Original Sin. . I would like to readers you what The Jesus said about homosexuality... To like to, truths nevi? said anything about it. media : Tns is an enormo

Original Sin

I would like to readers you what
The Jesus said about homosexuality...
To like to, truths nevi?
said anything about it.
media :
Tns is an enormous chain and I' m sorry. but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the
Hebrews needed to tallow in order to be righteous. to atone tor the
sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven., That is also
why they were required In maize sacrifices, because it was can or
the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology. when Jesus came from Heaven, it
was for the express purpose of himself on the prose so
that our sins may be forgiven- His was supposed to be the
ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations
and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he
said "it is finished" when he died on the cross, That is why Christians
don' t have to circumcise their sons {goers covenant with Jacob}. that
is why they don' t have to perform animal sacrifice. or grow out their
lonelycats. or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
when you more Leviticus as law and say they are rules we
must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do.
what you are really saying. as a Christian. is that Christ' s sacrifice on
the cross was in valid. He died in vain because you believe we are will
beholden to the any laws. Thai is what you, a good
Christian. are saying to your god and his son. that their plan for your
salvation wasn' t good enough tor you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because
the implications of your actions go a lot deeper man you think.
This is a theological point that doesn' t some up often enough.
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 44523
Favorited: 634
Submitted: 12/07/2013
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to vulpex


Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - rosietheamazon (12/08/2013) [-]
i am saving this, because there will come a time when it will be extremely handy.
#107 to #2 - dogemasterrace (12/08/2013) [-]
**dogemasterrace rolled a random comment #253 posted by technosauce at Pillow fights with strangers ** :
I fear we are running out of space here for this wonderful conversation
#15 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
Keep in mind that what is given above is one interpretation of the bible and all interpretations are valid. The interpretations of our current day are no more biblically sound than those from a thousand years ago, but it's a matter of which verses you interpret as significant and which ones you dismiss as off-topic.

Matthew 5:17-20 You need to login to view this link The Law of God given to Moses is still valid and will remain so until both heaven and earth are gone. Anyone who breaks even the smallest of these commandments might as well have broken them all. In you want to get into heaven, your adherence must dwarf those of the Pharisees, who are notorious for their rigorous adherence.

Of course, all this can be re-interpreted countless ways, but that's just the point. It's a fallacy to believe that people get their morality from the bible; it's simply not true. Rather, people use the bible to justify the resolutions they already had.

Colbert is right, Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality (in fact, some scholars assert than he himself was gay You need to login to view this link ). However, Paul, to whom the bulk of the writings of the New Testament are attributed, did You need to login to view this link .

But what does this have any significance? No, because getting down to brass tacks, it is easier to justify polygamy with the bible than homosexuality, yet it seems a unanimous stance among Christians that it's wrong. Maybe one day we'll see polygamy pride gain as much fervor as gay pride has today.

The thing I want the reader to take away is this: at best, the bible is a source of comfort to escape the harsh realities of life (no afterlife, no cosmic justice or purpose, no one is listening) and at worst, it is a tool used to justify evil doctrines that could not be otherwise justified. If you want to live a moral life, just do it. The only spiritual absolution you need is from yourself. And don't fear death, but fear the life not lived.
#102 to #15 - spanishiqiustion (12/08/2013) [-]
Dont be to harsh
User avatar #53 to #15 - gmanofwonder (12/08/2013) [-]
No bible is valid.

"Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
(Christopher Hitchens)

Please, be mad at me for bringing it up but so far there's absolutely no evidence that anything in the bible is valid. At all.
User avatar #55 to #53 - gmanofwonder (12/08/2013) [-]
I do agree with your points though Madcoww, that we should live lives based on morals and not a divinity created by man.
User avatar #90 to #55 - rootuser (12/08/2013) [-]
It's important to note that having real faith in Jesus tells us that the bible is the written and living word of god. It is not created by man. Yes christianity as a religion was created by man, which is why I choose to follow Christ and not necessarily christianity. Religion is all about "doing"; Doing good things and making yourself feel like you've done good in order to gain a sense of morality or enter Heaven. Following Christ is about having an active relationship with him. "It is finished" means that we don't have to "do" anything to gain morality. Morality and good comes from god and surrendering your life to Christ and having full faith in him allows us to understand goodness. The bible is god's primary way of communicating morality but it is only through him that we get it.
User avatar #94 to #90 - gmanofwonder (12/08/2013) [-]
Then perhaps you should best keep it to yourself. I prefer to do the right things, because I want to. Not off of divinity purposes, not off of following people, but from wanting to help the world.
User avatar #99 to #94 - rootuser (12/08/2013) [-]
I'm totally okay with that. I didn't want to sound like I was forcing anything on you so I apologize if I did sound that why. I do just want to voice another opinion and explain what some people believe as well. The fact that you desire to help the world is amazing, a lot of people don't care. What I believe to be true is that the underlying reason you want to do good is because god so loved the world first. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%203:16&version=NIV
Again I'm not trying to accuse or rebuke because I agree with what you're saying, I just want to put another opinion for the sake of this conversation.
User avatar #118 to #99 - gmanofwonder (12/08/2013) [-]
Just remember that there are true demons in people; and until you've fought them, you won't understand why a God as humanly thought of as the christian was is possible.
User avatar #116 to #99 - gmanofwonder (12/08/2013) [-]
You seem fun to talk to
User avatar #268 to #116 - rootuser (12/09/2013) [-]
Well thanks man, you too. Although I don't think I'm all that smart, it's nice to have respectful conversations where we can agree and disagree and agree to disagree.
#56 to #53 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
dat quote
dat quote
#155 to #15 - disasterbater (12/08/2013) [-]
nice work. with the reading from John, which was written in Greek, i had to look something up.... in Greek (or at least ancient Greek) there are several words for "love," unlike English. Possibly even dozens. for example, in English we say "i'd love a cheeseburger," "i love my friends," "i love my mom," "i make love to my wife," and "i love my God," and each means something else. just about all of these phrases describe different kinds of love, but it is more clearly defined in Greek (C. S. Lewis wrote a book about it called "The Four Loves.")

"storge" - affection
"philia" - friendship
"eros" - romance
"agape" - unconditional love, charity, total commitment, faith

couldn't find anything in particular, but it is unlikely that John 21:20 refers to "eros," which would clearly indicate a homosexual relationship.

another good passage for this distinction is Peter's Denial, where Jesus asks three times "Peter, do you love me?" The meaning of this reading gets lost in translation, because Jesus uses a different word for love each time. Not sure what the order is, but i think he asks "do you love me as a friend?" "do you love me as a brother?" and "do you love me as your God?" something like that.... but in English it looks like he just says "do you love me?" three times.

Kind of cool, if you're into that kind of thing.
User avatar #177 to #155 - themongoose (12/08/2013) [-]
John 21:20 is most definitely Agape. Eros is never directly discussed in the bible, even between man and wife, but it is referred to in a roundabout way. They always used agape.

When they are eating the fish, the first two times Jesus uses Agape a better description would be "principled love" - what you feel for, say, a homeless person lying beaten on the street. It's what moves you to care for someone that you do not know and Peter responds with Philia brotherly love . The last time Jesus asks, he uses Philia and Peter responds with Philia.
#40 to #15 - fzbarbeque (12/08/2013) [-]
i like how you cited all your sources
#41 to #40 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
It's the voice of experience.  One time, I used the Koran as a source, but didn't make easy-to-access links to the verses, and FJ ripped me a new one  www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4757820/Looking+Out+for+Each+Other/38#38 .   
When I posted nearly the same thing with the citations, I got a far better reception  www.funnyjunk.com/channel/feels/insert+title+here/YopvGLb/72#72 .
It's the voice of experience. One time, I used the Koran as a source, but didn't make easy-to-access links to the verses, and FJ ripped me a new one www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4757820/Looking+Out+for+Each+Other/38#38 .

When I posted nearly the same thing with the citations, I got a far better reception www.funnyjunk.com/channel/feels/insert+title+here/YopvGLb/72#72 .
#8 - envinite (12/08/2013) [-]
Pardon my ignorance, but what does it have to do with the 'homosexuality' pic above it?

Pic related only jesus pic I have
User avatar #9 to #8 - sarahm (12/08/2013) [-]
Christians protesting homosexuality say it is a sin to be gay because Levictus 18:22 states ''Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.'' And as OP says, Jesus sacrificed himself to free us from the laws of Levictus, which means they are laws that are not followed anymore, making these protesters points completely invalid. hope this helps, i'm really bad at explaining things
#126 to #9 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
Yep, OP's wrong. He's implying Leviticus is the only place where homosexuality is condemned. Plus he misinterprets Jesus' purpose.

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt 5:17

According to the bible, (and I'm not saying the bible is right - decide for yourself) Jesus came because when Adam and Eve "sinned" Satan won dominion over earth. When Jesus came, his blood paid our price, and made it possible for people (from past present and future) to be saved by grace. This parallels the tabernacle, sacrifices, and customs of the old testament times. They were set up hundreds of years earlier to symbolize the purpose of Jesus. In this sense Jesus fulfills the prophecies. Also, he "fulfills" the law by giving us an example of what it looks like in practice.

The Levitican law just applied to the people of the time, and of course it bears many cultural influences. To take that and apply it to today is totally out of context.
#165 to #126 - bigfoote (12/08/2013) [-]
In addition, Christianity condemns homosexuality as a sin because the act of gay sex doesn't allow for children. For many Christian faiths the purpose of sex is purely procreation (although obviously pleasure can be had). If procreation isn't a possibility then it is wrong and a sin (e.g. Masturbation, Bestiality). Just adding my 2 cents
#179 to #9 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
When in reality the "that's old testament and doesn't count anymore" argument is easily avoided by using 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which is extremely clear on the actions disapproved by God.

The people who try to use Leviticus are hate mongers. They want to say that homosexuals should be killed/are not people/should be treated as lesser individuals.
#115 to #9 - popkornking (12/08/2013) [-]
In other words Christians who cry the laws of Leviticus are actually Jews.
#22 to #9 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
But that raises the question: why did God give them in the first place? Surely we cannot say that He gave them to be arbitrary nor should we assert that God's cosmic morality can become obsolete. Martin Luther's interpretation of God's Law in the Old Testament is that it was given to show what is good and that human beings cannot attain it 100%. Therefore, they need an arbitrator it help bridge the gap in our morality. However, that doesn't invalidate them. We should still seek to be as righteous as God set down in His Law and seek Jesus to argue on behalf of our shortcomings. So, how does Jesus make homosexuality okay when God says it isn't? Rather, Jesus forgives our past homosexuality so that we can continue to strive for perfection.
User avatar #29 to #22 - sarahm (12/08/2013) [-]
Thinking that we should all live by God's rules, including Levictus, is nothing more than one opinion and, even if many many people share the same opinion, nobody has the right to restrict someone from expressing their love ( like, ffs guys, that's all it is, its just love, stop getting your knickers in a twist over it ), just because a spiritual being that may or may not be real said so thousands of years ago. and don't accuse me of hating on your religion, cause i'm not, i'm just giving my opinion on one aspect of said religion
#31 to #29 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
So in the name of love, you would approve of the polygamist?
BTW, I'm not a Christian. I argue Christianity on its own terms.
User avatar #33 to #31 - sarahm (12/08/2013) [-]
i dont really see how polygamy is related to this, but i dont think you could actually be in love with more than one person, and eve if the man loved the two women in your picture, it is most likely that the two women would only love the man and not each other, so its really not the same principle
#38 to #33 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
"i dont think you could actually be in love with more than one person,"

Yes, and I'm sure fundamentalists would say that you cannot actually be in love with someone of the same sex.

You cannot deny that it is possible for three people to be equally in love with each other (just like a parent can equally love their children). In fact, it could be argued a better relationship because there is more loving support. How much do children suffer because they only have one reachable parent? Imagine the amount of love in a family where work can be better distributed so that the child always has a parent to support him or her. Just like a homosexual couple can truly love an adopted child, so a polygamist mother can love the offspring of her husband and wife. Yes, it might not work for the majority of people, but you cannot deny that it can work for some people. Therefore, people should be given the freedom to marry who they want.
User avatar #39 to #38 - sarahm (12/08/2013) [-]
im not saying that you shouldnt have the freedom to marry who you want, i dont have anything against polygamists, i was just saying i wouldnt link them to homosexuals. And being in love and loving someone are two completely different things, but maybe you could be in love with more than one person, who knows. And by the way, i only have one ''reachable parent'' and i'd say i turned out completely fine, and i had all the financial, physical and emotional support i needed.
User avatar #18 to #9 - didactus ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
I think you mean Leviticus 20:13.
User avatar #25 to #18 - sarahm (12/08/2013) [-]
i googled both of them and theyre pretty much the same, 18:22 is what i said and 20:13 says ''If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.''
#62 - liamdurf ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
>"don't have to circumcise their sons"   
uh, be right back guys
>"don't have to circumcise their sons"
uh, be right back guys
#81 - yuukoku (12/08/2013) [-]
>Content even mentions Christianity.

Whelp, I'm not even bothering with the comments section. I already know what's there.
User avatar #162 to #81 - vos (12/08/2013) [-]
What is it you refer to: hardline atheists or christian apologists?
User avatar #164 to #162 - yuukoku (12/08/2013) [-]
Both. There's also going to be entire paragraphs quoting Leviticus or Genesis.

I hate both of them. Don't be ******* sorry for believing in God and don't be telling other people that they're stupid for believing in God. I have nothing against Atheists or Christians, we all just need to shut up and be proud of who we are and be done with it.
#36 - euphoricturtle (12/08/2013) [-]
Reading the comments below, it just shows that there are BILLIONS of ways to interpretate the bible and all that **** . Anybody could use it to justify their opinion and views, no matter how ****** up or morally wrong.
User avatar #105 to #36 - YllekNayr ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
This is why it's best to find your morals outside of a book.
#217 to #105 - dross (12/08/2013) [-]
And by extension, live by your own morals. My entire life and the way I live it is a patchwork of things I've picked up on the way some not even from the internet! Ok I lied.... and made my own decisions on.

It might be a pretty ****** patchwork that's draped over a computer chair in a dimly-lit room that smells like cats and beer though, but at least it's mine.

User avatar #266 to #217 - YllekNayr ONLINE (12/09/2013) [-]
Right. Anyone claiming objective morality is probably someone set rigidly in their own ways, unable to change as society does.
#14 - sinclairr (12/08/2013) [-]
This is a good way to explain it.

I always kinda chalked it up to the fact it's a very outdated rule in the bible, but it had it's place. If I was a god, and I needed humans to reproduce and grow, it would make sense why homosexuality would be restricted. But than there's things such as the 10 commandments, which became outdated with Jesus's rule of 'Love'. It's simply another rule/guide that is no longer needed, but people cling to it because no one officially said 'This isn't true anymore'.

Sadly, the bible is to be interoperated. 'If a man is to lie with another man, he is to be stoned'.

Does that say "Homosexually requires a stoning" to you? Because to me it says " ****** don't tell lies ta ya brothers or else we gun throw stones at ya ugly dawg face, ****** "
#30 to #14 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
You're going down a slippery slope. You are saying that God can pass a law for the sake of the moment and then repeal them when they become obsolete. I feel this is a good argument for why God allowed polygamy, but the problem is this: should God be free to flip the switches of morality as he sees fit? If so, how can we be so sure of morality itself? God is free to make murder a sin while the genocide of a group of people justified as long as the end justifies the means. How do we respond to the zealot who kills in the name of God saying that God spoke to them and excused them from the sin in doing an act that would normally be an act of sin?
User avatar #64 - alphagex (12/08/2013) [-]
How can god be real if our eyes aren`t?
Jaden Smith:1
#108 to #64 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
User avatar #109 to #108 - kingxddd (12/08/2013) [-]
man **** safari zone
#198 - gongthehawkeye (12/08/2013) [-]
Here's a better idea:   
"Don't be a dick unless it's really funny"   
Problem solved.
Here's a better idea:
"Don't be a dick unless it's really funny"
Problem solved.
User avatar #208 to #198 - jasohazard (12/08/2013) [-]
Praise to my new god.
#133 - thelastelephant (12/08/2013) [-]
I'll just stick with the religion of Solaire and George Carlin, thank you very much.
User avatar #137 to #133 - fizzor (12/08/2013) [-]
A fellow warrior of the Sunlight? Praise the sun!
#138 to #137 - thelastelephant (12/08/2013) [-]
 I am prepared to sink with this ship for that

I am prepared to sink with this ship for that
#157 to #138 - Uther (12/08/2013) [-]
You will never sink if you praise the sun
User avatar #88 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
youre telling me, a jew,
because of Jesus, it was no longer required to have circumcisions?
this Jesus fella is suddenly starting to appeal to me
too bad its 18 years too ******* late
#97 to #88 - thegrandexemplar (12/08/2013) [-]
Well, I mean, Jesus only really cared about christians. All y'all non-believing Jews, have to keep getting your dick bits hacked off.
User avatar #100 to #97 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
irrelevant. i dont believe in any of the ******** . im just ******* pissed my dick had to suffer at the hands of religion. **** them all
#101 to #100 - thegrandexemplar (12/08/2013) [-]
Sucks man. On the bright side, Isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or some **** ?
User avatar #104 to #101 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
i dont ******* care, id rather have had the ability to make that decision for myself
User avatar #181 to #104 - themongoose (12/08/2013) [-]
foreskin restoration is a thing
User avatar #229 to #181 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
its a thing for people who have been half-cut with the skin folded back. if its gone completely its not possible
User avatar #240 to #229 - themongoose (12/08/2013) [-]
nah, just takes less time for a looser cut.
User avatar #244 to #240 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
it wouldnt be a regular one anyway. not worth it
User avatar #117 to #104 - crazylance (12/08/2013) [-]
Ha ha! I am a Jew and I didn't get circumcised !
No really. I live in Israel. But my mom didn't want me to get circumcised after my brother's circumcision.
A shame for thy loss but at least you don't have to lie about having done a circumcision.
#121 to #119 - crazylance (12/08/2013) [-]
Love ya too mate.
User avatar #170 to #101 - schindewolforch (12/08/2013) [-]
circumcision prettymuch ruins your sex life. IDK about you, but i'd prefer to wash my dick instead of having it all mutilated and dull
User avatar #223 to #170 - Aladdin (12/08/2013) [-]
And I'm sure all the ladies are lining up to get some of your disgusting anteater dick.
User avatar #262 to #223 - schindewolforch (12/08/2013) [-]
europeans and prettymuch everywear that isn't murica don't cut and they see it as normal
User avatar #213 to #100 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
youre an idiot. non jews do it to keep hygienic as much as jews do it for religious purposes. just be happy that your ancestors were smarter than you
User avatar #230 to #213 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
youre a special kind of stupid
User avatar #235 to #230 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
is that all you gotta say? do you know that jews (especially the most succesful ones) are religious?

did you know kaballah is practised properly only by those who actually make a difference in the world (good or bad, that difference is still worthy of noting) while you lead a mediocre life at best i assume?

i dont doubt judaism for one second and you shouldnt neither
User avatar #239 to #235 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
the **** are you on about
they did it 5000 years ago because leaving it risked infection and such
in modern times, we have medicine to treat it. their old customs of cutting are outdated and more or less obsolete
User avatar #243 to #239 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
it doesnt mean theyre stupid, in fact it only meant they were smart.. youre just an angry little **** who doesnt understand his heritage properly
User avatar #245 to #243 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
no ******* i know it was smart
im saying now its irrelevant and should ******* stop
User avatar #247 to #245 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
how is it irrelevant? its more relevant than ever since everyone else is doing it. the only difference is we praise god whilst doing it as a means of gratitude for the wisdom weve been given
User avatar #249 to #247 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
thats ******* stupid
do you even listen to yourself
User avatar #250 to #249 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
wow. 12 year old alert... well done, you definitely proved me wrong..
User avatar #251 to #250 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
>only difference is we praise god whilst doing it

and this is why i dont worship anything
User avatar #253 to #251 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
thats because you take god too literally to be some dude in the sky. It isn't stupid when you understand what 'God' really is and why we praise 'him'
User avatar #254 to #253 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
no holy **** not at all
this is why i hate religion, because of people like you who always find some justified reason as to why religion can just do whatever the **** it wants in the name of something that probably doesnt even exist
and the people who cut up dicks because this thing told them to in the past and it saved their lives then, theyre ******* retarded and should just let it the **** go
User avatar #256 to #254 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
hey. the proof is in the pudding and as I said before, your people are the most successful beings on the planet and despite being a minority hated on throughout the ages have somehow managed to prevail.

Youre probably only thinking religion is stupid because of christians and muslims who have pretty much tainted our religion.. especially christianity.. wow that **** was ridiculous
User avatar #259 to #256 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
no i dont care about that at all
like i said, i hate religion
because they forced their ******** customs on me for a belief i dont share. **** them all
User avatar #261 to #259 - lolzordz (12/08/2013) [-]
the only reason you dont share that belief is because another belief has been imposed on you.. The world is made up of beliefs. Only thing which is true is one plus one equals two.

So yeah, you can choose not to believe in jewish customs. But take a look at other people's customs... what are the results of those? You have to be aware of the longterm results. not your immediate pleasures, dont reduce yourself to a senseless animal.

when you grow up you will realise these customs are not stupid. and that judaism is ultimately a guide for living in the most pragmatic way ever designed by man.

User avatar #263 to #261 - gwenisghey (12/09/2013) [-]
I'm 18 I've already had a long enough time to think about this **** . No other belief has been imposed on me, I make my calls through something called "common sense". Know who has the best guides for living? Atheists. Why? Because they can pick and choose certain aspects of a religion that actually makes the least bit of ******* sense, without being bound by the things described that they should or shouldn't do, and certainly not because some "higher being" told them to. **** that. I believe in a god. But I don't give a **** what he "said" to do or not do. And for **** sake, if its so so god damn pragmatic for today's society, why the **** is eating pig still technically forbidden? And getting tattoos? And organ donations? These were rules they had to set 5000 years ago because it was the best way to stay alive and healthy. Today, we have medicine and **** which they didn't have back then. The old practices are obsolete, and they only still do it because "god said so". And no. When I get older, I will most definitely NOT be embracing these customs I am "so ignorantly" criticizing
User avatar #264 to #263 - lolzordz (12/09/2013) [-]
there are deep rooted reasons for all those rules. Also modern medicine isn't as great as you think it is btw.

Anyway, when i was 18 i thought I knew everything. just like you. Your age is represented by spring time in Chinese philosophy. young and full of unbound energy. I wont force anything on you but just keep an open mind, jews (of which some of the greatest and wisest men were) didnt keep 5000 year old traditions to just be called stupid by an 18 year old boy
User avatar #265 to #264 - gwenisghey (12/09/2013) [-]
they kept them because some being their ancestors told them was real said they should do it
the whole purpose was to keep them alive for the time being. it worked. move on with it ffs
User avatar #171 to #88 - schindewolforch (12/08/2013) [-]
its ok, i feel you man.
User avatar #122 to #88 - odioomnes (12/08/2013) [-]
Circumcised penises are more attractive dude, don't worry.
User avatar #123 to #122 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
i dont give a **** what other people think
User avatar #124 to #123 - odioomnes (12/08/2013) [-]
Why are you so angry about this
#136 to #124 - marcury (12/08/2013) [-]
Well he got a piece of his dick chopped off...

If it wasn't accepted social custom it would be considered a torture.
User avatar #227 to #136 - gwenisghey (12/08/2013) [-]
i dont consider it accepted social custom
User avatar #195 - alonetime (12/08/2013) [-]
God's trilogy: old testament, new testament, and the quran

get mad
User avatar #200 to #195 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
From the Islamic perspective, that's entirely correct.
User avatar #206 to #195 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
Jew Wars IV: A New Faith
Jew Wars V: The Prophet strikes back
Jew Wars VI: Return of Muhammad
User avatar #172 - aliethecakeis (12/08/2013) [-]
Paul says in Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" This pretty clearly states we should still follow the old laws. Not trying to cause a ********* but that argument is invalid.
User avatar #209 to #172 - thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (12/08/2013) [-]
Although you have a point, that doesn't really make this argument invalid.

The bible is very contextual.

Romans 6:15-23 is discussing a contextual, literary form of slavery - as it discusses the righteousness of sanctification.

User avatar #175 to #172 - konradkurze (12/08/2013) [-]
the whole bible is a *********** of contradictions, its like a lawyer wrote it
User avatar #182 to #175 - reginleif (12/08/2013) [-]
He's right you know.

I'm not anti bible, but that book is hard to read sometimes.

He who is not with me is against me
—Matthew 12:30a

Whoever is not against us is for us
—Mark 9:40

This messed with my head as a child.
#202 to #182 - justleavefagmin (12/08/2013) [-]
Whoever doesn't agree is against us.

Whoever doesn't disagree is for us.

Where are you getting lost?
User avatar #190 to #182 - konradkurze (12/08/2013) [-]
and also look at some of the other angles of it all

when abraham wasnt able to find a sheep to sacrifice he was supposed to kill his own son in its place, and he was fully about to do it till a sheep happened to appear

do you REALLY want to follow a religion that axpects you to be ready to kill your own family as a sign of your loyalty
#96 - fuckyouaswell (12/08/2013) [-]
This is now my Funnyjunk bookmark.
This is now my Funnyjunk bookmark.
#106 to #96 - arreatface (12/08/2013) [-]
Is it just me or Kurt Cobain is cynically applausing on this picture ?
User avatar #28 - kennyh (12/08/2013) [-]
Sorry but according to the Jesus himself he did not come to change the law of the Old Testament. in Mathew 5:17 Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Also while Jesus did not have anything to say about it, the Bible does.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

I'm not saying it is wrong. I'm just saying the Bible does condemn it. Nothing to say about lesbians though so...
User avatar #32 to #28 - gildemoono (12/08/2013) [-]
I'm fairly sure when he is saying that he is referring to the law of Rome seeing as many saw him as an upsetter of sorts which could lead to revolution or social policy changes. And when he says "to fulfill" I would also say that this lends to the content as he is here to fulfill the forgiveness of original sin.

As for the Bible saying that, while true, it is in leviticus and part of old law. Assuming this post's truth, Old Law is null.
User avatar #34 to #32 - kennyh (12/08/2013) [-]
Reading the previous and next couple verses actually makes it pretty clear he is referring to the old law of the old testament.
User avatar #42 to #28 - zzforrest (12/08/2013) [-]
When he fulfills, it is because basically the laws are compensation. Kind of like debt slavery, you did wrong so now you must do these things to pay. Jesus claims, he didn't come to simply get rid of your debt, but instead to pay it for you.
User avatar #44 to #42 - kennyh (12/08/2013) [-]
When he speaks of fulfillment he is speaking of fulfilling the prophesies made in the Old Testament. Not of "fulfilling" the law not really possible
I'm not sure it can be determined 100% one way or another but I did do a few semesters of Bible College.
User avatar #45 to #44 - zzforrest (12/08/2013) [-]
Alright, the way most religious people I talk to see it, basically the law still exists, and you can still redeem yourself from sin by animal sacrifice, wearing the right kind of cloth, etc. but after Jesus made himself sacrifice ( lamb of god ), you can utilize his sacrifice as a way of redeeming yourself from sin. He has offered that, at any time, you may use him as a way of redeeming yourself.
This stuff comes from christians who can recite the bible backwards and forwards, so I trust them.
User avatar #46 to #45 - kennyh (12/08/2013) [-]
Actually the belief that you can atone for your sins yourself AFTER Jesus' sacrifice goes against quite a lot of tenants given in the bible.
But like I said, I do not think any one person can know for sure the complexities of salvation from sin. The Bible is pretty open to interpretation I think so anyway
User avatar #47 to #46 - zzforrest (12/08/2013) [-]
Yeah, a lot of people agree that the Bible is up to your interpretation.
I myself believe that religion is a personal thing. I don't think that I could find god through a book, but through my own suffering and life I would find him. I believe that each person should find what they believe, and in a strange way I feel that every personal belief is "right". I encourage people to find their own truth, and what they believe. It isn't because every truth is different, but you can find many ways to express the truth, and every brain sees the truth differently.
User avatar #48 to #47 - kennyh (12/08/2013) [-]
It is funny how I can have a more meaningful religious conversation on FunnyJunk here on Sunday that I could at most churches I have been to. I guess people can be hones't on the internet and just say what they really think.
User avatar #54 to #48 - zzforrest (12/08/2013) [-]
I feel ya, man. I think it's because, on the internet we don't know each other. I don't honestly know your views, your background, who you are, etc. Any personal religious debate would begin to reference who you are, and who I am. But to each other, we are anonymous, we don't know who we are so all we can talk are ideas and facts. We can't kick into each other personally without making assumptions ( e.g. I'm a brony : I'm not, I just like this profile image ).
#173 to #28 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
Please keep in mind that if you abide by these laws of Leviticus you must abide by the rest. You do not get to selectively choose which sections of this code to follow.
User avatar #13 - vandettamask (12/08/2013) [-]
First time I see a post without: "GET OUT", "I don't even" or the old classic "Things ye can't even".
User avatar #37 to #13 - toensix (12/08/2013) [-]
Is it really the first? I mean it's uncommon, yes, but it isn't that rare.
#11 - tkfourtwoone (12/08/2013) [-]
Yeah, about that "express purpose of sacrificing himself"... logic, much?
#23 to #11 - matoromahri (12/08/2013) [-]
Problem: God did not condemn humans to sin, humans condemned themselves to sin. For example, you train your dog not to **** on the carpet. If he does, you tell him "bad dog." Did you decide on your own to tell your dog that? No. The dog brought it upon itself. I know this is kind of a bad analogy, but it's not like God just randomly decided "I'm going to condemn all these people to sin."
#35 to #23 - madcoww (12/08/2013) [-]
You would be right if God wasn't the all-powerful, all-knowing creator. Your argument banks on the reality of free will, which is impossible given the condition of the first sentence. Why do people make the choices they do, is it nature or nurture? If they are bad by nature, it is God who has given them their nature, and therefore God's fault. If they are bad by nurture, well, that's requires a longer explanation:

Does God interact with the world after he created it? If so, he has the incredible knowledge on how to influence everyone's individual life in the most minuscule way to give them the experiences that will lead them to him (and, obviously, he has the power to do so). If this cannot be done, it can only be that people's nature makes change impossible, which has already been discussed.

However, let's say God in a non-intervening God: he got the world spinning and then stepped back and watched it unfold. This is the trickiest argument yet. If God is all-knowing, he knew how the dominoes would fall even before he set them up. In fact, he set them up with the intention they would fall as they did. Here's the hard part to wrap our minds around: if God wanted to change even the most minuscule aspect about today's world, he could have done it in the very beginning. He, with INFINITE knowledge, would be able to calculate how to shift the dominoes in the smallest way so that they would fall with the slightest variation. Although this seems overwhelming, it is possible for such a being.

Therefore, free will cannot exist, and our actions are the result of God's Will. This is what Calvinism was all about because using this logic, the only way someone can go to hell is if God wills it.
User avatar #210 to #35 - themongoose (12/08/2013) [-]
To make God all powerful AND all knowing at the same time limits his power. If he can not control what he chooses to know, then he is not all powerful - control is a tenet of power. If he chooses not to know what will happen, then he is going to let it unfold without knowing the outcome unless he so chooses. The Bible does call God Almighty, but you can never find one place where it calls him Omniscient. There are places like Isaiah 46:9 that say he 'knows from the beginning the end,' but all this means is that he does in fact have the ability to do so, which is why people try to say that the book of Daniel was written after the fact - it's too accurate.

Example: say you can bench press 350 lbs. Are you always lifting 350 lbs because you have the ability? No. Do you have the ability to do it if you so wish? Yes.

Now that the premises of your argument are null, man's inclination - nature - leans to what is bad. We get to choose whether or not we serve him or not, just as he gave the Jews under Joshua's leadership the option to do what they wanted and gave them the option to change their minds Joshua 24, see also Deuteronomy 30:19

James 1:13-15 also tells us that, God is not the cause of bad things in the world, therefore your argument is again not valid. If God wills evil, he is the cause of evil. This is not so.
#196 to #35 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
The argument is more towards Heaven actually, one can only be accepted into heaven if God has decided it to be so. Therefore nobody can become a christian, no body has the power to get into heaven. It is all Gods choice and it has always been so. Makes it difficult to judge bad people knowing that God has never wanted them.
User avatar #201 - AlexPaincakes (12/08/2013) [-]
I really wish the mass public could read this.

Oh I really do.
User avatar #221 - adrilazzaro (12/08/2013) [-]
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius
I live by this, another good quote is
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

These are logical conclusion imo
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

 Friends (0)