AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Jesus was awesome.

A lot of current churches kind of ignore that.

That's probably why it's so successful

BECAUSE ITS OLD

Fooflyer wrote:That's probably why it's so successful

BECAUSE ITS OLD

Age has nothing to do with success.

The Church also seems to have the desire to gridlock progress. They condemn people who are pro-choice, and yet the people who suggest encouraging the use condoms and the teaching of a more comprehensive sex education program (because abstinence-only is ineffective) are also condemned, even those people do it in an effort to try to cut back on the need for such an option. Hell, I'm sure that even allowing masturbation would cut back on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Yeah, the Bible does say somewhere that it'd be better for you to get a whore than to let it fall in your sock. I'm paraphrasing of course. They didn't have socks back then.

Here I was thinking that the Catholic church was pro-babies.
What was that saying, again?
"Plop till you drop"?
hehe...

Xeraphem wrote:Yeah, the Bible does say somewhere that it'd be better for you to get a whore than to let it fall in your sock. I'm paraphrasing of course. They didn't have socks back then.

That was the Old Testament. Personally, I think that they should just throw out the whole Old Testament, because I just don't think that it should be regarded as religious text. It seems to me like it's more of a chronicle of the Israeli's history with events that they interpreted as acts of god. The Old Testament contains some of the most hateful passages in the entire bible. I don't even know how the hell Leviticus made it in there to begin with. Leviticus alone excuses slavery, sexism, and contains passages that declare homosexuality to be immoral and shellfish to be "an abomination." That's right, God hates gays... and shellfish. I'm sorry, I've just always found that stark contrast to be amusing. That's like saying that you hate the government and pencil toppers. It's really hard to take people seriously after they say something as silly as that. Leviticus probably has even more that I don't know about. In addition to what Leviticus says, the Old Testament not only condones rape, but encourages it (See: Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB). With God "personally" approving these atrocities (I honestly don't think that he did, I think the writers of the passages imparted their own ideas and values into the text), the Old Testament paints God as either a /b/tard or chairman of the board of sadistic deities.

God was a dick back in the Old Testament.

Bacon wrote:God was a dick back in the Old Testament.

That's why I don't believe that the Old Testament is actually the word of God. In the Old Testament, people were dicks, and God "mysteriously" promoted their dickery. In the New Testament, Jesus comes along and tells them that his dad says to knock it off, and they nail him to a cross. I think that the Old Testament was written by people who were merely looking to justify their own douchiness.

I like how when the disciples are spreading the word after the whole tongues of flame incident, they were strictly told NOT to go to Asia.

For some reason.
Also these links are relevant. there's comedy, too.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:

Bacon wrote:God was a dick back in the Old Testament.

That's why I don't believe that the Old Testament is actually the word of God. In the Old Testament, people were dicks, and God "mysteriously" promoted their dickery. In the New Testament, Jesus comes along and tells them that his dad says to knock it off, and they nail him to a cross. I think that the Old Testament was written by people who were merely looking to justify their own douchiness.

You mean the Jews?

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:because they preach acceptance and tolerance, but you never really see any of that message practiced that much. They say that the reason why they won't let Joe Biden take communion is because he's pro-choice

That, right there, is the biggest generalisation I've come across in this thread! You have just taken a single incident of one bishop denying communion to one man and generalised it into the entire religion!

And no, they do not do that. They specifically said that they do not deny communion like that.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:The Church also seems to have the desire to gridlock progress. They condemn people who are pro-choice, and yet the people who suggest encouraging the use condoms and the teaching of a more comprehensive sex education program (because abstinence-only is ineffective) are also condemned, even those people do it in an effort to try to cut back on the need for such an option. Hell, I'm sure that even allowing masturbation would cut back on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And they don't condemn any of those people! They discourage those things, but that's all!
Seriously, did you get your religious advice from Ned Flanders or something?

Catholic school

Apparently

Defenestrator2.0 wrote: I don't even know how the hell Leviticus made it in there to begin with. Leviticus alone excuses slavery, sexism, and contains passages that declare homosexuality to be immoral and shellfish to be "an abomination." That's right, God hates gays... and shellfish. I'm sorry, I've just always found that stark contrast to be amusing. That's like saying that you hate the government and pencil toppers. It's really hard to take people seriously after they say something as silly as that.

To be fair, "abomination" is half-mistranslation half-not-modern-English. (Why the hell are people still using the Kings James version?)

The most accurate translation would be "ritualistically unclean." Which basically means, you'd have to go through assorted cleansing procedures before you could be allowed to pray to God.

To note another absurd one, a woman's menstrual cycle was labeled "abominable" as well. That one alone should clue you into realizing that there is a mistranslation there.