Unless. The Bible does say this. You can't argue that. What you believe is different.. J' t KNOW, Cht? AT WHICH DDINT HELL Pot? THE BIBLE! TELUS SENO you TD HEL i bet Youre Butt hurts
Click to expand


Unless. The Bible does say this. You can't argue that. What you believe is different.. J' t KNOW, Cht? AT WHICH DDINT HELL Pot? THE BIBLE! TELUS SENO you TD HEL

The Bible does say this. You can't argue that. What you believe is different.

F FOA an f! up
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 26963
Favorited: 46
Submitted: 08/31/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to cullenatorguy submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#52 - Kushmonster (09/01/2012) [-]
**Kushmonster rolled a random image posted in comment #971 at What Do You Do? **He especially hates this
#54 to #52 - imnotkickthecat (09/01/2012) [-]
Polytheistic anal sex... yea i would so too.
Polytheistic anal sex... yea i would so too.
User avatar #55 to #54 - imnotkickthecat (09/01/2012) [-]
i would say so too*
#49 - lehappyturtle (09/01/2012) [-]
So this just happened...
#112 to #49 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
**cullenatorguy rolled a random image posted in comment #1 at Real friends are getting harder to find **
lol I'm Satan
#61 to #49 - hakusprite **User deleted account** (09/01/2012) [-]
#59 - hakusprite **User deleted account** (09/01/2012) [-]
User avatar #22 - tehrealfluttershy (09/01/2012) [-]
God loves everybody, that's stated in the bible hundreds and hundreds of times... He hates being gay, not the gays themselves Etc... It's not that hard to understand that part.
User avatar #32 to #22 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Why does he hate what he created?
If everyone is made in god's image...
Does that mean god is gay?

#117 to #32 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
"God doesn't hate gay people"

"Then why does he hate gay people?"
User avatar #119 to #117 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
I didn't say he hated gay people. I asked why he hates the sin he created...
#122 to #119 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
-Suggesting Christians believe God created sin-
User avatar #126 to #122 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Does god have a plan for everything?
User avatar #127 to #126 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
Relevance, for 500, Alex.
User avatar #132 to #127 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
It's relevant. Just answer my question and I shall show you THE WORLD
User avatar #136 to #132 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
Yeeeeeaaahhh no. Also: if you're going to make an atheist post, at least be knowledgeable on the subject and/or post something funny.
User avatar #141 to #136 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Answer the damned question.
User avatar #144 to #141 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
I'll humor you, I suppose. I haven't much time for a proper debate, however. Though I do not know any sects of Christianity that believe God has a particular plan for "everything", but some do indeed include a plan for "everyone".
User avatar #149 to #144 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Ehhh, I'll was hoping for your personal opinion on the matter. Lets just say you answered "yes". By that logic, god is ultimately responsible for the creation of sin, because he planned for it made whatever situation it was created in possible. If you answered no, than god can not exist. That's a pretty rash statement, right? I'll provide my reasoning. Any "god" of our modern times is always omnipotent, correct? All knowing, all powerful, all loving...
If god isn't responsible for the creation of sin, which he doesn't like, then why would he allow it to be created? He is, after all, all powerful, right? If god doesn't posess these qualities, then how can he ever be considered a god?
"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?"
I realize both of those views may not fit you, but it's normally one of the two. That's what I was going to say. The relevance is burning you, isn't it?
User avatar #162 to #149 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
Not really... There was no relevance to the original reply of mine to your comment. Regardless, according to most sects of Christianity, he allows "bad" things to happen (exemplum gratia: sin) either A. So that we realize how good good things are B. So that He might receive glory for the destruction/triumph over that which is bad or evil. However, I guess you might could say He indirectly created sin by creating that which created it (though still justified in his hatred of it). But ultimately, a large majority of Christians (at least to my knowledge) believe that there is evil in the world so that God can **** up its **** , or that we might **** up its **** through him; e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, or the Amalekites.
User avatar #164 to #162 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
God sounds like a little kid who made a pillow fort just for the pleasure of tearing it down.
User avatar #165 to #164 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
So you are resorting to loose-ended analogies? I think I've spent enough time here.
User avatar #169 to #165 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
I'm not resorting to anything as petty as that. That was a joke. God does seem to be acting pretty petty though. Making something just so he can destroy it, thus gaining glory from his followers. What does god have to prove? He is god, after all.
User avatar #171 to #169 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
This I do not, and cannot know. He is not bound by any law of man's perception, therefore is impossible to fully comprehend. He probably was just bored.
User avatar #175 to #171 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Dude, you should pray for him to make pokemon real. That **** would be hilarious. Not boring at all.
User avatar #176 to #175 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
Watch Jesus come back riding a Charizard.
User avatar #178 to #176 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
That **** would make me believe.
User avatar #50 to #32 - lazypaul (09/01/2012) [-]
Is everybody gay?
User avatar #64 to #50 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Of course not, but there are gay people. So I guess god is bisexual.
User avatar #51 to #22 - lockstin (09/01/2012) [-]
right, he hates homosexuALITY not homosexuALS. just like how he hates people having sex before marriage....now if only most Christians still followed that.
#41 to #22 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
He hates sin, but loves the sinner wich is what we should do. This means admonishing the sinner and not just trying to keep from hurting peoples feelings.
User avatar #26 to #22 - IAmAdamSavage (09/01/2012) [-]
You know, he's right. I'm agnostic and I understand this.
#33 to #26 - faithrider (09/01/2012) [-]
indeed it is correct adam savage
#66 - cyberdemon (09/01/2012) [-]
<---- thought of this
User avatar #110 - stolkenator (09/01/2012) [-]
I just noticed in the comments that OP is swinging fists at people.

He just can't let people call him a faggot.
User avatar #121 to #110 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
lol, no I like debate. Call me a faggot all you want.
#17 - bmanisawesome **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 - anonythegame (09/01/2012) [-]
wow an atheist joke,because that's never been done before
#40 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
More like Pig the Dick.
User avatar #13 - harpoonafrittata (09/01/2012) [-]
Yeah the pig seems real nice and upbeat. Surely many will be his friend.
User avatar #16 to #13 - EmmyGee (09/01/2012) [-]
i would be his friend
User avatar #43 to #16 - harpoonafrittata (09/01/2012) [-]
Thats ironic cause you have RD as your avatar. The pig demonstrates absolutely no love and tolerance my good friend. If cynical people are what you want for friends, hey go nuts. That is all.
User avatar #188 to #43 - EmmyGee (09/02/2012) [-]
i like cynicism, so what?
User avatar #120 - dangler (09/01/2012) [-]
"Thus saith the Lord: I hate fags." Nowhere in the Bible Chapter 8 Verse 12

Also: *your*
#67 - eddievh (09/01/2012) [-]
person on the left
User avatar #77 to #67 - antedeluvian ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
From the boob drawings on her shirt in the first 2 pictures Im guessing it's a girl.
User avatar #80 to #77 - eddievh (09/01/2012) [-]
Yeah, but you can never be too sure
User avatar #4 - lukefaulk (09/01/2012) [-]
Well according to the Bible, God loves us all. How loving would he be if he didn't discipline us for disobeying him.

I am prepared for red thumbs
User avatar #48 to #4 - GenerationFallen (09/01/2012) [-]
Why are you prepared for red thumbs? Look at every other comment.. Same exact thing.
#1 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2 to #1 - cullenatorguy (08/31/2012) [-]
It is pretty black and white, actually. It may seem like it's grey, but it's actually pretty simple. Christians follow the Bible, but not all of it. They pick and choose what they think fits in with their personal beliefs. This is called cherry picking. As an atheist, watching people cherry pick what they want to believe from their holy book makes Christians (and other religions) look incredibly stupid. If you're going to follow one part of a text, you should follow the rest of it as well. What makes the matter look grey is all the Bible verses thrown from both sides, trying to prove each other wrong.
#15 to #2 - benjah (09/01/2012) [-]
Could you provide some examples of where Christians don't follow the bible (excluding liberal Christians, they generally admit to not following it word for word). I could try and see where you think Christians are going wrong.
User avatar #23 to #15 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Well the fact that you don't see anyone killing eachother because they ate some shrimp is a pretty good example. I also haven't seen any stonings by christians either. Even the most fundemental christians don't do this. I hear them say things like "Gods law is above all, even the laws man has created" and things of the sort. So why don't they kill gays? Or people who wear mixed fabrics? or stone a woman who had sex in her fathers house?
#27 to #23 - benjah (09/01/2012) [-]
Yes, those are laws as presented in the OT. However, the NT has changed a lot, but is rarely explained properly to people, resulting in this misconception. Imma break it down into 2 parts, the laws themselves and the Punishments the laws demanded.
The Laws:
A fair number of laws in the OT are 'cleanliness laws', they were there so the unclean, sinning Israelites could still be all 'Yo, Yahweh, slap dem Philistines, yo' without getting salt-pillar'd (see Lot's wife). These laws include the clothing, food and menstruation laws, basically things relating to the physical body. It all changed when Jesus died. Suddenly all humanity was 'washed clean' by his death and we didn't need to worry about 'clean' and 'unclean'. This has many repercussions, such as Jew/Gentile distinction being redundant and no more sacrifices (sacrifices used the blood of the animal to 'wash clean' the person sacrificing, Jesus, ultimate sacrifice, you get the idea). So in Christian theology, a number of laws are, not really revoked but outdated. Following them implies a lack of faith in the success of Jesus sacrifice.
The Punishments:
With Jesus death, the way sin was handled also changed, it wasn't communal any more, it was personal. In the OT whole communities were blessed or cursed, but after Jesus death (are you beginning to see a theme here?) each person had to take responsibility for their own sin and couldn't 'hide in the crowd'. As such, the community couldn't really punish one member for breaking God's laws, or else they would be judged accordingly (Jesus says a couple things specifically about this).
That is why you see Christians wearing kick-ass suits and eating bacon burgers.
Incidentally, sex laws weren't cleanliness laws, so the 'sex in fathers house' still applies but humans should no longer pass judgement on it.
Hope this helps.
User avatar #29 to #27 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
lol, long comment. While you may have just cleared up a few problems, others still remain. For instance, isn't god's word infallible? eternal? lasting forever without change?
Matthew 5:17 also says that Jesus didn't come to banish the law, so the law should still stand, you just don't need to sacrifice anymore. You aren't against homosexuality, though, right? Because that would be the most hypocritical thing you could possibly do.
And that sex thing didn't really help your point. I mean, you just admitted to not following the word of god.
#36 to #29 - benjah (09/01/2012) [-]
As I said, a number of laws are 'not really revoked but outdated'. They still stand, multi-material clothing is still unclean it just doesn't matter because of the whole 'washed by Jesus blood' thing. The laws that have since become outdated were essentially place-holders. Though, again, they still stand, but they have stopped applying.
The 'lasting forever without change', while unaware of any creed applying that quality to everything God said, doesn't mean they can't stop being applicable. After all, God told the Jews to leave Egypt, that doesn't mean that any Jew in Egypt needs to run to the Israeli boarder lest they 'break Gods commands'. After the Jews left Egypt they had no divine command to flee from there whenever they went on holiday, and the same applies to the commands mentioned above.
I also fail to see how holding a Biblical view of homosexuality can be 'the most hypocritical thing you could possibly do.' Surely me saying all this and then sacrificing a small lamb to Buddha would be more hypocritical. js.
User avatar #37 to #36 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Being against homosexuality would be hypocritical. I've come to realize something. I'll never win this argument with anyone. Why? Because it's all about interpretation. Different people interpret the bible differently. Someone is always going to have something new, and I don't want to deal with it. The mere fact that it's up for interpretation isn't even good. God's word should be direct and final, with no need for questioning.
#18 to #15 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Look at Catholic Doctrine, then look at the Bible. The amount of difference is almost silly.
#19 to #18 - benjah (09/01/2012) [-]
A lot can be strange to 21st century sensibilities, true (their views on contraception are a bit odd even to me) but the vast majority of the strangeness comes from the Catholic duality of authority (there must be some other word for it but whatever) because Catholics have both Tradition (dogma) and the Bible as sources of authority. Everyone else generally tries to keep to just the Bible. Plus, Catholicism isn't properly representative of Christianity. Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists and especially Orthodox are very different and all should be examined instead of just 'lol catholics are retarded, christians must then suck' which seems to happen a lot.
/over-long response.
#97 - anon (09/01/2012) [-]
Its hard to even believe (no pun intended) that christianity is still at large, in the modern times..

Ps. we learned in History that christianity is actually mixed up from older religions, including the greek religion for example....soo... it first took ideas from other religions, then said they were all wrong and their made-up weird hybrid religion is THE truth.
User avatar #101 to #97 - cullenatorguy (09/01/2012) [-]
Someone who finally understands
#99 to #97 - humblebro **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #128 - randybutternub (09/01/2012) [-]
I'm getting tired of the Atheists versus Theists posts. Who gives a flying **** ? Really?
#156 - XPurdonx **User deleted account** (09/01/2012) [-]
Can't we just enjoy the picture without starting an argument?
#45 - abceabce (09/01/2012) [-]
I thought back to bioshock 1 and remembered the male splicers, or in Atlas's case, "SPLOSARZ!" sang that song. Good memories of gaming.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)