Tumblr at it's finest. This is worth $1.1 billion?.. I like you guys better when you don't argue about religion. Argue about pony instead. Here's a pony. Argue over it. tubmlr
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (211)
[ 211 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
85 comments displayed.
#26 - zekeon ONLINE
Reply +73
(05/23/2013) [-]
I like you guys better when you don't argue about religion.

Argue about pony instead.

Here's a pony.

Argue over it.
#32 to #26 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
**** PONIES AND BRONIES
You're all ******* queers do you hear me? You guys LIKE DICK!! Right in your faggot assholes. You guys sicken me. You are the worst people in this society and you should all kill yourselves. ******* evil perverted wastes of life!

tl;dr Kill yourselves
#47 to #32 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
I would like to retract my previous statement. After giving it some thought I realised that I'm an asshole.
Sorry to have wasted your time.
#50 to #47 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
No **** you.
#142 to #50 - rooxass
Reply +4
(05/23/2013) [-]
It's funny, because the retraction was from another anon.
#205 to #142 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
God, I love the ol' switcheroo.
#54 to #26 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Blaze is best pony
#117 to #26 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Rainbow Dash is worst poni
#162 to #26 - haunterbrony
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
ponii ponii ponii
#196 to #26 - froggets
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Ponies.. god... religion... is there any difference, both of them turn e
people against each other
#203 to #196 - zekeon ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
They both have fandoms.
#38 to #26 - babbysmithy
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Vitun vittu.
#98 to #38 - stenchschleifs
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
voi vittu, voi.
#76 to #26 - felixjarl
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
The left eye is not parallel with the right eye.
#81 to #26 - sodapops
Reply +2
(05/23/2013) [-]
Oh yeah? OH YEAH?
Well, ponies are basically heathen sun-worhippers. Except those that are heathen moon-worshippers.
Atheists: 0
Christians: 0
Molestia: 1
#170 to #81 - timmity
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
**** this, dominion of the stars is where i`m going
#90 to #81 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
All hail the New Lunar Republic!
#62 to #26 - Ehwhat ONLINE
Reply +5
(05/23/2013) [-]
I want to ___ inside Rainbow Dash
#17 - arrisarrad
Reply +35
(05/23/2013) [-]
Haven't we been through this? Adultery includes rape. I mean, I'm against bashing people's beliefs, but if you do, at LEAST you should do it accurately.
#18 to #17 - dabronydude
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
does raping the person you are married to count as adultery?
i do not know all laws.
#23 to #18 - arrisarrad
Reply +2
(05/23/2013) [-]
Adultery is only an offense in biblical law, where there is no such thing as spousal rape. Legally, I think you can be prosecuted for it, but it's a murky area and hard to prove.
#19 to #18 - ssurtrebor **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
"Adultery includes rape." Did you miss that part?
#20 to #19 - dabronydude
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
i read it as unmarried rape for some reason...
yeh i did miss it.
#22 to #20 - arrisarrad
Reply +3
(05/23/2013) [-]
Man, I had this same exact argument the last time this popped up. According to the Bible, there is no such thing as rape within the marriage bed, so it isn't classified as adultery. But personally, I think that forced sex is possible within a marriage, but that it shouldn't be legally classified as rape. I think that in that case, spousal rape should be used as a point of merit for divorce. Prosecuting someone for rape in addition to the regular divorce proceedings seems superfluous, and if a person stays married to someone who rapes them, then they're just stupid. And I don't think we should make laws designed around the idiocies of the stupid.
#28 - roytmustang
Reply +24
(05/23/2013) [-]
Now if only I could figure out the mating signal.
#96 to #28 - Shartugal
Reply +2
(05/23/2013) [-]
#208 to #28 - kanpai
Reply +3
(05/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 - fuckyouimapancake
Reply +14
(05/23/2013) [-]
Here you go guys, the satanist rules.
#134 to #130 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Do not kill?
Or is that too easy?
#223 to #134 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
You can kill all you want in the Satanic Doctrine, provided the killings are earned and just (I.E. killing a criminal, or defending yourself)
#180 to #130 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
I seriously doubt these rules were written by satan.
#175 to #130 - iwebby
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Satan seems like a pretty cool guy
#206 to #130 - shishiko **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Those...


Are some very respectable, relatable points.
#143 to #130 - imtheparty
Reply +3
(05/23/2013) [-]
I can deal with this.
I can deal with this.
#147 to #130 - thebritishguy
Reply +5
(05/23/2013) [-]
"do not kill non human animals unless you are attacked or for food"
"if someone doesn't stop bothering you after you ask them destroy them"
seems legit
#222 to #147 - captainfuckitall ONLINE
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Haha, now that you mention that it does seem odd, however, this has to do more with comprehension than anything. You cannot communicate with an animal, it has no idea what you're doing, when you are put into a position where an animals life is in your hands you must treat it with proper affection and respect, nor can you abuse any animals (although there IS a difference between abuse and discipline). But with a person, you CAN talk to them and ask them to stop or try to distance yourself from them, and even when you do they can ignore you or pursue you (think: a bratty gang of kids and one of them wants to prove they're 'hardcore' and won't leave you be), in such an event you have a duty to protect yourself as well as any others they are troubling, this includes anything from giving them a slap upside the head to totally incapacitating them to make an example to the rest of their gang. Respect goes both ways, and how can anyone respect you if you do not respect yourself enough to stand up when you are being harassed?
#234 to #222 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
you have a point
#183 to #147 - razek
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Death = Shot, stabed, etc.

Destruction = pic
#178 to #147 - syntheticdoll ONLINE
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
I guess doesn't literaly mean destroy, more like to stop them.
#214 to #178 - thebritishguy
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
I don't know what else "destroy" means, maybe by destroy it means kick them in the balls or something lol
#132 to #130 - omfgitsstsix
Reply +6
(05/23/2013) [-]
Those are very agreeable...
#137 to #130 - feeniks
Reply +6
(05/23/2013) [-]
The eleventh.
#86 - wrinklynewt
Reply +12
(05/23/2013) [-]
i could rewrite all 10 commandments and add in a few more ones, call it the cult of llama butt, and i could say "oh, your religion doesn't have ___" in its commandments? you should convert

but that still doesn't mean my commandments have anything to do with llama butts
#87 to #86 - thelordofbutthurt
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
This makes sense in so many ways... and yet... in none.
#88 to #87 - wrinklynewt
Reply +6
(05/23/2013) [-]
meaning that just because it's "statanist" is irrelevant
you can write anything and call it anything, and if you get people to follow it then it doesn't matter
just edgy people getting to say "satanism is way better than christianity, it says not to rape"
#89 to #88 - thelordofbutthurt
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
I just think its funny that people believe in religion regardless... but whatever.

#126 to #89 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
I think it's funny that you think it's funny.
#220 to #126 - thelordofbutthurt
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
I think its funny that you think its funny that I think its funny... funny isn't it?
I think its funny that you think its funny that I think its funny... funny isn't it?
#229 to #220 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Not really.
#95 to #89 - Shartugal
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#82 - silverlance
Reply +10
(05/23/2013) [-]
No. 11   
"When walking in open territory, bother no one, if someone bothers you, tell them to stop, if they do not stop, destroy them"
No. 11
"When walking in open territory, bother no one, if someone bothers you, tell them to stop, if they do not stop, destroy them"
#44 - tooanontoquit
Reply +7
(05/23/2013) [-]
what about the 7th commandment?

Thou shalt not commit adultery = you can only have sex with your spouse
#48 to #44 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Adultery =/= lechery.
#51 to #48 - tooanontoquit
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Lechery =/= rape

It's not rape if it's with your spouse. You can only have sex with your spouse. Therefore you cannot rape.
#55 to #51 - mattkingg **User deleted account**
Reply +10
(05/23/2013) [-]
You could rape your spouse.
#168 to #55 - chromefile
Reply -1
(05/23/2013) [-]
that's just boulderdash
#171 to #168 - timmity
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
your just a retard
#172 to #171 - chromefile
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
you're*
#174 to #172 - timmity
Reply +2
(05/23/2013) [-]
thank you
#177 to #174 - chromefile
Reply +2
(05/23/2013) [-]
you're welcome
#181 to #177 - timmity
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
#100 to #51 - jedimindaugas
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
As far as I know rape is any sexual advance towards an unwilling person, therefore that commandment allows rape as long as it is between the spouses. This commandment is not there to protect individual people, but rather to protect the society from bastards( or whatever were those children called).
Those preached commandments are severely outdated, just like the whole religion.
#200 to #100 - tooanontoquit
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
In that case it still wouldn't be considered rape at the time. When two people got married (often arranged) the husband had to consummate the marriage by having sex with his bride, this "transferred ownership" of the girl from her father to her husband. Back in these time the wife didn't get the right to say no to sex it was her obligation as the husbands property to do his bidding.

Times have changed and with women's rights now there can now be rape between married people, but in the context of the time their wasn't this loop hole.

As for the religion being outdated I think it's doing pretty well for being 2000 years old, you can't exactly update a religion. Yes times and customs have changed and some people twist words for politics but they stray from the overarching principals
#235 to #200 - jedimindaugas
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Emphasis on "at the time". As you mentioned, the society has received multiple patches for improvement while the commandments remain the same and do NOT cover it. Hiding it behind interpretations is like giving make up to a dead horse and claiming it to be a stallion.
Die already you evil religions.
#240 to #235 - tooanontoquit
Reply 0
(05/26/2013) [-]
You can't just take the ten commandments and make "multiple patches for improvement" the Bible is 2000 years old; they don't make revisions. Yes they are out dated but it's a matter of honoring the original and ideals that still hold true.

Christianity is about being good, kind, and helpful people. It's not about being a stickler to obscure rules. The ten commandments were about preventing people from making bad choices. At the time the ten commandments covered all rape because rape is bad. Now there's a lope hole, but that loop hole doesn't mean it's now allowed its still a bad action.

If you go into a church and claim it is okay for a husband to force sex on his wife, not many people will agree with you. Society has moved forward.

Individual christian sects have conferences and debate about these same issues. For instance while some infamous groups are against gay marriage, some like the United Methodist Church have agreed to allow it.
#241 to #240 - jedimindaugas
Reply 0
(05/26/2013) [-]
Then what about the ideals that are no longer true and are repulsive? Why do we just skip the horrible parts, promote the right ones and then claim that it's what religion is all about?

You keep talking what religion is all about, but instead of looking at the core, you refer to its community, the people that were influenced by outside factors and have improved. The core, from which it all stems is beyond rotten and unchangeable - the Book, that is supposed to be The Guide, is all about a cruel and vicious deity nobody would ever want to worship, let alone fallow. Yet still it is the most sold book in the world and is quoted time and time again to oppose something people do not agree with (yet). When people went to war, they found a line promoting it, when there were slaves, it justified it, but when there's a good line, we do it and proclaim that it was done only because "the Bible tells so". Convenient, isn't it?

This is illogical. We have a guide, but act on our own, and then recommend the guide to the others.
#242 to #241 - tooanontoquit
Reply 0
(05/27/2013) [-]
Apparently you have never read the Bible.

It's about a caring, loving, and forgiving God. If what you describe "nobody would ever want to worship, let alone follow" then why do people follow it? Why do people say that it had turned their life around? Why has the religion lasted for thousands of year if "nobody would ever want to worship, let alone follow" it?

Now the Bible has lots of parables (stories with important lessons) in it. The "evil" quotes you're talking about are from these stories where people make the wrong decision and at the end of the story you're supposed to see why that was a bad decision. The "evil" quotes (not that you could actually think of any) are taken out of context.

As for war, God promotes peace and being friendly to neighbors and looking for peaceful solutions. However you can agree that there are times when it is necessary to defend your self or others. An example you can relate to is having to go to war to stop the Nazis from killing so many people. As for slavery the Bible does not say for or against it but merely mentions it in passing because it was a custom at the time. It does say that we should treat slaves better like they are real people.

You might want to actually read the Bible before you claim to know what it is all about.
#69 to #44 - megatrollinator
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Adultery =/= Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse
#136 - halotalim
Reply +9
(05/23/2013) [-]
7. Though shalt not commit adultery.
Jesus says, "If a man looks on a woman with lust, he has commited adultry in his heart.
#138 to #136 - trifection
Reply +6
(05/23/2013) [-]
Right. And I don't want to be that guy but..well...you see...When Jesus came and died for our sins, he created a new promise. The New Testament. The old testament laws were no longer in effect. He says in the New Testament, Luke 10:27 "He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
#139 to #138 - trifection
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
It's like a positive spin on the ten commandants. Through love you negate all sin.
#140 to #139 - halotalim
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law (Abolishion of old testament.) But to fulfil it. (Make it comnplete the way it needed to be.)

All the commandments can be wrapped up in that verse too, it has become one of my life verses.
#219 to #140 - trifection
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
Just to clarify; I responded to you, not in a sense of "You're partially right". I just wanted to post something along those lines while being relevant. I just don't want you to feel like I was trying to correct you.
#94 - raykwanza
Reply +8
(05/23/2013) [-]
The golden rule of most religions is to love your neighbour as yourself, or treat them as you'd treat yourself (or how ever you want to translate it). So technically if you don't like rape, you shouldn't rape your neighbour, or anyone else for that matter.
#103 to #94 - lolwtfme
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
but i want to be raped....
#148 to #94 - thebritishguy
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
If I really though that I should treat others as I wanted to be treated I would just totally suck peoples dicks
#99 to #94 - jedimindaugas
Reply +4
(05/23/2013) [-]
The problem is that "neighbour" actually refers to your own people, primarily Jews vs Jews, as for the outsiders -do as thou wish.
Even even if neighbour referred to any friend or people in the area, it does not cover a random stranger in the middle of nowhere.
#110 to #99 - PartyPanda
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
But it should.
#129 to #110 - jedimindaugas
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
It could, it should, it does not.
#122 to #110 - comicsjoey **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
but it doesnt
#119 to #94 - wolfypolli
Reply +6
(05/23/2013) [-]
But I want to be raped.
#3 - disturbedfan
Reply +8
(05/22/2013) [-]
Yes, but I'm pretty sure it's PRETTY DAMN OBVIOUS, no matter what list you look at that you shouldn't rape anyone.
#9 to #3 - sillylittlefuckers
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
I disagree.
#15 to #3 - GhostOfRavenclaw
Reply +1
(05/23/2013) [-]
and it isnt obvious to not kill people??
#34 to #15 - anon
Reply 0
(05/23/2013) [-]
It was originally 'murder' as in you better have a reason in killing.
And no it's not obvious