It's ok to be Christian

It's ok to be Christian  | IT'S OK TO BE A CHRISTIAN HAPPY EASTER | image tagged in jesus,easter,happy easter,christianity,christian,christmas memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
22,823 views, 311 upvotes, Made by anonymous 3 months ago jesuseasterhappy easterchristianitychristianchristmas memes
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
32 ups, 5 replies
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | IT'S OKAY TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND IT'S OKAY TO BE AN ATHEIST | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
But it's not okay to like Justin Bieber
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
Or Kanye West. I think we can all agree that those two can disappear ass first into a blackhole lol. But regardless of your spiritual path or choice to not take a Spiritual path, be safe, and be Merry. Blessed be everyone. :)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
What has the black hole done to you?? ;-)
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
Not sucked in Justin Bieber yet
reply
2 ups
I agree
reply
13 ups
"Just eat some chocolate and don't question us" - the catholic church | JUST BECAUSE IT "WAS" A PAGAN HOLIDAY DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T ALSO BE ABOUT EATING CHOLOLATE... I MEAN ABOUT PASSOVER... I MEAN ABOUT CHRIST | image tagged in meme,easter,passover,pagan,funny | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
DON'T FORGET TO DRINK THE CITRIC GRAPE SALT FLAVORED DRINK OLDEST TRICK ON THE BOOKS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
or deny the amount of wine drinking;!;!;
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Very true,
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I honestly didn't expect my comment to make the top of the page. It was a nice surprise.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Yup :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's because you mentioned Justin Bieber, for whom there seems to be a universal hatred. :D
reply
1 up
Works for me :)
reply
16 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
10 ups
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Thanks Knifey! So this proverb is a paraphrase of Don Quixote's "There are many who go to get wool, and come home shorn." Which axiom he actually used is hotly debated among Quixotists. The wool/shorn sect split off and later became known as the "Woolites".
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
It's okay to be memin', hold on to that feelin'! :-)
imgflip.com/i/27lo17
reply
1 up
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
I think he could have looked like this. Google Akiana- Prince of Peace painting. Quite a story. And of course Jesus would not say “Easter”, that came later. He did celebrate the feasts, though. When He suffered, died, and rose again, He fulfilled three feasts: the feast of unleavened bread, the Passover, and the feast of firstfruits. : )
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yes, because a homeless Semite wandering around the desert with so little water he drank wine instead had a niceley shampoed, conditioned, hair dryered mid 1980s MTV coif.

He looked like an A-rab. That's Ok, he won't die if ya say it, because, um, yeah...

Good LAWD almighty.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
He’s not wandering in the desert any more... ; )
reply
1 up
He's been hiding from the rest of humanity for a couple of thousand years now - who can blame him?
reply
[deleted]
7 ups
Happy Easter to you, too. Great meme!
reply
7 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior...
*Enters Heaven*
YES!
reply
1 up
You forgot to add "Christ."

- Downstairs for you, bub.
reply
[deleted]
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
beg to differ - some things are entirely not ok.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Agreed, never hurt, harass or fraud anyone...fundamentals!
reply
6 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
11 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
5 ups, 4 replies
We don't know what he looked like, so people tend to think of him as similar to themselves. I don't think that's necessarily bad (or good).
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
I'm betting he looked arab or middle-eastern, but idk
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Yeah, he was Jewish, so not sure how accurate that is. However, no one knows what he truly looked like and the Bible doesn't mention his appearance, so it probably isn't really all that important.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I've never been good at geography lol
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Sorry, didn't see your comment before I typed mine.

Your geography is fine.
That other fella who isn't sure how accurate the Jewishness of the Jewish Son of the Jewish God is - his GPS app might need a tune up.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I thought he was saying he wasn't sure how accurate my guess was. Seeing as he said "he was Jewish, so..." rather than "I think he was Jewish, but..."
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yeah, I was playing on that, since Jews, Arabs and most other (not all) Middle Easterners are Semites. So you are 100% correct.

Spurs's ignorant take is born out of an agenda.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What is so ignorant about Spur?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You called something right, he tried to fudge it, I backed what you said, and YOU'RE vouching for his ignorance over YOUR facts?
reply
0 ups
He was more specific than I about Jesus being Jewish. I think the confusion was rooted in what regions "arab" and "middle-eastern" refer to, and whether or not Israel is included in those regions.
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/27pavb.jpg (click to show)
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Yeah, it's purely an academic argument!
reply
1 up
He did exist for everybody to see, so what more do you want?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/27pavb.jpg (click to show)

If Jesus was Jamaican, mon, dhem dhat dhere Bible ting be speakin dhen dat word o' Jah sayin dat dhere ting, mon, I and I, Babylon bloodclot.
reply
1 up
Judean> Hebrew > Semite

Judea > Middle East > Asia Minor

Google?

HINT: No so-called 'African-Americans' wandering around that neck of the woods back then.

FREE BONUS HINT: Hair relaxers were on short supply then too. So leave that pic to the Santeros.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Happy Easter everyone!
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups
Being Christian is amazing!
reply
8 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
0 ups
Ok anonymous
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Happy Easter :D
reply
0 ups
I guess it's a heretic thing, and real Christians just don't understand. Huh!?!?
reply
0 ups
yup
reply
0 ups
Happy Easter.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
happy easter
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Robert Powell, he was definitely the hottest Jesus!
reply
0 ups
Great meme dude
reply
0 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Whoever said it wasn't ok to be Christian, people are free to believe what they wish, even if they believe a white guy was wondering around the middle east 2000 years ago turning water into wine...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There were so-called "white people" roaming that part of the world - where Caucasions first came into being (hence the term, "Caucasion") - while Europe was still home of pure Neanderthals.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
lol, the same Neanderthals that died out about 40,000 years ago or possibly 24,000 years at the earliest..... you know little of human evolution. There were some people of European descent wandering the Levant at that time but to think Jesus was one, if he ever existed, is pure fantasy.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"lol, the same Neanderthals that died out about 40,000 years ago or possibly 24,000 years at the earliest..... you know little of human evolution."

At the "earliest"?

(Cro Magnum's entered what is Europe c40,000 yrs ago from the Middle East. The last known pure Neanderthal remains date 25,000 yrs ago, they probably disappeared 24,000 yrs ago.)

"There were some people of European descent wandering the Levant at that time but to think Jesus was one, if he ever existed, is pure fantasy."

Yeah, um, like Greeks and Romans? JUDEA WAS MERELY PART OF ROME AT THE TIME, ya ignoramous, and part of Europe looooooooong before the barbaric hinterlands north of the Pyranees were.

I refer you to my comment posted near the bottom of this thread hours ago:

"jack_henoff
Eunoch is a single man, hardly indicative of a population, and more indicative of a prisoner of war. That he was identified as an Ethiopian signifies exactly that, his exoticness not typically Judean.

Libya's ancient population was not supplanted by the present one. Same people, with admixtures of the various historical invasions.
North Africa was never settled by Sub Saharan African (Negroids) hence the term Sub Saharan to describe what is commonly thought as African. Back then, not only was North Africa Caucasoid, it was European - the southern part anyways, the northern part being modern day Southern Europe bordering the Mediterranean (medi/middle terra/land)

Further, Ethiopia in the Bible signified not just Ethiopia proper, but those south of Egypt as well, typified by darker skin.

The Curse of Ham as it became commonly interpreted also points out that Negroids were not a part of Hebrew society, other than as slaves."

"jack_henoff
medi/middle terra/ land nean/of the *"
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
i think you have been reading from too many white supremacist handbooks, next you will be telling me the Caucasians were the original inhabitants of north america....
reply
2 ups
YOU'RE the one claiming that Caucasians are only European.

Caucasians originated in Caucasia, NOT in northwest Europe. It's a race defined by origin (hybridization between Homo Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis), share distinctive skeletal and skull features, and DNA. It is NOT a skin color.

Actually some of the earliest settlers in the Americas show Melanesian characteristics as exhibited by Australian Aboriginals, so while absorbed or wiped out by Asiatics coming from Siberia, in that sense, yes, Caucasians where among if not the earliest identifiable inhabitants here.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
lol What, in English, lol does that confounded gibberish even mean lol lol?

Google Caucasian > Causcasia > Caucasus Mountains so that you won't have to sling word salad bullshit next time.

Also Google Neanderthal. LOOK at a skull or two. Kinda looks like a caricature of a Caucasian, don't it? You're an expert, guess why. Also, look up the extent of where Neanderthals lived (hint, weren't just the Neander Valley).

I have no idea what you're on about. READ what I said. Tha hell you git me saying Jayzuz was a Euro? I'm saying the opposite lol lol lol lol lol.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Caucasian is an illiterate term only really used generally in America.

Yeah, look at skulls! Luckily in evolutionary biology we have DNA, we don't have to reply on people like you saying, it looks like something so it must be something.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, it is not.

What do you know about evolutionary biology? You throw around terms hoping no one will notice you know gobshit about what they mean or signify.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Quite a lot as it happens, but I still like to dumb down and come on meme sites for a laugh.
reply
1 up
Fairly evident you have a knack for dumbed down doltishness.
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/27pavb.jpg (click to show)

Welcome to America, land of many peoples, not just some has beens whose fallen empire once circled the world decieving them into thinking they were somehow apart from those who now look at a little island that is fracturing from within.

~ Oh my Lionheart, England shall be England once again ~

- and nothing but.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
reply
3 ups, 4 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Theism and atheism are identical? How so?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
John 1,1 in the original Greek version with correct translation, my friends! But you need some brain for that, and that what seems to be missing on this planet.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
lol, quoting the Bible as evidence that theists and atheists are the same.... double lol, in the original Greek version! Yeah, the locals around 0BC and after all spoke Greek in the Roman province of Judea.....
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
The Greek is probaly the best (and a good) translation from the Arameic (I just have a a good idea of the original Arameic, I don't speak it though). John obviously had a good feeling for translations and chose the best langauge. The later Latin translation is real s**t. (Professional translator speaking here).
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
All four gospels were written in Greek originally. Wouldn't Hebrew or Aramaic have been a better language to use? They had to translate a number of things in the gospels into Aramaic for their readers. Why not just write them in Aramaic to begin with?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Many more people spoke Greek than Aramaic (sorry for my misspelling, I am not a native speaker) or Hebrew. You would not write a book that you wish to be read by many people in a language which only a very limited amount of people understand. The Romans (who were all over the place) had Greek slaves, and they and their language were the actually educated people and language at that time. I would think that this was the main reason, in addition to the fact that the Greek language is very likely more suitable for "philosophical" and "spiritual" things (out of their philosophical tradition) than the more down-to-earth oriented Latin.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You may very well be right
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Thank you for bringing this discussion down to facts and not getting lost in opinions - I really appreciate that! Have a nice day!
reply
1 up
:) and you as well
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why are you bringing up language, here? The original definition of words is irrelevant as to what the current definition is. Words and their meaning change with time and culture.

F*ggot originally meant "bundle of sticks", a cock is a rooster, a pussy is a cat, a jackass (literally Jack Ass) is a male donkey. Original meanings have no bearing whatsoever as to what people today are referring to when they use the words they're using.

In other words, it looks to me like you're arguing semantics here.
1 up
It's science and not semantics. Even mathematics has to use words that are a bijections to the for mathematical sign language for their definitions.
reply
1 up
Alexander the Great's conquest, which allowed for everything BlindSpot said in that area.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
All translations of the Bible are shit. Jesus may just as well have been walking BY the water rather than ON the water, and the message of Jesus may have been completely different than what established Christianity believes it to be.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with the simple and concrete idea that "God, as presented in Abrahamic records, fails all tests of observation, and therefore is not a valid description of reality".
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
How is your view of science? How much do you think physicists know?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It's not about what physicists know. It's about what the sum of science knows, across all fields. And there's a reason why its not all found in a single book, but rather thousands.
reply
0 ups
Yes, sure, I just mention physics because of first principles. The underlying princples of the sciencc of the universe are in our body - and we are far away from knowing that science. Once we get it, it will become clear what my above post is about.
reply
1 up
Alexander the Great/Greek ring any bells? Or does your pretentious pompous ignorance run that deep?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Look at my reply to MozaisMyhero with a copy of Mozais's meme below.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
This whole fight reminds me of the age-old animosity between "Prussions" and "Bavarians" while an Austrian has gotten in between the fronts, too. When things get too bad, take it from the hilarious side (I guess that's what Imgflip is mainly for, actually), at least until you have relaxed and can then go on in a calmer and more serious way.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
haha, one time when I was a child, a bunch of us were playing baseball, and one guy started yelling at his brother for messing up. So I yelled out, "It's only a game, but my life depends on it!" and everyone else laughed.

People take this stuff too seriously. Some laughs, some debate are good, but people have to turn this into a battle field. And like that conflict that you mentioned, after it's all is done, we all look like fools.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's an old philosophical tradition in Germany to battle like this, untilhte issue is resolved. First the extreme in one direction, than the extreme in the other direction, and in hte end "the middle way" where you combine the good parts of both sides in a synergetic way. I sometimes try provoke people in an edgy way to get them to the extreme and then see that it doens't make sense. Unfortunately, it seems unavoidable that sometimes you hit too hard on somebody who turns out to be a snowflake melts away. As it was posted here and elsewhere often enough: It is not of importance how much you can deal out, what counts is how much you can take a battering.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Seems pretty much the same here, although I think we lean more towards empty yelling than elsewhere. Facts don't seem to matter in the USA.

On this very thread, I was debating with multiple people simultaneously for a couple of days about what is a Caucasian. All they kept saying was that I was wrong, while I gave more and more details to support what I stated. All any of them had to do was post a dictonary definition to disprove me if they were correct, but of course, they couldn't.
Did they think I was going to give up because they were too lazy to Google it?

So true what you said about the battering. I've gotten into some viscious ones, and was surprised when they gave up. Gave up and left the site, at least for some weeks. It's just words, how can it hurt them?

I've said in the past that I don't argue, I just state facts. If I don't know it, I won't say it. That simple.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's it. Just facts. And somtimes g o o d extrapolation of the facts.But as you said, many people are just too lazy to google the facts, or are too dumb to really understand them. Unfortunately it's hard to cure laziness and stupidity, but "we have to try, since otherwise the world will die".
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
And some people are too f**king dumb to realize that the information that they believe to be facts, are not necessarily facts just because people claim that they're facts.

First principles is a nice starting point.
reply
0 ups
How much do you know about mathematics, quantum theory and information theory and their bugs? Tell me, and we can discuss further - or stop the whole thing.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
As I said below, this is a scientific question of definitions and cannot be discussed with peopel who have no idea about mathematics, quantum mechanics and information theroy.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Nor can it be discussed with people who, in spite of having no knowledge of other people's backgrounds whatsoever, make assumptions about what those people know or not.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I was provoking you on purpose. You seem to be a scientist - good. So you will agree that we are far away from knowing the mathematical- physicall princples underlying the universe. Contradict, if you don't agree.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I would argue that we don't even know how far we are from fully understanding the mathematical/physical principles of the universe - hence why the word "knowledge", in and of itself (when referring to extant things), is defined according to probability, not absolutes.

The difference is that religion, by its very nature, claims knowledge where knowledge doesn't exist. Not only that, but it often claims the knowledge as absolute, and even goes to debate science itself - claiming it's not sufficiently descriptive of existence ("as opposed to what?") and "uncertain of itself", as if certainty somehow makes something more true (when in reality it's the exact opposite - uncertainty causes you to stay true to the first principles of actual observable facts and what such perceptions might potentially unveil, as opposed to inventing a bunch of concepts in your head that you then subsequently look for facts to corroborate.

Uncertainty is what makes you open-minded about the Cosmos.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
I just realized that I had erroneously donwvoted this meme. I didn't mean to, I indavertently hit the downvote arrow instead of the upvote arrow. Corrected it now.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
"Believes" does no one in America know how to spell these days?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Sorry, you are right (*beliefs) - I am neither living in America nor am I a native English speaker, and I do make spelling mistakes, although I try hard.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
My apologies, but be thankful you are not American....
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Hey :/ my spelling is just fine and I'm an American
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Are you sure your spelling is just fine with your colourful replies and you innate sense of honour? I do realise that you believe your spelling is most wonderfully correct, but maybe Americans need to be issued with a special licence in our defence.
reply
0 ups
Oi!
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Forgot to comment with words. Yes, presently I am quite happy to be near to where he was.
reply
0 ups
Lemme guess, you a Londoner, oi?

Cuz I'm from NYC, git it?

Oh, the irony.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Too bad your idiocy isn't enough to stop your jealousy.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I can't be jealous because I have no idea what you are talking about
reply
0 ups
Of course you don't, ya daft twit.
You attacked TWO people for being American, and one of them is German.

Perhaps removing your tapewormed head out of their intestines and catching some fresh air might clear things up some?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Picture painted by girl who was dying and what she saw. Interesting.
reply
0 ups
And that's supposed to be reliable...how, exactly? If I'm dying and claim to see Genghis Khan, does that mean whatever painting I make from that memory is accurate? Jesus probably looked nothing like that.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Wrong, Jesus was black.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Okay, Mary had a fiancée already, who was Joseph. God did it with mary because Catholics can't stand God having rumple pumple. Jesus didn't look much like Joesph because Joe was tan and Jesus was black, and mary was probably tan as well. It's the first notable case of that sneaky postman who stole ya girl, bruh
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yessir!
reply
0 ups
More than 25% black
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
"Ok" implies moral framework, which doesn't exist.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
In that case, there is nothing inherently wrong with forcefully imposing morality on everyone
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
In that case you would be imposing nothing
reply
0 ups
What?
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 3 replies
Christians incessantly claim that "The Devil Deceives" "The Devil Deceives..." What they fail to see is that everything they accuse the Devil of is really the God that they worship, known as Yaweh/Jehova.
Everything that the Christians accuse the "Devil" of, is really of their own God. This is proven in the Biblical scriptures:
"A Murderer and a Liar from the Beginning"
"Human Hating"
"He Deceiveth all of the Nations"
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Murder: the intentional and unjust killing of a human being
God kills in just judgement for sin, and even then refuses to punish much of mankind to the extent that they deserve

Deception: Purposefully causing someone to believe something false
While God does allow people to go on in their darkened mindsets that they brought on themselves, He does not cause unbelief, but is actually very concerned with truth. Jesus proclaimed before Pilate that the reason He came to earth was to testify to the truth. Additionally, the New Testament writers speak only truth, including even embarrassing details about themselves in the Gospels.

Human hating:self explanatory
What human-hating God would take the sum total of all punishment that humanity deserves, and place it upon Himself?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
"God kills in just judgement for sin"

What sin did babies commit when god killed them in the flood?

"Deception: Purposefully causing someone to believe something false"

Which god does according to 2 Thessalonians 2:11

"He does not cause unbelief, but is actually very concerned with truth."

If that were true, then there wouldn't be anyone on the entire planet who was unsure of his existence.

"Additionally, the New Testament writers speak only truth"

Even when they tell stories that completely lack any extrabiblical corroboration whatsoever?

"What human-hating God would take the sum total of all punishment that humanity deserves, and place it upon Himself?"

What kind of god would burn millions of people alive forever and ever, without end?
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Since we last discussed the flood, I have actually been doing some more Biblical research on the topic and found some alternate theories. It is possible, perhaps, that the inherited disposition towards sin (that is, fallen nature) does not condemn people, but rather the sinful attitudes and/or actions that it makes eventually inevitable (read Ezekiel 18). Under this possibility, an infant which has not yet had the chance to sin might escape eternal judgement. I do not know for certain, however.

The strong delusion is given to people who have already completely turned away from God. They already gave their lives to Satan and refused any chance to repent. God does not deceive people, but turns them over to their own delusions and selfish hearts.

As for the certainty of His existence, you fail to make the distinction between causing and allowing. There will come a day when every knee shall bow to Him, but for now, people have enough evidence (both through pure logic and through the witness of the natural world) to believe in Him if they so choose.

As for the truth of the New Testament, I frankly do not have enough time as of yet to exhaust this subject. However, there is enough evidence in the Gospels to point to them being authentic (inclusion of embarrassing details, differing yet non-contradictory inclusion of details, etc.). You can say the writers were foolish and mistaken if you want, but they were certainly honest.

As for the "why would a loving God create hell" argument, the answer is simple: to punish sin.
reply
1 up
Look up:

Epic of Gilgamesh. the Sumerians WROTE the Flood myth long before Hebrews even existed.

Original sin.

The sins of the fathers shall be visted upon...

Garden of Eden story, only subtract the names. Satan was the good God. That other one, not so good, which is why the world has been ruled by evil ever since and prone to wickedness and suffering, etc. That IS what the story says, yes?

Yahweh & Elohim, being not the kindest of GodS, like playing games of deceit to test loyalty, handing out delectable punishments with glee.

Those Gods are not love. They are a vengeful wrathful jealous Gods, as depicted and stated in the Bible.

Why would any Gods create people in their own image, yet chuck in a whole bunch of imperfections, give them a moral code to follow yet make them more likely to violate that code than any other creature (which, incidentally, have no such code), and in ways, degrees, and frequency unknown to any other creature, demand allegience yet leave them TOTALLY alone to to fumble and fall so that they can then be punished for an eternity for the mistakes of the Gods who created them and the instincts and conditions that lead them to do so in the first place?
THAT'S love?

FREE BONUS: Only 144,000 Sainted Chosen (Jews) plus a few thousand Gentiles judged on their works shall enter the Gates of Heaven. So all them unborn babies? Not a chance. Welcome to Salvation, or actually, probably not.
reply
0 ups
If that hypothesis is true, then some people (like infants) can get to Heaven without accepting Jesus as their savior, which would mean his death and sacrifice were not completely useful or necessary.

"The strong delusion is given to people who have already completely turned away from God."

1. How do you know? and 2. then why is a strong delusion sent from god even necessary at that point? What would it accomplish, apart from making it look like god really isn't as merciful as he claims to be?

"They already gave their lives to Satan and refused any chance to repent."

And what if they would have changed their minds in the future and accepted Jesus? I'm going to guess you'd say that god only does that to people whom he knows will never accept him?

"God does not deceive people, but turns them over to their own delusions and selfish hearts."

Would a truly loving parent do that to their child? "You're a drug addict, so I'm just going to give up on you and let you die in a gutter somewhere from an overdose."

"There will come a day when every knee shall bow to Him"

Voluntarily, or involuntarily? I was talking to one Christian who said that it would be out of pure fear and awe, which was a very interesting answer.

"...but for now, people have enough evidence (both through pure logic and through the witness of the natural world) to believe in Him if they so choose."

Logic does not tell me that god exists, nor does nature. In fact, both of them lead me to the conclusion that no gods exist (at least none which directly intervene in our physical world).

The evidence for the gospels being authentic is circumstantial at best, and next to non-existent at worst. They do contradict themselves at some points, one example being the empty tomb. Was the stone already rolled away when the women got there (Mk, Lk, Jn), it wasn't it (Mt)?

"You can say the writers were foolish and mistaken if you want, but they were certainly honest."

I don't know that the writers were honest, because I don't know who they were or how credible they were.

"As for the "why would a loving God create hell" argument, the answer is simple: to punish sin."

Sin includes things like theft. Does someone who steals a candy bar or loaf of bread deserve an eternity of being burned alive? I certainly don't think so, but that's just me.
reply
0 ups
I will also add that causing and allowing are pretty similar as far as the law is concerned. Causing someone's death and allowing someone to die (for example, through neglect) are both punishable crimes. You could say that one is worse than the other, but they are still bad.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
- 2/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriages. Most of those women aren't even aware, mistaking it for menstruation.
Punishment?
Part of the plan of a perfect being who makes no mistakes?

- It'd be simpler to ask where does it say that the terrible wrathful jealous demanding petty tyrant Gods (Yahweh & Elohim) of the Judeans & Israelites where even remotely supposed to be good? Or love?

- After the Judeans compiled their tales, the Israelites followed suit. Later, both slightly varying narratives were combined.
Hence why David slayed Goliath, then a couple of verses later, approaches his body which was already slain by someone else, David then cutting off his head.

Truth?

The four Gospels which made it in contradict each other, and no one knows who authored them. The Book of Matthew takes pains to describe in detail the lineage of Jesus tracing to David, as provided to the census. We thus know Apostle Matthew didn't write it, since the Romans did not start taking the census till a 100 years later.
In fact, in the first century AD, there is absolutely no recorded mention of Jesus - religious, political, or historical - whatsoever.
reply
0 ups
Both this comment and the reply to Young_Grasshopper were well stated
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
That's nonsense and you gave literally no Biblical references for any of your "quotes". I thought you had something to say for a bit - please prove me wrong and give me some quotes if you're going to say that atheists and theists believe the same things.

Or you could continue trolling :P XD idk
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
BlindSpot made that claim, not Darkil

I think Darkil's point is that the god of the Bible does the very same things the devil does (confuse languages at the Tower of Babel, send "strong delusions" in the book of Revelation, etc)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Sorry I replied to the wrong one. Thanks for catching that.
reply
0 ups
:)
reply
1 up, 2 replies
But God never does what He does for the pleasure of destruction or deceiving. I.E. the tower of Babel, when He Confused the language so that everyone would spread out.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
His motives are irrelevant. What is relevant is that God, in the Bible, has been shown to deliberately deceive people.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
How is changing the language someone speaks deceiving them?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It confuses then, which is intentionally misleading them, which is dishonest.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
To deceive: To cause someone to believe something that is not true. I see no untruth that God caused them to believe.
reply
0 ups, 7 replies
Even if we ignore that passage, there's still the one in Revelation where it says God will "send strong delusions" to some people.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That may be the talking about the Antichrist, though I can't claim I know everything about the Bible. (Obviously I don't.)
1 up
I know the 2 Thess verse is referring specifically to God
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The Antichrist is a person (people are created by God) and it's a person's fault if they are fooled by Satan.
1 up
Yes, the Bible teaches that Satan deceives people. But this verse is clearly talking about god deceiving people.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
May I have the exact reference please? (Need the context to explain most likely)
1 up
My mistake, it was 2 Thessalonians 2:11. I believe there is also a similar verse in Revelation.
reply
1 up
Here is how this person interprets it.

God does not send a lie but simply confirms those who do not wish to believe the truth. God is not responsible (i.e., culpable) for those who go to hell. For it is because of their rejection of the Gospel that they eventually end up there, not because of God’s negligence. The context of this passage reveals that man has already rejected the Gospel of Christ. Paul says that when the Antichrist comes, he will come with signs and false wonders with all deception of wickedness (2 Thes. 2:8–10). These things happen for “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v. 10). When God sends the deluding influence, Paul says He does so in order “that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). They have chosen to reject God rather than to accept His provision of salvation. God is not sending the lie to trick people, but He sends delusions to reveal human depravity in which they choose evil over good.
reply
1 up
Like I said, I can't understand the whole Bible, but I know God is perfect.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I mean the delusion itself may reference the Antichrist.
1 up
That could be, but it's still god sending the delusion himself.
reply
1 up
I mean the delusion itself may reference the Antichrist.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
If someone didn't want to know the truth, I would try to tell them, anyway (assuming I did know the truth). The last thing I would do is deliberately contribute to their believing a lie.

Imagine I tell someone "you can pay me $10,000, or I will kill your family." I'm not forcing them to do anything. They are perfectly free to not pay me the $10,000. So if they don't, am I justified in killing their family? Of course not. God says "accept Jesus as your savior or burn in Hell for eternity". Not much of a choice, is it?

"Paul says that when the Antichrist comes, he will come with signs and false wonders with all deception of wickedness (2 Thes. 2:8–10). These things happen for “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v. 10)."

So god punishes them for being tricked by Satan? Why doesn't he just prevent Satan from tricking people in the first place?

"God is not sending the lie to trick people, but He sends delusions to reveal human depravity in which they choose evil over good."

But at the end of the day, he's still deluding people rather than helping them.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That verse itself is referencing the end times, after the rapture, when it's to late to repent. (God gives us a chance.)

Your analogy is faulty. It would be more like: Take this gift I love you enough to give you. But if you don't take it it's your fault.

1 Corinthians 10:13. Check it out.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You don't punish someone for refusing a gift you offer them. Christians would probably say that god doesn't punish people for refusing the gift, but rather for the sin itself, though, which I understand (from a theological standpoint).
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
We're in sin. The gift is that we can be freed from sin.

It would be like a criminal being offered a full pardon. If he doesn't accept it, he still has the same verdict, guilty. It's not the judge's fault.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
A pardon would be legally binding regardless of whether or not the criminal accepts it. Once it's signed, he's a free man. The verdict is officially voided.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Would they force the man to leave jail?
0 ups
Possibly, I don't know.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Dear MasterOfPun,

I got that from the website known as joyofsatan.com which is the most truthful website there is about the religion of xtainity and everything in it and its followers.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Darkil #Donttroll
reply
[deleted]
1 up
InarenCorp, i'm NOT trolling. I'm actually dead serious.
reply
4 ups, 5 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Who cares how he looked? Who is being hurt by it? What's important is the message of peace and love he taught. I'm not even Christian[Pagan actually] and I know that.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
And this has exactly what to do with Easter? Or being Christian? Or skin color? Yes there are Christians who are dirtbags, but there are people like that in EVERY spiritual path[including atheists] and political party.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
The KKK is a disgrace. Agreed? It doesn't have to do with my interpretation of the Bible - or my friends. It's an embarrassment, really. To humanity in general.
reply
1 up
laonsite, I would like to ask you: do you know the mathematical/physical law of the universe (of course inlcuding those 95 % of energy about which we don't know anything?) And do you know h o w buggy our present idea of the mathematilcal/physical laws of the universe is? If you say: yes, I ask you why you don't publish it. If you say: no, I will tell you to better keep your mouth shut.
reply
2 ups
True.
reply
3 ups
That's just trolling. Nobody on this thread mentioned homosexuals or what Jesus looked like.
reply
9 ups
Oh look, the Queen Imgflip troll is trolling again. Oh droll.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
your telling people how a guy who lived 2000 years ago looked
reply
5 ups
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Jesus wasn't white, nor was he black. He was Jewish/Semitic. He may have had slightly dark skin, but he wouldn't have looked like the guy in that picture (or any of the medieval artwork for that matter)
reply
1 up
He was thus Caucasian, and just as olive toned as Semites there today.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
If Jesus was all-knowing, why didn't he make an early iPhone to take a selfie, thus ending all debates about his appearance? ;)
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
;)

Well, I mucked that joke up. You don't need reception to use the camera XD
reply
1 up, 1 reply
LOL clever reply
reply
1 up
Thank you :)
reply
1 up
Lol. XD
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
No African Americans in the Levant at the time either due to severe constrictions on air travel.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There were some black people in Judaea at that time. Maybe not many, but there were some. The Bible mentions people from Ethiopia living there.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Wars, Seba/Solomon, but other than such and other interactions, where does it say that?
reply
1 up
Sheba*
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Acts talks about an Ethiopian eunuch. Simon of Cyrene was from Libya (far Northern Africa, but still...)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Eunoch is a single man, hardly indicative of a population, and more indicative of a prisoner of war. That he was identified as an Ethiopian signifies exactly that, his exoticness not typically Judean.

Libya's ancient population was not supplanted by the present one. Same people, with admixtures of the various historical invasions.
North Africa was never settled by Sub Saharan African (Negroids) hence the term Sub Saharan to describe what is commonly thought as African. Back then, not only was North Africa Caucasoid, it was European - the southern part anyways, the northern part being modern day Southern Europe bordering the Mediterranean (medi/middle terra/land)

Further, Ethiopia in the Bible signified not just Ethiopia proper, but those south of Egypt as well, typified by darker skin.

The Curse of Ham as it became commonly interpreted also points out that Negroids were not a part of Hebrew society, other than as slaves.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
medi/middle terra/ land nean/of the *
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well y'all need to look thangs up too.

Jews & Arabs are both Semites ethnicities, and thus Caucasians, as thry have been for a mere 30,000 years before Caucasians finally migrated to Europe.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
0 ups
We all did not. The reverse, almost, in the case you mentioned.

The proximity of the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Penninsula and the commonality in features and language is not coincidental. Migration from there into Africa has given Ethiopians, Eritrians, and Somalis about 40% Caucasoid DNA.

Hope that and the pretty pictures helps to clarify any confusion, tho I suspect it won't.

Feel free to read a book or 10 on the subject.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
i.imgflip.com/27pavb.jpg (click to show)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I think many, if not most Pakistanis are darker than that. I could be wrong, though.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Pakistan is an artificially created nation. Muslims from what is now India were 'compelled' by rioting Hindus to migrate to it or Bangledesh (then East Pakistan). The native Pashtuns, Bactrians, Baluchis and other Persian ethnicities were lighter, whereas the migrants had varying degrees of Dravidian (darker toned) mixed in with the Aryan, hence the variety of tones in an area too small to naturally account for such.

None of those colors are accurate depictions of the entire populations they represent.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You get an upvote. Your comment was very informative. I didn't know that stuff. And it does make sense now that I think about it, because the countries that surround Pakistan to the north and west are considerably lighter-skinned than Indians.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
^ Note the language on that map. Even Hitler & the Nazis said it. DO NO look up what Hitler in his own words identified as Aryan & the Aryan homeland, you won't like it.

I thought upvotes were customary, unless the other is being abusive simply for the sake of?

You know, I upvote just about all, and especially made sure to upvote all your comments, MV's, and certain others that had put themselves on the line (even following your comments to various threads) because I know you must get bombarded by dv's. But then I noticed you didn't for even the most respectful replies.

There is nothing in that comment that warrants me an upvote more than any other of mine. Why, because how many people on this thread keep telling ME what a Caucasian is, because they think the word means Anglo and are too uninformed and lazy to even bother verifying their racism to my straight from Caucasia Caucasian ass? It's like me telling you that your hair isn't blond.

People appeal to ignorance in these fake arguments, act patronizing while 'defending' us third world untermenschers (you wouldn't believe my ethnicitieS & the cultureS I was raised in, tho I've made it flagrantly obvious), and forget the essence and intentions of the point they supposedly are making - sorry, ARGUING.

Points are nothing - note my rare submissions - but they are helpful in offsetting dv crippling. Plus it's just basic common courtesy, and in the least indicates it was read.
0 ups
For the record, instead of telling people to read more books, maybe you should consider being a little more critically thinking about the "books" you've read yourself. Even if the book is factual (which I'm sceptical towards), it still doesn't mean that the book is conclusive.

You seem to actually care about the data. A troll wouldn't be this damn stubborn. So maybe you should actually consider what I just said, instead of jumping to conclusions about people.

You're not the only person in the world who knows how to read, let alone have an actual background in historical studies...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yes, Jack. Some people did indeed migrate back to Africa tens of thousands of years after the first man left Africa, because that's what human beings sometimes do. Congratulations on grasping such a simple concept.

Also, nice Ad Hominem there, in your other comment. You're really getting the hang on this. :)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
"Madolite
For the record, instead of telling people to read more books, maybe you should consider being a little more critically thinking about the "books" you've read yourself. Even if the book is factual (which I'm sceptical towards), it still doesn't mean that the book is conclusive.

You seem to actually care about the data. A troll wouldn't be this damn stubborn. So maybe you should actually consider what I just said, instead of jumping to conclusions about people.

You're not the only person in the world who knows how to read, let alone have an actual background in historical studies..."

Then perhaps you should TRY reading some instead of appealing to your non-authority chock full of your own ignorance?

You are free to attempt to refute whatever facts I have stated which you can't so haven't.

And since you haven't a clue, Google "Horn of Africa" fer shit n gigglez, ya stupified imbecile.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
You're not listening. There's nothing about the Horn of Africa that is controversial to anything I've been pointing out thus far. Jesus Christ, you're stubborn.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Jayzuz lookz just like you becuz you is speshul and thus should be eaturnunnel IS my point.

Derp much?

Find my December comments on Horus/Mithras/Zeus if you can.
0 ups
Why would I want to find your comments elsewhere? You write a post to me and I reply. I don't care about your other convos. I'm not James Bond lmao.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm not Jesus (then again, neither was 'he').

You can shut your ignorant lying trap - or keep yapping your Yorkie bark away.
0 ups
What if I told you that you actually are Jesus? Because Jesus is a personification of the human self. Oh sorry, my bad. I totally forgot that I'm just an ignorant liar who yapping my Yorkie barks away (whatever the hell Yorkie means, though I'm sure I can google it).
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IT'S OK TO BE A CHRISTIAN; HAPPY EASTER
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back