I'm a Christian and I laughed. in b4 .. So this guy's name is @JSAtheist, and yet I bet he's probably one of those assholes who hates when people throw their religion in your face i Hate tags
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (183)
[ 183 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
69 comments displayed.
#6 - ComicBookGuy
Reply +52
(04/12/2013) [-]
So this guy's name is @JSAtheist, and yet I bet he's probably one of those assholes who hates when people throw their religion in your face
#19 to #6 - mynameisfoo [OP]
Reply +6
(04/12/2013) [-]
yeah I went on twitter and checked out all of his tweets and he's a complete asshole. I laughed at this one but most of his tweets are hating on Christianity just for the sole purpose of hating on it.
#143 to #19 - ComicBookGuy
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
That's the type of people I hate, I'm an atheist, but I'll respect your views on religion. Maybe I'll get into a debate if one is brought on, but you don't just start **** for no reason
#150 to #143 - mynameisfoo [OP]
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
yeah like I have zero problems with atheists. It's just when ANYBODY of ANY faith, including my own, starts parading it around or shoving it down peoples throat or demeaning people for not believing the same things it really makes me angry. A respectful intelligent conversation about religion with somebody you're comfortable with can be one of the most interesting and meaningful conversations you can have with somebody, but there are times and places and people when where and who those talks need to take place at.
#79 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Nope name us HOOTIS..mmlittlebrokisahootis. Butt let me place it on TV/ Comcast all wife's personal accounts with legals blessing after all/ THIS CHURCH MARRIED THEM WITH FALSE NAMES HE IS MARRIED. THE SHAM OF MASS $$$ NH CT CANADA
#3 - acedce
Reply -46
(04/11/2013) [-]
Thats because slavery in bible times were a way of paying off debts
#18 to #3 - karmakoala
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
'bible times'
#4 to #3 - whipptron
Reply +45
(04/12/2013) [-]
Yeah... no.

Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."

Leviticus 25:44-45 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
#17 to #4 - xtnega ONLINE
Reply +6
(04/12/2013) [-]
Too lazy today, so it's a copy-paste for this first one:

Exodus 21:7 is being used out of context:
'If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.' -Exodus 21:7-11

"Now, in this particular passage, it is discussing the treatment of female 'servants' in specific. Women were highly protected under the Jewish law due to the fact that they were highly vulnerable in society. This is why we see so many extra laws of protection revolving around women. If a father gave up his daughter, than the 'boss' would have to take on the duties of a father. He was not allowed to sell her to foreigners (as that would endanger her life). If he was unpleased with her abilities to work, she was simply set free from the contract. He also wasn't able to just get rid of her when her time working was up. The men could simply be let free, because they could get jobs. Women couldn't back then, so the boss was not allowed to just let her leave, and end up in a life of poverty."
[Source: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120430072818AAxaUgg ]


The second one is referring to indentured servitude, not slavery, snippets from Lev. 25:
'48 Then he keeps the right to buy himself back after he has sold himself. [...] In fact, any relative in his tribe can do it.'
53 “‘He must be treated as if he had been hired from year to year. You must make sure that his owner is kind to him when he rules over him.
'

Whelp, character limit reached... But you get the idea.
#193 to #17 - whipptron
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Doesn't change the fact that you owned people and could own people against their will.

Nice job defending slavery though. The CSA would be proud.
#194 to #193 - xtnega ONLINE
Reply -2
(04/13/2013) [-]
No idea what the CSA is.
But anyway, Slavery =/= Indentured servitude
Slavery is when one takes another and forces them to work, providing them with nothing, apart from the barest necessities, to prevent them from dying, and thus wasting money.
Indentured servitude is when one works for someone else in order to pay off a debt, and receives food, water, shelter and all the other necessities of life during that time. It's basically like being a butler or a maid (jobs that are still around today,) but being paid in food, etc.

...You know what? Here I am, trying to be a voice of reason in this conflict, and you're here being abusive and sarcastic towards me, and as a result, I will not be replying to whatever you decide to respond with.
But nevertheless, have a good day.
#195 to #194 - whipptron
Reply +1
(04/13/2013) [-]
Confederate State of America.

And no, when you sell your daughter into slavery it is in fact slavery, and not indentured servitude.

I'm abusive to anyone who doesn't like the truth.
#52 to #4 - minecraftmemes
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
Did you just look up in the bible to prove some guy wrong?
MFW
#196 to #52 - whipptron
Reply 0
(04/13/2013) [-]
Nah, I just read this satirical letter and kept the link:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Why_can't_I_own_a_Canadian%3F
#29 to #4 - angelious
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
yeah but back then slavery was a little different.not only did they give the slaves a place to sleep and food to eat,most slaves actually liked their masters.

also they did have traditions of letting some slaves go from time to time but since it was much better to stay with a master they usually wanted to do that...
#34 to #29 - boeingninja
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
This image has expired
That's... new... are you talking about American slavery? I've never heard that the slave "wanted" to stay with their owners. Sound like a like B.S. with sprinkles on top if you ask me. Though I could be wrong.
#43 to #34 - angelious
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
not american.   
   
i was talking about OLD   
   
   
as in the time OLD  testament was written   
   
usa didnt even exist back then   
   
   
and would you rather choose to be well fed man who calls somedude his master and has a roof to live under   
   
or live in the streets have no money and no food.
not american.

i was talking about OLD


as in the time OLD testament was written

usa didnt even exist back then


and would you rather choose to be well fed man who calls somedude his master and has a roof to live under

or live in the streets have no money and no food.
#60 to #43 - boeingninja
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Oh no I totally understand. I just wasn't sure if you were talking about the Bible. Also I know that the US didn't exist.
#96 to #60 - angelious
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
yeah.but the thing that people dont understand is that the bible is OLD

and the world has changed,and slavery has changed.

it wasnt so "bad" thing back in the time bible was written as it was in the 17-18 centuries.
#47 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
while im not disagreeing with you the texts you quoted are old testement and not followed correct?
#28 to #4 - bboyman
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
lets buy the members of the westbro baptist church and if they say "you made that up!" we could just say "well look who's talking"
#9 - fingapopyabuttho
-29
has deleted their comment [-]
#32 to #9 - responsibletim
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
A lot of places.
#10 to #9 - masterofanon
Reply +8
(04/12/2013) [-]
Leviticus 25:44-45 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
#14 to #10 - fingapopyabuttho
Reply +3
(04/12/2013) [-]
The Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
#16 to #14 - icyflesh
Reply +3
(04/12/2013) [-]
But it still says slavery is ok.
#11 to #9 - sparkysparkybooman
Reply +10
(04/12/2013) [-]

"Exodus 21:20-21

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
#13 to #9 - odytoboman
Reply +44
(04/12/2013) [-]
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:2-11
Exodus 21:20-21
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Luke 12:47-48
#68 to #13 - cfeuer
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
im christian and im saving this. thank you :)
#44 - lolzordz
Reply +40
(04/12/2013) [-]
this guy literally went and put 'atheist' in his twitter account name. whatever he posts is cancer to me
this guy literally went and put 'atheist' in his twitter account name. whatever he posts is cancer to me
#23 - igenatius
Reply +3
(04/12/2013) [-]
I was just thinking, some people are making such a big deal out of gender-equal marriages but we don't see anyone ranting about divorce. And if I remember correct it says in the bible that divorce isn't right at all when on the other hand the bible doesn't really talk about homosexuality.
#25 to #23 - zmbz **User deleted account**
+34
has deleted their comment [-]
#38 to #25 - kingkaga
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
" It never even addresses lesbianism."
Yes it does.
Romans 1:26: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

The issue isn't gays marrying, it addresses homosexuality as a whole.
#42 to #38 - The Captain
Reply -3
(04/12/2013) [-]
Yeah but thats like believing Santa is a pedo because he sneaks into childrens rooms while they sleep..

At the end of the day they're both make-believe
#78 to #42 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
This is great legal advice/ internet names like wife on TV*- GOTCHA
#93 to #78 - The Captain
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
What?
#48 to #25 - stealthrokk
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
A girl is rape?
I am rape too
#174 to #25 - Pompano
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
What are the exact verses?
#173 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
lesbianism is homosexuality. It is addressed.

The problem is that, according to the bible, if anybody commits these acts they are supposed to be removed and pushed out of society.

That's why bible worshipers are so full of what appears to be 'hate' towards gays. They are not ALLOWED to like them. If they believe in the bible and follow that faith, they must accept all rules. You can't pick and choose what applies to you. And as God's word goes, you must cut these people off and from your society.

This is in Leviticus 18.
#149 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
the bible is some hardcore ****
#115 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
god*
#124 to #115 - admiralen
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
its a joke, notice how the g in doG is capitalized, its from another post
#106 to #25 - thatguyblaze
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
>if a girl is rape
#98 to #25 - lamerthanyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Girl is rape?
#141 to #98 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Boner is kill.
#61 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Why is it that now gay marriage is being legalized along with pot?

Lev 20:12 If a man is caught sleeping with another man, he is to be stoned.

What if they meant pot?
#51 to #25 - thelegitmetalhead
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #25 - igenatius
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Thanks, that is the exact part I remember reading.
#27 to #26 - zmbz **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#62 - blaankie
Reply +20
(04/12/2013) [-]
these post are getting so annoying, atheist are becoming as annoying as Jesus freaks, shoving their opinions down other peoples throat, i starting to feel embarrassed being one
#111 to #62 - metalmind
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
We're only responding to a lot of hate against people that don't share your myths.
#126 to #62 - admiralen
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
you know whats just as anoying? all these 1000000s of people whining about it, you are the same as them
#92 to #62 - jakefenris
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
Really don't think some stupid kid posting dumb jokes online really compares to riots by christians over basic rights(1). Or people pointing out how ignorant and hateful religious people can be compares to religious fueled riots over cartoons.(2)

And atheists expressing frustration is quite understandable when people in power, or even average citizens, attempt to force their religion where it doesn't belong.(3) Most atheists are all for right to religion, but it has a time and place, and when we see it trying to bully or force itself in areas it doesn't belong, when we see it trying to stomp on the rights of others. That's when we stand up and say enough, and that's more than reasonable.

A post by an atheist expressing frustration is nothing compared to some of the crap religion has and is pulling.

(1) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298497/Riot-police-clash-protesters-Par is-300-000-streets-demonstrate-gay-marriage.html
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4684652.stm
(3) You need to login to view this link
#175 to #92 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Idk where you've been for the last 2000+ years, but religion has always done this.
#185 to #175 - jakefenris
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
Yet another good point, people get upset that atheists become angry and frustrated when people pull this crap, yet atheist frustration is nothing compared to what these people have done and do.
#64 to #62 - kanade **User deleted account**
+3
has deleted their comment [-]
#65 to #64 - blaankie
Reply -1
(04/12/2013) [-]
doesn't matter it is annoying
#66 to #65 - kanade **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#76 to #66 - emazegenociide
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
"atheist are becoming as annoying as Jesus freaks, shoving their opinions down other peoples throat"
#77 to #76 - kanade **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#90 to #77 - crawlingdisaster
Reply +2
(04/12/2013) [-]
There's 2 things that FJ can't take a joke about: America and Christianity.
#87 to #77 - uhidk
Reply +1
(04/12/2013) [-]
just...don't bother.

they're too stupid.
#179 to #77 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter who posted it, he is referring to the actual content. He didn't say the content was or wasn't funny and he didn't mention OP.

The content is annoying. Doesn't matter if the funnyjunk user was Christian, Hindu, or Jewish. He is saying it has always been annoying having religious posts, forcing religion, but now that there are so many atheists bashing on the religious that they are starting to get annoying as well.

The atheist he is addressing the the guy in the content.
@JSAtheist.
#116 to #65 - metalmind
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
now who is obnoxious, intolerant and inconciderate now?!
#49 - beerterror
Reply +10
(04/12/2013) [-]
MFW butthurt and quoting bible about slavery.    
   
Aristotle and all the Greek philosophers were ok with slavery, and it's perfectly understandable - in their times noone would be crazy enough to think and tell around that all people are equal, because hey, they're not even with all the effort really good people have put into popularizing education and so on. Some people are just speaking tools, and deep inside you know it's true.   
   
And let me remind you, that NONE of the Church Fathers, not even Saint Augustin liked slavery - he (and let me remind you again, that his philosophy was leading in the Church for almost a thousand years) stated that the fact that people aren't equal is just another example of the Original Sin. In fact, Christianity, perhaps not abolished, but really hastened the end of slavery - it was a religion of slaves in Rome, goddamn!   
   
Quoting Old Testament, which is a jewish saint scripture (perhaps for some minor parts of christianity too) isn't a very good idea. If the New Testament is put to exegesis, Old Testament couldn't be taken literally in any case.
MFW butthurt and quoting bible about slavery.

Aristotle and all the Greek philosophers were ok with slavery, and it's perfectly understandable - in their times noone would be crazy enough to think and tell around that all people are equal, because hey, they're not even with all the effort really good people have put into popularizing education and so on. Some people are just speaking tools, and deep inside you know it's true.

And let me remind you, that NONE of the Church Fathers, not even Saint Augustin liked slavery - he (and let me remind you again, that his philosophy was leading in the Church for almost a thousand years) stated that the fact that people aren't equal is just another example of the Original Sin. In fact, Christianity, perhaps not abolished, but really hastened the end of slavery - it was a religion of slaves in Rome, goddamn!

Quoting Old Testament, which is a jewish saint scripture (perhaps for some minor parts of christianity too) isn't a very good idea. If the New Testament is put to exegesis, Old Testament couldn't be taken literally in any case.
#81 to #49 - goldenglimmer
Reply 0
(04/12/2013) [-]
#15 - felixjarl
Reply +10
(04/12/2013) [-]
#94 - ohmygwad
Reply +6
(04/12/2013) [-]
#91 - crawlingdisaster
Reply +6
(04/12/2013) [-]