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

hide menu

theologyexplain    

Rank #59914 on Subscribers
theologyexplain Avatar Level 155 Comments: Faptastic
Offline
Send mail to theologyexplain Block theologyexplain Invite theologyexplain to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/01/2014
Last Login:7/29/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 132 total,  166 ,  34
Comment Thumbs: 682 total,  762 ,  80
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 11 Content: New Here → Level 12 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 155 Comments: Faptastic → Level 156 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:1
Content Views:12541
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:100
FJ Points:666

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 8050
    Thumbs Up 135 Thumbs Down 19 Total: +116
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/19/14
    Doubts Doubts
  • Views: 2858
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +14
    Comments: 18
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/15/14
    See Description See Description
  • Views: 1013
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +2
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/20/14
    Happy Easter! Happy Easter!

latest user's comments

#90 - Despite the one-word answer, testaburger is pretty much correc… 05/27/2014 on GOD HATES FIGS 0
#53 - If you're actually curious, here's the deal: As with …  [+] (10 new replies) 05/27/2014 on GOD HATES FIGS +26
#77 - alexas (05/27/2014) [-]
How do you differentiate between direct meaning and symbolism in the Bible? Maybe the whole book is symbolic?
User avatar #90 - theologyexplain (05/27/2014) [-]
Despite the one-word answer, testaburger is pretty much correct. As with any literature in our own culture, the only way to have any confidence about interpreting the Bible is to study Ancient Near Eastern cultures and the Bible itself as much as possible.

However, there are some things that can pretty definitively be read as at least history, as they were intended to be written that way (for example, if the book says, "this is the record of," etc.). But as far as biblical interpretation goes, many historical things are also interpreted typologically, which means that a historical person or event can serve as a "type," or historical foreshadowing of the role of a future person or event. In that case, the original action may well have been historical (depending on whether one trusts the record itself) AND also have a fuller, deeper meaning when considered as a prefigurement of something that came later.
User avatar #86 - testaburger (05/27/2014) [-]
Interpretation
#92 - alexas (05/27/2014) [-]
And how do you know that your interpretation is correct?
User avatar #97 - testaburger (05/27/2014) [-]
You don't.
Generally speaking, interpretations are seen as "more valid" if they're consistent with the rest of the "thing" you're interpreting.
User avatar #93 - grimsho (05/27/2014) [-]
Interpretation is never 100% correct, that what makes some works interpretive. The "truth" becomes the most widely agreed upon interpretation.
User avatar #74 - AbsentMinded (05/27/2014) [-]
For 3 years I've fucken wondered about this.
User avatar #62 - Shramin (05/27/2014) [-]
What if it wasn't and Jesus simply had a shitty day?
#55 - anonymous (05/27/2014) [-]
Of course it was symbolic. Almost everything Jesus did in the new testament was symbolic, because he made damn sure to fulfill every part of the prophecy that would pronounce him to be the messiah. That's why its both funny and sad to see all the christians who take it all literally.

Everybody already knows this, but... If Jesus hadn't married before manifesting his destiny, he would have been shunned by the society, at the very least nobody would have listened to him. The bible is edited by a blind butcher with a meat cleaver. Lol, priests.
User avatar #54 - vgmddg (05/27/2014) [-]
Hyrule, you should sticky this.
#83 - I'm just showing how easy it would be for you to see how wrong… 05/11/2014 on Looks Like I Won 0
#66 - I don't know where you're getting your info but plenty of lib…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Looks Like I Won 0
User avatar #77 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
Did you just use wikipedia as a source?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Wikipedia is one of the things you should never use as a source.
User avatar #83 - theologyexplain (05/11/2014) [-]
I'm just showing how easy it would be for you to see how wrong you are. I could cite scholarly work, but you're more than likely not going through the effort to check it, and frankly I don't care enough to make the effort.
#57 - Scare tactic first: Not every Christian tries to scare their …  [+] (5 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Looks Like I Won 0
User avatar #65 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
Apeselutly nothing in the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. The closes piece of scipt in the new testament is the roman letters wri9tten around 100 years after the death of christ. If you are refering to Matthew, John Mark and Luke as the people who knew christ. They were written by several people atleast 100 years after the birth of christ. There is not one shed of evidence as to who wrote them and they were written by anons, not people who knew christ. The story closest to Jesus (Mark 70AD-100AD) is simply stories told by other people, not even by people who knew christ, but people who knew people who knew people who knew people who knew christ. The three other gospels are the same except more then 100 years after Christ.
#80 - anonymous (05/10/2014) [-]
First off, spell check bro. Your argument looks like it was written by an edgy 7th grader. 2nd, there are plenty of shreds of evidence as to who wrote what. Not all of the gospels were anonymously written.
3rd, 100 years is not much time for a document to be passed down orally in ancient times. Plenty of religious doctrines were passed down much longer and still believed to be 100% accurate to their originals. Studies done on modern African oral traditions demonstrate that oral traditions remain extremely accurate over multiple generations.
User avatar #66 - theologyexplain (05/10/2014) [-]
I don't know where you're getting your info but plenty of liberal scholars would laugh at what you just claimed. Even the latest Gospel, the Gospel of John, has an extant manuscript which most scholars agree is from the early 2nd century, putting it within a century of Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
User avatar #77 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
Did you just use wikipedia as a source?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Wikipedia is one of the things you should never use as a source.
User avatar #83 - theologyexplain (05/11/2014) [-]
I'm just showing how easy it would be for you to see how wrong you are. I could cite scholarly work, but you're more than likely not going through the effort to check it, and frankly I don't care enough to make the effort.
#21 - I can translate Greek better than you can write English. …  [+] (3 new replies) 05/10/2014 on Looks Like I Won +62
#31 - popeflatus (05/10/2014) [-]
Can you talk to donkeys like that guy in the bible too?
#34 - angelusprimus (05/10/2014) [-]
I can talk to the donkey very easily.
They just don't talk back.
#38 - rubanio (05/10/2014) [-]
I wish more people would see that

gif unrelated
#18 - The claim about accuracy is not in comparison to other documen…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/09/2014 on Looks Like I Won +1
User avatar #19 - immatakeaduty (05/09/2014) [-]
Totally referring to the post, saying "I guarantee I can convert the first person to comment within 5 minutes"

I didn't really get in to AOE, I was more a HOMM3 fan.
#29 - lucaslegacy (05/10/2014) [-]
you know aoe stands for area of effect, right, not a game, smh at posers
User avatar #48 - immatakeaduty (05/10/2014) [-]
SMH at people trying to school me on vidyas
#46 - immatakeaduty (05/10/2014) [-]
Age of Empires, The original use for that acronym foo.
#82 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
age of em[ires shit, true gamers ont say shit of that game, shit graphics and just zerg rush trash
#84 - immatakeaduty (05/11/2014) [-]
like I said, had you read, I didn't really get into AOE, but a true gamer as you so eloquently put it, would play every game ever made for the sake of having played it. one does not simply pick and choose. We play to live, we live to play. Now go play Wii U or whatever you fill your exceedingly droll life with.
#85 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
of course u are another internet troll i shooda known lmao bait 1/10 fail
User avatar #35 - sovereignty (05/10/2014) [-]
its also an acronym for Age of Empires
#81 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
lmao sorry didnt know everybody on fj knew that shit game, srsly the graphics are shit the gameplay s shit and it was all just zerg rush bullshi noobs
#15 - Not sure I really want to do this, but sure, why not... …  [+] (20 new replies) 05/09/2014 on Looks Like I Won +6
User avatar #52 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
The telephone things is legit. The stories in the bible were written over 100 years before they were written down. The scare tactic is BS as only people who believe in God would follow it, however it is a scare tactic towards children who will take in anything you say.
User avatar #57 - theologyexplain (05/10/2014) [-]
Scare tactic first: Not every Christian tries to scare their child into the faith. There may be talk of hell, but most Christians don't emphasize hell too much to their children. It generally doesn't go over well. And one could comparably say that, for example, strongly atheist parents can use scare tactics on their kids by mocking any display of faith. So if it is a criticism, it should be towards people who try to force any type of belief/disbelief, not just Christians or other religions in general.

Second: the telephone thing is really not legit. Not only was much of the New Testament written within the lifespan of those who actually saw Jesus himself, but even as you get a generation (or at most two-three) removed, nothing less than sheer ignorance of the workings of oral culture can cause you to compare the New Testament to a game of telephone. They are radically different than our own. Stories were told and retold with the aim of memorization, and entire communities were present to check someone if the story was told unfaithfully. Sure, small emphases might change, but the basic stories could not change, especially on topics as important as one's faith (and there is no doubt that Jews/early Christians put significant emphasis on their faith). Furthermore, much of the writing, as that which is found in Paul's letters (which agree with the theology of the Gospels), was never oral-based, but was directly written and then simply recopied.
User avatar #65 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
Apeselutly nothing in the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. The closes piece of scipt in the new testament is the roman letters wri9tten around 100 years after the death of christ. If you are refering to Matthew, John Mark and Luke as the people who knew christ. They were written by several people atleast 100 years after the birth of christ. There is not one shed of evidence as to who wrote them and they were written by anons, not people who knew christ. The story closest to Jesus (Mark 70AD-100AD) is simply stories told by other people, not even by people who knew christ, but people who knew people who knew people who knew people who knew christ. The three other gospels are the same except more then 100 years after Christ.
#80 - anonymous (05/10/2014) [-]
First off, spell check bro. Your argument looks like it was written by an edgy 7th grader. 2nd, there are plenty of shreds of evidence as to who wrote what. Not all of the gospels were anonymously written.
3rd, 100 years is not much time for a document to be passed down orally in ancient times. Plenty of religious doctrines were passed down much longer and still believed to be 100% accurate to their originals. Studies done on modern African oral traditions demonstrate that oral traditions remain extremely accurate over multiple generations.
User avatar #66 - theologyexplain (05/10/2014) [-]
I don't know where you're getting your info but plenty of liberal scholars would laugh at what you just claimed. Even the latest Gospel, the Gospel of John, has an extant manuscript which most scholars agree is from the early 2nd century, putting it within a century of Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
User avatar #77 - fishandkids (05/10/2014) [-]
Did you just use wikipedia as a source?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Wikipedia is one of the things you should never use as a source.
User avatar #83 - theologyexplain (05/11/2014) [-]
I'm just showing how easy it would be for you to see how wrong you are. I could cite scholarly work, but you're more than likely not going through the effort to check it, and frankly I don't care enough to make the effort.
User avatar #23 - sirformidio (05/10/2014) [-]
What this guy said. The only time a christian actively condemns someone for an action they've taken is either misguided love or misplaced hatred. Sometimes it's someone seeing something they don't like being expressed, so they hold up a shield of faith to attack them with. For instance, I get frustrated at /any/ display of sexuality, regardless of whether it's homo or hetero. However, this is a character trait I have, not some faith I hold. Sometimes certain peoples cannot actually place the two in separate spots. Charlie Chaplin said it best in his speech in "The Great Dictator." "...You do not hate, only the unloved hate. The unloved and the unnatural..."
User avatar #17 - immatakeaduty (05/09/2014) [-]
United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities
User avatar #16 - immatakeaduty (05/09/2014) [-]
Points taken. It may be that we are confident that we have a 99.9% accurate bible in comparison to other textual documents, but when the comparison is made to documents that we have all of 1-13% of, it really isn't viable to say that it's 99.9% accurate.

And I agree with you, any law or rule with representing an action along with a specific consequence is in fact a scare tactic. the point I was making is why is it necessary to employ such scare tactics if "he" really is a true and loving god? John 14:2 = Jesus was on the right track with this. From what I've gathered through teaching Youth Ministry and spending 6 years in Seminary is this: The Bible, albeit a great guide to live your life, is just a book. A book influenced by mans pen through history. And religion, albeit a decent way to surround yourself with like minded people, is yet another way to subjugate humanity.

To make as bold a statement that he could convert anyone was naive and a bit pretentious, I was pointing that out. But I do appreciate the banter.
User avatar #18 - theologyexplain (05/09/2014) [-]
The claim about accuracy is not in comparison to other documents; the comparison was a side argument. Rather, the claim about accuracy is in relation to its own manuscripts. It is viable to say that it's 99.9% accurate, or 99.9% faithful to the original documents, if we can reconstruct it from hundreds of very similar manuscripts that are dated within several centuries of the original documents, especially when nearly all of the errors are corrected when compared to similar documents.

And I should say that I definitely agree with you about not using scare tactics as a Christian! I think it is absolutely wrong to do so, at least as a means to force certain actions.

It was never the model of the early church to force actions for all people, but only to force actions of those who were already members (and by "force those in the church" I mean "obey the rules or be temporarily kicked out, with hopes that you will repent").

The whole point of correcting or teaching anybody is to help them. The fact that God is love is necessarily intertwined with the fact that he is also good(ness) and just(ice), and therefore to truly love others is to help them follow God, in accordance with His own moral character, because if they are not following God, they are going to hurt themselves.


Finally, are you referring to the original post with your last comment? Because that was intended as a joke. Hence his response to the first comment (Age of Empires priest).
User avatar #19 - immatakeaduty (05/09/2014) [-]
Totally referring to the post, saying "I guarantee I can convert the first person to comment within 5 minutes"

I didn't really get in to AOE, I was more a HOMM3 fan.
#29 - lucaslegacy (05/10/2014) [-]
you know aoe stands for area of effect, right, not a game, smh at posers
User avatar #48 - immatakeaduty (05/10/2014) [-]
SMH at people trying to school me on vidyas
#46 - immatakeaduty (05/10/2014) [-]
Age of Empires, The original use for that acronym foo.
#82 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
age of em[ires shit, true gamers ont say shit of that game, shit graphics and just zerg rush trash
#84 - immatakeaduty (05/11/2014) [-]
like I said, had you read, I didn't really get into AOE, but a true gamer as you so eloquently put it, would play every game ever made for the sake of having played it. one does not simply pick and choose. We play to live, we live to play. Now go play Wii U or whatever you fill your exceedingly droll life with.
#85 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
of course u are another internet troll i shooda known lmao bait 1/10 fail
User avatar #35 - sovereignty (05/10/2014) [-]
its also an acronym for Age of Empires
#81 - lucaslegacy (05/11/2014) [-]
lmao sorry didnt know everybody on fj knew that shit game, srsly the graphics are shit the gameplay s shit and it was all just zerg rush bullshi noobs
#3 - Not that I'm taking this seriously.  [+] (5 new replies) 04/30/2014 on (untitled) +3
User avatar #26 - kikisu (04/30/2014) [-]
Its from the Hadith, an interpretation book for the Quran that is considered just as authentic as the Quran.
User avatar #42 - thesovereigngrave (04/30/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure there isn't a single 'hadith'. Hadithes supposedly state that Muhammad did certain things, say something, approved of something, or criticized something. And not all hadithes are accepted as valid by all Muslims; Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi all accept different hadithes as right, for example.
User avatar #43 - kikisu (04/30/2014) [-]
Yeah, I meant a Hadith. But yeah everything you said is right.
User avatar #44 - thesovereigngrave (04/30/2014) [-]
All right, just figured I'd mention it in case you didn't know.
#7 - anonymous (04/30/2014) [-]
It's not a real Bible quote, or at least TVTropes says so.
#2 - 1. Man and woman were not created with original sin. They ha…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/29/2014 on Oh Jesus Christ +6
#3 - enochian (04/29/2014) [-]
[ 100 Total ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - therichie (04/16/2014) [-]
rock monsters
 Friends (0)