Athiests will enjoy this

[Mo Khan]

come on seriously man...I took this first photo. It was taken on the campus of the University of Virginia in 1972...at that time this cat, aka: the creepy Burger King guy, was a senior and 23 years old. His major was Theology and he went on to get a masters in Food Services Management. He had a franchise idea to merge religion and drive-thru burgers. I think he was gonna call his place "Burger God" and the featured burger the GodMac. The idea fell flat, and he took a job doing fries with his major competitor, Burger King. He did really well for himself there and later he was selected to be the spokesman for the company.

Now this second photo is the same dude 34 years later...

Are you telling me you do not see the resemblance? Get a LIFE!

​

 

[WarAngel]

I think I may have to change my position on pot smoking... ^^

 

[Malaperth]

You're gonna lay down and smoke now???

 

[shrundowr]

come on seriously man...I took this first photo. It was taken on the campus of the University of Virginia in 1972...at that time this cat, aka: the creepy Burger King guy, was a senior and 23 years old. His major was Theology and he went on to get a masters in Food Services Management. He had a franchise idea to merge religion and drive-thru burgers. I think he was gonna call his place "Burger God" and the featured burger the GodMac. The idea fell flat, and he took a job doing fries with his major competitor, Burger King. He did really well for himself there and later he was selected to be the spokesman for the company.

Now this second photo is the same dude 34 years later...

Are you telling me you do not see the resemblance? Get a LIFE!

​

Dude, the second one is larry king, with the BK king photoshopped in.

 

[Joeku]

Just saw this...

...you do realize that synonyms are words with "the same or nearly the same meaning". You can't have a word be a synonym of another word, and not vice versa, because a synonym is made based on the definitions of BOTH words. Completely is simply not listed because the thesaurus only lists a small list of possible synonyms for each word.

And, you do realize that different words can have different contexts, right? OMG THIS IS NEW TO YOU?!

Those verses aren't distorted either. They mean exactly what they say.

Really?
Are you claiming that you are fluent in Aramaic (a dead language I must add), and that you have matched up every one of those verses in an ancient Aramaic version of those texts, and they still mean the exact same thing?

Somehow I doubt it

Either way, it doesn't matter whether I can speak Aramaic or not, or what the Aramaic version states.

Translation: I was wrong but I don't want to admit it.

You adhere to and endorse "completely" that book with those passages in it, whether that's what it's "meant" to say or not.

Actually, I http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/completely believe in all books ("parts or elements") of the Bible, not just some. I also understand that ridiculous notions of making women marry men who raped them, are probably slight translation distortions and are not to be taken literally.

 

[WarAngel]

Translation: I was wrong but I don't want to admit it.

I'm not denying being wrong, because I'm not. What the hell would you "slightly distort" to derive "marry the person who raped you"?

 

[shrundowr]

Just saw this...

And, you do realize that different words can have different contexts, right? OMG THIS IS NEW TO YOU?!


Translation: I was wrong but I don't want to admit it.


Actually, I http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/completely believe in all books ("parts or elements") of the Bible, not just some. I also understand that ridiculous notions of making women marry men who raped them, are probably slight translation distortions and are not to be taken literally.

It's not distortions.... Men back then raped women and married them all the time, women had very little choice in any matters back then, even men of your "morally superior" *coughs* Religion did that. Face facts. In the past your religion condoned this, because well, back then everyone did.

 

[Courageous]

The bible also says, clearly and unambiguously, that the following are to result in a DEATH SENTENCE:

1. Cursing at your father,
2. Adultery,
3. Sleeping with your mom (only if you are man) and your son.
4. Sleeping with your daughter in law or father in law,
5. Male homosexual sex (but oddly, back then female homosexual sex was cool, too, we shall infer, mmmm goood!),
6. Sleeping with your mother in law or your son in law,
7. Bestiality,
7.a., If you're the beast, you die too,
8. You practice witchcraft,
9. You are the daughter of a priest, and have premaritial sex (in which case you must be burned),

Other interesting tidbits:

1. If you sleep with your sister, your sister-in-law, or see them naked (or vice versa), you are to be socially outcaste.
2. If you sleep with a woman having her period, you are to be socially outcaste,
3. If you see your aunt naked, you are are socially stigmaed.

The Bible: alternatively known by me as "that wicked book".

C//

 

[TMSTKSBK]

Your facts are off. I can't be bothered to correct them.

 

[Slayer706]

These are probably out of context, but I think they are funny to read (no offense meant, as to me, they are funny when read as phrases). Oh, and the translations might be slightly off. I first read about these on landoverbaptist, then I looked most of them up myself to find that they were real. EDIT - Just saw Courageous' post, and some of these kinda confirm most of the things he said.....

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... bring him unto the elders of his city... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you!" - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"Suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the FLESH of thy sons and of they daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." Deuteronomy 28:53

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:20
Note: Porn?

"Happy shall he be, that teketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." - Psalm 137:9

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." - Malachi 2:3

"For every one that curseth his father or mother shall be surely put to death!" - Leviticus 20:9

These two are funny when put together.....
"Thou shalt not kill." and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
-----------------------

Oh, and can anyone who knows tell me what is written in Deuteronomy 28:15 to Deuteronomy 28:46. I read a bunch of stuff on several websites, and I couldn't believe that what they said was written in the bible. Maybe I am reading those out of context, but it didn't sound like it....

 

[Courageous]

Your facts are off. I can't be bothered to correct them.

That's a glorious misspelling of "unable".

*chortle*

C//

 

[TMSTKSBK]

No, it's a "Because you are a pompous ass, I don't have the time of day for you."


But I'll give you a hint: Wrong Covenant.

 

[Courageous]

But I'll give you a hint: Wrong Covenant.

LOL. No statute of limitations for murder, man.

Why it is that someone would want to fall down and kiss the feet of some creator entity that once thought it was a good idea to do some of those things, and later changed its mind about it, is beyond me.

Such things were clearly written by some small minded ancient tribal human, not an all knowing and wise creator entity. The very idea is absurd.

"Let's kill the gays!"

HA.

C//

 

[TMSTKSBK]

Meh. You don't understand what you're talking about. And you don't want to know. So why should I bother explaining?

 

[arul]

Meh. You don't understand what you're talking about. And you don't want to know. So why should I bother explaining?

Explain it to me.

 

[Courageous]

Meh. You don't understand what you're talking about. And you don't want to know. So why should I bother explaining?

I do understand. What you need to understand is this: I find this aspect of christian mythology to be contemptible.

Christians often say that they cannot judge their creator myth. Wrong! Any proposed mythological creator can be judged, as I am plainly doing just now.

C//

 

[TMSTKSBK]

Long answer would have me typing for days. So the short answer is as follows.

In Christian theology, there are two "Covenants".

1 - The older covenant is the one Courageous is describing, where people are subject to Levitical law. This is the covenant that the Jews still ascribe to. There are lots of REALLY nit-picky rules in Levitical law, as Courageous pointed out. Many of the rules, however, are ones people (even "heathen") obey, because it is socially unacceptable to do otherwise. The Levitical law's summary is the Ten Commandments, which are a good example of "universal moral law".

2 - However, Christians are subject to the new covenant, which basically frees us from the restrictions of Levitical law. This is due to Jesus's sacrifice, which takes us from being "under the law" to "under grace". This means that while we will sin, we are not automatically condemned for that sin. We do not *have* to be perfect on Earth. However, if a person is a true Christian, s/he will fight the sins s/he may commit, and attempt to "conform more and more unto the image of Christ."

So instead of being forced to conform to the law, we *want* to conform to God's image. Therefore, while the covenant was once one of law-or-death (due to the lack of atonement for man's sins), it is now one of grace, where, "if we repent of our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." And that is really the point of Christ.

Now someone go ahead and ridicule my explanation. I wrote it fast. It's not really up to seminary standards.

 

[arul]

TMS, I see your point, either way it's only an ideology or mere vision, respectively.

 

[shrundowr]

Long answer would have me typing for days. So the short answer is as follows.

In Christian theology, there are two "Covenants".

1 - The older covenant is the one Courageous is describing, where people are subject to Levitical law. This is the covenant that the Jews still ascribe to. There are lots of REALLY nit-picky rules in Levitical law, as Courageous pointed out. Many of the rules, however, are ones people (even "heathen") obey, because it is socially unacceptable to do otherwise. The Levitical law's summary is the Ten Commandments, which are a good example of "universal moral law".

2 - However, Christians are subject to the new covenant, which basically frees us from the restrictions of Levitical law. This is due to Jesus's sacrifice, which takes us from being "under the law" to "under grace". This means that while we will sin, we are not automatically condemned for that sin. We do not *have* to be perfect on Earth. However, if a person is a true Christian, s/he will fight the sins s/he may commit, and attempt to "conform more and more unto the image of Christ."

So instead of being forced to conform to the law, we *want* to conform to God's image. Therefore, while the covenant was once one of law-or-death (due to the lack of atonement for man's sins), it is now one of grace, where, "if we repent of our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." And that is really the point of Christ.

Now someone go ahead and ridicule my explanation. I wrote it fast. It's not really up to seminary standards.

Umm, I doubt Jeweish people Kill their children over cursing them.... or any of the others things he mentioned..

 

[TMSTKSBK]

@AB: However, they are technically still under Levitical law.

@arul: Indeed, believe what you like. But don't ridicule something you don't understand.