HOME | DD
pitnerd β Shitty Attitude
#angels #atheism #atheist #christianity #god #jesus #religion
Published: 2017-12-02 00:07:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 1737; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 25
This is so fake its stupid. Β You kiddos need god. God bless you! You need to start going to church like a real person.
π: 0 β©: 2
don't spam
π: 0 β©: 0
You'd think that some "amazing, all-knowing, and all-powerful" sky daddy would have better standards than these. Then again, he did get pissed off at Adam and transexual Steve for something he allowed to begin with, so let that speak for itself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Once again, you put your finger where it sucks. That's what the true god should do 
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah... One would like to think that a truly moral force of nature would say something against treating other humans like animals...
π: 0 β©: 2
but humans ARE animals, though we consider ourselves better
π: 0 β©: 1
In the technical sense yes, but we're hardly bound by the dictates of nature in the ways that the rest of the fauna on the planet are bound.
π: 0 β©: 1
just because we make our own rules doesn't mean we are not governed by natural law. we still need to eat and drink to survive. we still need to go to the bathroom, we still need to breathe and when we have a problem with any of those or when our lives are in jeapordy, people turn ferral easily and we have the basic need to populate the specie by reproduction.
so we made laws (which change from place to place and by era for instance women's rights, gay rights, slavery to name a few. so we have customs and technology but stripped from our privilaged environment which has been concocted (for better and for worse) by countless people around us and before us, and we become just animals in the jungle trying to survive. even dogs can drive, even bears can ride bicycles and parrots can speak. we consider ourselves better but we are not really
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok, so your only purpose here is to over-state the obvious then...? I don't see what value your interjections bring to this string of dialogue beyond shifting attention away from the original point and on to yourself. Your exhortation that humans aren't really better than any other creatures in nature offers nothing in the way of useful commentary on the original assertion that slavery as an institution involves one type of human treating another as a lesser form of life.
However, if you must bore us with your desperate-for-attention interjections, here are a few points to consider. One, if humans were truly bound by natural law as the rest of the creatures in nature, we'd have some manner of natural predator (or another natural mechanism) preventing us from multiplying like catholic rabbits and sucking up more resources than can be managed. Two, we are the only species thus far that has managed to take what nature offers us and exploit it to such a degree that vast quantities of chemicals will be present in the archeological record for generations to come. Third, we've been altering nature to suit our needs almost from the beginning. Everything from the size of the fruit we eat to the grain yields we cultivate to the breed of cows we raise to the number of mosquitos that bite us during the summer - all of it an illustration of our command over nature despite our dependency on certain natural mechanisms.
So from now on, try to remember that just because you have something to say, don't assume it's relevant or germane to the chosen forum...or even worth listening to for that matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
Indeed. Or y'know...don't rape?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, both result in the same disregard for basic dignity through objectification of a type...
π: 0 β©: 0
LOLΒ He even gets uptight about wearing mixed clothing (cotton and wool for example) but slavery was allowed. And lets not forget that he didn't mind ordering babies being killed if they were born to wrong tribe ... so much for a loving god
π: 0 β©: 2
you are forgetting that gays had to be killed and animals to be used for animal sacrifices... i mean burned up for no reason! 
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I didn't forget...
I just didn't have enough space or time to list all the crap from the so-called "good book"
If I did have the patience, I'd go into a spill on how when asked 'where does it say being gay is a sin', many Christians responded with the tale of Onan and Tamar. Supposedly a tale of a man who f%$^s his elder brother's (Er ...yes that his name) wife after his brother's death, to helpΒ that brother's line continue.Β (yeah makes no sense, somehow if the elder brother dies before having a child, it falls to the next brother to knock up widow!)
But Onan didn't want to knock upΒ his sister-in-law so would pull outΒ and 'spill his seed'. So God kills Onan as well (God killed Er too, 'for he was wicked'). So now days, people use this tale to argue against homosexuality since its 'spilling the seed.'
A good and funny vid about Onan & Tamar is here= www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGecYMβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
what? what does that have anything to do with being gay?
no, but it does specifically say in the bible (leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination" and (leviticus 20:13) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
so while that part you mentioned is awkwardly mentioned 'cause it has nothing to do with homosexuality, these verses, however sure do and if it sounds ambiguous in this english translation, let me assure you it does not in the original hebrew.
cool hillarious video thanks for the link
π: 0 β©: 0