Unpopular Opinion Puffin

Unpopular Opinion Puffin Meme | I DON'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE AND I DON'T HATE YOU IF YOU DO | image tagged in memes,unpopular opinion puffin,funny,gay marriage,christian,unpopular opinion | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Unpopular Opinion Puffin memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups, 7 replies
Captain Picard Facepalm Meme | YOU LITERALLY HAVE NO REASON... TO BE AGAINST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. | image tagged in memes,captain picard facepalm | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
13 ups, 5 replies
There are many reasons someone is against something. I'm against homosexual marriage because it's a sin. Just as I'm against sex before marriage, sex with animals, sex with underage children.
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you not realize there is a massive difference between a consenting relationship between two adults, and some creep trying to **pe a child/animal? Even if the "muh biblical belief" argument wasn't one of the weakest defenses of bigotry in history, then I guess that means you're okay with all of the shit here:
reply
10 ups, 4 replies
I don't care if it's two consenting adults. It's still a sin in God's eyes. Two consenting adults are sinning. But also, I don't judge their decision and I don't hate them for it. It doesn't make me a bigot to be against something I believe to be wrong. I could easily call you a bigot for not supporting my beliefs, but that doesn't make it true. You don't get to call people who disagree with your beliefs a bigot or a racist, etc...

And the template you posted has nothing to do with today's societies. What was law during the old testament, before Christ died to wipe away our sins, is irrelevant today.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Either gay people shouldn't marry, or the teachings of the old testament aren't relevant anymore. PICK ONE! Christ, your logic has more contradictions than the actual bible.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Romans (new testament) talks about the perversions of the flesh which include man sleeping with man. But I never said the old testament aren't relevant. The template you posted talks about relationships that were practiced before Christ came and died. Before Noah, brother with sister, etc was not a sin as it is now.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Whatever. Following a book of fairy tales written 2000 years ago by a bunch of old guys in the desert as constitutional doctrine does not a modern society make. There's a reason we have separation of church and state, and it's not just to protect ourselves from Sharia Law.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
It isn't fairy tale and was written by God THROUGH man. The apostle John was in prison for his faith when he wrote much of the New Testament.

And we have separation of church and state so that government cannot make laws to put us in prison or have us executed for our beliefs. This is what they did in England when they left for the new world.
reply
5 ups
Spot on brother. :)
(Saved me a typing job.)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
"The apostle John was in prison for his faith when he wrote much of the New Testament"

I think you mean Paul :3

"And we have separation of church and state so that government cannot make laws to put us in prison or have us executed for our beliefs. This is what they did in England when they left for the new world."

It's also what they did in ancient Israel. It's also what Saudi Arabia does. I see some disturbing similarities between oppressive Muslim nations and Israel in the OT.
reply
1 up
Yes, Paul. My mistake. Although John did spend some time in prison as well for his teachings.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
I'm not infringing on your rights. You can worship whatever magical sky daddy you want, just don't try and enforce your arbitrary standards of what is and isn't "sinful" onto other people who just want to live their lives. The reality of the situation is that gay marriage isn't going away, and if the people in office who want it to go away try to pull anything, they're going to get booted out faster than Donald Trump in a pageant locker room.
reply
7 ups
:)
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
I'm not even christian, so you can keep your "your"s to yourself. I just recognize bigotry when I see it and people like you are the worst type of hypocrite. Truly the rotten core of our nation, completely full of hatred.
7 ups
Me? Full of hatred? I'm not the one who wants to deny rights to marginalized communities just because some 2000 year old book told me to. How am I intolerant for calling out the intolerance of one of the most widespread religions in the world? Christians get all uppity about having to make wedding cakes for gay couples, but the minute you say happy holidays, they're the ones who feel persecuted. Am I the bigoted one, or am I just dealing with a bunch of snowflakes?
7 ups
At what point in recent history could you be chemically castrated just for being a christian. I'll wait.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Spurs does not have to 'pick one'. If he believes in it, then he can contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one. Just because Spurs does not agree with gay marriage, it does not mean he agrees with raping women. Stop pigeonholing people.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
That is some of the most ridiculous tripe I've yet read on this site.

"If he believes in it, then he can contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one."

If he believes in it, then he canNOT contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one as it suits him at the moment because belief in a faith is belief in a faith and adherence to its tenets is adherence to its tenets and thus he cannot veer from them because that would be in defiance of the meaning and purpose of said tenets and the religion that teaches and enforces them in the first place.

Stop advocating hypocrisy and selective interpretation.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Fine words! I wonder where you stole them!

Alrighty then, let's examine the 'faith' and it's 'tenets'.

The 'faith' we are talking about is Christianity. To be a Christian, one must believe what is said in the Apostle's Creed. The Apostle's Creed goes:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostle's Creed is the tenets of Christianity. If you don't believe it, then you are not Christian. Now please go find the section where it says "I believe everything the Bible says to be true, and I cannot contradict it or interpret it in my own way". Spoiler alert, it's not there. The Bible is not law, it's there to help Christians be more like Jesus. There is only one I important thing to interpret from the Bible: to love God and your neighbors with all your heart, soul and mind. Everything else is for you to decide. Now go back to your stupid, judgemental little world and leave us to believe whatever we want.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Complains that I stole your words (satirizing them), then posts a copy of a creed not written by any apostle, and not reflecting their beliefs (except maybe the resurrection part, kinda).

That "creed" that exists nowhere in scripture speaks more about the very corruption I mentioned earlier, referring to Catholicism as a function of the Beast as described in Revelations.

I went to Catholic elemetary, high school, and college, therefore I'm an atheist.
Who said I was a Christian?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm not complaining about you stealing my words, it was just a joke about your intelligence.

And what on earth are you talking about now?! I thought we were discussing how it's possible for a Christian to contradict a Bible teaching.

I never said you were Christian, I was referring to Spurs.
0 ups
Reread you're reply to me, although not sure why someone of your level would need to.
reply
0 ups
*your, and why do I need to read my reply to you? Is it because you are unable to comprehend it yourself?
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Then how exactly do you define "bigot"? Based on what you said in your comment, Neo-Nazis and Klansmen aren't bigots because they're just against things they believe to be wrong.

Also, your thing about the Bible seems to put you in a pickle.

Either morality changes or it doesn't. If morality doesn't change, then forcing a woman to marry her rapist was immoral in the OT and it's immoral today, or it was moral in the OT and it's still moral today. If morality does change, then why should I care what the Bible says about any moral issue?

Many of the laws in ancient Israel (handed down by the god you believe in) were absolutely savage and barbaric: stoning people to death for such trivial infractions* as picking up sticks on the Sabbath, being a rebellious child, worshipping other gods (which is protected under the Constitution, btw), cursing one's parents, etc. Is this the kind of society you uphold as righteous and virtuous? One where freedom of religion is nonexistent? One where offensive speech can result in execution? One where blasphemy is punished by death, just like radical Muslim countries?

You said "what was law during the OT...is irrelevant today" Why? Does God change his standards? It sounds like it.

* trivial by modern Western standards
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
It's a bit difficult to explain the biblical teachings of the Old Testament, since I am not even close to being a preacher or a learned Professor of religious studies. God commanded armies (whole societies) who defeated their enemies (those who were wicked and lived in sin and glorified it) to ravage their women and keep those who were not killed in battle, as slaves. God allowed wicked men to revel in their wickedness and those who were defeated were swiftly punished by being the victim of their wickedness, ie you live in sin, you will die in sin and have bad things done to you.

This was all done before Christ came to Earth and died and rose again for our sins. He essentially took the place of all the punishments (and most of the rules set by Him in the Old Testament) and we now don't need to be subjected to that. Are we still punished for our sins? Yes. But now we have Christ's blood to atone for.

As for what I think of bigotry meaning... If I dislike you because you're fat, dress differently, smoke, etc, that's me being bigoted toward you.I never said I dislike homosexuals. If I disliked homosexuals because they're homosexuals, that would be bigoted. I disagree with that lifestyle and I disagree with them getting married, but I don't dislike them for it.
reply
2 ups
"God commanded armies (whole societies) who defeated their enemies (those who were wicked and lived in sin and glorified it) to ravage their women and keep those who were not killed in battle, as slaves."

And that's exactly why if a god like that does exist, he doesn't deserve my worship, love or adoration.

"I never said I dislike homosexuals."

You're right

"If I disliked homosexuals because they're homosexuals, that would be bigoted. I disagree with that lifestyle and I disagree with them getting married, but I don't dislike them for it."

I hear the word "lifestyle" used a lot when referring to gay people. I don't know what that means. Please explain what you mean by that. To me, the word lifestyle means the thing around which one's whole life revolves. If someone is in a music lifestyle, most of their time and energy is spent in music-related endeavours. You can replace music with sports, drugs, family, Christian, Muslim, etc (probably even atheist).

The fact that you don't actively fight against same sex marriage and LGBT rights, despite your disapproval of the same, is something I respect about you. I don't approve of (for example) marijuana use, but I don't fight against it or say people shouldn't be allowed to do it in their home.
reply
0 ups
You kinda say it for yourself. the atonement actually mended the Original sin, wich was "eatind the fruit of knowledge of good and evil". That implied two aspects: makind decision over what's good and evil for yourself AND dividing the world.
In fact, as soon as Adam eats the fruit, he's suddenly ashamed of Eve and later of God himself. That simbolizes loosing sense of unity and falling into a state of division, where the Other becomes a threat, a subject, an enemy, a sinner and so on. The Jesus came, and taught: love thy neighbour, love each other as I loved you (wich emans as far as to be willin to give your own blood for another). That is what mended the Original Sin, and that's the only thing that will ever make any atonement possible: recovering unity and rejecting conflict.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Dude do not waste your time on Octavia_Melody, the poor guy lives in California. Everything he says is the law. Best to pray for him that to lecture him. Is like trying to teach an alcoholic when drunk or a drug addict while being high. It will not get you anywhere. He is high on Cali's pollution.
reply
3 ups
Is that all you do, go around from post to post wasting your time telling others they're a waste of your valuable time?

Jealousy much, btw? Cali doesn't have to be something that makes you to shudder in shame of the measly backwater State you're hopelessy adrift in.
reply
3 ups
I live in California but at this exact moment I'm in southern New Mexico, so that "Cali pollution" argument makes no sense (not that it did, anyway)

Also, you do realize a lot of prominent Christians live in California, too, right? David Jeremiah, John MacArthur, Jack Hibbs, etc etc

But you didn't accuse me of being a pothead, so you're making progress :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'll try to answer some of what you're asking here Octavia.

So, why do Christians seem to pick which laws from the Old Testament that they follow now and others that they don't? This seems to be one of the questions that I'm seeing, if I misrepresented your point, feel free to correct me on that.

In the Old Testament, and especially the book of Leviticus, the casual read seems to be God setting forth all of these laws, and many of them Christians don't even know much about: Not wearing garments made from two different fibers, prohibitions on shellfish etc. However, there are different types of laws being established in the Old Testament. One type is what we think of laws as now, a code that governs conduct in society. These laws were to apply to the nation of Israel and include both the crime and the punishment for the crime. Another type of law was the ceremonial law. These laws were to establish how the people of Israel were to worship. Things like ceremonial uncleanness would fit under here, and when festivals were to be held. These two types of laws (national and ceremonial) were intended to set Israel apart from the nations around it because Israel was the nation that God had chosen to use to send his Messiah. Christians believe that these laws have been fulfilled by Christ through His life, death, and resurrection, and since these have now been fulfilled, they no longer apply (Galatians really goes into depth about this)

There is one more type of law that hasn't passed away, and that is the moral law. This is the 10 commandments type. These are things that are true for Israel the nation, and for all other nations. Theft, murder, fraud, etc. are just as bad for us as they were for the Israelites. All of the punishments that are attached to the moral law are part of the legal code for the Old Testament nation of Israel, and so don't apply, because the penalty for them has been paid by Christ. But that doesn't mean that Christians are just supposed to go around breaking the Law (Romans 5-6 explains this dichotomy well).

I hope that this helps you understand your fellow 'flippers better. I appreciate you taking the time to read this wall of text. And, if you want this explained in snarky video content, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I more or less had an understanding of this, having had countless discussions on this and similar topics, but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I would rather have an honest conversation with somebody who doesn't agree with me than shout in an echo chamber all day long. So, thank you for being willing to have that conversation. :)
reply
1 up
You're quite welcome. And thank you as well! :)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Hey Octavia_Melody you seem to know a lot about theology. Tell me how many times did you read the Bible and intentionally participated in Bible studies?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I have read parts of it, but haven't read it in its entirety. If radio programs about Bible study count, then quite a few, since I listen to a lot of Christian radio.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Awesome. So, you do not know what you are talking about, great. You just know what you wanted to hear from your selective choices. Thank you for confirming that for me.
reply
1 up
Umm...those "selective choices" are numerous Bible study programs from a variety of preachers and pastors. How exactly is that "selective"?

Also, even if I haven't read the Bible in its entirety, that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
reply
2 ups
Let me see if I follow this line of reasoning correctly:

1. It's a sin because God said so in the Old Testament.

2. Jesus came to wipe away our sins even though they are still being committed to this day and people are suffering from it.

3. Somehow in the process the Old Testament became irrelevent even though Jesus preached it and when asked, "Teacher, what is your purpose, what are you doing here?" Jesus answered, "I am here to reaffirm the Lord's Covenant with His people"

4. Saul/Paul, killer of Christians, wrote a letter to Romans - the people who arrested, tried, judged, and executed Jesus.

5. His words thusly superseded God's own words which were written by other men who contradicted each other so what's the difference.

6. This was done just as was said in Revelations, where son of the Jackal, seated in Rome, would steal the religion of the Chosen, corrupt it beyond recognition, yet call it the true faith and now theirs.

7. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin even as you typed this in violation of the Commandment forbiding you to do so on the Lord's day of rest.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Also the template is out of context. Clearly the person that made the template did not read the Bible, since most of the times the bad things mentioned there in the Bible shows as bad implications, not praising them. It is so way out of context. Just like in bboythekidstudios first response, you did not say against, you said you did not supported, but he twisted your words and said against, which is different and out of context. That is the way ignorant people behave, do not let your guard down.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Explain how it's out of context. Every single one of those instances is either directly commanded by god, or allowed to take place without his explicit condemnation.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Please read the whole Bible, I have nothing to explain to you, since whatever I will tell you will go through one ear and come out of the other. Whatever wisdom I share with you will yield nothing since you do not have any understanding. You will need to reach deeper in your own. Reading the whole Bible and asking God for understanding will be a great start.
reply
1 up
"Please read the whole Bible"

I certainly plan to

"Whatever wisdom I share with you will yield nothing since you do not have any understanding."

"Wisdom", eh?

"You will need to reach deeper in your own. Reading the whole Bible and asking God for understanding will be a great start."

I won't ask god for understanding because I don't believe he exists.

Also, I notice you didn't refute my point that every single one of those instances was either commanded by god or allowed to happen by him.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
What wisdom? All you keep doing is citing your awesomely impressive credentials of having supposedly read the Bible a wathillion times and going to Thundae thchool. Yay, grab a Twinkie, ya earned it.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Yet you have no understanding. What a poor lonely person you are.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Then catch a tongue of fire and indulge me, Shimon/Petros style, my humble servant of Y'eshua bar Yosephus

Don't forget to toss in a hug because the hippie musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, said God is love. Then there's your Lord & Saviour and Messianic Pocket Genie's "Judge not" clause and that wee bit on "What thou hath doneth to the least of my brethren, thou hath doneth to me" thingy.
0 ups
Pffft you can't speak for me. Did I pour salt on some wounds? Is it hard not having a family that loves you?
reply
0 ups
INDULGE ME, you lying glob of spit. Speaketh tha wordz of Ye Olde Zombie Jayzuz.
reply
2 ups
I completely agree with everything you just said there.
reply
2 ups
I completely agree with everything you just said there.
reply
1 up
Thank you, whoever you are. Imgflip needs more people like you.
reply
1 up
So is cutting your hair.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You literally missed the whole point there. It doesn't matter if he doesn't support gay marriage, as long as he doesn't interfere with others who do.

It's a lesson both sides need to learn: You can have your own opinions, as long as you don't try to force them on others. Lately the liberals are even worse than conservatives have been in the past. It's getting to thinkpol levels.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Tolerance of bigotry only leads to more bigotry, and more bigotry leads to people like Mike Pence getting into the white house.
reply
3 ups
Seems to me you can't tolerate any opinions or beliefs that are different than your own.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So your answer is more bigotry? moron.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
He said the exact opposite. He is saying we should oppose bigotry, not condone it. Did you even read what he said?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
read what he's said throughout the thread. He's been bigoted against Christians the entire time. last I checked, two wrongs don't make a right. There is calling someone out for being intolerant, then there's screaming about magical sky fairies and acting like anyone who believes in a god is a raving lunatic. Sure I read his comment, but his preaching tolerance while acting with hate led to mine.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
He doesn't sound bigoted against Christians for saying their beliefs are silly, because he never once said that Christians should be discriminated against or treated any differently than anyone else. He was calling out Christians who are bigots for their bigotry. He was criticizing Christians who want to discriminate against and mistreat LGBT people.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You don't see ridiculing someone's faith as mistreatment? I see someone making fun of christians with "magic sky fairy" as bigoted as someone calling a gay a cocksucker or f*g. Neither should be acceptable. I guess the double-standard is real, though. It's sad to see.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
"You don't see ridiculing someone's faith as mistreatment?"

No, I don't, at least not mistreatment in the same way that denying someone a job due to their religion or sexual orientation is mistreatment. I think it's a stretch to call mocking someone's beliefs as mistreatment. And it definitely (in and of itself) is not discrimination.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I guess maybe it's semantics that has us at odds here. I consider discrimination to be along the lines of the definition I posted, after your reply I take it you were referring more to a legal definition. I guess I misunderstood the way you framed your response as well, and I apologize for letting myself get less than civil a few replies ago.
1 up
It might be the legal definition, but I meant it more as my own personal understanding of the concept.

No need to apologize. Discussions can get somewhat heated at times, and I'm certainly guilty of that as well. Upvote.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
1 up
Oh my god, that's not even remotely close to what I said.

I said that mocking someone's beliefs doesn't qualify as discrimination. Discrimination means things like denying someone a job, denying them housing, denying them service at a restaurant, etc. Mockery is none of those things.

"Your Christian beliefs are silly and dumb" is not the same as "we won't hire you because you're a Christian" or "we won't serve you here because you're a Christian".
0 ups
In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability, genetic characteristics, and convictions for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended.[1] Discrimination consists of treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".

You would not consider mocking to be "worse than normally treated"?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
By that reasoning, you wouldn't consider it discrimination when people ridicule trans people, saying that they're mentally ill for thinking they are whichever gender they choose to be? I hope to see some consistency here. Either ridicule of belief is acceptable behavior, or it isn't. Which do you choose?
0 ups
First, I never said ricidule of belief was acceptable behavior, I simply said it wasn't discrimination.

And yes, you're right. Making fun of trans people isn't discrimination. I would say it's rude, offensive and possibly hateful, but it's not discriminatory.
reply
0 ups
And if Hillary had gotten in the white house, it would likewise have been due to bigotry. Don't act like you're innocent of being a bigot.

A person's personal beliefs should /never/ be what truly matters. What truly matters should be their actions. Abraham Lincoln is (usually) hailed as a hero in the movement to end slavery, despite the fact that he was both a republican and a racist.

A core principle in the west, especially the US, is (or was) the old saying "I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Perhaps you should return the favor, and help put an end to the liberal push towards "thought policing".
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Mormon > Morman > More mans, get it? As in via procreation...
reply
0 ups
I agree, but they aren't making a big deal about it. There's a difference between disliking something and having such a lack of concience to harm, insult, or threaten someone with different beliefs
reply
0 ups
And I'm not going after you in any way, I'm just stating my own opinion
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It doesn't affect me, but it affects this nation's ideology and moral compass.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm gonna barf.
reply
1 up
Good, I hope you choke on it.
reply
0 ups
How about human trafficking?
reply
13 ups, 3 replies
reply
7 ups
Same.
reply
6 ups
:D
reply
1 up
:
reply
7 ups
support or not, doesn't making people hating others
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Not you in particular, but I gotta be honest.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I myself am a bisexual Christian, and despite my Christian values, I support gay marriage, because I do not believe it is wrong. I will not force my beliefs on others, nor will I be upset with individuals who interpret the Bible differently than I do.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
How do you interpret the Bible? Full honesty: I was about to start a rant trying to explain my disagreement with you, but then I realized I don't know exactly where you're coming from. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for how the Bible could support or even allow homosexuality as being acceptable, but I really do think that such an explanation (assuming it truly does fit with the Bible) would simplify things a lot.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The Bible doesn't explicitly disallow gay marriage, let alone mention it. Only about 0.001% of the Bible merely mentions something close to homosexuality.
reply
3 ups
And the entire OT only prohibits male homosexual activity, not female :)
reply
6 ups
pfff... doesnt sound that unpopular to me. heres an up
reply
5 ups
I don't hate you, but I'm a lesbian. Sometimes people can be too protective of belief and lash out at people who don't think the same but I'm not that kind of person, so UPVOTEE
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
i'm torn between "what reason could someone have against love!?" and "well, at least he's being some what reasonable"
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
good point, but i see the value in small victories too
reply
3 ups
I disagree with you, but I agree to disagree. Have an upvote.
reply
3 ups
I agree with this puffin
reply
6 ups, 6 replies
I don’t support the end of the human race either
-reproduction
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Well thankfully they do, so too bad. If you spend your time hating people who aren't hurting you directly and who aren't going away, you're completely wasting your life. I suggest you get a hobby. Maybe collect stamps, or photograph wildlife, or paint landscapes, or knit doilies.
reply
0 ups
Dear cheesus we chill imgflip dudes are trying to communicate that we don’t hate them
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups
reply
5 ups
There are well over a billion people on this planet sucking up resources, killing off and endangering other species, and contributing to climate change. If anything it would be preferable if fewer people decided to reproduce.
reply
3 ups
Can you just go check how many child are waiting for adoption before saying this kind of bullshit, please ?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That was the reason for Marriage originally ..... i.imgflip.com/282mtk.jpg (click to show)
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
Quality over quantity. Faithful and committed monogamy creates the stable structure that children need to develop into responsible adults (not saying that children from other kinds of upbringings can't be responsible, but they usually face more challenges than those from more stable households)
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
Thank you. Finally, someone who agrees with me!
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Whoa I had a hard time finding your reply! So much stuff going on here!
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Polygamy is also wrong.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Of course.
reply
0 ups
Hahahaah! LOL anyways :)
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Christians are supposed to differentiate right and wrong with the Bible, not our opinions.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
So whatever the Bible says is right, is right? Is that what you're saying?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Whenever God says something is right it's right. A person in the Bible may not be right.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
God says killing people for blasphemy is right. He says killing girls who aren't virgins on their wedding night is right. He says killing people who engage in homosexuality is right. And he says prohibiting religious freedom is right. So that means you are also saying these things are right?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Where exactly does the Bible say that?
reply
3 ups, 5 replies
God says killing people for blasphemy is right.

Leviticus 24:10-16

He says killing girls who aren't virgins on their wedding night is right.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

He says killing people who engage in homosexuality is right.

Leviticus 20:13

And he says prohibiting religious freedom is right.

Exodus 20:3-6
Exodus 34:11-17
Deuteronomy 13 (the whole chapter)
reply
2 ups, 7 replies
God didn' say anything at all. Some guy wrote this down 2000 years ago, claiming some got (how do you know who ti really was: God, a daemon, som prankster hidden behind a flaming bush?) told him to. That's quite different.
1 up
I agree that God didn't write (or inspire) the Bible. I was just addressing what that person believes.
1 up
God inspired (told them what to write) the authors of the Bible. That's why it's called God's Word.
0 ups
Octavia _Melody I know. I was adressing what that person believes also :)
0 ups
Well, that's just what some people say. You are basing the safety of your soul on the word of some 3000 years ago guy who could hear voices....
0 ups
Anyways, if you are a christian, you should be quite familiar with the fact that God came down in person, in the real flesh of a certain dude called Jesus, and said: "I leave you a NEW commandment. Love each other." Whatever the other lunatic dudes said before shopuld be cleared out, if you believe the word of Jesus. Specially the things that contradict Jesus's teachings
0 ups
None of my business
reply
1 up, 1 reply
God won't kill us on the spot if we commit those sins so I'd say they are guidelines. God won't make us do anything but it pleases Him if we do the right thing.
1 up
Fair enough
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
They're all part of the Old Testament law. Spur's comment sums it up pretty well.
1 up
I guessed correctly that you would say that. Cool, so I can disregard laws in the OT. That would include prohibitions against homosexuality, as well.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The law is now more of a guide line than law. It's still not good to do those sins, like lying and such, but now we're under grace.
1 up
So from God's standpoint, what laws do we have to follow? Or is everything just guidelines?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Can you guess what all those references have in common?
2 ups
I bet you're going to tell me
reply
2 ups
Christans are supposed to differentiate right and wrong over love and unity. Love and unity = good, hatred and separation = evil.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So you disagree with something you think is..right...????
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's how you seek for the truth: you avoid to confuse facts and opinions... And that's even how you are not an asshole: you avoid to think that your opinions are the belly of the world...
reply
0 ups
But if you disagree with something, you personally thing it's wrong, that is the whole point of disagreeing.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why don't we try banning polygamy instead of trying to ban same-sex marriage?
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Polygamy is illegal. And I am against it as well. I think it's sick. But I'm also not a Mormon, so I don't think it's okay for a man to have multiple partners. It isn't biblical.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
It is absolutely biblical. Numerous people in the OT had multiple wives, or wives and concubines, and God didn't prohibit them from doing so. And why would he? It was perfectly normal in that culture in that time.

The Old Testament is part of the Bible. Where in the OT does god say "no man can ever have multiple wives"?

For the record, I don't think that multiple spouses (of either sex) should be illegal, as long as all parties involved are consenting and approve of the situation. That's just my personal belief.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
As I stated in a previous comment, the OT was a far different time. When Christ came, many things were changed. God can condone things, but it doesn't mean it isn't a sin. God allowed many things to happen to many wicked nations of the time.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Sin by definition is a violation of God's law. For him to condone sin is for him to condone violations of his law. That doesn't make any sense. What's the point of even having laws, then?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
He doesn't condone sin. It's more of "you want to sin against me, then I'll allow you to continue with your sinning and you'll be reaping the consequences of your actions."

It's kind of like God is completely against divorce, but in cases of adultery, he allows us to divorce our partner. However, divorce is still a sin in God's eyes.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I understand the exceptions for divorce, such as adultery or abandonment. I wouldn't count that as being the same thing, however.

You said "God can condone things, but it doesn't mean it isn't a sin." Another way to say that, if we cancel out the double negative, could be "God can condone things, but it could still be a sin". That really sounds to me like you're saying there are times when he will condone, or at least allow, sin. Even passively allowing sin doesn't make sense, because sin is offensive to him. I suppose at this point the conversation would steer into free will territory.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Divorce too, you guys should need abortion in this thread and I've got bingo :p

Anyways, God is against divorce, as it's listed many times in the Bible. But, God also knows that sinful man will be sinful, and so he gives rules for divorce for the protection of the wronged party. In that day, it was the man's decision alone, women couldn't write a certificate of divorce, and so the laws that were put into place were to protect the women who would be essentially homeless and penniless after that. So, it wasn't that God likes divorce, or even that he tolerates it, but that he is looking out for the widow and the outcast, so to speak.
0 ups
But if he really were against it, he would say it's never acceptable, ever. Since he writes the rules, he could have easily done that.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"The Old Testament is part of the Bible. Where in the OT does god say "no man can ever have multiple wives"?"

There is no passage in the Old Testament that says, "You can't have multiple wives." However, it does say in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" man and wife are both singular, not plural. Also, one thing that Old Testament does a really good job of is showing how bad things turn out for those who have multiple wives. So much sin, pain, and heartache are the results of multiple wife marriages. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon are some of the headliners who have multiple wives/concubines and have things go sideways because of it.

Hope that helps clarify, and thanks for reading.
reply
1 up
Showing the downsides of something is not the same as explicitly prohibiting it.
reply
2 ups
Fair enough.
reply
2 ups
Meh I don't really care if you're not supporting it as long as you're not actively opposing it and fighting against it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
to everyone that's fighting in these comments
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups
You don’t have to support gay marriage. That’s the beauty of free speech
reply
1 up, 2 replies
So, you don't support gay marriage. I dunno why you talk about this if it doesn't concern you.
reply
2 ups
because it's a meme maybe? I don't know the person, but I can guess
reply
1 up
Wait, memes need to have a point?
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
your post is bad but this thread is so funny because people are having genuine debates with meme images
reply
0 ups
here come the political opinions
reply
1 up
Well, and same for liberals...
reply
2 ups
I might like that!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
"I am straight. Therefore I find homosexuality disgusting"

"I am white, therefore I find black people disgusting"

"I am tall, therefore I find short people disgusting"
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Your logic is based off of total assumptions of character without a single clue about who you are talking about, you drag these out of context to enforce your bigoted beliefs and attack others for the slightest of any disagreement with your notion of a perfect world.
reply
5 ups
I don't understand what you mean. When I said those things, you do realize I was being sarcastic, right? It was to show how stupid his logic was. Finding something disgusting just because it's different from you is stupid. That was my point.

I'm bisexual, I am white, and I'm average height. But I don't hate gays, blacks, or short people.
reply
3 ups
*A guy literally says he finds homosexuality disgusting and "hates homos"*

*Calls the person calling him out a bigot*
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups
Feeling a tingle in your dingle?
reply
11 ups
reply
9 ups
That's actually terrible.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Are you for real or just a troll? Then again, if you were a troll you wouldn't necessarily admit it.

If you're for real, and you actually think "f*gs" should be executed, I assume that would include bisexuals. So come get me, pussy. Come execute me. We'll see which one of us still has brain activity when it's over.
reply
4 ups
For now I totally agree with you. I myself am bisexual, and would gladly defend other innocent gay people.
reply
4 ups
I swear you're merely trying to wind us up. Have your little victory.
reply
5 ups
reply
1 up
starting with thou?
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Good
reply
3 ups
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
That is literally execution. Chlorine gas is for the most part lethal, and accounted for most gas deaths in ww1.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
To be fair it was chlorine and bleach!
Which equates to mustard gas.
So easy to make and it's very deadly.
Not sure how bad chlorine is on its on.

On a side note.. came to see the dumpster fire that I knew this meme would make lol.
reply
1 up
On its own I believe chlorine is still poisonous.
reply
0 ups
No, mustard gas was used as well as bleach.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I hope you're joking
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Sorry to be so direct but, does he really deserve all this attention?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yes it does because it is our moral duty to shame people who threaten genocide out of polite society.
reply
0 ups
But chlorine tastes like candy!
reply
0 ups
Flip Settings
Unpopular Opinion Puffin memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I DON'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE; AND I DON'T HATE YOU IF YOU DO
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back