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

hide menu

captainfuckitall    

Rank #484 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 344 Comments: Sold Soul
Offline
Send mail to captainfuckitall Block captainfuckitall Invite captainfuckitall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#484
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 40 total,  90 ,  50
Comment Thumbs: 47256 total,  58051 ,  10795
Content Level Progress: 76.27% (45/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 96.1% (961/1000)
Level 344 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 345 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:20
Content Views:9666
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:14484
FJ Points:17192

latest user's comments

#174 - that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do n…  [+] (36 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
#172 - sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P  [+] (38 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
#171 - it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people … 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
#169 - god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, b… 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
#168 - but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (o…  [+] (41 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#166 - but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehen…  [+] (44 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#32 - you are quite right, sir 04/11/2012 on Am i gay 3 +1
#31 - awesome :D 04/11/2012 on Am i gay 3 0
#159 - but it WAS the "Apple of Knowledge" (as stated in th…  [+] (46 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #160 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, God took all the responsibility that was due in respect to keeping them from eating from the tree. He told them "Don't eat from the tree." if he had done any more, it would have interfered with the whole "Free will" thing.
Can you give me a verse and version where the bible actually says "Apple of Knowledge"?
Because, while i haven't read that story in a while, I'm pretty sure it a) never mentions apples and b) says "Knowledge of good and evil"
User avatar #166 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehend right and wrong. besides, he supposedly knows everything, correct? so isn't it irresponsible to KNOW what's going to happen, yet do nothing about it, because you wanted to see if what you knew came true? (which you knew it would). it sounds like a whole lot of excuses to me, really. genesis doesn't mention apples, but proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. more significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

and you are correct, it was only "Knowledge of good and evil", HOWEVER; good and evil cover a variety of things; such as: Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong? Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked. Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like "A to Z." Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#155 - no, what? i'm saying that god denied their ability to use crit…  [+] (48 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #156 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, you didn't use any nouns, only pronouns, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Like I said before, Adam and Eve were not denied the capacity of critical thinking and knowledge, they were unburdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge.
User avatar #159 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it WAS the "Apple of Knowledge" (as stated in the old testament). even so, leaving someone "unburdened" from critical information is still denying them a part of what gives them free-will and the power of choice. if you didn't know what good or evil was, you would be a far different person then the person you are now, afterall. (and like i said, as they didn't have that knowledge, god should have taken responsibility to take care of them, rather then simply leaving them to do what he supposedly already knew what they were going to do because he wanted to see if they would really do it (confusing as hell))
User avatar #160 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, God took all the responsibility that was due in respect to keeping them from eating from the tree. He told them "Don't eat from the tree." if he had done any more, it would have interfered with the whole "Free will" thing.
Can you give me a verse and version where the bible actually says "Apple of Knowledge"?
Because, while i haven't read that story in a while, I'm pretty sure it a) never mentions apples and b) says "Knowledge of good and evil"
User avatar #166 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehend right and wrong. besides, he supposedly knows everything, correct? so isn't it irresponsible to KNOW what's going to happen, yet do nothing about it, because you wanted to see if what you knew came true? (which you knew it would). it sounds like a whole lot of excuses to me, really. genesis doesn't mention apples, but proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. more significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

and you are correct, it was only "Knowledge of good and evil", HOWEVER; good and evil cover a variety of things; such as: Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong? Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked. Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like "A to Z." Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#14 - serious question time if you found a member of the op…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/11/2012 on Am i gay 3 +2
User avatar #26 - DrBobsPatient (04/11/2012) [-]
be best friends for life, but nothin more. like scrubs and JD and turks guy love.
User avatar #31 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
awesome :D
#21 - anonymous (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd develop pixie dick.
#19 - anonymous (04/11/2012) [-]
Personally, I think the entire concept of sexual orientation is fucked. People love people that they love, gender doesn't really make a difference, we put up that wall ourselves. It's that thought, "Sorry, I'm not gay/straight, I won't date you.", that really keeps anybody hetero- or homosexual. It might not be such a conscious thought all the time, but in most cases, I think that's what happens. If someone were to ask me, I'd say I'm straight, because I'm currently dating a girl. But Hell, maybe I'm straight because no one's convinced me otherwise, who knows right? It's just not a black and white kind of thing. So in the situation you gave, I'd definitely say you'd still be in love with them, unless there;s some kind of personal belief that would keep you from being with them.
User avatar #17 - mcfuzzelkin (04/11/2012) [-]
That's a good question. If love is all it's cracked up to be, then it will have us believe that we would be able to look past their physical appearence and love them all the same. So in theory if we truely loved them we wouldn't care.
User avatar #32 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
you are quite right, sir
#153 - they didn't. that's what i was trying to get at. they didn't b…  [+] (50 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan 0
User avatar #154 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
So you're saying that God denyed their ability to question his existance?
By being there?
User avatar #155 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
no, what? i'm saying that god denied their ability to use critical thinking, logic, and rationality; all of which Satan provided through the Apple of Knowledge. god's existence was never part of the issue
User avatar #156 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, you didn't use any nouns, only pronouns, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Like I said before, Adam and Eve were not denied the capacity of critical thinking and knowledge, they were unburdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge.
User avatar #159 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it WAS the "Apple of Knowledge" (as stated in the old testament). even so, leaving someone "unburdened" from critical information is still denying them a part of what gives them free-will and the power of choice. if you didn't know what good or evil was, you would be a far different person then the person you are now, afterall. (and like i said, as they didn't have that knowledge, god should have taken responsibility to take care of them, rather then simply leaving them to do what he supposedly already knew what they were going to do because he wanted to see if they would really do it (confusing as hell))
User avatar #160 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, God took all the responsibility that was due in respect to keeping them from eating from the tree. He told them "Don't eat from the tree." if he had done any more, it would have interfered with the whole "Free will" thing.
Can you give me a verse and version where the bible actually says "Apple of Knowledge"?
Because, while i haven't read that story in a while, I'm pretty sure it a) never mentions apples and b) says "Knowledge of good and evil"
User avatar #166 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehend right and wrong. besides, he supposedly knows everything, correct? so isn't it irresponsible to KNOW what's going to happen, yet do nothing about it, because you wanted to see if what you knew came true? (which you knew it would). it sounds like a whole lot of excuses to me, really. genesis doesn't mention apples, but proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. more significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

and you are correct, it was only "Knowledge of good and evil", HOWEVER; good and evil cover a variety of things; such as: Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong? Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked. Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like "A to Z." Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#19 - actually, once again, all god told them was not to eat any app…  [+] (52 new replies) 04/11/2012 on God Vs Satan +1
User avatar #23 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Maybe they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, but they did know that God had told them not to eat from that tree, and that was good enough for them. as for the rest of your argument, the problem lies in that you seem to imagine that there was any room for doubt in the existance of God. However the bible states that they walked with God in the garden. So unlike you and I who have never personaly met God, they would not have questioned the existance of God any more than you or I would question the existance of the sun.
User avatar #153 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
they didn't. that's what i was trying to get at. they didn't because god denied it from them. obviously not (besides, as he is all knowing, it's his responsibility to stop these types of things from happening. that's like KNOWING a drug dealer is selling crack to kids down the street, yet saying "nah, i wanna SEE if those kids go and do it...") of course there is room for doubt. i for one believe in gods, but i'm not so arrogant that i cannot see any situation where they can't exist.
User avatar #154 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
So you're saying that God denyed their ability to question his existance?
By being there?
User avatar #155 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
no, what? i'm saying that god denied their ability to use critical thinking, logic, and rationality; all of which Satan provided through the Apple of Knowledge. god's existence was never part of the issue
User avatar #156 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, you didn't use any nouns, only pronouns, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Like I said before, Adam and Eve were not denied the capacity of critical thinking and knowledge, they were unburdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge.
User avatar #159 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it WAS the "Apple of Knowledge" (as stated in the old testament). even so, leaving someone "unburdened" from critical information is still denying them a part of what gives them free-will and the power of choice. if you didn't know what good or evil was, you would be a far different person then the person you are now, afterall. (and like i said, as they didn't have that knowledge, god should have taken responsibility to take care of them, rather then simply leaving them to do what he supposedly already knew what they were going to do because he wanted to see if they would really do it (confusing as hell))
User avatar #160 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, God took all the responsibility that was due in respect to keeping them from eating from the tree. He told them "Don't eat from the tree." if he had done any more, it would have interfered with the whole "Free will" thing.
Can you give me a verse and version where the bible actually says "Apple of Knowledge"?
Because, while i haven't read that story in a while, I'm pretty sure it a) never mentions apples and b) says "Knowledge of good and evil"
User avatar #166 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehend right and wrong. besides, he supposedly knows everything, correct? so isn't it irresponsible to KNOW what's going to happen, yet do nothing about it, because you wanted to see if what you knew came true? (which you knew it would). it sounds like a whole lot of excuses to me, really. genesis doesn't mention apples, but proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. more significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

and you are correct, it was only "Knowledge of good and evil", HOWEVER; good and evil cover a variety of things; such as: Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong? Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked. Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like "A to Z." Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#6 - actually, if you really wanna get techinical, by denying Adam …  [+] (54 new replies) 04/10/2012 on God Vs Satan +6
User avatar #8 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
God didn't make us blindly follow him from the start. If that was true, Adam and Eve would not have been able to choose to eat the apple. ( doesn't actually say it was an apple in the bible)
He gave us free will to begin with, the only thing we lacked was the knowledge fo good and evil, in other words we were innocent, not mindless.
User avatar #19 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
actually, once again, all god told them was not to eat any apple from X tree. Satan mearly gave them A apple; not an apple from THE tree (from the perspective of Eve). besides, even if she knew that it was, in fact, an apple from THAT tree, she wouldn't have said no anyways, because neither of them knew the difference between right and wrong (and this is proved by how it thoroughly describes this "realization" after she eats the apple, and clothes herself). indeed, but if you lack the knowledge to use that free will, then you, in fact, do not have free will. I.E. i could drink as much orange juice as i want, and i would, if i didn't know there was such a thing as apple juice. in this sense, Adam and Eve faced that same thing; where they did in fact have free will (the orange juice) but didn't know how to use it (they couldn't HAVE the mind-set to comprehend the making of choices, thus, they made no choice)
User avatar #23 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Maybe they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, but they did know that God had told them not to eat from that tree, and that was good enough for them. as for the rest of your argument, the problem lies in that you seem to imagine that there was any room for doubt in the existance of God. However the bible states that they walked with God in the garden. So unlike you and I who have never personaly met God, they would not have questioned the existance of God any more than you or I would question the existance of the sun.
User avatar #153 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
they didn't. that's what i was trying to get at. they didn't because god denied it from them. obviously not (besides, as he is all knowing, it's his responsibility to stop these types of things from happening. that's like KNOWING a drug dealer is selling crack to kids down the street, yet saying "nah, i wanna SEE if those kids go and do it...") of course there is room for doubt. i for one believe in gods, but i'm not so arrogant that i cannot see any situation where they can't exist.
User avatar #154 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
So you're saying that God denyed their ability to question his existance?
By being there?
User avatar #155 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
no, what? i'm saying that god denied their ability to use critical thinking, logic, and rationality; all of which Satan provided through the Apple of Knowledge. god's existence was never part of the issue
User avatar #156 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, you didn't use any nouns, only pronouns, so I wasn't sure what you meant.
Like I said before, Adam and Eve were not denied the capacity of critical thinking and knowledge, they were unburdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge.
User avatar #159 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it WAS the "Apple of Knowledge" (as stated in the old testament). even so, leaving someone "unburdened" from critical information is still denying them a part of what gives them free-will and the power of choice. if you didn't know what good or evil was, you would be a far different person then the person you are now, afterall. (and like i said, as they didn't have that knowledge, god should have taken responsibility to take care of them, rather then simply leaving them to do what he supposedly already knew what they were going to do because he wanted to see if they would really do it (confusing as hell))
User avatar #160 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, God took all the responsibility that was due in respect to keeping them from eating from the tree. He told them "Don't eat from the tree." if he had done any more, it would have interfered with the whole "Free will" thing.
Can you give me a verse and version where the bible actually says "Apple of Knowledge"?
Because, while i haven't read that story in a while, I'm pretty sure it a) never mentions apples and b) says "Knowledge of good and evil"
User avatar #166 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but it's not free will, because they wearn't able to comprehend right and wrong. besides, he supposedly knows everything, correct? so isn't it irresponsible to KNOW what's going to happen, yet do nothing about it, because you wanted to see if what you knew came true? (which you knew it would). it sounds like a whole lot of excuses to me, really. genesis doesn't mention apples, but proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. more significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

and you are correct, it was only "Knowledge of good and evil", HOWEVER; good and evil cover a variety of things; such as: Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong? Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked. Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like "A to Z." Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.
User avatar #167 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Ok, it would be really hard to respond to all of that at once, so I'll just adress your first point for starters. They didn't know the full extent of right and wrong, but they did know that they should do as God says. that was the only reference they needed, what God said was ok was right, and anything else was wrong.
As for the thought that he should have known, Well I'm not God, but I imagine he did know, but in order to provide free will, there had to be the option to disobey. if there was no tree in the garden, then it wouldn't have been real free will because they couldn't have sinned, it would have been impossible.
User avatar #169 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
god can indeed be all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, but not all three. there are far too many loop-holes and too many questions that way (all of which would easily be resolved if a single christian stood up and said "you know what, maybe he's NOT "ALL loving" or "ALL powerful", ext.)
User avatar #168 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but did you not say earlier we did not know god personally? (or adam, eve, or the garden of eden) how do you know what they meant? the best way to take something like this is at face value, or not at all; as any other way would cause it to be lost in interpretation. even if god says to murder your children if they disrespect you? that doesn't sound okay to me. then that contradicts his "all loving" persona; as any father who LETS their child make bad, and irreversible choices (and then proceeds to punish them for it) while all the while he had the right answer and the ability to stop them all along is neglectful.
User avatar #170 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
To say that the need for death as a punishment contradicts God's "All loving persona" is actually a flawed, human perspective. you see, when someone dies, they aren't gone forever, their soul is sent to God. really what he's doing is telling you to send them to him for judgement, and we don't know for sure how he judges them.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
sorry, everything after the OLD testament is null and void :P
User avatar #173 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well, Yes.
That's what the whole crucifixion was about. in one move, God fulfilled all of the old laws and made a new promise with mankind.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
that still doesn't make sense. you can do no wrong if you do not know what wrong is; thus, god punished Adam and Eve and damned the human race for nothing, or rather, his own failure. and for a father to come along and say he's going to kill you UNLESS you worship his son, that's a bit...extreme, at least for me. besides, if jesus died for our sins, then we have nothing to fear from god as long as we accept him into our hearts. that means a serial killer can rape, murder, and torture, and yet if he genuenly believes he was doing it in god's name, then he's still going to heaven
User avatar #175 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
The bible's pretty clear on these things. You don't get to just "Oh jesus, yeah cool guy." and be done with it. you have to actively seek forgiveness, and do your best to live according to the way jesus taught.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
very well
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but you can't give a reason for my claims. in fact, for these last few posts you've been avoiding the statements i was making, and neglecting to answer them (F.Y.I. if you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied)
User avatar #213 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
Well it would be rude to just drop the conversation altogether..
User avatar #210 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
then you admit god isn't perfect?
User avatar #211 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
No, I admit that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Maybe i did a few days ago, but I don't any more.
User avatar #208 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
i think you're making excuses
User avatar #209 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
I'm so far past caring, if you want to claim victory on this one, go ahead.
No one else is reading this anyway.
User avatar #206 - captainfuckitall (04/14/2012) [-]
but he's not. he's not all knowing, because Satan got into the garden, and if he knew then he's not all loving, because that's neglect of his duties, and since he didn't kill Satan he's not all powerful, but if he "could have" then he's not all loving, because he's letting evil things happen by letting an "evil" man live. and if it's because he's all loving that he lets him live, then he doesn't love his own children, as they are the ones suffering; but he's not solving the suffering, thus he's not all loving. or perhaps he cannot solve the suffering, thus he's not all powerful; or if he can, he doesn't know, of which he is not all knowing. and if he is all knowing, then he's neglectful, which mean's he's not all loving. or he is all loving and he's just not powerful enough to do whatever about it

do you see the vicious circle? there's too many loopholes if he's "perfect". i mean, i could go out and rape a school-girl right now, but if i did, would you say "no, he's perfect, we just can't understand his mind-set" of course you wouldn't say that, you'd want me in prison. either god is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing, but NOT all three. and if you continue to say he is all three, then i direct you to all the pain and suffering in the world he could easily fix with a wave of his hand ("but Captain, that would be taking away free will and faith"), then he's not all loving if he puts "faith" above the importance of his own children
User avatar #207 - redwolfradolf (04/14/2012) [-]
This thread is too old.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #204 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
honestly? we've debated for this long and you don't know where i stand? i'm beginning to think you're simply making excuses, as you can't offer a firm rebuttle

i'm saying that god isn't perfect; i'm saying that he's not a good guy, and (although this doesn't HAVE to be the main point if you don't wish it to be) that Satan is better
User avatar #205 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
And all I'm saying is that beause God is perfect and we aren't we can't undestand the way he works
User avatar #202 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well (also, isn't it kind of hypocritical to claim that i am getting off from the main point, and then the second we bring it back, you go off from it?)
User avatar #203 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Well I'm trying to nail down your position before I continue.
I can't really debate effectively if I don't know where you stand on the issue.
User avatar #200 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i can respect the people, can i not? i can respect the message of said religion, can i not?
User avatar #201 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Yes, but you said "I still have respect toward other religions"
But you also, in the very next sentance insulted the God of one such religion.
It's true you can respect the people of a religion, but if you don't respect their God, you don't respect their religion.
I have to go to class now, so I'll get back with you later.
User avatar #198 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
indeed i am a Satanist. however, i still have respect towards other religions. what i do not have respect for is a god that acts like a spoiled brat, and then hides behind a curtain of righteousness
User avatar #199 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You can't respect a religion while at the same time disrespecting it's God.

User avatar #196 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
very well. the original point was that Satan gave humans their humanity, and not god. or, in even simpler terms, that Satan is better then god (at least that's what i believe
User avatar #197 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
You are a satanist?
I thought you were poly-theistic?
User avatar #194 - captainfuckitall (04/13/2012) [-]
i don't care what that guy has to say (and if i must, then i will direct you to the meme Scum-Bag-God)

and that's a pretty big claim "every historian" seeing as how i just watched the discovery channel on religious sects, and there was no mention of jesus being real (in fact, they pointed out that it was more then likely a man named jesus was hung on a cross; but it wasn't THE jesus. do you know how many people were crucified by the Romans back in the day?). yet they do, because most christians refuse to believe in evolution, why? because the bible speaks of creationism
User avatar #195 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
Look we're talking in circles here.
We've been at this for days and I feel like I keep answering the same question over and over.
What's more, I've lost track of the point we were originally debating.
We either need to single out an issue that we can discuss or end this aging thread.
User avatar #192 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
there's also the Koran. and there have also been many historical recordings from OTHER religions as well; such as Satanism, Islam, Buddhist, Atheist, ext. science has found fossils (which contradicts the bible), Islam and the Jewish faith has the Dome of The Rock, it's actual fact that Buddha existed (rather then jesus, which is still up for debate), and christianity has forced itself into many religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween, ext.) that has proof of originally being Pagan, and Satanic
User avatar #193 - redwolfradolf (04/13/2012) [-]
For one the existance of Jesus is not up for debate. Every historian accepts that the man existed.
And fossils don't contradict the bible. Here this guy says it better than I ever could.
funnyjunk.com/text/3543945/Good+Guy+Christian/
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
then what do you do? what actual evidence do you have to support that god is the one "true" god? tell you what, if you can actually give me some form of information that i CANNOT counter, or logically explain, i will even CONVERT to your religious sect.

no one told me. i simply saw all these religions and figured that with all the smoke in the air, there must be a fire somewhere; but then i wondered which one has "truth", and because i couldn't tell, i simply imagined that each religion's god is a god currently living. you happen to serve a specific god just as i do
User avatar #191 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
Well, aside from the bible, there are numerous historical records and artifacts that support claims in the bible, so it stands to reason that most of it is true, at the very least.
For example, the Shroud of Turin, decades of scientific research has failed to explain how the image was created. also, there is a carvving on a wall near Golgatha, which depicts a man with a horse's head being crucifeid while another man looks on. in latin, someone, likely a roman soldier, has written "Peter worships his God"

So there's my evidence, where's yours?
User avatar #184 - captainfuckitall (04/12/2012) [-]
i base that information upon the fact that christianity (as well as all forms of it) was NOT the first religion to come across the world. this is FACT. thus, it's entirely arrogant to assume that this SPECIFIC god is the only god
User avatar #189 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
We don't just assume it.
So where do you get your belief, who told you that there are multiple gods, and that God is one of them.
User avatar #182 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
i accept that he is A god, but i do not accept that he is THE god. besides, anyone can change the rules; hell, from now on all you can do is eat meat. does that change anything? of course not; you're still gonna eat whatever the hell you want. god commands us to only follow him, and we're not gonna do that either (at least not most of us), thus, by this logic, "god" is as much of a god as i am. of course we have a right to say he cannot; as we are living beings and sentient creatures. if i made a child, do i have the right to abuse it simply because i gave it life? of course not. even the same with a clone, just because i made one doesn't mean i OWN him; and trying to do so would make me a dictator, much like god is. besides, you having to defend him by saying "he is god, thus he can do whatever he wants" PROVES that he is not "all loving", and thus, not perfect; and until you have a better response, it shall remain that way
User avatar #183 - redwolfradolf (04/12/2012) [-]
I don't understand where you get that God is one of many gods.
What established religion or thological research are going off of here?
User avatar #180 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
but he did. changing the rules doesn't mean you are right, or good. it simply means you CAN change them
User avatar #181 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Well then, if you agree that God has the power to change the rules, then that would require that you accet that he is indeed God,.
And if he is God, meaning that he is in charge of everything, then we don't have the right to say "You can't do that"
If he is God, then he can do whatever he wants.
User avatar #178 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
Mathew 10:34
think not that i am come to send peace on earth. i am not to send peace, but a sword, for i am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against the mother; and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law and a man's foes shall be they of his own house-hold. he that loveith father or mother more then me is not worthy of me, and he who loveith his son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me, and he who have not taken up his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me (jesus)

which contradicts the word of god (also jesus, or even his own father if you prefer) as Lev. 20:9 states that all who disobey their mother or father must be put to death

(just as well; first commandment states that thou shalt have no other god's before me
(if anyone does do this, you must take them outside your town and stone them to death. Deut: 17:2-7))

god changing the rules doesn't make him a good guy, it just means he changes the rules to suit his own needs and views. and of course i have a problem with the United States doing such, as it's hypocrisy at it's finest and i hate hypocrites. (sorry it took so long to reply back. i have a huge list of bible quotes and the like, so it takes some time to find exactly what i'm looking for)
User avatar #179 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
Jesus can't contradic the word of God.
He IS God.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
ahh, but that's where things get messy, as in jesus' gospel, he actually told people to rebel against their parents (i can find the verse), yet, in the old testament, it claims that those who rebel against (disrespect) their parents are to be killed and burn in hell
User avatar #177 - redwolfradolf (04/11/2012) [-]
I'd need a verse for that, because I'm pretty sure it never said that.
But after Jesus was crucified God told Peter to eat pork, Peter said "I can't, you told me not to."
To which God replies, "I told you not to, so I can tell that it's ok."
Bascily if you have no problem with the United States government repealing it's own laws, you should have no prolem with this.
User avatar #171 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2012) [-]
it's not the need for death, but even now, all around, people are suffering and dying, innocent people to, who have done no wrong. if he truly lets them all die for something our grandmother did millions of years ago, that's rather vain and "brat-like", i think. indeed they are sent to his judgement, but in the old testament it states, loud and clear, anyone who disobeys the law of god should be put to death and will forever burn in hell (with such measly rules as no eating shellfish, no playing football, no shaving side-burns, ext.), and that anyone who FURTHER disobeys and DOESN'T kill those who do wrong should ALSO be put to death and shall burn for all eternity. so really, we're all going to hell, no matter how "devoted" we think we are. also, in psalm it claims that the law of god is perfect, and since he can see forever, he wouldn't have the need to "correct" himself in the new testament, as he would have seen it and already included everything needed in the old testament, thus, everything after the new testament is null and void
#17 - if i had the picture of the slow clap, i would post it right now  [+] (3 new replies) 04/10/2012 on Star wars battlefront +2
#30 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
take this.
User avatar #26 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
For the space battles in BF 2 it was awesome fun to fuck around with every class and every team.
->For the Droids I'd like to load up those big ass StarTrek looking space ships and just slowly take out all their shit from the outside. Once you get all the smaller protective ships w/ turrets on them down, you go in for the main ship, taking out the shields, than any of the shit that is close enough.
->Playing as the empire or clones, dog-fighting would be the way to go, for the empire, using the TIE Interceptor would just eat any X-wings or Y-Wings with the following rockets used by the right-click. I forget the specific name of the clone ship, but one of them had a similar design to the TIE interceptor and all you'd have to do to win a dog fight was hit them a couple times with your normal lasers and finish them off with your rockets.
->Playing as the rebels was similar to the droids, but because they didn't have that badass Enterprise-style ship I'd go for blowing them up from the inside out. After landing their big carrier ship in their base I'd go into that room, first taking out those 2 auto turrets to the left and right of that thing. That thing took 3 time bombs to blow up, and with those droids right there it was easy to restock. Than the life support systems (room to the left, 1 auto-turret) then their engines (room to the right, 2 auto-turrets) If their shields weren't down I'd obviously go for those at some point, but seeing as they took a lot of bombs to take down I'd often just ignore it. If I got all that shit done and still hadn't won, I'd re spawn as a marine and just shoot the place up. If my ship had been blown up it wound't matter. After a certain point I'd have attained my Kick-Ass pistol (Gunslinger Award) and so just camp near where their ships spawn and get some slicing awards, all the while killing anyone I see with a maximum of 2 shots.

Don't even get me started on how I'd fuck people up with a shotgun...
User avatar #29 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
shotguns were fucking awesome. unlike most games they're more realistic as the shells don't disappear after like 10 feet they just do less damage also because of the fact it was slow time to kill game shotguns had a huge advantage because of their high damage compared to other weapons.
#15 - you take Tatooine first you ALWAYS take Tatooine first...  [+] (15 new replies) 04/10/2012 on Star wars battlefront +7
User avatar #16 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
Mos Eisley was such a fucking party, that was the level you'd go like 30/0, real fun guerilla tactics and shit, you'd be careful and meticulous in all your kills. Then came the dune sea, that was where it was best to be a rebel pilot cause you could fuck around in those awesome cars w/ the guns on the hood (pilots would repair damage to any vehicle they were in) and you'd go ~60/5. Then there was the bridge on the Bespin platforms, and that was just all out chaos; some real 300 shit. You'd go 60/50 but wouldn't even give a fuck cause from the second you spawn to the second you die your just constantly firing. Best sniping level was either the Kashyyk docks or Bespin Cloud city. God I loved that game so fucking much.
User avatar #24 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
my battlefront 1 broke and i'm left with 2. Kashyyk is still the best sniper but i don't think it does cloud city.
User avatar #31 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
Dam, Battlefront 1 definitely had some better qualities than BF 2: In BF 2, as a sniper, you'd have to be zoomed in to get the little cross-hairs in the center of the screen, and that was kinda annoying. Dune Sea and Bespin Platforms were 2 of the best maps in BF 1 and should not have been taken out. In BF 2 they made Hoth too bright to be able to play well, and Mustafar too dark.

On a positive note, I liked how they made Mos Eisley physically bigger in BF2. Also, Jabba's palace, Utapau, death star, and coruscant were all great additions. The assault mode that allowed you to do heroes vs. Villains was a blast when you got tired of the same old. The space battles were obviously the best addition overall, but the little adjustments they did to maps like Geonosis (making it bigger, throwing in a cave here and there) were in great taste. The fact that they kept record of all your kills & deaths compelled you to play more, as did the granting of rewards. Overall, all they needed for a Battlefront 3 was to combine 1 and 2


#60 - anonymous (04/10/2012) [-]
The improvements that they did with BF2 were amazing, I particularily did love the space battles, I just didn't like that they took away some of my favorite maps from the first one.
Its been ages since I've played so I couldn't tell you which ones those were...
My absolute favorite one was a snow map, lots of caves and such, and it had some ATAT's.
I know for sure that was not hoth, because they left that in.
Long story short, I fucking loved both of those games, and we need a 3rd.
User avatar #69 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
NOW I REMEMBER THOSE TOO. I think it was Renvar, but I can't be certain, defending the mouth of that cave was so fucking fun
User avatar #32 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
yeah i would probably buy it for my ps2 but i'm about to get my ps3 back and i've got skyrim,bf3 and most of the cods so i'll probably be nerding out on that >.< u got a ps3?
User avatar #34 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
I got a dope PC, the funniest thing about my gaming life right now is that I've spent $60 on Starcraft 2, another $60 on Skyrim, but the game I play the most by far is League of Legends.
User avatar #35 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
heh i've never played star craft is it good?
User avatar #43 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
It was too competitive and intense for me. It's not like Age of Empires/ Mythology where you can kinda kick back and take your time building shit, dicking around on the map and exploring shit. There's a reason why it's a professional sport in S. Korea, that shit is hardcore. My brother tried to get me into it (he spotted me the money to by my laptop solely for the purpose of playing starcraft) and I did play it for awhile, but only against bots cause the anxiety of versing a real person was too much, I'd get my ass kicked. My brother, on the other hand, did really well, reaching the diamond league and sometimes beating people in the grand-master league. But even he reached a point where if he wanted to get any better he'd have to devote a minimum of 8 hours a day, and between his job and getting carpel tunnel syndrome, it kinda became to much.

That shit is not a game, it's a sport in the same way chess is. One does not simply kick back and play a game of Starcraft

If your looking for a real challenge and have a lot of time to devote go for SC2. If you'd rather kick back, smoke a bong and enjoy the scenery, than Skyrim is perfect (or any Legend of Zelda game). I like League of Legends because it's a good medium.
User avatar #52 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
yeah i've heard it's a hardcore game and i've also heard about the leagues and i think it's a pretty cool idea but yeah people are really devoted to it :P never played lol i really want to but the game won't run on my piece of shit computer. What's carpel tunnel syndrome
#23 - anonymous (04/10/2012) [-]
MFW I read this
User avatar #17 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2012) [-]
if i had the picture of the slow clap, i would post it right now
#30 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
take this.
User avatar #26 - vajaxseven (04/10/2012) [-]
For the space battles in BF 2 it was awesome fun to fuck around with every class and every team.
->For the Droids I'd like to load up those big ass StarTrek looking space ships and just slowly take out all their shit from the outside. Once you get all the smaller protective ships w/ turrets on them down, you go in for the main ship, taking out the shields, than any of the shit that is close enough.
->Playing as the empire or clones, dog-fighting would be the way to go, for the empire, using the TIE Interceptor would just eat any X-wings or Y-Wings with the following rockets used by the right-click. I forget the specific name of the clone ship, but one of them had a similar design to the TIE interceptor and all you'd have to do to win a dog fight was hit them a couple times with your normal lasers and finish them off with your rockets.
->Playing as the rebels was similar to the droids, but because they didn't have that badass Enterprise-style ship I'd go for blowing them up from the inside out. After landing their big carrier ship in their base I'd go into that room, first taking out those 2 auto turrets to the left and right of that thing. That thing took 3 time bombs to blow up, and with those droids right there it was easy to restock. Than the life support systems (room to the left, 1 auto-turret) then their engines (room to the right, 2 auto-turrets) If their shields weren't down I'd obviously go for those at some point, but seeing as they took a lot of bombs to take down I'd often just ignore it. If I got all that shit done and still hadn't won, I'd re spawn as a marine and just shoot the place up. If my ship had been blown up it wound't matter. After a certain point I'd have attained my Kick-Ass pistol (Gunslinger Award) and so just camp near where their ships spawn and get some slicing awards, all the while killing anyone I see with a maximum of 2 shots.

Don't even get me started on how I'd fuck people up with a shotgun...
User avatar #29 - jackbo (04/10/2012) [-]
shotguns were fucking awesome. unlike most games they're more realistic as the shells don't disappear after like 10 feet they just do less damage also because of the fact it was slow time to kill game shotguns had a huge advantage because of their high damage compared to other weapons.
#116 - but she will...  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2012 on Which choice? +8
#131 - anonymous (04/10/2012) [-]
the girl of my dreams looks the same till she dies.
#16 - this **** is gold 04/10/2012 on Am I Gay Part 2 +2
#160 - haha, i know, but i was too young to realize that at the time … 04/10/2012 on Star wars battlefront anyone? 0
#26 - oh god, i read that in his voice... 04/10/2012 on /b/ makes me laugh 0
#149 - >Play on Cloud City Map >Play with Rebels ( **…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/10/2012 on Star wars battlefront anyone? +19
#565 - bummerdrummer (04/10/2012) [-]
i just had a nostalgia and a feel at the same time. a nostalfeel.
#158 - PEDOOOBEAR (04/10/2012) [-]
I realized if you angle the nades right, the "invincible" characters can be blown off the map and die so you have time to advance! :D

User avatar #160 - captainfuckitall (04/10/2012) [-]
haha, i know, but i was too young to realize that at the time :P (besides, if you're on a planet like Hoth, or Yavin, you're kinda screwed)
#145 - BattleFront over BattleField ANYDAY 04/10/2012 on Star wars battlefront anyone? +3
#346 - that awkward moment when you are already the size of a fullgro… 04/09/2012 on Guys vs Girls +11
#1 - i get the distinct feeling that you're a feminist (or somethin… 04/09/2012 on truth 0
#10 - it wouldn't be nearly so bad, if all those posts about religio… 04/09/2012 on 90% of facebook statuses 0

Comments(481):

[ 481 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
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 (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (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 (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 (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 (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 (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.
#466 - anonymous (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 (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 (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.
User avatar #461 - potgardener (06/01/2013) [-]
youre pretty ****** in the head if beating a kid is a good idea, parents would need to hit their kids if they taught them what was right and wrong from the beginning
User avatar #462 to #461 - captainfuckitall (06/01/2013) [-]
It's ironic how you talk about avoiding situations, when your very comment isn't needed considering I already explained, about five times now, that I do not mean you must 'abuse' your children in order to get good results. My comment, and all the comments afterwards, were about how when compassion and support fails you must turn to punishment and discipline, including simply smacking your kid upside the head

Perhaps you should read more and get better informed before jumping to opinions, yes?
#459 - bossdelainternet (05/11/2013) [-]
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest  threads i've seen this year.   
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...   
&quot;Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'.&quot; - Family Guy
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest threads i've seen this year.
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
User avatar #460 to #459 - captainfuckitall (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure whether I should take that as a compliment or an insult

I choose the former

Thank you, good sir
#453 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
I just thought I'd let you know that I just did an awful thing and quoted your majestic deep words of death wisdom onto my facebook. I gave you credit, but as part of my shame for stealing I thought I'd tell you. That was honestly one of the best things I've ever read.

Which is also why I screencapped it. Don't worry I swear I'm not going to try to get to frontpage with it I just wanted to save it.
User avatar #454 to #453 - captainfuckitall (11/12/2012) [-]
Not at all, I am not concerned with thumbs in the least. If you would like to post it, by all means do so, if you'd like to take credit, do so as well; I care not for material value or fame, as long as comprehend and understand the message
#455 to #454 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
Oh man you just keep getting better:)    
   
But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
Oh man you just keep getting better:)

But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
#449 - captainspankmonkey (02/27/2012) [-]
Internet problems
That is why :P
User avatar #450 to #460 - captainfuckitall (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
#447 - anonymous (09/26/2011) [-]
you're a lovely person
User avatar #448 to #458 - captainfuckitall (09/26/2011) [-]
awe, thank you, kind stranger :3

that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
#444 - captainspankmonkey (08/22/2011) [-]
Im becoming level 28 soon
User avatar #445 to #454 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2011) [-]
sooooooooooooooooon............
User avatar #446 to #455 - captainspankmonkey (08/22/2011) [-]
very soooooooooooooooooooooon......
[ 481 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)