x
Click to expand

jokeface

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Consoles Owned: Nintendo DS, PS2
Video Games Played: Pokemon, Pokemon, and that one with the monsters you have to capture and battle. I forget what it's called.
Interests: Writing, Lucid dreaming, Pokemon, Transformers (yes, even the Michael Bay version), Christianity, and movies.
Date Signed Up:4/07/2011
Last Login:3/01/2015
Location:Right behind you
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5618
Highest Content Rank:#1053
Highest Comment Rank:#310
Content Thumbs: 16200 total,  18315 ,  2115
Comment Thumbs: 22769 total,  29625 ,  6856
Content Level Progress: 16.3% (163/1000)
Level 216 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 66.5% (665/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:18
Content Views:603328
Times Content Favorited:1204 times
Total Comments Made:12446
FJ Points:8301
Favorite Tags: tags (20) | fuck (10) | Pokemon (7) | Boobs (6) | ponies (6) | BLAH (3) | comp (3) | dat (3) | description (3) | meh (3) | dont (2) | fucking (2) | leo (2) | meme (2) | You (2)
I tell jokes and I make faces. I am JokeFace.

latest user's comments

#42056 - I'm not saying I know for a fact that they're not self-aware, …  [+] (7 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42058 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be aware of when something bad is happening to them so they know to avoid/resist that stimulus. That way they can preserve their existence to serve their function"

you literally described pain and what it is for. what do you mean it wouldn't make sense? you described how it makes sense perfectly!
User avatar #42076 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I'm saying humans suffer because we sinned. Animals can't sin, therefore why would God make them suffer?
User avatar #42084 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
why can't animals sin? what separates us from animals?
User avatar #42097 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Laws. Laws separate us. God gave laws to man, not to animals. Animals can't break the law if there is no law that applies to them. Also, this goes along with my hypothesis that animals may not be self-aware. If they're not self-aware then how can they cognize the choice to defy God?
User avatar #42099 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
first of all, animals have been known to have structured societies. take wolves and lions. how do you know that God didn't give laws to animals?

also how does the existence of laws define something as being self aware or not. your definition is arbitrary and flimsy.
User avatar #42103 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well God gave basic laws of nature to preserve the world's infrastructure, sure, but I'm referring to specific laws like don't kill, don't steal, etc. Those kinds of laws didn't come along until man was created. The first law of that type was "don't eat this fruit" and it only applied to Adam and Eve, because they were humans. God didn't give that rule to animals. He was talking specifically to Adam and Eve.
User avatar #42104 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
how do you know God didn't give animals different rules and just didn't tell humans. they were created first after all
#42054 - What I mean when I say that God exists outside of time is that…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42055 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
And what about the mercy contradicting justice?
Do you accept that?
User avatar #42057 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I accept that the word "mercy" could be changed, because the Bible wasn't written in English and so perhaps mercy is the wrong word for the idea it was trying to convey.
User avatar #42059 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
So everything else in the Bible could be wrong.
And therefore you could never use anything in the Bible in an argument.
That would mean that you've now got a completely unreliable and useless book.
But you still accept that in all modern translations the god described in the Bible is selfcontradictory.
Good.
User avatar #42075 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I believe that if God appears to contradict Himself, either it's been translated wrong or you're reading it wrong.
#42051 - Imagine what it's like being a rock. You can't, because rocks …  [+] (9 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42053 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
first, your definition doesn't necessarily exclude robots.

second, how is the way animals preserve themselves different than how humans do it?
User avatar #42056 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I'm not saying I know for a fact that they're not self-aware, I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for them to be, given that they're innocent and there's no reason for God to make them suffer.
User avatar #42058 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be aware of when something bad is happening to them so they know to avoid/resist that stimulus. That way they can preserve their existence to serve their function"

you literally described pain and what it is for. what do you mean it wouldn't make sense? you described how it makes sense perfectly!
User avatar #42076 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I'm saying humans suffer because we sinned. Animals can't sin, therefore why would God make them suffer?
User avatar #42084 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
why can't animals sin? what separates us from animals?
User avatar #42097 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Laws. Laws separate us. God gave laws to man, not to animals. Animals can't break the law if there is no law that applies to them. Also, this goes along with my hypothesis that animals may not be self-aware. If they're not self-aware then how can they cognize the choice to defy God?
User avatar #42099 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
first of all, animals have been known to have structured societies. take wolves and lions. how do you know that God didn't give laws to animals?

also how does the existence of laws define something as being self aware or not. your definition is arbitrary and flimsy.
User avatar #42103 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well God gave basic laws of nature to preserve the world's infrastructure, sure, but I'm referring to specific laws like don't kill, don't steal, etc. Those kinds of laws didn't come along until man was created. The first law of that type was "don't eat this fruit" and it only applied to Adam and Eve, because they were humans. God didn't give that rule to animals. He was talking specifically to Adam and Eve.
User avatar #42104 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
how do you know God didn't give animals different rules and just didn't tell humans. they were created first after all
#42049 - But pain is something we feel, because we're self-aware. I'm t…  [+] (11 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42050 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"But pain is something we feel, because we're self-aware."
baseless

and define self-aware
User avatar #42051 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Imagine what it's like being a rock. You can't, because rocks have no subjective consciousness. They don't think. They don't perceive. That's how I define a lack of self-awareness. And that's how computers and robots are. They serve purposes, and they have sensors that allow them to preserve themselves, but they're not aware that they're doing it. And that's how I believe animals function.
User avatar #42053 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
first, your definition doesn't necessarily exclude robots.

second, how is the way animals preserve themselves different than how humans do it?
User avatar #42056 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I'm not saying I know for a fact that they're not self-aware, I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for them to be, given that they're innocent and there's no reason for God to make them suffer.
User avatar #42058 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be aware of when something bad is happening to them so they know to avoid/resist that stimulus. That way they can preserve their existence to serve their function"

you literally described pain and what it is for. what do you mean it wouldn't make sense? you described how it makes sense perfectly!
User avatar #42076 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I'm saying humans suffer because we sinned. Animals can't sin, therefore why would God make them suffer?
User avatar #42084 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
why can't animals sin? what separates us from animals?
User avatar #42097 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Laws. Laws separate us. God gave laws to man, not to animals. Animals can't break the law if there is no law that applies to them. Also, this goes along with my hypothesis that animals may not be self-aware. If they're not self-aware then how can they cognize the choice to defy God?
User avatar #42099 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
first of all, animals have been known to have structured societies. take wolves and lions. how do you know that God didn't give laws to animals?

also how does the existence of laws define something as being self aware or not. your definition is arbitrary and flimsy.
User avatar #42103 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well God gave basic laws of nature to preserve the world's infrastructure, sure, but I'm referring to specific laws like don't kill, don't steal, etc. Those kinds of laws didn't come along until man was created. The first law of that type was "don't eat this fruit" and it only applied to Adam and Eve, because they were humans. God didn't give that rule to animals. He was talking specifically to Adam and Eve.
User avatar #42104 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
how do you know God didn't give animals different rules and just didn't tell humans. they were created first after all
#42048 - Mercy and justice are not always mutually exclusive. Justice m…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42052 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
No, that would not be mercy, that would be generousness or benefactory, but when passing a judgement mercy is defined as the purpouseful suspension of justice.

You would have to use a differnet word.
You can't just change the meaning of a word at a mere whim.
And remember, you haven't prooven that god exists outside of time, so you can't use it in arguments as evidence.
But if you knew physics you would know that every ponit at what we percieve as time exists simultaneously, and that the information about every state that the matter once had is never lost (one of the basics of physics you know).
But the Bible states that "the Lord never changes", and yet according to other parts of the Bible he does.
Plus I'm sure that what you meant to say by "outside of time" was "not part of our 4-bran space time or not part of our universe" depending on what you meant.

And Jesus according to the Bible only ever fullfilled the sacrificial laws.
But he himself stated that all other laws did still, and will always apply.
Of course that is all just within the mystical realms of the Bible, much like Donnar and Wodan never were real, and just like there are no "eternal hunting grounds".

But not only do your views contradict the Bible, your beliefs ("intelligent design", i.e. creationism, both of which have by the way been disproven, and all those other unscientific views of yours).
User avatar #42054 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
What I mean when I say that God exists outside of time is that He is eternal, and from His perspective, all of existence is occurring at the same time. So when He appears to us as changing in nature, it's only from our perspective that He changes, because only we perceive time the way we do. He doesn't, and from His perspective He remains in a constant state.

If the laws still apply, then as I said, they only apply to Jesus. If they still applied to us then His death was in vain: "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - Galations 2:21

And I don't see how my views contradict the Bible.
User avatar #42055 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
And what about the mercy contradicting justice?
Do you accept that?
User avatar #42057 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I accept that the word "mercy" could be changed, because the Bible wasn't written in English and so perhaps mercy is the wrong word for the idea it was trying to convey.
User avatar #42059 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
So everything else in the Bible could be wrong.
And therefore you could never use anything in the Bible in an argument.
That would mean that you've now got a completely unreliable and useless book.
But you still accept that in all modern translations the god described in the Bible is selfcontradictory.
Good.
User avatar #42075 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I believe that if God appears to contradict Himself, either it's been translated wrong or you're reading it wrong.
#42045 - Because I believe that the Christian God is the only one that'…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42046 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
Well, that is a unbased assumption.
But if you define your god to be the Christian one, the one based on the Bible, than you believe in a disproven god and a selfcontradictory one.
My favourite example:
God cannot be perfectly mercyful and perfectly just, as the Bible claims, since Mercy is a suspension of Justice due to feelings.
And just like the older Books of the Bible describe him as for ever unchanging, but yet the god in the newer books is different.
And just like you always claim that "all has come to pass" means Jesus ressurection even though several verses define it as the end of the universe and the end of the earth,
and others just leave out "all has come to pass" and directly state:
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
There. Even if you choose to twist the meaning of the other Bible verses.
But this one states it without the sentence whose meaning you try to twist.
Therefore just consider this as the verse that contradicts your view.
User avatar #42048 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Mercy and justice are not always mutually exclusive. Justice means giving someone what they deserve, and mercy means going beyond what they deserve. It's basically just doing an extra favor on top of what you already owe them. If someone borrows 100 dollars from you and then repays you 200, that doesn't obstruct the justice upon them.

"The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, "Mercy exalts itself above judgment" (Jas 2:13). (Summa Theologiae I:21:3)"

As for God's unchanging nature, remember that God exists outside of time, which means that everything about Him, Old Testament, New Testament, or now, is all happening simultaneously. So yes, He is unchanging.

And regarding the law being the same, I don't know what else to tell you, except that the Old Law is there, never going away, like you said, except it's not there for us, it's there for Jesus now, because only He can fulfill it.
User avatar #42052 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
No, that would not be mercy, that would be generousness or benefactory, but when passing a judgement mercy is defined as the purpouseful suspension of justice.

You would have to use a differnet word.
You can't just change the meaning of a word at a mere whim.
And remember, you haven't prooven that god exists outside of time, so you can't use it in arguments as evidence.
But if you knew physics you would know that every ponit at what we percieve as time exists simultaneously, and that the information about every state that the matter once had is never lost (one of the basics of physics you know).
But the Bible states that "the Lord never changes", and yet according to other parts of the Bible he does.
Plus I'm sure that what you meant to say by "outside of time" was "not part of our 4-bran space time or not part of our universe" depending on what you meant.

And Jesus according to the Bible only ever fullfilled the sacrificial laws.
But he himself stated that all other laws did still, and will always apply.
Of course that is all just within the mystical realms of the Bible, much like Donnar and Wodan never were real, and just like there are no "eternal hunting grounds".

But not only do your views contradict the Bible, your beliefs ("intelligent design", i.e. creationism, both of which have by the way been disproven, and all those other unscientific views of yours).
User avatar #42054 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
What I mean when I say that God exists outside of time is that He is eternal, and from His perspective, all of existence is occurring at the same time. So when He appears to us as changing in nature, it's only from our perspective that He changes, because only we perceive time the way we do. He doesn't, and from His perspective He remains in a constant state.

If the laws still apply, then as I said, they only apply to Jesus. If they still applied to us then His death was in vain: "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - Galations 2:21

And I don't see how my views contradict the Bible.
User avatar #42055 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
And what about the mercy contradicting justice?
Do you accept that?
User avatar #42057 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I accept that the word "mercy" could be changed, because the Bible wasn't written in English and so perhaps mercy is the wrong word for the idea it was trying to convey.
User avatar #42059 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
So everything else in the Bible could be wrong.
And therefore you could never use anything in the Bible in an argument.
That would mean that you've now got a completely unreliable and useless book.
But you still accept that in all modern translations the god described in the Bible is selfcontradictory.
Good.
User avatar #42075 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I believe that if God appears to contradict Himself, either it's been translated wrong or you're reading it wrong.
#42044 - On what basis are you judging Him though? God is an objective … 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
#42029 - God cannot be evil, as there is no standard of conduct by whic…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42030 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
That is only your definition.
But by our free will we can judge his actions, and by that standards, him to be evil.


And the contradiction is still there, even if you just ignore it, as you do with a great many things.
User avatar #42044 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
On what basis are you judging Him though? God is an objective moral authority, and if you don't believe He is, then where does objective morality come from?
#42026 - They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be…  [+] (13 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42047 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be aware of when something bad is happening to them so they know to avoid/resist that stimulus."
you just described pain. this is exactly what happens in humans
User avatar #42049 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
But pain is something we feel, because we're self-aware. I'm talking about something that would apply to robots, who aren't self-aware, but it would serve a similar purpose.
User avatar #42050 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"But pain is something we feel, because we're self-aware."
baseless

and define self-aware
User avatar #42051 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Imagine what it's like being a rock. You can't, because rocks have no subjective consciousness. They don't think. They don't perceive. That's how I define a lack of self-awareness. And that's how computers and robots are. They serve purposes, and they have sensors that allow them to preserve themselves, but they're not aware that they're doing it. And that's how I believe animals function.
User avatar #42053 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
first, your definition doesn't necessarily exclude robots.

second, how is the way animals preserve themselves different than how humans do it?
User avatar #42056 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I'm not saying I know for a fact that they're not self-aware, I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for them to be, given that they're innocent and there's no reason for God to make them suffer.
User avatar #42058 - cleverguy (09/09/2013) [-]
"They probably have nervous systems so that their bodies can be aware of when something bad is happening to them so they know to avoid/resist that stimulus. That way they can preserve their existence to serve their function"

you literally described pain and what it is for. what do you mean it wouldn't make sense? you described how it makes sense perfectly!
User avatar #42076 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I'm saying humans suffer because we sinned. Animals can't sin, therefore why would God make them suffer?
User avatar #42084 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
why can't animals sin? what separates us from animals?
User avatar #42097 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Laws. Laws separate us. God gave laws to man, not to animals. Animals can't break the law if there is no law that applies to them. Also, this goes along with my hypothesis that animals may not be self-aware. If they're not self-aware then how can they cognize the choice to defy God?
User avatar #42099 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
first of all, animals have been known to have structured societies. take wolves and lions. how do you know that God didn't give laws to animals?

also how does the existence of laws define something as being self aware or not. your definition is arbitrary and flimsy.
User avatar #42103 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well God gave basic laws of nature to preserve the world's infrastructure, sure, but I'm referring to specific laws like don't kill, don't steal, etc. Those kinds of laws didn't come along until man was created. The first law of that type was "don't eat this fruit" and it only applied to Adam and Eve, because they were humans. God didn't give that rule to animals. He was talking specifically to Adam and Eve.
User avatar #42104 - cleverguy (09/10/2013) [-]
how do you know God didn't give animals different rules and just didn't tell humans. they were created first after all
#42025 - >Is it really genuine if you're told to? Understand the… 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
#42021 - I stand by what I said. Jesus said we are to love EVERYONE, re…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #42022 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
No I notice them more because people die from it. I do notice the good things christians do, but I don't attribute that to the religion, I attribute it to basic human morality as motivation, as any human being can be nice for no good reason except the goodness in their heart. Where as a murder because your religion tells you so, well kind of has a theological prerequisite no?

So if you are supposed to love everyone (Is it really genuine if you're TOLD to?), so that means you love homosexuals, so why don't you want them to be happy? Especially since we've already established you don't think lawmakers should be forcing your religious beliefs on them, why aren't you completely for gay marriage?
User avatar #42025 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
>Is it really genuine if you're told to?
Understand the difference between the Greek words "phileo" and "agape". Both of them mean love, but they're two different kinds of love. Phileo is the kind of love that you feel naturally for a friend or comrade. Agape, on the other hand, means love born of the will. That is, it's something you sort of make yourself do. It's an action, not a feeling. If I give money or food to a homeless person, that's agape, but not phileo, because I don't have any emotional feelings for homeless people. But myactions are still loving, because I'm doing something God wants me to do for them. That's the kind of love Jesus commanded we show to each other. It doesn't matter if we feel it naturally, it's just a matter of what we do regardless.

Now, as for wanting others to be happy, I'd like to address the Fruits of the Spirit. Specifically, I'm referring to Kindness. It's true that we're taught to be kind to each other, but there's a difference between kindness and niceness. To be nice means to be agreeable and non-confrontational. But to be kind means to be caring and considerate for the welfare of others. You seem to be implying that as Christians we should be agreeable and support whatever decisions anyone makes. But in fact we should be trying to help steer others (and ourselves, of course) toward making wise, godly decisions. If we support others in sin, then we are not helping them, and we are therefore not being kind. Instead we are hurting them. Sure, we may be making them happy for now, but under the surface, we're damaging their souls. And Jesus spoke against the act of causing our brothers and sisters to stray from the path of righteousness.
#42020 - The Bible doesn't really address the issue of where babies end… 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
#42018 - I can't tell if the first part of your question is rhetorical,…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42028 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
Then he himself is evil.
And our free will is directly contradictory with god's omniscience.
User avatar #42029 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
God cannot be evil, as there is no standard of conduct by which He exists. He sets the standard of conduct for everyone else, ergo He can only be perfect.

And I'm not having the omniscience discussion again. I've had it too many times and frankly I'm tired of it.
User avatar #42030 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
That is only your definition.
But by our free will we can judge his actions, and by that standards, him to be evil.


And the contradiction is still there, even if you just ignore it, as you do with a great many things.
User avatar #42044 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
On what basis are you judging Him though? God is an objective moral authority, and if you don't believe He is, then where does objective morality come from?
#42017 - It's not even about literalism. When you read the Bible in ful…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board +1
User avatar #42019 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
"The New Testament only preaches love and kindness to everyone."
Except non-believers, love and kindness to everyone who is apart of your club, and torture and pain for everyone else. Not to mention Jesus seems to be perfectly fine with this, but shows clearly he doesn't care for people who he cannot "save". Although this is a common theme through all the abrahamic religions, peace is a conversion tactic and if they can't be converted they should be killed. (I reference the parable in which he describes god's attitude toward incessant non-believers.)

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner."
Please don't pull this line, the very fact that sinners are allowed to tortured for committing sin shows clearly you aren't taught to love the sinner, you are taught to love the converted.

"Literal interpretation does not always spawn hate."
You're right, I forgot all those westboro baptist church posters saying god loves fags. Or the wars led against pagans, or the people killed for witchcraft, or the people killed for non-belief, or the people killed for suggesting ideas that contradict the bible, etc etc etc.
Up until recently when secular ideas made it so random religious killings are kind of frowned upon, this stuff happened ALL THE TIME. Look at underdeveloped nations where religion still has a very strong hold and see all the pointless deaths for nothing more than a book saying you should.

User avatar #42021 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I stand by what I said. Jesus said we are to love EVERYONE, regardless of any sin they've committed. He said we shouldn't kill anyone, but rather we should forgive them, so that we may be forgiven for our own sins.

And you could list off countless examples of hateful things Christians have done but that doesn't make it a universal law. You only notice them more because that's the kind of shit that gets covered in the media and pop culture. No one gives a shit about Christians being nice to people. Why would they? That's not newsworthy. That's not entertainment. That's boring.
User avatar #42022 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
No I notice them more because people die from it. I do notice the good things christians do, but I don't attribute that to the religion, I attribute it to basic human morality as motivation, as any human being can be nice for no good reason except the goodness in their heart. Where as a murder because your religion tells you so, well kind of has a theological prerequisite no?

So if you are supposed to love everyone (Is it really genuine if you're TOLD to?), so that means you love homosexuals, so why don't you want them to be happy? Especially since we've already established you don't think lawmakers should be forcing your religious beliefs on them, why aren't you completely for gay marriage?
User avatar #42025 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
>Is it really genuine if you're told to?
Understand the difference between the Greek words "phileo" and "agape". Both of them mean love, but they're two different kinds of love. Phileo is the kind of love that you feel naturally for a friend or comrade. Agape, on the other hand, means love born of the will. That is, it's something you sort of make yourself do. It's an action, not a feeling. If I give money or food to a homeless person, that's agape, but not phileo, because I don't have any emotional feelings for homeless people. But myactions are still loving, because I'm doing something God wants me to do for them. That's the kind of love Jesus commanded we show to each other. It doesn't matter if we feel it naturally, it's just a matter of what we do regardless.

Now, as for wanting others to be happy, I'd like to address the Fruits of the Spirit. Specifically, I'm referring to Kindness. It's true that we're taught to be kind to each other, but there's a difference between kindness and niceness. To be nice means to be agreeable and non-confrontational. But to be kind means to be caring and considerate for the welfare of others. You seem to be implying that as Christians we should be agreeable and support whatever decisions anyone makes. But in fact we should be trying to help steer others (and ourselves, of course) toward making wise, godly decisions. If we support others in sin, then we are not helping them, and we are therefore not being kind. Instead we are hurting them. Sure, we may be making them happy for now, but under the surface, we're damaging their souls. And Jesus spoke against the act of causing our brothers and sisters to stray from the path of righteousness.
#13 - When I saw the trailer for that I got mad, because R&J is … 09/09/2013 on Romeo and Juliet -1
#42013 - Picture 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
#42012 - Discussions about biblical doctrine lately have been pretty re…  [+] (73 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42139 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
How can you not believe in evolution? It's literally as supported as gravity.
User avatar #42164 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Thread ran out.

It's hard to choose what you believe, sure, but not impossible. I choose to believe in God against all the opposing evidence. It would be so easy for me to just throw away my faith. But I manage to commit to it anyway.
User avatar #42165 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
Okay, believe in Santa. Do it. Believe in him.
User avatar #42166 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Santa's different. That's something we know is only a story because we've been to the North Pole and there's nothing there, and parents can tell you that they're the only ones putting out presents each year. Give me a better example. I'll tell you right now that I'm not opposed to the possibility of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.
User avatar #42167 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
We know God is a story because we went to heaven and there isn't anything there. Also, scientists can explain to you that it's gravity that's pulling objects to the ground, not god.

Also, the bible is literally a story.
User avatar #42168 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Really? We went to heaven? When did that happen?
User avatar #42169 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
Exactly.
User avatar #42170 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
No seriously, I don't get your argument. I used the North Pole as an example because it's a physical place on Earth that man can explore. Heaven is not, so how exactly does your analogy work?
User avatar #42171 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
I don't get it either. I'm just really bored. I was just in an hour long argument about literally nothing on the pokemon board. Good talking to ya.
User avatar #42172 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
You as well.
User avatar #42141 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Almost, but not quite as much. I can see and feel gravity. There's no way to make me believe it's not there. But evolution can still potentially be proven wrong. And anyway, I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I'm open to theistic evolution being an option, but I'm also open to the possibility of creationism. Neither one would change the message of the New Testament, which is the central theme of the whole Bible.
User avatar #42142 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
Well, there's both a law of gravity and a law of evolution, same with the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution

laws state the obvious
Gravity : Things fall down to earth
Evolution: Living creatures change over time

Theories give reasonable explainations
Gravity: Large objects bend the fabric of space much like a bowling ball on a sheet. Smaller objects "roll" towards the larger ones.

Evolution: Genetic mutations that are beneficial and let things live longer by helping them in life get passed on to their babies, while negative mutations cause the animal to die quicker leading to less chance of having babies
User avatar #42143 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
I'm not denying that evolution is very possible and indeed observable in nature, but I'm saying I'm not 100% convinced that it evolution that led to the existence humans, specifically.
#42144 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
At which point does it stop becoming ape and start becoming human exactly? With tihs many "missing" found links between great apes and humans, how can you argue against it?
User avatar #42146 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
As I said in an earlier thread, it could very well be that Satan fabricated fossil evidence to deceive us, because that's what Satan does. He uses lies and tricks to get humans to turn away from God.
User avatar #42147 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
If he's rotting in hell, how can he affect the earth? Also, why do people think that Satan is the king of hell? Isn't he like, the ULTIMATE sinner?
User avatar #42149 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
The Bible is unclear on what Satan's status in hell is, but it states that he has substantial power on Earth. Here, this link has a list of verses about him:

www.openbible.info/topics/satan
User avatar #42150 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
What about this?

2 Peter 2:4 ESV

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
User avatar #42152 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Well then clearly Satan can manipulate the world remotely, because he was able to deceive Eve by talking through a snake, and he was able to send demons into the world to possess people, and he was able to destroy Job's life. So either he's doing all that from within hell or the chains binding him are long enough to reach Earth.
User avatar #42155 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
also this

Revelation 20:1-3

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
User avatar #42153 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
Revelation 20:7-10 ESV

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth
..._ the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever._
User avatar #42154 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
that last part was supposed to be italics
User avatar #42156 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Those are prophecies of things that will happen when the world ends. They haven't happened yet. The only reason they're phrased in the past tense is because the prophet John was shown visions of the events and was writing them down after he saw them.
User avatar #42157 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
It's says one thousand years. It's been a thousand years.
User avatar #42158 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
It means a thousand years after the current world ends.
User avatar #42159 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
But there only is one world.
User avatar #42160 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
In a literal sense, yes. But God reboots the world every once in a while. The Noachian Flood was the first reboot. Then, to a less dramatic extent, Jesus' crucifixion marked the end of the way of the world during the majority of the Old Testament, and His resurrection ushered in the New Covenant, which changed the way the afterlife worked. And the Second Coming of Christ will be the big one, the final reboot, after which we'll receive the New Heaven and New Earth (aka New Jerusalem). And we'll live there with God forever.
User avatar #42161 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
Well I'm an athiest, so I doubt I'm going.
User avatar #42162 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
You don't have to come along if you don't want But we'd really like to have you. I know it's hard to put your faith in something like God and the Bible, so I don't blame you. But I wish you would try to anyway. The food is supposed to be amazing.
User avatar #42163 - ecomp (09/11/2013) [-]
It's not like you can choose to believe in something. I really wish Santa were real, but I know he isn't. Same thing with God for me. I wish I believed he was real, but I'm too critical of inconsistencies and such.
User avatar #42127 - thebritishguy (09/10/2013) [-]
The story when God tells Abraham to kill his child. What is the moral behind that story? because it seems to explain the terrorism, The message of the story to me is that you should do whatever you believe God wants you to do, even if it is killing children.
There's a practice of giving children small keys and telling them "if you walk across this mindfield then when you die this key will let you into heaven."
It would be far better if when Abraham was about to kill his child God said "No you idiot! killing children is wrong and don't do it in my name or because you believed that I wanted you to do it, especially if like, if in the future there is a man who looks like a Trampy Santa who's name sounds like "Obama", you won't get that reference now but trust me it will make sense later"
User avatar #42129 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
The point of that story was to illustrate the blind, unconditional loyalty Abraham had for God, no matter what God commanded of him. It was meant to be a model for all Christians to live by: When God gives you an order, nothing else matters. You obey.
User avatar #42130 - thebritishguy (09/10/2013) [-]
That's what I mean. You can easily justify any evil action and it has been used, I expect you know by now that Bush claimed that God wanted him to invade Afghanistan. that the Nazi's had the term "Got mit uns (God with us)" on their belts, that Hitler described himself as a Christian soldier doing the work of the Lord, that the rebels in Syria can't make a speech without uttering "Allah willing" every two seconds.
It is the most useful ideology of the extremist, you can make good men do evil things simply by making them believe that God wants them to do it, you can make immoral and unreasonable actions like female genital mutilation moral and sensible.
It's a shitty story.
User avatar #42131 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well given that we're living under New Testament law, I don't agree with any form of killing, and I don't really believe God told anyone in modern times to go to war or be violent at all. But the Abraham story took place in the Old Testament when things were different and God commanded a lot of people to kill. And even today, with the no-killing rule, if God does command someone to kill, then you still do it. Like I said, I don't really believe He has done that so far, but if He has, then the receiver of the command should do it.
User avatar #42132 - thebritishguy (09/10/2013) [-]
I know you don't believe that God wants you to kill, but if you did then you would have killed. That's why it's so dangerous and has constantly been used as a tool of attack in politics and war. Those who are indoctrinated or manipulated by mullahs or terrorist groups (such as the Lords Resistance army which Kony was part of) into believing that God hates fags or Allah wants them to kill the Jews will do these things and think that they are moral and good actions as you think that anything which God commands is good and moral.
The Yorkshire Ripper is a case of somebody who really did think that God commanded them to kill and rape prostitutes and he did so with no remorse, now you are saying that if God really did tell the Yorkshire ripper to kill then he was morally correct?
if you accept that then you have justified rape and murder using religion.
User avatar #42145 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
Again, I don't believe that God commanded anyone outside of Bible times to kill or rape or be violent in any way. But if He did (which He certainly could have) then yes, those acts were justified. But I'm referring to those acts, specifically. Unless He generalizes the command to apply to all of humanity, then the rest of us would still be in the wrong for committing them.
#42182 - thebritishguy (09/11/2013) [-]
I know you believe that I'm not trying to claim that you will rape someone mate, I'm saying it's a dangerous ideology because you can easily get good men to justify doing evil things, I think it's the idea of this quote.
User avatar #42183 - jokeface (09/11/2013) [-]
I get what you're saying. And you're right, that is a danger, but it's only wrong if they're lying about God commanding them to do those things. What I'm saying is that if God really is guiding them, then it's the right thing to do. But only if God is guiding them. Otherwise I agree with you and they shouldn't be doing those things at all, much less using God to justify them.
User avatar #42184 - thebritishguy (09/11/2013) [-]
awesome
User avatar #42079 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
also do you accept that you might be wrong? about religion, god and all that
User avatar #42091 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I recognize that, subjectively speaking, no modern human has full knowledge of what exists beyond our universe, and therefore anyone's beliefs could be wrong. But I nevertheless live under the assumption that my beliefs are correct.
User avatar #42078 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
www.politicalcompass.org/
whats thy political compass?

and what are you thoughts on marijuana and alcohol?
User avatar #42094 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I don't bother with those political compass things. I did one once a long time ago but I forget what my result was. But I can tell you that I now refer to my political views as "Christian priority" which means that I support whichever ideals coincide with Christian biblical doctrine.

Regarding marijuana and alcohol, I oppose both. Marijuana because it's used exclusively to get high, which is sinful, and alcohol because even if you don't get drunk, there's still no reason to risk it when there are so many safe alternatives. And yes I know Jesus drank wine, but only in moderation. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't oppose alcohol if it's only consumed in moderation and not to get drunk, but my personal feeling is that I don't see the point of it to exist at all when we have so many non-alcoholic alternatives.
User avatar #42105 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
to do with your political reviews, do you feel that a christian priority would potentially damage others rights or lead to bad decision making? I mean under a christian theocracy or what have you, what if someone disagrees?
User avatar #42106 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I'm sure some people would indeed feel that their rights are being violated, but we don't need a Christian government for that. We currently have a religiously neutral government and still peoples rights are being violated. But let me be clear: Having a Christian government (at least the kind I'm envisioning) would not entail forcing citizens to abide by our faith. Not so, in fact, Jesus was very specific about the fact that we must allow all our brothers and sisters to freely choose whether or not they wish to come to God or stray away from Him. But the point of having a Christian government is that it would remove the things that cause people to stumble away from the path of righteousness. Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and other sinful things would all be outlawed. And yes, a lot of people would be pissed off, which is why my ideas will probably never become reality.
User avatar #42108 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
also thanks for answering all these questions, its nice to see others world views on things at times

and even if i disagree with your views your better then all the christians where I live
User avatar #42123 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Thank you, your respect is received with much appreciation.
User avatar #42107 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
is it not better to let people make their own decisions on how to live their life? I mean in the case of gay marriage, I know that some christians are for it and some aren't, and well obviously you aren't, but does it effect you?
its just something I've never got, considering the amount of interpretations of christianity there is, how people can have a different opinion on things like that, what are your thoughts on others interpretations that are perhaps more freeish in that sense?
What are your thoughts on evolution?
User avatar #42122 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Here's my issue with gay marriage, because it's not what most people think. I have no personal qualms with it, and if other people want to sin, who am I to judge them? If the state or the federal government legalizes it, I'm not going to be mad, nor will I even protest. But when you give me power, as in voting power, then I have a responsibility to my faith to use that power in accordance with that faith. And Scripture teaches that if we help other people sin, then we are sinning ourselves, even if we're not actively participating in their lifestyle. So when I vote against gay marriage, it's not because I have some vendetta against gay people and want to stick it to them (no pun intended), but rather I just want to refrain from furthering their sin. Because then I become even more sinful in the eyes of God. Do you understand what I mean?

As for evolution, I have very loose beliefs. Either the evidence for it is a fabrication by Satan, who would certainly do something like that because his modus operandi is to trick and deceive, OR evolution is real but guided by the hand of God (theistic evolution).
User avatar #42124 - jadewest (09/10/2013) [-]
yeah I see where you're coming from and what you mean

what are your thoughts on christians who are less strict in their beliefs e.g. support gay marriage, evolution that kinda thing?

and people who try and force a belief (not just christianity) on to people?

and what are your thoughts on westbro?
User avatar #42128 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
Well I disagree with them, but I'm happy they at least have faith in Christ and I hope their support of those things doesn't have a negative impact on their salvation.

And anyone who tries to force a belief on anyone is in the wrong. That includes Christians. As I said above, Jesus told us to give everyone a choice to believe or not. So I do not agree with anyone of any religion forcibly imposing it on anyone else.

As for the Westboro Cult, there's not much to say. They're doing a horrible job of representing Christians. They're ignoring Scripture and intentionally being unlikable, to the point that I actually suspect that they're faking their beliefs just for the sake of trolling the world. I'm not going to say that, as people, they're any worse than the rest of the world, because we're all equally sinful in the eyes of God. But I will say that there are countless better ways they could be spreading their message, assuming they actually have a good message to spread.
User avatar #42042 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
How can you think that your defintion of god must apply?
And how can you think that by defining somthing as good, for example the holocaust, that would make that thing good.
An fuck godwins law.
User avatar #42045 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Because I believe that the Christian God is the only one that's relevant. There's no point in acknowledging false gods. And I'm not the one defining anything as good or bad. God is.
User avatar #42046 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
Well, that is a unbased assumption.
But if you define your god to be the Christian one, the one based on the Bible, than you believe in a disproven god and a selfcontradictory one.
My favourite example:
God cannot be perfectly mercyful and perfectly just, as the Bible claims, since Mercy is a suspension of Justice due to feelings.
And just like the older Books of the Bible describe him as for ever unchanging, but yet the god in the newer books is different.
And just like you always claim that "all has come to pass" means Jesus ressurection even though several verses define it as the end of the universe and the end of the earth,
and others just leave out "all has come to pass" and directly state:
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
There. Even if you choose to twist the meaning of the other Bible verses.
But this one states it without the sentence whose meaning you try to twist.
Therefore just consider this as the verse that contradicts your view.
User avatar #42048 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Mercy and justice are not always mutually exclusive. Justice means giving someone what they deserve, and mercy means going beyond what they deserve. It's basically just doing an extra favor on top of what you already owe them. If someone borrows 100 dollars from you and then repays you 200, that doesn't obstruct the justice upon them.

"The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, "Mercy exalts itself above judgment" (Jas 2:13). (Summa Theologiae I:21:3)"

As for God's unchanging nature, remember that God exists outside of time, which means that everything about Him, Old Testament, New Testament, or now, is all happening simultaneously. So yes, He is unchanging.

And regarding the law being the same, I don't know what else to tell you, except that the Old Law is there, never going away, like you said, except it's not there for us, it's there for Jesus now, because only He can fulfill it.
User avatar #42052 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
No, that would not be mercy, that would be generousness or benefactory, but when passing a judgement mercy is defined as the purpouseful suspension of justice.

You would have to use a differnet word.
You can't just change the meaning of a word at a mere whim.
And remember, you haven't prooven that god exists outside of time, so you can't use it in arguments as evidence.
But if you knew physics you would know that every ponit at what we percieve as time exists simultaneously, and that the information about every state that the matter once had is never lost (one of the basics of physics you know).
But the Bible states that "the Lord never changes", and yet according to other parts of the Bible he does.
Plus I'm sure that what you meant to say by "outside of time" was "not part of our 4-bran space time or not part of our universe" depending on what you meant.

And Jesus according to the Bible only ever fullfilled the sacrificial laws.
But he himself stated that all other laws did still, and will always apply.
Of course that is all just within the mystical realms of the Bible, much like Donnar and Wodan never were real, and just like there are no "eternal hunting grounds".

But not only do your views contradict the Bible, your beliefs ("intelligent design", i.e. creationism, both of which have by the way been disproven, and all those other unscientific views of yours).
User avatar #42054 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
What I mean when I say that God exists outside of time is that He is eternal, and from His perspective, all of existence is occurring at the same time. So when He appears to us as changing in nature, it's only from our perspective that He changes, because only we perceive time the way we do. He doesn't, and from His perspective He remains in a constant state.

If the laws still apply, then as I said, they only apply to Jesus. If they still applied to us then His death was in vain: "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - Galations 2:21

And I don't see how my views contradict the Bible.
User avatar #42055 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
And what about the mercy contradicting justice?
Do you accept that?
User avatar #42057 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I accept that the word "mercy" could be changed, because the Bible wasn't written in English and so perhaps mercy is the wrong word for the idea it was trying to convey.
User avatar #42059 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
So everything else in the Bible could be wrong.
And therefore you could never use anything in the Bible in an argument.
That would mean that you've now got a completely unreliable and useless book.
But you still accept that in all modern translations the god described in the Bible is selfcontradictory.
Good.
User avatar #42075 - jokeface (09/10/2013) [-]
I believe that if God appears to contradict Himself, either it's been translated wrong or you're reading it wrong.
User avatar #42035 - kyuubey (09/09/2013) [-]
How about raped slave marriage.
User avatar #42043 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
Well, that is litterally in the Bible as a commandment.
So the god of the bible (the caracter) must consider it to be a good thing.
User avatar #42034 - donutsection (09/09/2013) [-]
Okay, here's a question. Secularism in the bible, is there any know references to seperation of heavenly and earthly laws.
User avatar #42032 - eight (09/09/2013) [-]
Does your God save people in other religions? People who have been indoctrinated by their parents from birth and never really had a chance to believe in anything else?

User avatar #42015 - robinwilliamson (09/09/2013) [-]
Oh, and do aborted babies go to heaven? If so, would a worldwide nuclear attack be doing everyone a favor?
User avatar #42020 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
The Bible doesn't really address the issue of where babies end up, aborted or otherwise.
User avatar #42014 - robinwilliamson (09/09/2013) [-]
What's the rebuttal against Epicurus' segment, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

And an example about free will, if we were granted free will and God is benevolent, then how be it that something such as child trafficking can impose upon free will and the problem only amplify as one increases business, therefore man taking away a divine gift without divine intervention?
User avatar #42018 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I can't tell if the first part of your question is rhetorical, because it seems you thought of an answer in order to pose the second part. Indeed, I was going to say that God is able to stop evil but allows man to manifest evil through our own free will.

Regarding the second part of your question, yes, man can impede the physical and sometimes psychological free will of other people, and there is no divine intervention involved.
User avatar #42028 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
Then he himself is evil.
And our free will is directly contradictory with god's omniscience.
User avatar #42029 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
God cannot be evil, as there is no standard of conduct by which He exists. He sets the standard of conduct for everyone else, ergo He can only be perfect.

And I'm not having the omniscience discussion again. I've had it too many times and frankly I'm tired of it.
User avatar #42030 - metalmind (09/09/2013) [-]
That is only your definition.
But by our free will we can judge his actions, and by that standards, him to be evil.


And the contradiction is still there, even if you just ignore it, as you do with a great many things.
User avatar #42044 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
On what basis are you judging Him though? God is an objective moral authority, and if you don't believe He is, then where does objective morality come from?
#42011 - Just one more reason Catholicism is stupid. They elect a guy w…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #42016 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
Well it's kind of a good thing (for the rest of the world, I know you take the bible more literally than others, so maybe it won't be for you.) that he's taking a more progressive interpretation of the bible. So far a literal interpretation has only gotten us hate and pseudo-science, so it's slightly refreshing.
User avatar #42017 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
It's not even about literalism. When you read the Bible in full, there's no possible way to interpret it as saying anyone can be redeemed without receiving Christ. And also, please don't exaggerate. Literal interpretation does not always spawn hate. The New Testament only preaches love and kindness to everyone. In fact, the Old Testament doesn't preach hate either. It's more brutal, but it still doesn't say we should be hating anyone. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.
User avatar #42019 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
"The New Testament only preaches love and kindness to everyone."
Except non-believers, love and kindness to everyone who is apart of your club, and torture and pain for everyone else. Not to mention Jesus seems to be perfectly fine with this, but shows clearly he doesn't care for people who he cannot "save". Although this is a common theme through all the abrahamic religions, peace is a conversion tactic and if they can't be converted they should be killed. (I reference the parable in which he describes god's attitude toward incessant non-believers.)

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner."
Please don't pull this line, the very fact that sinners are allowed to tortured for committing sin shows clearly you aren't taught to love the sinner, you are taught to love the converted.

"Literal interpretation does not always spawn hate."
You're right, I forgot all those westboro baptist church posters saying god loves fags. Or the wars led against pagans, or the people killed for witchcraft, or the people killed for non-belief, or the people killed for suggesting ideas that contradict the bible, etc etc etc.
Up until recently when secular ideas made it so random religious killings are kind of frowned upon, this stuff happened ALL THE TIME. Look at underdeveloped nations where religion still has a very strong hold and see all the pointless deaths for nothing more than a book saying you should.

User avatar #42021 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I stand by what I said. Jesus said we are to love EVERYONE, regardless of any sin they've committed. He said we shouldn't kill anyone, but rather we should forgive them, so that we may be forgiven for our own sins.

And you could list off countless examples of hateful things Christians have done but that doesn't make it a universal law. You only notice them more because that's the kind of shit that gets covered in the media and pop culture. No one gives a shit about Christians being nice to people. Why would they? That's not newsworthy. That's not entertainment. That's boring.
User avatar #42022 - noblexfenrir (09/09/2013) [-]
No I notice them more because people die from it. I do notice the good things christians do, but I don't attribute that to the religion, I attribute it to basic human morality as motivation, as any human being can be nice for no good reason except the goodness in their heart. Where as a murder because your religion tells you so, well kind of has a theological prerequisite no?

So if you are supposed to love everyone (Is it really genuine if you're TOLD to?), so that means you love homosexuals, so why don't you want them to be happy? Especially since we've already established you don't think lawmakers should be forcing your religious beliefs on them, why aren't you completely for gay marriage?
User avatar #42025 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
>Is it really genuine if you're told to?
Understand the difference between the Greek words "phileo" and "agape". Both of them mean love, but they're two different kinds of love. Phileo is the kind of love that you feel naturally for a friend or comrade. Agape, on the other hand, means love born of the will. That is, it's something you sort of make yourself do. It's an action, not a feeling. If I give money or food to a homeless person, that's agape, but not phileo, because I don't have any emotional feelings for homeless people. But myactions are still loving, because I'm doing something God wants me to do for them. That's the kind of love Jesus commanded we show to each other. It doesn't matter if we feel it naturally, it's just a matter of what we do regardless.

Now, as for wanting others to be happy, I'd like to address the Fruits of the Spirit. Specifically, I'm referring to Kindness. It's true that we're taught to be kind to each other, but there's a difference between kindness and niceness. To be nice means to be agreeable and non-confrontational. But to be kind means to be caring and considerate for the welfare of others. You seem to be implying that as Christians we should be agreeable and support whatever decisions anyone makes. But in fact we should be trying to help steer others (and ourselves, of course) toward making wise, godly decisions. If we support others in sin, then we are not helping them, and we are therefore not being kind. Instead we are hurting them. Sure, we may be making them happy for now, but under the surface, we're damaging their souls. And Jesus spoke against the act of causing our brothers and sisters to stray from the path of righteousness.
#31 - Yes. 09/09/2013 on True Story 0
#30 - I know. That's what I'm saying. This is the red duck wearing t… 09/09/2013 on True Story 0
#26 - Look at it's neck. It's not the duck you think it is.  [+] (5 new replies) 09/09/2013 on True Story +4
#63 - anonexplains (09/09/2013) [-]
*its
User avatar #28 - leglesslegolegolas (09/09/2013) [-]
OH GOD
User avatar #31 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Yes.
User avatar #27 - leglesslegolegolas (09/09/2013) [-]
The bad advice duck has red feathers instead of green.
User avatar #30 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
I know. That's what I'm saying. This is the red duck wearing the green duck's skin.
#42009 - Correct, but after man violated that rule God gave us more. 09/09/2013 on Religion Board 0
#35 - Oh, I was confused because the picture doesn't say they were d… 09/09/2013 on sad face 0
#32 - Someone needs to refresh my memory of that part of the book. T…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/08/2013 on sad face 0
User avatar #33 - Gigsta (09/08/2013) [-]
A boggart is a shape-shifting non-being that takes on the form of the viewer's worst fear, Molly's worst fear is her family and Harry dying
User avatar #35 - jokeface (09/09/2013) [-]
Oh, I was confused because the picture doesn't say they were dying, so I didn't know why she was afraid of them.
#41963 - I don't believe 190,000 years passed before Abrahamic religion…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/08/2013 on Religion Board 0
User avatar #41964 - ihatem (09/08/2013) [-]
a.) scientifically (and likely biblically) incorrect and b.) historically incorrect. I'm pretty sure Judaism started about 6th or 7th century BCE, and it was the first monotheistic religion. So with some better human history info I'd like a better answer.

So evolutionary psychology did all the work godlessly until 2700 years ago? What makes the humans so bad compared to the insanely vicious animal kingdom?

Yeah, if you look at some advances in ethology you'll see many animals have developed culture, and pigs are so smart, if they learned language they'd be able to handle manual labor. Many wild dog family species have social heirarchy and teach each other how to hunt. So it's not out of the question.

"The Bible is pretty clear about it." I...I don't....do you even know what the Hueng-He river valley civilization would say if they read the bible? Joseph Smith got away with that reason, and people follow what is obviously bullshit. I'm not saying the bible is complete bullshit, I'm saying that a 1700 year old collection of worn out incomplete texts of antiquity written by intellectually inferior peasants and pretty much absolutely nothing before or after that is not something very good to go off of.

Yeah, for reasons above is a perfect reason why we have it better than God. In our legal system, we don't write laws and wait until someone has gone through an entire life time before telling them what their punishment is, and never ever making a real interaction with the place being governed. Make an explanation why his system is better than our representative democratic constitutional republic with highly active court systems and law enforcement using socratic methods.

I used to read your comments and think you were better than this, but I'm still interested in your answers.

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2050

Comments(568):

[ 568 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #576 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (02/16/2015) [-]
Hey how are you?! I know it's been a while but I'd really love to talk w/ ya!
User avatar #577 to #576 - jokeface (02/18/2015) [-]
Hey Good to hear from you! I'm alright. How have you been?
User avatar #578 to #577 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Glad you are doing well!! Had a rough couple of days but things are better now So you still going for God?
User avatar #579 to #578 - jokeface (02/18/2015) [-]
Very much so. In fact I just went through a pretty stressful period in the last couple months that was made especially difficult because of my faith. But I know God only subjected me to it because it would make me stronger. How about you?
User avatar #580 to #579 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (02/19/2015) [-]
Well I'm sorry for the stress :/ But I'm so glad to hear that you stuck w/ your faith and are strong as ever! I am too, I feel kinda bad though I actually forgot it was Ash Wednesday today oops! I always say I'm going to use the season to really take a step back from everything and reflect; and to become closer w/ the lord and all that entails.... but sometimes I wonder if I'm actually taking those steps or not....
User avatar #581 to #580 - jokeface (02/19/2015) [-]
I'll let you in on a little secret: Rituals are the least important part of following Christ. All that matters is that you know Him, and love Him, and live a life according to His calling. As long as you do that, you don't have to worry about not being good enough.

Here, give this a quick skim, I think it'll help you: www.alanknox.net/2010/06/jesus-cares-more-about-people-than-rituals/
#573 to #572 - jokeface (09/02/2014) [-]
A shiny!

I shall cherish this gift forever.
#574 to #573 - tridaak (09/02/2014) [-]
Hey
Hey
User avatar #575 to #574 - jokeface (09/02/2014) [-]
Hey
User avatar #552 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (06/13/2014) [-]
yo! soooo umm I know this is really random, but what are some good verus for like hope and paitence? idk it's a long story but i'm way stressed and I know you usually have some pretty insightful ideas......thanks!
User avatar #553 to #552 - jokeface (06/13/2014) [-]
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." - James 1:12

"but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint." - Isaiah 40:31

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ." - II Corinthians 1:3-5

"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." - Romans 15:4

"And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you." - I Peter 5:10
User avatar #554 to #553 - jokeface (06/13/2014) [-]
I could find more if you want me to.
User avatar #555 to #554 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
Naw this is great! Thanks so much!
User avatar #556 to #555 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
No problem, happy to be of assistance. May I ask what's troubling you, that you found yourself needing reassurance?
User avatar #557 to #556 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
Well my bf went to jail yesterday and I'm really bummed out about it......I waited for him while he was in prison for a long time and he's only out for r a moth then this happened......now idk wat will happen w/ him or us
User avatar #558 to #557 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
Damn. That's rough. I'm sorry that happened, and I'll certainly pray for both of you. You know, it's my firm belief that God doesn't allow bad things to happen in the world without opening doors for good things to come from them. It's definite;y distressing that this happened, but at the same time, think of it as an opportunity to grow in your strength and faithfulness. When you put your trust in Christ, He provides comfort, and He will stand by you in times of great pain. And the pain will pass. It, like everything else on Earth, is finite. But the love and grace of God is eternal. Let Him guide you through this trial, and I guarantee you'll come out stronger on the other side.
User avatar #559 to #558 - justsomechickyo ONLINE (06/14/2014) [-]
Thank you so much! Ya I know it will pass and I'm trying to stay strong but it's tough......I should really be focused on myself right now anyways.....I'm trying to get sober and that's enough of a challenge in itself. I know God is here for me and I will get through this all w/ him by my side
User avatar #560 to #559 - jokeface (06/14/2014) [-]
Here, this song might bring you some comfort/support:

Sidewalk Prophets - "The Words I Would Say" with Lyrics
User avatar #550 - thebritishguy (02/02/2014) [-]
Do you know any good theist youtubers?
User avatar #561 to #550 - jokeface (07/17/2014) [-]
Update: I've been on Youtube a lot more than I used to be and I know a few more of the big names on there now. John Green is one of my favorites, and he's a Christian. But he's very soft-spoken about it and keeps his videos very impartial. Here's one of the only videos where he talks about religion:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXlI8Wn8J3Q
User avatar #563 to #561 - thebritishguy (07/18/2014) [-]
I met this born again rapper at college, he's not a bad rapper, although he rejects reason in favour of faith by his own volition.
soundcloud.com/panterforever
User avatar #565 to #563 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
What sort of reason does he reject?
User avatar #567 to #565 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
Just the principles in philosophy like logic, he says that if people study philosophy, science and reason then they will turn away from God. So you must fear reason and logic as God is illogical and unreasonable. It's strange how much I agreed with him. I was dumbfounded.
User avatar #569 to #567 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
Yea see, that's where I draw the line. I don't believe that reason and faith automatically have to oppose each other. I believe that sometimes they do, but I don't think it's always the case. As I've said before, most science I find very reliable and even necessary to human existence. Without science we wouldn't have most medicines and technology that allows us to live our everyday lives. The Christians who reject all science give us a bad name. They don't realize that they are the product of science. Maybe not physiologically, but psychologically, they grew up in a world that was shaped by it. They depend on it even without realizing it.
User avatar #570 to #569 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
I just held up my phone and said
"This was built on the basis of scientific principles and theories, if science has no value and is innacurate, if the theories are just guesses and the scientists were deluded, it should not work"
Then I turned it on, at that point though he just caved in and said he was not interested in debating and whatever I say will not change his mind, so there was no point in it.

I think it's because a lot of people think it is either science or God when this is of course not the case. I consider faith to be apart from reason though because it is elementary that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar #571 to #570 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
And you have every right to feel that way. I completely understand that mindset.
User avatar #562 to #561 - thebritishguy (07/18/2014) [-]
He's incredibly vague, he never really answered the question
User avatar #564 to #562 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
Agreed, but he does that intentionally. As he said, the way people handle religion on the internet is very sloppy, and my guess is he feels that if he expressed his religious views outwardly, he would appear narrow-minded and bigoted, and he is very much NOT that. In fact, I've only ever heard him admit to being a Christian once, maybe twice, in all of his videos that I've seen. He doesn't ever say anything preachy, ever, and he doesn't let his faith define his character. So really, it wouldn't matter what his beliefs were, he'd still be the same person.
User avatar #566 to #564 - thebritishguy (07/19/2014) [-]
I'll check out more of his videos tommorow. It doesn't seem like he is taking a cut throat rationalist aproach though but more of an emotional appeal.
User avatar #568 to #566 - jokeface (07/19/2014) [-]
That's what I thought too, and I don't like when people do that, but I understand why they do it. And considering that so many of his videos are educational, and the fact that he and his brother also host a second channel specifically for academic learning (called CrashCourse in case you're interested), it makes sense that he's trying to reach as many people as possible, and quite frankly, he doesn't actually need to have a particular religious stance in order to be that kind of YouTuber.
User avatar #551 to #550 - jokeface (02/03/2014) [-]
I don't really know any Youtubers, let alone theist ones. The only one I really like is TomSka, and I don't know what he believes.
User avatar #548 - thebritishguy (01/04/2014) [-]
I don't know what this means
"'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew 12:22-32).

So what actually is this unforgivable sin please?
#546 - snood (12/20/2013) [-]
Hey i just read a lot of your comments about Christianity. You're one of the good ones on here, at least from what i saw. Keep it up.
User avatar #547 to #546 - jokeface (12/20/2013) [-]
Thank you. I try to be good.
#541 - thebritishguy (07/22/2013) [-]
What do you think about Zimmerman? I think he was innocent, he just pulled a family out of a burning SUV!
User avatar #542 to #541 - jokeface (07/22/2013) [-]
I have mixed feelings about Zimmerman. On the one hand I don't support killing people, even in self defense. But on the other hand, I believe his testimony and understand why he shot the kid. If it had been me, and I was being attacked, I might have shot him, but not fatally. I would have tried to shoot his leg or something to just injure him so that I could gain control of the situation. But ultimately, from a legal standpoint and not a religious one, I consider him innocent.
#543 to #542 - thebritishguy (07/23/2013) [-]
From what the evidence shows I would have shot him but many people doubt the evidence. The way the media portrayed him was really silly I thought, he had several reasons why he was suspicious of Trayvon, it was raining and he was wandering around leisurely staring at houses, there were recent break ins in the area and the particular house Treyvon was looking at had been left unlocked on previous occasions. Yet the media insists that race is the sole reason Zimmerman not only was suspicious of Trayvon, but even why he shot him.
User avatar #544 to #543 - jokeface (07/23/2013) [-]
Yea I really don't think race had anything to do with it.
#537 - anonexplains (06/09/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6wWQgGTAlk
is this you? I assume you made that slinky video so therefore this guy would have to be you
User avatar #538 to #537 - jokeface (06/09/2013) [-]
I didn't make the slinky video, I just found it and thought it was cool. And no, that's not me. Number one I don't have access to giant shellfish, and number two I wouldn't be caught dead without my trilby hat.
User avatar #535 - josieabby (04/13/2013) [-]
I just wanted you to know that your "Thrift Shop" thread with taxation was one of the most epic things I've ever seen. I put the song on so I could sing your lyrics over it. I'm gonna have a perma-grin for at least a week!
User avatar #536 to #535 - jokeface (04/13/2013) [-]
Haha, thank you. I'm glad you liked it. I just wish we could have done the entire song. But I ran out of ideas lol.
#502 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
what do you think about atheist church's? there's one in England they just give science lectures, sing pop songs and comedians come on. I'd love to go
User avatar #503 to #502 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Sounds awesome. Of course, I wouldn't agree with them denouncing the belief in God, but other than that it sounds like it'd be fun. Why do they call it a church though?
User avatar #504 to #503 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
I think it is just that there aren't really any other names for that sort of thing
The word church originally just meant a meeting place but I get what you mean
#496 - necessary **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #497 to #496 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
She was supposed to come up a few weeks ago but she never did. And I finally got fed up with not being able to see her, and so I put our relationship on hold until she comes up here. I'd go down to see her myself but I live on my own now and have a bunch of expenses that prevent me from being able to.
#498 to #497 - necessary **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #499 to #498 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Yea.
#473 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
Are you worried about North Korea?
User avatar #479 to #473 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Lmao, north korea is not a threat.
User avatar #482 to #479 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
well China and Russia are and they have relations also the citizens of North Korea will be screwed
User avatar #483 to #482 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Yes they do, but I've told you. If north korea attacks us, they lose support, and if such an event happened. They'd turn into a nuclear crater.
User avatar #484 to #483 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
I suppose, it's still sad for all the poor North Koreans
User avatar #485 to #484 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Oh well.

User avatar #474 to #473 - jokeface (03/17/2013) [-]
Define "worried".
#475 to #474 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
uuum like scared that world war 3 will begin or the civilians of North Korea will be nuked like Hiroshima , they have connections with Russia and China and have the fourth biggest military, Kim Jong Un told his troops to prepare for war and they always do nuclear weapon testing. On the other hand South Korea thinks they are just trying to get attention and trying to look big.
User avatar #476 to #475 - jokeface (03/17/2013) [-]
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. - Matthew 24:6-7

I'm a little nervous of how it might affect people on a personal level, yes. But I know it's coming and I've accepted that fact, because as Jesus said, the end is not yet.
User avatar #480 to #476 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
Lmao, taking the bible seriously.

Gee, Jaime, you get into unusual stuff.
User avatar #486 to #480 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
I'm afraid I don't get that reference.
User avatar #487 to #486 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
You're Christian/Catholic/Whatever.

Laughable. Possibly..
User avatar #489 to #487 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Why is it laughable? Or, to be more specific, why am I more laughable than other Christians?
User avatar #490 to #489 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
I find all Christians laughable on an equal level.

However, evolutionary theists have a special place in my colon.
User avatar #491 to #490 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
And why is that?
User avatar #492 to #491 - jingleforth (03/18/2013) [-]
They're naturally trained to ******** their way through an argument.

No matter what you say, it somehow fits in with science, or it's metaphorical, just...something to at the very least neutralize the argument given to them.
User avatar #477 to #476 - thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
hmmm this supports my psycho analysis of the God delusion.
"When people make decisions they use their Ego to decide what to do, the ego is where morality comes from and is sometimes called the "soul" according to Frued. When people base their morality and decisions based on what they think a God says the God becomes the ego. This is supported by the fact people ignore/highlight certain verses and lessons if they agree/disagree with them rather than getting a true perspective of the characters to keep the character as their ego rather than having to separate God from ego. It is also supported by people using words like "reject" and why religious people are so protective of their Gods and are personally insulted when people criticise their Gods. Also the emotions they feel when some theists talk to atheists are similar to those of rejection, when an atheist doesn't believe in God they are not rejecting the proposed God and yet they use that word, it seems to me that they use the word reject because they feel they are being rejected"
User avatar #478 to #477 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Quite insightful. However allow me to make a few counterarguments.

From the perspective of someone who believes God exists as described in the Bible, consider that such a being would indeed have dominion over morality and, yes, even the ego of those who choose to submit to Him. That being said, can you really blame us for it?

As for your point about verses, understand that I don't ignore any of the Bible. At most, I don't apply the laws that Jesus and Paul said are no longer relevant. It's like studying slavery. We don't have slaves anymore, but that doesn't stop us from learning about the slavery that existed years and years ago. In the same way, some parts of the Bible, such as Mosaic Law, are now obsolete, but that doesn't stop us from learning about it.

Lastly, I don't think that's entirely why theists react the way they do to atheists. Because that would imply that theists view atheists as the "popular kids" and they feel excluded from them. Such is not the case. I mean, that might be said for some people, but speaking for myself and many others, being a theist among atheists is more like being in a special club with amazing benefits, and you can invite as many people as you want, but nobody else wants to join. And it hurts, yes, but not because we feel rejected; Rather, we're simply disappointed that no one else wants to share in our joy.
#481 to #478 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
so then why would God make the morality so different? all of our morals are different and change over time, if I was born in the 60's I would probably have different morals than I do now, if I was born in Afghanistan I would have different morals, therefore morality must be something we learn to an extent (we all share common morals like murder, lying and stealing is wrong) rather than God given and also this would intrude on free will. When you think of God I'm sure you don't think about when he ordered the deaths of millions of people or the time he sent bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy but you pay attention to all the nice verses or like how you ignore the part in the bible were Jesus said to give away all your money or that for some odd reason God dislikes ordinary things that you probably do every day.
I'm not implying theists desperately want atheists to like them I'm saying that when I say "God is a dictator" people start saying I personally attacked them when I didn't
User avatar #488 to #481 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
What you say about common morals is true, and those are the ones which I believe God instills in us. But it's not an intrusion on free will because the morality God gives us is just instinct, and we have the freedom to either give in or resist that instinct. And I do think about everything in the Bible (or at least, everything I can remember, since I haven't been able to memorize all of it). I know God did some crazy **** in the past, but that doesn't take away from the importance of His words now. We don't ignore any of it. Or at least, the Christians I know don't ignore any of it. I'm sure there are some who do but I don't condone it. God gave us the entire Bible so that we could learn from the entire Bible.
User avatar #493 to #488 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
I would have thought your morals would have come from the bible as you don't think sex before marriage is good for instance. Well I have never heard about all the horrible and contradictory things in the bible at Sunday school or in church I only heard about the nice (well they cartooned it to make it seem nice) stuff and how God was great. Never heard about the rape, incest, slavery, stoning, homophobia, sexism etc. until I became and atheist. do you know how the bible was written?
User avatar #494 to #493 - jokeface (03/18/2013) [-]
Some of it. I know the first five books (called the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. I don't remember who write the rest of the Old Testament. The Four Gospels were written by their namesakes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Apostle. Acts was written by Luke, and Paul wrote the 21 Epistles. And Revelation was written by John the Apostle. It was completed almost 150 years after Jesus' death (about AD 150).
User avatar #495 to #494 - thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
They are the scriptures. The first Christians needed a book to read to their people so they all met up and have a long conversation about which books to add and which ones to exclude based on what they wanted to teach. The first Christians already burnt a few scriptures which are amusing (there was one were Jesus tamed dragons) but they complied them together and then gave them to really good authors to edit so that they all fit together. there's a documentary on it
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI
User avatar #463 - ragnarfag (03/14/2013) [-]
It seems Thebritishguy is quite intrusive on your profil, would you consider as him a friend or as more of a rivle?
User avatar #465 to #463 - jokeface (03/15/2013) [-]
He is what I call a "lost one". I feel no enmity toward him, but rather sadness at his adamant stance against the faith. However, he seems intelligent and his debate style is intellectually stimulating, so I imagine he would be fun to talk to about other issues, even if we disagree on those as well.
#464 to #463 - anonexplains (03/15/2013) [-]
thebritishguy is a troll
User avatar #466 to #464 - jokeface (03/15/2013) [-]
Why would an anon come to my page? I suspect you are Thebritishguy, having been summoned by the calling of your name, and you replied to it as an anon. If that is the case, your "trolling" efforts are uninspiring.
User avatar #468 to #466 - thebritishguy (03/15/2013) [-]
I'm not sure how to prove that he is not me but...he's not me
#469 to #468 - anonexplains (03/15/2013) [-]
what are you talking about? you're definitely me
User avatar #470 to #469 - thebritishguy (03/15/2013) [-]
if you were me why would you reply to my comment, unless it was me and this was a double bluff, but if it was a double bluff I would not mention it is a double bluff because I'd want you to fall for it
#471 to #470 - anonexplains (03/16/2013) [-]
lol jk. it really is me, thebritishguy. i'd like to admit that i'm only an atheist because i was molested
User avatar #472 to #471 - thebritishguy (03/16/2013) [-]
see it's not me...unless this was a triple bluff FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
#467 to #466 - anonexplains (03/15/2013) [-]
man, you got me all figured out...
User avatar #427 - thebritishguy (03/11/2013) [-]
I am more moral than God, I believe no one deserves to be burnt alive for eternity, slavery is wrong, we should all be treated equal, witches don't...wait witches don't even exist, I'm not homophobic , I am against genocide, I don't demand constant worship, I don't threaten people so they agree with me. Surely you are also more moral than God?
User avatar #532 to #427 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
To say God is anything less than perfect is to say that He doesn't meet the "proper" standards of decency. And if that's the case, then I have to ask, who has set the proper standards? Certainly no human. We're all flawed. So who are we to decide what's right or wrong? God is without flaw because there is no one to set standards for Him. Therefore only He can set standards, and if He is the standard, then anyone who doesn't match Him is wrong. Ergo, He is perfect.
#533 to #532 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
God is perfect?
User avatar #534 to #533 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
God is above the laws He sets for humanity. He is not bound to follow them, and even so, they can't really be applied to His actions for certain reasons.

Godly wrath is not the same as the sinful wrath, because He has every right to bring judgment upon us. As I said, He's perfect, so his wrath is justified, whereas ours is hypocritical.

The reason He doesn't want us to worship other gods is because He knows they are not real and therefore our worship of them is wasteful, as well as disrespectful to Him, the one true God whom we should be worshiping.

God was never idle, except for on the last day of the week of Creation, and it wasn't because He was tired or lazy, it was because He was setting a model for all of humanity to live by.

People do not hunger because God deprives them, but because we do. As agents of Christ we are called to help our fellow man, and if people starve because we fail to feed them, that's on us, not God. It's one of the duties we accepted when we chose to fall away from Him.

Once again, being perfect, He has every right to advertise Himself as such and demand people to worship. When He condemns humans for being prideful it's because we don't have anything to be proud of by His standards. Maybe by our own, but since we're not the standard, our own self-satisfaction doesn't count as praise-worthy.

God commands us to give to the poor and needy, not to Him. That is not greed.

He is not lustful, either. Lust would mean He gets sexually aroused, which He doesn't. I think whoever made this list just got to lust and couldn't think of anything so they just threw that one in their without much thought.
User avatar #430 to #427 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
God never condoned slavery, "witches" in the Bible are referring to people like Wiccans and others who practice magic (that is, magic that is taken seriously, not magic tricks), God doesn't fear anyone or anything so He cannot be homophobic, and frankly it doesn't matter what your personal opinions are because just because you disagree doesn't make you right. God's word is infallible and His doctrines are perfect. No human can ever be more moral than God. Hell, no human can ever be as moral as God.
#431 to #430 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
The bible never says anything about it not being real which is kind of ******* important seeing as millions of innocent people were killed because they were "witches". You know that homophobic doesn't mean scared lol it means you hate gay people. If you think it is perfect then go burn a witch! oh no wait you aren't going to do that you are going to ignore it like all the rest of the bible, if you thought it was perfect you would live by it, you would sell your computer and give the money to charity like Jesus said.
User avatar #539 to #431 - teoberry (07/11/2013) [-]
Homophobic

Phobic - one who has a fear of something (adjc. of phobia)

Phobia - a fear of something

Jeez British, lrn2english
User avatar #540 to #539 - thebritishguy (07/11/2013) [-]
faggot
noun [C usually plural] (WOOD) (US also fagot)
/ˈfæɡ.ət/ old-fashioned
Definition
› sticks of wood, tied together and used as fuel for a fire

hmmm I guess when people say faggot on the internet they are talking about bundles of sticks.
You know as well as I do that homophobes aren't simply terryfied of gay people, it also means if they have contempt towards homosexuals, particularly in this culture.
User avatar #432 to #431 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Obviously it can't be talking about real witches since humans can't do magic unless God gives them powers, and the only people He gave powers to were the Disciples.

And God doesn't hate gay people, He loves everyone.

And we're not ignoring the Bible, in fact, paying closer attention to it is exactly why we don't follow Mosaic Law. Because Jesus and Paul both clarified that it wasn't required after the Crucifixion.
User avatar #433 to #432 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
Jesus also said to sell everything and give it to the poor and a rich man can't get into heaven. the question is whether God is a moral person, he said homosexual acts are an abomination and you should kill them. If the writers of the bible didn't believe in witches why the **** didn't they say they didn't exist and it wasn't real? instead they had loads of rules on witchcraft, it's not like there was a word limit. don't be the interpreter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s
User avatar #458 to #433 - jokeface (03/13/2013) [-]
God didn't adopt the attitudes of men, men adopted the attitudes of God.

And it doesn't matter if God is benevolent or not, because it doesn't change the way the system works. We worship Jesus so we can go to heaven, or else we go to hell. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not God appeals to your personal preferences.

And yes, I know you don't believe in Him anyway, but for the sake of argument, let's say God revealed Himself to everyone, to the point where He could not be denied by anyone, and He confirmed to us that everything in the Bible is an accurate depiction of both Him and the afterlife. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would accept eternity in hell just because God doesn't base all His decisions around what you think they should be?
User avatar #461 to #458 - thebritishguy (03/13/2013) [-]
******** , guys had those attitudes before the bible was written, your God is similar to many other Gods in mythology, if God revealed himslef I would worship him out of blind fear I guess but that's not going to happen
User avatar #462 to #461 - jokeface (03/14/2013) [-]
I'm sure they did have those attitudes before the Bible was written, but what I'm saying is, the authors that wrote those things in the Bible only wrote them because God told them to. It doesn't matter what their personal feelings were, even if they agreed with them. That wasn't their motive. And if you admit that you would worship God out of blind fear then how can you judge us for doing the same?
User avatar #500 to #462 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say it was blind fear why Christians worship God, but there is barely any evidence for God. What I'm saying is do you think it's a coincidence that a benevolent and just God had the same attitudes as the homophobic slave owners of thousands of years ago? If he is real then those homophobic slave owners were perfect and should carry on ******* slaves. However it is really obvious that it was those people who wrote the book so they could justify having sex and beating their slaves among other things
User avatar #505 to #500 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
God never said we should have slaves, and neither did the Bible. The most we're told about slaves is that if you are a slave, you should be kind and obedient to your master, because violent rebellion would be sinful. That's a commandment for the slave, not the slave owner.
#506 to #505 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
just ignore the Old Testament why don't you
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I would argue religion is slavery as shown in this picture
User avatar #507 to #506 - jokeface (03/24/2013) [-]
Mosaic Law only applied to specific groups of Israelites at the time they were given. They became overruled when Jesus died.

And that picture is beautiful. I'm not even kidding. I'm inspired by it.
User avatar #508 to #507 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
stock·holm syn·drome
Noun
Feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.
regardless of whether you follow it or not it is written in the bible and supposedly said by your God, my point still stands. Also the New Testament never says that slavery is wrong it says slaves should be good so it is on the side of the slave masters
User avatar #509 to #508 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Yea, there's a lot of names that make it sound bad, but the fact is that we're perfectly adjusted and functional, so there's nothing wrong with having faith. Submission to God has no negative impacts on a person's life. All it does is ensure our place in heaven after we die.
User avatar #511 to #509 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
it had a bad impact on my life, I used to cry because I thought millions of people will be or are burning in hell, I find it quite bizarre that no body else seems to care. I used to feel guilty for doing normal things like fapping. Stockholm syndrome originated when hostages defended their captor. Their reasoning was that he was good because he didn't kill or beat them and they loved him because he didn't abuse them physically, this is very similar to religion.
User avatar #515 to #511 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I don't know what you mean by "nobody else seems to care." As Christians we care a great deal about the dangers of hell and naturally we aim to save as many people as possible from it. As for fapping, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about it. A lot of people like to reference some quote about it being better for your seed to fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground, but that's never mentioned in the Bible. As for the Stockholm Syndrome, I understand the connection your making, but the difference is that in that situation the kidnapper has done something bad by kidnapping the person. God's done nothing wrong to us. He's only done good and perfect things. He's not a villain, He's a hero.
#516 to #515 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
did you just skip the entire old testament? just the simple fact that you believe he will burn me alive for eternity should be enough to say he is a cunt Jesus ******* Christ
User avatar #521 to #516 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Why does that make Him a cunt? He's a just God. Everything He does is perfect. All human beings deserve to burn for eternity because we all have wickedness in our hearts. But He has offered us salvation in spite of that, and that makes Him benevolent.
#529 to #521 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
so when I burn alive it is justice? you ass hole! you need to get therapy for your severe Stockholm syndrome. It is like Jesus is your abusive boyfriend and he has told you that you are a piece of **** and worthless and disgusting but if you love him you are good. It is the same tactics abusive partners use to manipulate and control people
User avatar #530 to #529 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
You keep saying that, but I don't get what you think I should do about it. How is it helpful for you to inform me of this similarity?
User avatar #531 to #530 - thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
I just want you to realise common tactics religions use to control people and that your God isn't a cool dude he is a controlling dictator. come on man if someone sends people to burn and be tortured for eternity and you think they're perfect something is wrong with you
User avatar #510 to #509 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
"There's nothing wrong with faith."

Sure, but it goes against the scientific nature of humans.

Our society exists on the structure of scientific discoveries, which is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is "idunoo lol, but i believe in it" while science takes a more reasonable approach forming extremely good hypothesis', testing them, making sure everything fits right.

I'm not saying your belief is completely wrong, I'm just saying it has absolutely no value to society in our era..
User avatar #523 to #510 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have graphic and frightening things in it, because it does. I'm saying that the things we're supposed to be doing (covered thoroughly in the New Testament) are all good. Most of the violence and objectionable stuff is in the Old Testament, but we're not supposed to be doing that stuff.
User avatar #524 to #523 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
The new testament is still quite graphic, not to mention God in the old testament was a pretty huge dick, as well. He was extremely EXTREMELY malevolent then.
User avatar #525 to #524 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
No, He was extremely just back then.
User avatar #526 to #525 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
You're either a troll, or a really moronic human. Guessing both.
User avatar #527 to #526 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
Neither. God gave us very simple commandments, and we continually choose to disobey Him. Why would we deserve His love or grace? We don't. It's a gift. The most amazing gift we could ever hope for. That makes Him benevolent.
User avatar #528 to #527 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
lol
User avatar #512 to #510 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
I didn't say it was in line with scientific nature, I just said it only has positive consequences.
User avatar #513 to #512 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
Considering I was never truly apart of this conversation...What positive aspects other than some sort of denialistic stuff?
User avatar #514 to #513 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
It grants us access to heaven, which gives us hope and peace of mind until we die. Also the Bible is full of good morals and lessons on how to be a better person.
User avatar #517 to #514 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
1. To a place that you don't know exists, okay..
2. I said without denialsm..
3. lol, no.
User avatar #520 to #517 - jokeface (03/25/2013) [-]
1. I trust the testimonials of all the people who claim to have seen heaven when they had near-death experiences.
2. What denialism? I'm not denying anything.
3. No what? What are you referring to?
User avatar #522 to #520 - jingleforth (03/25/2013) [-]
1. Near-death experiences have easily been explained, not to mention people in those times had no scientific knowledge. That's why the Greeks thought earthquakes were caused by a guy shaking his head..
2. Not explaining, too much trouble.
3. The bible has tons of immoral stuff in it. Now, you can easily ******** your way through it and ignore the fact it's got a ton of disgusting stuff in it and claim all it's goodness even though I could ******* do it to just about any piece of literature..
#459 to #458 - say (03/13/2013) [-]
Imma christian, and I say just be a good person and serve your brothers (be a nice guy) whenever you have the option to be a dick instead, do what's right and you're good.

Also you gotta remember, the book was written by a bunch of old guys 2000+ years ago. they were wise, very, very, wise, but they lived in a time period where certain things that should be acceptable today weren't back then due to man made culture and beliefs, not god based, like being gay.
#501 to #459 - thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
but why did your God agree with the people who wrote the book?
#545 to #501 - say (09/04/2013) [-]
who ever said he did?
User avatar #460 to #459 - jokeface (03/13/2013) [-]
I agree with loving your brother and refraining from being a dick, yes. That's something Jesus said was very important. But He said loving Him was just as important, if not more so.

And also, remember that those men were directly inspired by God. He put the words in their hearts and commanded them to write them down. Aside form the outdated Mosaic Law, there weren't really any commandments that lost their relevance. The only one I can think of is the one about women teaching. I researched that one and yes that one was relevant to both the current time period as well as the current place Paul was was speaking to. For reference, I invite you to go to this link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm
...and Ctrl+F the phrase: "Scripture is Finally Explained". Those couple paragraphs give a very clear and insightful meaning of the verse.
User avatar #434 to #433 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Jesus told one man to sell everything he had to follow Him. He wasn't saying every human should sell everything they own. And nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to kill homosexuals. All it says is that they shall be put to death. It doesn't say we are the ones who should put them to death. It means God will kill their souls. And we know this is the case because Jesus said not to kill anyone, and killing the gays would contradict this. So death of the spirit is the only possible way to interpret it.
User avatar #435 to #434 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
yes, killing the gays contradicts it, there are loads of contradictions in the bible, it says to kill loads of different people, I think we have had this conversation before it never says anything about the soul your just making **** up it also says that their blood shall be upon them but if God was taking their soul there would be no blood. He said a rich man won't enter heaven and he says on a number of occasions to sell your stuff and give to the poor, did you watch the video?
User avatar #437 to #435 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Okay, I watched it. I'll concede to the thing about selling your possessions, but I still don't think He meant literally. Remember when He went into the temple and got angry at the people who were buying and selling there, and He started flipping tables and **** ? I think if He really wanted us to literally sell all our possessions, then He would be flipping tables every place He went. He'd always be scrutinizing people for owning things. No, what I think He means is to not let the possessions become more important than your loyalty to Him. That is, don't sell them from your ownership, but rather sell them from your heart. Let go of them spiritually, so that they don't prevent you from following Him.

The other part of the video I'll address is the thing about abolishing the old laws. Let me break it down for you:

Jesus said "I have not come to abolish [the old laws] but to fulfill them." What He means is that His arrival on Earth does not cancel or nullify the laws. They're still in place even though He has arrived, and because he is the Son of God, only He can fulfill them, because man is imperfect and can never fulfill the law. However, He goes on to say that nothing about the laws will change "until all is accomplished." What do you think He's referring to? I'll give you a hint: What did He come to Earth to do besides fulfill the law? He came to die. And right before He breathed His last breath, His last words were: "It is finished." That was it. That was Him declaring that the old law was obsolete and the new law would begin.

Then later in Galatians, the Apostle Paul write about how violation of the law no longer condemns us because Christ died to sanctify us in spite of sin: "[We] know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified...I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
User avatar #438 to #437 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
but God still told people to commit mass genocides and kill loads of innocent people, he's a cunt
User avatar #439 to #438 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I really don't care what He said to do in the Old Testament. We don't worship Him because we agree with Him. We worship Him because He is the only one who can save us from hell. And that's infinitely more important than anything that happens on Earth.
User avatar #441 to #439 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
wouldn't you go to hell just for saying/thinking that? the thought police are on you now
User avatar #442 to #441 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
No, because that's exactly what Jesus told us to think. Every time He told us to have faith in Him, He said it was because only through Him would we enter heaven.
User avatar #443 to #442 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
he didn't say "ignore My Dad he's a dick" though
User avatar #444 to #443 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
No, but He did say that we weren't bound by the laws His dad had previously set.
#445 to #444 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
this reminds me of this, the way I see it the Christians wanted to separate themselves from the Jews so that's why they had Jesus saying these things, you still believe Gid is an asshole though right?
User avatar #446 to #445 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I never believed God was an asshole. And the Christians didn't want to separate themselves from the Jews. The first Christians were Jews themselves. They just wanted everyone to worship Jesus with them. Read Galatians 2. It sheds some light on that issue.
User avatar #448 to #446 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
most Jews don't believe Jesus was a prophet also I think it was like 98% of jews just thought he was a hippie
User avatar #450 to #448 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I know that Jews and Christians are very different now, but I'm saying when Christianity first began, that wasn't as much the case. Again, the first Christians were Jews.
User avatar #452 to #450 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
I saw a documentary about it, I think they wanted to make it clear that they were different from the Jews so that's why they had certain elements, don't you think it's a coincidence that your God had the same attitudes towards thing like homosexuality and women as the people who wrote the bible?
User avatar #454 to #452 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I don't understand. Why would it be a coincidence?
User avatar #455 to #454 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
exactly, if an omniscient and benevolent God wrote it why would he have the same attitudes as 2000 year old dessert dwellers
User avatar #447 to #446 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
this in the belief that your God is going to burn me alive, if someone was going to burn you alive I wouldn't love them I would hate them
User avatar #449 to #447 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Well that's a shame.
User avatar #451 to #449 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
it isn't a shame it is sane, why would anyone believe another human deserves to go to hell? even Hitler only deserves to go there for a day or two and then he can go back to sleep
#457 to #451 - anonexplains (03/13/2013) [-]
for the love of God, stop being a faggot. You're not even listening to anything he's saying.
User avatar #453 to #451 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
Everyone deserves eternity in hell because everyone has turned away from God. It doesn't matter what's "sane" by your standards. God made a decision. There's no questioning it, no challenging it, no arguing it. We follow Him or we go to hell. That's it. There's nothing to discuss. Just decide if you prefer heaven or hell. It's simple.
User avatar #456 to #453 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
no it's grotesque and dictatorial he is not benevolent or just he is the most evil character in all of history, you know I don't believe it is true
User avatar #440 to #439 - thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
out of fear, like how they worship Kim Jong Un in North Korea
User avatar #436 to #435 - jokeface (03/12/2013) [-]
I'll watch it later, I'm on the phone right now. But anyway, I know there are parts of the Bible where it says to kill people but those parts are in the Mosaic Law and don't apply anymore. I can provide sources explaining why.
#428 to #427 - anonexplains (03/11/2013) [-]
oh shut up troll
User avatar #429 to #428 - thebritishguy (03/11/2013) [-]
no anon I am not even trolling
#387 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
I might become a Buddhist, I don't know I have been reading a book on it and it seems pretty cool, but I won't believe in re incarnation. Pastafarianism was fun for a while but I seem to be losing faith in a carbohydrate based deity...I can't feel his noodley appendages holding me down anymore R'Amen
User avatar #388 to #387 - jokeface (03/04/2013) [-]
Buddhism is an admirable philosophy but it deceives you about the afterlife and the true God. It would be good to apply some of its principles to a Christian lifestyle (such as letting go of desire, being nonviolent, etc.) but any belief that does not focus on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is wrong and will lead to suffering.
#393 to #388 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
like the belief in Jesus has not caused suffering, Buddhism has no God you don't worship anyone but some cultures have there own separate Gods which they include into Buddhism. The statement that believing in any other religion will cause suffering is frankly wrong and nothing more than an idea supported by your opinion.
User avatar #394 to #393 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
I wasn't talking about suffering in this life. I was referring to hell.
#398 to #394 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
all these people will go to hell because they were born into the "wrong" families, your God is an ass
User avatar #400 to #398 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
No, they'll go to hell because we are asses for depriving them of the truth. It's our job to save them.
User avatar #401 to #400 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
you don't know or even have any evidence what you say is the truth, if you were born in India you would be saying the same thing about there God, if you were born in Afghanistan you would be saying the same thing about Allah, religion isn't innate it is geographic
User avatar #404 to #401 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
We have evidence but apparently it's not good enough for you.
User avatar #406 to #404 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
no, the reasoning you use to explain God and the bible isn't good enough (hows your girlfriend btw?)
User avatar #409 to #406 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Things are hard right now. She couldn't make it up to visit as scheduled, and then two days later her father passed away. So it's tough.
User avatar #410 to #409 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
hmmmmmm have you heard of the show cat fish? maybe she is a he, have you spoken to...her..on webcam?
User avatar #412 to #410 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
I've heard of the show but I haven't watched it. However I did see the movie so I know what it's about. Coincidentally, the main guy in that movie looks so much like me it's eerie. And no, we haven't webcammed, but we've spoken on the phone so I at least know she's a girl. She also has videos of herself on Facebook, so I can match the voice to the face in the pictures.
User avatar #414 to #412 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
the guy in the film looks pretty cool, maybe you could say to hold up a piece of paper with your name on it and take a photo to be sure, it seems coincidental these kind of things happening together
User avatar #415 to #414 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Nah, my IRL identity and Jokeface must remain separate. I like the anonymity.
User avatar #417 to #415 - thebritishguy (03/05/2013) [-]
well you could just say any word, it would be just as valid, if they took the pictures and videos from a model or from another profile I doubt they would be able to do it
#405 to #404 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #370 - ragnarfag (03/01/2013) [-]
Since we waited like 10h by now, what is your ''severed arm analogy''?
User avatar #371 to #370 - jokeface (03/02/2013) [-]
I just got back to my computer and answered on the board. But to reiterate:

Suppose a person donates their arm to science. The arm is connected to a machine that simulates a heart, pumping clean blood through the arm to keep the tissue alive. Then suppose someone damages the arm in such away that the tissue dies. A bunch of living, human tissue. So is this person guilty of murder?
User avatar #386 to #371 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
a murder is the taking away of a human life, not human cells
User avatar #389 to #386 - jokeface (03/04/2013) [-]
Exactly. And what is an non-cognizant embryo if not just a collection of cells? Until it's aware, it may be "living" tissue but it's not "alive"
User avatar #392 to #389 - thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
yeah, your right, did you see that post which said "if abortion is murder, are blowjobs cannibalism?"
User avatar #395 to #392 - jokeface (03/05/2013) [-]
Exactly. It's absurd.
User avatar #364 - whtkid ONLINE (03/01/2013) [-]
Good luck on the sex!!
User avatar #365 to #364 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
Actually I'm waiting until marriage, but thank you for the sentiment. :)
User avatar #363 - OpticalIllusion (03/01/2013) [-]
Best of luck with your net girlfriend, hope you get some righteous sex.
User avatar #366 to #363 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
As I said to Whtkid, we're waiting until marriage. But thank you. :)
User avatar #372 to #366 - OpticalIllusion (03/02/2013) [-]
Whatever floats your boat.

I hope all is going well?
User avatar #376 to #372 - jokeface (03/02/2013) [-]
So far so good. She gets on her flight in about 12 hours.
#356 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
if you don't get it it is a version of big brother from the book "1984"
User avatar #357 to #356 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
I get the reference. Still doesn't deter my faith in the slightest.
User avatar #361 to #357 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
just saying
User avatar #367 to #361 - jokeface (03/01/2013) [-]
Noted.
User avatar #318 - thebritishguy (02/26/2013) [-]
Jesus and God are hilariously similar to an abusive boyfriends
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #319 to #318 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
Okay, let's see...He doesn't verbally abuse us...doesn't control our money...doesn't isolate us...He's never been cruel to anyone...so we can rule out "Controlling" as a characteristic. I'd say He's more influential, seeing as His teachings and requisites can certainly impact people, though He doesn't force them on anyone.

He does have special rights but He sure as hell earned them by saving us. Nothing He demands are unreasonable and in fact we're getting much more than we deserve out of the deal. He's never violent either. So "Entitlement" isn't really applicable except for the fact that He has indeed earned what He asks of us.

"Selfishness and Self-centeredness" sure doesn't fit, since His sacrifice was entirely selfless, and His choice of inviting us into His kingdom is hugely charitable and not self-centered at all.

He holds no contempt for anyone. Contempt for sin, yes, but not for people. We're all loved infinitely by Christ. So "Superiority" doesn't apply.

He never claimed we were His possessions. He gives us full freedom from Himself. When He asked a rich man to give up all his wealth to follow Him and the rich man chose to turn Him down, Jesus never pressured Him. He just let Him go. Following Him is our choice, not His. So no "Possessiveness".

Again, He's never been violent. Unless you count flipping the tables at the temple, but He wasn't hurting people there, just making a mess. So He doesn't "Confuse Love and Abuse."

"Manipulativeness"...Nope. Not by this definition. Nothing He says is confusing or distorting, and He never lies.

He's not "Contradictory" either. He always practiced what He preached, and all of His teachings are clear and straightforward.

I don't understand how He could be "Externalizing Responsibility" either. This thing talks about shifting blame, but Jesus was blameless. Pure of all sin.

And "Denial" doesn't apply because as I've been making quite clear throughout this list, Jesus has no guilt to deny. He was, and still is, perfect.
User avatar #321 to #319 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
Jesus lied a lot, you really need to look at this website more mate
www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm
User avatar #326 to #321 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
1. The key word being faith. Humans are capable of immense amount of faith, but no one can truly trust God infinitely as Jesus did. Therefore, no one can harness His power (except the Disciples to some degree).

2. He's referring to His grace. If you seek the grace of Christ, He will save you. But if not, then you will never receive it. Plain and simple.

3. I don't understand how that one is a lie.

4. This one could be answered with my response to #1.

5. Same as #2.

6. I had to read the chapter this came from for context. It appears He's referring to the Disciples. Like I said, they were able to pull off some crazy Jesus **** themselves.

7. God makes all things possible through the works of nature and people. Whatever you want, if you believe in Christ, He will make it reachable in one way or another.

8. See #7.

9. See #1 yet again. Or #7. They both fit.
User avatar #320 to #319 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
what about God?
User avatar #323 to #320 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
Jesus and God are the same entity. I mean in the Bible God created a physical form for Jesus while He was on Earth, but in general they're both one being. That's the thing about the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all just different faces of the same single God.
User avatar #324 to #323 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
ohohohohohohhhoooo noooooooooooooo God was insane he doesn't fit this description
also here are some contradictions: www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
User avatar #327 to #324 - jokeface (02/27/2013) [-]
No, man, I'm bored with this. Look, I'm happy you like to do research (even if it all comes from the same site), but I'm not gonna keep reading lists and replying to bullet points and **** , half of which are addressing the same specific issue. If you wanna have an actual discussion, then discuss. But I'm not wasting my time responding to URLs.
User avatar #332 to #331 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
This pic is old and I'm pretty sure most atheists are smart enough to know it's being satirical of them. You just made fun of yourself.
User avatar #335 to #332 - thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
lol the pic is old? how about the ******* book, a satirical term are you high right now?
User avatar #337 to #335 - jokeface (02/28/2013) [-]
I'm saying that it's already been established that using that picture as a rebuttal is pointless because both Christians and atheists know that those two verses are not using the same meaning of "the face of God". The fact that you think you're gaining any credibility by using that picture just shows how ignorant you are. Even among atheists.
#330 to #327 - thebritishguy (02/27/2013) [-]
well here is a list you don't have to respond with your bullet points
[ 568 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)