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

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #8947 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:9/30/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8947
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3801 total,  5604 ,  1803
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 83% (83/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1676
FJ Points:3509

latest user's comments

#2 - It would simply appear to break every time he turns it on as t…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/05/2014 on Time Machine +39
#46 - Defenestro (06/05/2014) [-]
If he attached a stopwatch to the device that could be an indicator of the machine working until its eventual break.
#3 - mr skeltal (06/05/2014) [-]
oor all time stops depending on how the machine functions and reality is halted.
User avatar #12 - sabertoothmoose (06/05/2014) [-]
Wont last forever tho... Unless it runs on some kind of infinite spacemagic
User avatar #8 - securityexplain (06/05/2014) [-]
But in order to define something as halted, you'd need a separate, objective source that can constitute and confirm the change in the allegedly halted object.

It could be that machine only halts the passage of time in limited range, so an observer outside that range could see that time is halted.

You can't say that reality is halted, because there isn't anything outside of reality, thus no time would pass as time is part of reality.

TL;DR - you need two separate objects in order to quantify each other. If all of time has stopped, you can't express for how long it did stop if there isn't separate time.
User avatar #5 - tommen (06/05/2014) [-]
i like that expression, but wont it mean that our reality is defined by time?
#13 - Is the word tumbleweed not a common word?  [+] (10 new replies) 06/05/2014 on Steam master race +336
#205 - mr skeltal (06/05/2014) [-]
Maybe it's an American thing
User avatar #191 - exotic (06/05/2014) [-]
you can roll hay and roll joints in this game too
User avatar #83 - axeul (06/05/2014) [-]
It is but you can't expect a person from tumblr to know it
User avatar #35 - uzerc (06/05/2014) [-]
tumblrweed
User avatar #384 - amirblumenfeld (06/06/2014) [-]
lol 420
User avatar #72 - popnotes (06/05/2014) [-]
did you just im done
#193 - mr skeltal (06/05/2014) [-]
I'm dying
User avatar #204 - assdoreponyfucker (06/05/2014) [-]
ARE WE GOING TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE ROLLING BUSH DLC IS ONLY $15?!?!?
User avatar #242 - fuckyourtoast (06/05/2014) [-]
OMG OMG IM GOIN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
User avatar #344 - mitdwit (06/05/2014) [-]
on a scale frOM ONE TO EVEN
I CAN'T
#3 - "Who's foot is that?" *lick* "Oh, ish mine" 05/24/2014 on a bucket full off kitteh +4
#37 - The wording seems sliiiiightly biased. 05/12/2014 on Alas poor Sqwanto 0
#60 - Very true. It's based on how long the fastest computer algorit… 05/03/2014 on (untitled) +1
#474 - I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is im… 05/01/2014 on that last panel… 0
#468 - And that's why I say omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anyth…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/01/2014 on that last panel… 0
User avatar #469 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Well, you can say that, but it doesn't change the definition of the word or the definition that was used in the Bible. You can write it off as the limitations of language, but God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, hence the "all powerful" portion of its existence.
User avatar #474 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is impossible for man. But surely he can't do what is impossible for God.

I think a good example of the biblical definition of omnipotence can be seen in Luke 18:27 which says "Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

It doesn't mean God can do things that are truly impossible. But he can do things that are impossible for man. Meaning that if it's possible, he can do it. But things that are impossible, such as for God to create another God of equal power(meaning two infinitely powerful being but infinity + infinity = infinity) might very well be something he can't do.
#466 - The bible itself lists some things God can't do. For example H…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/01/2014 on that last panel… 0
User avatar #467 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Then God is not omnipotent. You can't have exceptions to omnipotence or else you are not able to do anything.
User avatar #468 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
And that's why I say omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything at all. It means you can do anything that you want to do. But you can't contradict yourself in your actions. God can't, for example, tell a lie and then say he never lies without lying. It's not a matter of his actions at all. It has to do with the flaws of our language allowing for irrationalities for the sake of efficiency. But just because we can create these scenarios that are seemingly impossible doesn't mean that an omnipotent being could still do the impossible. So it's not an exception. He can do anything, but he can't do things that aren't things.
User avatar #469 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Well, you can say that, but it doesn't change the definition of the word or the definition that was used in the Bible. You can write it off as the limitations of language, but God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, hence the "all powerful" portion of its existence.
User avatar #474 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is impossible for man. But surely he can't do what is impossible for God.

I think a good example of the biblical definition of omnipotence can be seen in Luke 18:27 which says "Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

It doesn't mean God can do things that are truly impossible. But he can do things that are impossible for man. Meaning that if it's possible, he can do it. But things that are impossible, such as for God to create another God of equal power(meaning two infinitely powerful being but infinity + infinity = infinity) might very well be something he can't do.
#155 - But logically anything doesn't include things that are logical…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/01/2014 on that last panel… -1
User avatar #371 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
God can do anything. Anything, regardless of whether it's possible or logical, hence the omnipotence. If he is limited by something then it is not omnipotence.
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
The bible itself lists some things God can't do. For example Hebrews 6:18 where is says God is incapable of lying. He also cannot change as stated in Malachi 3:6.

God himself, in his book, claims to have things he cannot do and so he has limits, but not failures. So my point stands.

God can do anything he wants.
But there are some things he simply can't do that don't break the above statement.
User avatar #467 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Then God is not omnipotent. You can't have exceptions to omnipotence or else you are not able to do anything.
User avatar #468 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
And that's why I say omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything at all. It means you can do anything that you want to do. But you can't contradict yourself in your actions. God can't, for example, tell a lie and then say he never lies without lying. It's not a matter of his actions at all. It has to do with the flaws of our language allowing for irrationalities for the sake of efficiency. But just because we can create these scenarios that are seemingly impossible doesn't mean that an omnipotent being could still do the impossible. So it's not an exception. He can do anything, but he can't do things that aren't things.
User avatar #469 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Well, you can say that, but it doesn't change the definition of the word or the definition that was used in the Bible. You can write it off as the limitations of language, but God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, hence the "all powerful" portion of its existence.
User avatar #474 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is impossible for man. But surely he can't do what is impossible for God.

I think a good example of the biblical definition of omnipotence can be seen in Luke 18:27 which says "Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

It doesn't mean God can do things that are truly impossible. But he can do things that are impossible for man. Meaning that if it's possible, he can do it. But things that are impossible, such as for God to create another God of equal power(meaning two infinitely powerful being but infinity + infinity = infinity) might very well be something he can't do.
#31 - It comes down to what being omnipotent means. It doesn't mean …  [+] (9 new replies) 04/30/2014 on that last panel… 0
#123 - jayax (05/01/2014) [-]
dictionary definition of omnipotent : having unlimited power; able to do anything
User avatar #155 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
But logically anything doesn't include things that are logically impossible. By that I mean that you can't do something you will never do. If you never, in your life, go sky diving then, while it is possible for you to have done it, you didn't, therefore it's not possible. I'd go so far as to say that definition is severely lacking. Omnipotence should be the ability to do anything short of contradicting your own actions.
User avatar #371 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
God can do anything. Anything, regardless of whether it's possible or logical, hence the omnipotence. If he is limited by something then it is not omnipotence.
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
The bible itself lists some things God can't do. For example Hebrews 6:18 where is says God is incapable of lying. He also cannot change as stated in Malachi 3:6.

God himself, in his book, claims to have things he cannot do and so he has limits, but not failures. So my point stands.

God can do anything he wants.
But there are some things he simply can't do that don't break the above statement.
User avatar #467 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Then God is not omnipotent. You can't have exceptions to omnipotence or else you are not able to do anything.
User avatar #468 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
And that's why I say omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything at all. It means you can do anything that you want to do. But you can't contradict yourself in your actions. God can't, for example, tell a lie and then say he never lies without lying. It's not a matter of his actions at all. It has to do with the flaws of our language allowing for irrationalities for the sake of efficiency. But just because we can create these scenarios that are seemingly impossible doesn't mean that an omnipotent being could still do the impossible. So it's not an exception. He can do anything, but he can't do things that aren't things.
User avatar #469 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Well, you can say that, but it doesn't change the definition of the word or the definition that was used in the Bible. You can write it off as the limitations of language, but God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, hence the "all powerful" portion of its existence.
User avatar #474 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is impossible for man. But surely he can't do what is impossible for God.

I think a good example of the biblical definition of omnipotence can be seen in Luke 18:27 which says "Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

It doesn't mean God can do things that are truly impossible. But he can do things that are impossible for man. Meaning that if it's possible, he can do it. But things that are impossible, such as for God to create another God of equal power(meaning two infinitely powerful being but infinity + infinity = infinity) might very well be something he can't do.
User avatar #141 - matamune (05/01/2014) [-]
#rekt
#24 - Maybe I can help here. It has to do with his will. He can do a…  [+] (11 new replies) 04/30/2014 on that last panel… -1
#28 - hitro (04/30/2014) [-]
But the second he lifts the rock it is no longer to heavy for him to lift, there by breaking the premise.
And saying his will changes it, makes it seem as his action of doing it changes what could originally be done. If that were the case I could say my phone is non lift-able because I will it not to be, and it suddenly becomes lift-able when I decide to lift it. Which doesnt actually work Because regardless of if i want to lift it or not, you can take my muscle mass and so on and compare it to the weight of the phone and see that I can lift my phone in unburdened circumstances.
User avatar #31 - Vandeekree (04/30/2014) [-]
It comes down to what being omnipotent means. It doesn't mean you can do anything, it means you can do anything you want to do. Even God can't do something he doesn't want to do. So the only thing that stops him from doing things is himself. If that's the case then the only way he could create a boulder so large he couldn't lift it is if he made said boulder and then never had the will to lift it.

The problem with that question is actually in the question itself. The question doesn't make logical sense. It's kind of a yes or no question that requires more than a yes or no. So the closest thing to an answer would be "yes he could create it, and then he would lift it"

The problem with that question was best described to me with another question that has a similar format. "Have you stopped beating your mother?" Assuming you have never beaten your mother, then to answer "yes" implies you have beaten your mother before, but to answer "no" implies, once again, that you have beaten her before and that you will continue to do so. It's a question that doesn't make sense if asked to a person who has never beaten their mother, almost trapping them into saying they have. Did I explain that in a way that made sense?
#123 - jayax (05/01/2014) [-]
dictionary definition of omnipotent : having unlimited power; able to do anything
User avatar #155 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
But logically anything doesn't include things that are logically impossible. By that I mean that you can't do something you will never do. If you never, in your life, go sky diving then, while it is possible for you to have done it, you didn't, therefore it's not possible. I'd go so far as to say that definition is severely lacking. Omnipotence should be the ability to do anything short of contradicting your own actions.
User avatar #371 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
God can do anything. Anything, regardless of whether it's possible or logical, hence the omnipotence. If he is limited by something then it is not omnipotence.
User avatar #466 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
The bible itself lists some things God can't do. For example Hebrews 6:18 where is says God is incapable of lying. He also cannot change as stated in Malachi 3:6.

God himself, in his book, claims to have things he cannot do and so he has limits, but not failures. So my point stands.

God can do anything he wants.
But there are some things he simply can't do that don't break the above statement.
User avatar #467 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Then God is not omnipotent. You can't have exceptions to omnipotence or else you are not able to do anything.
User avatar #468 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
And that's why I say omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything at all. It means you can do anything that you want to do. But you can't contradict yourself in your actions. God can't, for example, tell a lie and then say he never lies without lying. It's not a matter of his actions at all. It has to do with the flaws of our language allowing for irrationalities for the sake of efficiency. But just because we can create these scenarios that are seemingly impossible doesn't mean that an omnipotent being could still do the impossible. So it's not an exception. He can do anything, but he can't do things that aren't things.
User avatar #469 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/01/2014) [-]
Well, you can say that, but it doesn't change the definition of the word or the definition that was used in the Bible. You can write it off as the limitations of language, but God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, hence the "all powerful" portion of its existence.
User avatar #474 - Vandeekree (05/01/2014) [-]
I don't think that's quite true. God can clearly do what is impossible for man. But surely he can't do what is impossible for God.

I think a good example of the biblical definition of omnipotence can be seen in Luke 18:27 which says "Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

It doesn't mean God can do things that are truly impossible. But he can do things that are impossible for man. Meaning that if it's possible, he can do it. But things that are impossible, such as for God to create another God of equal power(meaning two infinitely powerful being but infinity + infinity = infinity) might very well be something he can't do.
User avatar #141 - matamune (05/01/2014) [-]
#rekt
#70 - I have encountered a few of those before. The one that comes t… 04/30/2014 on The bible isnt law, its... 0
#1 - I feel like this crossover really needed to be done. I feel a … 04/29/2014 on imo the best cartoons on... +1
#42 - Because without the old testament there as historical proof, t…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/29/2014 on The bible isnt law, its... 0
#58 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
purely out of curiosity how do you explain the other savior gods who have had the same story that have come before Jesus in other religions that had no contact with Judaism or reason to want to trick them?
User avatar #70 - Vandeekree (04/30/2014) [-]
I have encountered a few of those before. The one that comes to mind is Horus. There was a book published a while back that made many clams about parallels between Jesus's story and Horus, an Egyptian god. And from what I can tell, they are completely made up. The myth has propagated over the internet in a similar fashion the "you swallow 7 spiders a year in your sleep" myth but there is basically no truth to it. The story of Horus was virtually all made up besides the name and there is no archaeological evidence for any of the claims made in the book.

Now if you are talking about another case of this then you'll have to give me a name so I can read up on it. But up till now I haven't found any actual examples of a Jesus story before Jesus.
#64 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
They can't explain it. Christianity grew out of a desire to assimilate jews into the surrounding culture which is why the jesus story is so common in other areas (egyptian, pursian, babalonian, etc.) but he wasn't the messiah per the jewish prophecy. If he was there would be a third temple in Israel and there would have been a thousand years of peace (along with other things that haven't happened yet) but what is the reallity? There is a mosk (sp?) on the temple mount and the last 1000 yrs have seen more wars then all previous history. If the gay argument wakes people up to the shame that is chrisitanity then I'm all for it, sin or not.
#40 - Indeed, there are a lot of laws of the bible that people like …  [+] (5 new replies) 04/29/2014 on The bible isnt law, its... 0
User avatar #41 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
What I always wonder is why Christianity still uses the Old Testament if it's not used or even considered valid anymore. Why not just use the New Testament?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
Because without the old testament there as historical proof, then the new testament loses all value. It's important to know where the current law came from and why Jesus had any authority to give it to us.

The old testament holds the record of a prophesy that revolved around the Jewish people as God created laws (such as no shellfish or mixed fabrics) to keep the Jewish bloodline the way he wanted as it lead up to fulfilling the prophesy of the messiah(Jesus).

In short, the old testament shows where Christianity comes from or else it seems like it just pops up out of no where. Like Islam did.
#58 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
purely out of curiosity how do you explain the other savior gods who have had the same story that have come before Jesus in other religions that had no contact with Judaism or reason to want to trick them?
User avatar #70 - Vandeekree (04/30/2014) [-]
I have encountered a few of those before. The one that comes to mind is Horus. There was a book published a while back that made many clams about parallels between Jesus's story and Horus, an Egyptian god. And from what I can tell, they are completely made up. The myth has propagated over the internet in a similar fashion the "you swallow 7 spiders a year in your sleep" myth but there is basically no truth to it. The story of Horus was virtually all made up besides the name and there is no archaeological evidence for any of the claims made in the book.

Now if you are talking about another case of this then you'll have to give me a name so I can read up on it. But up till now I haven't found any actual examples of a Jesus story before Jesus.
#64 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
They can't explain it. Christianity grew out of a desire to assimilate jews into the surrounding culture which is why the jesus story is so common in other areas (egyptian, pursian, babalonian, etc.) but he wasn't the messiah per the jewish prophecy. If he was there would be a third temple in Israel and there would have been a thousand years of peace (along with other things that haven't happened yet) but what is the reallity? There is a mosk (sp?) on the temple mount and the last 1000 yrs have seen more wars then all previous history. If the gay argument wakes people up to the shame that is chrisitanity then I'm all for it, sin or not.
#37 - I was only talking about the verses that were mentioned. Howev…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/29/2014 on The bible isnt law, its... 0
User avatar #38 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
I didn't realize that homosexuality was mentioned in the New Testament. However, I looked it up and there are still things that are in the New Testament that people don't follow. For example, Matthew 5:28-30 says that if you look at someone in a lustful way, that's adultery which is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, there are a lot of laws of the bible that people like to ignore or simply don't take the time to learn about. Such as that you're not supposed to divorce and, as you said, once married, if you look at another with list in your heart is it is the same as cheating on your spouse.

It goes right along with what this post is about, there are far to many people calling themselves Christian and then being surprised that the book they didn't read has things they've never heard of before.
User avatar #41 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
What I always wonder is why Christianity still uses the Old Testament if it's not used or even considered valid anymore. Why not just use the New Testament?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
Because without the old testament there as historical proof, then the new testament loses all value. It's important to know where the current law came from and why Jesus had any authority to give it to us.

The old testament holds the record of a prophesy that revolved around the Jewish people as God created laws (such as no shellfish or mixed fabrics) to keep the Jewish bloodline the way he wanted as it lead up to fulfilling the prophesy of the messiah(Jesus).

In short, the old testament shows where Christianity comes from or else it seems like it just pops up out of no where. Like Islam did.
#58 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
purely out of curiosity how do you explain the other savior gods who have had the same story that have come before Jesus in other religions that had no contact with Judaism or reason to want to trick them?
User avatar #70 - Vandeekree (04/30/2014) [-]
I have encountered a few of those before. The one that comes to mind is Horus. There was a book published a while back that made many clams about parallels between Jesus's story and Horus, an Egyptian god. And from what I can tell, they are completely made up. The myth has propagated over the internet in a similar fashion the "you swallow 7 spiders a year in your sleep" myth but there is basically no truth to it. The story of Horus was virtually all made up besides the name and there is no archaeological evidence for any of the claims made in the book.

Now if you are talking about another case of this then you'll have to give me a name so I can read up on it. But up till now I haven't found any actual examples of a Jesus story before Jesus.
#64 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
They can't explain it. Christianity grew out of a desire to assimilate jews into the surrounding culture which is why the jesus story is so common in other areas (egyptian, pursian, babalonian, etc.) but he wasn't the messiah per the jewish prophecy. If he was there would be a third temple in Israel and there would have been a thousand years of peace (along with other things that haven't happened yet) but what is the reallity? There is a mosk (sp?) on the temple mount and the last 1000 yrs have seen more wars then all previous history. If the gay argument wakes people up to the shame that is chrisitanity then I'm all for it, sin or not.
#4 - Or be sadistic and keep a pack with a single piece left in it,… 04/29/2014 on Keep the Moochers Away +2
#30 - This bugs me. Mostly because of how this Christian doesn't eve…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/29/2014 on The bible isnt law, its... 0
User avatar #36 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
So, if homosexuality is only mentioned in the Old Testament (correct me if I'm wrong on that) and the Old Testament isn't valid anymore, how is homosexuality still a sin?
User avatar #37 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
I was only talking about the verses that were mentioned. However there are verses that mention it in the new testament such as Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

So homosexuality is not exclusively talked about in the old testament, it's just that the ways it talks about dealing with it are no longer valid e.g. no killing them.
User avatar #38 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
I didn't realize that homosexuality was mentioned in the New Testament. However, I looked it up and there are still things that are in the New Testament that people don't follow. For example, Matthew 5:28-30 says that if you look at someone in a lustful way, that's adultery which is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
User avatar #40 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
Indeed, there are a lot of laws of the bible that people like to ignore or simply don't take the time to learn about. Such as that you're not supposed to divorce and, as you said, once married, if you look at another with list in your heart is it is the same as cheating on your spouse.

It goes right along with what this post is about, there are far to many people calling themselves Christian and then being surprised that the book they didn't read has things they've never heard of before.
User avatar #41 - fiaria (04/29/2014) [-]
What I always wonder is why Christianity still uses the Old Testament if it's not used or even considered valid anymore. Why not just use the New Testament?
User avatar #42 - Vandeekree (04/29/2014) [-]
Because without the old testament there as historical proof, then the new testament loses all value. It's important to know where the current law came from and why Jesus had any authority to give it to us.

The old testament holds the record of a prophesy that revolved around the Jewish people as God created laws (such as no shellfish or mixed fabrics) to keep the Jewish bloodline the way he wanted as it lead up to fulfilling the prophesy of the messiah(Jesus).

In short, the old testament shows where Christianity comes from or else it seems like it just pops up out of no where. Like Islam did.
#58 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
purely out of curiosity how do you explain the other savior gods who have had the same story that have come before Jesus in other religions that had no contact with Judaism or reason to want to trick them?
User avatar #70 - Vandeekree (04/30/2014) [-]
I have encountered a few of those before. The one that comes to mind is Horus. There was a book published a while back that made many clams about parallels between Jesus's story and Horus, an Egyptian god. And from what I can tell, they are completely made up. The myth has propagated over the internet in a similar fashion the "you swallow 7 spiders a year in your sleep" myth but there is basically no truth to it. The story of Horus was virtually all made up besides the name and there is no archaeological evidence for any of the claims made in the book.

Now if you are talking about another case of this then you'll have to give me a name so I can read up on it. But up till now I haven't found any actual examples of a Jesus story before Jesus.
#64 - mr skeltal (04/29/2014) [-]
They can't explain it. Christianity grew out of a desire to assimilate jews into the surrounding culture which is why the jesus story is so common in other areas (egyptian, pursian, babalonian, etc.) but he wasn't the messiah per the jewish prophecy. If he was there would be a third temple in Israel and there would have been a thousand years of peace (along with other things that haven't happened yet) but what is the reallity? There is a mosk (sp?) on the temple mount and the last 1000 yrs have seen more wars then all previous history. If the gay argument wakes people up to the shame that is chrisitanity then I'm all for it, sin or not.
#12 - It hurt my graphics card just watching this. 04/29/2014 on liquid simulation +8
#39 - I think you will find people who like both and there's nothing… 04/29/2014 on Unpopular Opinion 0
#15 - There's a reason they stopped using musket balls. 04/27/2014 on soccer physics 0
#5 - Ugh....for miles and miles....over and over  [+] (6 new replies) 04/27/2014 on replacing railroad ties +69
User avatar #9 - propanex (04/27/2014) [-]
they normally just replace bad ones, not every single one... you would be better off building a whole new rail line...
User avatar #10 - hiukuss (04/27/2014) [-]
No, no.
Yes, they do replace only the bad ties, every 50-100 years. They are usually coated in creosote, which enables that long lifetime. Building a whole new rail line would be a huge waste of time & money; neither of which railroad companies like to give up.

Source: My dad was a superintendent at Norfolk Southern, he answers pretty much any question I have about train-stuff.
#20 - themoo (04/27/2014) [-]
50-100 years? It's much more frequent than that for wooden mainline ties; concrete ones don't even last that long.

Source: Track Engineer for BNSF
User avatar #11 - propanex (04/27/2014) [-]
You miss understood me. I meant if they had to replace all the ties, they would be better off rebuilding the lies, it would probably be faster.
User avatar #12 - propanex (04/27/2014) [-]
lines*
User avatar #14 - hiukuss (04/27/2014) [-]
I understood you, although I don't think I stated it correctly.
They'd only rebuild the lines if the iron itself was damaged, and they'd only replace that part. For instance, if an explosive cut 5 feet of rail off, they'd only replace that 5 feet of rail.
And generally replacing ties isn't a big deal, like I said it's pretty much every century, and machinery is getting better every day..
#3 - I've got one like that. Be at a highschool basketball game on … 04/24/2014 on Open mouth, insert foot 0
#14 - It's from durgern bur zur 04/22/2014 on He's Right, Y'know +2
#240 - I never said it should be banned. It's just a misuse of a word… 04/20/2014 on Shrimp 0
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 (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - mr skeltal (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)