2nd verse not same as the 1st. . Spit mi 1. tthank" Hui 'tahh" by I grindin Elli“... min 2. Did nit want “ll gild- 3. "III lint! an blink illain. nit Hui rid. 5
Home Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

2nd verse not same as the 1st

Spit mi
1. tthank" Hui 'tahh" by I
grindin Elli“... min
2. Did nit want “ll gild-
3. "III lint! an blink illain. nit
Hui rid.
5. an pippl ring Ii idfrir, nit ails].
G. "Iii mi III“! blink 'tatt" ind“
the . to that he "
nit In fluid 8. .
...
+2127
Views: 72340
Favorited: 318
Submitted: 09/04/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to teranin 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

Comments(549):

[ 549 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#568 - beerwench (10/04/2013) [-]
As an Agnostic I may not believe what he believes but this new Pope definitely has my respect.
User avatar #533 - thesinful (09/05/2013) [-]
I love when anyone (particularly Catholics) insist he's not following Catholic beliefs. His authority is 2nd to God when it comes to Catholicism. If he says the Pope doesn't get a golden chair, the Pope doesn't get a golden chair.
#522 - anonymous (09/05/2013) [-]
Great, so he has LESS unneeded privileges than the last guy did. God doesn't exist, sorry; reality is harsh.
User avatar #535 to #522 - philliyoMLB ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
You're a **** , sorry; reality is harsh.
#515 - mrttt (09/05/2013) [-]
I've been a proud atheist for most my life but this guy seems really awsome
#510 - organicglory ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
This pope
is pretty dope
User avatar #551 to #510 - darksnowman (09/06/2013) [-]
Those other popes
Need to cope
Without velvet rope


Hey, this is kinda fun.
User avatar #524 to #510 - theguywhoaskswhy (09/05/2013) [-]
Thumbs up for rhyming
#532 to #524 - organicglory ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #506 - richardastley (09/05/2013) [-]
The robes change for different times of the year.
User avatar #497 - darrenrulzu ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
"Second verse same as the first, now put me in a plane so I can put them in a hearse"
User avatar #513 to #497 - Shitthatscrazy (09/05/2013) [-]
have a blast from the past and save it for last
#520 to #513 - darrenrulzu ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
**darrenrulzu rolled a random image posted in comment #106 at Xbox Live in a nutshell ** I thought someone would get that its a reference to hellsing ultimate abridged =P haha
#525 to #523 - darrenrulzu ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
**darrenrulzu rolled a random image posted in comment #3689755 at Friendly ** nah no need to be sorry I didn't think many would get it but epic rhyme there to mate
**darrenrulzu rolled a random image posted in comment #3689755 at Friendly ** nah no need to be sorry I didn't think many would get it but epic rhyme there to mate
User avatar #527 to #525 - Shitthatscrazy (09/05/2013) [-]
i figured i'd appreciate and reciprocate
User avatar #494 - chaosbreaker (09/05/2013) [-]
I usually don't like the Catholic religion for several personal beefs, but this guy is doing the right stuff.
User avatar #504 to #494 - thefortysecond (09/05/2013) [-]
hes a jesuit
User avatar #516 to #504 - likeabosslikeaboss (09/05/2013) [-]
jesuits are catholic. It is somewhat like a denomnation or a political party within the church. check out their evil twins the opus dei!
User avatar #521 to #516 - thefortysecond (09/05/2013) [-]
thats not what i meant when i said hes a jesuit
i meant that jesuits are the hard core christians
i went to a jesuit school and all of my teachers were training to be jesuits
User avatar #526 to #521 - likeabosslikeaboss (09/05/2013) [-]
what do you mean by ******** christians? they are very liberal, they believe in women becoming priests, they often allow gay marriage and have a loose interpretation of catholic law. the opus dei I would categorize as ******** Christians in that they are strict conservative conformists. just my opinion
User avatar #528 to #526 - thefortysecond (09/05/2013) [-]
i just meant that they were very humble
User avatar #529 to #528 - likeabosslikeaboss (09/05/2013) [-]
in that sense you are write i suppose, the pope is a testament to this, he is a blessing to all catholics!
User avatar #482 - awesomeradish (09/05/2013) [-]
[isn't a ********* ]
#503 to #482 - eusemaster (09/05/2013) [-]
He is argentinian and here he was accused for pedophilia (Long ago)
#481 - iloveyourass (09/05/2013) [-]
Rock on, man. Rock on.
Rock on, man. Rock on.
User avatar #473 - formidableguy (09/05/2013) [-]
The ring one has to be bollocks, its tradition to take the ring of the old pope and melt it into a new one for the new pope, using the same metal. Not by changing whatever metal it is or adding newer metal in just the same metal used in the last ring.
User avatar #476 to #473 - antzell ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
They have two rings, one is gold and the other one is silver.
User avatar #511 to #476 - formidableguy (09/05/2013) [-]
I did not know that, thought it was just one Papal ring and one Bishop ring.
#458 - anonymous (09/05/2013) [-]
Although I have to say this pope is more legit than previous ones, wearing silver is... I don't know, strange? Isn't that the so called "material of sin", seeing as how Judas was payed in silver? I'm not good with christian teachings and things tho', so I might be wrong.
User avatar #461 to #458 - thanesyrdahl (09/05/2013) [-]
Stop logging me out, Funnyjunk! :<
#474 to #461 - jakeattack (09/05/2013) [-]
I realy don't think it matters. Jesus refused ever being treated like a king, he came to be humble, and would shame on all the gold
#452 - barrymonkeynuts (09/05/2013) [-]
Im an atheist because i'd rather not be linked with any religion, i consider religion to start wars, but i also understand that there are millions who support other religions, and basically i couldn't give a **** who follows what, never understood why people would take to the internet to argue with a christian, muslim or hebrew...everyone is entitled to do what the **** they like
User avatar #547 to #452 - zorororonoa (09/06/2013) [-]
Wars are mainly caused by greed. Someone wants land or money or resources that someone else has. Religion is an excuse that leaders tend to use to get support from their people. "We must do this for God! Who is with me!" when they are really probably thinking, "I want that land."
User avatar #460 to #452 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
>religions start wars
Just like guns cause violence. Religion may be a tool to start wars, but this is irrelevant. The wars would occur anyway. The crusades and the Muslim expeditions into Europe? This had less to do with religion than inevitable conflict between very different cultures.
#471 to #460 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
WITCH! BYPOSTED IS A WITCH HERETIC!

BURN THE WITCH!

but yeah, no, religion is totally a neutral factor like guns, and isn't something that allows easy rationalization of violence and ignorance.
User avatar #480 to #471 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
You somewhat proved my point but discoursed. As religion may be used as "easy rationalization" for war, guns make war "easier." In a non-religious world (which would never have existed) wars would be legitimized by simply cultural differences without the religious aspect to it.

Diplomacy and war is never about "ignorance." You're pathetic.
User avatar #484 to #480 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
it was far more like I was agreeing provisionally with you, but felt a need to addendum what you said, and tried to do it in a way that was humorous with silly witch accusations and sarcasm.

#483 to #480 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
I like how you said "you're pathetic" without even getting what I was saying.

Tell me, did I say "war" in my statements anywhere? Perhaps you should read it again, and reconsider what you're saying.

Actually, I'll help. What I was saying is that Religion has fueled countless instances of violence and intentional ignorance across history. It has been USED for wars, and for control, but those aren't inherent to it it is simply a useful tool for those as you said. However, it does have the unfortunate effect on general populations of actually causing through it's execution in the human psyche both violence, and willful ignorance.
User avatar #492 to #483 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
I completely understood what you said and you remain pathetic.

>However, it does have the unfortunate effect on general populations of actually causing through it's execution in the human psyche both violence, and willful ignorance.
Do you know what else causes violence and ignorance? The society which existed centuries ago. The only effect religion had on this was to teach man that he had a purpose in life. I find that the opposite of "willful ignorance." Did your ancestors have such intellectually compelling books as the "God Delusion" centuries ago to alleviate the "ignorance" caused by religious believe? What a joke. While it may be true that modern fundamentalists are embracing "willful ignorance" please do not confuse this with the full picture.
User avatar #496 to #492 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Whoa, it sounds like you're arguing with some people that made you mad before I showed up and are taking it out on me. I've never read "God Delusion", and please check when humanism occured, and when the salem witch trials occured. People could easily have chosen not to be willfully ignorant, just as they can choose it now (although it is admittedly DRAMATICALLY easier now). You're suggesting that religion didn't have an incredibly obvious affect on human behavior? Please kid, wake the **** up, it STILL does. It will continue to have such an effect so long as it exists. In some ways, it can be good, in other ways, it can be bad.

FFS who the **** are you arguing against?
User avatar #502 to #496 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
I am arguing against you. You provide no examples of how religion caused "ignorance" in history. By doing this, you're not much different than a typical atheist who has never studied history and makes dumb claims. That is why I am expanding my argument to ideas you may not necessarily embrace; because atheists who piss me off view your dumb assertion on "ignorance" and agree with it.

The Salem Witch trials? Caused by religion? Listen, "kid," people who are under the influence of hallucinogens are not exactly the clearest thinkers. Humanism? Was it a philosophy crafted by the Pope or generally accepted by people who had a mistrust of changing times?
#505 to #502 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
The bread mold allegation is far from proven, byposted, and while it does support your point it's little better than a hypothesis backed by circumstantial evidence.  And no, Humanism is the idea of the value of humans simply for being humans, and their own agency in the world, started originally in the middle east back in the 13th century, and (after a particularly harsh imam decided mathematics served evil) moved on into spain and the &quot;western&quot; world in the 1600s.  Another name for it would be rationalism.   
   
I'm not some ignorant child, and humanism was far from crafted by the pope.  Perhaps a bit more research next time before asserting the ignorance of others, ass?
The bread mold allegation is far from proven, byposted, and while it does support your point it's little better than a hypothesis backed by circumstantial evidence. And no, Humanism is the idea of the value of humans simply for being humans, and their own agency in the world, started originally in the middle east back in the 13th century, and (after a particularly harsh imam decided mathematics served evil) moved on into spain and the "western" world in the 1600s. Another name for it would be rationalism.

I'm not some ignorant child, and humanism was far from crafted by the pope. Perhaps a bit more research next time before asserting the ignorance of others, ass?
User avatar #518 to #505 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
I actually thought at first you were another user I was arguing with in an another thread who had a similar name to you.
User avatar #514 to #505 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
I made a silly mistake in regards to humanism, so let me turn my argument around. Did people mistrust the concept of "individuality" and the advancement of science because of scheming religious leaders who kept the intelligentsia down? Or was this a more complex issue in which the religious leaders were simply reflecting the thoughts of the confused people in changing times?

It is obvious you are not "an ignorant child" but we are disagreeing on the value of religion in history. It is silly to say a transformation from "unwillful ignorance" into "willful ignorance" would have happened overnight. I take back you being "pathetic." I assumed you would be a fedora.
#519 to #514 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
&gt;I take back you being pathetic, I assumed you to be a fedora   
   
See that's why I suggested you might have been mad at something that wasn't me and directing it at me.   
   
I can see some merit in the dichotomy you're suggesting having to do with a possible reflection by leaders of the will of the people as opposed to a reflection of said leaders by said people, but I don't think it's very representative of most heavily religious communities, as religion is an institution based on dogma and tradition, generally the amount of change and fluidity such an organization would have would be extremely limited.     
   
I agree it would be silly to say that a transformation from unwillful ignorance to willful ignorance would happen overnight, but that's not what I'm suggesting, rather, I was suggesting that when the ignorance was unwillful it opened a door for the manipulation of religion, whether positive or negative in the context of said manipulated behavior, and when the ignorance later became willful it allowed the continued propagation of religion's power over the behavior of people.   
   
I honestly think we're just communicating really badly with each other.
>I take back you being pathetic, I assumed you to be a fedora

See that's why I suggested you might have been mad at something that wasn't me and directing it at me.

I can see some merit in the dichotomy you're suggesting having to do with a possible reflection by leaders of the will of the people as opposed to a reflection of said leaders by said people, but I don't think it's very representative of most heavily religious communities, as religion is an institution based on dogma and tradition, generally the amount of change and fluidity such an organization would have would be extremely limited.

I agree it would be silly to say that a transformation from unwillful ignorance to willful ignorance would happen overnight, but that's not what I'm suggesting, rather, I was suggesting that when the ignorance was unwillful it opened a door for the manipulation of religion, whether positive or negative in the context of said manipulated behavior, and when the ignorance later became willful it allowed the continued propagation of religion's power over the behavior of people.

I honestly think we're just communicating really badly with each other.
User avatar #536 to #519 - byposted (09/06/2013) [-]
Religion has transferred from "Stage 1," being concurrent with state, into "Stage 2," being a set of believes to the common man. Clergy have limited to no standing in civilized nations anymore, for example. Even countries like Iran are not as portrayed in the media in regards to organized religion.

I did acknowledge that religious organizations - of the past and present - are reactionary in nature and that "Stage 1" Religion could not have remained for western civilization to be where it is today. But, the same can be said the other way around. Stage 1 Religion was very important in the development of man and to call it merely a catalyst for "ignorance and violence" is putting a spin on history. The initial human interest in astronomy was fueled by the Church, for instance. The sky was where God was.

Now, in the era of "willful ignorance," can we really have a scuffle with organized religion? There are tight-knit groups of crazy religious fundamentalists around, but they harm nobody but themselves in modernity. Where else does religion remain to impede progress in the world? In the Middle-East, progress is impeded by cultural differences fueled by illegitimate borders and nations. Had the colonists not intentionally ****** up the region at their exit, the Mosque, if you will, would serve to benefit society there.
User avatar #537 to #536 - byposted (09/06/2013) [-]
As it did, may I add, centuries before during "Stage 1" Islam.
#478 to #471 - pjnona (09/05/2013) [-]
**pjnona rolled a random image posted in comment #2022 at Thank you FJ, free games for all ** <--- this one you looking for?
User avatar #465 to #460 - thanesyrdahl (09/05/2013) [-]
Lets not forget that War = Money. I think wars are rarely about culture... However, conflict between Muslim and Jew is cultural/religous.

Wars are usually for materialistic purposes. Wars for expansion back in the days, was so that you could have more farmland to sustain a bigger populace. Nowadays it's all about the oil.
User avatar #475 to #465 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
>rarely about culture
What a silly thing to say. Wars are almost always about culture but I do agree that it is not the case in Western interventions.

Wars in the Middle East are either caused by cultural differences or economic interests. Here is a good example in the present day: The "rebels" in Syria are jihadists who want Shariah law. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey are supporting them not for the principles of jihad but because it will secure their monopoly on oil by leaving Iran without a Middle-Eastern ally.
#449 - kmichel ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Wait, is Ratzinger not the pope anymore? I guess I missed that story.
#451 to #449 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Glorious Leader must not have wanted you to know
User avatar #444 - wewilldinealone (09/05/2013) [-]
Not to mention he doesn't look like the Emperor from Star Wars.
User avatar #423 - cosmicapprentice (09/05/2013) [-]
But... he made it illegal to report sexual crimes committed by priests...
#420 - kuroking (09/05/2013) [-]
MFW Title
MFW Title
#408 - imaschizo (09/05/2013) [-]
MFW he's from Argentina, and i'm also from Argentina
-1
#508 to #408 - danield has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #509 to #508 - imaschizo (09/05/2013) [-]
what does that have to do with the pope? **** like this is just retarded, honestly it was a dumb fight in the first place, but people like you just make it worse
User avatar #406 - ICEDgrunge (09/05/2013) [-]
I'm very glad to see this man bringing such a better light upon the papacy. I really hope he continues this, as he'll be the person to seriously bring about a major tolerance of the religion he leads for the rest of the people. It's something we all need, one less thing to piss on.
User avatar #402 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
Thumb me down please, but honesty time. The pope is the Antichrist, the bible says it very clearly. Hope one day some of you will be able to see it.
User avatar #410 to #402 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
can u cite that
User avatar #412 to #410 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
gimme a sec, i have a shoulder injury so i can only use one arm. but yeah man i can.
User avatar #413 to #412 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
ill be waiting
User avatar #419 to #413 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link theres a link... this takes stuff out of the prophesy of Daniel.
#512 to #419 - trickytrickster (09/05/2013) [-]
I skim read this crap after I saw point H, which is total and complete bull. If the author of this doesn't even take the time to understand our Catholic beliefs, then he obviously can't be trusted on anything else he says. Catholic priests do not claim to be God...nor do they forgive sins themselves. Also the whole "persecute the saints"....um for most of Christian history, Catholicism was the only church. Unless you are considering Gnostic heretics as Saints or something, then no they didn't persecute people like St. Francis, St. Patrick, St. John of God, St. Joan of Arc, or any of the other thousand Saints.

Do you even know anything about Catholicism, or are you just one of those people who think we worship the Saints and Mary, don't read the Bible, aren't Christians, that the Pope is infallible in all instances, etc etc?
User avatar #540 to #512 - irockhard (09/06/2013) [-]
I can admit i don't know too much about the Catholic church. I do know however that Catholics take the word of God into their own hands.
#546 to #540 - trickytrickster (09/06/2013) [-]
In what way? What possible proof do you have of that...
User avatar #429 to #419 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
oh **** no im not reading **** from some green ink page
User avatar #432 to #429 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
alright, have a good day then. If you don't want to study anything you'll never learn anything either.
User avatar #434 to #432 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
do u know that came from this website
You need to login to view this link

reading off some ****** green ink sites doesnt mean your studying something"
this isnt a valid or trustable resource
User avatar #441 to #434 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
I didnt study from that website... it references the Bible. I studied from the Bible.
User avatar #443 to #441 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
do u also think that 666 is a reference to the antichrist
User avatar #447 to #443 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
666 is in the bible, it is called the mark of the beast.
User avatar #464 to #447 - DarkDragonBlade (09/05/2013) [-]
Ahem. 621.. Not 666.
User avatar #454 to #447 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
so do u think it is related to the antichrist
User avatar #457 to #454 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
Yeah.
User avatar #462 to #457 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
so u dont think its the gemmatrical name of the roman Caeser Neron
User avatar #467 to #462 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
666 is a prophetic symbol
User avatar #466 to #462 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
ummm nope didn't say that at all.
User avatar #468 to #466 - patrickthenazarene (09/05/2013) [-]
(:
so once you finished reading the bible, did you study any scholarly interpretations and readings of any of the books?
User avatar #470 to #468 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
Yessir.
User avatar #417 to #413 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
The "little horn" or kingdom "came up among them"--the 10 horns which were the kingdoms of Western Europe (Daniel 7:8). So it would be a little kingdom somewhere in Western Europe.
User avatar #405 to #402 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
or and just hear me out here.... its all ******** .
User avatar #407 to #405 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
bet you haven't studied for yourself
User avatar #409 to #407 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
i do not consider reading fairy tales to be a valid study.
User avatar #411 to #409 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
If you have never even read the Bible then why would you comment?
User avatar #416 to #411 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
The bearded man in the sky told me
User avatar #445 to #416 - roliga (09/05/2013) [-]
Tarnis, eat a snickers, you start acting like a fedora wearing, trench coat dawning, "enlightened", neck beard ****** when you're hungry.
#433 to #416 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Stop, you're embarrasing yourself.  Yes, it's all 						********					, but it is still valid to study something especially if you're going to contest it's validity.  The minute you proclaimed your ignorance you made the crazy guy seem like the smart one.
Stop, you're embarrasing yourself. Yes, it's all ******** , but it is still valid to study something especially if you're going to contest it's validity. The minute you proclaimed your ignorance you made the crazy guy seem like the smart one.
User avatar #450 to #433 - irockhard (09/05/2013) [-]
I'm not crazy just because you disagree.
User avatar #459 to #450 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
calling you crazy doesn't even mean your wrong, btw. You are, but that's because the entire religion is founded on abject ******** , but its not because of the interesting and innovative way you are interpreting said ******** .
User avatar #455 to #450 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
no, of course you're not crazy just because I disagree. You're crazy because you're suggesting something so dramatically against the grain that to anyone from the outside looking in you appear to have lost your marbles
User avatar #435 to #433 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
why so serious?
#438 to #435 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Religion is a serious topic, although it sounds like you're implying that this was all trolling on your part.
Religion is a serious topic, although it sounds like you're implying that this was all trolling on your part.
User avatar #453 to #438 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
you might be onto something there batman.
#424 to #416 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
I wish I could be as euphoric as you.
User avatar #425 to #424 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
clever...
#439 to #425 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
People who actually study the Bible are more knowledgeable in the subject of religion than fat atheists with micro-penises who have never done so.

While people like pic related may say that reading the Bible would make one an atheist, this has the opposite effect on many people throughout the world. If you look at history, one of the biggest factors increasing literacy was a general ambition to read the Bible.
#448 to #442 - teranin ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
heh. ok that one made me chuckle a bit.
heh. ok that one made me chuckle a bit.
User avatar #446 to #442 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
Nice argument. I'm not even religious so I have no reason to be angry (except at pseudo-intellectual atheists).

What is the highest form of study you have done on the Bible? A Dawkins book?
User avatar #456 to #446 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
idk man i generally just need to look at a verse on the rights of woman and it turns me off to the whole thing.
User avatar #463 to #456 - byposted (09/05/2013) [-]
Do you understand how societal relations between men and women worked throughout the entire world centuries ago? Of course not because you don't care. Stop trying to legitimize your ignorance. An "independent" woman 500 years ago would be a dead woman.
User avatar #472 to #463 - tarnis (09/05/2013) [-]
exactly!
User avatar #404 to #402 - bible (09/05/2013) [-]
He's pretty cool.
[ 549 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)