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

hide menu

jokeface    

Rank #1945 on Comments
jokeface Avatar Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Offline
Send mail to jokeface Block jokeface Invite jokeface to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Consoles Owned: Nintendo DS, PS2
Video Games Played: Pokemon, Pokemon, and that one with the monsters you have to capture and battle. I forget what it's called.
Interests: Writing, Lucid dreaming, Pokemon, Transformers (yes, even the Michael Bay version), Christianity, and movies.
Date Signed Up:4/07/2011
Last Login:9/12/2014
Location:Right behind you
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#8213
Comment Ranking:#1945
Highest Content Rank:#1053
Highest Comment Rank:#310
Content Thumbs: 16196 total,  18310 ,  2114
Comment Thumbs: 22354 total,  29183 ,  6829
Content Level Progress: 16.2% (162/1000)
Level 216 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 36.2% (362/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:18
Content Views:600426
Times Content Favorited:1208 times
Total Comments Made:12309
FJ Points:7997
Favorite Tags: tags (20) | fuck (10) | Pokemon (7) | Boobs (6) | ponies (6) | BLAH (3) | comp (3) | dat (3) | description (3) | meh (3) | dont (2) | fucking (2) | leo (2) | meme (2) | You (2)
I tell jokes and I make faces. I am JokeFace.

latest user's comments

#52246 - The way Jesus fulfilled the laws was by living a perfect lifes… 02/21/2014 on Religion Board 0
#52140 - “In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsol…  [+] (28 new replies) 02/21/2014 on Religion Board +2
User avatar #52245 - Cambro (02/21/2014) [-]
Great point. I'd like to throw some tag ons along with this: The Law has become obsolete and has been abolished, but that does not mean that individual laws had no value or staying power. The OT should be interpreted with in light of Christ: called a Christ hermeneutic. If Christ is the direct revelation of God, embodied and granted to the world (the Word), then the word before Christ must be interpreted through the lens of Christ. All that fits with Christ remains, all that doesn't is thrown away. This, kanadetenshi, is why the Ten Commandments still apply.

On top of this, I will also argue that Christ abolished ethical absolutism for Christians. No longer do the followers of God have to commit themselves to the letter of the law without exception. Christ, instead, favored heart of the law. That which is right is done in love. Love is an objective principle, but the ways love dictates what is right/wrong is fluid in different situations. This another sense in which Jesus abolished the law. He did away with rigid laws but instead emphasized only love. The same move had been done in several instances in the OT, but Christ emphasized it as the most important and central law from the beginning of his ministry.

And to cleverguy, Jesus did not fulfill any laws but the Law, which is synonymous with the Covenant which has several formulations throughout the Torah. In a basic version that condenses a good number of them: God says to Abram "I will make you a great nation and your descendants will out number the stars. In return, you and your people will follow me and obey my laws." In one utterance of the covenant God himself goes through a treaty where he walks between split creatures. This was a covenant tying God's death and Abraham's death together. Should the covenant fail, one would die. Jesus fulfilled the covenant by dying on the cross to extend the covenant beyond Israel to all mankind. Notice all of this is mostly literary workings and not strictly metaphysical
User avatar #52727 - cleverguy (02/24/2014) [-]
so you're saying that there is no longer a covenant between God and humans?
User avatar #52767 - Cambro (02/24/2014) [-]
No, there is a new covenant between God and humans. The original covenant was strictly between Israel and God. This new covenant extends to all mankind. Instead of physical circumcision, this covenant is marked by the baptism of the spirit. This covenant is not marked by strict adherence to rules, but by the faith that Christ, the Son of God, died for human sins so that we may be found to be righteous and holy without adherence to the Law. You can think of the two covenants in a temporal way: the first covenant said if you continue to do this, this, and this I (God) will bless you and keep you. The second covenant is this: I have already died for you, saved you, and forgiven your sins. Imitate Christ and follow the laws out of love, not out of the hopes of obtaining righteousness and thus rewards. I promise you are saved. Now go on and save others. It is the completion of the original covenant where God said to Abram "I will make your descendants as plentiful as the sand on the sea shore and the stars in the sky." Abraham's descendants are not only Israel, but the new spiritual Israel which is Christianity and all Christians. Furthermore, Abraham was not saved by any Law for he was before the Law. Abraham was instead saved and made righteous by faith. Christianity follows this model. By faith the Christian is saved and enabled to do good thro an imitation of Christ from the trans-formative love Christ has given us. In short: the old covenant was by the Law and demanded adherence to the Law. But any time rules are added to be more righteous, more rules are broken. As more rules are broken, sin abounds. Its a faulty model. The new covenant is by faith and demands nothing from the Christian but faith. There are no more rules so sin does not abound, but rather grace abounds in Christ's sacrifice for us. And knowing that grace, we should do good and love based on the love Christ showed us. There is no requirement of righteousness in Christianity.
User avatar #52807 - cleverguy (02/25/2014) [-]
so where did this second covenant come from?
User avatar #52812 - Cambro (02/25/2014) [-]
I'm confused by what you mean by "come from." Do you mean when was its origin (as in, "when was trench warfare? In the late 19th-20th century.") or what was its origin ("where did these muddy footprints come from? They came from Tom entering from outside")? The "What/Where" question's answer would have to, ultimately, be God. It wasn't a covenant explicitly set with one person as a representative for mankind, but that doesn't much matter. Take John 3 and you can read it as Jesus (and thus God) making a covenant with the reader if they follow what Christ says to do in John 3. The 2nd covenant wasn't much of a surprise, either. It was a repeated theme in the OT that a new, 2nd covenant would be made in the future that would involve the forgiveness of all sins and transgressions (Jeremiah 31:31-34) *read this in remembrance that Christianity becomes the new Israel*. So the What/Where can only really to be said from God.

The When/Where I would have to say would be as soon as Christ's death on the cross. Note verses that claim the tabernacle was ripped in two at this moment (Matthew 27:50-51). The tabernacle is one of the more obvious signs of the old covenant and old order. It is torn signifying the entrance of a new order and a new covenant and a new way of living with God that made the sacrificial rituals at the tabernacle obsolete.
User avatar #52858 - cleverguy (02/25/2014) [-]
i just mean that the first covenant was explicitly told to abraham directly by God. This second covenant that you're describing seems to be more implied which is flimsy considering how blatant and direct the first one is.
User avatar #52871 - Cambro (02/25/2014) [-]
Oh, and again I'll cite God saying there will be a 2nd covenant in the OT. That there would be a change in order was no surprise to the Israelites, just what the change entailed was surprising.
User avatar #52904 - cleverguy (02/26/2014) [-]
it seems weird to me that God would explicitly speak to someone about the covenant and then not do it when a new covenant was to be created and im not sure why that is not weird to you, despite the symbolism that might suggest it
User avatar #52953 - Cambro (02/27/2014) [-]
Let me save time and ask you this: if you don't find what's state in my last reply (comment 52870) to be satisfactory, why is it do you think it matters that God spoke explicitly to one person about the first covenant but not the second? What power does it have if it is to be granted that God didn't explicitly proclaim the second covenant? What would it change?

if you wish to say that human interpretation must be added to the story of Christ to follow into the new 2nd covenant, what then do you make of the objection that human interpretation already went into the first covenant? The story of Abraham was not told by Abraham and undoubtedly written by human authors. That narrative itself is subject to human interpretation before the writing of the narrative was performed, and thus there is no difference at all between the first and second covenants in terms of human work to spell it out.

Or take instead a more conservative approach that many Jewish sects do indeed take. The position is that the Genesis account has a lot of anthropomorphism and has God appearing particularly personlike so the readers of the narrative may relate to God's and thus their own story. Abraham's covenant with God then was not a literal happening, but a figurative one. The covenant could have happened in a vision, which can be taken to be both symbolic and literal. If it was a vision (and there are decent hints that it was) then, again, there is no difference between the first covenant's relay and the second covenant's relay.

So again I ask: what is the worth of the distinction? What do you believe it would change?
User avatar #52980 - cleverguy (02/27/2014) [-]
if there was human interpretation in the first covenant then it may very well be bunk as well. if we're talking about the word of God here, there is no room for human interpretation. that's why the point that the scriptures are the word of God is so important, because you can't add and subtract to your whimsy and basing belief systems on implications that you perceive and are not explicit is scary
User avatar #52987 - Cambro (02/27/2014) [-]
That's just false on its face. No one holds to those views but fundamentalists. The Word can be divinely inspired and still have human writers and minds to it as well. Divine inspiration does not involve the Holy Spirit possessing a person and thus causing the person to write huge texts directly from the mouth of God but thro the human hand as an agent. It is much closer to its actual name: Divine inspiration. God can inspire the main breath of the message and the person may carry it out in their own tongue and thro their own cultural language so it can be understood. The Bible is undeniably an example of this case, what with it containing Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek not to mention all the cultural idioms that are involved in the texts. This is why many Christians have no problem taking the Genesis narrative to be a myth. It was a story and the story was told in an effective way to get to that people group.

Now there are still huge themes and symbols that scope over thousands of years of writers even when access to the texts was not always readily available. This is a sign that something other than just blind writing is going on in these holy texts because they are united in some spirit. This spirit is the divine inspiration.

And if you think what I'm saying is hogwash (mainly, that the Bible is divinely inspired but not itself divine), just look at 2 other religions as examples. Hinduism and Islam believe their texts are divine, set for all eternity in exactly the composition that they should be in. This why you cannot translate the Bagadavita or the Quran--the text is sacred and must remain untouched. There is no such view in Christianity and there never has been such a view in Christianity. Its an unfortunately straw man misconception that has been linked to Christianity that is false.
User avatar #53006 - cleverguy (02/28/2014) [-]
i dont mean humans writing down and translating text, i mean humans interpreting symbols and metaphors and turning them into real world truths that are not actually explicitly stated. it doesn't make sense to do that.
User avatar #53055 - Cambro (02/28/2014) [-]
But that's not the case in either covenant example. Furthermore, you're taking a very low view of symbols. Symbols can be the next best thing to explicitly saying something and some times are even better than that. I take this to be the case in the Bible. It is not as if symbols, just because they're symbols, can be interpreted in many different ways. Many symbols have one meaning and can only have one meaning in context. Again, I see no issue except that you're wishing to find something in the Bible that was never the Bible's purpose. You want a legal book or a book of theology spelling out everything God intended and why he did what he did. That's not what the biblical writers had in mind. They had in mind narrative structure thro literary devices relevant to their culture and religion. To desire any more of this out of the Bible is to take 21st century criteria and grade a 2000 year old book alongside it. This can't be done anymore than you can read Beowulf in a postmodern light and expect good results.
User avatar #53098 - cleverguy (02/28/2014) [-]
if you're going to use the bible like a legal book (laws, right?) then it's kinda reasonable to expect it to be more explicit. symbols can often be interpreted in many ways and for someone who always talks about objective knowledge i'm surprised you don't have a problem with basing your worldview off of subjective symbolism interpretations. and you also just spelled out why the bible isn't taken seriously by many people anymore, its contents do not age well, but if it was divinely inspired they probably should
User avatar #53129 - Cambro (03/01/2014) [-]
You're back to your assumptions again.

1. The Bible is not a legal book. There are some parts of the book that resemble legal documents (parts of Job, parts of Micah) and there are some that are lists of laws (parts of Exodus, Deut., Leviticus, and Numbers). In those cases things are very explicit as it pertains to laws. But outside of that, the Bible takes several different narrative forms. The Abrahamic covenant and the Noahidic covenant all take place in narrative form and are thus not legal terms. Because it is narrative, symbol is to be expected. Which leads to

2. words like "subjective" when applied to symbols, especially in the Bible, are misleading. It is not really, in many cases, that subjective. The areas that are particularly open to interpretation are known to be that way because of their openness. Such a case of this would be say, Revelation. But the symbols that occur in most rest of the Bible is very clear and very defined and thus distinct if not explicit. I do not see distinct being a lesser to explicit in anyway. To call someone bone-headed is a symbol, yet very easily understood. Further symbols beyond this basic level are still easily perceived with basic study of the texts. its much like translating a language. This idea of complete subjectiveness is hogwash brought on in post-modern era which has complete disregard of hermeneutics. Symbols, when studied in the context and scope of the scriptures, are objective in the sense that they can only be appropriately interpreted in a certain way.

3. Parts of the Bible's contents aged very well. We're still reading it today. Parts of it are full of idioms and cultural idioms. This just stands for deeper study, which has been done.

4. Why do you think something divinely inspired probably should age well? Perhaps you should give me a working definition of what diving inspired means and entails for future reference so you don't keep adding arbitrary tags to it. We can have a real discussion then.
User avatar #53444 - cleverguy (03/02/2014) [-]
1. then why use it like one?

2. its subjective enough to make me uncomfortable that people use it for the kinds of things it's used for

3. people are still reading beowulf too, but it's still in Middle English. it just seems relevant because it's one of the most alluded-to pieces of literature ever. and you said it yourself, you shouldn't grade a 2000 year old book against 21st century criteria. extending this, you shouldn't grade 21st century society against a 2000 year old book.

4. i think you just added this part to be condescending. it doesn't really matter what i think the definition is anyway because either one of our definitions is gonna have "arbitrary tags" because divine inspiration is so abstract. whatever i say you'll just define it differently to support your side, i dont even care anymore
User avatar #53446 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
It wasn't condescending and of course I would need to test your definition of what a divinely inspired work entails, but we can't have a discussion about how the Bible fails certain criteria if we don't have a working definition between us about what those criteria are.
User avatar #53447 - cleverguy (03/02/2014) [-]
you already defined it anyway
User avatar #53449 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
but you were critiquing it without giving your own standards. if you don't propose what divinely inspired works should look like v. my theory than we have nothing to go in discussion
User avatar #53450 - cleverguy (03/02/2014) [-]
i didnt critique your definition, the meaning of divine inspiration isn't even what i was trying to talk about, its not even relevant, this is just a red herring
User avatar #52912 - Cambro (02/26/2014) [-]
Its because there was plenty of talk about it before. The OT is littered with quips about how the old age will pass and a new age will come, how the old covenant would be thrown out for a new covenant of forgiveness. Heck, it is pretty implied in just the language we're using: OLD Testament (of the covenant) and NEW Testament (of the covenant). So in those regards, God did explicitly say to several different biblical figures that a new covenant was to be created. And it was created at Christ's death and resurrection. And then you have all the visions of the NT biblical figures who also affirm this new covenant. Its hardly as if God was mute on the subject.

Additionally, the affirmation of the first covenant and the affirmation of the 2nd covenant are incomparable in the regards we are discussing. Before Abraham there was nothing pointing to a God like the one we see in Judaism and Christianity, there is no language of a covenant, and there is no idea of God wanting to interact with mankind. It was absolutely necessary in Abraham's case for God to lay out who he was, what he was doing, and what the covenant entailed. By the time of the 2nd covenant thro Christ there were hundreds of years of prefacing the 2nd covenant and there wasn't as much work to do in terms of language and defining. In one instance it is necessary for God to be explicit, in the 2nd there is no such necessity because he already described it before the covenant came to fruition.
User avatar #52870 - Cambro (02/25/2014) [-]
It is made implicit in the NT. The change in the order was referenced thro visions to different people in the NT (Peter really comes to mind). Jesus' ministry was more about social reform and setting up a love ethics rather than a Law guided ethics. He wasn't really troubled with the idea of pushing who he was or any atonement theory about what he was doing until nearly just before his crucifixion, and even then he wasn't implicit about the metaphysical work he was doing. The idea, while not said flat out in legal terms (like the original covenant) nor in philosophical terms, is implied throughout at least Matthew and John. It could very well be in Mark and Luke, I just don't feel as familiar with them on a literary level to make an assertion about those two Gospels. The "heart of the law" v "the Law" dichotomy is extremely clear in Matthew, not to mention the tearing of the tabernacle which I mentioned above. I don't really see that God has to blatantly declare something for it to be true as necessary. After all, the Genesis account and the Gospel accounts are more worried about narrative than theology or anything of the like. The covenant, as stated to Abraham, fits the narrative. If it didn't fit the narrative perhaps no direct telling of the covenant would be present, but only hinted at through the OT. I just find the NT writings about the 2nd covenant outside of the Gospels and the 2nd covenant's obvious literary workings in the Gospel as authoritative and more than convincing.
User avatar #52248 - jokeface (02/21/2014) [-]
I admire how well-read and well-versed you are in this subject, Cambro. I've noticed this with a number of your comments. You're very thorough and professional about it. Respect.
User avatar #52165 - kanadetenshi (02/21/2014) [-]
Honest question, why do the ten commandments still apply if they where in the OT?
User avatar #52179 - Logicaltightrope (02/21/2014) [-]
Much of it is likely because Jesus mentioned these things in his own, NT teachings. For instance, Jesus also instructs us not to worship false idols, because this is an important concept in Christianity.
User avatar #52185 - kanadetenshi (02/21/2014) [-]
Ah thanks.
User avatar #52157 - cleverguy (02/21/2014) [-]
thats not the problem, the problem is that this contradicts that the old testament is still supposed to be the word of God and it is ambiguous how exactly jesus "fulfilled laws"
User avatar #52246 - jokeface (02/21/2014) [-]
The way Jesus fulfilled the laws was by living a perfect lifestyle and never sinning. That's made pretty clear. He was the pure spotless lamb who suffered and died even though He was the one man who actually didn't deserve it. By doing that, hell now had an innocent soul in it, and this reversed the debt that we owed. Now we can all be free of our deserved damnation.
#578 - Where's it going to be visible from? 02/20/2014 on /science/ board 0
#213 - That one bounty hunter behind Vader's left shoulder is most de… 02/20/2014 on The Galactic empire -2
#6 - I don't think you fully grasp how desperately I want to see th… 02/20/2014 on Jesus Cage +10
#10 - I don't care what anybody says, I wanna shake this guy's hand.… 02/20/2014 on (untitled) +2
#77 - Any 3 creatures, you say? Well then >Lydia from Skyrim,… 02/20/2014 on Choose 1. +1
#51981 - If God doesn't exist, how can this trilby have a cross on it? … 02/19/2014 on Religion Board +7
#3 - Or...OR...Luke says in Episode IV while wearing the stormtroop…  [+] (22 new replies) 02/17/2014 on A quality post +284
#163 - kokanum (02/18/2014) [-]
Someone pays attention to every line in Star Wars and uses it in an argument
You win the greatest prize of Star Wars
#151 - dannyfiveinlive (02/18/2014) [-]
Good job on remembering that, also for the clever comment!
#138 - hillbillypowpow (02/18/2014) [-]
Maybe it's because he was too short.
User avatar #105 - gigglesthegreat (02/17/2014) [-]
Well, he was a little short for a stormtrooper...
#81 - bann (02/17/2014) [-]
That's just silly. But then again, all the armor was a ridiculous concept if one shot was going to kill you anyways, they were just as safe naked.
#74 - crzycuban (02/17/2014) [-]
the size of the helmet was meant for the clones, not him
User avatar #40 - KINGOFTHESTARS (02/17/2014) [-]
that was unscripted.

idek if that was lukes helmet.


i blame the lack of accuracy to beon the fact that the empire was pumping out enlisted personnel who had probably not seen action....
but then again, the 501st was on the death star....so you are probably right
User avatar #172 - huntergriff (02/18/2014) [-]
The 501st wasn't on the death star at the time of the battle of Yavin...Vader took them off the station...
User avatar #173 - KINGOFTHESTARS (02/18/2014) [-]
wow!
i need a source.
i got my info from battlefront 2.
User avatar #175 - huntergriff (02/18/2014) [-]
That is from Battlefront 2. Right after the death star riot mission, the clone nentions that they took the 501st off of the station.
User avatar #176 - KINGOFTHESTARS (02/18/2014) [-]
interesting.
User avatar #177 - huntergriff (02/18/2014) [-]
Also, they show up at the battle of hoth.
#174 - huntergriff has deleted their comment.
#8 - iheartjackiechan (02/17/2014) [-]
That line was unscripted, it was the actor saying he couldn't see, not Luke
#147 - anonymous (02/18/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 9,457**

I think that the fact that the actor couldn't see just emphasizes how the Sormtroopers really can't see.
#149 - iheartjackiechan (02/18/2014) [-]
It was a movie prop, the "real" helmets probably had some sort of HUD.
User avatar #116 - infamoustrapper (02/18/2014) [-]
that's fucking stupid
#117 - iheartjackiechan (02/18/2014) [-]
What is stupid, that it was an unscripted line?
User avatar #119 - infamoustrapper (02/18/2014) [-]
An improved line doesn't suddenly not make it canon....it was said. That's like saying all lines aren't canon because someone wrote them and weren't actually said by the real Luke Skywalker.
#128 - iheartjackiechan (02/18/2014) [-]
OK, you clearly know better, how what were his lines there?
User avatar #5 - sptnfouroneseven (02/17/2014) [-]
Luke wasn't used to the helmet, firing a blaster, or anything of the sort. Leonidas was most likely exhausted, nervous, sweating, and a multitude of other factors that play into why he pulled off his helmet to throw that final spear.
User avatar #9 - ScottP (02/17/2014) [-]
His helmet was stifling, it narrowed his vision. And he must see far. His shield was heavy. It threw him off balance. And his target is far away.
#51763 - Yea I feel the same way, pretty much. 02/17/2014 on Religion Board 0
#51761 - Harmful or destructive treatment of the Bible is not a sin. It…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #51769 - Rei (02/17/2014) [-]
Christians even have given out multiple copies of bibles to people because the pages make "good rolling paper" for smokes/joints. Of course with the condition they read some of it.
User avatar #51762 - bible (02/17/2014) [-]
I want to make a funny response, but really, that picture is just a god way to make an ass out of yourself in my eyes.
User avatar #51763 - jokeface (02/17/2014) [-]
Yea I feel the same way, pretty much.
#82 - Picture 02/17/2014 on Pizza +2
#22 - I've long dreamed of doing this. Have both arrive at the same …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/16/2014 on Pizza 0
#68 - anonymous (02/17/2014) [-]
Your dream sucks, and you should feel bad.
#82 - jokeface (02/17/2014) [-]
#43 - I never got bullied for it but there was this one moment when … 02/16/2014 on Lesbian Feels +12
#30 - The music is really what sells it, in my opinion. 02/14/2014 on viagra +1
#370 - Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm co…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/14/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#371 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
I will have to agree with disagreement. Even to me, who is not interested in answering those question, is clear that those are the most important ones for human kind. Individually, I might seek other answers or knowledge, but I still wouldn't deny the importance of something like this.

Take it as you like, and have a good night, sir.
#368 - I wasn't talking about the history of humans. I was talking ab…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/14/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#369 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
"The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be." Allow me to repeat, I did go on to some other issues tho.

But when you think about it, it really is all connected to the history of mankind, it is the very making of mankind. I mean, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be no mankind and of course it is important, it's one of the most important questions we will ever deal with. How and why?

The knowledge itself changes the viewpoints.
User avatar #370 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, "how and why" is quite literally the most insignificant question there is, because, as I've been saying, answering it solves nothing.
#371 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
I will have to agree with disagreement. Even to me, who is not interested in answering those question, is clear that those are the most important ones for human kind. Individually, I might seek other answers or knowledge, but I still wouldn't deny the importance of something like this.

Take it as you like, and have a good night, sir.
#364 - Well if you want to elaborate on that, I'm all ears.  [+] (5 new replies) 02/14/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#367 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
Look at the current time. The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be. If there were no history books, I'd be much more willingly believe in Goddidit. What else would there be? As far as I would've been concerned, Earth is 20-ish year old and my parents just came out of thin air.

Crusades, holocaust? The hell are those? They sound lovely, should we do that again? It could be fun... But you know, fuck history, we don't need that, like we could repeat the same mistakes twice?

Need more elaboration for importance of history and understanding of our past?
User avatar #368 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't talking about the history of humans. I was talking about what existed before humans. Yes, it's important to learn about the Crusades and the Holocaust and all that, but those things would be the same whether we evolved or not. That's what I'm trying to say. Everything that humanity has done, everything we've experienced, it's all set in stone, and proving evolution right or wrong will not change the circumstances that we have to deal with. The economy will still be in the shitter, healthcare will still be awful, gay people will still be fighting for rights, and the government will have to deal with all of it the exact same way regardless of what science says about where we came from.
#369 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
"The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be." Allow me to repeat, I did go on to some other issues tho.

But when you think about it, it really is all connected to the history of mankind, it is the very making of mankind. I mean, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be no mankind and of course it is important, it's one of the most important questions we will ever deal with. How and why?

The knowledge itself changes the viewpoints.
User avatar #370 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, "how and why" is quite literally the most insignificant question there is, because, as I've been saying, answering it solves nothing.
#371 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
I will have to agree with disagreement. Even to me, who is not interested in answering those question, is clear that those are the most important ones for human kind. Individually, I might seek other answers or knowledge, but I still wouldn't deny the importance of something like this.

Take it as you like, and have a good night, sir.
#321 - Hey if people want to study our past and try to gain insight i…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#363 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
Would it really?

"it's not going to change where we are today, and what we're dealing with now."

Somehow I do not think this is true...
User avatar #364 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Well if you want to elaborate on that, I'm all ears.
#367 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
Look at the current time. The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be. If there were no history books, I'd be much more willingly believe in Goddidit. What else would there be? As far as I would've been concerned, Earth is 20-ish year old and my parents just came out of thin air.

Crusades, holocaust? The hell are those? They sound lovely, should we do that again? It could be fun... But you know, fuck history, we don't need that, like we could repeat the same mistakes twice?

Need more elaboration for importance of history and understanding of our past?
User avatar #368 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't talking about the history of humans. I was talking about what existed before humans. Yes, it's important to learn about the Crusades and the Holocaust and all that, but those things would be the same whether we evolved or not. That's what I'm trying to say. Everything that humanity has done, everything we've experienced, it's all set in stone, and proving evolution right or wrong will not change the circumstances that we have to deal with. The economy will still be in the shitter, healthcare will still be awful, gay people will still be fighting for rights, and the government will have to deal with all of it the exact same way regardless of what science says about where we came from.
#369 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
"The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be." Allow me to repeat, I did go on to some other issues tho.

But when you think about it, it really is all connected to the history of mankind, it is the very making of mankind. I mean, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be no mankind and of course it is important, it's one of the most important questions we will ever deal with. How and why?

The knowledge itself changes the viewpoints.
User avatar #370 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, "how and why" is quite literally the most insignificant question there is, because, as I've been saying, answering it solves nothing.
#371 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
I will have to agree with disagreement. Even to me, who is not interested in answering those question, is clear that those are the most important ones for human kind. Individually, I might seek other answers or knowledge, but I still wouldn't deny the importance of something like this.

Take it as you like, and have a good night, sir.
#319 - I'm talking about within America. Suppose Obama decided one da… 02/13/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#32 - I'm sure it's maiden voyage will specifically be scheduled for… 02/13/2014 on WTF Fun Fun Facts Comp Vol.... +2
#28 - What difference does it make whether it was evolution or a tal…  [+] (18 new replies) 02/13/2014 on Straight from the horses mouth 0
#113 - testaburger has deleted their comment.
User avatar #46 - wolviewolverine (02/13/2014) [-]
It means he's fucking nuts and he will make nutty decisions.
Are you completely retarded, son?
#42 - Blasphemer (02/13/2014) [-]
If you believe in "Goddidit", you do not search for answers to the secrets of our existance because Goddidit. And who knows upon what we might stumble on in our search? And when important people just say Goddidit, well, kids (i refer to adults here) pick it up...
User avatar #321 - jokeface (02/13/2014) [-]
Hey if people want to study our past and try to gain insight into our origins, I'm all for it. But my point is that whatever they find, it's not going to change where we are today, and what we're dealing with now. Everything about our present situation would stay the same whether we proved evolution is real or not.
#363 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
Would it really?

"it's not going to change where we are today, and what we're dealing with now."

Somehow I do not think this is true...
User avatar #364 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Well if you want to elaborate on that, I'm all ears.
#367 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
Look at the current time. The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be. If there were no history books, I'd be much more willingly believe in Goddidit. What else would there be? As far as I would've been concerned, Earth is 20-ish year old and my parents just came out of thin air.

Crusades, holocaust? The hell are those? They sound lovely, should we do that again? It could be fun... But you know, fuck history, we don't need that, like we could repeat the same mistakes twice?

Need more elaboration for importance of history and understanding of our past?
User avatar #368 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't talking about the history of humans. I was talking about what existed before humans. Yes, it's important to learn about the Crusades and the Holocaust and all that, but those things would be the same whether we evolved or not. That's what I'm trying to say. Everything that humanity has done, everything we've experienced, it's all set in stone, and proving evolution right or wrong will not change the circumstances that we have to deal with. The economy will still be in the shitter, healthcare will still be awful, gay people will still be fighting for rights, and the government will have to deal with all of it the exact same way regardless of what science says about where we came from.
#369 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
"The very discovery of evolution, dinosaurs, cultures existing in ancient time... It's the very reason people are not as religious as they could be." Allow me to repeat, I did go on to some other issues tho.

But when you think about it, it really is all connected to the history of mankind, it is the very making of mankind. I mean, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be no mankind and of course it is important, it's one of the most important questions we will ever deal with. How and why?

The knowledge itself changes the viewpoints.
User avatar #370 - jokeface (02/14/2014) [-]
Okay we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, "how and why" is quite literally the most insignificant question there is, because, as I've been saying, answering it solves nothing.
#371 - Blasphemer (02/14/2014) [-]
I will have to agree with disagreement. Even to me, who is not interested in answering those question, is clear that those are the most important ones for human kind. Individually, I might seek other answers or knowledge, but I still wouldn't deny the importance of something like this.

Take it as you like, and have a good night, sir.
User avatar #40 - Einsty (02/13/2014) [-]
Think about this:

The core of the problem lies in the attitude of people towards information in general.

Theory of evolution may seem far fetched, but enough material evidence has been gathered to support it as whole. These include fossil records and extensive DNA research.
Theory of creation is based upon believing for the sake of belief. Material evidence on creation does not oppose theory of evolution and does not support creation theory in full extent. It is based upon written word, that has been translated multiple times over, has been subject to censorship, and before all that has been passed on verbaly trough generations.

To believe in creationism, a person does not require proper evidence and what is most important, creationists do not allow disproving their theory trough proper scientific method (theory-experiment-outcome-reproductability of results). Whereas if evidence disproving evolution was found, it would be disproven and books rewritten.

Now, such a person is highly susceptible to propaganda. If they are told it is true, they will believe it and never reconsider it, because then they would betray their belief (been there, done that, slowly recovering).
Such people are content to live without answers to questions, replacing those with tales that themselves say they are true (No other source comparable to bible cites the existence of God, or the proces of creation for that matter).
Such people will not innovate, will not improve technology and because their mindset is such, they will be hostile towards those who do. This mindset excludes everyone with different opinion form their communities, making it more difficult for children to embrace science and technology. Which in turn means less engineers and scientists, making technological base of the world narrower, slower and less potent.

...
User avatar #63 - wolviewolverine (02/13/2014) [-]
No other source comparable to bible cites the existence of God, or the proces of creation for that matter..

I can point you to at least 3 different written texts far older than Bible of any version and explaining the origin of Earth through most amusing ways.
User avatar #83 - Einsty (02/13/2014) [-]
Please do, If they match, I may consider it a valid theory.
User avatar #44 - Einsty (02/13/2014) [-]
cont.

Analogy break:
The best singers will come from the countries with most singers. A place that does not like singing because their handbook states that only recitation is a proper art is doomed to not have good singers.

Back to the rant:
People who believe in creation are strongly religious people. Religion (cristianity, but applies to all) offers explanations for things people could not fathom. This makes people calm, because they think they know the answers. People like to be calm, and if someone were to say they are wrong, they would not listen to or silence that person. (Earth was said to be flat, Sun was said to revolve around Earth, infection was said to be the work of the Devil... People were burned alive for saying these were not true, while these were not true.)

To be blunt and to the point:
Creationists are blockheads. They will never back away from the thing they deem correct despite having no evidence and despite knowing they cannot have such evidence, and requiring others to accept their "truth".
They lack objective critical thinking.

People supporting evolution may also include blockheads, but mostly they rely on factual knowledge from multiple independant sources.


A theory can be proven only if all of its aspects are proven to be true. The theory is disproven as a whole if only one of its aspects is disproven.
#64 - wolviewolverine (02/13/2014) [-]
This image has expired
In short you are an advocate of the psychological origin of religiousness.

Btw I too have went all around the question of religion and have ended up concluding it is exactly the need to put some frame on the huge amounts of information and interractions to have a 'clear' mind. And Religion provides such a ready made frame, that is easier to comprehend, even to a child, with no evidence needed.
That's why the notion of atheist feeling intellectually superior arouse since it really does take more effort to understand and put yourself into a dynamic frame of scientific present, rather than a static thinking frame of religion. (Personally I doubt that many atheists actually intellecually strain themselves to support their position and similar to religious people, have simply accepted atheism as an intuitive choice).

In short - I think you are right and religion indeed is just a figament of our imagination to put our thinking in a certain frame. And since we don't really touch upon the religion subject in most everyday occurances, it becomes an obstacle where very specific questions are met (stem cells, abortions, gays to state the obvious) where we can't with certainty say if an answer leaning this or that way would be better.

Bible is like an early attempt of a motivational self-help book. Nowadays I'd rather choose R.Branson's or Schwarzeneggers ideas and books (were they more complete) for my life guidelines rather than a Bible.
#39 - anonymous (02/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, religion doesn't really affect law making and how things are run. Just look at Sharia law.
User avatar #319 - jokeface (02/13/2014) [-]
I'm talking about within America. Suppose Obama decided one day that he was exclusively and wholeheartedly a Baptist Christian. That wouldn't change his ability to run the country. We wouldn't suddenly impeach him over it. It would just cause him to slight shift his stance on a few issues.
#7 - I'm Christian and I don't feel like he's pissing us off. Unles… 02/11/2014 on Merrier?! I barely know her +5
#6 - Apparently it's a growing trend. Some studies suggest premarit…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/11/2014 on Merrier?! I barely know her +11
#8 - anonymous (02/11/2014) [-]
the increasing number of divorces could point to that being a lie, although I'm 17 and don't know shit.
User avatar #22 - bronybox (02/12/2014) [-]
correlation does not equal causation
User avatar #12 - baltre (02/11/2014) [-]
The increased number of divorses probably has something to do with the fact that women have jobs, and are able to live alone for them self. Back in the olden days women were mostly home and cooking and shit, so they couldn't afford to live by themself.

And that divorses are becoming more socially acceptable
#12 - I don't understand your math-speak and that makes me scared and angry. 02/11/2014 on Ayy lmao +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2050

Comments(562):

[ 562 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#573 to #572 - jokeface (09/02/2014) [-]
A shiny!

I shall cherish this gift forever.
#574 to #573 - tridaak (09/02/2014) [-]
Hey
Hey
User avatar #575 to #574 - jokeface (09/02/2014) [-]
Hey
User avatar #552 - justsomechickyo (06/13/2014) [-]
yo! soooo umm I know this is really random, but what are some good verus for like hope and paitence? idk it's a long story but i'm way stressed and I know you usually have some pretty insightful ideas......thanks!
User avatar #553 to #552 - jokeface (06/13/2014) [-]
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." - James 1:12

"but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint." - Isaiah 40:31

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ." - II Corinthians 1:3-5

"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." - Romans 15:4

"And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you." - I Peter 5:10
User avatar #554 to #553 - jokeface (06/13/2014) [-]
I could find more if you want me to.
User avatar #555 to #554 - justsomechickyo (06/14/2014) [-]
Naw this is great! Thanks so much!
User avatar #556 to #555 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
No problem, happy to be of assistance. May I ask what's troubling you, that you found yourself needing reassurance?
User avatar #557 to #556 - justsomechickyo (06/14/2014) [-]
Well my bf went to jail yesterday and I'm really bummed out about it......I waited for him while he was in prison for a long time and he's only out for r a moth then this happened......now idk wat will happen w/ him or us
User avatar #558 to #557 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
Damn. That's rough. I'm sorry that happened, and I'll certainly pray for both of you. You know, it's my firm belief that God doesn't allow bad things to happen in the world without opening doors for good things to come from them. It's definite;y distressing that this happened, but at the same time, think of it as an opportunity to grow in your strength and faithfulness. When you put your trust in Christ, He provides comfort, and He will stand by you in times of great pain. And the pain will pass. It, like everything else on Earth, is finite. But the love and grace of God is eternal. Let Him guide you through this trial, and I guarantee you'll come out stronger on the other side.
User avatar #559 to #558 - justsomechickyo (06/14/2014) [-]
Thank you so much! Ya I know it will pass and I'm trying to stay strong but it's tough......I should really be focused on myself right now anyways.....I'm trying to get sober and that's enough of a challenge in itself. I know God is here for me and I will get through this all w/ him by my side
User avatar #560 to #559 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
Here, this song might bring you some comfort/support:

Sidewalk Prophets - "The Words I Would Say" with Lyrics
User avatar #550 - thebritishguy (02/02/2014) [-]
Do you know any good theist youtubers?
User avatar #561 to #550 - jokeface (07/17/2014) [-]
Update: I've been on Youtube a lot more than I used to be and I know a few more of the big names on there now. John Green is one of my favorites, and he's a Christian. But he's very soft-spoken about it and keeps his videos very impartial. Here's one of the only videos where he talks about religion:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXlI8Wn8J3Q
User avatar #563 to #561 - thebritishguy (07/18/2014) [-]
I met this born again rapper at college, he's not a bad rapper, although he rejects reason in favour of faith by his own volition.
soundcloud.com/panterforever
User avatar #565 to #563 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
What sort of reason does he reject?
User avatar #567 to #565 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
Just the principles in philosophy like logic, he says that if people study philosophy, science and reason then they will turn away from God. So you must fear reason and logic as God is illogical and unreasonable. It's strange how much I agreed with him. I was dumbfounded.
User avatar #569 to #567 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
Yea see, that's where I draw the line. I don't believe that reason and faith automatically have to oppose each other. I believe that sometimes they do, but I don't think it's always the case. As I've said before, most science I find very reliable and even necessary to human existence. Without science we wouldn't have most medicines and technology that allows us to live our everyday lives. The Christians who reject all science give us a bad name. They don't realize that they are the product of science. Maybe not physiologically, but psychologically, they grew up in a world that was shaped by it. They depend on it even without realizing it.
User avatar #570 to #569 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
I just held up my phone and said
"This was built on the basis of scientific principles and theories, if science has no value and is innacurate, if the theories are just guesses and the scientists were deluded, it should not work"
Then I turned it on, at that point though he just caved in and said he was not interested in debating and whatever I say will not change his mind, so there was no point in it.

I think it's because a lot of people think it is either science or God when this is of course not the case. I consider faith to be apart from reason though because it is elementary that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar #571 to #570 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
And you have every right to feel that way. I completely understand that mindset.
User avatar #562 to #561 - thebritishguy (07/18/2014) [-]
He's incredibly vague, he never really answered the question
User avatar #564 to #562 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
Agreed, but he does that intentionally. As he said, the way people handle religion on the internet is very sloppy, and my guess is he feels that if he expressed his religious views outwardly, he would appear narrow-minded and bigoted, and he is very much NOT that. In fact, I've only ever heard him admit to being a Christian once, maybe twice, in all of his videos that I've seen. He doesn't ever say anything preachy, ever, and he doesn't let his faith define his character. So really, it wouldn't matter what his beliefs were, he'd still be the same person.
User avatar #566 to #564 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
I'll check out more of his videos tommorow. It doesn't seem like he is taking a cut throat rationalist aproach though but more of an emotional appeal.
User avatar #568 to #566 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
That's what I thought too, and I don't like when people do that, but I understand why they do it. And considering that so many of his videos are educational, and the fact that he and his brother also host a second channel specifically for academic learning (called CrashCourse in case you're interested), it makes sense that he's trying to reach as many people as possible, and quite frankly, he doesn't actually need to have a particular religious stance in order to be that kind of YouTuber.
User avatar #551 to #550 - jokeface (02/03/2014) [-]
I don't really know any Youtubers, let alone theist ones. The only one I really like is TomSka, and I don't know what he believes.
User avatar #548 - thebritishguy (01/04/2014) [-]
I don't know what this means
"'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:22-32).

So what actually is this unforgivable sin please?
#546 - snood (12/20/2013) [-]
Hey i just read a lot of your comments about Christianity. You're one of the good ones on here, at least from what i saw. Keep it up.
User avatar #547 to #546 - jokeface (12/20/2013) [-]
Thank you. I try to be good.
#541 - thebritishguy (07/22/2013) [-]
What do you think about Zimmerman? I think he was innocent, he just pulled a family out of a burning SUV!
User avatar #542 to #541 - jokeface (07/22/2013) [-]
I have mixed feelings about Zimmerman. On the one hand I don't support killing people, even in self defense. But on the other hand, I believe his testimony and understand why he shot the kid. If it had been me, and I was being attacked, I might have shot him, but not fatally. I would have tried to shoot his leg or something to just injure him so that I could gain control of the situation. But ultimately, from a legal standpoint and not a religious one, I consider him innocent.
#543 to #542 - thebritishguy (07/23/2013) [-]
From what the evidence shows I would have shot him but many people doubt the evidence. The way the media portrayed him was really silly I thought, he had several reasons why he was suspicious of Trayvon, it was raining and he was wandering around leisurely staring at houses, there were recent break ins in the area and the particular house Treyvon was looking at had been left unlocked on previous occasions. Yet the media insists that race is the sole reason Zimmerman not only was suspicious of Trayvon, but even why he shot him.
User avatar #544 to #543 - jokeface (07/23/2013) [-]
Yea I really don't think race had anything to do with it.
#537 - anonymous (06/09/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6wWQgGTAlk
is this you? I assume you made that slinky video so therefore this guy would have to be you
User avatar #538 to #537 - jokeface (06/09/2013) [-]
I didn't make the slinky video, I just found it and thought it was cool. And no, that's not me. Number one I don't have access to giant shellfish, and number two I wouldn't be caught dead without my trilby hat.
User avatar #535 - josieabby (04/13/2013) [-]
I just wanted you to know that your "Thrift Shop" thread with taxation was one of the most epic things I've ever seen. I put the song on so I could sing your lyrics over it. I'm gonna have a perma-grin for at least a week!
User avatar #536 to #535 - jokeface (04/13/2013) [-]
Haha, thank you. I'm glad you liked it. I just wish we could have done the entire song. But I ran out of ideas lol.
#502 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
what do you think about atheist church's? there's one in England they just give science lectures, sing pop songs and comedians come on. I'd love to go
User avatar #503 to #502 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Sounds awesome. Of course, I wouldn't agree with them denouncing the belief in God, but other than that it sounds like it'd be fun. Why do they call it a church though?
User avatar #504 to #503 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
I think it is just that there aren't really any other names for that sort of thing
The word church originally just meant a meeting place but I get what you mean
#496 - necessary **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #497 to #496 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
She was supposed to come up a few weeks ago but she never did. And I finally got fed up with not being able to see her, and so I put our relationship on hold until she comes up here. I'd go down to see her myself but I live on my own now and have a bunch of expenses that prevent me from being able to.
#498 to #497 - necessary **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #499 to #498 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Yea.
#473 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
Are you worried about North Korea?
User avatar #479 to #473 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Lmao, north korea is not a threat.
User avatar #482 to #479 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
well China and Russia are and they have relations also the citizens of North Korea will be screwed
User avatar #483 to #482 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Yes they do, but I've told you. If north korea attacks us, they lose support, and if such an event happened. They'd turn into a nuclear crater.
User avatar #484 to #483 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
I suppose, it's still sad for all the poor North Koreans
User avatar #485 to #484 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Oh well.

User avatar #474 to #473 - jokeface (03/17/2013) [-]
Define "worried".
#475 to #474 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
uuum like scared that world war 3 will begin or the civilians of North Korea will be nuked like Hiroshima , they have connections with Russia and China and have the fourth biggest military, Kim Jong Un told his troops to prepare for war and they always do nuclear weapon testing. On the other hand South Korea thinks they are just trying to get attention and trying to look big.
User avatar #476 to #475 - jokeface (03/17/2013) [-]
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. - Matthew 24:6-7

I'm a little nervous of how it might affect people on a personal level, yes. But I know it's coming and I've accepted that fact, because as Jesus said, the end is not yet.
User avatar #480 to #476 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Lmao, taking the bible seriously.

Gee, Jaime, you get into unusual stuff.
User avatar #486 to #480 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
I'm afraid I don't get that reference.
User avatar #487 to #486 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
You're Christian/Catholic/Whatever.

Laughable. Possibly..
User avatar #489 to #487 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Why is it laughable? Or, to be more specific, why am I more laughable than other Christians?
User avatar #490 to #489 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
I find all Christians laughable on an equal level.

However, evolutionary theists have a special place in my colon.
User avatar #491 to #490 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
And why is that?
User avatar #492 to #491 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
They're naturally trained to ******** their way through an argument.

No matter what you say, it somehow fits in with science, or it's metaphorical, just...something to at the very least neutralize the argument given to them.
User avatar #477 to #476 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
hmmm this supports my psycho analysis of the God delusion.
"When people make decisions they use their Ego to decide what to do, the ego is where morality comes from and is sometimes called the "soul" according to Frued. When people base their morality and decisions based on what they think a God says the God becomes the ego. This is supported by the fact people ignore/highlight certain verses and lessons if they agree/disagree with them rather than getting a true perspective of the characters to keep the character as their ego rather than having to separate God from ego. It is also supported by people using words like "reject" and why religious people are so protective of their Gods and are personally insulted when people criticise their Gods. Also the emotions they feel when some theists talk to atheists are similar to those of rejection, when an atheist doesn't believe in God they are not rejecting the proposed God and yet they use that word, it seems to me that they use the word reject because they feel they are being rejected"
User avatar #478 to #477 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Quite insightful. However allow me to make a few counterarguments.

From the perspective of someone who believes God exists as described in the Bible, consider that such a being would indeed have dominion over morality and, yes, even the ego of those who choose to submit to Him. That being said, can you really blame us for it?

As for your point about verses, understand that I don't ignore any of the Bible. At most, I don't apply the laws that Jesus and Paul said are no longer relevant. It's like studying slavery. We don't have slaves anymore, but that doesn't stop us from learning about the slavery that existed years and years ago. In the same way, some parts of the Bible, such as Mosaic Law, are now obsolete, but that doesn't stop us from learning about it.

Lastly, I don't think that's entirely why theists react the way they do to atheists. Because that would imply that theists view atheists as the "popular kids" and they feel excluded from them. Such is not the case. I mean, that might be said for some people, but speaking for myself and many others, being a theist among atheists is more like being in a special club with amazing benefits, and you can invite as many people as you want, but nobody else wants to join. And it hurts, yes, but not because we feel rejected; Rather, we're simply disappointed that no one else wants to share in our joy.
#481 to #478 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
so then why would God make the morality so different? all of our morals are different and change over time, if I was born in the 60's I would probably have different morals than I do now, if I was born in Afghanistan I would have different morals, therefore morality must be something we learn to an extent (we all share common morals like murder, lying and stealing is wrong) rather than God given and also this would intrude on free will. When you think of God I'm sure you don't think about when he ordered the deaths of millions of people or the time he sent bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy but you pay attention to all the nice verses or like how you ignore the part in the bible were Jesus said to give away all your money or that for some odd reason God dislikes ordinary things that you probably do every day.
I'm not implying theists desperately want atheists to like them I'm saying that when I say "God is a dictator" people start saying I personally attacked them when I didn't
User avatar #488 to #481 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
What you say about common morals is true, and those are the ones which I believe God instills in us. But it's not an intrusion on free will because the morality God gives us is just instinct, and we have the freedom to either give in or resist that instinct. And I do think about everything in the Bible (or at least, everything I can remember, since I haven't been able to memorize all of it). I know God did some crazy **** in the past, but that doesn't take away from the importance of His words now. We don't ignore any of it. Or at least, the Christians I know don't ignore any of it. I'm sure there are some who do but I don't condone it. God gave us the entire Bible so that we could learn from the entire Bible.
User avatar #493 to #488 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
I would have thought your morals would have come from the bible as you don't think sex before marriage is good for instance. Well I have never heard about all the horrible and contradictory things in the bible at Sunday school or in church I only heard about the nice (well they cartooned it to make it seem nice) stuff and how God was great. Never heard about the rape, incest, slavery, stoning, homophobia, sexism etc. until I became and atheist. do you know how the bible was written?
User avatar #494 to #493 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Some of it. I know the first five books (called the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. I don't remember who write the rest of the Old Testament. The Four Gospels were written by their namesakes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Apostle. Acts was written by Luke, and Paul wrote the 21 Epistles. And Revelation was written by John the Apostle. It was completed almost 150 years after Jesus' death (about AD 150).
User avatar #495 to #494 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
They are the scriptures. The first Christians needed a book to read to their people so they all met up and have a long conversation about which books to add and which ones to exclude based on what they wanted to teach. The first Christians already burnt a few scriptures which are amusing (there was one were Jesus tamed dragons) but they complied them together and then gave them to really good authors to edit so that they all fit together. there's a documentary on it
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI
User avatar #463 - ragnarfag (03/14/2013) [-]
It seems Thebritishguy is quite intrusive on your profil, would you consider as him a friend or as more of a rivle?
User avatar #465 to #463 - jokeface (03/15/2013) [-]
He is what I call a "lost one". I feel no enmity toward him, but rather sadness at his adamant stance against the faith. However, he seems intelligent and his debate style is intellectually stimulating, so I imagine he would be fun to talk to about other issues, even if we disagree on those as well.
#464 to #463 - anonymous (03/15/2013) [-]
thebritishguy is a troll
User avatar #466 to #464 - jokeface (03/15/2013) [-]
Why would an anon come to my page? I suspect you are Thebritishguy, having been summoned by the calling of your name, and you replied to it as an anon. If that is the case, your "trolling" efforts are uninspiring.
User avatar #468 to #466 - thebritishguy (03/15/2013) [-]
I'm not sure how to prove that he is not me but...he's not me
#469 to #468 - anonymous (03/15/2013) [-]
what are you talking about? you're definitely me
User avatar #470 to #469 - thebritishguy (03/15/2013) [-]
if you were me why would you reply to my comment, unless it was me and this was a double bluff, but if it was a double bluff I would not mention it is a double bluff because I'd want you to fall for it
#471 to #470 - anonymous (03/16/2013) [-]
lol jk. it really is me, thebritishguy. i'd like to admit that i'm only an atheist because i was molested
User avatar #472 to #471 - thebritishguy (03/16/2013) [-]
see it's not me...unless this was a triple bluff FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
#467 to #466 - anonymous (03/15/2013) [-]
man, you got me all figured out...
User avatar #427 - thebritishguy (03/11/2013) [-]
I am more moral than God, I believe no one deserves to be burnt alive for eternity, slavery is wrong, we should all be treated equal, witches don't...wait witches don't even exist, I'm not homophobic , I am against genocide, I don't demand constant worship, I don't threaten people so they agree with me. Surely you are also more moral than God?
User avatar #532 to #427 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
To say God is anything less than perfect is to say that He doesn't meet the "proper" standards of decency. And if that's the case, then I have to ask, who has set the proper standards? Certainly no human. We're all flawed. So who are we to decide what's right or wrong? God is without flaw because there is no one to set standards for Him. Therefore only He can set standards, and if He is the standard, then anyone who doesn't match Him is wrong. Ergo, He is perfect.
#533 to #532 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
God is perfect?
User avatar #534 to #533 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
God is above the laws He sets for humanity. He is not bound to follow them, and even so, they can't really be applied to His actions for certain reasons.

Godly wrath is not the same as the sinful wrath, because He has every right to bring judgment upon us. As I said, He's perfect, so his wrath is justified, whereas ours is hypocritical.

The reason He doesn't want us to worship other gods is because He knows they are not real and therefore our worship of them is wasteful, as well as disrespectful to Him, the one true God whom we should be worshiping.

God was never idle, except for on the last day of the week of Creation, and it wasn't because He was tired or lazy, it was because He was setting a model for all of humanity to live by.

People do not hunger because God deprives them, but because we do. As agents of Christ we are called to help our fellow man, and if people starve because we fail to feed them, that's on us, not God. It's one of the duties we accepted when we chose to fall away from Him.

Once again, being perfect, He has every right to advertise Himself as such and demand people to worship. When He condemns humans for being prideful it's because we don't have anything to be proud of by His standards. Maybe by our own, but since we're not the standard, our own self-satisfaction doesn't count as praise-worthy.

God commands us to give to the poor and needy, not to Him. That is not greed.

He is not lustful, either. Lust would mean He gets sexually aroused, which He doesn't. I think whoever made this list just got to lust and couldn't think of anything so they just threw that one in their without much thought.
User avatar #430 to #427 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
God never condoned slavery, "witches" in the Bible are referring to people like Wiccans and others who practice magic (that is, magic that is taken seriously, not magic tricks), God doesn't fear anyone or anything so He cannot be homophobic, and frankly it doesn't matter what your personal opinions are because just because you disagree doesn't make you right. God's word is infallible and His doctrines are perfect. No human can ever be more moral than God. Hell, no human can ever be as moral as God.
#431 to #430 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
The bible never says anything about it not being real which is kind of ******* important seeing as millions of innocent people were killed because they were "witches". You know that homophobic doesn't mean scared lol it means you hate gay people. If you think it is perfect then go burn a witch! oh no wait you aren't going to do that you are going to ignore it like all the rest of the bible, if you thought it was perfect you would live by it, you would sell your computer and give the money to charity like Jesus said.
User avatar #539 to #431 - teoberry (07/11/2013) [-]
Homophobic

Phobic - one who has a fear of something (adjc. of phobia)

Phobia - a fear of something

Jeez British, lrn2english
User avatar #540 to #539 - thebritishguy (07/11/2013) [-]
faggot
noun [C usually plural] (WOOD) (US also fagot)
/ˈfæɡ.ət/ old-fashioned
Definition
› sticks of wood, tied together and used as fuel for a fire

hmmm I guess when people say faggot on the internet they are talking about bundles of sticks.
You know as well as I do that homophobes aren't simply terryfied of gay people, it also means if they have contempt towards homosexuals, particularly in this culture.
User avatar #432 to #431 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Obviously it can't be talking about real witches since humans can't do magic unless God gives them powers, and the only people He gave powers to were the Disciples.

And God doesn't hate gay people, He loves everyone.

And we're not ignoring the Bible, in fact, paying closer attention to it is exactly why we don't follow Mosaic Law. Because Jesus and Paul both clarified that it wasn't required after the Crucifixion.
User avatar #433 to #432 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
Jesus also said to sell everything and give it to the poor and a rich man can't get into heaven. the question is whether God is a moral person, he said homosexual acts are an abomination and you should kill them. If the writers of the bible didn't believe in witches why the **** didn't they say they didn't exist and it wasn't real? instead they had loads of rules on witchcraft, it's not like there was a word limit. don't be the interpreter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s
User avatar #458 to #433 - jokeface (03/13/2013) [-]
God didn't adopt the attitudes of men, men adopted the attitudes of God.

And it doesn't matter if God is benevolent or not, because it doesn't change the way the system works. We worship Jesus so we can go to heaven, or else we go to hell. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not God appeals to your personal preferences.

And yes, I know you don't believe in Him anyway, but for the sake of argument, let's say God revealed Himself to everyone, to the point where He could not be denied by anyone, and He confirmed to us that everything in the Bible is an accurate depiction of both Him and the afterlife. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would accept eternity in hell just because God doesn't base all His decisions around what you think they should be?
User avatar #461 to #458 - thebritishguy (03/13/2013) [-]
******** , guys had those attitudes before the bible was written, your God is similar to many other Gods in mythology, if God revealed himslef I would worship him out of blind fear I guess but that's not going to happen
User avatar #462 to #461 - jokeface (03/14/2013) [-]
I'm sure they did have those attitudes before the Bible was written, but what I'm saying is, the authors that wrote those things in the Bible only wrote them because God told them to. It doesn't matter what their personal feelings were, even if they agreed with them. That wasn't their motive. And if you admit that you would worship God out of blind fear then how can you judge us for doing the same?
User avatar #500 to #462 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say it was blind fear why Christians worship God, but there is barely any evidence for God. What I'm saying is do you think it's a coincidence that a benevolent and just God had the same attitudes as the homophobic slave owners of thousands of years ago? If he is real then those homophobic slave owners were perfect and should carry on ******* slaves. However it is really obvious that it was those people who wrote the book so they could justify having sex and beating their slaves among other things
User avatar #505 to #500 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
God never said we should have slaves, and neither did the Bible. The most we're told about slaves is that if you are a slave, you should be kind and obedient to your master, because violent rebellion would be sinful. That's a commandment for the slave, not the slave owner.
#506 to #505 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
just ignore the Old Testament why don't you
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I would argue religion is slavery as shown in this picture
User avatar #507 to #506 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Mosaic Law only applied to specific groups of Israelites at the time they were given. They became overruled when Jesus died.

And that picture is beautiful. I'm not even kidding. I'm inspired by it.
User avatar #508 to #507 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
stock·holm syn·drome
Noun
Feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.
regardless of whether you follow it or not it is written in the bible and supposedly said by your God, my point still stands. Also the New Testament never says that slavery is wrong it says slaves should be good so it is on the side of the slave masters
User avatar #509 to #508 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Yea, there's a lot of names that make it sound bad, but the fact is that we're perfectly adjusted and functional, so there's nothing wrong with having faith. Submission to God has no negative impacts on a person's life. All it does is ensure our place in heaven after we die.
User avatar #511 to #509 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
it had a bad impact on my life, I used to cry because I thought millions of people will be or are burning in hell, I find it quite bizarre that no body else seems to care. I used to feel guilty for doing normal things like fapping. Stockholm syndrome originated when hostages defended their captor. Their reasoning was that he was good because he didn't kill or beat them and they loved him because he didn't abuse them physically, this is very similar to religion.
User avatar #515 to #511 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I don't know what you mean by "nobody else seems to care." As Christians we care a great deal about the dangers of hell and naturally we aim to save as many people as possible from it. As for fapping, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about it. A lot of people like to reference some quote about it being better for your seed to fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground, but that's never mentioned in the Bible. As for the Stockholm Syndrome, I understand the connection your making, but the difference is that in that situation the kidnapper has done something bad by kidnapping the person. God's done nothing wrong to us. He's only done good and perfect things. He's not a villain, He's a hero.
#516 to #515 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
did you just skip the entire old testament? just the simple fact that you believe he will burn me alive for eternity should be enough to say he is a cunt Jesus ******* Christ
User avatar #521 to #516 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Why does that make Him a cunt? He's a just God. Everything He does is perfect. All human beings deserve to burn for eternity because we all have wickedness in our hearts. But He has offered us salvation in spite of that, and that makes Him benevolent.
#529 to #521 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
so when I burn alive it is justice? you ass hole! you need to get therapy for your severe Stockholm syndrome. It is like Jesus is your abusive boyfriend and he has told you that you are a piece of **** and worthless and disgusting but if you love him you are good. It is the same tactics abusive partners use to manipulate and control people
User avatar #530 to #529 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
You keep saying that, but I don't get what you think I should do about it. How is it helpful for you to inform me of this similarity?
User avatar #531 to #530 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
I just want you to realise common tactics religions use to control people and that your God isn't a cool dude he is a controlling dictator. come on man if someone sends people to burn and be tortured for eternity and you think they're perfect something is wrong with you
User avatar #510 to #509 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
"There's nothing wrong with faith."

Sure, but it goes against the scientific nature of humans.

Our society exists on the structure of scientific discoveries, which is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is "idunoo lol, but i believe in it" while science takes a more reasonable approach forming extremely good hypothesis', testing them, making sure everything fits right.

I'm not saying your belief is completely wrong, I'm just saying it has absolutely no value to society in our era..
User avatar #523 to #510 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have graphic and frightening things in it, because it does. I'm saying that the things we're supposed to be doing (covered thoroughly in the New Testament) are all good. Most of the violence and objectionable stuff is in the Old Testament, but we're not supposed to be doing that stuff.
User avatar #524 to #523 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
The new testament is still quite graphic, not to mention God in the old testament was a pretty huge dick, as well. He was extremely EXTREMELY malevolent then.
User avatar #525 to #524 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
No, He was extremely just back then.
User avatar #526 to #525 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
You're either a troll, or a really moronic human. Guessing both.
User avatar #527 to #526 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Neither. God gave us very simple commandments, and we continually choose to disobey Him. Why would we deserve His love or grace? We don't. It's a gift. The most amazing gift we could ever hope for. That makes Him benevolent.
User avatar #528 to #527 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
lol
User avatar #512 to #510 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I didn't say it was in line with scientific nature, I just said it only has positive consequences.
User avatar #513 to #512 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
Considering I was never truly apart of this conversation...What positive aspects other than some sort of denialistic stuff?
User avatar #514 to #513 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
It grants us access to heaven, which gives us hope and peace of mind until we die. Also the Bible is full of good morals and lessons on how to be a better person.
User avatar #517 to #514 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
1. To a place that you don't know exists, okay..
2. I said without denialsm..
3. lol, no.
User avatar #520 to #517 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
1. I trust the testimonials of all the people who claim to have seen heaven when they had near-death experiences.
2. What denialism? I'm not denying anything.
3. No what? What are you referring to?
User avatar #522 to #520 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
1. Near-death experiences have easily been explained, not to mention people in those times had no scientific knowledge. That's why the Greeks thought earthquakes were caused by a guy shaking his head..
2. Not explaining, too much trouble.
3. The bible has tons of immoral stuff in it. Now, you can easily ******** your way through it and ignore the fact it's got a ton of disgusting stuff in it and claim all it's goodness even though I could ******* do it to just about any piece of literature..
#459 to #458 - say (03/13/2013) [-]
Imma christian, and I say just be a good person and serve your brothers (be a nice guy) whenever you have the option to be a dick instead, do what's right and you're good.

Also you gotta remember, the book was written by a bunch of old guys 2000+ years ago. they were wise, very, very, wise, but they lived in a time period where certain things that should be acceptable today weren't back then due to man made culture and beliefs, not god based, like being gay.
#501 to #459 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
but why did your God agree with the people who wrote the book?
#545 to #501 - say (09/04/2013) [-]
who ever said he did?
User avatar #460 to #459 - jokeface (03/13/2013) [-]
I agree with loving your brother and refraining from being a dick, yes. That's something Jesus said was very important. But He said loving Him was just as important, if not more so.

And also, remember that those men were directly inspired by God. He put the words in their hearts and commanded them to write them down. Aside form the outdated Mosaic Law, there weren't really any commandments that lost their relevance. The only one I can think of is the one about women teaching. I researched that one and yes that one was relevant to both the current time period as well as the current place Paul was was speaking to. For reference, I invite you to go to this link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm
...and Ctrl+F the phrase: "Scripture is Finally Explained". Those couple paragraphs give a very clear and insightful meaning of the verse.
User avatar #434 to #433 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Jesus told one man to sell everything he had to follow Him. He wasn't saying every human should sell everything they own. And nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to kill homosexuals. All it says is that they shall be put to death. It doesn't say we are the ones who should put them to death. It means God will kill their souls. And we know this is the case because Jesus said not to kill anyone, and killing the gays would contradict this. So death of the spirit is the only possible way to interpret it.
User avatar #435 to #434 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
yes, killing the gays contradicts it, there are loads of contradictions in the bible, it says to kill loads of different people, I think we have had this conversation before it never says anything about the soul your just making **** up it also says that their blood shall be upon them but if God was taking their soul there would be no blood. He said a rich man won't enter heaven and he says on a number of occasions to sell your stuff and give to the poor, did you watch the video?
User avatar #437 to #435 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Okay, I watched it. I'll concede to the thing about selling your possessions, but I still don't think He meant literally. Remember when He went into the temple and got angry at the people who were buying and selling there, and He started flipping tables and **** ? I think if He really wanted us to literally sell all our possessions, then He would be flipping tables every place He went. He'd always be scrutinizing people for owning things. No, what I think He means is to not let the possessions become more important than your loyalty to Him. That is, don't sell them from your ownership, but rather sell them from your heart. Let go of them spiritually, so that they don't prevent you from following Him.

The other part of the video I'll address is the thing about abolishing the old laws. Let me break it down for you:

Jesus said "I have not come to abolish [the old laws] but to fulfill them." What He means is that His arrival on Earth does not cancel or nullify the laws. They're still in place even though He has arrived, and because he is the Son of God, only He can fulfill them, because man is imperfect and can never fulfill the law. However, He goes on to say that nothing about the laws will change "until all is accomplished." What do you think He's referring to? I'll give you a hint: What did He come to Earth to do besides fulfill the law? He came to die. And right before He breathed His last breath, His last words were: "It is finished." That was it. That was Him declaring that the old law was obsolete and the new law would begin.

Then later in Galatians, the Apostle Paul write about how violation of the law no longer condemns us because Christ died to sanctify us in spite of sin: "[We] know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified...I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
User avatar #438 to #437 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
but God still told people to commit mass genocides and kill loads of innocent people, he's a cunt
User avatar #439 to #438 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I really don't care what He said to do in the Old Testament. We don't worship Him because we agree with Him. We worship Him because He is the only one who can save us from hell. And that's infinitely more important than anything that happens on Earth.
User avatar #441 to #439 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
wouldn't you go to hell just for saying/thinking that? the thought police are on you now
User avatar #442 to #441 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
No, because that's exactly what Jesus told us to think. Every time He told us to have faith in Him, He said it was because only through Him would we enter heaven.
User avatar #443 to #442 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
he didn't say "ignore My Dad he's a dick" though
User avatar #444 to #443 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
No, but He did say that we weren't bound by the laws His dad had previously set.
#445 to #444 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
this reminds me of this, the way I see it the Christians wanted to separate themselves from the Jews so that's why they had Jesus saying these things, you still believe Gid is an asshole though right?
User avatar #446 to #445 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I never believed God was an asshole. And the Christians didn't want to separate themselves from the Jews. The first Christians were Jews themselves. They just wanted everyone to worship Jesus with them. Read Galatians 2. It sheds some light on that issue.
User avatar #448 to #446 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
most Jews don't believe Jesus was a prophet also I think it was like 98% of jews just thought he was a hippie
User avatar #450 to #448 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I know that Jews and Christians are very different now, but I'm saying when Christianity first began, that wasn't as much the case. Again, the first Christians were Jews.
User avatar #452 to #450 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
I saw a documentary about it, I think they wanted to make it clear that they were different from the Jews so that's why they had certain elements, don't you think it's a coincidence that your God had the same attitudes towards thing like homosexuality and women as the people who wrote the bible?
User avatar #454 to #452 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I don't understand. Why would it be a coincidence?
User avatar #455 to #454 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
exactly, if an omniscient and benevolent God wrote it why would he have the same attitudes as 2000 year old dessert dwellers
User avatar #447 to #446 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
this in the belief that your God is going to burn me alive, if someone was going to burn you alive I wouldn't love them I would hate them
User avatar #449 to #447 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Well that's a shame.
User avatar #451 to #449 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
it isn't a shame it is sane, why would anyone believe another human deserves to go to hell? even Hitler only deserves to go there for a day or two and then he can go back to sleep
#457 to #451 - anonymous (03/13/2013) [-]
for the love of God, stop being a faggot. You're not even listening to anything he's saying.
User avatar #453 to #451 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Everyone deserves eternity in hell because everyone has turned away from God. It doesn't matter what's "sane" by your standards. God made a decision. There's no questioning it, no challenging it, no arguing it. We follow Him or we go to hell. That's it. There's nothing to discuss. Just decide if you prefer heaven or hell. It's simple.
User avatar #456 to #453 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
no it's grotesque and dictatorial he is not benevolent or just he is the most evil character in all of history, you know I don't believe it is true
User avatar #440 to #439 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
out of fear, like how they worship Kim Jong Un in North Korea
User avatar #436 to #435 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I'll watch it later, I'm on the phone right now. But anyway, I know there are parts of the Bible where it says to kill people but those parts are in the Mosaic Law and don't apply anymore. I can provide sources explaining why.
#428 to #427 - anonymous (03/11/2013) [-]
oh shut up troll
User avatar #429 to #428 - thebritishguy (03/11/2013) [-]
no anon I am not even trolling
#387 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
I might become a Buddhist, I don't know I have been reading a book on it and it seems pretty cool, but I won't believe in re incarnation. Pastafarianism was fun for a while but I seem to be losing faith in a carbohydrate based deity...I can't feel his noodley appendages holding me down anymore R'Amen
User avatar #388 to #387 - jokeface (03/04/2013) [-]
Buddhism is an admirable philosophy but it deceives you about the afterlife and the true God. It would be good to apply some of its principles to a Christian lifestyle (such as letting go of desire, being nonviolent, etc.) but any belief that does not focus on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is wrong and will lead to suffering.
#393 to #388 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
like the belief in Jesus has not caused suffering, Buddhism has no God you don't worship anyone but some cultures have there own separate Gods which they include into Buddhism. The statement that believing in any other religion will cause suffering is frankly wrong and nothing more than an idea supported by your opinion.
User avatar #394 to #393 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
I wasn't talking about suffering in this life. I was referring to hell.
#398 to #394 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
all these people will go to hell because they were born into the "wrong" families, your God is an ass
User avatar #400 to #398 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
No, they'll go to hell because we are asses for depriving them of the truth. It's our job to save them.
User avatar #401 to #400 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
you don't know or even have any evidence what you say is the truth, if you were born in India you would be saying the same thing about there God, if you were born in Afghanistan you would be saying the same thing about Allah, religion isn't innate it is geographic
User avatar #404 to #401 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
We have evidence but apparently it's not good enough for you.
User avatar #406 to #404 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
no, the reasoning you use to explain God and the bible isn't good enough (hows your girlfriend btw?)
User avatar #409 to #406 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Things are hard right now. She couldn't make it up to visit as scheduled, and then two days later her father passed away. So it's tough.
User avatar #410 to #409 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
hmmmmmm have you heard of the show cat fish? maybe she is a he, have you spoken to...her..on webcam?
User avatar #412 to #410 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
I've heard of the show but I haven't watched it. However I did see the movie so I know what it's about. Coincidentally, the main guy in that movie looks so much like me it's eerie. And no, we haven't webcammed, but we've spoken on the phone so I at least know she's a girl. She also has videos of herself on Facebook, so I can match the voice to the face in the pictures.
User avatar #414 to #412 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
the guy in the film looks pretty cool, maybe you could say to hold up a piece of paper with your name on it and take a photo to be sure, it seems coincidental these kind of things happening together
User avatar #415 to #414 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Nah, my IRL identity and Jokeface must remain separate. I like the anonymity.
User avatar #417 to #415 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
well you could just say any word, it would be just as valid, if they took the pictures and videos from a model or from another profile I doubt they would be able to do it
#405 to #404 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #370 - ragnarfag (03/01/2013) [-]
Since we waited like 10h by now, what is your ''severed arm analogy''?
User avatar #371 to #370 - jokeface (03/02/2013) [-]
I just got back to my computer and answered on the board. But to reiterate:

Suppose a person donates their arm to science. The arm is connected to a machine that simulates a heart, pumping clean blood through the arm to keep the tissue alive. Then suppose someone damages the arm in such away that the tissue dies. A bunch of living, human tissue. So is this person guilty of murder?
User avatar #386 to #371 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
a murder is the taking away of a human life, not human cells
User avatar #389 to #386 - jokeface (03/04/2013) [-]
Exactly. And what is an non-cognizant embryo if not just a collection of cells? Until it's aware, it may be "living" tissue but it's not "alive"
User avatar #392 to #389 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
yeah, your right, did you see that post which said "if abortion is murder, are blowjobs cannibalism?"
User avatar #395 to #392 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Exactly. It's absurd.
User avatar #364 - whtkid (03/01/2013) [-]
Good luck on the sex!!
User avatar #365 to #364 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
Actually I'm waiting until marriage, but thank you for the sentiment. :)
User avatar #363 - OpticalIllusion (03/01/2013) [-]
Best of luck with your net girlfriend, hope you get some righteous sex.
User avatar #366 to #363 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said to Whtkid, we're waiting until marriage. But thank you. :)
User avatar #372 to #366 - OpticalIllusion (03/02/2013) [-]
Whatever floats your boat.

I hope all is going well?
User avatar #376 to #372 - jokeface (03/02/2013) [-]
So far so good. She gets on her flight in about 12 hours.
#356 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
if you don't get it it is a version of big brother from the book "1984"
User avatar #357 to #356 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
I get the reference. Still doesn't deter my faith in the slightest.
User avatar #361 to #357 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
just saying
User avatar #367 to #361 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
Noted.
User avatar #318 - thebritishguy (02/26/2013) [-]
Jesus and God are hilariously similar to an abusive boyfriends
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #319 to #318 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
Okay, let's see...He doesn't verbally abuse us...doesn't control our money...doesn't isolate us...He's never been cruel to anyone...so we can rule out "Controlling" as a characteristic. I'd say He's more influential, seeing as His teachings and requisites can certainly impact people, though He doesn't force them on anyone.

He does have special rights but He sure as hell earned them by saving us. Nothing He demands are unreasonable and in fact we're getting much more than we deserve out of the deal. He's never violent either. So "Entitlement" isn't really applicable except for the fact that He has indeed earned what He asks of us.

"Selfishness and Self-centeredness" sure doesn't fit, since His sacrifice was entirely selfless, and His choice of inviting us into His kingdom is hugely charitable and not self-centered at all.

He holds no contempt for anyone. Contempt for sin, yes, but not for people. We're all loved infinitely by Christ. So "Superiority" doesn't apply.

He never claimed we were His possessions. He gives us full freedom from Himself. When He asked a rich man to give up all his wealth to follow Him and the rich man chose to turn Him down, Jesus never pressured Him. He just let Him go. Following Him is our choice, not His. So no "Possessiveness".

Again, He's never been violent. Unless you count flipping the tables at the temple, but He wasn't hurting people there, just making a mess. So He doesn't "Confuse Love and Abuse."

"Manipulativeness"...Nope. Not by this definition. Nothing He says is confusing or distorting, and He never lies.

He's not "Contradictory" either. He always practiced what He preached, and all of His teachings are clear and straightforward.

I don't understand how He could be "Externalizing Responsibility" either. This thing talks about shifting blame, but Jesus was blameless. Pure of all sin.

And "Denial" doesn't apply because as I've been making quite clear throughout this list, Jesus has no guilt to deny. He was, and still is, perfect.
User avatar #321 to #319 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
Jesus lied a lot, you really need to look at this website more mate
www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm
User avatar #326 to #321 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
1. The key word being faith. Humans are capable of immense amount of faith, but no one can truly trust God infinitely as Jesus did. Therefore, no one can harness His power (except the Disciples to some degree).

2. He's referring to His grace. If you seek the grace of Christ, He will save you. But if not, then you will never receive it. Plain and simple.

3. I don't understand how that one is a lie.

4. This one could be answered with my response to #1.

5. Same as #2.

6. I had to read the chapter this came from for context. It appears He's referring to the Disciples. Like I said, they were able to pull off some crazy Jesus **** themselves.

7. God makes all things possible through the works of nature and people. Whatever you want, if you believe in Christ, He will make it reachable in one way or another.

8. See #7.

9. See #1 yet again. Or #7. They both fit.
User avatar #320 to #319 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
what about God?
User avatar #323 to #320 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
Jesus and God are the same entity. I mean in the Bible God created a physical form for Jesus while He was on Earth, but in general they're both one being. That's the thing about the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all just different faces of the same single God.
User avatar #324 to #323 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
ohohohohohohhhoooo noooooooooooooo God was insane he doesn't fit this description
also here are some contradictions: www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
User avatar #327 to #324 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
No, man, I'm bored with this. Look, I'm happy you like to do research (even if it all comes from the same site), but I'm not gonna keep reading lists and replying to bullet points and **** , half of which are addressing the same specific issue. If you wanna have an actual discussion, then discuss. But I'm not wasting my time responding to URLs.
User avatar #332 to #331 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
This pic is old and I'm pretty sure most atheists are smart enough to know it's being satirical of them. You just made fun of yourself.
User avatar #335 to #332 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
lol the pic is old? how about the ******* book, a satirical term are you high right now?
User avatar #337 to #335 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
I'm saying that it's already been established that using that picture as a rebuttal is pointless because both Christians and atheists know that those two verses are not using the same meaning of "the face of God". The fact that you think you're gaining any credibility by using that picture just shows how ignorant you are. Even among atheists.
#330 to #327 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
well here is a list you don't have to respond with your bullet points
User avatar #297 - thebritishguy (02/25/2013) [-]
what do you think about Muslims?
User avatar #300 to #297 - jokeface (02/25/2013) [-]
They're lost brothers who I wish could be returned to the light.
User avatar #301 to #300 - thebritishguy (02/25/2013) [-]
they would say the same about you, the majority of them were never Christian so I don't know what your talking about, you have no more evidence than them that you are right. I meant what do you think about the culture.
User avatar #306 to #301 - jokeface (02/25/2013) [-]
I'm not really educated in their culture. All I really know is that they're very misogynistic, of which I'm not a fan.
User avatar #307 to #306 - thebritishguy (02/25/2013) [-]
they're very sexist and they have sharia law which means that 6 year olds can get married and if you steal you get your hands chopped off and just this week 50 people died in a riot because a film was made saying they were not violent, but many great men have been Muslim and obviously they're not all bad, I always try not to to judge a majority on a minority but this is what I know.
User avatar #308 to #307 - jokeface (02/25/2013) [-]
I'll say this: On Earth, men can be good among men. God has a standard that we cannot live up to, but between us, some show greater dignity and conduct than others. And this is regardless of religion or spirituality or any of that. Gandhi was a good man among men. Malcolm X was a good man among men. I have respect for non-Christians who live good lives like them. But just understand that as good of men as they are, their goodness only benefits them in this life. For you this is fine because you don't believe in an afterlife, but for me it's distressing. I wish they were still that good and influential but just advocated Christianity.
User avatar #341 to #308 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
Gandhi was a racist but Malcolm X was cool, according to the bible both men deserved to be burning alive for eternity.
User avatar #345 to #341 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
The keyword being "deserved". Please understand that the difference between going to heaven and going to hell is not based on what someone "deserves". I believe in Jesus Christ, but I still don't deserve to go to heaven. I'm just as wicked as the next person, and I should be burning for eternity too. But the way we go to heaven is not by "deserving" to go there. If that was the case then no one would ever get there. Yes, Gandhi and Malcolm X both deserve to go to hell but their faith in Christ would not change that. They're still just as sinful as anyone else, no matter what. The only difference between going to heaven or hell is whether you accept Christ's gift. And doing so does not make you a better person, it just grants you undeserved grace in spite of being wicked.
[ 562 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)