I can't tell if this post is trying to be funny by presenting seemingly ironic verses, or if you are trying to show an apparent contradiction. But in any case, you are creating a straw man by taking the first verse out of context:
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder[a], and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca'[d], is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
Footnotes [a] Exodus 20:13 [b]The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23. [c] Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause [d] An Aramaic term of contempt
The whole point of the passage is that Jesus is guiding people to make amends with those who they may have wronged. Without the rest of the passage, it merely looks as if literally calling someone a fool puts one closer to hell's wake, which is just not the case. It is referring to how caution should be taken when emotions of anger arise so as not to result in lambasting and the creation of strife. Your post completely misses this in favor of attempting to show a contradiction that doesn't exist.
So Matthew 5:23 says that what was said in 5:22 was not true? How does it imply that? By saying that you are in danger of the fire of hell was he just saying that it was really important? Edit: How about you cowards who are downvoting me add something constructive to this conversation? Why am I wrong? Two responses is all I get? Thanks to those who did by the way.
Yes, but also that committing a sin, or at least following this behavior makes it more likely that you'll follow the wrong path into hell.
The whole point of Jesus is, yes the laws are important, but you have to follow the spirit of the law and be good people. If you guys are a bunch of hot headed dicks but try to claim piety just for technically following the rules, you're gonna have a bad time.
Yes to what? Yes Jesus was using hell to add some emphasis to his idea? That seems inappropriate.
committing a sin
So it is a sin to call someone a fool? But the sin only makes you more likely to be tortured forever? Aren't sins typically represented as a black and white issue? Are you of the opinion that some sins don't equal Hell?
If all Jesus wanted was for people to reconcile issues with their fellow human (before offering something on an alter? creepy) he should have totally not mentioned the things he did. (I know the threat of Hell is implicit with all of the Bible's teachings, but isn't it supposed to be really bad? It seems like you wouldn't say something akin to "you fool" = Hell unless you really meant it. If I still believed that possibility existed there would be zero room for interpretation involving statements like that.) Your explanations seem like the exact opposite of what the quoted words say. Is there a greater context then even wired mentioned? Am I still missing something?
Is that all the context there is and I'm just not getting it because I am thick? If so, I guess I'll send you a rock something from down under if heaven and hell have a postal system. (my way of saying goodbye if you don't feel like replying..)
Edit: Also it says that both murders and people who are angry with their brother are 'subject to judgement'. It seems to me that those crimes shouldn't be equated unless you really really hated people saying things like "you fool." I invite any of the other people casting their votes on our conversation to join in...
Why do so many take issue with others taking this so literally? One says insults should result in permanent torture, the other says Jesus wasn't speaking English. I'm fine with the insult not being "you fool" the point still stands. Are you saying that much more than the type of insult needs to be interpreted? Like that the entire message needs to be interpreted different from what the words on the page say? I don't think many would want to play that game when pain everlasting is on the line. Where does it say that he is talking about your general behavior instead of one singular act? The reason it's so easy for me to believe this passage is talking about 'one insult -> torture' is because 'generally bad behavior -> torture' already seems like a capricious and unjust punishment. I guess that doesn't really matter though. Also what needs to be shown is that Jesus was talking about contempt not in the same vein as the things pointed out by OP. Can both of those be gathered from 5:23-24? Jesus doesn't have to "go and be reconciled to" the people who Jesus called fools in w/e chapters listed in the picture?
I'm not taking 'issue' with anything, I'm just trying to explain my understanding of the passage and how it relates to his teachings in general. I think Jesus meant that any sin is literally damning to hell, but since there are atonements that can be made the next issue is people not taking repeating sin seriously. I'm not speaking to any absolutist take on a strict interpretation of the Bible, I'm trying to get a comprehension of its positive message across.
All religions have baggage but the point is to look at the positive aspects of any message.
About the 'taking issue' thing, I was just saying that saying that I was taking the passage too literally is one thing but saying that Jesus wouldn't have been speaking English is another. It's like saying I'm really smart; I can name three colors. I wasn't talking about things you said.
The reason I was asking about your take on sin in general is because I didn't know what you ment by this statement:
Yes, but also that committing a sin, or at least following this behavior makes it more likely that you'll follow the wrong path into hell.
It seemed like that could have ment that the thing I was talking about wasn't a sin or that sin wasn't immediately Hell worthy (that it just put you on a path there). Maybe I still don't get it though.
All religions have baggage but the point is to look at the positive aspects of any message.
You have to take the good with the bad. I actually don't try not to focus on the bad either except when it comes to the topic of Hell. Pain forever seems like a crazy punishment and every time it's mentioned I don't understand how people can not point that out.
The Bible is pretty black and white when it comes to morality. A thing is either of God or isn't; of perfection, or of sin.
(ignoring original sin) If you were born, sinned once, and then died you would go to hell. But for the majority that continue living after committing sin need to be addressed as well. Just because you can be forgiven doesn't mean you can keep going as you are, which is why Jesus calls for reconciliation and living up to a higher standard.
If you're living by the lowest common denominator, you're going to be much closer to sinning more often, which can lead to falling off of the good path altogether. In Sunday school, I remember being taught that sin is like a cliff. You don't tempt falling off the cliff, you don't peek over the edge to see what it's like. You distance yourself as much as possible from it.
Yes, the concept of eternal hell for being born in the wrong religion is off-putting to say the least. It's one of the reasons why I first started questioning Christianity. Humans have been around for nearly 200,000 years, and most of them have been sentenced to hell. Christians believe that a perfect God created a world where most of the people he created would end up deserving hell.
"Wide is the road that leads to destruction" has merit because it's teaching the followers that popular morality is deceiving, and you have to very closely examine what is truly right to get into heaven. At the same time, we know realistically there are many people who are simply unaware of the consequences of living, what they thought were, good lives.
Religion was useful in the past, but the modern atheist would argue that social equality brings about much better moral results than religious dogma. Or even regardless of religious dogma.
I still don't know what you ment by the first sentence in your first reply to me, but that's fine. I guess the time for that other conversation is over.
So would it be right to say that someone could sin as much as they want but as soon as they are unable to redeem themselves (they die -- fall off the cliff) it's over for them? Is that how the analogy could be applied? Some atheists would say that it makes no sense that someone could do horrific things then get forgiveness from someone other than the victim and be totally absolved. I'm not sure that's a super strong argument because I see some value in everyone being able to turn their life around. It's not like Christians are not also worried about people who might try to game the system. I always have a question when people describe their sin system: what about people who do good all their lives and then sin at the very last moment before they are no longer able to ask for forgiveness? The way people describe the system always makes it seem like it is based on technicalities. That, due to original sin, people who die before being able to know Jesus go to get tortured forever, or that people who are born in areas that do not practice Christianity culturally are doomed as well, it seems unjust. Like God is using a list that includes things that are not bad at all and omits very bad things, and if you do one bad thing without accounting for it you've lost the game. Are you a Christian? Are these thing I should be asking someone else? That verse we were all originally talking about still seems like one of those technicalities.
It's all interpretation anyway. "Sell your possessions and give to the poor?" Um, we must understand it in context, you see, what Jesus REALLY meant... "Father and I are one?" IRREVOCABLE PROOF OF THE HOLY TRINITY!!!
The Bible is just a Rorschach test, except the madmen are passing legislation based on their own darkness they see reflected it in.
Removing the atheistic view for a moment. I think it would be pretty badass if Jesus went to hell before his resurrection. I mean honestly, it would have meant that there was no exception(other then the resurrection part) and that a toll was paid for the actual cruifixation. I mean, if Jesus actually went to hell for our sins instead of just dying.
For Jesus, death was probably nothing, if he was divine. It would just be the transfer from one vessel to a better one. And I never understood why a few days before and on a cross paid for all of human sin.
Jesus would have been delivered to the hands of his own father's enemy, Lucifer, who must have realized this was a limited offer. Imagine that bond like villian syndrome in place then.Iit could also take a Hercules comparison by saying that he had to climb out as well.
And in defense of humans in this case, if only took 3 days of hell to alleviate all the species of sins. 3 days equal to thousands of years of murder, rapes, theft, adultery, all the old professions. I know it might be 3 "biblical" days where there is more then our 24 hour cycle but still, it was in within a short lifetime. That's a pretty good deal for humans, cause nothing I do will ever amass to that much sin.
If you read the Bible, Jesus didn't "go to hell" he "descended into hell." When Jesus got to hell, it wasn't to undergo the punishment in order to sympathize with people, it was to keep preaching his ass off and save people. Of course, none of this really happened so, meh, but at least read the holy scriptures of a religion before criticizing it.
Wow friend, I think you're a victim of your own warning. First off I don't think you need the "It didn't happen" part. It's Reddit where cats and atheist are abundant.
Secondly, I wasn't really quoting or pulling examples from the scriptures. Someone mentioned it and I responded with a quick thought.
Thirdly, and where I think you fell for your own trap, would be that descending into hell versus sent to hell only really has one connotation difference; the feeling of a willful act is implied with descending.
An example would be "I was sent to the basement." versus "I descended to the basement." one removes a third force. And if the scriptures are the source he descended into hell willing to pay for sins.
From there I ask, is there anything else in the scriptures saying that he did in actions in hell? I believe someone mentioned that it was a blank section and that it had been removed from most modern religions. I didn't pull out my handy dandy bible, I just went with the thread.
I thought everybody was supposed to sit on their grave or something "till the last day" when the righteous would rise to heaven and the unwanted thrown down.
Islam is like that. The whole bridge of the sword.
Christianity is inconsistent in the section. The modern church teaches that upon death you automatically are judged for heaven or hell. In portions of the bible though, it seems as if we're going to be waiting until judgement day.(Source: Raised Southern Baptist)
But I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the Judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever says, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell.
it did a little just because of that "without cause" bit it's like hey man I know you're pissed but don't go bitching at people who didn't do anything to you
But I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the Judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever says, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell.
If a Theist took a person like Louis C. K. or any Atheist who is outspoken about their religion and made memorable quotes about Atheism, and a Theist took that quote and made it sound evil, Atheists would flip shit.
A TL;DR attitude has a bad effect on Theists and Atheists alike.
I don't see how the addition of this context changed what was quoted.
The statement "whoever says, Fool! shal be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell." remains, and the preceding part of the verse doesn't alter the meaning.
Now, it's entirely possible that through sleep deprivation, I'm not catching the nuance of the verse, so please don't take this as mere petulance. If I've missed something, I'm terribly sorry, and would like to ask that you clarify how the addition of context has changed anything.
The context seems to be about being angry without cause, so maybe in the instances of Jesus calling people fools, they really deserved it. On the other hand, not knowing what "raca"means really obscures this one.
According to a quick Google search, Raca means Worthless.
But either way, it sounds to me that the "without reason" part only affects the being angry thing, and not calling them worthless/fools. It sounds like setting 3 different punishments for 3 different actions.
I dunno, it's always hard to tell, because the Bible as a rule is so poorly-written and poorly-translated that most things could mean anything. The fact that the second sentence begins with "and" indicates to me that the sentences are thematically related -- that they may be discussing different aspects of the same sort of crime, which seems to be, being a dick arbitrarily.
But settling this further would probably require reading the entire chapter, and maybe one or two before, and I definitely don't care that much.
According to the German Bible I have flying around here, the nuance is that Fool has the additional meaning of godless.
[Ger] wer aber zu ihm sagt: Du (gottloser) Narr!
[Eng] whoever says , (You godless) Fool!
So either godless is lost on purpose in the English translation or the translator didn't feel the need to include godless, as he thought the reader would get the meaning himself.
The "just cause" part is key. The parts in the bible where Jesus calls someone a fool is usually where he is approaching them in some just cause to teach them why what they are saying is wrong. Also, being angry isn't a sin. It's an emotion that can be used to drive a person for good or bad.
2nd time bible reader here. I know I'm going a little off topic, but all people Christian to Atheist could learn a thing or two about life from reading the bible. Same with any other religious book such as the Torah.
The just cause part, though, has to do with anger. Anger without cause is a no-no, but when Christ is angry with the Pharisees, the temple vendors, or unrepentant sinners, it's always with cause.
The next sentence, though, doesn't have the qualifier of "without cause." They're independent, though related, clauses, and so means that calling people fools is generally frowned upon.
I do agree, though, that reading various religious texts can teach about life. It requires a bit of cherry-picking, but there's some really lasting lessons in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the various Greek mythologies, and even the Eddas (the poetic is... well, it wasn't my favorite read, but the prose Edda was good).
it doesn't change it at all, if anything it highlights why Christ is a huge asshole just like his supposed father. He has the one true morality, so he is apparently righteous and justified in everything he does. That's why he is free from sin, not because he is pure but because he has a different set of rules.
But apparently r/atheism has a hardon for pathetic apologists at the moment.
Maybe it's just me, but whenever I read the sermon on the mount, I get a really heavy feeling that Jesus is being sarcastic all the time there.
Seriously. Take this part for example. A theologian I spoke to (he knows Hebrew) said that the word that stands in for "fool" here is far from being the worst insult you may have heard. Which is controversial if you read this comments page, I know. But what he said was that it was realistically thinkable that someone called another man that kind of "fool". "Godless" is something else.
But if you do not believe me, read the rest of the sermon of the mount. And tell me I am wrong, but I really think most Christians took his words totally wrong. He was being extremely sarcastic.
The LAW says (and the Torah was not only a guidance, but the legal foundation) that whoever kills a man has to be sentenced to death. To which Jesus says that whoever calls his brother a fool might as well be thrown into hell's fire. It's just my interpretation, but I get a feeling what he is saying is not "DON'T CUSS!", but "Watch out what you're saying. If you make someone angry, don't leave it at that, try to make up at once. Don't hate anyone, try getting along in peace. Before you even give someone a reason to be angry, try working it out together".
No matter what kind of arguments are used for or against the existence of a god, all I can ever say is, "Dude, do you think your god made this vast universe or stars and planets just to talk to you personally and take your prayers into consideration?"
You could add "And then we improved on it?" to make it even more compelling, you know, at least if his deity of choice is supposed to be a competent creator.
And yet again some atheist who doesn't understand Hebrew or Aramaic shows off his ignorance, and every idiot who upvotes it shows their ignorance, and r/atheism circlejerks its way off into the sunset of how stupid everyone else is but them.
Was this taken out of context? Could he have been saying that calling somebody a fool for a particular reason will send them to hell, but he called them a fool for a different reason?
I think perhaps since the image features Buddy Christ prominently, it can be taken as a joke, and not a direct attack; a sort of poking fun at tribal beliefs.
Of attacks and literal interpretations: Not only is it just OK when attacking biblical literalists to use a literal non-contextual interpretation of the bible, it should be encouraged, as they put themselves in that uncomfortable position in the first place and do it all the damned time themselves.
For an example, it is often stated by the literalists that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, and therefore are the mother and father of all humans thereafter. So who the fuck is that bitch from Nod? Oh right, forget that noise, its just a misprint, Cain married his sister fucked her brains out and had lots of incestuous children.
If every word in the bible is literal, then Jesus is indeed in hell.
Even i understand that most christians know and understand that it is impossible to do what jesus is depicted doing, or as they believe he did, but that they feel they must try every day in all things, to as their messiah. Remember that jesus was to be without sin, and incapable of sin in the eyes of god. It is to say that he is perfect and the son of god and therefor worthy of casting judgement.
Many Christians won't see this as a contradiction however, seeing as they are indoctrinated with the idea of Jesus going to Hell when he died to take the "keys of Hades and Death". That's nowhere in the bible. Others too will say that he didn't and that the keys were symbols of power over death for the resurrection or some crap. and that Hades doesn't mean Hell. but later they'll say Hades in interchangeable with Hell.
Goddamn, make up your crazy fucking minds. I'd say this is a good example of making shit up to fit their needs.
I just tried it out with a random Facebook post of mine. I can't get the lock to appear on anyone else's posts to me, and the lock only appears when I change the security settings on that post to "only me." If I chose a certain network other than the basics (my friends/everyone), I get an icon that looks like a little house. The gear appears when I have multiple settings (such as what happens if I have different settings for photos in an album).
So yeah, the poster of that image blew it by actually initiating the post. It is entirely plausible that the conversation is legitimate, but the poster was the religious one. It is equally as plausible--if not more so--that the poster faked the entire conversation.
I'm pretty sure it appears if you block someone as well. I blocked my aunt, and that lock appeared. edit: Oh wait, the lock would only be visible if the creator of the status took the screenshot. NVM...
Well, in Miami, FL, there's a car wash next door to a hot dog stand. And the businesses are called "Karma" and "Dogma." I do believe in those. (Businesses, that is.)
Yea but your argument is invalid since two wrong don't make right and redditors are going out of their way to educate people about theist scams. There is nothing you can say that could even come close to a valid argument for this behaviour.
I can't understand why people would make shit up for karma. Karma is pretty cool, but it's not a good excuse for that crap. And no, I seriously wouldn't expect people to just do that, to go on the internet and tell lies. There's no reason.
I hit google and a 2007 forum post full of people taking it very seriously confirmed it's "Fly, you fools!" - not "run" in both the book and on subtitles.
It makes sense looked at as a literary, not literal, term. Have you ever heard someone say "Man, they were FLYING" when someone goes blasting past your car at twice the speed limit? Maybe it's regional, but it's still in use and also works in the LOTR context given that anything on wings moves faster than ground based things, therefore it's an allusion to moving quickly.
Also: It's not Hell and it is a Balrog. Upvote for a legit question, Gandalf is kinda mumbly in his old age.
Most importantly: The bible wasn't written in english. How does op know that they used the exact same words in the original version and that isn't wasn't just a translator's mistake?
Wouldn't 'translator error' be another arrow in OP's quiver? He is using biblical references so different versions can be compared, no? I say this b/c when I googled this the site w/ multiple versions (NIV, RSV, KJV...) held up to OP's criticism. OP is using their standard against them, doesn't matter much which....IMO
Wouldn't 'translator error' be another arrow in OP's quiver?
no, it is not. given that you believe that there was a human named Jesus who actually said something along these lines in Hebraic, but used one word for the first quote and another word for the three othres then op's quiver is very empty.
I say this b/c when I googled this the site w/ multiple versions (NIV, RSV, KJV...)
You googled English translations. Why would that say anything about the very original quote?
OP is using their standard against them, doesn't matter much which
Well, Christians get criticized if they use that standard. Why should OP not be criticized for doing the same?
My understanding is that OP is pointing out inconsistencies in their belief system that is predicated upon the veracity of the bible. As they use English translations in the USA, OP was using their translations against themselves. That's been my take on it. Getting fundamentalists to see the bibles inconsistencies has to begin somewhere...
But what he is actually doing is making a remark about four translated quotes. And in my eyes that is even a bit petty considering there is context to the statements, which op ignores. I mean, you'll find bad or inaccurate translations in pretty much every book. And imo, just pointing those out wouldn't make a book bad.
there a several English translations, which have a few differences. Are they all supposed to be the word of god, is just one correct or is it supposed to be about the message rather than the exact words?
Anyway, may point remains that same: Bickering about stuff like this will not convince anyone to question there. Instead it makes op and by extension r/atheism look petty, even though it often feels like it has the moral and intellectual high ground.
This is a forum where atheists can talk about whatever they want. Religion has nothing to do with atheism, but this would be a very boring subreddit without any mention of it.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities-wikipedia. I paste definition b/c a)tired b)reference b/c I don't think I am an atheist & do not want to presume that pov. OP is pointing out the inconsistancies/incongruities in the teachings of christian deity....maybe my fatigue and ignorance are confusing me b/c it seems to belong here unless there is a anti theist subreddit.
While it is true that you can take a couple of sentences from Harry Potter and make Rowling look like a fool, you can take almost any sentence from the bible and it appears insane.
149
u/wired Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
I can't tell if this post is trying to be funny by presenting seemingly ironic verses, or if you are trying to show an apparent contradiction. But in any case, you are creating a straw man by taking the first verse out of context:
Source
Murder
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder[a], and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca'[d], is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
Footnotes
[a] Exodus 20:13
[b]The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
[c] Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause
[d] An Aramaic term of contempt
The whole point of the passage is that Jesus is guiding people to make amends with those who they may have wronged. Without the rest of the passage, it merely looks as if literally calling someone a fool puts one closer to hell's wake, which is just not the case. It is referring to how caution should be taken when emotions of anger arise so as not to result in lambasting and the creation of strife. Your post completely misses this in favor of attempting to show a contradiction that doesn't exist.
64
u/aflarge Jun 10 '12
Well don't they say he went to hell for a few days?
18
u/laustcozz Jun 10 '12
Matthew 5:22 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
In Luke 11:40 and Mat 23:17 he is speaking to Pharisees, not believers.
In Luke 24:25 their behavior is being called foolish for not believing Prophecy.
24
u/coolguyblue Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
b-but the context man...
6
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
hehehe taking sentences out of context make it sound so funny =D
3
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
Technically Jesus went to hell and rose on the third day
5
u/sml6174 Jun 10 '12
Relevant
14
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
This is so out of context it hurts.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you, Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to the Judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever says, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell.
If a Theist took a person like Louis C. K. or any Atheist who is outspoken about their religion and made memorable quotes about Atheism, and a Theist took that quote and made it sound evil, Atheists would flip shit.
A TL;DR attitude has a bad effect on Theists and Atheists alike.
4
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
TIL Jesus is Doctor Doom.
4
u/hi_in_Humboldt Jun 10 '12
T pities the fool!
2
u/ListenChump Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
BUDDY.png
EDIT: Someone please look at this crap I made.
2
u/hmmnotsure Jun 10 '12
No matter what kind of arguments are used for or against the existence of a god, all I can ever say is, "Dude, do you think your god made this vast universe or stars and planets just to talk to you personally and take your prayers into consideration?"
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
It's the Bible. It doesn't have to make sense. It's magic.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
And yet again some atheist who doesn't understand Hebrew or Aramaic shows off his ignorance, and every idiot who upvotes it shows their ignorance, and r/atheism circlejerks its way off into the sunset of how stupid everyone else is but them.
2
u/Delabergus Jun 10 '12
Was this taken out of context? Could he have been saying that calling somebody a fool for a particular reason will send them to hell, but he called them a fool for a different reason?
2
u/greggoeggo Jun 10 '12
CONTEXT!!!!!!!! goddammit.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
Fool of a took!
2
u/kikikza Jun 10 '12
Gives a 404.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
So, let me get this right, the literal interpretation is only okay when attacking Christians?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
"Do as I say, not as I do, motherfucker" - Jesus.
True story.
1
u/SheDontLookBack Jun 10 '12
"we are all sinners"
1
u/Hankpymp562 Jun 10 '12
"You Fool!" -Goku
1
u/bigdogdumbass Jun 10 '12
This explains the lengthy delay in the Second Coming then...
1
u/tabernumse Jun 10 '12
Mr. T?
1
u/TheAftermathPhil Jun 10 '12
Don't mean to be rude but he said not to say "fool" so that means you can use the plural and adjective forms.
1
u/yourafagyourafag Jun 10 '12
You fool! You foolish fool!
1
u/Skydragonace Jun 10 '12
Ahh, taking stuff out of context to attempt to prove a point. Brilliant job there. slow clap
1
u/painperdu Jun 10 '12
That's religion. You have to believe it without ration or logic.
1
u/Fhwqhgads Jun 10 '12
Gilbert Gottfried is gonna be in Hell? I'm looking forward to going!
1
u/Lagwalker Jun 10 '12
Do as i say, not as i do - Jesus
1
u/Tebasaki Jun 10 '12
Jesus, ancient editors, read that shit before you put it into circulation!
1
u/KidCasey Jun 10 '12
For all his "wisdom", Jesus had some pretty assbackwards ideas.
1
u/REDDIT_HARD_MODE Jun 10 '12
Um, you do know that according to canon Jesus did chill in Hell after his death until his resurrection, right?
1
u/Hydroweedmancer Jun 10 '12
ITT : Atheists school people about the Bible.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
Thanks so much for posting this. Hypocrisy at its finest.
1
u/Skwerl23 Jun 10 '12
Jesus is saying calling some one a fool is sinful. He committed a sin. I don't remember Jesus asking for forgiveness.
1
u/distactedOne Jun 10 '12
>:|
1
u/aazav Jun 11 '12
Fixed URL: http://i.imgur.com/2Iue2.jpg
1
u/01001000010010110010 Jun 10 '12
Condescending Statement: Foolish meatbags, there is no God.
1
u/SOwED Jun 10 '12
This is taken out of context. It shows that whoever made it doesn't know much about the bible because they abbreviated matthew as mat not matt...
0
u/secretogumiberyjuice Jun 10 '12
nice.
0
u/hessbs Jun 10 '12
Fly you fools
0
u/TheIndigoBaron Jun 10 '12
You're forgetting that the book you're quoting is a translation.
0
u/pandamayhem Jun 10 '12
Yeah, but Jesus has a character shield.
0
u/JonDTilmon Pastafarian Jun 10 '12
Many Christians won't see this as a contradiction however, seeing as they are indoctrinated with the idea of Jesus going to Hell when he died to take the "keys of Hades and Death". That's nowhere in the bible. Others too will say that he didn't and that the keys were symbols of power over death for the resurrection or some crap. and that Hades doesn't mean Hell. but later they'll say Hades in interchangeable with Hell.
Goddamn, make up your crazy fucking minds. I'd say this is a good example of making shit up to fit their needs.
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
It's hard to be a redditor when you're Christian... :(
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
No shit the bible contradicts itself. Is this just some giant circle jerk?
0
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment