it. The antithesis is not between "abolish" and "keep" but between "abolish" and "fulfill" As he goes on he says not a single letter will disappear because the law is still valid, not because we should follow it, but because it predicted and now continues into the new testament. The bible is a whole. The new testament needs the old testament to justify it. The old testament is important and needs to be understood but it has served its purpose and now it's purpose has changed with the coming of Jesus.

Once again for Luke 16:17 he is saying the same thing as above.

Matthew 5:17 is the same verse as the first one on your list.

2 Timothy 3:16 just goes on to affirm what I said about Matthew. That none of the law is ever discarded, it all remains useful and has a purpose. The new building upon the old, not removing it.

2 Peter 20-21 I'm not sure why you included this one. All it does is say that the law came from God, not from people. If there is a point being made here you'll have to explain it to me.

Mark 7:10 Once again, this verse seems out of place. If you are using it as an example of the old testament law that Christians don't follow then yes, it is. But as explained above, Christians don't follow any of the old testament laws anymore sense Jesus came and fulfilled them.

I hope this helped clear up the issue. If not I really recommend you read the entirety of Matthew. Single verses without any context can be misleading. Read all of Jesus's message and it's clear what he means.




#20 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
So, can I ask why you're so convinced of the validity of the bible?
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Of course.
My personal reasons are that I have studied the bible and found it to be without contradiction. Of course a lot of people assert that there are contradictions. You can google it and get long lists of contradictions in the bible but I have followed up on each one and found that none of them are actually contradictions. They are simply misunderstood verses.

These perceived contradictions come from two places. Either a verse is taken out of context and so it looks like it is saying one thing when in reality it's not. An example of this would be when someone says "The bible says and eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." Yes, the bible says those exact words, but it's at the point where Jesus says "Some say 'An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say turn the other cheek."
The other place these false accusation of contradiction come from is misstranslation. The bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and these languages are rather different from English so sometimes the translations can be a bit off. Many contradictions disappear when you take the time to look at the original text and its meaning instead of the different English translations,
My other reason would be the evidence. Most people get annoyed when you use the bible as evidence of the validity of God. But it's hard to deny that Christianity(and by extension Judaism) is the most well documented and most backed up texts in the world. There are third party souses that affirm many of the historical claims. No claim in the bible has ever been discounted as historically false yet.
Also the bible is full of prophecies. Every one of these has come true and none have failed to come true as of yet. From predictions of Alexander the Great, to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation, and many others. A lot of these prophecies are supported by third party evidence.

But, of course, you should really look at it all on your own and decide for yourself.
#66 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
I find, in most cases, the argument of religion is pointless, I'm not trying to belittle you here but the idea behind religion is the complete and total belief, if I were to change your mind in a single sentence, you were never a Christian in the first place. I myself am not religious, and I have no idea why people try to convince Christians to give up their faith, it seems to be just to validate it for themselves, "stop believing what you believe and believe what I believe, so that I know it's right." the fact of the matter is, to be a Christian you have to TOTALLY believe in God, so no matter what I, or anyone else said, you would find some way to refute it, case in point, the misunderstood verses, in my eyes it's a contradiction clear as day, and in yours it's misunderstood verse, because interpretation is a very powerful thing, you can read one thing and say, oh it means this, you just have to know the context, and i could say the exact same thing, and mean something entirely the opposite. I don't understand why people still have this same stupid argument. One of my best friends growing up was very religious and the only difference between him and my other friends was that he wasn't out to play till Sunday afternoon.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Interpretations can vary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a right one. I'm not saying mine is right, but according to what I have so far studied it is right. And if someone disagrees with me, it's because, from what they have so far seen, they believe they are right.
So you have to decide, do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible? I do.
The more I study the bible the more I realize it is one big package and if you leave parts out, it starts to contradict itself. But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible. It can only take you to a single conclusion. It's just that people at various stages of that journey to conclusion will disagree and make it look like interpretations are possible. Which they are. But not if you are looking for the true meaning.
#71 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Religion fills that whole, and that question that people need filled, if you had been born into a buddhist family and raised on the beliefs of buddhism you'd be sitting here preaching a different story with the exact same meaning.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look at all religions and all philosophies. I can't think of a bigger question than what the purpose of life is and so one should explore every aspect you can get your hands on. I'm still in the process of doing that but, as of yet, Christianity still seems to be the only right way as far as I can tell.
#70 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Ultimately people believe what they want to believe, you went into religion hoping for something and you were always going to interpret that religion into the one single conclusion that would only make sense for you. Thats why there is so much segregation in religion, it's so obscure you can pull whatever you want out of it.
#69 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
"But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible." I can back up what I believe with actual observable evidence, not something that is written in another part of the bible, and I didn't say neither was wrong, ultimately one has to be wrong and one has to be right, "do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible?" that's a loaded question, that's like me saying, "do you think there were dinosaurs. I do." and no i dont have to decide anything about the bible because i dont believe in it, Im here offering an understanding that religious people wont change their views and you cant show me the common courtesy of returning the favour. Whats to say your meaning is the true meaning, there are many other christians out there that interpret it differently and still come out with the basic god is good, look at christianity and its segregations that caused riots and bombings in my home country. And i dont like resorting to swearing but this made my blood boil, "But not if you are looking for the true meaning." that is the epitome of asshatery, its so.... i dont even know the word, cant you see what that looks like, its " youre entitled to your opinion, you can be as ignorant as you like" that is basically what that sentence means, dont be one of those guys. You are the guy that I try not to be, always forcing your side of the argument to validate yourself, i couldnt give two shits what you believe in, stop telling me how you interpret it the true way, because as far as im concerned you can sit there and interpret your pile of horse shit into whatever god you want it to be.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not sure how it compares to dinosaurs. It was an opinion question.

Also, return what favor? I already know that religious people are often firm in their beliefs. Although "won't change" is a bit harsh. Religious people are people too. Show us something that makes sense and we(or at least me and those I know) will consider it just like you consider anything else. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are lying to themselves.

Lastly, you completely misunderstood what I said. In fact, you took what I said to be the exact opposite of what I meant. My statement said that, if there is a true way to view the bible, then study will get you there. I also said that My way is not necessarily correct. That you shouldn't worry about interpretation and focus on what the bible says. That to get the real meaning, the meaning God intended. You just have to study it, not looking for anything that isn't there.
I really don't know what got you so angry but I sorry if my wording was off.
#63 - popeflatus (02/07/2014) [-]
The bible is definitely not well attested to by history. The stories of Jesus were written down many decades after his alleged life and there are zero contemporaneous accounts of his existence. The prophecies are self fulfilling, that is, people read the prophecy and then make it come true. That is not any kind of proof at all. And when you look at the gospels, they each give a different version of the resurrection. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist (that story is taken from previous Mesopotamian mythology), we know that there was never a global flood as a fact and the story of Moses is also fictitious. The bible is scientifically debunked.
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Not at all. The bible is full of places and people that can be shown to have actually existed. There are numerous third party accounts of the people and events. Roman records list Pontius Pilate(he ordered Jesus excited) as Prefect of Judea during the exact time the bible claims. Records from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus attest that Pontius put to death "Christus." Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, another Roman, recorded Jews being kicked out of Rome 40 years after Jesus's death because they were raising a ruckus over the rising Christian religion. And many other records that both directly confirm and indirectly hint at not only Jesus, but many other biblical figures and events. But it's also not surprising there aren't many records of Jesus until shortly after his death. Christians were heavily persecuted during the early parts of Christianity so writing things down was dangerous. Not to mention writing in general was already relatively rare.

While I do agree that some of the prophesies do seem self fulfilling, I attempted to avoid those in my examples. If you read the exact text of those prophesies, many are so exact and specific that it's hard to argue they were just vague coincidences.\

As for the contradictions in the resurrection. These are all over minor things and are very debatable if they actually are contradictions. Such as when the different books say "in the morning" "still dark" and "after sunrise" while these are semi contradictory, it really is just the same event described with different words. Not to mention very minor details in the story.

Secondly, science supports the idea that humans came from a single pair of "first humans." Now if the Jews copied the Mesopotamians or the other way around, that is pure speculation.

And as for the flood. There is evidence for the great flood. Some think it was a regional flood. Some thing it was global but progressional. But if it's scientifically impossible depends on which scientist you ask.
#67 - popeflatus (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection accounts are all completely different. There is no evidence of a global flood at all, but that story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh that existed prior to the Israelites. Science does not say that people came from 2 individuals at all, especially not 2 people from about 6000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Africa some 150-200 000 years ago. This is a verifiable fact.The bible makes many claims that have been shown to be false such as the sun stopping in the sky. Funny how that is not recorded anywhere by anyone else outside of the bible. The bible is a man made document who's contents were voted(!) on at the council of Nicea. No Adam and Eve. No global flood. Hideous violence in the old testament that would be expected of a primitive ignorant people with out any evidence to support it at all. If graves really did 'open up and the saints walked the earth' wouldn't anyone else have written about such an extraordinary event? Why doesn't god ever show up anymore? Why doesn't he heal amputees? Why is his book so full of errors? Go to Aronra's channel on youtube and watch his excellent series entitled 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. Its over 3 hours long but is worth it. You seem like a smart person, but smart people are also good at making excuses for believing in nonsense. Free your mind from the poison!
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting. They describe the same events but don't include all the same details. One says "Peter went to the tomb" another says "Peter and John went to the tomb" both agree, the later just leaves out a detail. If you read the passage you will find all the so called contradictions follow this format.

And I agree with you about the global flood. There was, however, a biblical flood. If you look at the original Hebrew text you will find it describes the place that was flooded as "kol erets" meaning "earth,"(not Earth) "land," "country," or "ground." And there is a lot of geological evidence for a great flood happening in that region, it also explains how there can be multiple races after the flood.

And the is, in fact, evidence that we came from a single genetic pair. It's not definitive of course. But evidence is evidence even if you choose not to accept it. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/new-studies-suggest-an-adam-and-eve-link.html?_r=0
Although I do agree that we started around that African region, very close to where the bible claims the garden of Eden to have been.(wink wink)

As for the sun stopping. That seems to be just one of God's workings. Him doing the impossible to prove he is, in fact, God. Although there are some records of the sun and moon stopping in the sky around the same time period, it wasn't an era where such things were recorded terribly well either and what was recorded wasn't likely to last. So lack of proof doesn't really equal proof against.

And yes, the bible is, in fact, a man made document. But the men who made it were divinely guided.

As for why God doesn't do works anymore. In the past, while the bible documents his works. If you look at them in the scope of history, they were very very rare. So it's no wonder he still doesn't do them on the daily.

And thanks for the video suggestion, I'll check it out.
Kind of weird how this poison makes me want to love everyone though
#8 - It's true. But he did talk about the definition of marriage.  [+] (17 new replies) 02/06/2014 on Homosexuals are gay 0
#13 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
He also said you have to, and I'm paraphrasing here, follow the whole of the Old Testament. Thank goodness the bible is a total lie.
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Mind giving the source for the exact verse you're paraphrasing?
I've heard this argument before but I want to make sure you're talking about the same verse.
#17 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
Here you go!
Matthew 5:18-19 RSV
Luke 16:17 NAB
Matthew 5:17 NAB
2 Timothy 3:16 NAB
2 Peter 20-21 NAB
Mark 7:10 NAB

The bible is the biggest lie of all time.




User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Alright. Going in order:

For Matthew 5:18-19: Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it he is saying that he is a continuation of the law. The old Jewish law foretold of Jesus and now he comes to fulfill it without abolishing it. The antithesis is not between "abolish" and "keep" but between "abolish" and "fulfill" As he goes on he says not a single letter will disappear because the law is still valid, not because we should follow it, but because it predicted and now continues into the new testament. The bible is a whole. The new testament needs the old testament to justify it. The old testament is important and needs to be understood but it has served its purpose and now it's purpose has changed with the coming of Jesus.

Once again for Luke 16:17 he is saying the same thing as above.

Matthew 5:17 is the same verse as the first one on your list.

2 Timothy 3:16 just goes on to affirm what I said about Matthew. That none of the law is ever discarded, it all remains useful and has a purpose. The new building upon the old, not removing it.

2 Peter 20-21 I'm not sure why you included this one. All it does is say that the law came from God, not from people. If there is a point being made here you'll have to explain it to me.

Mark 7:10 Once again, this verse seems out of place. If you are using it as an example of the old testament law that Christians don't follow then yes, it is. But as explained above, Christians don't follow any of the old testament laws anymore sense Jesus came and fulfilled them.

I hope this helped clear up the issue. If not I really recommend you read the entirety of Matthew. Single verses without any context can be misleading. Read all of Jesus's message and it's clear what he means.




#20 - popeflatus (02/06/2014) [-]
So, can I ask why you're so convinced of the validity of the bible?
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (02/06/2014) [-]
Of course.
My personal reasons are that I have studied the bible and found it to be without contradiction. Of course a lot of people assert that there are contradictions. You can google it and get long lists of contradictions in the bible but I have followed up on each one and found that none of them are actually contradictions. They are simply misunderstood verses.

These perceived contradictions come from two places. Either a verse is taken out of context and so it looks like it is saying one thing when in reality it's not. An example of this would be when someone says "The bible says and eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." Yes, the bible says those exact words, but it's at the point where Jesus says "Some say 'An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say turn the other cheek."
The other place these false accusation of contradiction come from is misstranslation. The bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and these languages are rather different from English so sometimes the translations can be a bit off. Many contradictions disappear when you take the time to look at the original text and its meaning instead of the different English translations,
My other reason would be the evidence. Most people get annoyed when you use the bible as evidence of the validity of God. But it's hard to deny that Christianity(and by extension Judaism) is the most well documented and most backed up texts in the world. There are third party souses that affirm many of the historical claims. No claim in the bible has ever been discounted as historically false yet.
Also the bible is full of prophecies. Every one of these has come true and none have failed to come true as of yet. From predictions of Alexander the Great, to the reestablishment of Israel as a nation, and many others. A lot of these prophecies are supported by third party evidence.

But, of course, you should really look at it all on your own and decide for yourself.
#66 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
I find, in most cases, the argument of religion is pointless, I'm not trying to belittle you here but the idea behind religion is the complete and total belief, if I were to change your mind in a single sentence, you were never a Christian in the first place. I myself am not religious, and I have no idea why people try to convince Christians to give up their faith, it seems to be just to validate it for themselves, "stop believing what you believe and believe what I believe, so that I know it's right." the fact of the matter is, to be a Christian you have to TOTALLY believe in God, so no matter what I, or anyone else said, you would find some way to refute it, case in point, the misunderstood verses, in my eyes it's a contradiction clear as day, and in yours it's misunderstood verse, because interpretation is a very powerful thing, you can read one thing and say, oh it means this, you just have to know the context, and i could say the exact same thing, and mean something entirely the opposite. I don't understand why people still have this same stupid argument. One of my best friends growing up was very religious and the only difference between him and my other friends was that he wasn't out to play till Sunday afternoon.
User avatar #68 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Interpretations can vary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a right one. I'm not saying mine is right, but according to what I have so far studied it is right. And if someone disagrees with me, it's because, from what they have so far seen, they believe they are right.
So you have to decide, do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible? I do.
The more I study the bible the more I realize it is one big package and if you leave parts out, it starts to contradict itself. But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible. It can only take you to a single conclusion. It's just that people at various stages of that journey to conclusion will disagree and make it look like interpretations are possible. Which they are. But not if you are looking for the true meaning.
#71 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Religion fills that whole, and that question that people need filled, if you had been born into a buddhist family and raised on the beliefs of buddhism you'd be sitting here preaching a different story with the exact same meaning.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Perhaps. That's why, once you grow up, it's important to look at all religions and all philosophies. I can't think of a bigger question than what the purpose of life is and so one should explore every aspect you can get your hands on. I'm still in the process of doing that but, as of yet, Christianity still seems to be the only right way as far as I can tell.
#70 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
Ultimately people believe what they want to believe, you went into religion hoping for something and you were always going to interpret that religion into the one single conclusion that would only make sense for you. Thats why there is so much segregation in religion, it's so obscure you can pull whatever you want out of it.
#69 - werent (02/08/2014) [-]
"But so long as you back up your understanding with other parts of the bible." I can back up what I believe with actual observable evidence, not something that is written in another part of the bible, and I didn't say neither was wrong, ultimately one has to be wrong and one has to be right, "do you think there is a correct understanding of the bible that can only be truly attained by looking at the whole bible?" that's a loaded question, that's like me saying, "do you think there were dinosaurs. I do." and no i dont have to decide anything about the bible because i dont believe in it, Im here offering an understanding that religious people wont change their views and you cant show me the common courtesy of returning the favour. Whats to say your meaning is the true meaning, there are many other christians out there that interpret it differently and still come out with the basic god is good, look at christianity and its segregations that caused riots and bombings in my home country. And i dont like resorting to swearing but this made my blood boil, "But not if you are looking for the true meaning." that is the epitome of asshatery, its so.... i dont even know the word, cant you see what that looks like, its " youre entitled to your opinion, you can be as ignorant as you like" that is basically what that sentence means, dont be one of those guys. You are the guy that I try not to be, always forcing your side of the argument to validate yourself, i couldnt give two shits what you believe in, stop telling me how you interpret it the true way, because as far as im concerned you can sit there and interpret your pile of horse shit into whatever god you want it to be.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
First of all it's not a loaded question at all. And I'm not sure how it compares to dinosaurs. It was an opinion question.

Also, return what favor? I already know that religious people are often firm in their beliefs. Although "won't change" is a bit harsh. Religious people are people too. Show us something that makes sense and we(or at least me and those I know) will consider it just like you consider anything else. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are lying to themselves.

Lastly, you completely misunderstood what I said. In fact, you took what I said to be the exact opposite of what I meant. My statement said that, if there is a true way to view the bible, then study will get you there. I also said that My way is not necessarily correct. That you shouldn't worry about interpretation and focus on what the bible says. That to get the real meaning, the meaning God intended. You just have to study it, not looking for anything that isn't there.
I really don't know what got you so angry but I sorry if my wording was off.
#63 - popeflatus (02/07/2014) [-]
The bible is definitely not well attested to by history. The stories of Jesus were written down many decades after his alleged life and there are zero contemporaneous accounts of his existence. The prophecies are self fulfilling, that is, people read the prophecy and then make it come true. That is not any kind of proof at all. And when you look at the gospels, they each give a different version of the resurrection. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve didn't exist (that story is taken from previous Mesopotamian mythology), we know that there was never a global flood as a fact and the story of Moses is also fictitious. The bible is scientifically debunked.
User avatar #65 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
Not at all. The bible is full of places and people that can be shown to have actually existed. There are numerous third party accounts of the people and events. Roman records list Pontius Pilate(he ordered Jesus excited) as Prefect of Judea during the exact time the bible claims. Records from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus attest that Pontius put to death "Christus." Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, another Roman, recorded Jews being kicked out of Rome 40 years after Jesus's death because they were raising a ruckus over the rising Christian religion. And many other records that both directly confirm and indirectly hint at not only Jesus, but many other biblical figures and events. But it's also not surprising there aren't many records of Jesus until shortly after his death. Christians were heavily persecuted during the early parts of Christianity so writing things down was dangerous. Not to mention writing in general was already relatively rare.

While I do agree that some of the prophesies do seem self fulfilling, I attempted to avoid those in my examples. If you read the exact text of those prophesies, many are so exact and specific that it's hard to argue they were just vague coincidences.\

As for the contradictions in the resurrection. These are all over minor things and are very debatable if they actually are contradictions. Such as when the different books say "in the morning" "still dark" and "after sunrise" while these are semi contradictory, it really is just the same event described with different words. Not to mention very minor details in the story.

Secondly, science supports the idea that humans came from a single pair of "first humans." Now if the Jews copied the Mesopotamians or the other way around, that is pure speculation.

And as for the flood. There is evidence for the great flood. Some think it was a regional flood. Some thing it was global but progressional. But if it's scientifically impossible depends on which scientist you ask.
#67 - popeflatus (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection accounts are all completely different. There is no evidence of a global flood at all, but that story comes from The Epic of Gilgamesh that existed prior to the Israelites. Science does not say that people came from 2 individuals at all, especially not 2 people from about 6000 years ago. Modern humans evolved in Africa some 150-200 000 years ago. This is a verifiable fact.The bible makes many claims that have been shown to be false such as the sun stopping in the sky. Funny how that is not recorded anywhere by anyone else outside of the bible. The bible is a man made document who's contents were voted(!) on at the council of Nicea. No Adam and Eve. No global flood. Hideous violence in the old testament that would be expected of a primitive ignorant people with out any evidence to support it at all. If graves really did 'open up and the saints walked the earth' wouldn't anyone else have written about such an extraordinary event? Why doesn't god ever show up anymore? Why doesn't he heal amputees? Why is his book so full of errors? Go to Aronra's channel on youtube and watch his excellent series entitled 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism'. Its over 3 hours long but is worth it. You seem like a smart person, but smart people are also good at making excuses for believing in nonsense. Free your mind from the poison!
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (02/08/2014) [-]
The resurrection account are different. But not contradicting. They describe the same events but don't include all the same details. One says "Peter went to the tomb" another says "Peter and John went to the tomb" both agree, the later just leaves out a detail. If you read the passage you will find all the so called contradictions follow this format.

And I agree with you about the global flood. There was, however, a biblical flood. If you look at the original Hebrew text you will find it describes the place that was flooded as "kol erets" meaning "earth,"(not Earth) "land," "country," or "ground." And there is a lot of geological evidence for a great flood happening in that region, it also explains how there can be multiple races after the flood.

And the is, in fact, evidence that we came from a single genetic pair. It's not definitive of course. But evidence is evidence even if you choose not to accept it. www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/new-studies-suggest-an-adam-and-eve-link.html?_r=0
Although I do agree that we started around that African region, very close to where the bible claims the garden of Eden to have been.(wink wink)

As for the sun stopping. That seems to be just one of God's workings. Him doing the impossible to prove he is, in fact, God. Although there are some records of the sun and moon stopping in the sky around the same time period, it wasn't an era where such things were recorded terribly well either and what was recorded wasn't likely to last. So lack of proof doesn't really equal proof against.

And yes, the bible is, in fact, a man made document. But the men who made it were divinely guided.

As for why God doesn't do works anymore. In the past, while the bible documents his works. If you look at them in the scope of history, they were very very rare. So it's no wonder he still doesn't do them on the daily.

And thanks for the video suggestion, I'll check it out.
Kind of weird how this poison makes me want to love everyone though
#106 - Yes. I'm aware that some cultures had things like that. I was … 02/04/2014 on Gay marriage 0
#103 - "Many cultures of the past" is a trifle vague. Do yo…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/04/2014 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #105 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
Seriously? Like everyone knows that cultures in the past has arranged marriage, you learned that in elementary school. In fact it's still happening today in some places.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watta_satta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vani_(custom)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/social_customs/marriage/
educators.medievaltimes.com/1-5-marriage.html
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
Yes. I'm aware that some cultures had things like that. I was looking for some kind of indication that that was the original definition though. It is an old one for sure. But perhaps not older than the man and woman one or the two adults one.
#100 - Might I ask where that original definition comes from?  [+] (4 new replies) 02/04/2014 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #102 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
From many cultures in the past really. In islamic nations, feudal societies, india, china, ect.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
"Many cultures of the past" is a trifle vague. Do you have any specific citation I might follow up on?
User avatar #105 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
Seriously? Like everyone knows that cultures in the past has arranged marriage, you learned that in elementary school. In fact it's still happening today in some places.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watta_satta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vani_(custom)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/social_customs/marriage/
educators.medievaltimes.com/1-5-marriage.html
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
Yes. I'm aware that some cultures had things like that. I was looking for some kind of indication that that was the original definition though. It is an old one for sure. But perhaps not older than the man and woman one or the two adults one.
#95 - And of course all that is true. But it's the definition of mar…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/04/2014 on Gay marriage 0
User avatar #99 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
The original definition included arranging or even selling your children to a forced polygamous relationship. The reason we say gay marriage is the same reason why in the 50's people used the term interracial marriage, not because it's a seperate issue, but because it's an easier term to identify and use.
User avatar #100 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
Might I ask where that original definition comes from?
User avatar #102 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
From many cultures in the past really. In islamic nations, feudal societies, india, china, ect.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
"Many cultures of the past" is a trifle vague. Do you have any specific citation I might follow up on?
User avatar #105 - kanadetenshi (02/04/2014) [-]
Seriously? Like everyone knows that cultures in the past has arranged marriage, you learned that in elementary school. In fact it's still happening today in some places.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watta_satta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vani_(custom)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/social_customs/marriage/
educators.medievaltimes.com/1-5-marriage.html
User avatar #106 - Vandeekree (02/04/2014) [-]
Yes. I'm aware that some cultures had things like that. I was looking for some kind of indication that that was the original definition though. It is an old one for sure. But perhaps not older than the man and woman one or the two adults one.
#6 - Picture 02/01/2014 on Cringe Compilation +2
#37 - I feel that would require all the books not to contradict one … 01/25/2014 on I choose the book of pasta. 0
#75 - Well think about this. You never actually see those storm troo… 01/24/2014 on Just an Honest Star Wars... 0
#10 - I feel like this is just one of the students describing the cl…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/24/2014 on I choose the book of pasta. +16
User avatar #33 - Greevon (01/25/2014) [-]
Maybe it turns out that who the teacher was and which book was correct really didn't matter because in the end, all the books taught practically the same things and they were attempts to make the students better people, but obviously failed because they started arguing.
User avatar #37 - Vandeekree (01/25/2014) [-]
I feel that would require all the books not to contradict one another. Otherwise there are lies in the books and if the teacher uses lies to teach truths then he's a rather poor teacher.

...one again, totally something a student might say and this writer has no control over or affiliation with said student
User avatar #21 - hellomynameisbill (01/25/2014) [-]
and then, other students started writing their own textbooks and studying them scientists because there were no teachers giving curriculums which caused a ruckus from the popular textbook readers. the ones that didn't feel the popular textbooks had enough information were then crucified and burned for no apparent reason
#13 - rakando (01/24/2014) [-]
#71 - I'm not sure what movie you watched but they definitely didn't…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/24/2014 on Just an Honest Star Wars... 0
User avatar #74 - sanguinesolitude (01/24/2014) [-]
Well the only rebels on endor were the 23 or so members of the strike team against an entire legion, 9000ish, stormtroopers. Yes the stormtroopers broke rank and went after the groups of ewoks, playing into the guerilla tactics of the ewoks, but I still think it is clear the armor did little good in this situation.

I think the best argument for the use of stormtrooper armor is that it is more of a pressure suit for use in a variety of atmospheres. Sure they put some plastoid plates on it, but that is as much for intimidation as actual combat effectiveness. I guess the armor in the lore is good against lower tech blasters and projectile weapons, but as seen in the movies it seems fairly useless.
User avatar #75 - Vandeekree (01/24/2014) [-]
Well think about this. You never actually see those storm troopers die. The camera cuts away during it so we kind of just assume they do, but what if they don't? You would be just as justified in saying that after you see those storm troopers that are shooting at the heroes turn around because they are getting attacked by a group of Ewoks, they manage to kick the Ewoks back, having been unhurt by the rocks that hit their armor, and then shot the Ewoks at close range. At the range, even their 90 percent miss rate would be enough to hit. And when you see the Ewoks pelt the troopers with rocks, perhaps the ones that fall over simply get up and stagger through the brush to get far enough away to turn and shoot without having their gun knocked out of their hand?

The only clones you see die are the ones who are on the speeders that get roped and smash into a tree.

It's obvious that they camera didn't like showing Ewoks dying. The only one you see die has his own little sad moment. I think if you could see the bigger picture, you would see that it was a bunch of Ewoks trying to fight against troopers and only not dying in droves because they had the element of surprise but can't really take out the clones.
#4 - That's what "(elongating progressively)" means. It n…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/24/2014 on Procreation +1
#7 - mkgt (01/24/2014) [-]
NEVER STOP BEING ASSHOLES
#61 - Because, as has happened to many times in history, weapons hav…  [+] (5 new replies) 01/24/2014 on Just an Honest Star Wars... +5
User avatar #65 - sanguinesolitude (01/24/2014) [-]
but the armor didnt help against the ewoks and their weapons literally couldnt have been more primitive. the little fuzzy bears destroyed them.

I think the point stands. If most of the time you are facing blasters, then you dont bother protecting against sticks. If you are worried about sticks, you dont wear armor that is so easily defeated by them. There are primitive societies all over the world, but you dont see the us military wearing plate armor.
User avatar #71 - Vandeekree (01/24/2014) [-]
I'm not sure what movie you watched but they definitely didn't destroy the clones. In the movie you see them launch a volley of arrow and one storm trooper gets hit in the shoulder between armor plates. The only time you see the Ewoks really win is when the troopers get taken by surprise and swarmed, tackled and beaten with rocks. No armor is good enough if you can't move under the weight of several midgets in costumes and slowly have your helmet cracked with a rock. You also see a group of clones get pelted by large rock throne by 10 or so Ewoks but it looks like it just makes them stumble from the hit and hobble away through the brush.
The reason the clones lost was because they were outnumberd, ambushed, and were fighting both Ewoks(who did relatively little) and the rebel troops at the same time. So I would disagree that the armor didn't help. It made it so the Ewok's only good tactic was to tackle the troopers before they got shot.

The walkers, however, are another story, those things literally trip on a log, fall over, and catch fire.
User avatar #74 - sanguinesolitude (01/24/2014) [-]
Well the only rebels on endor were the 23 or so members of the strike team against an entire legion, 9000ish, stormtroopers. Yes the stormtroopers broke rank and went after the groups of ewoks, playing into the guerilla tactics of the ewoks, but I still think it is clear the armor did little good in this situation.

I think the best argument for the use of stormtrooper armor is that it is more of a pressure suit for use in a variety of atmospheres. Sure they put some plastoid plates on it, but that is as much for intimidation as actual combat effectiveness. I guess the armor in the lore is good against lower tech blasters and projectile weapons, but as seen in the movies it seems fairly useless.
User avatar #75 - Vandeekree (01/24/2014) [-]
Well think about this. You never actually see those storm troopers die. The camera cuts away during it so we kind of just assume they do, but what if they don't? You would be just as justified in saying that after you see those storm troopers that are shooting at the heroes turn around because they are getting attacked by a group of Ewoks, they manage to kick the Ewoks back, having been unhurt by the rocks that hit their armor, and then shot the Ewoks at close range. At the range, even their 90 percent miss rate would be enough to hit. And when you see the Ewoks pelt the troopers with rocks, perhaps the ones that fall over simply get up and stagger through the brush to get far enough away to turn and shoot without having their gun knocked out of their hand?

The only clones you see die are the ones who are on the speeders that get roped and smash into a tree.

It's obvious that they camera didn't like showing Ewoks dying. The only one you see die has his own little sad moment. I think if you could see the bigger picture, you would see that it was a bunch of Ewoks trying to fight against troopers and only not dying in droves because they had the element of surprise but can't really take out the clones.
#62 - fatskinnyguy (01/24/2014) [-]
#19 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 01/24/2014 on (untitled) 0
#20 - badmonkey Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#5 - Comment deleted  [+] (5 new replies) 01/23/2014 on (untitled) +4
#14 - badmonkey Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#19 - Vandeekree Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#20 - badmonkey Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#12 - TommyC Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#8 - LifeIsADisease Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#12 - You need to learn to lego of these things  [+] (1 new reply) 01/23/2014 on Orange Transparent Chainsaw... +2
#23 - ragingspacepanda (01/24/2014) [-]
#10 - Well stop it before you start it  [+] (3 new replies) 01/23/2014 on Orange Transparent Chainsaw... 0
#11 - ljxjlos (01/23/2014) [-]
...but why?
User avatar #12 - Vandeekree (01/23/2014) [-]
You need to learn to lego of these things
#23 - ragingspacepanda (01/24/2014) [-]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)