Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a commission on everything you buy.

Vandeekree    

Rank #4114 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Online
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:8/23/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4114
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3653 total,  5440 ,  1787
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1625
FJ Points:3400

latest user's comments

#21 - Did the pilot survive?  [+] (11 new replies) 10/13/2013 on Alternative energy +256
#179 - nightlynutria (10/13/2013) [-]
I dont know if you heard that joke before or you came up with it, but that was really funny
#93 - jbkubel (10/13/2013) [-]
I may be buried in a sea of red thumbs for this, but I don't see any plane in this .gif
Wasn't it just a flawed turbine that accelerated out of controle and broke or am I completely retartded ?
#101 - tjilaz (10/13/2013) [-]
Is joke
#79 - RipperMan (10/13/2013) [-]
When does the pilot EVER survive?
#58 - bloxicity (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #51 - thascomrad (10/13/2013) [-]
Isded
User avatar #47 - berkut (10/13/2013) [-]
pilot is kill. The cabin was crushed dont you see?
#36 - xecoq (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #102 - mineymann (10/13/2013) [-]
You. I applaud you. I would thumb you but I can't, sorry
User avatar #106 - psychoticcaleb (10/13/2013) [-]
Just post in nsfw a lot.It fucking works.
#23 - sheathedfang (10/13/2013) [-]
haha this made my day thanks.
#47 - Yeah, but it's not even his, it's his uncle's ride. 10/12/2013 on Teenage drivers +35
#2 - Did you know that more Americans live in the United States tha…  [+] (15 new replies) 10/08/2013 on Muricaland +220
User avatar #128 - timmity (10/09/2013) [-]
wait, so south america, panoma and canada have less than the USA? I doupt it
User avatar #35 - scorchoeljohnny (10/09/2013) [-]
More than the south AMERICANS in brazil or the Central AMERICANS in Mexico?
User avatar #102 - negatrom (10/09/2013) [-]
mexico is north america,
that's because the usa wants mexico to behave, so it made it feel important, didn't change a thing though...
#41 - anonymous (10/09/2013) [-]
The U.S has over 300 million citizens, most of them are American, so yeah.
#70 - anonymous (10/09/2013) [-]
Most of them are European....Gets your facts right pheggit
#49 - peanutbitter has deleted their comment.
User avatar #22 - roflstorm (10/09/2013) [-]
I'm calling bullshit as there is no legitimate source of proof to back this up.
#52 - anonymous (10/09/2013) [-]
Population of United States: 300 million
Population of Canada: 35 million
Population of largest Central American country - Guatemala: 14 million
Population of largest South American country - Brazil: 201 million

You're on the internet, use it.

#114 - pwnmissilereborn (10/09/2013) [-]
Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

No! It's the joke!
#17 - Falkor (10/09/2013) [-]
#23 - pwnmissilereborn (10/09/2013) [-]
Did you know that more Mexicans live in the United States than any other country?
#113 - moorgar (10/09/2013) [-]
They can´t pass the Cartman
#61 - Falkor (10/09/2013) [-]
#10 - ohemgeezus (10/08/2013) [-]
>not posting source
#5 - frogthekermit (10/08/2013) [-]
#109 - Y'all been watch'n too much spongebob. You can just swim back …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/06/2013 on Scariest thing to do under... 0
User avatar #171 - cormy (10/07/2013) [-]
He's wearing weights. He can't swim up, if you watch the full vid you see he actually has to pull himself back up by climbing up the walls of the hole.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQITWbAaDx0
#115 - The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bom…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not +3
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#113 - I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not +2
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#111 - That scenario seems realistic in your head huh?  [+] (5 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not 0
User avatar #112 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
You... don't really know how the tides work, do you? They're susceptible to the slightest change in the moon's orbit. That's why coastal regions put out warnings if the moon enters a near orbit. Can you imagine what would happen if the moon entered a decaying orbit or was shifted even marginally closer in its patterns? And never mind the huge cloud of radioactive particles blown off the surface that would then rain into our atmosphere.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part I was referring too. The unrealistic part of your scenario is that no nuke, not even all the nukes, could move the moon from orbit. First of all, the moon is huge and nukes are not nearly as big as you probably imagine. Secondly, in order to shift the moon's orbit you have to propel matter out of it's gravity well, otherwise no shift would occur. An explosion such as a nuke wouldn't do that and more than all the nuke tests on Earth have shifted its orbit. It just couldn't happen.
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#22 - Comment deleted 10/02/2013 on Other cultures +1
#108 - It's a good plan, if you can put a missile on the moon you can…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not 0
User avatar #110 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Except for, you know, the possibility of knocking it out of orbit, messing up the tides and destroying every known marine ecosystem (which feed 70% of the world's population) in one fell swoop.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
That scenario seems realistic in your head huh?
User avatar #112 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
You... don't really know how the tides work, do you? They're susceptible to the slightest change in the moon's orbit. That's why coastal regions put out warnings if the moon enters a near orbit. Can you imagine what would happen if the moon entered a decaying orbit or was shifted even marginally closer in its patterns? And never mind the huge cloud of radioactive particles blown off the surface that would then rain into our atmosphere.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part I was referring too. The unrealistic part of your scenario is that no nuke, not even all the nukes, could move the moon from orbit. First of all, the moon is huge and nukes are not nearly as big as you probably imagine. Secondly, in order to shift the moon's orbit you have to propel matter out of it's gravity well, otherwise no shift would occur. An explosion such as a nuke wouldn't do that and more than all the nuke tests on Earth have shifted its orbit. It just couldn't happen.
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#2 - Both of those are jaguars. 10/01/2013 on D'aaaawwhhh! +2
#39 - Alright, you insulted their intelligence, but I was more looki… 09/29/2013 on liberating +2
#34 - Ok, so with as little "you're stupid, isn't it obvious?&q…  [+] (15 new replies) 09/29/2013 on liberating +4
#116 - anonymous (11/29/2013) [-]
Human beings from their earliest point in conception NEED human contact. The baby in the womb not only grows hearing it's mother's heart beat, her breathing and voice but also hears sounds of (hopefully) it's father & perhaps siblings & other soon to meet relatives. And they feel sensations that would only come through the womb.

Besides that babies that are born severely premature are at great risk of being under-developed in important areas (brain, lungs, spine, etc) that if carried 8 to 9 mos (even to 7 mos) are normally... well, NORMAL and healthy. Raising babies in such a way depicted in this poster would only be putting more infants in potential 'harms way' physically & emotionally.
#117 - anonymous (11/29/2013) [-]
That blanked out word is supposed to be 'p r e mature' (trying to NOT get it blocked out again). Hope it shows up this time but who knows?
User avatar #90 - useroftheLOLZ (09/30/2013) [-]
I think it has to do with the same reasons why people are so against gene therapy, because YOU PLAYIN GOD, YOU DON KNOW WHAT YUR DOIN, YOUR GUUN KILL MUH CHILDRENS WIT YOUR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED WHEAT THAT GROWS BETTER, PRODUCES MORE, AND HAS MORE NUTRITIONAL VALUE THAN REGULAR WHEAT, BUT SOME HOW IS GOIN TA KILL MUH BABIES. It's generally people being afraid of what they don't fully understand, or cannot envision all the good that can come from such technology.

I fully support Gene therapy, as well as this, as humans have long since reached the point where we stopped evolving. Other creatures will adapt to their environment, humans will change their environment to their liking. We now control our evolution, the merger of man and machine is one possible outcome. The applications that controlled growth and birth are amazing, you can make sure the child will grow up strong, healthy, and free of defects, you can change how they will physically be when they grow up, make sure they don't have asthma, cancer, or have autism, et cetera, as we further map out the human genome, we can figure out which sequences to turn on and off, that will make children to grow up smart, and strong, we can pretty much do anything with this. The only downsides that I can envision are the social, and cultural ones, where society has to come to terms with the fact that maybe the best thing for our children is not regular birth, but a highly controlled environment, or maybe not, we have yet to see.
#75 - anonymous (09/30/2013) [-]
Children develop attachment to their parents in the womb, and once born are able to recognize their mother's voice and their father's voice if he was involved with the pregnancy. Children respond to stimulation from food, hormones, emotions, and sounds in a human womb that they wouldn't experience in an artificial one. Also pregnancy releases strong attachment hormones like serotonin that help the mother attach to the child (except in cases of post pardem depression where hormones have the opposite effect).
Then there are the moral implications of separating oneself from our human origins to make things more convenient. Pregnancy is one of the most human and important things a person can do, creating someone new, something that science cannot do, and to take that away from people would take something out of the human experience that cannot be replaced.
#42 - cheastnut (09/29/2013) [-]
there is no "Jurassic park effect where no one will bring up the idea of bringing back dinosaurs because it went poorly in a movie once." first of all was Jurassic park bad because you can't put dinosaurs in the wild without fucking up the entire earths ecosystem. dinosaurs where the apex of reptilian evolution, that's why they hardly changed for the 100 mill. years that they were dominate. you could keep the dinosaurs under restraints because of animal rights. in an enclosed environment like Jurassic park would be extremely expensive with little pay off. if you want an example why the picture above is bad read the tags. now lets address their claims.
*Safer/healthier : protected from any ascendents that involve the parents; but what happens if they both die, abortion, adoption? protected from diseases, give antibiotics automatically; creates a dependence on the system and weakens the immune-system; given cures, diseases will mutate so it's not effective.
*more affordable : (you'll be paying for life support, cures, treatments, and perhaps growth hormones) most likely it'd be private companies taking advantage of lazy parents.
*liberation : people, animals and god knows what else have been having kids the natural way for 14 billion years, most of them have them in the wild with risk of being eaten in the weakened state,and humans have have them without pain medicine till about 200-300 years ago and still did their work of survival not just sitting around at your desk. I think you can afford 9 months of caring and 12-20 hours of birth.
sure there are some benefits but the over all effect would hurt humanity as a whole.
#46 - airconditionerman (09/29/2013) [-]
isn't the whole point of advanced technologies to make human's lives easier? for example, i know that it is entirely possible to live without ever using pain medication and that was how humans lived for thousands of years, but why deny it if it is there? If it makes our lives easier and does not subject women to the most intense pains imaginable, then why not use it? And obviously the costs would be exorbitant to start off with, but as with all technology it gets cheaper as the process of creating that technology as well as the cost of developing the tech get progressively lower. also, the argument that antibiotics will eventually become ineffective due to the development of a resistant strain renders all vaccines pointless, since the increased use of vaccines will inevitably lead to the thriving of the diseases which are resistant to those medicines.
User avatar #48 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
yes, but as i pointed out in the last part of my comment, it shouldn't hurt us later on. this kind of technology would take a way natural influence. the reason why dinosaurs stopped changing was because they were the apex, best the could be, they were good at what they did and they did nothing else. humans are different we strive to do things. that means different things, to adapt. this would keep our births at mechanical efficiency no variation, no change. we'd have no need to evolve, mostly we've created machines to evolve for us. i'm not saying that we shouldn't use medicine, just that some technology is more burden the reward. and you're right about the cures, but we keep on making them. i won't pretend to know why besides the idea that if we kill of all the viruses then we'd have nothing to worry about but there will inevitably be more that come around and they will come after our bodies have become weak. i mean i can under stand the worst of them like cancer or aids, but stuff like the common cold, chicken pox, all seem to be nothing more then an annoyance that helps us later on against something that could be worse.
#50 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
glad to be finally having a rational discussion on the internet, i would thumb you if i could. but as for your argument, i do think that there are some cases where something that should be dealt with naturally, like depression (people are sad sometimes. that is no reason to go popping antidepressants every chance you get), but overall i think technology has way more benefits than drawbacks. for example, if we have the ability to genetically alter children to make sure they are free from horrible diseases then i think it is our responsibility to not only relieve their suffering but assure that they will have a normal life. I mean why should we have to deal with these impairments if it is entirely within our power to avoid them?
#54 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
i know people are so uncivilized now a days. i'll give you some thumbs to help. and yes some things should be stopped if we have the power like birth defects, but the point here is that humans would basically move from being the most advanced animal to just an on going science experiment. it's the same reason parents haven't been done away with and kids just raised by the government. there is a deeply personal bond with parents and child (not that it can't form outside of your blood). this is not parenting it's just pushing off your kids on to some one else.
#55 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
thank you for the thumbs sir. so would you be opposed to the privatization of these pods? meaning that the potential 'parents' would own the pods, and they would not be influenced by any government or private entity?
#56 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
perhaps for parents who can't have kids themselves but there would still be the adoption agencies that would suffer "why go buy someones second hand kids when you can grow your own chia-child".
#59 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
yeah i can agree with you there. it shouldnt be as much of a hassle for people in developed nations to adopt from overseas. It's just denying opportunities to children who are in desperate need
#61 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
this sounded sincere so i'll thumb it up
#37 - uhhyeahfmebaby (09/29/2013) [-]
Small minded people being scared small minded people.
Actually, scratch "people" put "faggots"
User avatar #39 - Vandeekree (09/29/2013) [-]
Alright, you insulted their intelligence, but I was more looking for an explanation of why they feel that way. What about this sets off moral compasses?
#34 - And when they first met Vegeta was the stronger one. But havin… 09/29/2013 on Comparing Childhoods 0
#7 - It's...it's not just mutating with the marine...it's integrati… 09/25/2013 on i'm scared now 0
#8 - No man, you gotta work for it. The pokemon are the reward in h… 09/25/2013 on God to me 0
#6 - Well...he just lost my vote. 09/25/2013 on (untitled) 0
#349 - I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text,… 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#347 - Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem … 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#346 - Thank you, un momento 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#344 - Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
#342 - ALL sex comes from lust, all of it, without exception. …  [+] (7 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#343 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok about verses.
How are you alive? Did you ever disrespect your parents. New Testament clearly says you should be killed if you do. Will you kill your children when they disrespect you?
What about slavery? What do you think about slavery? Timothy very strictly says that slaves should obey their owners, and not just good owners but cruel ones too.
I have more examples. New Testament all of it.
So I'll tell you what, if you actually kill your children for disrespecting you, and start a group against police freeing women in sexual slavery because they should obey their masters wishes, I'll give you that homosexuality is bad.
You are cherry picking from the bible, which rules should be obeyed and which shouldn't. So am I. You have one reasoning. I have another.
And you think sex between people in love is about lust... I feel sorry for you. If that's how you see the world I feel even worse for your eventual wife.
If I had an accident and was made an eunuch today, I would still love my gf the same. It would be deep romantic love. Because how I love her has nothing to do with sex. How I love my best friend has nothing to do with sex. Or my parents. I make love to my gf because I seek comfort in her, because I want to be as close to her as I can. I make love to her because she is other half of my soul. And yes, sometimes because I feel horny and lustful. But that is so LITTLE, so unimportant. Lust I can fix with my right hand and 15 minutes in the bathroom. Needing someone so deeply you could cry when they are in your arms is something completely different.
I feel different kind of love to my friends and family. there is more then one kind of love. But its not sex and lust that separates it. Its fulfilment and connection. Its listening to your soul scream when you are away. Groin can be ignored, easily, soul cannot.
User avatar #344 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look each one up again. I think I've addressed this before but I need to make sure it's the same verses.

And once again, I'd really like it if you could leave out the insults when you reply. It's feels inappropriate.
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
#340 - You mean she lusted after another girl. Wanted to have sex wit…  [+] (9 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#341 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
She didn't want to FUCK the girl. she wanted to spend time with her. To kiss her. To be with her all the time. To share all her hopes and dreams and get other person's hopes and dreams shared too. Sex would have followed, probably, but not as LUST, but as expression of LOVE between two people who want to share their all between eachother. Not just satisfy a lustful feeling.
Just because YOU are too LIMITED to understand that people of same sex can LOVE not lust, that does not make their LOVE any less real. It makes you a bigot, but it does not cheapen what they feel. The failure is YOURS not theirs.
And yes they do. And they have a right to be married. YOU interpret that God wants marriage to be between man and woman. YOU AND YOUR ILK. Not me, not them. and NOT GOD. My Church certanly believes in right of people who truly love eachother to have their union sanctified. And if it troubles you, if you are too limited to understand it. Tough. Your problem.
And you cheapen love to sex because you think it gives you moral high ground. But it does not. Gay people can be in love, real, true love. Romantic love. If you are too limited to understand that, that is your problem, but stop cheapening other people's love because you want it to be something else. Its disgusting.

And ok, let me make my point very clear. Love I feel about my gf is not about sex. Its about wanting to share my life, my soul and everything I am with her. Sex is a union of our love. Its not about pleasure, its not about fucking, its about sharing and feeling the other.
And that is what romantic love is. And gay people can feel that way too. And you cheapening it to lust makes me sick.
Oh and another thing. I guess you are evangelical, right. Reason why we are not married is because her evangelical preacher traumatised her by telling her that she shouldn't get married since she can't have children. So yeah, I can buy that evangelical does not understand what love is. But sure knows hate.
User avatar #342 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
ALL sex comes from lust, all of it, without exception.

but I really don't know how to argue with you about the definition of marriage besides saying "here's the verse, it says what marriage is," Other than that I can only say look at the other verses, the ones that do address homosexuality, they are all negative, how can you defend them. Verses such as Romans 1:24-28. Homosexuality is never shown to be a good thing.

it is only lust, lust can go along with love, but even between you and your gf they are different things. It's the difference between how you see her and how you see your best friend, you love them both, you would do anything for them, but you are only sexually attracted, only lust for her.

I am not evangelical, and I disagree with that preacher's decision, sex is not only about making babies. It's also about an outlet for lust, you can marry her without having any penalty. This is talked about in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-8ish

But how is that hate when the preacher is simply against sexual morality? I'm starting to question if you actually do know what hate is or if you simply label anyone telling another person that something they are doing is wrong as hate...
#343 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok about verses.
How are you alive? Did you ever disrespect your parents. New Testament clearly says you should be killed if you do. Will you kill your children when they disrespect you?
What about slavery? What do you think about slavery? Timothy very strictly says that slaves should obey their owners, and not just good owners but cruel ones too.
I have more examples. New Testament all of it.
So I'll tell you what, if you actually kill your children for disrespecting you, and start a group against police freeing women in sexual slavery because they should obey their masters wishes, I'll give you that homosexuality is bad.
You are cherry picking from the bible, which rules should be obeyed and which shouldn't. So am I. You have one reasoning. I have another.
And you think sex between people in love is about lust... I feel sorry for you. If that's how you see the world I feel even worse for your eventual wife.
If I had an accident and was made an eunuch today, I would still love my gf the same. It would be deep romantic love. Because how I love her has nothing to do with sex. How I love my best friend has nothing to do with sex. Or my parents. I make love to my gf because I seek comfort in her, because I want to be as close to her as I can. I make love to her because she is other half of my soul. And yes, sometimes because I feel horny and lustful. But that is so LITTLE, so unimportant. Lust I can fix with my right hand and 15 minutes in the bathroom. Needing someone so deeply you could cry when they are in your arms is something completely different.
I feel different kind of love to my friends and family. there is more then one kind of love. But its not sex and lust that separates it. Its fulfilment and connection. Its listening to your soul scream when you are away. Groin can be ignored, easily, soul cannot.
User avatar #344 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look each one up again. I think I've addressed this before but I need to make sure it's the same verses.

And once again, I'd really like it if you could leave out the insults when you reply. It's feels inappropriate.
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
#338 - And nothing you mentioned has to do with sex. In fact, everyth…  [+] (11 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#339 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
girl never slept with anyone. She fell in love with a girl. She never as much as kissed another person. Male or female.
And people who love eachother have a right to express it through sex. Especially if they want to get married or are married.
Thankfully I belong to a church that accepts that and preaches that exactly. God always supports love. My priests preforms marriages, they are even legal in my state. And I am proud of being member of a Church like that, and of a community like that.
Just because bigots want to put everything into neat little boxes that fit their narrow viewpoints, God does not have to make Himself smaller to fit in such narrow minds.
Take your version of god, I'll believe in God who supports love in all its forms.
User avatar #340 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
You mean she lusted after another girl. Wanted to have sex with that girl. Not that she wanted to be friends, wanted to hang out with, wanted to talk with, laugh with that girls. She came to that preacher for sexual urges. Not because she felt affection. I feel affection for the guys I played basketball with in high school but not the urge to fuck them.

To your second point? WHAT!?! People have a right to have sex with each other to express love? That is not how you express love. You don't sex your mom to show her you love her, you do nice things, you care for her. Sex is only ok between a married couple, which the bible defines as a man and a woman.

I agree God supports all kind of love, but not all kinds of sex. Surely you understand that? Some kinds of sex are wrong, and if you look at the contents of the bible, it's obvious how those rules work.

Lastly, while I do enjoy debating about these issues, I'd like to ask that you tell me your point and tell me why my thoughts are wrong without belittling or insulting.
#341 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
She didn't want to FUCK the girl. she wanted to spend time with her. To kiss her. To be with her all the time. To share all her hopes and dreams and get other person's hopes and dreams shared too. Sex would have followed, probably, but not as LUST, but as expression of LOVE between two people who want to share their all between eachother. Not just satisfy a lustful feeling.
Just because YOU are too LIMITED to understand that people of same sex can LOVE not lust, that does not make their LOVE any less real. It makes you a bigot, but it does not cheapen what they feel. The failure is YOURS not theirs.
And yes they do. And they have a right to be married. YOU interpret that God wants marriage to be between man and woman. YOU AND YOUR ILK. Not me, not them. and NOT GOD. My Church certanly believes in right of people who truly love eachother to have their union sanctified. And if it troubles you, if you are too limited to understand it. Tough. Your problem.
And you cheapen love to sex because you think it gives you moral high ground. But it does not. Gay people can be in love, real, true love. Romantic love. If you are too limited to understand that, that is your problem, but stop cheapening other people's love because you want it to be something else. Its disgusting.

And ok, let me make my point very clear. Love I feel about my gf is not about sex. Its about wanting to share my life, my soul and everything I am with her. Sex is a union of our love. Its not about pleasure, its not about fucking, its about sharing and feeling the other.
And that is what romantic love is. And gay people can feel that way too. And you cheapening it to lust makes me sick.
Oh and another thing. I guess you are evangelical, right. Reason why we are not married is because her evangelical preacher traumatised her by telling her that she shouldn't get married since she can't have children. So yeah, I can buy that evangelical does not understand what love is. But sure knows hate.
User avatar #342 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
ALL sex comes from lust, all of it, without exception.

but I really don't know how to argue with you about the definition of marriage besides saying "here's the verse, it says what marriage is," Other than that I can only say look at the other verses, the ones that do address homosexuality, they are all negative, how can you defend them. Verses such as Romans 1:24-28. Homosexuality is never shown to be a good thing.

it is only lust, lust can go along with love, but even between you and your gf they are different things. It's the difference between how you see her and how you see your best friend, you love them both, you would do anything for them, but you are only sexually attracted, only lust for her.

I am not evangelical, and I disagree with that preacher's decision, sex is not only about making babies. It's also about an outlet for lust, you can marry her without having any penalty. This is talked about in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-8ish

But how is that hate when the preacher is simply against sexual morality? I'm starting to question if you actually do know what hate is or if you simply label anyone telling another person that something they are doing is wrong as hate...
#343 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok about verses.
How are you alive? Did you ever disrespect your parents. New Testament clearly says you should be killed if you do. Will you kill your children when they disrespect you?
What about slavery? What do you think about slavery? Timothy very strictly says that slaves should obey their owners, and not just good owners but cruel ones too.
I have more examples. New Testament all of it.
So I'll tell you what, if you actually kill your children for disrespecting you, and start a group against police freeing women in sexual slavery because they should obey their masters wishes, I'll give you that homosexuality is bad.
You are cherry picking from the bible, which rules should be obeyed and which shouldn't. So am I. You have one reasoning. I have another.
And you think sex between people in love is about lust... I feel sorry for you. If that's how you see the world I feel even worse for your eventual wife.
If I had an accident and was made an eunuch today, I would still love my gf the same. It would be deep romantic love. Because how I love her has nothing to do with sex. How I love my best friend has nothing to do with sex. Or my parents. I make love to my gf because I seek comfort in her, because I want to be as close to her as I can. I make love to her because she is other half of my soul. And yes, sometimes because I feel horny and lustful. But that is so LITTLE, so unimportant. Lust I can fix with my right hand and 15 minutes in the bathroom. Needing someone so deeply you could cry when they are in your arms is something completely different.
I feel different kind of love to my friends and family. there is more then one kind of love. But its not sex and lust that separates it. Its fulfilment and connection. Its listening to your soul scream when you are away. Groin can be ignored, easily, soul cannot.
User avatar #344 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look each one up again. I think I've addressed this before but I need to make sure it's the same verses.

And once again, I'd really like it if you could leave out the insults when you reply. It's feels inappropriate.
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
#336 - Just so you know, my words are not bigoted and carry no hate. …  [+] (13 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#337 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
I have known many gay people. Some young, some old.
I have seen my best friend spend months with her girlfriend as she fought cancer. I've seen her broken when girlfriend died, for months. I had to force her to eat, I had to force her to do basic things like comb her hair and wear clean clothes.
In france i've stayed with two men in their seventies. They have been together since 1963. They never cheated on eachother and never wanted to be with anyone but eachother.
And lastly, I've had to break in the door of a youth shelter, and rush a 15 year old girl to hospital, after her preacher told her she is disgusting and what she is feeling is just lust and she is a whore who thinks with her loins.
I've seen what love is. I know what lust is. Its not the same.
And I've seen hate. And I've seen much more hate from "good christians" then I ever seen from gay people.
User avatar #338 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
And nothing you mentioned has to do with sex. In fact, everything you said(the good parts) could have happened without the sex ever happening. As I said, love has nothing to do with sex. Love can also happen in places other bad things happen. A murderer can love, a lair can love. Case in point, I can still love and I sin all the time(shocking I know). So your point, which seems to be that gay sex can't have good around it, means nothing. In fact it's an argument the other way. You can love someone just like those people loved each other and never put our sexual organs together.

In the same way, someone who is a preacher can do hateful things. Preachers are people too. Were harsh words the correct thing to use in that situation? Probably not, but that doesn't magically make sexual promiscuity right either. What the girl did was wrong is she was sleeping around.

I don't deny you have seen love, but do not try to entangle that with sex and lust.
#339 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
girl never slept with anyone. She fell in love with a girl. She never as much as kissed another person. Male or female.
And people who love eachother have a right to express it through sex. Especially if they want to get married or are married.
Thankfully I belong to a church that accepts that and preaches that exactly. God always supports love. My priests preforms marriages, they are even legal in my state. And I am proud of being member of a Church like that, and of a community like that.
Just because bigots want to put everything into neat little boxes that fit their narrow viewpoints, God does not have to make Himself smaller to fit in such narrow minds.
Take your version of god, I'll believe in God who supports love in all its forms.
User avatar #340 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
You mean she lusted after another girl. Wanted to have sex with that girl. Not that she wanted to be friends, wanted to hang out with, wanted to talk with, laugh with that girls. She came to that preacher for sexual urges. Not because she felt affection. I feel affection for the guys I played basketball with in high school but not the urge to fuck them.

To your second point? WHAT!?! People have a right to have sex with each other to express love? That is not how you express love. You don't sex your mom to show her you love her, you do nice things, you care for her. Sex is only ok between a married couple, which the bible defines as a man and a woman.

I agree God supports all kind of love, but not all kinds of sex. Surely you understand that? Some kinds of sex are wrong, and if you look at the contents of the bible, it's obvious how those rules work.

Lastly, while I do enjoy debating about these issues, I'd like to ask that you tell me your point and tell me why my thoughts are wrong without belittling or insulting.
#341 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
She didn't want to FUCK the girl. she wanted to spend time with her. To kiss her. To be with her all the time. To share all her hopes and dreams and get other person's hopes and dreams shared too. Sex would have followed, probably, but not as LUST, but as expression of LOVE between two people who want to share their all between eachother. Not just satisfy a lustful feeling.
Just because YOU are too LIMITED to understand that people of same sex can LOVE not lust, that does not make their LOVE any less real. It makes you a bigot, but it does not cheapen what they feel. The failure is YOURS not theirs.
And yes they do. And they have a right to be married. YOU interpret that God wants marriage to be between man and woman. YOU AND YOUR ILK. Not me, not them. and NOT GOD. My Church certanly believes in right of people who truly love eachother to have their union sanctified. And if it troubles you, if you are too limited to understand it. Tough. Your problem.
And you cheapen love to sex because you think it gives you moral high ground. But it does not. Gay people can be in love, real, true love. Romantic love. If you are too limited to understand that, that is your problem, but stop cheapening other people's love because you want it to be something else. Its disgusting.

And ok, let me make my point very clear. Love I feel about my gf is not about sex. Its about wanting to share my life, my soul and everything I am with her. Sex is a union of our love. Its not about pleasure, its not about fucking, its about sharing and feeling the other.
And that is what romantic love is. And gay people can feel that way too. And you cheapening it to lust makes me sick.
Oh and another thing. I guess you are evangelical, right. Reason why we are not married is because her evangelical preacher traumatised her by telling her that she shouldn't get married since she can't have children. So yeah, I can buy that evangelical does not understand what love is. But sure knows hate.
User avatar #342 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
ALL sex comes from lust, all of it, without exception.

but I really don't know how to argue with you about the definition of marriage besides saying "here's the verse, it says what marriage is," Other than that I can only say look at the other verses, the ones that do address homosexuality, they are all negative, how can you defend them. Verses such as Romans 1:24-28. Homosexuality is never shown to be a good thing.

it is only lust, lust can go along with love, but even between you and your gf they are different things. It's the difference between how you see her and how you see your best friend, you love them both, you would do anything for them, but you are only sexually attracted, only lust for her.

I am not evangelical, and I disagree with that preacher's decision, sex is not only about making babies. It's also about an outlet for lust, you can marry her without having any penalty. This is talked about in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-8ish

But how is that hate when the preacher is simply against sexual morality? I'm starting to question if you actually do know what hate is or if you simply label anyone telling another person that something they are doing is wrong as hate...
#343 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok about verses.
How are you alive? Did you ever disrespect your parents. New Testament clearly says you should be killed if you do. Will you kill your children when they disrespect you?
What about slavery? What do you think about slavery? Timothy very strictly says that slaves should obey their owners, and not just good owners but cruel ones too.
I have more examples. New Testament all of it.
So I'll tell you what, if you actually kill your children for disrespecting you, and start a group against police freeing women in sexual slavery because they should obey their masters wishes, I'll give you that homosexuality is bad.
You are cherry picking from the bible, which rules should be obeyed and which shouldn't. So am I. You have one reasoning. I have another.
And you think sex between people in love is about lust... I feel sorry for you. If that's how you see the world I feel even worse for your eventual wife.
If I had an accident and was made an eunuch today, I would still love my gf the same. It would be deep romantic love. Because how I love her has nothing to do with sex. How I love my best friend has nothing to do with sex. Or my parents. I make love to my gf because I seek comfort in her, because I want to be as close to her as I can. I make love to her because she is other half of my soul. And yes, sometimes because I feel horny and lustful. But that is so LITTLE, so unimportant. Lust I can fix with my right hand and 15 minutes in the bathroom. Needing someone so deeply you could cry when they are in your arms is something completely different.
I feel different kind of love to my friends and family. there is more then one kind of love. But its not sex and lust that separates it. Its fulfilment and connection. Its listening to your soul scream when you are away. Groin can be ignored, easily, soul cannot.
User avatar #344 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look each one up again. I think I've addressed this before but I need to make sure it's the same verses.

And once again, I'd really like it if you could leave out the insults when you reply. It's feels inappropriate.
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
#334 - Not true, I'm saying that Jesus is verifying that this law is …  [+] (15 new replies) 09/22/2013 on I like this. -1
#335 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
I'm going to stop trying to argue now.
Anyone who thinks gay relationships are only about sex is a disgusting bigot and I make it a point to not try to talk to bigots.
They drag you down to their level, and its ugly down there.
User avatar #336 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Just so you know, my words are not bigoted and carry no hate. i used to think that gay relationships were biblically alright, it was only after studying the bible that I realized it simply isn't true. You can't follow the bible and ignore such a fact.

I'm sorry if I upset you in any way, I was really enjoying our chat. But I have to say, if you think I am wrong, it's not a good thing to ignore me. Please take the time to show me why I am wrong because I need to know it.

Also, try not to label everyone who apposes gay sex as a bigot. That word involves hate and i feel no hate for people who want to have gay sex. it is the same struggle as people who want to have premarital sex or adulterous sex. It's only human to be tempted, but that doesn't mean it's ok to put on a guise of love when it's all just lust.
#337 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
I have known many gay people. Some young, some old.
I have seen my best friend spend months with her girlfriend as she fought cancer. I've seen her broken when girlfriend died, for months. I had to force her to eat, I had to force her to do basic things like comb her hair and wear clean clothes.
In france i've stayed with two men in their seventies. They have been together since 1963. They never cheated on eachother and never wanted to be with anyone but eachother.
And lastly, I've had to break in the door of a youth shelter, and rush a 15 year old girl to hospital, after her preacher told her she is disgusting and what she is feeling is just lust and she is a whore who thinks with her loins.
I've seen what love is. I know what lust is. Its not the same.
And I've seen hate. And I've seen much more hate from "good christians" then I ever seen from gay people.
User avatar #338 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
And nothing you mentioned has to do with sex. In fact, everything you said(the good parts) could have happened without the sex ever happening. As I said, love has nothing to do with sex. Love can also happen in places other bad things happen. A murderer can love, a lair can love. Case in point, I can still love and I sin all the time(shocking I know). So your point, which seems to be that gay sex can't have good around it, means nothing. In fact it's an argument the other way. You can love someone just like those people loved each other and never put our sexual organs together.

In the same way, someone who is a preacher can do hateful things. Preachers are people too. Were harsh words the correct thing to use in that situation? Probably not, but that doesn't magically make sexual promiscuity right either. What the girl did was wrong is she was sleeping around.

I don't deny you have seen love, but do not try to entangle that with sex and lust.
#339 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
girl never slept with anyone. She fell in love with a girl. She never as much as kissed another person. Male or female.
And people who love eachother have a right to express it through sex. Especially if they want to get married or are married.
Thankfully I belong to a church that accepts that and preaches that exactly. God always supports love. My priests preforms marriages, they are even legal in my state. And I am proud of being member of a Church like that, and of a community like that.
Just because bigots want to put everything into neat little boxes that fit their narrow viewpoints, God does not have to make Himself smaller to fit in such narrow minds.
Take your version of god, I'll believe in God who supports love in all its forms.
User avatar #340 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
You mean she lusted after another girl. Wanted to have sex with that girl. Not that she wanted to be friends, wanted to hang out with, wanted to talk with, laugh with that girls. She came to that preacher for sexual urges. Not because she felt affection. I feel affection for the guys I played basketball with in high school but not the urge to fuck them.

To your second point? WHAT!?! People have a right to have sex with each other to express love? That is not how you express love. You don't sex your mom to show her you love her, you do nice things, you care for her. Sex is only ok between a married couple, which the bible defines as a man and a woman.

I agree God supports all kind of love, but not all kinds of sex. Surely you understand that? Some kinds of sex are wrong, and if you look at the contents of the bible, it's obvious how those rules work.

Lastly, while I do enjoy debating about these issues, I'd like to ask that you tell me your point and tell me why my thoughts are wrong without belittling or insulting.
#341 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
She didn't want to FUCK the girl. she wanted to spend time with her. To kiss her. To be with her all the time. To share all her hopes and dreams and get other person's hopes and dreams shared too. Sex would have followed, probably, but not as LUST, but as expression of LOVE between two people who want to share their all between eachother. Not just satisfy a lustful feeling.
Just because YOU are too LIMITED to understand that people of same sex can LOVE not lust, that does not make their LOVE any less real. It makes you a bigot, but it does not cheapen what they feel. The failure is YOURS not theirs.
And yes they do. And they have a right to be married. YOU interpret that God wants marriage to be between man and woman. YOU AND YOUR ILK. Not me, not them. and NOT GOD. My Church certanly believes in right of people who truly love eachother to have their union sanctified. And if it troubles you, if you are too limited to understand it. Tough. Your problem.
And you cheapen love to sex because you think it gives you moral high ground. But it does not. Gay people can be in love, real, true love. Romantic love. If you are too limited to understand that, that is your problem, but stop cheapening other people's love because you want it to be something else. Its disgusting.

And ok, let me make my point very clear. Love I feel about my gf is not about sex. Its about wanting to share my life, my soul and everything I am with her. Sex is a union of our love. Its not about pleasure, its not about fucking, its about sharing and feeling the other.
And that is what romantic love is. And gay people can feel that way too. And you cheapening it to lust makes me sick.
Oh and another thing. I guess you are evangelical, right. Reason why we are not married is because her evangelical preacher traumatised her by telling her that she shouldn't get married since she can't have children. So yeah, I can buy that evangelical does not understand what love is. But sure knows hate.
User avatar #342 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
ALL sex comes from lust, all of it, without exception.

but I really don't know how to argue with you about the definition of marriage besides saying "here's the verse, it says what marriage is," Other than that I can only say look at the other verses, the ones that do address homosexuality, they are all negative, how can you defend them. Verses such as Romans 1:24-28. Homosexuality is never shown to be a good thing.

it is only lust, lust can go along with love, but even between you and your gf they are different things. It's the difference between how you see her and how you see your best friend, you love them both, you would do anything for them, but you are only sexually attracted, only lust for her.

I am not evangelical, and I disagree with that preacher's decision, sex is not only about making babies. It's also about an outlet for lust, you can marry her without having any penalty. This is talked about in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-8ish

But how is that hate when the preacher is simply against sexual morality? I'm starting to question if you actually do know what hate is or if you simply label anyone telling another person that something they are doing is wrong as hate...
#343 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok about verses.
How are you alive? Did you ever disrespect your parents. New Testament clearly says you should be killed if you do. Will you kill your children when they disrespect you?
What about slavery? What do you think about slavery? Timothy very strictly says that slaves should obey their owners, and not just good owners but cruel ones too.
I have more examples. New Testament all of it.
So I'll tell you what, if you actually kill your children for disrespecting you, and start a group against police freeing women in sexual slavery because they should obey their masters wishes, I'll give you that homosexuality is bad.
You are cherry picking from the bible, which rules should be obeyed and which shouldn't. So am I. You have one reasoning. I have another.
And you think sex between people in love is about lust... I feel sorry for you. If that's how you see the world I feel even worse for your eventual wife.
If I had an accident and was made an eunuch today, I would still love my gf the same. It would be deep romantic love. Because how I love her has nothing to do with sex. How I love my best friend has nothing to do with sex. Or my parents. I make love to my gf because I seek comfort in her, because I want to be as close to her as I can. I make love to her because she is other half of my soul. And yes, sometimes because I feel horny and lustful. But that is so LITTLE, so unimportant. Lust I can fix with my right hand and 15 minutes in the bathroom. Needing someone so deeply you could cry when they are in your arms is something completely different.
I feel different kind of love to my friends and family. there is more then one kind of love. But its not sex and lust that separates it. Its fulfilment and connection. Its listening to your soul scream when you are away. Groin can be ignored, easily, soul cannot.
User avatar #344 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Would you mind citing the verses for me? I really hate to look each one up again. I think I've addressed this before but I need to make sure it's the same verses.

And once again, I'd really like it if you could leave out the insults when you reply. It's feels inappropriate.
#348 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Since I can't reply to your last post because we reached maximum number of lines I'll reply here.
You are dancing around it, you are changing the original meanings of those and interpreting them how they work in your advantage. Yes, you are cherry picking.
Really? Its english misstranslation. Interesting, since put to death part is also in my bible in croatian and my bible in german. But I guess everyone everywhere was misstranslating what you don't like.
And it seems I know a little better then you the state of slaves in 1st century Palestine and its freaking roman slavery. And Peter very clearly states that they have to obey those that abuse them too. Its slavery, not servitude.
And no, my argument is not for out of marriage sex. My argument is for marriage sex, and to stop excluding people from getting married.
And lust is not only difference and I keep repeating if that is only way you can see romantic love, as love with lust then you are a sad man and I feel sorry for you. That's not an insult. That's how I honestly feel. I feel sorry for you, because your world is so small and your emotions so empty that only way you can see romantic love is as lust plus affection.
I know how small lust is. I am the one who keeps saying that. You are the one who keeps eqating love to lust.
I hope you meet someone who will show you how much more romantic love is from affection and sex. I hope you meet a woman who will show you what love really is.
Maybe then you will understand what people really seek when they look for love, be they straight or gay, and how small your view right now is.
User avatar #349 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text, the Latin and seeing what both the context and the word mean. And yes, there are mistranslation , problems with the conversion to other languages, things lost and things added in more than one place. Look at the context of the verse, it's clear he's not making a law but talking about the old one. By simply reading the verse you can tell what he means.

And as I said, there are different kind of slavery used in different ways. It does say to submit yourselves to both the harsh and the kind masters, that makes sense. You are to be a good servant even if you master is cruel because you chose to serve him. This same word for the servant kind of slave is also found when Jesus says you(the servant) cannot serve two masters. (Luke 16:13) It's not talking about the forced slaves.

But that's what I'm saying, you can't argue for anyone who wants to marrying in the sight of the lord when marriage is already defined as between a man and woman. There's nothing to be interpreted, are you just ignoring what the verse says?

Though i would like to point out that I am pointing out verses of scripture while your only argument consists of insulting, calling my views small and sad, and going "nuh uh" a lot
#345 - angelusprimus (09/22/2013) [-]
Matthew 15:4
Peter 2:18
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem to be implying, it does not call for anyone's death, but in fact is referring to "the death" in Exodus 20:12 that comes with not honoring your father and mother. It in no way says anyone should "be put to death." It is a simple mistranslation in some versions of the English bible.

As for Peter 2:18, have you studied biblical slavery at all? In this instance it means house slaves which are less a slave in the "American" view meaning forced into it and treated poorly and more a servants with responsible positions and were often well educated. It was a lot closer to "butlers respect your superiors" not "abused slaves, obey those who captured you." The difference is "oiketes" which is a servant and "doulos" which is closer to what you probably think when you think "slave."

Both of these verses I agree with and do not "cherry pick" out.

Once again your only argument for out of marriage sex seems to be "it feels good so it's ok" but it's not. Biblically the only kind of sex that is accepted is inside of marriage. The different kind of love you feel is love without lust as opposed to love with lust. It's the only difference. Sex does bring people closer, but so does everything a loving couple does together, eating together, talking, being in the same room. Sex is no different, it is just lust fueled. The things you described, holding each other, comforting each other, those things are not part of the lust, they are love, but i challenge you to do them and not have sex, that will prove how small the lust is.
User avatar #346 - Vandeekree (09/22/2013) [-]
Thank you, un momento
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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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)