x
Click to expand

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#9170
Comment Ranking:#1422
Highest Content Rank:#9206
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 58422 total,  71798 ,  13376
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 91.6% (916/1000)
Level 352 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 353 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10883
Times Content Favorited:13 times
Total Comments Made:16756
FJ Points:25148

latest user's comments

#73 - Except, again, in your own translation, nothing WAS majorly or…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #192 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but when you do that you create problems because later on people switch words out and again, they don't always mean the exact same thing.
#9 - **** no, regular reptiles 08/21/2013 on Sneaky Argonians 0
#8 - Huh, you're right 08/21/2013 on Sneaky Argonians +1
#68 - I mean in the grand paragraph, not little bits. Look at the le…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #69 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
That is the most idiotic argument ever.
It's like changing the hobbits in Lord of the Rings into rabbits, it's the same length, so nothing major could have changed.

It's not the quantity of words, it's the quality.
I like dogs
I hate dogs
Virtually the same length, but very different.
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except, again, in your own translation, nothing WAS majorly or drastically changed. The only real difference is that words were switched around, some were taken out and replaced with more significant or better suited ones.
User avatar #192 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but when you do that you create problems because later on people switch words out and again, they don't always mean the exact same thing.
#64 - Except their not cutting off inches, they're exchanging types …  [+] (5 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #65 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
No, are you illiterate?
They are far more than a few letters off, whole phrases change.
"earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters" is much different than "earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the"
God divided the light from the darkness is different than God divided the light from the darkness
And finally
!! Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. !! is not the same as Day, and the worries of the night, it is said. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
I mean in the grand paragraph, not little bits. Look at the length of the first and second translation and they are only two letters off

It was supposed to be a point that nothing significant was added or drastically changed
User avatar #69 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
That is the most idiotic argument ever.
It's like changing the hobbits in Lord of the Rings into rabbits, it's the same length, so nothing major could have changed.

It's not the quantity of words, it's the quality.
I like dogs
I hate dogs
Virtually the same length, but very different.
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except, again, in your own translation, nothing WAS majorly or drastically changed. The only real difference is that words were switched around, some were taken out and replaced with more significant or better suited ones.
User avatar #192 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but when you do that you create problems because later on people switch words out and again, they don't always mean the exact same thing.
#63 - So there really is no excuse. I understand language …  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #155 - psychopsychedelic (08/21/2013) [-]
Well, different religions use different Bibles. There's the King James Version, I think Catholics use the regular The Holy Bible. They are all different translations. It hasn't been translated in a long time. They recently re-approached the Mass, but noone's done the Bible that I can remember.
#60 - Yes, it was also retranslated many times by many different peo…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God +1
User avatar #62 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter, any time you make a change, while insignificant on it's own, it can have drastic effects.

Think about a desk.
There's an inch that's just not needed, so they cut it off.
Then the next guy does the same
and the next guy
Suddenly after a few people, what used to be a 36" long desk is 30".
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except their not cutting off inches, they're exchanging types of wood (would be a better metaphor). Even in your paragraph, the original and translated texts are only two letters off
User avatar #65 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
No, are you illiterate?
They are far more than a few letters off, whole phrases change.
"earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters" is much different than "earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the"
God divided the light from the darkness is different than God divided the light from the darkness
And finally
!! Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. !! is not the same as Day, and the worries of the night, it is said. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
I mean in the grand paragraph, not little bits. Look at the length of the first and second translation and they are only two letters off

It was supposed to be a point that nothing significant was added or drastically changed
User avatar #69 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
That is the most idiotic argument ever.
It's like changing the hobbits in Lord of the Rings into rabbits, it's the same length, so nothing major could have changed.

It's not the quantity of words, it's the quality.
I like dogs
I hate dogs
Virtually the same length, but very different.
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except, again, in your own translation, nothing WAS majorly or drastically changed. The only real difference is that words were switched around, some were taken out and replaced with more significant or better suited ones.
User avatar #192 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but when you do that you create problems because later on people switch words out and again, they don't always mean the exact same thing.
#57 - Because they do, Satan is perceived as thee "Most free, m…  [+] (8 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #220 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
The viewpoint is certainly possible, and that's why I acknowledged it. I've heard it before. But what I'm saying is that the very name "Satan" is specific in its origins to the Hebrew culture, regardless of whether or not the concept of "an opposser" is widely shared. Thus by labeling themselves as Satanist, they set themselves up for misconceptions when worship of Satan isn't the core tenet. Which I think is silly, and representative of contrarian attitude rather than a logical and genuine belief in an alternative. Not saying that all Satanists are like that, but I'm saying that the use of that terminology is indicative that some of them, maybe even some of the "founders" of some of the organized Satanist movements, did or do have that motivation.
User avatar #221 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Oh absolutely, in Theistic Satanism they do hail Satan, as well as other old gods, and practice magic and mysticism (note: Hailing is different from Worship in that Hailing is mearly acknowledging their help and prowess, while worship is, well, worshiping them for it). And while he's not the core concept, many Satanists see it as understandable that people have misconceptions about it, and, as a result, don't get mad or upset but rather just want to educate people on what it really is
User avatar #222 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
What you're describing sounds more like paganism that Satanism.
User avatar #223 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Technically, Satanism is Paganism. Paganism is just the worship of any gods prior to judaic religion, usually associated with spirits, nature, and Occultism
User avatar #226 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
I thought paganism was the worship of nature spirits, like Baal, the Vanir, or the old Celtic gods?
User avatar #228 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
That's because Wicca is the most common form of Paganism found, and that's usually what they go for; but it also counts for South American, Eastern, Middle Eastern, African, and even Egyptian gods
User avatar #229 - arrisarrad (08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, but I thought the terminology had to do with the veneration of nature spirits, and just came to include war gods and stuff over time as pantheons became more diverse?
User avatar #230 - captainfuckitall (08/23/2013) [-]
To be completely honest, I haven't practiced Wicca in years and don't know much about the mind-set, however, you are correct that it had to do with veneration and worship of Nature spirits (specifically the Earth herself), however, many Wiccans also consider gods of war/conflict/magic and what-not ALSO to be spirits of 'nature', as those same actions are forces of nature if not anything else
#55 - But on the wikipedia page it expressly states that it only cov…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #219 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
Well actually, our modern concept of adultery is based on the Old Testament definition. Having sex before marriage was seen as an infidelity against any future potential spouses, so rape was punished the same way as adultery. Stoning. But feel free to take Wikipedia over my opinion. It's not like it's logical or anything.
#6 - Because...they're not Argonians  [+] (2 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Sneaky Argonians 0
#7 - Ken M (08/21/2013) [-]
probably just a joke... maybe he was referring to the title?
User avatar #8 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Huh, you're right
#50 - I know that, but the problem arises due to the fact that many … 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
#49 - That still doesn't answer the question about the rape …  [+] (15 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
User avatar #52 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
And there was no question about rape. I said that rape is one of many acts broadly covered by the concept of adultery, although the subject of marital rape gets sketchy as far as definition goes, but that's irrelevant anyway since divorce is the natural solution to that problem.
User avatar #53 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Addendum, I see where the question was. The biblical, and grammatical definition of adultery is sex outside of marriage.
User avatar #54 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Which includes rape, there are even rules specifically mentioned in the Old Testament regarding rape, although they were outdated of course and very easy to misconstrue in a modern context, but the distinction between rape and voluntary adultery was made. In the case of the former, only one party was at fault, in the latter, both parties were at fault.
User avatar #55 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
But on the wikipedia page it expressly states that it only covers marriage and infidelity
User avatar #219 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
Well actually, our modern concept of adultery is based on the Old Testament definition. Having sex before marriage was seen as an infidelity against any future potential spouses, so rape was punished the same way as adultery. Stoning. But feel free to take Wikipedia over my opinion. It's not like it's logical or anything.
User avatar #51 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Then what's the point of labeling yourself as a Satanist if the tenets you uphold have nothing to do with Satan? Satan is a name specific to a particular religious ancestry and there is literally nothing good about Satan. Even if the idea of Satan was based on a being that wasn't like that, the very name refer to the Jewish concept of an evil being. It seems silly to me.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Because they do, Satan is perceived as thee "Most free, most empowered, most honest, and most just being", and so the tenets are taken from him directly. That's true, but "Satan", as a being, has existed long before judaic religion, some even say going so far back as Mesopotamia under the name "Enki"; many other religions prior to christianity have also had a "Satan" and Demons of sorts, yet they were rarely perceived as 'evil'. Rather, they were simply doing their job, or whatever came naturally, or facing off against the current god-king, which is how he's regarded as thee 'opposer'.

However, even if you don't care for that explanation (As Levyans do not), they would simply explain it that in the bible, if you read it literally, god comes out as one of the most if not thee most tyrannical and evil being in all of literature, and Satan, as his opposer, is likewise seen in a benevolent and positive light.
User avatar #220 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
The viewpoint is certainly possible, and that's why I acknowledged it. I've heard it before. But what I'm saying is that the very name "Satan" is specific in its origins to the Hebrew culture, regardless of whether or not the concept of "an opposser" is widely shared. Thus by labeling themselves as Satanist, they set themselves up for misconceptions when worship of Satan isn't the core tenet. Which I think is silly, and representative of contrarian attitude rather than a logical and genuine belief in an alternative. Not saying that all Satanists are like that, but I'm saying that the use of that terminology is indicative that some of them, maybe even some of the "founders" of some of the organized Satanist movements, did or do have that motivation.
User avatar #221 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Oh absolutely, in Theistic Satanism they do hail Satan, as well as other old gods, and practice magic and mysticism (note: Hailing is different from Worship in that Hailing is mearly acknowledging their help and prowess, while worship is, well, worshiping them for it). And while he's not the core concept, many Satanists see it as understandable that people have misconceptions about it, and, as a result, don't get mad or upset but rather just want to educate people on what it really is
User avatar #222 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
What you're describing sounds more like paganism that Satanism.
User avatar #223 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Technically, Satanism is Paganism. Paganism is just the worship of any gods prior to judaic religion, usually associated with spirits, nature, and Occultism
User avatar #226 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
I thought paganism was the worship of nature spirits, like Baal, the Vanir, or the old Celtic gods?
User avatar #228 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
That's because Wicca is the most common form of Paganism found, and that's usually what they go for; but it also counts for South American, Eastern, Middle Eastern, African, and even Egyptian gods
User avatar #229 - arrisarrad (08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, but I thought the terminology had to do with the veneration of nature spirits, and just came to include war gods and stuff over time as pantheons became more diverse?
User avatar #230 - captainfuckitall (08/23/2013) [-]
To be completely honest, I haven't practiced Wicca in years and don't know much about the mind-set, however, you are correct that it had to do with veneration and worship of Nature spirits (specifically the Earth herself), however, many Wiccans also consider gods of war/conflict/magic and what-not ALSO to be spirits of 'nature', as those same actions are forces of nature if not anything else
#47 - But not everyone was jewish, so how did it cover other women i…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
#48 - lordraine (08/21/2013) [-]
Jewish law was only meant to cover Jews, not everyone else. Try to keep in mind that Christianity didn't exist at the point in time we're talking about. Moses was long before the time of Christ. The Pharisees Jesus was opposing, and who eventually got him killed, were Jewish priests and rabbis.
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
I know that, but the problem arises due to the fact that many sects of christianity ALSO follow the 10 commandments, yet women were not considered property and thus not protected under it
#44 - 1. Actually, it states that man is an animal in one commandmen…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God +1
User avatar #45 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
1. I'm talking the eleven commandments. It prohibits rape in the Bible outside the 10 commandments.
This is my favorite satanic commandment: Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

2. This point was made for humorous effect. I was implying the mating signal is like the bat signal, but with a penis.
#42 - How so? About as many people bother to read the bibl…  [+] (17 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God +3
User avatar #46 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
That's because whatever you wanna call modern Satanism, the root concept is the worship of the anathema to morality. I'm not a Christian, so I don't consider Christianity the opposing concept, but people just call various forms of paganism, satanism nowadays, despite the tenets having nothing to do with the original idea, worship of Sata'an in rejection of the accepted judeo-christian deity. Therefore, I find pretty much everything about this post to be an oxymoron.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
That still doesn't answer the question about the rape

Actually, you'd be surprised at just how many Wiccans and other Pagans (which now basically covers any religion prior to abrahamic ones) don't know a single thing about Satanism and consider all practitioners of it evil. There are currently very few sects of Satanism, and even among those few the rules barely every change between them (the main difference is really only how they view Satan himself), and the groups that stray away from the rules (such as 'Devil-Worshippers' who participate in crimes and blood rituals) are ostracized from the rest of the community
User avatar #52 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
And there was no question about rape. I said that rape is one of many acts broadly covered by the concept of adultery, although the subject of marital rape gets sketchy as far as definition goes, but that's irrelevant anyway since divorce is the natural solution to that problem.
User avatar #53 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Addendum, I see where the question was. The biblical, and grammatical definition of adultery is sex outside of marriage.
User avatar #54 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Which includes rape, there are even rules specifically mentioned in the Old Testament regarding rape, although they were outdated of course and very easy to misconstrue in a modern context, but the distinction between rape and voluntary adultery was made. In the case of the former, only one party was at fault, in the latter, both parties were at fault.
User avatar #55 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
But on the wikipedia page it expressly states that it only covers marriage and infidelity
User avatar #219 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
Well actually, our modern concept of adultery is based on the Old Testament definition. Having sex before marriage was seen as an infidelity against any future potential spouses, so rape was punished the same way as adultery. Stoning. But feel free to take Wikipedia over my opinion. It's not like it's logical or anything.
User avatar #51 - arrisarrad (08/21/2013) [-]
Then what's the point of labeling yourself as a Satanist if the tenets you uphold have nothing to do with Satan? Satan is a name specific to a particular religious ancestry and there is literally nothing good about Satan. Even if the idea of Satan was based on a being that wasn't like that, the very name refer to the Jewish concept of an evil being. It seems silly to me.
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Because they do, Satan is perceived as thee "Most free, most empowered, most honest, and most just being", and so the tenets are taken from him directly. That's true, but "Satan", as a being, has existed long before judaic religion, some even say going so far back as Mesopotamia under the name "Enki"; many other religions prior to christianity have also had a "Satan" and Demons of sorts, yet they were rarely perceived as 'evil'. Rather, they were simply doing their job, or whatever came naturally, or facing off against the current god-king, which is how he's regarded as thee 'opposer'.

However, even if you don't care for that explanation (As Levyans do not), they would simply explain it that in the bible, if you read it literally, god comes out as one of the most if not thee most tyrannical and evil being in all of literature, and Satan, as his opposer, is likewise seen in a benevolent and positive light.
User avatar #220 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
The viewpoint is certainly possible, and that's why I acknowledged it. I've heard it before. But what I'm saying is that the very name "Satan" is specific in its origins to the Hebrew culture, regardless of whether or not the concept of "an opposser" is widely shared. Thus by labeling themselves as Satanist, they set themselves up for misconceptions when worship of Satan isn't the core tenet. Which I think is silly, and representative of contrarian attitude rather than a logical and genuine belief in an alternative. Not saying that all Satanists are like that, but I'm saying that the use of that terminology is indicative that some of them, maybe even some of the "founders" of some of the organized Satanist movements, did or do have that motivation.
User avatar #221 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Oh absolutely, in Theistic Satanism they do hail Satan, as well as other old gods, and practice magic and mysticism (note: Hailing is different from Worship in that Hailing is mearly acknowledging their help and prowess, while worship is, well, worshiping them for it). And while he's not the core concept, many Satanists see it as understandable that people have misconceptions about it, and, as a result, don't get mad or upset but rather just want to educate people on what it really is
User avatar #222 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
What you're describing sounds more like paganism that Satanism.
User avatar #223 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
Technically, Satanism is Paganism. Paganism is just the worship of any gods prior to judaic religion, usually associated with spirits, nature, and Occultism
User avatar #226 - arrisarrad (08/22/2013) [-]
I thought paganism was the worship of nature spirits, like Baal, the Vanir, or the old Celtic gods?
User avatar #228 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2013) [-]
That's because Wicca is the most common form of Paganism found, and that's usually what they go for; but it also counts for South American, Eastern, Middle Eastern, African, and even Egyptian gods
User avatar #229 - arrisarrad (08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, but I thought the terminology had to do with the veneration of nature spirits, and just came to include war gods and stuff over time as pantheons became more diverse?
User avatar #230 - captainfuckitall (08/23/2013) [-]
To be completely honest, I haven't practiced Wicca in years and don't know much about the mind-set, however, you are correct that it had to do with veneration and worship of Nature spirits (specifically the Earth herself), however, many Wiccans also consider gods of war/conflict/magic and what-not ALSO to be spirits of 'nature', as those same actions are forces of nature if not anything else
#41 - Actually, Satanism is not the adoration of Satan. The 4 princi…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God +10
#173 - nietzschis (08/21/2013) [-]
That's really well explained : )
#40 - You wouldn't think the word of an all-knowing god would need t…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God -2
User avatar #61 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes.
It is God giving his word to his chosen people in the chosen tongue.
As far as he is concerned, he doesn't care about translations, everything he says should be heard straight from the recording.

Hence why all real Qu'Ran are in High Arabic.
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
So there really is no excuse.

I understand language barriers are hard to get by, but there are some people who are fluent in 58 languages (United Nations interpreters, who's very job is to get the point across with zero lost in translation, slang and all, one mistake can cost them their job) who are near perfect. Just a few of these guys working together could translate a book word for word, especially considering it's one of the most popular books in the world
User avatar #155 - psychopsychedelic (08/21/2013) [-]
Well, different religions use different Bibles. There's the King James Version, I think Catholics use the regular The Holy Bible. They are all different translations. It hasn't been translated in a long time. They recently re-approached the Mass, but noone's done the Bible that I can remember.
#20 - But just because you've moved past it doesn't mean it's not th…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/21/2013 on First rule of fight club... 0
User avatar #21 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
>completely ignoring the fact that no one today is a levite, to whom the instructions were specifically.

That, and its part of the old testament, which was remade when Jesus came to Earth.

Luke 24:43-45, in which Christ tells the Eleven, after he raised from the dead, that all the things in the Law, and in the psalms, and in the prophets had been fulfilled.
Romans 8 also further explains this into greater detail.

New Covenant, bitch.
User avatar #145 - zorororonoa (08/21/2013) [-]
But Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not get rid of it. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Don't get me wrong, I think Leviticus is bullshit, but if you are a full Christian, then you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what parts of the bible are wrong. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then you better believe wearing two different fabrics is wrong, or you are a hypocrite in my eyes.
User avatar #150 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
but doesn't it still stand that since Leviticus was for the levites and we are not levites that leviticus is not for all Christians?
#13 - "Based" is a slang adjective to refer to the 'Maximu…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Putin +3
#36 - tyroneisanigger (08/21/2013) [-]
Oh. At first I thought he misspelled "biased".
User avatar #14 - xxDanvelxx (08/21/2013) [-]
Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up.
User avatar #16 - temporalguardian (08/21/2013) [-]
Dude he called you based, be cool.
#18 - Still, I'm fairly sure "Thou shalt not lie with a man as …  [+] (5 new replies) 08/21/2013 on First rule of fight club... +1
User avatar #19 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
There are a million arguments as to why that is no longer applicable, look them up if you wish, but I'll stick with one.

The book of leviticus was a set of instructions to the levites. Among those instructions they are told not to wear mixed fabrics. However, we've moved past that law, as well as many other silly laws. The only people you'll hear spouting leviticus are bible thumpers, a small minority.
User avatar #20 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
But just because you've moved past it doesn't mean it's not there. Last time I checked it was revered as the 'word of god', not something mortal men have much sway over, whether they like it or not
User avatar #21 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
>completely ignoring the fact that no one today is a levite, to whom the instructions were specifically.

That, and its part of the old testament, which was remade when Jesus came to Earth.

Luke 24:43-45, in which Christ tells the Eleven, after he raised from the dead, that all the things in the Law, and in the psalms, and in the prophets had been fulfilled.
Romans 8 also further explains this into greater detail.

New Covenant, bitch.
User avatar #145 - zorororonoa (08/21/2013) [-]
But Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not get rid of it. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Don't get me wrong, I think Leviticus is bullshit, but if you are a full Christian, then you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what parts of the bible are wrong. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then you better believe wearing two different fabrics is wrong, or you are a hypocrite in my eyes.
User avatar #150 - srskate (08/21/2013) [-]
but doesn't it still stand that since Leviticus was for the levites and we are not levites that leviticus is not for all Christians?
#2 - He also died so people could be liberated rather than enslaved…  [+] (13 new replies) 08/21/2013 on The royal I don't give a shit +19
User avatar #15 - thebigoddone (08/21/2013) [-]
"enslaved through fear"

top lel
User avatar #5 - admiralen (08/21/2013) [-]
"liberated" the only reason they did all that shit was cause they didnt wanna pay taxes to great brittain lol
#4 - dwarfman (08/21/2013) [-]
Found the librarian.
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
I'm Canadian, actually. And a writer
User avatar #34 - dwarfman (08/21/2013) [-]
Greetings northerner! I wrote that before I had my coffee. UnCaffeinated me is ummm problematic...
#3 - Ken M (08/21/2013) [-]
Except from you know.. all of the blacks. Redcoats were going to free them and the slave trade entirely a few years later.
All of the minorities would have probably had it better under British rule and would most likely be smaller. Detroit might still actually be worth something.
User avatar #8 - ReeferTrees (08/21/2013) [-]
Yeah, lets all remember how much better the blacks would be if the British empire ruled.

Everyone forget about killing all the Native Americans, they're not real people like Blacks are.
User avatar #14 - serotonin (08/21/2013) [-]
Funny seing how most native tribes sided with brits during revolution and 1812 war
User avatar #36 - ReeferTrees (08/29/2013) [-]
"most native tribes"

Really? I find that extremely doubtful
User avatar #37 - serotonin (08/29/2013) [-]
revolutionalry war - ``Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory``
war of 1812 - `` British demanded an independent Indian state in the Midwest, but by late 1814 the British-Indian alliance had been defeated militarily and the British had to abandon the demand. The withdrawal of British protection gave the Americans a free hand, which resulted in the removal of most of the tribes to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma)``
#6 - schnizel (08/21/2013) [-]
Flagged Comment Picture
This image was flagged 1380945752
#22 - gongthehawkeye (08/21/2013) [-]
#17 - summin (08/21/2013) [-]
#33 - No, a mating signal is "Hey, wanna **** ?", or… 08/21/2013 on Eat it God 0
#32 - That just means not to cheat on your spouse, it doesn't have a…  [+] (19 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Eat it God -3
User avatar #157 - traelos (08/21/2013) [-]
How can people read that comment and not get that adultery is the word that isn't a perfect translation?

Like honestly, can you please explain to me what you think I meant?
User avatar #216 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Adultery = cheating on your spouse

In absolutely no context except this one have I ever heard it being used for rape

Even the wikia, and most (if not all definitions) say it only refers to adultery. I honestly don't understand how you can be so shocked that people don't see it as a flexible term
User avatar #227 - traelos (08/22/2013) [-]
But that's because adultery is the word that is wrong.

The original text was closer to "dont stick your dick in anything except your wife" but that's hard to translate and 3 languages later they got confused/lazy.

I mean, just, what did you think I was actually trying to say?
User avatar #59 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, it is almost the same, except for a few choice words, which can make all the difference.
User avatar #60 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, it was also retranslated many times by many different people in order to try and get the most correct translation. Even today people are still doing it, and paid well to do so, so that explanation really doesn't cut it much.

Except not many words are actually omitted or switched out. It seems to only be a rearranging of words or cutting out purely meaningless ones in order to make room.
User avatar #62 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter, any time you make a change, while insignificant on it's own, it can have drastic effects.

Think about a desk.
There's an inch that's just not needed, so they cut it off.
Then the next guy does the same
and the next guy
Suddenly after a few people, what used to be a 36" long desk is 30".
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except their not cutting off inches, they're exchanging types of wood (would be a better metaphor). Even in your paragraph, the original and translated texts are only two letters off
User avatar #65 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
No, are you illiterate?
They are far more than a few letters off, whole phrases change.
"earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters" is much different than "earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the"
God divided the light from the darkness is different than God divided the light from the darkness
And finally
!! Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. !! is not the same as Day, and the worries of the night, it is said. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
I mean in the grand paragraph, not little bits. Look at the length of the first and second translation and they are only two letters off

It was supposed to be a point that nothing significant was added or drastically changed
User avatar #69 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
That is the most idiotic argument ever.
It's like changing the hobbits in Lord of the Rings into rabbits, it's the same length, so nothing major could have changed.

It's not the quantity of words, it's the quality.
I like dogs
I hate dogs
Virtually the same length, but very different.
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Except, again, in your own translation, nothing WAS majorly or drastically changed. The only real difference is that words were switched around, some were taken out and replaced with more significant or better suited ones.
User avatar #192 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but when you do that you create problems because later on people switch words out and again, they don't always mean the exact same thing.
User avatar #58 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Dude, do you know how many times the bible was translated between when it was recorded and now.
Hebrew to Latin
Latin to German
German to Some older variation of English
Older English to Modern English

Just as a heads up, this is taken from Modern English around on the whole circuit I just described
Original - In the beginning when God created* the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters. 3Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Translation = In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, 2 Thes And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the *. 3And he said, God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God he called the light Day, and the worries of the night, it is said. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
#146 - Ken M (08/21/2013) [-]
First off, can you do some research before you think and accept it as fact? Yes, in the course of history the Bible had been translated several times into different languages, changing nuance and connotation every time, however as you've proven it must not have changed too much (at least find a better passage to cite). I actually expected the dichotomy to be much greater than what it was.

But anyway, just because it had been translated several times doesn't mean that Biblical scholars haven't re-translated from the original languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek) directly to English (Which happened about a hundred and fifty years ago). Now, Koine Greek is a dead language, and many Biblical Scholars believe that the writers had different meanings when they said something, which results in the many different versions of translations (Which differ more than the example you gave to try to prove the Bible is unreliable)

Sauce: My brother is a Biblical Scholar/Translator.
User avatar #38 - traelos (08/21/2013) [-]
Except that it's not a perfect translation...
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
You wouldn't think the word of an all-knowing god would need translation
User avatar #61 - Crusader (08/21/2013) [-]
Yes.
It is God giving his word to his chosen people in the chosen tongue.
As far as he is concerned, he doesn't care about translations, everything he says should be heard straight from the recording.

Hence why all real Qu'Ran are in High Arabic.
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
So there really is no excuse.

I understand language barriers are hard to get by, but there are some people who are fluent in 58 languages (United Nations interpreters, who's very job is to get the point across with zero lost in translation, slang and all, one mistake can cost them their job) who are near perfect. Just a few of these guys working together could translate a book word for word, especially considering it's one of the most popular books in the world
User avatar #155 - psychopsychedelic (08/21/2013) [-]
Well, different religions use different Bibles. There's the King James Version, I think Catholics use the regular The Holy Bible. They are all different translations. It hasn't been translated in a long time. They recently re-approached the Mass, but noone's done the Bible that I can remember.
#3 - **** no, regular reptiles  [+] (4 new replies) 08/21/2013 on Sneaky Argonians +3
#5 - Ken M (08/21/2013) [-]
why not both
User avatar #6 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Because...they're not Argonians
#7 - Ken M (08/21/2013) [-]
probably just a joke... maybe he was referring to the title?
User avatar #8 - captainfuckitall (08/21/2013) [-]
Huh, you're right
#22 - I actually think Hitler and the Nazi's had a good thing going,… 08/21/2013 on Woops +1

Comments(508):

[ 508 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#513 - Ken M (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought I'd waste some time also, and FIX yo' thumbs ;)
#514 to #513 - Ken M (02/16/2015) [-]
Love, luluwho
#505 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
Man, I think I love you
Man, I think I love you
User avatar #506 to #505 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Haha, where the hell did that come from?
User avatar #507 to #506 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I saw that kind of argument that you had and I liked not only what you said but the way you said it, I think you did it pretty cool and everything

if you meant the gif it's from Soul Eater
User avatar #508 to #507 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
That's the first time I heard that. Generally, my abrasive and blunt speech drives most people to dislike me, not give me affection. You're a sweetheart, though.

Haha, no, I did not mean the gif.
User avatar #509 to #508 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I feel the same way about myself, I have to say that if those speeches were used against me I would feel a little bit upset, but you ask for clear answers and sources, and you try to make the other person think before they speak, I like that in general, not just mindless bashing ahaha
User avatar #510 to #509 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Well I'm certainly glad you can see the good in my speaking skills. Frankly, I do it to get to the point. I hate having my time wasted for any reason, and so I extend that courtesy to others and try not to waste anyone else's time either; which leads me to being very blunt and brutal in my words so that they cannot be confused or misheard. Though I admit I was frustrated in that debate.
User avatar #511 to #510 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
most of them are frustrating anyway

and yeah, it sucks when people start to get offtrack because of a single comment that you used as an example or something, it's proof that they are desperately trying to derail the conversation to their favor
User avatar #512 to #511 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Oh well. When you get into a debate with someone, the point should be because you are trying to change your own views, not theirs.

If someone doesn't want to believe something, they won't. End of story. You could use all the proof you want to tell someone the colour of the sky is blue, but if they want it to be green, it will be and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Thus, the only person you should be focused on changing in a debate is yourself, and only do so to get more perspective on the issues important to you.
User avatar #498 - gugek (12/30/2014) [-]
Hey! Good afternoon. I hope the rest of your day is awesome and tomorrow is freaking fantastic!
#492 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
User avatar #494 to #492 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
Well aren't you a sweetheart for helping me get over my fear
#495 to #494 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
im actually about to go to bed but hi
User avatar #499 to #495 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
Who's the artist? Sauce?
User avatar #500 to #499 - miia ONLINE (01/08/2015) [-]
i dont remember and its too late for me to find out
reverse search it
#501 to #500 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
I found it! The artist's nukomasu. Thanks, Miia. If it weren't for that image, I won't find it.
User avatar #496 to #495 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
Well don't let me keep you. Hi back, and feel free to continue the conversation any time.
User avatar #503 to #502 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/09/2015) [-]
Hello again.
#504 to #503 - miia ONLINE (01/09/2015) [-]
hello

i am exhausted
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (09/30/2014) [-]
******* retard compares the IS to today's feminists. One could say ignorance is an everspreading cancer, you did your job to increase the spread.
User avatar #491 to #490 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
User avatar #469 to #468 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
For?
#466 - Ken M (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
[ 508 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)