Just thought you guys should know. www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Theists-and-Atheists/261864453943591. A shallot considered valid only ofthe wife is a virgin. If
x

Just thought you guys should know

A shallot considered valid
only ofthe wife is a virgin. If the . 1 f
wif. eis; not a virgin, she shall be s. ts:: ute... i. i. 1 t Iitt =
eateth. pomy 22: '
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2328
Views: 67926
Favorited: 214
Submitted: 01/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to bruskiiiiiiiiii submit to reddit

Comments(465):

[ 465 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#88 - themiigoss (01/31/2013) [-]
<--- The comments
<--- The comments
#413 to #88 - irishbeer (01/31/2013) [-]
I ******* recognize that. It's the wall of death during Caliban's set at Wacken Open Air.
Awesome.
#125 to #88 - isaacshadow (01/31/2013) [-]
So bloody true its actually scary.
#407 - shiifter (01/31/2013) [-]
I have seen what horrors lie below.
Dont scroll down, just press the right arrow.
Please, please, for the love of god.
PRESS THE RIGHT ARROW.
#454 - drmrniceguy (01/31/2013) [-]
&gt;Internet   
&gt;Religion   
   
I'm out
>Internet
>Religion

I'm out
#458 to #454 - Whaaaaaaaaa (01/31/2013) [-]
&lt;MFW, Atheist and Theologists start arguing.
<MFW, Atheist and Theologists start arguing.
#150 - helenwheels (01/31/2013) [-]
If god isn't real then how come my Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner fits perfectly in my bowl?
#465 - auesis (01/31/2013) [-]
Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT scroll down. Just don't. Move along.
Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT scroll down. Just don't. Move along.
#456 - rapetape (01/31/2013) [-]
mfw religious post
#25 - brothergrimm (01/30/2013) [-]
here we go..............
#18 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the two most quoted books by Atheists that aren't a part of Christian law.
#267 to #18 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the two most qoted books by Christians that aren't a part of Christian Law.
0
#469 to #18 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#470 to #469 - trickytrickster (01/31/2013) [-]
It's stupid for an atheist to try and disprove Christianity and the Bible by quoting Leviticus and Deut, and it's stupid for a Christian to use Leviticus and Deut to prove a point.
User avatar #62 to #18 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/30/2013) [-]
From what I've seen, it's only done to counter anti-gay sentiments that are supported by Old Testament scripture as a way to show that if you follow those teachings then you should follow them all.
#120 to #62 - trickytrickster (01/31/2013) [-]
Eh, I see your point. Although they could just quote Romans, which has a verse that could be interpreted as against homosexual actions, or it could be against male prostitution/pedophilia that was common in the society Paul was preaching to. I personally have no issues with gay marriage as long as Churches aren't forced to recognize it. I think gay sex is sinful, but I also think that sex before marriage is sinful as well, or any sex that doesn't lead to a chance for procreation(ie contraceptives, etc), but that opens up a whole different topic. Just sharing my opinion.
User avatar #520 to #120 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2013) [-]
Usually I just see the infamous one from Leviticus, what's the one from Romans?

Geez, what do you have left to do at that point? That's like two-thirds of the fun things in life that you just defined as sins.
#521 to #520 - trickytrickster (01/31/2013) [-]
Haha I still have fun. Don't you worry ;-) It's Romans 1: 26-27.
User avatar #27 to #18 - whatley (01/30/2013) [-]
If you want to follow Jesus' teachings then you should follow all of Deuteronomy really.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
#29 to #27 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
That is honestly the number 1 quote given to me by atheists/agnostics/etc when I tell people that the Old Testament is not the law of Christians.

Jesus didn't abolish them, he fulfilled them, making them null. If you have a job and need to make 200 cookies, and you finished the job, was your requirement abolished? No, it still existed, But it was fulfilled, and so you no longer have to do it. Jesus came and fulfilled the requirements of the Old Testament so that heaven could be opened and we could have eternal life.
User avatar #32 to #29 - whatley (01/30/2013) [-]
Difference is that the laws apply to everyone, they're not a task like you put it. The laws were not abolished, and therefore they are still in place. If Jesus fulfilled the laws then that means that he did everything the laws say, which in my opinion makes him a real cunt.
If the laws are not abolished, then what are they, answer that. There's no middle ground, they're either in place or they're not. There can't be laws put in place by God's messengers which are still there, but you don't have to do, because that would be contradictory to the definition of a law.
#40 to #32 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
Also this. You need to login to view this link

He didn't abolish the law. Adultery is still a sin, that didn't change.
#34 to #32 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
It's confusing because I take it you don't have a grasp of why the Old Testament laws were in place, what their purpose was and that whole jist. I don't mean that in a condescending way. The people were impure and had sins, they had to kill animals, etc make sacrifices, live a certain way. When Jesus came and died on the cross he fulfilled all of these requirements. He taught them the new way to live life. The laws meaning and purpose are still there, but the need for them are fulfilled. By saying he fulfilled them, he isn't saying he lived them out, that is evident when he stops the stoning of an adulterer and tells them he who is without sin should cast the first stone. He fulfilled the Old Testament and the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant was created. It's like going to war and signing a treaty. After 5 years, if you have kept the terms, the old treaty is fulfilled and a new one is written. The old treaty isn't abolished, it's just obsolete. I'm not exactly sure how to explain this in a way to make sense to you.
User avatar #39 to #34 - whatley (01/30/2013) [-]
Hm, it's mostly arbitrary anyway, it wont change anything.

Considering you sound like a Christian who knows his **** , I have a genuine question of curiosity. Why is it that the third commandment says "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" but that happens a lot. I mean, I can still remember drawing Jesus when I was at Sunday School and no one gave a **** . Muslims tend to freak the **** out about that kind of thing though.
#46 to #39 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
Well, see you have struck a question that a lot of Christians disagree with, which is why a lot of Protestants think Catholics and Eastern Orthodox's are heathens and heretics. It's the 2nd commandment btw for Catholics. The commandment is about worshiping false gods, like the golden calf. I mean Exodus, where the commandments are located, also tells the Israelites to build two golden Cherubs for the Holy Temple, and Moses was commanded to make a serpent staff. Jesus even talked about the staff, but not negatively. So it obviously means not to worship false gods or to worship items as gods. Muslims are so tight due to historical causes. It isn't in the Koran, but it is in the Hadith. Shia Muslims draw Muhammad freely. It just varies.
#38 to #32 - trickytrickster (01/30/2013) [-]
Also you are missing the second half of that bible verse, which says that nothing will change until all is accomplished. Meaning it will hold true until Jesus dies on the cross. I find this website agreeable http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html
#97 to #29 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
The supposed death and resurrection of jesus only fulfilled the sacrificial laws. A god sacrifice meant animal sacrifices were no longer needed. You really should read up on the history of your religion before trying to argue it (though the guy you are arguing against is clueless too).
#118 to #97 - trickytrickster (01/31/2013) [-]
That isn't true. His death did fulfill the need for animal sacrifice, but it did so much more than that. It's the basis of Christianity, that the old law is fulfilled, that God came down and sacrificed himself for us, that he died so that our sins could be forgiven, and that he opened up heaven.
#361 to #118 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
This is a basic religious history issue and I'm not going to give you a history lesson. You would learn it in any objective comparative religions class. Take a few minutes and research it online without going to an overtly religious website.
#438 to #361 - trickytrickster (01/31/2013) [-]
Cool. Wanna check the "A" I got from when I took World Religions last semester at my super liberal public university for me?
#89 - thechosentroll (01/31/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, for below this comment lies a land of hatred, where logic does not exist and opinions rule. You are now entering a religious ********* .

Normally I love ********** , but I wouldn't touch thus **** with a 5 metre pole........... that's sterilised............................. and held by someone else.
#391 - ishotthedeputy (01/31/2013) [-]
Generally when extreme Christians quote the Bible, the main argument against them doing that is that they are taking the quotes out of context. By doing the same thing, you are no different than the Christians you criticize.
#396 to #391 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
If they didn't do that they would be doing something that does not inflate their massive, colossal, yet fragile ego. This causes their bodies internal gasses to force their brain to explode.
#290 - avatarsarefornoobs (01/31/2013) [-]
Its not funny, it only serves to rustle jimmies, and im pretty sure we've beaten this horse to death, ressurrected it with dark magic, then beat it to death again.   
   
   
   
Yet these posts still reach front page! I just don't get it!
Its not funny, it only serves to rustle jimmies, and im pretty sure we've beaten this horse to death, ressurrected it with dark magic, then beat it to death again.



Yet these posts still reach front page! I just don't get it!
User avatar #344 to #290 - hammarhead (01/31/2013) [-]
I thought it was funny...
#313 to #290 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
atheism is "in" nowadays
User avatar #315 to #313 - avatarsarefornoobs (01/31/2013) [-]
believe me, i noticed...
#117 - soonerman (01/31/2013) [-]
I'll assume this is some gay rights thing? The rainbow flag gave it away.

I watched this WBC documentary and a christian philosopher said that homosexuality back than when those bible verses were written was a man and a young boy getting it on, not 2 consenting (same-sex) adults

<--- boobs so it's not a complete waste
User avatar #355 to #117 - dadukesta (01/31/2013) [-]
It all happened back then, they just considered that the worst. Honestly i don't understand how people can assume that because it was a long time ago that people didn't consider putting their penises, vaginas and mouths in places out of curiousity.

Infact most muslims believe that the true messiah will be born of a man. The most extreme muslim men rape young men in an attempt of bringing the messiah to the world. There's a book that tells the story of a young pakistani who had this happen to him called "The Kite Runner". But yeah anyone who was consentingly having same sex intercourse didn't want to tell anyone.
User avatar #119 to #117 - soonerman (01/31/2013) [-]
right wing Christians: 0
left wing Christians: 0
Megan: 1
#263 - niggles (01/31/2013) [-]
I don't understand why people are quoting the Abrahamic Covenant. Jesus clearly dismissed that Covenant, I see these post about people quoting the Old Testament and I think "Obviously these people just googled these verses and never actually read it"
Why don't people grasp this concept?
#271 to #263 - volenti (01/31/2013) [-]
So.... homosexuality (only mentioned in the old testament) is allowed then?
User avatar #292 to #271 - Folzy (01/31/2013) [-]
there are plenty of verses in the new testiment mentioning homosexuality

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
#306 to #292 - volenti (01/31/2013) [-]
I'm glad you brought that up! If you are curious as to a scholarly discussion on the translations of those words and the reviewable context of those words, I suggest you read : [url deleted]

If that link doesn't work, then I'll simply refernce some of its points. Firstly, which bible translation you have is important. Your quotation says "men sleeping with men" which is very direct. But another bible version says the following... and here I quote the website link.:

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God."

[The website goes on to say]
For our purposes, of course, the two key terms here are “male prostitutes” and “sodomites.” It may well be the case, however, that these are not the most appropriate translations of the underlying Greek in the text.4
The Greek word translated as “male prostitutes” is the adjective malakoi (plural of malakos). This adjective means “soft,” as in a “soft” bed or a “soft” pillow. When applied to people, it can mean “lazy,” “self-indulgent,” “cowardly,” “lacking in self-control,” and the like. When applied to males, it generally refers to what are commonly regarded as feminine-like “weaknesses:” such men might be regarded as “soft,” “flabby,” “weak,” “cowardly,” “unmanly,” or “effeminate.” But to call a male “effeminate” might or might not carry implications of homosexuality. Sometimes it did, but certainly not always.... ETC
User avatar #330 to #306 - Folzy (01/31/2013) [-]
who knows what exactly the original text meant, so much was probably lost or changed when translated from hebrew and every year different translations are released and things are changed. i appreciate having a civil conversation with someone who's first response was to resort to name calling. i think its safe to say everyone is entitled to an opinion and from other peoples opinions you learn more, thanks for the depth on how things are translated from version to version! i give my regards to you and hope you have a great life!
#348 to #330 - volenti (01/31/2013) [-]
Thank you for the sentiment. I respect you.

I may seem hostile, but its simply that some of my best friends are segregated and vilified, and the old testament specifically (the bible generally) is quoted as reason for it.
#275 to #271 - niggles (01/31/2013) [-]
Homosexuality in allowed when Jesus said it was allowed.
Homosexuality in allowed when Jesus said it was allowed.
#280 to #275 - volenti (01/31/2013) [-]
Interesting fact: The bible I have specifically mentions MALE homosexuality... (I'm referring to Leviticus here.) Just... an interesting point.... I can't find any mention of lesbianism anywhere. So apparently... Jesus is a-go go on lezing out?
#287 to #280 - niggles (01/31/2013) [-]
That's because women were pretty much property in the Old Testament (not the case nowadays anymore of course) and were not mentioned very often. But, I have a heeling that you're just trying to be silly now. BUH THA'S OHKAY
#308 to #287 - volenti (01/31/2013) [-]
OH YOU GOT ME I WAS BEING SILLY BUUUUUUUUUUUUH
#260 - teenytinyspider (01/31/2013) [-]
*sigh* ANOTHER anti-Religious post.
#113 - kanatana (01/31/2013) [-]
It's in the rule book, after all.
#176 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
I love how everyone takes the bible literally, considering it was originally in Greek (I believe), then Hebrew, Latin, French and finally English (assuming you're American, it's in 47 languages, last time I checked).

Idioms and such do not translate well.
#185 to #176 - piobaireachd (01/31/2013) [-]
it's in a lot of different languages, beginning mostly in Koine Greek and Hebrew, with a little Latin. Some sources have minor conflicts, too
[ 465 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)