THE DEFINITION OF IRONY... MAKING A SPEECH AGAINST GUNS WHILE BEING PROTECTED BY ARMED SECURITY | image tagged in libtardpost,gun control,liberal hypocrisy,liberal logic,nra | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
2,662 views, 72 upvotes, Made by anonymous 5 months ago libtardpostgun controlliberal hypocrisyliberal logicnra
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
0 ups
SO THESE PROTESTERS WANT TO SEE SOMETHING DONE I SUGGEST WE BLOOD EAGLE EVERY MASS SHOOTER STARTING WITH DYLAN STORM ROOF | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
But I am the only one who thinks the guilty should be punished! No one among these protesters want to execute the killer! They would rather hand over their liberties, that brave men and women died to preserve, all in the name of a perceived safe space!!!
What a generation of weakness we witnessing!

Good Meme!
reply
0 ups
You mean highly trained and insured armed security?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
the flood story is older then the bible its was taken from a old babylonian story
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
GGG | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Possibly even older than that. It is probably impossible to trace the flood story back to its very beginning, but it certainly didn't originate with the Hebrews.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Especially when one realizes that nearly every culture on this planet has a flood myth of some sort. I personally think it may be a result of the glacial melting at the end of the last ice age but who knows.
reply
0 ups
yes i think that what it was you can see very old cities in the bottom of the ocean... i think it was a little bit of ending of ice age and continental drift that did it
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
you are so right.. didnt you actually look that up to see if it was true?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Look what up?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
that the flood story is way older then the bible
reply
0 ups
It is true. The story in the Bible comes long after similar stories from that region. It was clearly copied/borrowed from the stories of other cultures, like the Epic of Gilgamesh.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The timeline of the Bible assumes that the flood story is older than it, seeing as Genesis was written by Moses.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There's no historical evidence to support the authorship of Moses, let alone his very existence. Overwhelming evidence suggests that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Of course he didn't write the Pentateuch (seeing as the Pentateuch was the Greek translation of the Torah made long after Moses's death), but there is good reason to believe that Moses wrote the Torah. The Torah itself cites Moses as its author (Exodus 17:14, Numbers 33:2). I must admit that this specific piece of evidence can be disputed if you want to argue that the real authors claimed the name of Moses to gain validity. However, that would not explain why the books of Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi all cite Moses as the author of the Torah.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
When I said Pentateuch, I meant Torah (the first five books in Hebrew). A book saying it was written by Moses does not prove it was. Like you said, later authors could have (and I believe did) just put his name on it to give it authority and legitimacy. Historians will tell you that the extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Moses is slim to none.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Why is extrabiblical evidence required? Even if you deny the doctrine of divine inspiration, you must still admit that the Bible is a collection of historic documents. I have already presented a variety of sources outside the Torah that attribute the writing of the Torah to Moses. The burden of proof is now on you to show why my sources are wrong, and to present your own counter-evidence.

Also, why would authors use the name of Moses to gain authority unless there was some actual Moses figure that the people were familiar with?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Extrabiblical evidence is required because you cannot use something to prove itself true. If you could, then you would have to admit the Quran is true, because it says it comes from Allah.

The Bible makes claims. If those claims are to be believed, then evidence outside of the Bible must be presented to corroborate them. Otherwise it's nothing more than "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true," which is horribly fallacious reasoning.

I don't believe the Bible is a collection of historic documents. I believe it is a collection of religious texts with some historic elements, some of which are true and some of which are false or unverified.

The sources you presented that say the Torah was written by Moses were all sources within the Bible, so they already believed it to be true. That's like saying "I want to know if Scientology is true. What's the best way to find out? I know, I'll ask this group of people in Sea Org" (Sea Org is the most devout, most insanely committed people in Scientology).

As I mentioned above, the historical evidence for Moses is slim to none. Same with Abraham. The further back you go in the Bible, the less likely it is that these people and patriarchs even existed.

As for your last question: because legends spring up all the time. Either someone actually exists but their identity and deeds become distorted and embellished over the decades and centuries, or they are made up out of whole cloth and never even existed at all.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I didn't say that the Bible calling itself true makes it true. I said that certain documents, which just so happen to be found in the Bible, attribute the writing of the Torah, which also just so happens to be found in the Bible, to Moses. Even if they are collected under one title, they still remain separate sources. I absolutely agree that circular reasoning is incredibly foolish, but I do not think that this specific case is circular. If you want to present reasons why the evidence I've given is wrong, or if you want to present evidence for your own counter-claim, then maybe this discussion can move forward.
reply
0 ups
They are separate sources written and compiled by people who are in agreement regarding what they say. It's not like they were written by people from a broad variety of religious beliefs and backgrounds (which even then still wouldn't mean that Moses wrote the Torah). Its homogeneity deservedly arouses suspicion.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
As painful as it is, the point of the flood is to show the atrocity of sin. I myself don't like to think about it either, but the Christian worldview does in fact hold that all of humanity is inherently corrupt and deserving of death. God, being infinitely perfect, is the only one who can justly punish such sin (as shown when Jesus said "let whoever is among you who is without sin throw the first stone").

It is terrible, and I don't like it either. However, it does at least make sense for God to damn us all. What is amazing to me is that He would be willing to spare even a single human being, let alone any and all who confess that Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead.
reply
1 up
God does not damn anyone, we damn ourselves by choosing evil over good. This is our free will, and in choosing evil over good (choosing sin over God), we cut ourselves off from God and thereby consign ourselves to hell. This is where God's mercy comes in: if you repent, you will be forgiven. The ultimate goal is for you to choose God over sin and over yourself. The reward for learning to do this in your lifetime (and it often does take a lifetime to learn, because it can be extremely difficult) is eternity in the presence of God in Heaven.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
So you're saying that even babies deserved to be drowned in the flood? Because I find that to be repulsive.

If Christianity is right, and all humans are vile, evil, wicked sinners, why is abortion wrong? Every abortion is just sparing our world from another vile, evil, wicked sinner whose heart is desperately corrupt and horrible.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Because it isn't within our liberty to say who gets punished and who doesn't. That power belongs to God.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Is drowning babies okay when God does it?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The point of the flood was to cleanse the world of sin. He loved his creation to much to kill all of them, so he left foundations for more life. He would've killed everybody if he had no love.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You didn't really answer my question. Is drowning babies okay when God does it?

Also, if he wanted to cleanse the world of sin, shouldn't he have killed everyone? Leaving some people alive knowing they are sinners is like fumigating your house to kill all the termites, then putting eight termites back once it's over. You know they will just fill your house with more termites again.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
To be blunt: yes. Why? Because he always has a reason. The Bible tells us that mankind was created by God as a special being, made in God's image, to live according to the rules which God has laid down. When mankind breaks those rules judgment follows. Why? Because God, as a result of His holiness and justice, has decreed to punish the wicked and disobedient.

There is a reason babies were killed as well. In so far as sin is a transgression of the law, it is guilt; in so far as it is a principle, it is pollution and defilement. Calvin said, 'The earth was like a wealthy house, well supplied with every kind of provision in abundance and variety. Now, since man has defiled the earth itself with his crimes, and has vilely corrupted all the riches with which it was replenished, the Lord also designed that the monument of his punishment should there be placed: just as if a judge, about to punish a most wicked and nefarious criminal, should, for the sake of greater infamy, command his house to be razed to the foundation. And this all tends to inspire us with a dread of sin; for we may easily infer how great is its atrocity, when the punishment of it is extended even to the brute creation.

You may ask "what about God's mercy?" Well, at the end of the flood came a great promise: it would never happen again. I beleive that that is also a large reason that God flooded the earth.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
So that means God can't be our source of morality, since he himself doesn't follow the rules he gives us, like not killing innocent people. If he gives us rules and then doesn't follow them himself, what reason do I have to follow them? What reason do I have to conclude that they are good rules to follow, if God doesn't see fit to follow them?

Doesn't it stand to reason that if a rule was truly a good rule, God would also follow it?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Who's innocent and who's not is decided by God tho.
0 ups
Why does he decide? Why don't we humans decide?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Are you allowed to pass judgment on your boss if you don't agree with his decision? Is not your superior allowed to do things that you are not? God is our superior in all things, and therefore, He can do things that we cannot. For humans to stand in judgment of God is blasphemy, just as it would be unacceptable for you to stand in front of your boss and impugn him for being late to work.
0 ups
If standing in judgement of god is blasphemy, then I am an unashamed blasphemer.

Can I pass judgement on my boss? Absolutely, if he does things I feel are wrong. Should I berate him in front of others? No. But I can certainly feel that he should not do things that are wrong.

It's the same way with god. He tells people not to do things, then does those very same things himself. That is hypocrisy. He says not to kill innocent people, then he floods the entire world and drowns everybody except for eight people. He drowns women, he drowns children, and he drowns babies. Any god who would claim to be loving and then drown babies and toddlers is a vile monster.
reply
0 ups
Because a benevolent and omniscient being knows what's best for us and knows more than us.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I, too, find it to be repulsive, and that is the point: sin is repulsive. God is infinite; therefore, His standard is infinitely perfect, and any deviation from it is ultimately deserving of infinite punishment. I myself am painfully aware of my own sin and the punishment it deserves, which is why I give thanks that Jesus, the only One who could bear such a weight (because He Himself is also infinite), took upon Himself the wrath that should have been mine.

As for abortion, there are many reasons it is wrong, but for the sake of this discussion I will start by focusing on one reason in particular: humanity belongs to God. In killing another human being, the killer makes the assumption that they have the authority or right to do so. This is essentially defiance, because it is an attempt to exert control over that which God has set aside for Himself.

Now, at first glance such a statement may sound like an argument for anarchy or theocracy. Let me counter-balance that statement by saying that while everything belongs to God, He has chosen to entrust humanity with certain degrees of authority under Him. As such, parents are given authority over their children, and governments over their citizens. Such authority is still under God, and thus may only be wielded within the bounds established by God. Ownership is God's, and humanity is given stewardship.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't mean to sound rude, but I am sorry that your religion teaches you that all humans, without exception, are so awful and terrible as to deserve infinite punishment for finite wrongdoings. To say that god was justified in drowning babies during the flood is to say that babies did something so egregious that they deserved execution. What exactly did babes do to deserve execution? And you can't say they would have grown up to be wicked, because that would be like executing someone for a murder they never committed. Also, that argument, pushed back a few steps, could also be used to defend abortion.

Also, why does a wrongdoing against an infinite god by a finite person deserve an infinite punishment?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I take no offense, and I know that you are speaking from a genuine concern. Do let me clarify that I do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity, but rather in an inherit sin nature. The difference is that people have a natural inclination towards evil, rather than being completely incapable of good.

As for the babies who died in the flood, there are two explanations that seem most likely to me. The first being that they were not punished for their actions, but rather for their nature. The second one, which I honestly hope is true but cannot say for certain, is that there is an age of accountability, and those below that age are not held responsible for their actions. If the first is true, then God is still the just judge. If the second one is true, then God would actually have saved the babies by bringing them to paradise in eternity and sparing them from the sins which they would have been raised in.

To be entirely honest, I'm not sure exactly what to think about all of this. I must thank you for bringing this topic to my attention here, where I have time to think and search out sources. If I had been asked about this in a face-to-face scenario, I have absolutely no idea how I would have reacted (probably not very gracefully, to say the least). I intend to search out this matter more fully.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ah, yes, good reminder that death is not the end, and it is not necessarily a punishment when used by God.
reply
0 ups
Perhaps it is a punishment? I believe God is both just and merciful, and acts that align with one of those characteristics do not necessarily have to be in conflict with the other
reply
0 ups
"I know that you are speaking from a genuine concern."

That is true, even though to some people it seems like nothing more than personal attacks.

I believe human nature is generally somewhere in the middle, between good and evil. People are naturally selfish due to instincts of self preservation, but we are also generally moral creatures because moral behavior benefits both society and the individual.

"The first being that they were not punished for their actions, but rather for their nature."

Punishing someone for their nature rather than their actions seems quite immoral. Would you arrest someone whose nature is to steal, even if you didn't actually see them steal anything? That doesn't seem just to me.

As far as the age of accountability argument, I personally think that that is what some people try to convince themselves of because the thought of god sending babies to an eternity in torment and agony is disturbing to them, and not because the Bible actually teaches it. I believe that the teachings of the Bible (including original sin) make it clear that only people who accept Jesus as their savior go to Heaven. This would not include babies who die, because they never consciously accepted Jesus as their savior. And saying that god takes babies directly to Heaven could also be used to justify abortion.

You come across to me as the type of person who genuinely wants to know what's true, and that is a good thing. You study things. You investigate them. And I encourage you to continue doing that.

Upvote
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
You again. Take your leftist nonsense somewhere else.
reply
2 ups
How holy.
reply
2 ups
What is nonsense? The part about god hating abortion? Or the part about god flooding the earth and killing almost every living thing, including babies and little kids? Which part do you disagree with? Please explain.
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
THE DEFINITION OF IRONY... MAKING A SPEECH AGAINST GUNS WHILE BEING PROTECTED BY ARMED SECURITY
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback