The Bible Always Gets A Pass [Pic]

Submitted by: Rested 6 years ago in Misc

And you wonder why they call it the good book...
There are 157 comments:
Male 247
The creator of this cartoon obviously does not know what the Bible says about "gays, blacks and Jews". But I`m not surprised.
0
Reply
Female 584
This post was stupid. But Gerrys comment made me giggle.
0
Reply
Male 24
hahahahahaha love it!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
CrakrJak was probably referring to the Byzantine empire, which did go to war with Arabs and Turks who were Muslims. Religion was part of it, kicked off by the massive expansion of Islam by war and conquest. Only part of it, though - the Arabs attacked the Byzantine empire (and everywhere else within range) and that would have caused a war regardless of their motives for attacking.

Although it did start off as the eastern part of the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire was seperate from the beginning and continued diverging. It didn`t even have the same main language (Greek was the main language in the Byzantine empire).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Interestingly, some Romans at the time blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome.

There are secular and theological arguments for that.

Secular:

A key part of the Roman empire was the loyalty of citizens to the state. Some key work that enabled the empire to function was done by wealthy Romans as their service to the state. Christianity ended that loyalty because people were required to be loyal to the church, not the state.

Religious:

The city of Rome was sacred to their gods. The extraordinary rise of Rome from a small farming community to a multi-continent empire ruling 20% of all people (and that`s a conservative estimate) was attributed to the favour of the gods. If Rome turned away from the gods, it would fall. It did turn away from the gods and it did fall soon afterwards.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]In other news, I very much enjoyed that little smackdown delivered from Angilion (well played sir) on Crackrjak. I especially liked the bit where Crakrjak stated that the Roman Empire was at war with the Muslims, when Islam wasn`t invented until three centuries after the Roman Empire fell.[/quote]

For the sake of accuracy:

It was three centuries after the end of *pagan* Rome. The topic was religious tolerance in the Roman empire *before* it was conquered by Christianity.

It was about 100 years later that Rome was pretty much finished. Rome itself was sacked in 410, though the Germans who did it were an organised force under a strong leader and didn`t wreck it despite staying for 3 days to steal everything portable. The outer provinces were abandoned at that point. The empire still formally existed for another 70 years, but that was really just the death throes.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`m going to be bold, based on past experience. I`m going to make a little bet with myself (I know, my money, my bet, but it amuses me), that Crakrjak never comments on this thread ever again.

I mean, I KNOW he`s reading it, but he won`t comment again.

Gauntlet thrown down, CJ.

Global Warming is a lie, the Rapture is really going to happen, George W Bush was the best President ever to grace the US, Obama`s a dirty Muslim, and homosexuality is a perversion akin to bestiality. And anyone that doesn`t agree with that is a libtard communist. Did I get it right?

Never mind. Like I said, I confidently predict that this is the most recent post that will made on this thread.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Ah, I copy-pasta`d from the wrong window :( I was looking up other verses like 18:32 or 8:23 to see if maybe CJ had just written down the wrong reference. Then when I couldn`t find it anywhere I Googled the actual words and realised. And then I lol`d.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
almightybob1 is also wrong.

John 8:32 is one of the most famous verses: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Online bible, NIV

almightybob1 was quoting John 18:32, not 8:32, but their core point stands - the text that CrakrJak was quoting as John 8:32 isn`t from the Christian bible at all.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Chuckle. Nice find bob. That`s precious.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Jesus Christ CrackrJak. You really HAVEN`T read the Bible!

John 8:32 is actually "That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die."

The passage you just quoted is not found ANYWHERE in the Bible. It`s from Matthew Henry`s concise Bible commentary, which was written in 1706. It is NOT a Bible verse.



I always suspected you hadn`t read the Bible. Now I finally have the proof.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion CRITS IAB for 556,789 Health using Wall of Text.[/quote]

Errr, yeah, sorry about that. I got a little carried away. I try to keep it brief, but there`s so much to address and I like to ensure that I can show supporting evidence and reasoning for my arguments. Reading or writing a thousand words is trivial to me, so I tend to underestimate how it can appear to others.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
A final word or two...or a dozen:

The translation that CrakrJak gives of the relevant passage in Tacitus` Annals is dubious. For example, the addition of the word `many` when referring to Christians burned alive by Nero - that significantly changes the meaning of the sentence.

ii) Immediately after the section CrakrJak quoted, Tacitus states that Nero`s grotesque persecution of Christians greatly helped most Christians and Christianity in general because it created huge public sympathy for them.

iii) There are no other known references to Nero persecuting Christians until over 300 years later and those are taken from Tacitus` account.

iv) Tacitus was doing a hatchet job on Nero. Maybe Nero really was as deranged and vile as Tacitus says he was. Maybe not.
0
Reply
Male 53
"Angilion CRITS IAB for 556,789 Health using Wall of Text.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Finally...Nero again.

There are two conflicting views of Nero.

i) After an initial 5 years of very good rule, he suddenly became dangerously deranged, murdered his mother and persecuted pretty much everyone, routinely torturing people to death because it entertained him.

ii) He remained a decent ruler, no more brutal than was normal for the time and in some ways considerably less so, and was in fact a victim of a sustained campaign of the vilest propaganda. We know that there was a propaganda campaign against Nero during his rule, hence the widely believed lies about his conduct during and after the fire of 64. What else were they lying about? Maybe all of it.

Either way, holding him up as the norm for centuries of Rome is ludicrous. The reason why it`s so often done by Christians arguing that the whole Roman empire persecuted Christians brutally and ceaselessly for centuries is that they have nothing better.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Of course, we must be wary even about these very limited persecutions of Christians because we know that Christian propaganda deliberately and consistently presented an entirely false image specifically made up to portray Christians as victims because that gave Christians an excuse to victimise other people and a great deal of political power to Christianity in general.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
ii) Diocletian. More like a civil war than a persecution - by this time the Christian church was in the final stages of openly fighting for outright conquest of the Roman empire. Lasted 8 years. Obviously, the Christian church won the civil war against Diocletian.

So, far from the centuries of brutal persecution of Christians solely for being Christians, conducted right across the whole empire, we have only two short periods of widespread persecution, one of which was confined solely to the city and the other of which didn`t happen over the whole empire, one of which had nothing to do with religion and the other of which was a religious war started by Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
i) Nero. The persecution lasted for maybe as much as a year, probably less. It had nothing to do with religion - Nero was being blamed for a large fire in Rome and was trying to shift blame to Christians for purely political reasons.

There is doubt about the degree to which it is usually thought to have happened. There was a lot of anti-Nero propaganda at the time (like blaming him for the fire, when he wasn`t there at the time and did a very good job of leadership in response to the crisis) and a lot of victim-power propaganda from Christians afterwards. There`s only one contempory account of the persecution, which might be fake, and the later Christian writings (before the really major propaganda campaigns) refer to very few Christians killed by Nero in the persecution - less than 200.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Also, most of Rome`s records were destroyed, and they didn`t bother to record all the executions, but there are historians that recorded Rome`s persecution.[/quote]

Yes, there are...and they didn`t record anything at all like what you`re claiming.

The Christian revisionist propaganda about centuries of ceaseless persecution of all Christians by all Romans and by the Roman state across the entire Roman empire is a lie.

There were only two very short periods of any degree of widespread persection of Christians in the Roman empire, and not even those covered the whole empire or anywhere near it. Those are the periods of persecution in the city of Rome itself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Setting aside (for the moment) the implausibility of the time travel and long-term precognition that the ancient Romans would have needed for some of CrakrJak`s arguments to be true.

In general, for CrakrJak and anyone else with similar arguments:

Any action taken against a person or people of a particular religion is not necessarily done because of that religion.

Ancient Rome went to war with numerous people with numerous religions (but not Muslims, obviously, since they didn`t exist at the time) *for reasons that had nothing to do with religion*. Pagan Rome warred for power, land, resources, defence, but not for religion. Pagan Rome wasn`t after your souls. It was after your taxes.

As for individuals and groups:

Persecuting people for rebelling against Roman rule is not the same as persecuting them for following Judaism.

Persecuting people for treason is not the same as persecuting them for following Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Besides that, The older pagan Romans did war with Arabs, Egyptians, Persians, and others that would become islamic.[/quote]

Since you`re stating a *religious* motivation for that fighting, you`re now arguing that pagan Romans possessed the ability to accurately look forwards through time at least 300 years in order to attack these people because their descendents would follow a religion that wouldn`t exist until at least 300 years later.

Time travel, accurate long-term precognition...this has gone way off into the weird. Frankly, it`s twaddle.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
In short, you (and many others) have conducted and are conducting a whitewash to misrepresent slavery as indentured servitude, in many cases going as far as deliberate mistranslations of biblical passages in order to substitute "servant" for "slave".
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Most slavery which is pretty much all old testament material, was voluntary to pay off ones debt. After seven years you were released from it, regardless if you had fully paid off your debt.

This is vastly different to the type of slavery people think it was. Yes indeed there was some of that too, but for the most part it was first thing I said.[/quote]

That`s recent revisionism created to whitewash the issue of slavery as much as possible after slavery became seen as abhorrent.

For example, it explicitly states in your bible that only Hebrew slaves were to be freed after 6 years and only some of them. For example, Hebrew women sold into slavery by their fathers remained slaves for life.

It also states that raping slaves is allowed, although you must allow women you`ve enslaved as spoils of war a period of one month to mourn their husbands and families (probably killed by you) before raping them.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...time travel.

In a subthread about religious tolerance in pre-Christian Rome, you said they were at war with Muslims.

Christianity had conquered Rome by the early 4th century. Other religions were being quietly suppressed by the mid 310s, openly persecuted by the mid 320s when Christianity was declared the state religion and completely outlawed not long after that.

There weren`t any Muslims until 610 at the very earliest (the date at which it`s claimed that Mohammed received his divine revelation) and it was some years before there were enough for a war.

So I stand by my initial extremely surprised reply: you really are claiming that ancient Romans travelled forwards in time at least 300 years to go to war with Muslims.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
Most slavery which is pretty much all old testament material, was voluntary to pay off ones debt. After seven years you were released from it, regardless if you had fully paid off your debt.

This is vastly different to the type of slavery people think it was. Yes indeed there was some of that too, but for the most part it was first thing I said.

Really that`s not a bad deal, your fed and housed while you work it off, and you were supposed to be treated decently, you could at least complain to town elders about it. No such luck with the other kind of slavery.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I also gave several examples of it, provable examples with archaelogoical evidence.

In other words, I am very obviously talking about pre-Christian Rome, which is why I wrote "pre-Christian Rome". In a subthread about the different degree of religious tolerance in different religions, it would be nonsense to confuse pre-Christian and post-Christian Rome. When considering anything to do with religion, they`re obviously different. So I made it clear that I was talking about pre-Christian Rome.

So why are you talking about religious intolerance in Christian Rome? I`m assuming it`s because you haven`t read my posts properly rather than because a deliberate misrepresentation of my position.

More to come!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
CrakrJak:

Would you please read all of a post of mine before writing "replies" to it? Not just skimming for what you regard as keywords - you`re repeatedly missing key parts.

This is going to be long, because I have to quote and requote to prove that your "replies" are a misrepresentation of my position.

Here`s my original statement in this thread regarding religious tolerance in ancient Rome:

[quote]Pre-Christian Rome was very tolerant of different religions.[/quote]

In later posts, after your initial I restated and elaborated on my position . For example:

[quote]The Roman empire was before Christianity conquered it. Other religions were restricted in Rome itself because the city was sacred to the Roman state religion, but there was a degree of tolerance even there, e.g. Judaism was openly practiced in Rome until Christianity started to be a serious problem (to the Romans, early Christianity was a variation of
0
Reply
Male 17,511
John 8:32 "We cannot ransom our fellow-sinners, but we may point out Christ to them; while by his grace our lives may adorn his gospel, express our love, show our gratitude, and glorify his holy name."

Have you not read the entire bible ? or must you nitpick and take out of context everything in it ?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Slaves are owned they are property, they were treated as a commodity and treated as such.[/quote]
Seriously, CJ, that`s EXACTLY what the Bible describes. It tells you how much to pay for a person, and how to pass them on as inheritance after you die (like any other property). It`s right there in Leviticus 25:46. The KJV even uses the actual word "possession". Have you not read it?
0
Reply
Male 469
Like people never bash religion. Stupid post.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: The Battle of Yarmuk

The `Roman Empire` may have changed religious preference but they were still the `Romans`. Besides that, The older pagan Romans did war with Arabs, Egyptians, Persians, and others that would become islamic.

Also, most of Rome`s records were destroyed, and they didn`t bother to record all the executions, but there are historians that recorded Rome`s persecution.

"Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night."
0
Reply
Male 149
@davymid durrr, global warming no happens :P
0
Reply
Male 12,138
In other news, I very much enjoyed that little smackdown delivered from Angilion (well played sir) on Crackrjak. I especially liked the bit where Crakrjak stated that the Roman Empire was at war with the Muslims, when Islam wasn`t invented until three centuries after the Roman Empire fell.

See, that`s the danger with arguing on the internet. There`s always someone who knows more about the topic than you do. Whether you`re arguing ancient Roman culture against a classical scholar, or modern climate change with a PhD Geoscientist. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Look Heureux, I`m all for free speech, hey this is IAB. But next time you call all atheists (a good percentage of our userbase, including myself) "prejudiced bigots" who "have nothing but hatred for 99% of humanity", then I will consider a ban on you on grounds of trolling, since you`ve done it 8-10 times before and it`s now getting old and trollsome. Not that I expect you to read this, you like to drop little bombs like this all over the internet and then move on to the next site, I`ve seen some of your other work.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Hey, look, I can take a term like atheism, twist it into something it`s not, and post any old sh*t sh*t on the internet too. If I remember right, you`re gay, or bisexual, forget which. So here goes:

"Bisexuality is a prejudice, and LGBT people are simply the current "hip and cool" bigots... people who work in the construction industry only hate and malign 10% of humanity, but LGBTism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity."

See how easy (and nonsensical) that was? Hey, I can talk sh*t too!
0
Reply
Male 12,138

Besides, how can atheism "teach" anyone anything? Atheism is vanilla. It`s simply the starting mould. It`s the default position. No child on this planet is born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Pastafarian. Those religions are things that are taught by the child`s parents, or they choose to accept those religions through their life experiences as they grow. And no, I don`t hate them for being Christian, or Muslim, or whatever. I don`t hate them at all - why would I? Some of them are my best friends. Heck, my brother is a Young-Earth Creationist. Do I hate him? No.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Atheism is a prejudice, and atheists are simply the current "hip and cool" bigots... homophobes only hate and malign 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity.[/quote]
Oh, shut up Heureux, you insufferable twat. You`re either trolling like a pro, or you genuinely have no idea what atheism is. I`m an atheist. Have you any idea what that means? It means I, personally, don`t believe in any gods. I`m not prejudiced, I`m not a bigot, I don`t hate or have contempt for 99% of humanity. It means I don`t believe in God. Or any supernatural beings for that matter.
0
Reply
Female 98
@jcarb10
Thank you for saying that. I wish people would actually think about that instead of continuing in their immaturity.
0
Reply
Male 369
Well put.
0
Reply
Male 25
people who don`t read the bible shouldn`t attempt to quote it...
0
Reply
Male 357
where in the bible do jews not get equal rights? blacks not having equal rights? this is a fail.
0
Reply
Male 734
I don`t remember anything in the Bible about blacks,
0
Reply
Male 177
Indeed.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Also, Servitude in the bible does not equal slavery. Servitude was more like apprenticeship was in Europe, You learned a trade and worked for your boss for a decent wage, food, and board. Servants in the bible had rights[/quote]

Damn, I missed this piece of misdirection.

The references in the bible are to *slaves*, not to *servants*. Some "translations" substitute `servant`, but it`s misdirection. `doulos` means `slave`. `diakonos` means `servant`. They`re not the same word and they don`t have the same meaning.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Yep.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Servants in the bible were to be treated like members of the family and protected as such, Not owned as much as adopted.[/quote]

Have you actually read the bible? It bears no resemblence to what you`re written here.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Jews and Christians alike were persecuted by the Romans on a daily basis[/quote]

Historical records don`t show a persecution anything like what you describe. People rebelling against Roman rule were persecuted. Some of those were Jews, but that`s not the same as being persecuted for being Jews. People attempting to overthrow the Roman state and waging a religious war against the Roman empire were persecuted. Some of those were Christians, but that`s not the same as being persecuted for being Christians.


[quote]and the Romans were at war with the muslims.[/quote]

You are now arguing that Romans prior to the Christian conquest of the Roman empire travelled forwards in time at least 300 years to wage war on Muslims.

Surely you can`t be expecting me to take that argument seriously? You make a mockery of yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: What you are talking about is not `Tolerance` in the sense that we use the word today, Hell it would not even be considered `Second-class citizenship", Even medieval peasants had more rights than Non-Romans.[/quote]

You are insisting on confusing citizenship with religion.

They are not the same thing.

How can I make that clearer?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Servants in the bible were to be treated like members of the family and protected as such, Not owned as much as adopted.

Slaves are owned they are property, they were treated as a commodity and treated as such. The antebellum south did employ `house slaves` but were treated much more like servants, but they were still slaves.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: What you are talking about is not `Tolerance` in the sense that we use the word today, Hell it would not even be considered `Second-class citizenship", Even medieval peasants had more rights than Non-Romans.

Jews and Christians alike were persecuted by the Romans on a daily basis, and the Romans were at war with the muslims. You call that tolerance ?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Slaves get no wage, nor learn a trade, they are treated like cattle.[/quote]

So...you`d argue that much of Roman slavery wasn`t slavery at all?

Roman slaves had some rights, could earn and keep money (peculiam), usually learnt a trade and were not necessarily treated like cattle. Some were wealthy, some were treated like family (e.g. read Cicero`s letters to Tiro), some were well-regarded artisans, some were respected professionals (e.g. doctors).

I don`t think that meant they weren`t slaves - they were legally the property of someone else and if that isn`t slavery then what is?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Also, Servitude in the bible does not equal slavery. Servitude was more like apprenticeship was in Europe, You learned a trade and worked for your boss for a decent wage, food, and board. Servants in the bible had rights, Slaves do not. Slaves get no wage, nor learn a trade, they are treated like cattle.

The apprenticeship and internships we have today are remnants of those old systems.[/quote]

I suggest that you read your bible, because what it refers to is very different to what you state above.

Servants are not property that can be bought, sold, raped, tortured, etc.
0
Reply
Male 496
I see the comments from religious people, I read the last frame, I see more comments from religious people, I read the last frame again....

Sometimes these cartoons get it so right people can`t even see they are simply fulfilling the role the comic said they would, it`s great!

As for arguing over the bible, it`s been pulled this way and that way for years. My opinion isn`t going to change the minds of the people that seem so determined to debate at length the details of a story written thousands of years ago, and kindly edited by hundreds of officials along the way.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Random example:

On a archaelogical dig of a temple in Britain, a number of religious message tablets were found. These were messages inscribed on lead tablets and left at a sacred site. One of them was from a Roman legionary giving thanks to a local British god for his promotion to Centurion. So not only was he a Roman citizen (only Roman citizens could be legionnaries), he was being promoted to a respected earned position in the Roman army.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The only tolerance Romans had for them is because Rome had conquered so much land they had to trade and rule over them[/quote]

While there was a pragmatic political aspect to the tolerance, it doesn`t negate the fact that there was tolerance.

Random example: the hot springs in the place now known as Bath were a sacred site to the Britons who lived in the area, sacred to their god Sulis. When the Romans conquered the area, they built a town there...and they called it Aqua Sulis. The locals continued their religion and Rome didn`t suppress it.

[quote]Non-Romans were taxed heavily, their systems of justice were co-opted, and had no right to vote as Roman citizens did.[/quote]

Which was about citizenship, not religion. Roman citizens could follow other religions (subject to restrictions in Rome itself), and many did.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Actually Rome was NOT tolerant of other religions.[/quote]

The Roman empire was before Christianity conquered it. Other religions were restricted in Rome itself because the city was sacred to the Roman state religion, but there was a degree of tolerance even there, e.g. Judaism was openly practiced in Rome until Christianity started to be a serious problem (to the Romans, early Christianity was a variation of Judaism).

[quote]Nero was emperor, both god and king of the Romans.[/quote]

Only in his own mind. Also, Nero was (as I`ve already explained) very much the exception in this context.

[quote]They believed all other religions were barbaric and backward.[/quote]

Except for the Romans who were followers of them. Most of the rest tolerated those religions even though they thought they were barbaric and backward.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Also, Servitude in the bible does not equal slavery. Servitude was more like apprenticeship was in Europe, You learned a trade and worked for your boss for a decent wage, food, and board. Servants in the bible had rights, Slaves do not. Slaves get no wage, nor learn a trade, they are treated like cattle.

The apprenticeship and internships we have today are remnants of those old systems.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Actually Rome was NOT tolerant of other religions. Nero was emperor, both god and king of the Romans. They believed all other religions were barbaric and backward.

The only tolerance Romans had for them is because Rome had conquered so much land they had to trade and rule over them, Non-Romans were taxed heavily, their systems of justice were co-opted, and had no right to vote as Roman citizens did.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]and about the slavery, I spoke from ignorance of any passage condoning it...which I still can`t find...But I`d say it`s pretty clear that that`s mostly a cultural debate not clearly defined biblically.
[/quote]

No. It`s very clearly defined biblically. There are numerous verses going into great detail.

I`d agree with you if you wrote the above in reference to racism - the biblical support for pro-"white" racism is a crap argument that looks to me like racists trawling through the bible trying to find something, anything, that could at a huge stretch be interpreted as support for it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angillion, if you can show me one scripture that says Jews are less worthy than any other race(that`s not completely out of context) I`ll believe it.[/quote]

It`s not about race - the concept didn`t really exist back then. It`s about religion. In Christianity, Christians take priority over followers of other religions. Not surprising, surely?

[quote]and about the slavery, I spoke from ignorance of any passage condoning it...which I still can`t find[/quote]

There are dozens on them in that link I provided. It`s not an anti-Christian site - the whole site is co-authored by a group of people with wildly different religious views (or lack thereof) in a deliberate and careful attempt to remove all bias in any direction. The Christian bible condones slavery, explicitly and repeatedly.
0
Reply
Male 52
@Angillion, if you can show me one scripture that says Jews are less worthy than any other race(that`s not completely out of context) I`ll believe it. Oh, and about the "tortured to death" thing, A. you don`t understand...Depending on which scripture you`re talking about, the list also includes either liars or those disobedient to their parents, so yeah, that`s everyone. Same goes with the blacks as the Jews...and about the slavery, I spoke from ignorance of any passage condoning it...which I still can`t find...But I`d say it`s pretty clear that that`s mostly a cultural debate not clearly defined biblically.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Even Nero didn`t persecute Christians for following a different religion - he persecuted them for a political reason. He was being blamed for the great fire of Rome and he tried to shift the blame to Christians as scapegoats. It failed and helped Christianity by raising public sympathy for it because most Romans who knew about Nero`s persecution of Christians saw it as an injustice. It`s also worth noting that Nero treated a lot of people as badly.

Ironically, he was innocent of the thing he`s most notorious for now, the thing that did the most to raise hatred against him at the time and which contributed most to his downfall and assassination - the fire. His response to the fire was very good...but the propaganda from his enemies was better.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What many people are inclined to forget (mostly because it doesn`t further their point) is that Christianity took root throughout the Roman Empire while using non-violent tactics. Romans, on the other hand, had no issue with throwing Christians into a pit with armed gladiators, or lions for that matter. [/quote]

That`s what you`d read in a revisionism written by Christians, but the actual historical evidence paints a much more complex picture. For example, Christianity was sporadically persecuted in some parts of the Roman empire, at most, and then not simply for being a different religion but for starting a religious war against the Roman empire and openly trying to conquer it. Christians actually had to travel around and attack the empire in deliberate attempts to be martyred. No doubt there would have been suicide bombers if there had been bombs.

Pre-Christian Rome was very tolerant of different religions.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Remember, homophobes only hate and malign 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity.[/quote]

Do you really believe that if you repeat that silly bigoted lie often enough it will become true? Or are you just spewing hate-filled propaganda like many bigots do, in the hope that if you throw enough mud at the group you have an irrational hatred for, some of it will stick?

To clarify:

I`m not implying that you`re a bigot.

I`m stating it outright.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
As usual, Religious Tolerance is a good source of neutral information about religious matters. This is its main page on slavery and the Christian bible.

A good neutral source
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote">For the record, if anything, reading the bible would give you the idea that Jews deserve better rights than the rest of the world,[/quote">

Depends which bit you read.

[quote">that gays don`t deserve any different treatment than other "sinners"[/quote">

Being tortured to death isn`t the course of action ordered for all sinners.

[quote">and have absolutely no prejudice against black people.[/quote">

Also depends on which bit you read.

[quote">Also, It would seem, even if you were justified in having slaves, that you couldn`t have them for more than 7 years.[/quote">

Got me on that one - which verse(s) are you thinking of? The only biblical restriction on slavery that I know of is that they must be foreigners.

Aha, found it. That restriction applies only to Hebrew/Israelite slaves, except for women sold into slavery by their fathers. They remained slaves forever.

Male 12,365
[quote]Why can`t we all just agree that there are crazies everywhere, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed? There are a small group of Christians that are so loud, obnoxious and ignorant, that it gives the rest a bad name.[/quote]

The problem is that the things referred to aren`t just made up by obnoxious Christians - they`re wtitten in the Christian bible.
0
Reply
Male 52
Makes you wonder how much the person who wrote this/several of the people who commented actually know about the bible. For the record, if anything, reading the bible would give you the idea that Jews deserve better rights than the rest of the world, that gays don`t deserve any different treatment than other "sinners" and have absolutely no prejudice against black people. Also, It would seem, even if you were justified in having slaves, that you couldn`t have them for more than 7 years.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
[quote]Wait... God`s chosen people don`t get equal rights?[/quote]
Not from the Aliens @Baalth! lolz!

Serious question: would Muslims be happy/angry to have Aliens visit the Earth?
For Christians I`m thinking it would be divided: Orthodox religions would be mad that there`s "multiple Edens" and other Bible-contradicting facts. Evangelicals would be happy though - more souls to save hooray!

Orthodox religion can ignore science, but couldn`t ignore "little green men" eh?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
For once, I agree with everything Lazyme says on a religious topic, go figure.

With one exception:
"There is no such thing as a fundamentalist or extremist atheist position, since it would make no sense. You can`t REALLY not believe."

1) Technically, you`re all fundamentalist. There`s only one fundamental criteria, and you all agree with it.
2) You can totally "really" not believe. It`s called Strong Atheism, and is totally a thing.
3) If belief was binary rather than a sliding scale, your statement would be true of both theists and atheists. You can`t have your cake and eat it too in this case.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Wait... God`s chosen people don`t get equal rights?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Silly but true
0
Reply
Male 1,586
So last time I checked the Jews were god`s chosen people so I would think that the alien would want to give them a pass right?
0
Reply
Male 559
win
0
Reply
Female 457
Why can`t we all just agree that there are crazies everywhere, regardless of race, religion, color, or creed? There are a small group of Christians that are so loud, obnoxious and ignorant, that it gives the rest a bad name. The same thing can be said for Athiests, Muslims, Black People, White People, etc. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and these nutjobs are the squeakiest wheels I`ve ever heard. Don`t you think they would stop trying if their efforts weren`t getting the ill-deserved attention that they are? C`mon people.
0
Reply
Female 237
rahlzel>> Would you rather be just... nothing? Does nothing work for you? Probably.
0
Reply
Male 11
I`m Atheist, but I think the tag is foolish.

Why do we define ourselves by what we don`t believe in? I don`t believe in fairies. Am I an Afairyist?
0
Reply
Male 360
THERE`S A KKK HANDBOOK!?! is it available as an audio book?

(also, you people are idiots)
0
Reply
Male 1,625
why are we debating fake religion anyway?
0
Reply
Female 1,677
It`s PREJUDICED not prejudice. DICED. ICED. CED. ED. EEEEDDDD. Holy crap I hate that. And when people say/write bias instead of biasED. THERE"S A DIFFERENCE YOU NEANDERTHALS.

Anyway, if that had also included women in the list, then yes so true. Still true without though.
0
Reply
Male 483
BentheBug: you may very well be right, but I`m tired of reading those messages without sticking up for my beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 1,195
Look at all these non-nice individuals, feeding a troll.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
I am an atheist. My best friend is a Baptist who doesn`t believe in evolution and most of my other friends are some kind of Christian. Heureux is an asshat. That is all.
0
Reply
Male 493
@Heureux "atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity."

"Atheism" doesn`t teach hatred of contempt for 99% of humanity. There is no atheism establishment to do the teaching. I simply don`t believe in god. That`s it. My atheism is based on facts, logic, and reason. There is no evidence to suggest god exists, and therefore I don`t. It really can`t get simpler than that.

If you are religious, I don`t actually care one way or the other (I have no hatred or contempt for you), unless your religion makes you do things that are bad. e.g. if your religion makes you kill or convert people who aren`t of your religion, then I have hatred and contempt for you. If you don`t believe we should take care of the environment in the long term since everybody is being raptured or the second coming is coming soon, then I have a dislike for your religion. If you discriminate against gay people because your religion tells you so, I have a problem. If not, n
0
Reply
Male 483
Heureux: I`m beginning to believe you are a terrifyingly dedicated troll. Every religious post has you up in arms, calling atheists prejudiced.
1.) Atheism is just a lack of belief. Just because I don`t believe in God doesn`t mean I don`t respect other`s beliefs. Most of my friends are Christians of all denominations, and that is absolutely fine with me. You`re reasoning is flawed from the floor up.

2.) All of those communist atheist countries you cite as being brutal and tyrannical are COMMUNIST. Most repressive governments don`t like to compete for their people`s attention, nor do they like ideas and information to be fed to their own. That`s right. Me, an agnostic atheist, is calling religion a form of ideas and information, not a lie spread to the masses.

I choose to believe what I truly believe in my heart and mind. I want you to have that same freedom, and will do nothing to deter you. I just ask that you reconsider your view on atheism and other beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 526
Samidoll beat me to what I was going to say. Going out and calling all atheists prejudiced bigots is the same as an atheist calling all religious people crazy nutjobs. Neither is acceptable.
0
Reply
Female 614
i don`t think atheism is about prejudice. i just don`t think your god exists, that`s all. i still make sure to be a good human being, because we all have to find some way to coexist somehow. but meh, maybe you met some athiests that influenced you to that position, heureux. whatever the case, you probably shouldnt lump people in, since other religions don`t want us to lump them into one general group either.

just a little thought. not trying to debate here.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Remember, homophobes only hate and malign 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity. [/quote]
You`ve said that before, and I responded then. I don`t need to again.

I`d just like to let you know that you`re an idiot and that it doesn`t matter given the way things are going. My advice is to shut up and enjoy your religion while it`s still around.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] The elitist, ranting athiest douchebag getting up in everyones buisness, getting teachers fired, and ruining a kid`s easter egg hunt
[/quote]
Heh heh. How simple. Ok, right off the bat, three problems:
1) You are equating "running a kid`s easter egg hunt" with the likes of murder.
2) I have yet to know of such a person, even through the media, although I will admit that it is possible. There are crazy people out there after all.
3) There is no such thing as a fundamentalist or extremist atheist position, since it would make no sense. You can`t REALLY not believe.
0
Reply
Male 1,440
might not want to comment, due to this being the 21st century, where EVERYTHING is either Racist, sexist, or not "politically correct"
0
Reply
Male 39,955

it`s the 21st so I`m not saying anything today...just in case
0
Reply
Female 1,356
... I heard aliens gave us the bible.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Krowley, you asked Steelgrid
"Why do you act like that. Why attack somebody elses beliefs and culture, just because it`s not yours?"

For ego, like all prejudices. Prejudices, including atheism, are a means of inflating one`s own ego by tearing other people down.

Atheism isn`t based on facts, or logic, or reason. Like every other prejudice, it is based on denying the experiences and humanity of other people, and then cherrypicking data, distorting and lying, to validate one`s prejudice.

Steelgrid is simply yet another bigot, using exactly the same techniques that homophobes, and racists, and misogynists use - to inflate his/her own sense of self esteem by denigrating most of humanity.

Remember, homophobes only hate and malign 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99% of humanity.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Steelgrid

You need to learn the difference between the excuses people make, and the real reasons they do things.

By the way, Communist East Germany is an excellent example of the world that systemic atheism would bring - one of the most repressive, dehumanizing, brutal regimes in human history.

Atheism is a prejudice, and atheists are simply the current "hip and cool" bigots.
0
Reply
Male 696
Golkar- "Fighting over things which exist only in your mind has to be the ultimate failure of humanity."

Truth.
0
Reply
Male 696
"No, Krowly....those were done in the name of God. "

Wow. Wrong. If you truly believe that, then you need to read up on the history of the Catholic Church.
The Church of the Middle Ages and Renaissance was about controlling the people and the world. A purely political monster.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Golkar, War does not only exist in our minds. If it is not a resource we are fighting for, then it is a religion. that fact alone, that we would take human lives for it, makes religion more real in alot of peoples minds than the air they breath.
0
Reply
Male 391
Fighting over things which exist only in your mind has to be the ultimate failure of humanity.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
No, Krowly....those were done in the name of God. You cannot disassociate yourself from one religious event and then associate with another. It does not work like that. I guess you would like to disassociate yourself with, ohhh i dont know, the massive theoretical flood that killed everyone because they didnt believe the way GOD wanted them too.
0
Reply
Male 696
And BTW, I don`t believe in God at all. I`m just arguing to argue.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Ok Crackr, so say he is a Muslim.....SO WHAT!!!!! We are not at war with Islam. Why do people think that? Do you think if Muhamaad Ali was healthy enough to run for office and the attacks not happened that he would have had a chance? Maybe. What about other prominent Muslim members of our society post-9/11 that now fear for their lives.

Our president could be any religion, or no religion for all I car. THE US IS NOT INVOLVED IN A HOLY WAR.
0
Reply
Male 696
Heh... Who`s hiding a violent past. Who doesn`t know that America was born in a violent, bloody land grab.
Name me a country that doesn`t have a similar history. The Human Animal is historically a violent creature.

Doesn`t have anything to do with religion. The Inquisition, Crusades.... they weren`t about God. They were about politics. About grabbing and maintaining power.
0
Reply
Female 34
Oh, drat you Steelgrid. I am a Christian and I may not always agree with Obama`s policies, but he has a job to do. It is his job to defend this country, religion be damned.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
I image it is about the same feeling as you have right now trying to prove your point to me as I continue to shut down each counterpoint you attempt to make. For me, im pposting my opinion, getting arguments and posting rebuttles, you? You are....whats was it you were saying? Oh yeah

"Why attack somebody elses beliefs and culture, just because it`s not yours?"

So you wanna rethink your own direction before you continue?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Steelgrid: Actually there is some doubt, especially now that he`s has thrown Israel under the bus, as to whether or not Obama is a Christian and there are insiders stating that Obama was over ruled on the decision to make the raid into Osama`s hideout.

Obama was born a muslim, grew up as a muslim, his African relatives believe he is still muslim, and his foreign relations with Israel are indicative of a muslim view, and his apparent initial reluctance to raid Osama`s hideout is suspicious as well.
0
Reply
Male 696
But what do you care if some people are all about seeking the rainbow fart? And if SOME of them are crazy enough to jump into a spike pit, That`s their business. What`s it to you??
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Krowly, you really cannot proven history as hate speech. Just because its a history people like to keep hidden (Like how we got the United States) doesnt automatically mean it is hate. How very communist state of you.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Fact is not attacking......Its no different than reading in a book that you will suddenly fart rainbows if you jump in a pit of spikes. the book TOLD you to do it. the book was written by some men a few thousand years ago. Everyone knows the book. So it MUST be fact that jumping on spikes will make me fart rainbows.

---Now that sir, was attacking
0
Reply
Male 528
no comment sincirely an athiest (-_-)
0
Reply
Male 696
Steelgrid- "...i mean if you let a book of ghost stories govern your life, thats your own damn fault..."

Hate to break it to you, but that (and other things you`ve said) is an ATTACK.

You`re paint a huge group of people with a broad brush, based on the rantings of the dickhead minority. 99% of Christians, Muslims, and athiests are good people who don`t need YOUR help to recognize ignorant hatespeech for what it is.

0
Reply
Male 280
"CAPTAIN, pooSTORM AHEAD"
-"GOOD LORD!!! I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A BIG pooSTORM"
-"WHAT SHALL WE DO?"
-"DEFLECTOR SHIELDS ON 100 PERCENT! UNLOCK YOUR WEAPONS AND START FLAMING!!!"
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Tell me Krowly, how many evangelists are you going to listen to, in the name of the Christian God, hate homosexuals, hate other religions, saying that gods wrath has fallen on those they thinnk deserves it. I am not ATTACKing in any form. I am pointing out that for all the hubub of peace and openmindedness SOME christians claim, it all comes down to war...No matter the religion. No matter you cause.

Oh BTW Americans....our president is Christian, and he ordered the death of Osama. Wheres your "Turning of the other cheek"
0
Reply
Male 56
A lot of the verses in the bible are relaying cultural norms from the time period in which they were written. Paul was just transferring cultural information from his region to people in other regions. We all do that.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Mvanglid

im not arguing those points....What i am arguing is the statement now quite a few posts back about how mulims are inclined to violence and that Christians just turn the other cheek. I have no dilussions that my religion is perfect but i also remember its history.

Just like as an American, i find it appauling that every American dooes not know the truth about our invasion into this country. I am American, but i know how I got this land.
0
Reply
Male 696
question for Steelgrid:

Why do you act like that. Why attack somebody elses beliefs and culture, just because it`s not yours? THIS is the kind of attitude that causes the conflict.

Who cares what a gay couple do in the privacy of their own home? Their business.

Who cares what songs you like to sing on Sunday morning? It`s your own damn business.
0
Reply
Male 48
@Steelgrid That`s fine, I`m not one to say people can`t hold their own opinions.

ckockmeat sandwich - spin it

*cringe*
0
Reply
Male 527
Dont think your religeon wasnt founded on Violence just like islam.

Neither Christianity nor Islam were "founded" on violence. Christianity used violence mostly to retain belief (the Crusades were mounted to retake the Holy Land, and the Inquisition used violence to quash "blasphemy"). I will not speak for Islam since I am not a historian.

What many people are inclined to forget (mostly because it doesn`t further their point) is that Christianity took root throughout the Roman Empire while using non-violent tactics. Romans, on the other hand, had no issue with throwing Christians into a pit with armed gladiators, or lions for that matter.

Yes, bad things have happened since those times. We should be cognizant of that, learn from that, and move on. If you are tempted to say that this is a case for wiping this religion out, remember: we all have skeletons in our closets. A similar case could be made for the group you identify with.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
its a good try majornougat.....But the fact of the matter remains, If i offer you a ckockmeat sandwich, It doesnt mean you are going on a hot air ballon ride, no matter how you try to spin it.
0
Reply
Male 182
whats worst.

Christians that take the bible word for word.
or
Atheist that take any cartoon or drawing of the internet and use it as fact.

You both are f u c k i n g morons.

The people on this website that claim to be atheist make me feel embarrassed to say I am one.

I grew up in a very christian home and have read the bible front to back a few time before deciding that science makes more sense to me.

And half the crap posted about religion and the bible here is bullcrap.

As least get your facts straight before you attack one another.




I-am-board atheist members = Fox news pundits
0
Reply
Male 48
@STeelgrid
Well by context i don`t just mean its context with other verses, i mean historically as well. Thsi is my interpretation of the passage, so if you disagree that`;s fine.
Back in the day, Women and men would have sat on different sides of the church. That`s just how it was. Now this meant husbands and wives were on differnet sides of the church asw ell, so what happened when they wanted to talk or the wife wanted to ask the husband questions? she would have probably had to yell and cause general chaos and a distinct lack of peace. Therefore, women should wait until they get home to talk to their husbands, so as to not create general noise which takes away form the teaching or whatever for everyone else. Paul points back to the law (torah) because most of them are Jews, or atleast have knowledge of the Torah, and can therefore relate.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
"The fact is: if you`re full of hate, it was probably instilled by your parents. And if they used a flawed interpretation of some book (any book), it`s not the books fault."

Well of course not...i mean if you let a book of ghost stories govern your life, thats your own damn fault....the "DEVIL" didnt make you do it...God didnt save your life when that bus narrowly missed you and your family right before it exploded into an orphanage with a puppy petting zoo.
0
Reply
Male 696
What`s the difference between:

-The Bible thumping evangelical spewing hatespeech and intolerence in the name of Jesus

-The psycho Islamic extremist screaming "Jihad!" and blowing up marketplaces

-The elitist, ranting athiest douchebag getting up in everyones buisness, getting teachers fired, and ruining a kid`s easter egg hunt

Nothing. They`re all the same person. They are the 1% of their respective that is effing up the whole damn world.

The fact is: if you`re full of hate, it was probably instilled by your parents. And if they used a flawed interpretation of some book (any book), it`s not the books fault.

0
Reply
Male 2,700
"34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Tell me Nougat....how do you take this IN CONTEXT to mean woman can speak in church as opposed to the appearent out of context way you are trying to highlight hmmmm?

Is this another one of those "No means yes, yes means HO?
0
Reply
Male 48
@Masuko42
@monsterzero

"Times change you know..."

Then the bible is outdated and should no-longer be followed, as it is written for a time that is different from ours.


No, that means you have to read things in context, I.e. who they were written for and why, rather than going "herp derp women shouldn`t speak im church derp herp"

Im going to lay down a quote here:
Never read a bible verse.


0
Reply
Male 48
why the drat do people bring up the crusades (which they make sound like a genocide rather than the 2 sided war it was) and not bring up the Muslim conquests???
Charlemagne? do these things mean nothing to you?
get ur poo str8
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Well, we`ve done bible quotes over and over....Quote me the "Quran" where it tells to kill people that are NOT in their lands.

Oh and in the past? I bet the native Americans would like to talk about how it feels in the "Past".

History repeats what is not remembered.

@Musuko....I think the Spanish inquisition was Catholics....Almost the same, but not quite.
0
Reply
Male 57
@Steelgrid Christianity has violence in it`s past, as does Islam, but Islam explicitly tells you to go out and kill others because they are not of the same religion as you. No other religion does that.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"It`s easy to beat up Christians because we are commanded to `Turn the other cheek`."

The crusades. The Inquisition.

That is all.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@monsterzero

"Times change you know..."

Then the bible is outdated and should no-longer be followed, as it is written for a time that is different from ours.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
CrackrJack.....Seriously....Stop with the holier than thou bullpoo.....Let me highlight the Crusades....`Nuff said.....Dont think your religeon wasnt founded on Violence just like islam.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
"To the atheists who seem to believe they have a superior knowledge of the word"

Oh as opposed to what? Ghosts commanded other ghosts to cast down ghosts into a ghostly hole so that their ghostly army dosnt stop our ghostly army and ruin their fleshy experiments? Yes because that is WAAAAAAY more believable.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
5Cats: Answer, Probably for fear of their lives.

It`s easy to beat up Christians because we are commanded to `Turn the other cheek`.

Mohammad on the other hand tells them to kill anyone that criticizes Islam.

So who would you rather beat up on the schoolyard the Christian kid that doesn`t fight back or the towel head with a tendency toward violence ?
0
Reply
Male 228
The comic creator got it all wrong! Aliens don`t come in spaceships! They cross borders!

Duh...
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Nicely done @Crackr, I wonder if the truth might change a few minds... always hopeful!

Funny (as in "odd") how the cartoon leaves the Koran out of it. IT says slavery is OK, you can have 4 wives, beat them and your children and murder infidels. Wonder why the Koran was left out...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Nowhere in the bible does it even state `Rights`,

John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give unto you: Love one another. As I have loved you, So you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples."

This eliminates all distinction of country, color, rank, office, or sect. We are all redeemed by the same sacred blood, and believers are all going to the same heaven.
0
Reply
Male 13
I don`t know about you but over here the mark of cain was a mark put on cain. White supremacists may have said otherwise but, as this comment thread clearly demonstrates, you can take anything out of context and use it to validate yourself.
To the atheists who seem to believe they have a superior knowledge of the word: I find it sad that instead of the message of love and humility you instead found a bunch of out of context quotes from a google search which you didn`t understand
0
Reply
Female 412
It`s not funny because it doesn`t say anything of the sort.
0
Reply
Male 330
This is incredibly stupid and incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 1,595
Lets all agree that the creator of this comic was wrong, and most likely trolling anyway.
0
Reply
Male 1,595
The book of Mormon smashes on Native Americans by calling them all murderous savages, but then again, it was written by one man, not a hundred like the Bible. Some people put their own prejudices in their work as they see it, thinking the Almighty might not notice.

Nothing in any religious book can be read literally. Except possibly the Torah.
0
Reply
Male 158
I actually signed in just to express my appreciation for this picture. This is hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 358
Actually with the mark of Cain thing, God says that anyone who harasses them for Cains sin will be punished.
As far as The Jews go, the bible was written by Jews so I don`t know where you get it`s racist against them.
And gays, it just shows that they were accepted less thousands of years ago than they are today.
Also if you fully read about the slaves, they are paid and can buy their freedom by saving money if they wish.
Times change you know...
Just look at things that were acceptable 20 years ago and now you have been taught that we thought wrong back then.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
As an atheist, I am 100% for freedom of speech/religion. You can think those things until the end of time for all I care. But actions =/= speech. You can think other people are lesser than you, but the second those thoughts become actions is where I draw the line.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!!!
0
Reply
Male 39,955

Locke357 - [quote]"I forget the places where it discriminates against blacks" [/quote]

That`s the whole "mark of Cain" thing. Presumably, that`s why they`re black, a sign their inherantly morally deficient or something.

I`m a racist and even I don`t believe that one.
0
Reply
Male 21
The light in their eyes comes from the hole in the back of their heads.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@iamroaaaared

"how could anyone be so retarded as to think that the bible says that?"

Umm...because it does say those things?

I take it you`ve not read it.
0
Reply
Male 535
@iamroaaaared
yes it does! and it says a whole lot of other BS too:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." -Timothy 2:12
"Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." -Peter 2:18
0
Reply
Male 128
@iamroaaaared: except it does . . .

Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling one`s daughter into slavery

Lev. 25:44 allows the owning of slaves provided they are from another country

I forget the places where it discriminates against blacks, but we all know it disses gays and jews in it
0
Reply
Male 696
This is overly simplistic just to be inflammatory. When you dumb anything down this far, it`s basically ridiculous.

I`m not Christian, but this is a dumb post.
0
Reply
Male 182
"how could anyone be so retarded as to think that the bible says that? Butthurt atheists are one thing but this guy`s just ignorant"

another christian who hasnt read the bible what a suprise.
0
Reply
Male 696
*sigh*
0
Reply
Male 39,955

Okay, calm down christians.

I know you see this as christian bashing, but really, this is exactly how the rest of the world sees you.

I know, you`re not gonna change your faith, but you might consider changing your marketing plan. The current promotions aren`t working.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
This is a sad truth. I dislike hypocrites.

Stuff like this does happen, and it is sad. Our inconsistency and hypocracy will be the death of us

Humanity, y u disappoint?
0
Reply
Female 382
lol
0
Reply
Male 13
how could anyone be so retarded as to think that the bible says that? Butthurt atheists are one thing but this guy`s just ignorant
0
Reply
Male 570
Link: The Bible Always Gets A Pass [Pic] [Rate Link] - And you wonder why they call it the good book...
0
Reply