Arguing with a christian. creddit-User LordRElz.. I think you never had a fight with a christian. And also i belive that you only listen to other people who pretend they are better than us (in special). Why peo
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Arguing with a christian

creddit-User LordRElz

Views: 23481
Favorited: 83
Submitted: 04/09/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to whalefister E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#167 - gardenmanly (04/10/2013) [-]
Or you know, everyone could just believe what they feel they want to believe in, and no one could try and disprove other beliefs or shove their own religious beliefs down other people's throats and everyone could just be happy and content.
Or you know, everyone could just believe what they feel they want to believe in, and no one could try and disprove other beliefs or shove their own religious beliefs down other people's throats and everyone could just be happy and content.
#160 - ofalo (04/10/2013) [-]
Ever heard of Deism? Cool take on Christianity "looking for diamonds in a dung heap," I believe Ben Franklin is quoted saying. Basically it allows you to do just that, choose what you believe in firmly from the Bible, there are other guidelines such as the idea of God being the "blind watchmaker", but I feel even those are just generally accepted ideas of Deist. I like Deism and Deism seems pretty cool with everyone in the world.
User avatar #133 - Crusader (04/10/2013) [-]
Well, the same can be said for Atheists that pick and choose quotes from the bible like the ones about homosexuality and so on.
Mainly because many quotes are not useful to Christians as they follow the teachings of Jesus, which were mainly, you can only judge if you are innocent, and to love everyone regardless of race, gender, creed, mentality or orientation.
#118 - moofinbanana (04/10/2013) [-]
Christians and Atheists have one thing in common.

They both think they understand the Bible.
#97 - deletedmyaccount (04/10/2013) [-]
Actually, yes, that's exactly how it works.

The cool thing about religion is that it's your own personal belief. You can pick and choose what you think is true.
#109 to #97 - xheavymetalx (04/10/2013) [-]
That's all fine and great. And I support that right. But I just find that the problem arises with issues like gay rights and such, where people pick and choose only the parts that dont limit THEM, but condemn others. But not all Christians are like that so it's aight.
#113 to #109 - deletedmyaccount (04/10/2013) [-]
Eh. I don't mind when people do that, as long as they understand that they're opinion on the matter doesn't count.

It's not a matter of what they want, but a matter of what's right.
User avatar #78 - douthit (04/10/2013) [-]
Not sure exactly what point OP is trying to make...
#84 to #78 - orton **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #76 - draezeth (04/10/2013) [-]
I'm a Christian, and I approve of this message!
User avatar #75 - Turtleboner (04/10/2013) [-]
Or, you know, people could just believe in god and not give a damn about the book.
It's not a very hard concept to grasp.
#82 to #75 - MotorstormLegend has deleted their comment [-]
#159 to #82 - ricrolledbitch (04/10/2013) [-]
uhmmm i believe in god i dont follow the bible...
i call it gnosticism....
User avatar #142 to #82 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
That..that doesn't even make sense

Have you the foggiest idea of Martin Luther?
#98 to #82 - deletedmyaccount (04/10/2013) [-]
This is Funnyjunk, man, not Tumblr.

You'll get thumbed down for that **** .
#74 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Ive had this similar conversation with a christian before. I understand how we can comes to disagreements through personal interpretation of the bible and I encourage that actually but I just dont understand people who choose to only believe parts of it...
#70 - ivoryhammer (04/10/2013) [-]
Here's a good summary of the comments.
Learn to take a joke religious people, damn.
#65 - admiralamory **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #60 - aldheim (04/09/2013) [-]
Everybody's arguing down there.
I thought it was just a joke.
Apparently it was a hateful political statement.
User avatar #146 to #60 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
there is a difference between a parody and a Juvenallian satire
User avatar #157 to #146 - Greevon ONLINE (04/10/2013) [-]
Yes, there is.
But are you saying either one is something to be looked down upon?
A juvenallian satire can be something as sophisticatd as Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
User avatar #165 to #157 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
a parody is something making fun of,or simply really just joking about

A satire is something that gives some sort of, generally humorous, story in an attempt to correct wrongdoings

A horation satire is one that is light hearted

A Juvenallian satire is generally dark, severe, and bitter

I love a good joke, but I dislike seeing a juvenallian satire that is flagrantly wrong on a website I went on to laugh.

I laugh at the "dang respawn" pictures that involve the Resurrection, but I don't laugh when someone stereotypes all those that believe in something I believe in
User avatar #166 to #165 - Greevon ONLINE (04/10/2013) [-]
I completely agree, but a good juvenallian satire can be quite hilarious. This one just wasn't.
#61 to #60 - anonymous (04/09/2013) [-]
That's FJ. A bunch of big crybabies.
User avatar #59 - directbuy (04/09/2013) [-]
This is exactly how I feel, you shouldn't pick and chose what part of religion to follow and what parts not to. don't only follow the parts you want but disagree with his or her "lordliness" on certain things.
User avatar #62 to #59 - aldheim (04/09/2013) [-]
That's a flawed argument, because we do the same thing with science.
If suddenly we discover that some part of our communal scientific knowledge is actually wrong, we discard it.
The same basic principle can be used for religions, the only problem being that communities of religious people are far more secular than the scientific community, and it's much harder to determine what bits are right or wrong, so people reach different conclusions and believe in different bits.
#134 to #62 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
The difference is, for those religions, their sacred book is inspired and dictated BY GOD. That makes it not wrong in any way. When they decide to take out parts, they're saying they agree only with what God says/commands, and ignore the rest.
That is unconsistent.
User avatar #161 to #134 - Greevon ONLINE (04/10/2013) [-]
Uhuh, sure, whatever.
Are you considering the fact that Christians are not all morons and realize that the Bible was written be human beings? Many different ones, in fact. And that human beings would not be able to flawlessly reiterate the mandate of God.
#46 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
#51 to #46 - mynicknameisdeath **User deleted account** (04/09/2013) [-]
Are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?
#54 to #51 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
#58 to #54 - mynicknameisdeath **User deleted account** (04/09/2013) [-]
I hope this is helpful for you.

First box- Rayman: Excuse me sir, but I do believe you have misinterpreted your personal religious scriptures. This is however what your religion DOES say on the matter...
Second box- Patrick: Doesn't look familiar to me.
Third box- Rayman: What? But I just heard you quote from this very book. Go on... Read it.
Fourth box- Patrick: Nope I don't agree with it. It's not mine.
Fifth box- Rayman: It is yours! I am trying to be a good person and educate you on the subject.
Sixth box- Patrick: Educate who on what?
Seventh/Eighth box- Rayman: *Facepalm*
Ninth box- Rayman: Do you identify yourself as a Christian?
Tenth box- Patrick: Yup.
Eleventh box- Rayman: And this is biblical scripture you agree with.
Twelfth box- Patrick: Yup.
Thirteenth box- Rayman: I found this religious quote, which you agree with, in this holy book.
Fourteenth box- Rayman: If that's the case, this must be your holy book.
Fifteenth box- Patrick: That makes sense to me. Rayman: Then take the knowledge I offer.
Sixteenth box- Patrick: I don't like that part so I choose to ignore it.
Seventeenth box- Rayman: IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!
#102 to #58 - Bobtheblob (04/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #66 to #58 - Turmoil (04/10/2013) [-]
It's Manray but I forgive you.
#67 to #66 - mynicknameisdeath **User deleted account** (04/10/2013) [-]
God damn it... I knew something about it sounded wrong, but I didn't feel like googling it. Lock me in a cellar for 100 years. That is the punishment I deserve.
#64 to #58 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #44 - patrickmiller (04/09/2013) [-]
I don't have a problem with the stereotype jokes but some people take them for real and it just pisses me off, people that start thinking that all Christians are idiots that don't understand their faith or that Blacks are all stupid because of these posts because they believe that this is what everyone else thinks.
User avatar #53 to #44 - churrundo (04/09/2013) [-]
i agree, but this is a properly applied joke don't you think?
User avatar #43 - sausageparty (04/09/2013) [-]
The bible isn't really a book. It's a compilation of scriptures. Many of them contradict each other. You can't believe in the entire bible. Being a Christian means you believe in Jesus Christ. Technically the entire old testament is not directly relevant to Christianity.
Which is why it's ridiculous that religious fanatics who call themselves Christians always quote from the old testament when they want to prove why something is wrong.
#136 to #43 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Bible is God inspired, according to christians. Ignoring parts = ignoring what God says/commands. Therefore, granting Hell for yourself. You believe and knowingly condemn youself to Hell? You're an idiot. You ignore parts of the text God gave to men to guide their lifes with, and expect not to go to Hell? You're an idiot.
The only way to be consistent with christian faith is following the Bible. That, as soon as you read, you can't. Sorry for you.
#89 to #43 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
I would like to know what contradictions you are talking about because I haven't found one.
User avatar #100 to #89 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Well just off the top of my head..
The old testaments mentions a lot about killing people if they commit certain crimes.
Jesus said that only God should judge people. That's kind of a contradiction.
User avatar #141 to #100 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
Also the judging thing is incredibly misused

I assume you are going off of the whole "dont judge lest ye be judged thing"

Well its true, you aren't supposed to judge someone if you yourself are hypocritical of it

A ******** does not judge a ******** , a thief does not judge a thief, but an innocent man (of the crime) can

Also a great deal of the old covenant was fulfilled with the death of Christ, its a reason as to why there aren't old things like animal sacrifice.
#111 to #100 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
Okay the difference is that in the old testament God was at war with man and in the new testament God ended the war with man by defeating death.
User avatar #122 to #111 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Okay fair enough. Then maybe there are no contradictions. What the hell do I know. I'm not an expert on the bible. Only thing I ever attempted to do was to argue against the content's claim that all Christians are stupid as I believe they're not.
#77 to #43 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Everything you said is demonstrably incorrect. It may be what athiests and fake christians repeat over and over in an attempt to feel good about their faithlessness, but it doesn't make sense to anyone who reads the bible and is actually the opposite of what the bible teaches.
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
User avatar #91 to #77 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Useful for teaching. Lot's of things are useful. Doesn't mean you have to consider rules to live by. Anyway the scriptures are not god breathed. They're written by humans. The bible was compiled in Constantinople in early 300's by order of Roman emperor Constantine.
#103 to #91 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Again: You can say the bible isn't God-breathed, but that doesn't make it true. It just means you're not a christian.
User avatar #108 to #103 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
It's a historical fact that the bible was heavily edited during the process in constantinople.
#119 to #108 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Is that why the Dead Sea Scrolls basically perfectly match the OT and the NT manuscripts are by far some of the best-preserved documents from that time period? lolwut.
If you're talking about rejecting things like the gnostic gospels, those were rejected because they don't even come close to resembling christianity, they weren't even written by christians, they were demonstrably inaccurate, and so on and so forth.
User avatar #123 to #119 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Don't know about that. Just know they were edited.
User avatar #138 to #123 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
Seriously give the dead sea scrolls a look, pretty sure the accuracy was around 99.9%

User avatar #147 to #138 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Interesting. I'm not going to though. I'll take your word on it.
#130 to #123 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
Having had your beliefs challenged, you have chosen to unquestioningly hold on to your beliefs without any evidence. Are you aware of that?
User avatar #143 to #130 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
My beliefs are that there is no god and that life came to be through evolution. I don't see how I've had them questioned here. What I've written here are just my knowledge about the bible which may be wrong or not. I admit that I haven't done much effort to research it as I don't really bother.
#149 to #143 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
you: the bible was edited!
me: have you even heard of the dead sea scrolls?
you: whatever, i just know it's edited because i feel it in my heart.
me: you're not even going to question it?
you: question what? there's nothing to question! I'm right! You didn't say anything that challenged my beliefs!

that's some deep denial dude.
User avatar #151 to #149 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
You completely misunderstand me which is partly due to me not phrasing it well enough. I have said nothing about the dead sea scrolls. I have no knowledge about them. I just stand by the claim that the bible was edited. That's all. Which specific parts I don't know. I just know it was edited. So I'm not saying that whatever you're saying the dead sea scrolls is wrong. I'm sure it's true.
#158 to #151 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
That's what i'm saying. When your beliefs about the bible were challenged you simply said "i don't care, i'm gonna ignore any evidence to the contrary and blindly stick with my beliefs."
User avatar #164 to #158 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
The dead sea scrolls being 99% accurate to the old testament does not disprove that claim that the bible was edited.
#93 to #91 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
The new testament was compiled in the early 300's but not the whole bible.
User avatar #99 to #93 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Most of it was edited. There were many different versions of it and it was organised into one book by editing some of it.
User avatar #73 to #43 - hanabro (04/10/2013) [-]
Except that's wrong. 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." Christ says right there that the old testament applies to Christianity.

You... kind of just proved the point of the picture.
User avatar #145 to #73 - wafflecopper (04/10/2013) [-]
Also that doesn't absolutely make sense, even by traditional English definitions

You have a contract that expresses that you should jog around the house until the mailman comes
The mailman has come, the contract was fulfilled, obviously this means you no longer have to jog around the house.
#101 to #73 - tomthehippie (04/10/2013) [-]
Just to chime in here, if you read the original Hebrew and Greek, the conotation is to fulfill, like a prophecy would be fulfilled. The Lavitical Laws and Laws of Moses (as well as those set by Abraham) were given to man to teach us that by law we are damned. We all engage in sin, and ANY sin is cause for damnation. This is why Jesus was sent to be crucified, to pay that debt for any and all who would accept his payment on their behalf.

To this end, Jesus leaves us with two laws, saying that these two laws are supreme and any law that contradicts the letter or spirit of these laws is NOT one that Christians are bound to follow.

Those laws are;
Love God, for if you love God, you will not sin against him.
Love each other, for if you love each other, you will not sin against one another.

So, yeah, the problem with studying ANY scripture in English is that it is a very limiting language, we use the same word "love" to describe how we feel about our family and how we feel about our favorite food. Greek and Hebrew have various words to describe similar, but different meanings.

So, in the future, please try knowing what you are talking about when you quote scripture. It is highly offensive when people take scripture and twist it to prove a point.
User avatar #168 to #101 - patrickmiller (04/10/2013) [-]
I think it's safe to say, you understand your **** .
#169 to #168 - tomthehippie (04/10/2013) [-]
The thing people don't realize is that the languages of the bible (the various Hebrew, Arab, and Greek languages, in addition to Latin) are far more precise in their wording than English is.

For instance, when Jesus says, "You have life, but I will give you life abundantly", the quote in it's original Greek is, "You have bio, but I will give you zowe" ("zowe" isprobably misspelled). There are many instances of this in the bible, New and Old Testament.
User avatar #88 to #73 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
He didn't refer to any specific law. Just the law in general. The laws were the order of that times society just like our laws now is the order of our society. Basically he could just be saying that he doesn't preach anarchy or revolution against the established society. I don't know what he meant with it. Neither does anyone else. Maybe he never even said it. Maybe it was added by the catholic church the middle ages. Who knows.

Btw, no I don't prove the point of the picture as I'm an agnostic. I'm just stating my views on Jesus and Christianity and you automatically assume that I'm a Christian.
#92 to #88 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
Jesus was also talking about the ten commandments as well.
#90 to #88 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
No, people know what it means, you're just choosing to ignore it. This comes at the beginning of Jesus" "Sermon on the Mount" where he continues to explain what the aforementioned statement means.
The law says not to commit adultery. Jesus says that means not even lusting after a woman because that's the same thing in God's eyes.
The law says not to kill. Jesus says that means not even hating because hate is the same as ****** in God's eyes.
Jesus calls his disciples to an even higher standard than the OT law by teaching that we should obey the spirit of the law. This is also dietary, sabbath, and other cultural laws are not required to be followed by Christians, but the spiritual principles behind them are.
User avatar #96 to #90 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
Probably true. No I'm not choosing to ignore them. I don't care if they exist or not. I don't live by the bible. I'm not a Christian.
#106 to #96 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
You said that no one knows what Jesus meant by that. I said that it's obvious what he meant.
By choosing to not read the rest of his sermon... yeah, you are very clearly choosing to ignore what Jesus actually meant. I don't know how you could even make such a statement and claim to retain intellectual honesty.
User avatar #117 to #106 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
No one knows. You can never 100% know what anyone meant. The dudes dead. We can't go back and ask him. That was my point when saying no one knows. Yeah sure people think they know, but it's not something you can be certain of. There's no evidence Jesus even existed in the first place. You can choose to believe so, but again that's just a belief. Not a certainty.
"Choosing not to read the rest of the sermon"? I didn't read any part of the sermon. I just read the comment I was replying to.
#125 to #117 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
-You can know what he meant because he said what he meant immediately after. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's not something you can debate about.
-There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. Even secular sources record his existence. This claim of yours removes any credibility you once had the potential of having.
-For the third time- you claim it's impossible to know what Jesus meant. I said that the fact that you ignore it (aka, don't try to understand) doesn't mean it's impossible. That would be like if the cops found a dead body and just went "well, i'm not even going to try finding the cause of death, therefore it's impossible to know."
User avatar #140 to #125 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
What I've said has been based on the one sentence I was presented with in the comment I replied to. I made no effort to research it. I simply said that that sentence did not say anything about which laws he was referring to or what he meant. I then afterwards said that theoretically you can never know 100% what anyone meant with what they said. Even if you read the rest of sermon you can theoretically not know 100% what he meant. If the police find a dead body they cannot prove anything either. Evidence in court only shows that whatever is extremely likely to be the case. Not 100% certain. I stand by that claim but have no interest in engaging in a deep philosophical debate about it as that is off topic. I may have made incorrect claims in this thread because I don't remember things correctly. Try to understand that as an atheist this is no more meaningful to me than discussing passages in a harry potter book. I don't mind remembering things from the bible wrong cause I only care about it due to a slight literary interest. I don't believe in them. So no I don't make much effort to research things before posting, but just post it as I remember it and have nothing against being corrected afterwards. My entire intention with my first comment was simply to argue against the point of the content. Whether I failed to do so or not is really the only thing that matters to me.
#153 to #140 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
If what you're saying is meaningful true at all, then language is useless. Not only that, if that's what you meant by your original comment, then it was so horribly off-topic it's not even funny. It's much more likely that you said something dumb and instead of accepting that you're wrong you are back-pedaling by saying that you don't care.
At least we can all agree that your ignorance is the problem here. Not just ignorance about the bible, but general ignorance about rational thought and logical reasoning.
User avatar #163 to #153 - sausageparty (04/10/2013) [-]
No language is not useless. I'm just saying that achieving 100% certainty is not possible. People misunderstand each other every day.
Yes my comment about that was horribly off topic.
I have no problem accepting that I'm wrong.
I do care because I like debating with people. In part because I like getting updated on the subject that way. I just don't care in the sense that's really important to me. I was just trying explain that to you.
So yes you can say my ignorance is the "problem". I don't see a problem though. Just people exchanging information about a subject.
The last clause of your last sentence I'm not going to comment on as that's just mud throwing.
I'm sorry that I have apparently provoked so much anger in you. I never remotely intended to do that. No hard feelings. I didn't come here to fight.
#95 to #90 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
*do not ****** *
#85 to #73 - arkfire (04/10/2013) [-]
The Law is the ten commandments and Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the prophets so you took what Jesus said out of context.
#94 to #85 - anonymous (04/10/2013) [-]
There's literally no reason to believe that Jesus was only referring to the 10 commandments there. Jews hearing the phrase "The Law and Prophets" would know that he was referring to what we now call the entire "Old Testament".
User avatar #45 to #43 - patrickmiller (04/09/2013) [-]
OR why it's dumb when ever someone quotes the old testament to prove how Christians are dumb.
User avatar #49 to #45 - sausageparty (04/09/2013) [-]
Yup. That too
#48 to #45 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
#52 to #48 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
#34 - drewbridge (04/09/2013) [-]
You know whats hilarious    
stereotyping and genuine dislike and mockery of different peoples beliefs   
there is no way this could backfire
You know whats hilarious

stereotyping and genuine dislike and mockery of different peoples beliefs

there is no way this could backfire
User avatar #37 to #34 - princenarnode (04/09/2013) [-]
you talk as if peoples beliefs should be respected.
#32 - turdofdoom (04/09/2013) [-]
im tierd of atheists and religious people....
cant we all just be normal?
User avatar #38 to #32 - divinecreator (04/09/2013) [-]
define normal
User avatar #30 - bakinboy ONLINE (04/09/2013) [-]
just some advice. white letters with black outline. readable against any background
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)