Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

mrmofo    

Rank #6476 on Subscribers
mrmofo Avatar Level 194 Content: Anon Annihilator
Offline
Send mail to mrmofo Block mrmofo Invite mrmofo to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 36
Date Signed Up:5/14/2011
Last Login:4/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#18321
Highest Content Rank:#608
Highest Comment Rank:#8283
Content Thumbs: 9484 total,  10145 ,  661
Comment Thumbs: 845 total,  1044 ,  199
Content Level Progress: 84% (84/100)
Level 194 Content: Anon Annihilator → Level 195 Content: Anon Annihilator
Comment Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 184 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 185 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:11
Content Views:424168
Times Content Favorited:319 times
Total Comments Made:416
FJ Points:10331

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 66661
    Thumbs Up 2633 Thumbs Down 86 Total: +2547
    Comments: 91
    Favorites: 86
    Uploaded: 11/30/12
    A cautionary tale A cautionary tale
  • Views: 47848
    Thumbs Up 1662 Thumbs Down 95 Total: +1567
    Comments: 32
    Favorites: 48
    Uploaded: 11/30/12
    Too true Too true
  • Views: 43919
    Thumbs Up 1567 Thumbs Down 98 Total: +1469
    Comments: 40
    Favorites: 35
    Uploaded: 11/30/12
    Moby's ... Moby's ...
  • Views: 31492
    Thumbs Up 892 Thumbs Down 84 Total: +808
    Comments: 24
    Favorites: 43
    Uploaded: 11/30/12
    GRR meets JKR GRR meets JKR
  • Views: 16556
    Thumbs Up 469 Thumbs Down 37 Total: +432
    Comments: 18
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 11/30/12
    Books to movies Books to movies
  • Views: 8477
    Thumbs Up 205 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +197
    Comments: 16
    Favorites: 9
    Uploaded: 07/28/12
    Clear Clear
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > [ 54 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny videos

  • Views: 7563
    Thumbs Up 6 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +4
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/18/12
    Oops Oops
  • Views: 7940
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +1
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/18/12
    Time for Bed Time for Bed
  • Views: 6749
    Thumbs Up 0 Thumbs Down 3 Total: -3
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/18/12
    Slash-burning Twister Slash-burning Twister
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

1 2 3 > [ 15 YouTube Videos Total ]

latest user's comments

#48 - heh, glad someone else called ******** on this. N… 04/04/2014 on The Zweihander -1
#122 - Just finished it. Amazing game. USE A CONTROLLER. 02/27/2014 on Oh god no! 0
#2 - I'd like to see where that figure of 1.2 million comes from. T… 02/25/2014 on Heavens Gate 0
#189 - No offense, but you're asking this question as if it's rhetori…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/20/2014 on Clever Moses +2
#191 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
He's claiming to know these things, I want to see what he knows.
#167 - It's growing all the time due to more access and more interest…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/20/2014 on Clever Moses 0
#169 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Well that would make many of the current interpretations of the bible less than accurate, wouldn't it?
#111 - They used the number forty to mean, essentially 'Enough time/ …  [+] (58 new replies) 02/20/2014 on Clever Moses +3
#122 - kirkybobz (02/20/2014) [-]
"The bible is fact"

*shows Christfag this picture*

"The Bible is metaphor"

MFW
User avatar #201 - theshadowed (02/20/2014) [-]
This man does not know the difference between non literalist and literalist
User avatar #224 - kirkybobz (02/21/2014) [-]
Literalists become non-literalists the moment their opinions become obsolete.
#162 - mizzycupcakes (02/20/2014) [-]
Anyone who says the bible is nothing but fact is pretty ignorant tbh. It's essentially many call it a guide, manual, instructions which it really is none of those things. its pretty much a set of stories that teach you values and morals meant to be interpreted different ways and can be unique to each individual. I always tell anyone, christian or no, that it was still written by man who.. lets be honest.. isnt perfect. we were supposedly made in the image of god. were not god. therefore were not perfect. and has been altered throughout time with some translations, scriptures, and meaning being lost along the way.

In this case you could very easily take it literally or take what they meant before the translation. At that point in time, many believe that 40 means many, or It appears most likely that 40 YEARS came first, as a round figure for "a GENERATION", that is, the time someone takes to grow to their prime, and/or the time it takes for the shift from one generation of people to another to substantially take place.

While I think you are pointing out some real flaws 'christfags' have, you're just as guilty in your own ignorance.

pic semi related
User avatar #194 - toastersburnthings (02/20/2014) [-]
Remember that post about it being a twilight-esque fanbase gone way to far, and how sometime in the next thousand or so years people will worship vampire gods
#216 - mizzycupcakes (02/20/2014) [-]
I actually don't i'm sorry ><
User avatar #132 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
there are distinct differences in the language or wording used in the text that tell us when it is metaphorical and when it is to be taken literally
#135 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
What are those differences?
User avatar #138 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
here just let me whip out my gigantic fucking hebrew dictionary, and my translation of the scripture why don't ya?

i'm no bible scholar, so i really don't know what the differences are. i just know that in the original manuscripts the writers would write it one way to indicate "sincerity" and another way to indicate "metaphor"

so quick question, can you tell the difference between the two of my statements? because one is sarcastic as fuck, and the other is a very serious statement, let's see if you can figure it out
#139 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Semantics and cultural context. If you can't explain the process in the Hebrew language, could you point me to someone who can?
User avatar #143 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
honestly i have no idea. probably the awesome bible-folk who translated the "HCSB" translation of the bible. my bible has a shitton of annotations that describe what things meant in the original text, and explain what a specific word may mean. in addition it has annotations that tell me the original "literal" translation, since the direct translation may not fit into current grammar rules very well. the reason i mention HCSB is that it is purported to be the most direct translation of the bible into modern day english yet.
#144 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
The trouble though is that we lack the understanding of the language and culture of the ancient Israelites. How can we be certain what they were trying to say?
User avatar #148 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
how can you say we lack understanding of their culture? the manuscripts are the historical records of the society. hell, after the pentateuch (jewish torah) it's almost entirely history books for the old testament. (there's a few prophetic books thrown in, but that's not the point i am trying to make at this juncture)

if you're going to discount their historical texts, does that mean you discount any historical texts? such as the romans, which reads like the greco-roman ancient deity facebook? just because they contain some trace of a deity? there are verifiable factual instances that occurred in the bible, that people can verify by looking at other historical texts, or even current things happening in today's world.
User avatar #230 - factual (02/25/2014) [-]
It's a fact
User avatar #231 - faithrider (02/25/2014) [-]
jack
User avatar #232 - factual (02/25/2014) [-]
^
User avatar #233 - faithrider (02/25/2014) [-]
indeed. perhaps we need to include more people in this strange mention-fest...
User avatar #234 - include (02/25/2014) [-]
Ohhh nobody hates that.
#235 - hates (02/25/2014) [-]
User avatar #236 - include (02/25/2014) [-]
I knew you'd show up.
User avatar #238 - hates (02/25/2014) [-]
I'm always here, always watching
#149 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
We have a small set of historical texts. Beyond the Torah we have very little record of the Hebrew people, certainly not enough to understand the subtleties of their language.
User avatar #152 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
and on top of that, the torah is only the first five books. there were a lot more historical books, such as:

Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel and 2 Samuel
1 Kings and 2 Kings
1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther

and while daniel is considered a prophetic book because of all the prophecies in it, it also had a lot of historical stuff. daniel's visions and prophecies were not until later in the book.
User avatar #150 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
says who? who said "oh shit, this is just one set of books, we can''t tell anything about a culture from one shitty book" that's insane. for example. if you went over to a girl you were dating's house, and saw twilight, that is just one book, and tells you everythign you need to know to run the fuck in the other direction.
#153 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Well there we go. ONE book to tell you everything about a whole people. It's really difficult to get an idea of Jewish culture, since for the bulk of history the jews have been scattered around the world. Starting with the Babylonian conquest and diaspora, all the way up till the mid 20th century. There's been such a wide variety of Jewish cultures and only recently, with the return of their homeland, have they begun rebuilding their heritage.
User avatar #154 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
if that's the case then by your logic it would be impossible for them to rebuild their heritage because they can't possibly know anything about ti from their "one book"

you do realize the bible is more than one book. it is a collection of about 66 books. (varies by translation or so i am told.... but primarily 66 books)
#157 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
It would be like reconstructing English history through the works of Shakespeare, you would have a large pool to draw from, but you would miss a lot of important context.
User avatar #160 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
no it wouldn't. shakespeare was ONE author. who wrote works of fiction primarily. we can tell which of these works of his are fiction or not by the way they are written. for example there is a distinct difference between MacBeth,and Romeo and Juliet.
#161 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
What's the difference?
User avatar #166 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
the difference is that there was only one author, he only wrote in english. in the bible there are about 50 authors (give or take) and that about half of them wrote in hebrew, while the other half wrote in Greek (these are of course not exact numbers i don't feel like looking up the exact distribution of these is.)
#168 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
No I mean between Romeo and Juliet and MacBeth?
User avatar #173 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
it's like the difference between reading a historical fiction (such as "The Book Thief") and reading a romantic tragedy (such as "Twilight")
#192 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
"if someone looked through america's history what would they see. they would probably look at one text book and say that americans only know how to go to war, but if they were to look at another book they would say that americans are peace loving and fair, they freed the slaves and whatnot. with no idea of the other side of things."
This didn't answer my question.
#188 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
That didn't answer my question at all.
User avatar #190 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
yes it does. the writing in The Book Theif is much more serious than in the twilight series. there isn't as much focus on the angsty love of teenagers in the book theif.
#184 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
What do we base our understanding on?
User avatar #187 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
if someone looked through america's history what would they see. they would probably look at one text book and say that americans only know how to go to war, but if they were to look at another book they would say that americans are peace loving and fair, they freed the slaves and whatnot. with no idea of the other side of things.
#179 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
And we're in a circle. We have a tiny pool of knowledge of the ancient israelites. we only have the old jewish texts, which we need an understanding of the culture to understand. So really we have almost no basis for our interpretation. You can't use a text you don't understand to understand a culture.
User avatar #182 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
exactly, but who said that we DON'T understand it?
#174 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
And we know the difference how?
User avatar #177 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
the same way we can tell a sarcastic comment from a sincere one.
User avatar #170 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
MacBeth was based on a true historical figure and an actual battle that happened. Romeo and Juliet was a made up story.
#186 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Evidence suggests that the pyramids were built by civil servants who were paid for their labor. People tend to keep records of where they get their slaves, no Egyptian text mentions Jewish slaves.
#183 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
There are no historical texts that corroborate jewish slavery in ancient egypt.
User avatar #185 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
yet there are the pyramids, which were purported to have been built by slaves. who said that those slaves weren't jewish? i guarantee that the rulers of egypt wouldn't have cared whether they were jews or not. they only cared that they had free labor to build their gigantic graves. in addition when the Jews first came to egypt, they were welcomed as friends. but the pharoahs didn't like that their population outnumbered the egyptians.
#178 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Exactly, and we lack comparable texts for the bible.
User avatar #180 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
says who? you think that the romans didn't keep decent records during the roman empire? there are birth records during roman rule for a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" and a Jew who disputed the fact that Jesus rose from the dead wrote of a man named Jesus. there are plenty of other historical texts to support the old historical texts.

and again, would you discount the romans' historical texts for the same reason? there are no other historical texts that support that the roman gods lived on mount olympus.
#172 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
And how do we know MacBeth was a real person?
User avatar #175 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
because of historical records. Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, and King Henry based on historical texts that outlined those people's lives. he changed the story a bit for dramatic value, but we know those people existed because of historical writings prior to shakespeare's time period
#156 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
66 books from a relatively small pool of sources. Cultures are made up of far more than a few historical texts. We have little knowledge of their art, music, traditions. Only a few historical accounts.
User avatar #158 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
how could that possibly be true? the entire book of Psalms is songs, poems, and hymns written by varying hebrews. the entire book of proverbs is wisdom and advice from varying authors. in addition there are Hundreds of verses where the isrealites sang praises to God. their traditions and music are all included in the pages of the bible. and while it may not describe in detail the exact art they made, there is still much of the art left.
#159 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
How big is our pool of knowledge on the culture of the ancient Israelites?
User avatar #167 - mrmofo (02/20/2014) [-]
It's growing all the time due to more access and more interest for archaeological study in the area. One of the more interesting finds is that Yahweh used to have a feminine counterpart (his wife), with a host of other minor deities -- think Zeus and the Greek gods -- which eventually got phased out of the mythos.
#169 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Well that would make many of the current interpretations of the bible less than accurate, wouldn't it?
User avatar #163 - faithrider (02/20/2014) [-]
it depends on how much of the old testament you have read is. their traditions were governed by the laws set forth by moses. the society was waiting upon the Messiah. how does that have no historical significance?
#165 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
Important religious beliefs, but how much do we know about the rest of their culture?
User avatar #189 - mrmofo (02/20/2014) [-]
No offense, but you're asking this question as if it's rhetorical when it's knowable by going to find out.
#191 - theism (02/20/2014) [-]
He's claiming to know these things, I want to see what he knows.
#71 - That's super for the 1950s. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure thi…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/29/2014 on 1950s fap +22
User avatar #189 - kwizzy (01/29/2014) [-]
Sweet Jesus
User avatar #171 - ieatbengay (01/29/2014) [-]
content didnt say the picture was from the 1950s though
#91 - Nope. The show has said that if you watched the show carefully…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/28/2014 on In wich state the simpsons... 0
User avatar #133 - stealthnull (01/28/2014) [-]
besides it's a fictional place, and a lot of states have a springfield. its like their way of saying every springfield is the Simpson springfield. again going with the its where ever it needs to be so it's relevant to the plot.
#21 - Why would the democrats want to cave on an issue they put to c…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/05/2013 on Tear it up! -1
User avatar #44 - undeadwill (10/05/2013) [-]
Obamacare is the terrible. Anyone supporting it has no idea how it works.
#108 - hailarty (10/06/2013) [-]
it doesn't matter if it's terrible or not. USA is a democracy, and people voted for Obama TWICE, and his main task as a president is obamacare. That means majority of people want obama care. CONGRESS VOTED "YES" on it, it passed supreme court, and it won the election in USA. so it must be passed in Democratic country.
Also, I think that obama care is good, because up until now, the health care was horrible.
User avatar #109 - undeadwill (10/06/2013) [-]
Voters asked for it twice? How? By voting for Obama? You do realize that Obamacare isn't the reason allot of people elected him. It was party politics and skin color.

Prove that fact after watching this, CHAOS: Obamacare to Collapse American Society
Tell me what is good about it?

Because a majority supported it does not make it right.
User avatar #24 - cockassunited (10/05/2013) [-]
Except it wasn't by the same people, the democrats controlled the house at the time not the Republicans power has shifted, it was forced through the house without letting anyone read it, and the majority of Americans want no part of it.

Secondly the ONLY reason Obamacare hasn't been repealed is because the senate (democrat controlled) stonewalls it, Republicans are attempting to listen to their constituents if anything it's Democrats playing politics.

Again, the government is shut down because neither side can make a deal, that includes the Democrats.
#12 - Sorry, you got a group of ideologues in government who oppose …  [+] (11 new replies) 10/05/2013 on Tear it up! -3
User avatar #14 - cockassunited (10/05/2013) [-]
Sorry to tell you this but that's not unique to one party, in fact that's the essence of the party system, a collective individuals with a specific idea of how government should be run and seek to further the union using that ideology.
#16 - hailarty (10/05/2013) [-]
yes but this particular shutdown was caused by one party - republicans, in an attempt stop health reform plan. Which has failed since health reform gets funding from another budget and so it went through anyway.
User avatar #43 - undeadwill (10/05/2013) [-]
So wait if two parties refuse to compromise and neither is interested in it. WHY blame only one?
#107 - hailarty (10/06/2013) [-]
Budget must be passed by republicans and democrats. But because republicans don't want medical care they said that they won't pass the budget until health care will be canceled (but majority of USA voted for new healthcare, healthcare bill has passed the supreme court and was confirmed in the congress) therefore there is absolutely no reasons to cancel the healthcare. So basically republicans now are saying "we wont pass the budget, unless democrats will cancel a law which is 100% legal, legit and reflect the majorities opinion"... I don't see the reason why democrats are at fault there, do you?
User avatar #110 - undeadwill (10/06/2013) [-]
Lol "muh democracy" its constitutional republic don't confuse that.

They don't want a healthcare law that will cause the economy to collapse. It will not provide healthcare it only diverts costs.

Also we need to start cutting spending now. Even if we raised taxes on the rich to 88% and the upper middle class to 58% higher than even more socialistic and welfare states.

Don't blame one for doing the reasonable thing.

Healthcare "sucks" because of government meddling and licensing.
User avatar #19 - cockassunited (10/05/2013) [-]
False, Democrats could've caved as easily as Republicans could have, it was as much responsibility for Democrats to pass a budget as it was Republicans, negotiations failed which means both parties failed, anyone putting the blame on just one party either doesn't understand the situation or is just stroking their respective parties ego.
User avatar #21 - mrmofo (10/05/2013) [-]
Why would the democrats want to cave on an issue they put to congress, had voted on and passed, by the same people who are now shutting down government for what seems no good reason.

The Republicans tried to repeal 'Obamacare' forty-six times, to no avail. It's become a white whale, and an embarrassment. It's not going to work, but the right wing fringe have to show their constituents that they won't stop fighting, because it's not about governing anymore, it's about theater. Unfortunately, the theatrics is all about playing with peoples' lives and government services.

Meanwhile, if you poll people what they think of 'Obamacare,' far more people are against it than when they're polled about what they think of the 'Affordable Care Act.' But it's the same damn bill lol. And they're so up in arms against it because they have to kill it before people see the benefits of public health care in action and grow to like it.
User avatar #44 - undeadwill (10/05/2013) [-]
Obamacare is the terrible. Anyone supporting it has no idea how it works.
#108 - hailarty (10/06/2013) [-]
it doesn't matter if it's terrible or not. USA is a democracy, and people voted for Obama TWICE, and his main task as a president is obamacare. That means majority of people want obama care. CONGRESS VOTED "YES" on it, it passed supreme court, and it won the election in USA. so it must be passed in Democratic country.
Also, I think that obama care is good, because up until now, the health care was horrible.
User avatar #109 - undeadwill (10/06/2013) [-]
Voters asked for it twice? How? By voting for Obama? You do realize that Obamacare isn't the reason allot of people elected him. It was party politics and skin color.

Prove that fact after watching this, CHAOS: Obamacare to Collapse American Society
Tell me what is good about it?

Because a majority supported it does not make it right.
User avatar #24 - cockassunited (10/05/2013) [-]
Except it wasn't by the same people, the democrats controlled the house at the time not the Republicans power has shifted, it was forced through the house without letting anyone read it, and the majority of Americans want no part of it.

Secondly the ONLY reason Obamacare hasn't been repealed is because the senate (democrat controlled) stonewalls it, Republicans are attempting to listen to their constituents if anything it's Democrats playing politics.

Again, the government is shut down because neither side can make a deal, that includes the Democrats.
[ 202 Total ]

user's channels

Join Subscribe books

user's friends

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

 
Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
No comments!
 Friends (0)