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  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
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (465)
[ 465 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
45 comments displayed.
#18 - trickytrickster
Reply +78
(01/30/2013) [-]
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the two most quoted books by Atheists that aren't a part of Christian law.
#62 to #18 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0
(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
Reply +4
(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.
#520 to #120 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
Haha I still have fun. Don't you worry ;-) It's Romans 1: 26-27.
#267 to #18 - anon
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the two most qoted books by Christians that aren't a part of Christian Law.
#469 to #18 - swiftykidd **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#470 to #469 - trickytrickster
Reply 0
(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.
#27 to #18 - whatley
Reply +8
(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
Reply +8
(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.
#97 to #29 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply +1
(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
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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?
#32 to #29 - whatley
Reply 0
(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
Reply +6
(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
Reply +5
(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.
#39 to #34 - whatley
Reply +1
(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
Reply +4
(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
Reply +4
(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
#88 - themiigoss
Reply +71
(01/31/2013) [-]
<--- The comments
<--- The comments
#413 to #88 - irishbeer
Reply 0
(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
Reply +5
(01/31/2013) [-]
So bloody true its actually scary.
#17 - mffinmanu
Reply +41
(01/30/2013) [-]
#5 - satyrico
Reply +32
(01/30/2013) [-]
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.   
   
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
#31 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
Well, I'm ******.
#124 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
>In Israel
#102 to #5 - bushbaby
Reply +1
(01/31/2013) [-]
How exactly does a cloth prove virginity? I guess they might have checked the hymen, but it is still not full proof.
#123 to #102 - aBlindMoron
Reply +9
(01/31/2013) [-]
The "cloth" would be the cloth they ****** on. If there's blood, she was a virgin.
#528 to #123 - bushbaby
Reply 0
(02/01/2013) [-]
I see. Too bad not all girls bleed. Thanks for clearing that up though.
#150 - helenwheels
Reply +29
(01/31/2013) [-]
If god isn't real then how come my Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner fits perfectly in my bowl?
#50 - illusiveman
Reply 0
(01/30/2013) [-]
nhgbugabhnboaerònaebnaitrbnaINTRITNN9TAQN NRNBNAÓRIN EORNB ANB ÁOINB NRB IRN N´rbnaóin orbn eornb ´rn´ianoianrb ano nbaorn brn oian biqtiqn tibq3 nbqinb óin ói orhg erhg`qrhg rgrg68 89g erg óihj iohrg98345 35 6 er gáeorih ìr RPGU AHRPG8724T HGÈRH G`9R8HGR8HG AERG5A3
4G

EROIGEROIGAQNBB, OIRHG EH G oiuergie er 88888///***777777 religion.
#54 to #50 - Lambda
Reply +24
(01/30/2013) [-]
HEEEEEY MACARENA!
#55 to #54 - gallifreyan
Reply +1
(01/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#117 - soonerman
Reply +22
(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
#355 to #117 - dadukesta
Reply 0
(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.
#119 to #117 - soonerman
Reply +14
(01/31/2013) [-]
right wing Christians: 0
left wing Christians: 0
Megan: 1
#37 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +20
(01/30/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#207 to #37 - anon
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
The situation was more of a Step-dad raising the kid kind of thing.
Joseph and God weren't having sexual relations, if this is what you're implying.
#394 to #207 - anon
Reply 0
(01/31/2013) [-]
Spiritus Sancti
#426 to #207 - coolcalx
Reply -1
(01/31/2013) [-]
how would it be different if they had sexual relations? that doesn't really have anything to do with the child
#240 to #37 - arstya
Reply +1
(01/31/2013) [-]
You're not helping.
#432 to #37 - teoberry
Reply +1
(01/31/2013) [-]
And a mom. Damn that ***** was a mormon!
#25 - brothergrimm
Reply +16
(01/30/2013) [-]
here we go..............
#89 - thechosentroll
Reply +15
(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.