Click to expand
Rank #2459 on CommentsLevel 245 Comments: Doinitrite
OnlineSend mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||2/21/2010|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1622|
|Comment Thumbs:||5133 total, 7165 , 2032|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 46% (46/100) |
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
|Total Comments Made:||1959|
latest user's comments
|#285 - While it's true that that passage might be used out of contest… [+] (40 new replies)||02/09/2015 on Grandma||0|
#291 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
Paul's Letter to the Romans is one human's attempt to convince people they are wrong, and that they need forgiveness for their sins. In order to make it more universalized, you need to make it so everyone thinks they're a sinner. If that means interpreting something so it agrees with the point you want to make, then you do that.
The Gospel According to Matthew is the only version of the Gospel that has Jesus poised against homosexuality. The various other versions of the Gospel have conflicting messages about other important issues as well (militant Christianity vs peaceful Christianity being a big one), so quoting any of the versions of the Gospel as definitive fact (assuming that you believe [I personally am a non-believer, but I think it's more important to refute with contradicting evidence than to just refuse to acknowledge due to lack of belief]) is a tough sell.
Your attempt is admirable, but quoting the word of man isn't a way to sell me on the whole "God hates gays" theory.
#416 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
It won't let me reply any longer in that comment chain so I have moved to here.
I did not says that the traits I said were cherry picking, I said that you pointed out homosexuality was a good thing in nature that is natural and I pointed out other traits in nature that were not good and asked why you can pick homosexuality out but ignore those. That is the cherry picking i was talking about. I did not refute my own words, I pointed back to them to say "Those things I said are still bad but you don't point to them as being natural for humans. in the way they are for animals."
And you don't seem to understand how religion works. We are not just picking things we don't understand and making them sins. It all comes from things in the bible dictated by God himself. I understand homosexuality very well. It is a sexual desire, the same sexual desire I feel for the majority of women around me. I want to have sex with them. It would feel good. But I restrain myself because it's not right to simply give into to every lust and desire the body has. And it doesn't kill me believe it or not.
Perhaps to show you how homosexuality comes off to a person with absolute morality(as opposed to relative morality) think of a pedophile coming up and saying "I want pedophilia to be legal. I want to marry an underage girl who agree she is all for the marriage and having sex." You would hopefully say "Sorry, just because you want it doesn't make it right."
#452 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
God did not dictate the bible. The Bible states that there was a first man and woman but evolutionary biology has shown this to be false. Even the location of the Garden of Eden in the Bible is wrong: homo sapiens emerged from Africa.
The Bible states there was a global flood with a wooden boat that could hold all the animals. Not only is this story both without evidence and ridiculous, it actually is a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
"God' did not dictate the bible.
#456 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
God did dictate the bible both through his son Jesus and by inspiring the men who wrote it. It is his word written down and how we even know of him sens he does not reveal himself to the common man.
And yes, science does say that early humans seem to have lived in Africa, but try to understand the evidence is limited. We only find the bones and remains of some of those who lived, certainly not all, and so all that can be said is that THESE people lived here during this time period. It does not mean they can trace back to a single person or a specific year, it's all in ball parks. So while I do agree that early man was in Africa, I would not say it is definitive enough to say early man was only in Africa nor that the earliest man was in Africa first.
And while the bible does say the Noah built a large boat and filled it with two of each animal it doesn't say he used two of every animal that exists. It goes without saying he didn't load fish onto the boat. And I don't believe it was a world wide flood(as I stated in a previous message) so it suggests that he got two of each animal from the flooded area, but not things such as penguins and polar bears who would not be effected by the flood.
As for the story of Gilgamesh, it was written after the story of the great flood was supposed to have taken place. But once again it's hard to get an exact date. It's funny how you can look at two sources who both talk about a historical event happening and say that one copied from the other instead of thinking it is evidence that the event itself actually occurred. They are the same story. Is it surprising that a great flood story spread through the lands and was written by multiple sources?
#458 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
The Jesus stories are not acceptable as reliable historical records whatsoever. There is great contradiction in these stories. Much of Matthew and Luke are identical, and not to mention that these stories were written between about 30 and 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. AS each new gospel is written it becomes more fantastical.
There is no evidence from the alleged life of Jesus to prove he was real, let alone divine. I'm aware that most historians agree that he lived yet every thing we have about him is at least second hand.
Evolution shows that yes, we did actually originate in Africa some 200,000 years ago and not in the Middle East 6-10,000 years ago. This is a fact.
Evolution also shows that there was no 'First man and women' either. To claim otherwise is to not comprehend the theory of evolution.
The Flood myth involved different gods from a culture that was around 1000 years before the Israelites. There was probably a local flood that the original stories turned into fantasies but that also is no proof of the Bible or the god that it talks about.
We have dated artifacts from the Gilgamesh story that precede the existence of the Israeilites by 1000 years. That show we know that the Gilgamesh story came first. By a long way.
The Flood story came about before the Gilgamesh story. It was about a man named Ziasudra and is one of the earliest pieces of writing anywhere in the world. Historians and archaeologists have sophisticated ways of determining the historicity of artifacts and people.
#462 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
That is possible. I agree that they were only written down after the fact but most records of events are, especially in a time where reading and writing was uncommon. It would be a MIRACLE if the writings are all accurate and embellished. (hehe, see what i did there?)
And I agree, the bible is one of the few records of Jesus. There are a few Roman records that hint at him and his disciples. There are some Jewish stones that could or could not have been talking about him, but the bible is just about the only source and certainly the most fleshed out. But that isn't quote enough to disprove anything.
And I agree, some form of humanoid was in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Were they what can be called human? Biologically, yes, but what constitutes a human by the biblical definition? Is it that they are advanced enough to understand right and wrong? Surely you can agree that there was a point where a simple ape who simply doesn't have the brain power to understand empathy gave birth to the first ape that could finally understand.
I have read enough that I would in fact claim to understand evolution and how it works and it is not impossible that there was a first man and woman so I would say that what you said there is false.
There was not a tribe 1000 years before the Israelites in any sense besides that the Israelites may not have called themselves the Isralites at that time. It is well within the realm of possibility that the proto-Isrealites had the orally passed down story of the flood and it was shared and possible altered by other groups.
As for your statement of the dated Gilgamesh story, that's not how that works. How can you not grasp that the only thing it dates is the RECORD of the story and does not mean the story didn't exist long before it. It's not disproof. Only evidence that the story existed at the time of that record. The Israelite might not have written it down yet or all Israelite records of it have been lost. Of course the opposite might be true as well, but that's the point I'm trying to make.
#467 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
The science shows that the hominids dated to around 200,000 ago are human. Empathy and other traits are not something that just spring up in one generation. Obviously many animals like mammals and birds care for their young: it is instinctual. Humans have a more nuanced version of this empathy nut it has taken a long time for it to get to the point where we are now.
Evolution is about small changes over time generally .
Sorry, you're wrong in your understanding of evolution. Here, take it from a master and read that link about evolution.
You say 'Proto-Israelites' when really you're projecting onto other cultures. The Mesopotamian people were entirely separate I did mention that 1000 years thing, didn't I? , and were much larger than the relatively small Israelite population. They got their asses kicked by the Babylonians and this is when they probably took their myths to forge them into their own.
Your last paragraph is also failing the burden of proof. 'How do you know the magic unicorn didn't do it'?.
The Israelites did not exist when that story was first written!
1000 years passed before that story was told by the Israelites.
It is a Mesopotamian story originally as the story came before the Israelites!
How are you missing this man?
#472 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I do understand evolution and i was not suggesting that empathy sprang up in one generations. What I'm talking about is that the gradual change still results in children who are more advanced than their parents were. Not by leaps and bounds, usually in hardly noticeable ways but different all the same. It often loops back on itself when genes mix, disperse, and come back together between generations and pairings of distant relations. While I don't claim to be a master of Wikipedia articles do understand that my grasp on the subject is sufficient. I never said it was wrong, only that you are thinking it has proven things that it simply hasn't yet, not to say it won't.
And I was also not suggesting that the Israelite were the same as the Mesopotamians before they spit or something. They could have been if you go far enough back in time but there's not a lot on record to suggest that. My point to you was actually the same one you seem to be making to me now that the Israelites existed during and before that 1000 years that you did, in fact, mention. The grandfathers and great grand fathers of the Isrealites who wrote down the flood story were around the same time passing on the stories that the old testament would eventually be written from.
The Isrealites did exist, they did not poof into existence before the first record of them was carved into stone. They were a tribe and to think that they didn't exist as a people makes no sense as everyone has to have had forefathers.
And once again you ware saying it wrong. 1000 years did not pass before the Isrealites TOLD the story, 1000 years passed before they WROTE IT DOWN and that written record also survived to modern day.
Maybe I am missing something, it could happen, it has happened before. But I swear you talk like you don't understand timelines.
#477 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Because when you say "species" you mean "can mate" and that's not what the bible is talking about. It is referring to the first human who was capable of understanding morals. His mother was the same species but could not understand the things he could simply because his genes, the mix of his father and mother, were the final step in advancement that pushed the human species into "sentience."
#479 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
No. The bible says 'first human'. Period. It says that YHWH made him from clay but we know that there is no evidence for this whatsoever instead humans had a common ancestor with other animals. No magic breath is evidenced anywhere at all.
The bible makes no mention of Adam's mother at all. The story says life was breathed into clay. No mention of a woman or preceding species is mentioned either. You're really trying to combine your religious beliefs with science but eventually a person like you who continues to question these things will literally wake up one day and say:
'that's it! I don't believe in any of this anymore!'
Not trying to sound harsh, but the curious ones are generally the first to go!
#483 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes, "the first human" that does not mean it was referring to your personal definition of what a human is. It was using its definition which only really makes sense.
And it is understood that some of the story is partly metaphorical or told in story form, not empirical hard on "I made this in seven days which are 24 hours periods which are one revolution of the Earth which is...." form. What was meant when he said he was made out of soil? How much so his was made from soil? Was it meant in the light that soil contains nutrients that make up our bodies and so it was only pointing out that we are made from the earth even though it is filtered through our mother's body first? Maybe, I don't know for sure. But there is no reason to think he made Adam out of a flash of light on a pile of dirt and a puff of breath.
It's possible too. I have always constantly questioned the bible ever sense high school when I realized that I only believe in it because my parents do. I stopped going to church and started reading and researching about it. Looking at other religions and of course exploring history and science. Trying to figure out what I should believe. And while my research and exploring continues on I have to say that the more I delve into it the more I am finding that the bible is flawless and really seems to be head and shoulders above all other religions and, so far, completely in line with science.
#486 - popeflatus (02/09/2015) [-]
People 200,000 years ago, as I said in my other post, were as human as we are. The definition of human is not my 'personal definition' it is the scientific definition. If you're using a different version that's in the bible then you can just make it up as you go along. The meanings of words are paramount in science.
'It's understood that it is partly metaphorical'. This just means you're interpreting the story in a different way to suit yourselves. There are 40,000 versions of Christianity and they all do this. It's cherry picking.
Please do watch this video. It's 30 minutes long but it is well worth it.
This is a long series but shows why a lot of the bible is false, as well as other religions too.
And this series will show how science really does destroy the bible.
#488 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I agree, it is cherry picking. It is also true as when you are talking about a story, it will have metaphorical things in it. When someone says "You are a dick" they in no way are trying to say that you are physically one big male reproductive organ. The bible is not a scientific journal, but where it acts like one it is always correct.
I'm going to have to watch them in my free time as it's just about time to get going.
#304 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
That's a stretch to call Paul's letters not true scripture. Peter, the supposed first pope called them scripture. And in this place Paul is talking about what God did. Specifically saying "God gave them up to their sins." If he is only spouting opinion does that mean God chose a man to be one of his holy apostles, the ones who did miracles in his name knowing that Paul would later just walk around and spout blatant lies about what God did and said? It seem unlikely. The apostles had the authority of God behind them. They were ordered to go out and spread the word.
That's not to say that Paul didn't voice opinions, but when he did he distinctly said that he was doing so and that it was not God's divine word but merely his own opinion on a subject God did not talk to him directly about.
Even so, lets say those verses weren't about homosexuality or weren't really God's word. These is still the part where Jesus himself quotes the old testament in the definition of marriage.
#312 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
I'm of the opinion that a secular government should have no say in marriage. However, I also feel that the government should not recognize marriage as a legal issue, given its religious nature.
If you want to get married, find a religious institution that will do so. I think that all rights that are currently afforded to the married should be extended to those who have civil unions, and that the government should issue only certificates for civil unions going forward, while backdating all government-issued marriage licenses as civil unions and rewording laws that recognize marriage as recognizing civil unions.
It's not a popular opinion, but it's the only one that both affords equal protection by law and lets people throw their "But muh religious freedoms" fit.
#329 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
Specifically because it isn't the same for everyone. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal," to (butcher a) quote (from) a famous supreme court decision. You need to have equal protection by law for all citizens. If the only way to do that is by abolishing a tradition, then that tradition needs to go.
This is the only solution I see as a realistic answer to the marriage problem that respects the rights of a religion to have a definition of marriage that people don't agree with.
#342 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You are still making two separate institutions. This makes it easy to deny rights to one group without giving a reason. It's the same problem as we have with civil unions as they currently exist: they are not marriage, so they can grant rights exclusively to those who are married. Meanwhile, people can campaign to keep marriage's religious status legally protected and allow them to exclude gays from being married.
If you eliminate the government recognition of marriage, and instead backdate all current marriages as civil unions while simultaneously granting all rights currently afforded to married couples to all those in a civil union, you eliminate the potential religious issue and make it impossible to discriminate against one section of the population in what would then be a purely legal issue.
#346 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
That's because they are indeed two different things. A lot of the tax benefits for married couples are there to help with the burden of having a child. It's like if men demanded pregnancy leave at word and call it unfair if they don't get it.
It's discrimination against a population for what they do, not what they are. It's perfectly fine that we discriminate against the population that are murderers because of what they did.
#353 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
There are a lot of married couples that do not have any children. Likewise, there are many unmarried couples with children. Tax benefits to "help with the burden of having a child" are still given to unmarried people: it's called a dependent claim.
Marriage benefits are not for having children, or for any other logical reason. If you are not married, you can't add your significant other to your insurance plan. You can add any children you have, but if you aren't married to your partner, you can't add them on.
Your comparison between homosexuals and murderers isn't helping your point out at all. Being gay doesn't kill anyone. Hell, the only people it hurts are other gay people, and that's only if someone's taking more than they can handle.
Additionally, marriage rights aren't denied to murderers. Charles Manson got married, in case you've been living under a rock. If society thinks Charles Manson more should have more rights than two gay guys, I think there's something wrong with society.
#359 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
The murder example was only to show that the buzz word "discriminate" does not work in this context. Not that murderers can't get married or something odd like that.
And yes, married couples do not have children but they could. Even those who can't because one partner is crippled or barren could still theoretically have children. Marriage is nothing more than an action to support a natural function of baby making with a bit of leeway if you are trying to make a baby but it's not working do to illness or deformity.
But i think your last sentence really shows the problem with your mindset. Manson or I don't have more rights than a gay person, we have equal rights. A gay guy and I can marry exactly the same people. We can do exactly the same things. If rights were unequal than I would allow myself to do something that they can't. The difference is that he wants to do something illegal and I don't and then cries that it's not fair simple because he wants to do it and thus that means it should be ok to do. That's the mentality of a mentally ill person.
#370 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You have the freedom to marry someone you are sexually attracted to; a gay person does not.
As for your second comment, the potential for something is not the thing in itself. Your own example shot itself in the foot in the second sentence. You say one thing, then you say the exact opposite. You can't have it both ways. It's either for the purpose of procreation (which you originally said) or it's not, in which case you shouldn't be able to let straight people who are incapable of having children or unwilling to do have children get married.
But I think your last paragraph really shows the problem with your mindset. The law does not dictate the rights of the people; in a just society, the exact opposite is true. Saying that people are breaking the law by doing something illegal is a tautology, and legality is not a source of moral judgement (example: jaywalking is illegal. Does that mean it is immoral?). Claiming that a law that discriminates based on something that is not an issue of harm (homosexuality does not inflict harm to anyone but homosexuals in any event; murder always inflicts harm) isn't discriminatory because of religion is the attitude of a mentally ill person.
#380 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
To answer your second part first. I agree, they law does not make right now should people be stopped from hurting themselves. When I say gay marriage is illegal I do not mean that gay people are stopped from having sex or even from having personal unions. I mean that the government should not engage to promote harmful things. It should be illegal for government officials and workers to legally bind two people of the same sex because that in unhealthy. You may not agree that it's unhealthy but it very much is a bad thing to have a relationship based purely on a fetish which is part of the reason so many real marriages end in divorce these days but that's another topic we don't have to get into if you don't want.
I would also argue that religion(at least Christianity) isn't the mentality of the mentally ill because if one is following what Christianity is about then you are working to help those around you and are empathetic and concerned with their good. That's it. That's the golden rule, treat others as you would treat yourself. While the homosexual sexual revolution is all about promoting that because you want to do something, everyone else should agree that it's ok to do. No one is stopping people who want to have gay sex from doing it. And yet they demand more, they want to be treated like normal couples. They demand that their activities be called the same thing as a couple who are married. Marriage is about having kids. That why the average person does it. It's the entire point. Should two people who can't have children be allowed to marry? It's debatable. But people act like not getting to have sex is this horrible fate. Nothing could be worse than being a virgin, sex is the best thing ever and if you can't fuck then your life is so much worse!
As for your first point, I disagree, it follows that if legal marriage is only for the support of child bearing parents then the potential for having children is the main factor in marriage. Who is to say that a barren woman won't someday manage to conceive? Who's to say that a man with a narrow urethra won't heal from that eventually? And if we look at people who literally can't have sex, people with no sexual organs anymore then is there any harm in letting them marry? They won't be having sex either way.
#392 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
Additionally, there's a reason people compare things to sex when they're saying something is good: sex is way better than anything else out there. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't had even halfway decent sex. A life without sex is incomparably worse than the alternative, due to magic being fake as fuck, so you won't even get sweet wizard powers if you hit 40 without having sex.
#385 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You're still shooting yourself in the foot with your insistence that marriage is both for having children yet permissible if they can't have children.
For example, a man can have a vasectomy. This does not hinder his ability to have sex or enjoy sex, but renders the man incapable of having children due to inability to produce sperm. You are saying that a man who chooses to have a vasectomy, which makes him incapable of producing children, is free to marry a woman, yet he can't marry a man, because such a union has no chance of producing children, even though his potential union with a woman would have the same chance of producing children.
#391 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
Yes because there is a chance he could produce children still. Vasectomies can be undone and sometimes even repair themselves on their own.
Are you suggesting that after a man has his last child he should no longer get married too? Of course not, that would be ridiculous as no one can know if they will have more children or not short of his death. We cannot know for sure what the future holds and because of that it is permissible that any man and any woman should be able to marry for children because there is that possibility. That is simply nature, if they have no children then even so, they tried, and that chance should be allowed no matter how bleak. A same sex paring, however, has no chance of producing offspring and in that way is unnatural always.
It works like this. If you love someone then that is always great. Always. But loving someone is not the same as wanting to have sex with them. That is lust. A true marriage should be between two people who love each other and want to have children together. The pleasurable sex is a bonus to be sure, but only a side effect of the true goal of the marriage which is to have children and continue a two families as one.
#398 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
Wow. I didn't realize right offhand you were one of those Christians. Allow me to rebutt.
First thing you've got wrong is that you're saying the desire for sex is outright wrong. It's not wrong, it's a product of our nature as animals. Every animal on the planet has survival instincts driven by a primal need to live. Mammals are generally more self-aware than other types of animals, causing our brain chemistry to function differently: instead of just the basic reward of survival, our brains let us experience pleasure, typically in the form of a dopamine surge, from doing things that promote our well-being. It's why some food tastes good (stuff that provides necessary nutrients and accessible calories tastes better than cardboard), it's why some smells are better than others, and it's every mammal on the planet has the potential for orgasms from sex. Orgasms release the single biggest surge of dopamine possible for a human being to experience. This causes mammals to seek out the same experience, due to its pleasurable nature. So, telling someone that they can't want sex for pleasure, or that having sex for enjoyment is wrong is like telling someone not to breathe: It goes against our very nature as living beings.
Second, literally every mammal species on the planet has some percentage of homosexuality. Every single one. It is, again, a fact of life that some people, given that we are mammals, are going to want to have sex with the same sex. This is not some abhorrent act that stands against nature; nature is right along with it.
#399 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
I never said the desire for sex is wrong. The opposite in fact. I said it was completely normal and natural in all human beings. What is wrong is how you act on that. Do you feed it? Let it grow until horses and car and men with boobs turn you on and you're having sex with all three? Or do you reject it and only allow yourself to have sex with one person who you want to trust and spend your life with to the point of producing offspring with that person?
So I'm not sure why you would assume I think the desire for sex or the enjoyment of pleasure is wrong. I never said it. Perhaps you just assume I feel that way once you were able to lump me in with "those Christians."
And I am aware of the homosexual rates among animals. But if your argument is that what if the norm for the animal should be the norm for humans then we would all be cannibalistic murderous fornicators who kill each other's young. What is natural for an animal is not natural for a human. You see, unlike animals, we have a system of morals that can and should extend beyond those immediately close to us.
As far as the chemical highs we get from our brains, I agree that they are pleasurable but definitely disagree that sex produces the best. It might produce one of the highest short of drugs but short spurts of intense pleasure are by no means the end all be all of the human experience. I think the more of the world you explore the more you will find that to be true.
#406 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
"But if your argument is that what if the norm for the animal should be the norm for humans then we would all be cannibalistic murderous fornicators who kill each other's young."
For starters, the majority of mammals (which is the group I was comparing us to, not animals as a whole) avoid cannibalism like the plague. Humans, however, do practice it, whether in extreme circumstances (eg, the Donner party) or as a cultural practice.
Second, we are that, much in the way other mammals are. Not all mammal species kill others of their species, just like not all humans kill other humans. But, as a species, we are exactly that: murderous sluts who kill each other's kids, occasionally with the hint of cannibalism, pedophilia, rape, incest, and/or necrophilia thrown in.
So, in a way, I guess you were right. It's not the norm for humans; the norm for humans is worse!
#409 - Vandeekree (02/09/2015) [-]
So then you're going to pick and choose which animal traits to point to as natural while others are "just animal things, people wouldn't do them?"
And I would disagree, you can't say that because some humans do it it is a norm. The majority of humans wouldn't intentionally do most of those things with the possible exception of premarital sex and those who so are usually shunned by society. So the norm for humans is to be of a moral caliber which differs from other mammals who consonantly commit taboos for humans.
Once again the "animals do it" argument does not hold water.
#410 - Stevethewizard (02/09/2015) [-]
You're the one who picked those traits. The first thing in that post was a direct quote from you.
I've refuted literally every counterpoint you raised to my arguments, and you have now started arguing that using your own points against you is cherry picking.
I'm done. This is what I meant by "One of those Christians." That, and the "Everything I don't understand is a sin" mentality you seem to have.
|#95 - Not exactly. The an instead of a was just to make sure he unde… [+] (1 new reply)||02/07/2015 on Back to home||0|
|#91 - Puns are the lowest form of humor. I only resort to intentiona… [+] (1 new reply)||02/07/2015 on Back to home||0|
|#89 - Kind of like not understanding a joke. [+] (6 new replies)||02/07/2015 on Back to home||0|
|#27 - Wow, you are so dumb. I never do stuff like that. What an loser. [+] (9 new replies)||02/06/2015 on Back to home||0|
|#23 - I want to find something in the book but don't recall where it… [+] (1 new reply)||02/06/2015 on Back to home||+3|
|#17 - I relate to this so hard. I can't tell you how many times I tr… [+] (19 new replies)||02/06/2015 on Back to home||+35|
|#49 - I think her becoming rich has exactly the same chance as her f…||02/02/2015 on Gold digger destroyed||0|
|#28 - I liked when they beluga bubble.||01/30/2015 on Beluga whales having some fun||+3|
|#6 - This just goes to show that, if anything, we need to toss more…||01/27/2015 on (untitled)||+14|
|#77 - I wonder if this is how it starts.||01/27/2015 on Iceland||0|
|#18 - It's kind of funny that so much satire on the internet is misu… [+] (1 new reply)||01/25/2015 on Welcome to: Cringe||+7|
|#12 - "Ayy lmao" is one of those memes that went right pas…||01/24/2015 on Ayyy||+7|
|#39 - You're right. I guess I was counting when he tells people to d… [+] (1 new reply)||01/22/2015 on (untitled)||+2|
|#32 - I don't think that's entirely true at least for the bible. One… [+] (3 new replies)||01/22/2015 on (untitled)||+3|
#39 - Vandeekree (01/22/2015) [-]
You're right. I guess I was counting when he tells people to do things outside that bubble but I agree that the poster meant direct acts of godly power manifest on Earth. But wasn't it said that the whole point of the "chosen generation" was that they would be the people who God revealed himself to in preparation for Jesus's coming?
|#119 - Funnyjunk only has three members. You, one guy who is racist, …||01/22/2015 on Cause I'm black||+2|
|#9 - Guy on the right is so dark tanned he can look at Barack like …||01/21/2015 on Neopolitician Ice Cream||+5|
|#240 - If the world is against you you're probably the villain...||01/21/2015 on Wallpaper Comp 3||0|
|#5 - Wow, that jump was garbage.||01/20/2015 on Amazing leap||+5|
|#10 - I think it's part of the process of becoming good. If you're t… [+] (1 new reply)||01/15/2015 on True||+2|
|#7 - Orcs. Such incredibly resourceful and ingenious engineers. Abl… [+] (2 new replies)||01/12/2015 on College engineering project...||0|
#17 - triggercrazy (01/12/2015) [-]
Technically what they build is part tech know how and psychic energy. Basically, if an ork believes what they're doing to something will improve it it'll actually do so. For example, if an ork paints a war truk red it'll actually go faster than another war truk that wasn't painted red because orks believe 'Red makes it go fasta!'. Another example is the louder the gun naturally the more damage it will do so any weaponry that is silenced will have little effect on them. If any human tried to operate ork tech they would end up getting blown up as well.
|#34 - The Hercules one doesn't exactly end well either...||01/11/2015 on Disney Kids (Best For Last)||0|
|#4 - Are you saying her breasts aren't as genitals as my balls are?… [+] (1 new reply)||01/10/2015 on :D||+2|
|#2 - Now imagine two little boys talking like that to a man with a … [+] (5 new replies)||01/10/2015 on :D||+21|
#3 - Ken M (01/10/2015) [-]
Breasts are not genitals. That is a false analogy. Please stop this nonsense. Even as a dumb joke. Either way, it's asinine.
|#31 - Picture||01/10/2015 on Don't starve comp||0|