Vandeekree

Rank #10516 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 237 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:2/01/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#10516
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 4056 total,  5897 ,  1841
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1716
FJ Points:3700

latest user's comments

#872 - And while i don't know you and really can't contest that. It d…  [+] (14 new replies) 04/16/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1212 - ackbobthedead (04/17/2013) [-]
Saying it's unhealthy in any way is simply wrong. I'm not being hurt from being gay or making gay love in any way.
User avatar #1214 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Yes, having gay sex is both mentally, and can be physically harmful to the person doing it just as any premarital sex is.
#1215 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
I'm sorry Satan has gotten to you :(
I know it's hard to tell, because he's so tricky, and you would never admit it, because no one who has let Satan into their souls would admit it.
we'll pray for you....poor thing. :(
User avatar #1216 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
That felt a bit mocking but I assure you that everything i say is taken directly from the bible(new testament)
But if you don't care about moral harm you do to yourself them look at the non religious based studies. The trends and data are unmistakable. There is simply a massively higher rate of mental illness and disease in people who are willing to have gay sex.
#1217 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
There is no moral harm from gay sex xD
Sure, people who are sex addicts may want to have sex with males, but that's because they're just looking for a hole to fuck. They don't represent the homosexual community. Silly Bible thumper. From where I come from, people who talk about the Bible as if it's not just a story book are either taken as if they're kidding, or assumed to be crazy. You, too, are tainted with that book with thoughts of people who don't live and think exactly like you have some kind of mental illness. Grow Up.
User avatar #1223 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe differently to be mental right after saying that where you come from people who think differently are are considered mental?

And if you want to get into it, there's no moral harm to anything without God. What makes gay sex wrong? God said it was wrong. What makes murder wrong? God said it was wrong. Aside from that you can't give a reason that anything is wrong. You can say that murder hurts people, but what makes hurting people wrong?
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#856 - Yes, i chose my words carefully. From the people i know who ca…  [+] (16 new replies) 04/16/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#867 - ackbobthedead (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm gay, and I'm not suffering at all. I am perfectly happy with myself and I would not choose to be straight if I had the choice.
User avatar #872 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
And while i don't know you and really can't contest that. It does say in the bible that having gay sex is a sin, so if you're doing that then you are most certainly suffering from something. Please don't take it as an insult because that's not my goal, but what you're doing truly isn't healthy by any means.
#1212 - ackbobthedead (04/17/2013) [-]
Saying it's unhealthy in any way is simply wrong. I'm not being hurt from being gay or making gay love in any way.
User avatar #1214 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Yes, having gay sex is both mentally, and can be physically harmful to the person doing it just as any premarital sex is.
#1215 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
I'm sorry Satan has gotten to you :(
I know it's hard to tell, because he's so tricky, and you would never admit it, because no one who has let Satan into their souls would admit it.
we'll pray for you....poor thing. :(
User avatar #1216 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
That felt a bit mocking but I assure you that everything i say is taken directly from the bible(new testament)
But if you don't care about moral harm you do to yourself them look at the non religious based studies. The trends and data are unmistakable. There is simply a massively higher rate of mental illness and disease in people who are willing to have gay sex.
#1217 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
There is no moral harm from gay sex xD
Sure, people who are sex addicts may want to have sex with males, but that's because they're just looking for a hole to fuck. They don't represent the homosexual community. Silly Bible thumper. From where I come from, people who talk about the Bible as if it's not just a story book are either taken as if they're kidding, or assumed to be crazy. You, too, are tainted with that book with thoughts of people who don't live and think exactly like you have some kind of mental illness. Grow Up.
User avatar #1223 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe differently to be mental right after saying that where you come from people who think differently are are considered mental?

And if you want to get into it, there's no moral harm to anything without God. What makes gay sex wrong? God said it was wrong. What makes murder wrong? God said it was wrong. Aside from that you can't give a reason that anything is wrong. You can say that murder hurts people, but what makes hurting people wrong?
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#854 - I never said i don't contend divorce as well. It's also wrong …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#880 - chusmimax (04/16/2013) [-]
it's a good opinion, but are they really able to choice when they can't get married and form a normal family? It's not about making pro gay campains traying to make straight homos, it's just to allow those people who has no choice to have a normal life.
User avatar #903 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anyone is trying to make anyone else gay. But the gay rights movement really has nothing to do with rights. It's not about them wanting to be treated equal, being treated like a person, not threatened, not murdered, all of that is already an established right. But what is being pushed for a sexual revolution where what is sexually accepted is changed. They're not wanting us to be gay, they want us to change our opinion and admit to them that being gay is somehow ok when it's simply not.
They choose not to have a normal life and then demand everyone else tell them that they're normal.
#824 - I do agree with part of this, you really have to keep in mind …  [+] (24 new replies) 04/16/2013 on co-existion is possible -5
User avatar #893 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Thanks, i have actually seen this video before and sorry but it's less than convincing.
#841 - ackbobthedead (04/16/2013) [-]
Suffering from being gay? XD
User avatar #856 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes, i chose my words carefully. From the people i know who call themselves gay i think it's appropriate. You don't have to agree with me.
#867 - ackbobthedead (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm gay, and I'm not suffering at all. I am perfectly happy with myself and I would not choose to be straight if I had the choice.
User avatar #872 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
And while i don't know you and really can't contest that. It does say in the bible that having gay sex is a sin, so if you're doing that then you are most certainly suffering from something. Please don't take it as an insult because that's not my goal, but what you're doing truly isn't healthy by any means.
#1212 - ackbobthedead (04/17/2013) [-]
Saying it's unhealthy in any way is simply wrong. I'm not being hurt from being gay or making gay love in any way.
User avatar #1214 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Yes, having gay sex is both mentally, and can be physically harmful to the person doing it just as any premarital sex is.
#1215 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
I'm sorry Satan has gotten to you :(
I know it's hard to tell, because he's so tricky, and you would never admit it, because no one who has let Satan into their souls would admit it.
we'll pray for you....poor thing. :(
User avatar #1216 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
That felt a bit mocking but I assure you that everything i say is taken directly from the bible(new testament)
But if you don't care about moral harm you do to yourself them look at the non religious based studies. The trends and data are unmistakable. There is simply a massively higher rate of mental illness and disease in people who are willing to have gay sex.
#1217 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
There is no moral harm from gay sex xD
Sure, people who are sex addicts may want to have sex with males, but that's because they're just looking for a hole to fuck. They don't represent the homosexual community. Silly Bible thumper. From where I come from, people who talk about the Bible as if it's not just a story book are either taken as if they're kidding, or assumed to be crazy. You, too, are tainted with that book with thoughts of people who don't live and think exactly like you have some kind of mental illness. Grow Up.
User avatar #1223 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe differently to be mental right after saying that where you come from people who think differently are are considered mental?

And if you want to get into it, there's no moral harm to anything without God. What makes gay sex wrong? God said it was wrong. What makes murder wrong? God said it was wrong. Aside from that you can't give a reason that anything is wrong. You can say that murder hurts people, but what makes hurting people wrong?
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#839 - chusmimax (04/16/2013) [-]
Homosexuality is natural among a lot of species and marriage isn't so natural. If you are christian, it is ilogical tu suport to punish homosexuality and not divorce while both appear in the bible. If you are atheist and you are ruled by what is natural and what isn't, you should know that marriage isn't and homosexuality is. If you are guided by equality, they have the right to. But if you just say no because you are not homosexual, that's like me saying that you shouldn't eat pizza because I hate it.
User avatar #854 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I never said i don't contend divorce as well. It's also wrong but I neither go protest at divorced peoples doors nor do i do it at gay couple's doors. I support their right to have sex with anyone they want even if it's a sin, but I would not want to see sinful acts added into the nation's law either(anymore than it already is sense divorce already is in the law) I think it should be neither banned nor supported, leaving it as simply a choice.
#880 - chusmimax (04/16/2013) [-]
it's a good opinion, but are they really able to choice when they can't get married and form a normal family? It's not about making pro gay campains traying to make straight homos, it's just to allow those people who has no choice to have a normal life.
User avatar #903 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anyone is trying to make anyone else gay. But the gay rights movement really has nothing to do with rights. It's not about them wanting to be treated equal, being treated like a person, not threatened, not murdered, all of that is already an established right. But what is being pushed for a sexual revolution where what is sexually accepted is changed. They're not wanting us to be gay, they want us to change our opinion and admit to them that being gay is somehow ok when it's simply not.
They choose not to have a normal life and then demand everyone else tell them that they're normal.
#36 - Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you b… 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
#34 - Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought yo…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#32 - I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#30 - Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#28 - Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?  [+] (8 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#26 - Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?  [+] (10 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#5 - I wonder if I jazz hands when I'm terrified.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/16/2013 on Armchair Prank +23
#6 - Wazzy (04/16/2013) [-]
#24 - Well I thought that speculating on if he created himself or he…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #25 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Everything must have a beginning. that is what I am saying.
Say you traverse time in a circular fashion? and then you recreate yourself, your beginning is your end. that is one idea on creating oneself.

But in the end all I mean is that Everything has a beginning.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#16 - If you just saved yourself by going back in time logically the… 04/16/2013 on description 0
#22 - That is usually solve in that God is said to be all powerful. …  [+] (14 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #23 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't use the "where did it come from" I said either he was an accident or he created himself, if that specific variety of god does exist at all.

You said above or outside time and are talking about time as a linear item, I know time isn't linear, time moves at different paces in different parts of space. Even if this god is above time, we are not, at least not yet and that means from our standpoint there is a beginning and an end.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Well I thought that speculating on if he created himself or he was an accident had to do with where he came from. If not then I'm afraid i don't understand what you're saying. Could you reword it? Pretend you're talking to a child, then I might get it a bit better haha

And yes we perceive time, but that has nothing to do with God. Our perception of him doesn't effect him and so although we may have a beginning and end, that doesn't mean God has too.
User avatar #25 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Everything must have a beginning. that is what I am saying.
Say you traverse time in a circular fashion? and then you recreate yourself, your beginning is your end. that is one idea on creating oneself.

But in the end all I mean is that Everything has a beginning.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#20 - Ok, pretend I never used the word 'belief' in my last post bec…  [+] (16 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #21 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if God is the highest power then how did he come to be?
if he knows all then that means he is either an accident or he created himself.
If accidental he wouldn't be the higher power and if self creation then there would be no reason to be religious, he is something.

If we knew for a fact that god exists than it would no longer be a factor of belief or religion it would be a statement. Religion requires lack of knowledge.
User avatar #22 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
That is usually solve in that God is said to be all powerful. That means he is outside or above time. It does not constrain him because he supposedly created it for us humans. He had to beginning or end because he always was and never started. Now trying to think outside of time with no beginning end or past or future is beyond my brain capacity but I hope you understand why "well where did it come from" argument only works for things that are constrained by time.

That moves into your second argument where we and the world are constrained by time and so logically must have a beginning which is one of the arguments for God's existence outside of religious texts.

And I would say that if every individual could be contacted by God then there would still be belief. Lets says a great glowing figure appeared before you claiming to be God, told you he was and did all sorts of miraculous things until you were sure he was God. Even then you would still only be believing he was God because you wouldn't know for sure. It could be that he is simply an alien with ineradicable technology you don't understand putting on a show for you to make you think he is God. My point is that we as humans can't actually know anything as fact. We simply take what we see and decide to believe it or not. You hear the weatherman on tv and believe he's a human though you've never met him. You drive your car and believe it runs on gasoline though you've probably never looked at it to see how it actually works. You believe you've got a heart beating inside you although you've never seen it.
Now my point isn't that you should question any of that or even that my examples are anything but true. My point is, everything that you know is a belief. The things you hold as fact are actually only things you believe to be fact and as such, for humans at least, we can't know facts.
User avatar #23 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't use the "where did it come from" I said either he was an accident or he created himself, if that specific variety of god does exist at all.

You said above or outside time and are talking about time as a linear item, I know time isn't linear, time moves at different paces in different parts of space. Even if this god is above time, we are not, at least not yet and that means from our standpoint there is a beginning and an end.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Well I thought that speculating on if he created himself or he was an accident had to do with where he came from. If not then I'm afraid i don't understand what you're saying. Could you reword it? Pretend you're talking to a child, then I might get it a bit better haha

And yes we perceive time, but that has nothing to do with God. Our perception of him doesn't effect him and so although we may have a beginning and end, that doesn't mean God has too.
User avatar #25 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Everything must have a beginning. that is what I am saying.
Say you traverse time in a circular fashion? and then you recreate yourself, your beginning is your end. that is one idea on creating oneself.

But in the end all I mean is that Everything has a beginning.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#18 - Actually I am legitimately asking for clarification on the com… 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
#17 - Yes but he says God is an atheist but then doesn't define athe…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/16/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man 0
User avatar #19 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Faith is a form of belief.
User avatar #20 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, pretend I never used the word 'belief' in my last post because it's clearly distracting from my point.
Religious is the belief of a higher power. Atheist is the belief that there is not. God(assuming he does know) knows that he is the highest power so why he is not religious through faith, he is not atheist because he doesn't have faith but instead knows all.
User avatar #21 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if God is the highest power then how did he come to be?
if he knows all then that means he is either an accident or he created himself.
If accidental he wouldn't be the higher power and if self creation then there would be no reason to be religious, he is something.

If we knew for a fact that god exists than it would no longer be a factor of belief or religion it would be a statement. Religion requires lack of knowledge.
User avatar #22 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
That is usually solve in that God is said to be all powerful. That means he is outside or above time. It does not constrain him because he supposedly created it for us humans. He had to beginning or end because he always was and never started. Now trying to think outside of time with no beginning end or past or future is beyond my brain capacity but I hope you understand why "well where did it come from" argument only works for things that are constrained by time.

That moves into your second argument where we and the world are constrained by time and so logically must have a beginning which is one of the arguments for God's existence outside of religious texts.

And I would say that if every individual could be contacted by God then there would still be belief. Lets says a great glowing figure appeared before you claiming to be God, told you he was and did all sorts of miraculous things until you were sure he was God. Even then you would still only be believing he was God because you wouldn't know for sure. It could be that he is simply an alien with ineradicable technology you don't understand putting on a show for you to make you think he is God. My point is that we as humans can't actually know anything as fact. We simply take what we see and decide to believe it or not. You hear the weatherman on tv and believe he's a human though you've never met him. You drive your car and believe it runs on gasoline though you've probably never looked at it to see how it actually works. You believe you've got a heart beating inside you although you've never seen it.
Now my point isn't that you should question any of that or even that my examples are anything but true. My point is, everything that you know is a belief. The things you hold as fact are actually only things you believe to be fact and as such, for humans at least, we can't know facts.
User avatar #23 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't use the "where did it come from" I said either he was an accident or he created himself, if that specific variety of god does exist at all.

You said above or outside time and are talking about time as a linear item, I know time isn't linear, time moves at different paces in different parts of space. Even if this god is above time, we are not, at least not yet and that means from our standpoint there is a beginning and an end.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Well I thought that speculating on if he created himself or he was an accident had to do with where he came from. If not then I'm afraid i don't understand what you're saying. Could you reword it? Pretend you're talking to a child, then I might get it a bit better haha

And yes we perceive time, but that has nothing to do with God. Our perception of him doesn't effect him and so although we may have a beginning and end, that doesn't mean God has too.
User avatar #25 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Everything must have a beginning. that is what I am saying.
Say you traverse time in a circular fashion? and then you recreate yourself, your beginning is your end. that is one idea on creating oneself.

But in the end all I mean is that Everything has a beginning.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
#3 - I agree, the things they are doing are dumb when compared to t… 04/14/2013 on Hitlarious 0
#5 - Is it supposed to be play on definition? As in atheist = some…  [+] (22 new replies) 04/14/2013 on Too Much Coffee Man, Man +5
User avatar #14 - Shramin (04/15/2013) [-]
But if God is all knowing he wouldn't believe he is a higher power, He would know if he was or not.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but he says God is an atheist but then doesn't define atheist, he defines faith. And atheist can have faith in something although by definition an atheist doesn't have faith in a higher power. As I said before God could believe or know that he is a higher power and so while God might not have faith because he knows, it's a kind of out of no where stretch to says he's an atheist. Right?
User avatar #19 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Faith is a form of belief.
User avatar #20 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, pretend I never used the word 'belief' in my last post because it's clearly distracting from my point.
Religious is the belief of a higher power. Atheist is the belief that there is not. God(assuming he does know) knows that he is the highest power so why he is not religious through faith, he is not atheist because he doesn't have faith but instead knows all.
User avatar #21 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if God is the highest power then how did he come to be?
if he knows all then that means he is either an accident or he created himself.
If accidental he wouldn't be the higher power and if self creation then there would be no reason to be religious, he is something.

If we knew for a fact that god exists than it would no longer be a factor of belief or religion it would be a statement. Religion requires lack of knowledge.
User avatar #22 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
That is usually solve in that God is said to be all powerful. That means he is outside or above time. It does not constrain him because he supposedly created it for us humans. He had to beginning or end because he always was and never started. Now trying to think outside of time with no beginning end or past or future is beyond my brain capacity but I hope you understand why "well where did it come from" argument only works for things that are constrained by time.

That moves into your second argument where we and the world are constrained by time and so logically must have a beginning which is one of the arguments for God's existence outside of religious texts.

And I would say that if every individual could be contacted by God then there would still be belief. Lets says a great glowing figure appeared before you claiming to be God, told you he was and did all sorts of miraculous things until you were sure he was God. Even then you would still only be believing he was God because you wouldn't know for sure. It could be that he is simply an alien with ineradicable technology you don't understand putting on a show for you to make you think he is God. My point is that we as humans can't actually know anything as fact. We simply take what we see and decide to believe it or not. You hear the weatherman on tv and believe he's a human though you've never met him. You drive your car and believe it runs on gasoline though you've probably never looked at it to see how it actually works. You believe you've got a heart beating inside you although you've never seen it.
Now my point isn't that you should question any of that or even that my examples are anything but true. My point is, everything that you know is a belief. The things you hold as fact are actually only things you believe to be fact and as such, for humans at least, we can't know facts.
User avatar #23 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't use the "where did it come from" I said either he was an accident or he created himself, if that specific variety of god does exist at all.

You said above or outside time and are talking about time as a linear item, I know time isn't linear, time moves at different paces in different parts of space. Even if this god is above time, we are not, at least not yet and that means from our standpoint there is a beginning and an end.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Well I thought that speculating on if he created himself or he was an accident had to do with where he came from. If not then I'm afraid i don't understand what you're saying. Could you reword it? Pretend you're talking to a child, then I might get it a bit better haha

And yes we perceive time, but that has nothing to do with God. Our perception of him doesn't effect him and so although we may have a beginning and end, that doesn't mean God has too.
User avatar #25 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Everything must have a beginning. that is what I am saying.
Say you traverse time in a circular fashion? and then you recreate yourself, your beginning is your end. that is one idea on creating oneself.

But in the end all I mean is that Everything has a beginning.
User avatar #26 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Why does everything have a beginning and end? Like what makes that so?
User avatar #27 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
I didn't say End, I said Beginning.

If it never started then it isn't.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Alright then, why does everything have to have a beginning?
User avatar #29 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because if it never came to be than it wouldn't be.

if you stop thinking of time in a straight line it makes more sense, a beginning doesn't have to have been yesterday.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Yes but if you stop thinking of time at all then it makes more sense there need not be a beginning. It's hard to imagine, but think of two separate events that happen at the same with without one coming first or after. they just happen, everything happens all at once and over the course of infinity. No time, to series of events, no progression, everything just is when it's outside of time.
I'm not seeing how two different types of time make having no time at all any less unimaginable.
User avatar #31 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
For everything to just be everything also has to not be. which means that everything was and wasn't and that they will be or are, but in every stream of being and not being one has to begin at a point in each stream.

You're combining universe theories.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure, I'm saying that anything that has a beginning is constrained by time, but something that has no beginning is outside of time, it always will be, it was before the things that are inside time, during them, and will be after they are gone if they are ever gone. But i don't see why you say everything must have had a beginning.
User avatar #33 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
Because even nothing comes from something, but this discussion will lead nowhere as there is no evidence on either argument and its all speculation on wards so I will stop now.
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Haha, alright. Just from the way you were talking I thought you had some sort of evidence I guess. Got me curious.
User avatar #35 - Shramin (04/16/2013) [-]
No evidence, I guess you could say I firmly believe that everything has to start somewhere even if it always is.
User avatar #36 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Ok, so even if you have no evidence, would you share why you belive that? Like what makes you hold to that?
User avatar #12 - patrickmiller (04/15/2013) [-]
no somebody just thought they had a clever argument but they diddn't.
User avatar #18 - Vandeekree (04/16/2013) [-]
Actually I am legitimately asking for clarification on the comic's meaning.
#108 - Religious post making fun of someone who brings up the bible o… 04/13/2013 on I see stupid people +1
#44 - I disagree with this, not to insult but it seems small minded.… 04/08/2013 on Words... +3
#714 - And I reply to your wuote, I dismiss the others because apon c… 04/08/2013 on Logical reasons to ban gay... 0
#713 - Just because you do not accept God as God doesn't make him les… 04/08/2013 on Logical reasons to ban gay... 0
#13 - Damn, that's a cold ass honky. 04/08/2013 on planned pokehood 0
#101 - I do see the point, but children are only naive children for s… 04/04/2013 on Reapers ain't got nothin on... +1
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 (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)