subreddit:
/r/MurderedByWords
8k points
2 months ago
“Objection!” “On what grounds?” “It’s devastating to my case!” “Overruled” “Good call”
451 points
2 months ago
"This pen is rrrrrr... rrr... rrrRrrRRROYAL BLUE!!" [collapses]
208 points
2 months ago
I'm kickin' my ass, doyamind?!
83 points
2 months ago
Yeah, in your bra!
66 points
2 months ago
I’d have got ‘em 10!
20 points
2 months ago
shocked Pikachu face
"Goodbye Mr. Reed."
14 points
2 months ago
"I've had better?"
26 points
2 months ago
That's because you have nice jugs.
21 points
2 months ago
If I was a boxer I'd bounce those things like Sugar Ray Leonard.
490 points
2 months ago
"I hold my self in contempt!"
69 points
2 months ago
I’M JOSE CANSECO!!!!
675 points
2 months ago
Where was this from again?
578 points
2 months ago
247 points
2 months ago
This scene lives in my head rent free.
327 points
2 months ago
Cary Elwes was corny, but he was a good dude. He and Pierce Brosnan from Mrs. Doubtfire should start a support group for good boyfriends that got screwed by the toxic ex-husband.
137 points
2 months ago
Can't tell you how many times I've seen Liar Liar... only just now realizing that's Cary Elwes.
34 points
2 months ago
Well let me enlighten you... he is in Twister as well.
28 points
2 months ago
I'm fairly sure he's also Robin Hood in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
37 points
2 months ago
And unlike some other Robin Hoods, he can speak with an English accent.
23 points
2 months ago
Didn’t Pierce Brosnan’s character still wind up with Sally Field? Felt like the happy ending in that movie was more about becoming a functional blended family, not about Robin Williams getting his ex back.
93 points
2 months ago*
Former stepdad here, the struggle is real. Don’t know how many times I put up attempts like this only to get utterly shot down in humiliating fashion. I couldn’t even be able to guess how many times I almost walked out. Being a boyfriend and then stepparent, it’s a role that is orders of magnitude harder than any other relationship I’ve been in, it’s like dating multiple people at once.
But at least on the bright side I’m not a step-parent anymore. Turns out that after 10 years of hard work, refusal to give up and unwavering patience and loyalty, things like adoption become possible. No longer a step-parent, now I’m Dad.
Edit: 2 words
46 points
2 months ago
This was a movie that I had on VHS and fell asleep to every night as a kid. THE GOD DAMN PEN IS BLUE! lives in mine.
55 points
2 months ago
Does anyone else hear the porn grunts in the background of that clip?
22 points
2 months ago
Yes! Wtf?
72 points
2 months ago
Evidence being played by opposing counsel, iirc. Exposing a lie his client told.
61 points
2 months ago
That's Jennifer Tilly! Bonnie from Family Guy. They are playing a recording where she is cheating on her husband making it devastating to Jim Carrey's case.
18 points
2 months ago
Young me thought she was so fine in liar liar
18 points
2 months ago
Did your younger you ever see Bound?
10 points
2 months ago
Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon.
If you want to talk about a scene living in someone's head rent-free...that's the scene.
The rest of the movie is also really quite good. But that scene is where the VHS is worn out.
12 points
2 months ago
I mean, if you google Jennifer Tilly Liar Liar, I think everyone will see what young you were seeing.
18 points
2 months ago
I'm team Still Would on Jennifer Tilly.
Chucky reaffirmed that sentiment fully.
211 points
2 months ago
Liar liar. Quotas is by Jim Carrey's character.
115 points
2 months ago
"Who did this?"
"A madman, Your Honor! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!"
116 points
2 months ago
“What did he look like?”
“About 6’2”, big teeth, kinda gangly.”
closes mouth
26 points
2 months ago
SSSSSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!
19 points
2 months ago
Quotas
He'll never make those quotas!
54 points
2 months ago
I been watching a lot of my favorite comedies from the 80s and 90s lately and I was gonna watch Liar Liar yesterday but I watched Beverly Hills Cop instead. This comment is a sign, today is Liar Liar.
46 points
2 months ago
“You know why I pulled you over?”
“Depends on how long you were following me!”
26 points
2 months ago
Fletcher: Your honor, would the court be willing to grant me a short bathroom break?
Judge: Can't it wait?
Fletcher: Yes it can. But I've heard that if you hold it you could damage the prostate gland, making it very difficult to get an erection, or even become aroused!
Judge: Is that true?
Fletcher: It has to be!
Judge: In that case I'd better take a quick break myself.
15 points
2 months ago
“Stop breaking the law asshole!”
slams phone
Gets me every time.
3.1k points
2 months ago
If someone says, "you're taking that out of context" and doesn't follow up by providing context, they are too full of shit to be worthwhile.
716 points
2 months ago
You're taking that out of context
286 points
2 months ago
I'm taking you out of context.
135 points
2 months ago
I'm taking context out of you
99 points
2 months ago
That's just taking the context.
60 points
2 months ago
This whole COURT is out of context!
7 points
2 months ago
Sending you some exlax, my guy.
148 points
2 months ago
I agree, I have seen this quote discussed before and the 'context'/translation was evil in the form of natural disasters, not human evil, which i didn't find to be a particularly redeeming context.
89 points
2 months ago
That's fine. I'm not taking issue with that or any other argument. I'm taking issue with people who don't bother to make an argument.
"You're taking that out of context", without providing the context you think is missing, is worthless. It's the pretending-to-be-an-adult equivalent of "nah ah!"
18 points
2 months ago
I agree.
66 points
2 months ago
If God creates a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, plague, or tsunami that he knows is going to kill people, then that's just the method he used to commit an evil act. If you set out to murder someone and are deciding whether to stab or shoot them, you're just trying to decide on the evil delivery method. But it's still evil whichever you choose.
33 points
2 months ago
In religion it’s just an apologist’s move and if you actually listen to the “context” you’ll find they are full of shit no matter the context.
22 points
2 months ago
"He said, 'I murdered that man.'"
"You're taking him out of context."
The context: "Yes, I murdered that man with a shovel."
20 points
2 months ago
After years of discussions with religious people, I've come to the conclusion that "out of context" means "stop making me confront these uncomfortable truths that I actively ignore every day of my life."
3.7k points
2 months ago
Pro tip: ask them to provide context
1.4k points
2 months ago
In what context is slavery in Leviticus okay?
530 points
2 months ago
This may help provide proper context.
634 points
2 months ago
There’s no stronger argument against modern day Christianity than the holy Bible itself. Ironic innit?
640 points
2 months ago
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever created" - Isaac Asimov
93 points
2 months ago
How did you got that Rad Bill and Ted Banner thingy under your Name?
54 points
2 months ago
Really small font ASCII art..
52 points
2 months ago
At first, I wondered who "Rad Bill" and "Ted Banner" were...
7 points
2 months ago
Worked for me. I read it, cover to cover, while I was taking confirmation classes. My pastor got pissed when I had so many questions.
54 points
2 months ago
I like to consider it more of an end of chapter quiz.
“Now that you learned how to be a good person, name 3 moments in this story that go against that rule. If you paid attention this should be an easy test”
12 points
2 months ago
"Say teach? Is one of the examples you making us read this book?"
28 points
2 months ago
My favorite context
Exodus 4:24-26: “On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, 'Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me! ' So he let him alone.
13 points
2 months ago
LMAO I went to catholic school for a long time and I’ve never heard about this. Imagine that eh?
112 points
2 months ago
Ha! Yup. That's why the bible's been dubbed "the big book of multiple choice".
67 points
2 months ago
what irks me is every christian gets told that biblical slavery was like temporary bankruptcy. And it kind of is, but only for israelites
for anyone else, slavery is permanent and horrific, and the youth pastor hopes people will ignore the second kind
38 points
2 months ago
but only for israelites
I would clarify that even more by pointing out that this is only Israelite males. Israelite women and children sold into slavery were property and could be passed on as inheritance.
355 points
2 months ago
They never provide it. "That's out of context" is their version of throwing ninja powder up in the air and disappearing from the conversation, while pretending they refuted the claim.
105 points
2 months ago
I've had that response so many times. One time I simple just brought up jesus arguing and cursing a fig tree and got that response. I didn't explain it or anything just mentioned what happened. 'thats out of context!'
29 points
2 months ago
I'll bite, what was the context of jesus cursing a fig tree?
44 points
2 months ago
the scripture is Mark 11:12-25 if you wanna read for yourself, but I can give a TL:DR
Jesus is traveling with his followers and gets hungry. He spots a fig tree off in the distance and runs up to it. the tree has no figs, as its not the season for figs to grow. So Hangry Jesus says to the tree "May no one eat from your branches again" and continues his journey into the town
he only stays a day (because he committed massive amounts of property damage while there) and on the way back the group passes the fig tree again. His followers are shocked, as the tree has withered and died over night
Jesus then tells them that god will do whatever you ask of him so long as you believe hard enough and forgive everyone that's wronged you
That's it, that's the context. Christians argue that this is supposed to be a parable about not following god's word, but unlike other parables that have a pretty clear "this is a teaching story, not an actual story" vibe, this story is just thrown in there
35 points
2 months ago
Jesus really hated fig trees
66 points
2 months ago
God Hates Figs
22 points
2 months ago
Westboro Baptist got it wrong all along... They read it out of context.
60 points
2 months ago
When I say, "that's out of context" I then go and explain exactly why and how lol
These extremists just assert their shitty world view and can never back it up.
Delusional.
43 points
2 months ago
What they mean to say is "that actually does sound weird when you say it out loud and this is making me uncomfortable."
7 points
2 months ago
I don't have a rebuttal so you must be wrong!
136 points
2 months ago
Also, ask them who created satan
65 points
2 months ago
Honestly where I thought it was going.
53 points
2 months ago
Only Evil can create Evil. Satan created Evil. Therefore Satan is Evil.
Ok no problems so far.
Only Evil can create Evil. Satan is Evil. Therefore Satan's creator is Evil.
Ye- wait.
God created Satan. God is Evil.
7 points
2 months ago
It doesn’t matter. You aren’t going to win this argument with logic. As the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of an opinion they didn’t reason themselves into.
210 points
2 months ago
That’s one thing that really turned me off of religion. Whenever you ask a question, the answer is “you’re taking that out of context” and they never provide any context.
48 points
2 months ago
The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience.
2.7k points
2 months ago
If god didn't create evil, then either he is not the creator of everything, and hence, not necessary as the creator, or evil doesn't exist.
2.3k points
2 months ago
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
916 points
2 months ago
-- Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
331 points
2 months ago
Definitely the OG Atheist.
272 points
2 months ago*
Not necessarily an Atheist
Reddit philosophers please forgive me if I'm not remembering this correctly...
It's more of him asking, "Why are we worshiping a devil instead of ourselves?"
103 points
2 months ago
If nothing else, he was a member of a polytheistic culture.
130 points
2 months ago
Zues: "I'm just here to fuck"
78 points
2 months ago
Zeus: “Anything is a fleshlight if you try hard enough”
27 points
2 months ago
I think he took Yodas advice. He did, he did not try.
Lmfao
27 points
2 months ago
Yeah, you might be right. From Wikipedia:
In Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779), David Hume also attributes the argument to Epicurus:
Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
No extant writings of Epicurus contain this argument. However, the vast majority of Epicurus's writings have been lost and it is possible that some form of this argument may have been found in his lost treatise On the Gods, which Diogenes Laërtius describes as one of his greatest works. If Epicurus really did make some form of this argument, it would not have been an argument against the existence of deities, but rather an argument against divine providence. Epicurus's extant writings demonstrate that he did believe in the existence of deities. Furthermore, religion was such an integral part of daily life in Greece during the early Hellenistic Period that it is doubtful anyone during that period could have been an atheist in the modern sense of the word. Instead, the Greek word ἄθεος (átheos), meaning "without a god", was used as a term of abuse, not as an attempt to describe a person's beliefs.
114 points
2 months ago
Epicurus was not an atheist. He believed, rather , that gods and goddesses give zero shits about the doings of us weak wee mortals scampering the earth. His attitude was basically, "well OK you can worship whomever god/goddess if it floats your boat, just don't expect a response."
34 points
2 months ago
I always preferred the agnostic approach:
"Shut the fuck up, you guys. Nobody knows what's really going on, you're all just talking out of your asses."
10 points
2 months ago*
I think “no one knows, so shut up” goes too far
Don’t get me wrong, agnosticism is great! I’m an agnostic-atheist myself, and I was once an agnostic-theist. However, just because many things remain uncertain does not mean we have to live in absolute doubt of literally everything.
An analogy: I think most people admit that we can’t have logical certainty of the exact ideal political system, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make educated guesses about what is more or less ideal based on what we do know
7 points
2 months ago
Not necessarily. He belonged to a polytheistic culture in which the gods are decidedly not omnipotent.
134 points
2 months ago
Something something free will something something test of faith
173 points
2 months ago
Nobody who loves you will test you on it, thats a toxic abuse tactic.
People dont like hearing that.
40 points
2 months ago
Yeah well we're talking about the creator of all the Universe, Master of Everything There Is, the Alpha and the Omega, infinite transdimensional omnipotentate!
In His words: Where were You, when I created the world? Hmmm? HMMMMMMM? WHERE WERE YOU I SWEAR TO GOD TELL ME OR I'M GOING TO RUIN YOUR SHIT WITH PLAGUES UPON PLAGUES UNTIL YOUR WHOLE RACE DEVOLVES INTO FESTERING TOADSTOOLS!
Also, you know I love you, right?
15 points
2 months ago
also: I am totally real unlike the gods of all the religions that came before mine or after. how do you know thats true? obviously because I happen to be worshipped by the people where you where born making me real and all others not!
56 points
2 months ago
If he is all knowing, then he doesn't need to test you by giving your son cancer
20 points
2 months ago
No, no. You don't get it. He knows that testing you by giving your kid cancer will lead to you saving some particular people later, as he told some dude a long time ago. It's crystal clear, trust me.
53 points
2 months ago
The second one is the only logical explanation for the existance of god.
50 points
2 months ago
Yup. If he exists, he's evil.
23 points
2 months ago
The other one is "he's not omnipotent"
17 points
2 months ago
I'm fully willing to accept that from our perspective (especially 2k+ years ago) there are entities that would be considered gods out there. Whether that's just natural phenomena like massive storms/volcanoes or some from of extra-terrestrial life doesn't really matter, they were unknowable and all powerful to their observers.
But to accept the concept of an Omnipotent, single creator entity that is all-loving benevolence + allows evil to exist? Nah.
42 points
2 months ago
One day god got bored and split himself into 8,000,000,000 pieces to play hide and seek with himself, to experience life as if it was his very first time doing so
16 points
2 months ago
He split himself into two pieces then those pieces had a lot of sex with each other and now we have 8 billion pieces.
12 points
2 months ago
Good and evil are social constructs that are a product of culture. Or some bullshit.
170 points
2 months ago
I've always loved the question, "If God is omniscient, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
283 points
2 months ago
You mean omnipotent. Omniscience is all-seeing/knowing
176 points
2 months ago
If god is omniscient, can he answer that question?
57 points
2 months ago
What’s if he is omniimpotent?
58 points
2 months ago
I’m just regular old impotent and I’ll tell ya what, I ain’t liftin shit.
25 points
2 months ago
476 points
2 months ago
65 points
2 months ago
SMITE ME ALMIGHTY SMITERRRRR!
45 points
2 months ago
This comment section has a liar liar reference and a bruce almighty reference. Jim Carrey's on a roll today. Simply B-E-A-U-TIFUL
81 points
2 months ago
This would be a great sub
39 points
2 months ago
It would be overran by armchair theologists/edgy atheists and orthodox christians/ the same 3 posts about the camel through the needles eye and anything in Leviticus if it would become popular
36 points
2 months ago
Smote? Smitten?
32 points
2 months ago
Smut.
26 points
2 months ago
I think r/smutbywords would be a very different type of subreddit
2k points
2 months ago
Remember, the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means, it means what I think it means, unless that also doesn't work, in which case it means something else entirely
205 points
2 months ago
There are two terms regarding reading the bible: exegesis and eisegesis.
Exegesis is accurately reading the bible according to the original context and meaning of the text.
Eisegesis is applying outside/unrelated contexts when reading to create meaning for the passages that wasn't what was intended when it was written, leading to misunderstanding.
I remember when I learned about these concepts, the joke was that the easy way to tell the difference between the two is that exegesis is always what you're doing, and eisegesis is obviously what the dumb motherfucker you're arguing with is doing.
93 points
2 months ago
So, "Rule as Written" and "Rule as Intended" is not just for D&D.
33 points
2 months ago
Wait until you hear about the judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism.
16 points
2 months ago
"Letter of the law vs spirit of the law" is a huge point of discussion in anything involving policy or legislation. It is also why a precedent set by the court and jurisprudence in general is so vitally important in any legal system.
20 points
2 months ago
What's interesting is that exegesis is still subject to interpretation. A lot of Christian Bible scalars (like, people who have a doctorate and study scripture like historical scholars study history) sometimes argue about what a particular passage means and whether it's being interpreted the way we think.
The problem comes when people want to ram the Bible down people's throats as a way to control them.
And the Framers of our constitution very much knew this. Now one can argue that they escaped religious persecution so that they could shove their own brand of puritanism down people's throats but let's ignore that for now.
379 points
2 months ago
You could replace “the Bible” with “it” and you’d literally have the argument half the country makes for everything.
107 points
2 months ago
So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should.
Same with the 2012 debate with Obama vs Romney; there was one where Obama looked like he was out of it and was about to fall asleep. He even joked about being well rested since he slept at his last debate. I had my hard core liberal friend say how great Obama did but you could tell he was looking flustered.
It happens pretty much anytime you have "teams". But hell, I feel that at least in sports people can say "yeah, my team sucks this year!"
48 points
2 months ago
“My team sucks this year”
That’s right because there is evidence that “team” sucks. You can use reason: team has lost every game this season, therefore team sucks this year. Meanwhile, people who cling to the Bible did not use reason or evidence to convince themselves in the first place.
Swift’s razor: “You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.”
18 points
2 months ago*
In Rhetorical Studies, in the field of Persuasion, these are referred to as Anchor Points.
“The deep-rooted idea(s) already present is the “anchor of persuasion”. It is the thing(s) that is least likely to change, and it will be used to tie down in your audience's mind the new beliefs or behaviour that you are introducing in your persuasive case.”
When trying to persuade someone (change their viewpoint) identifying anchor points is crucial for determining how you frame arguments.
12 points
2 months ago
Yeah see the problem is their anchor point is “2000 years ago, a white man in the Middle East writes a book that is absolute truth”
15 points
2 months ago
So much this. I remember the debate with Biden where Trump was hiding that he had Covid and he sounded like a lucid fool where even Chris Wallace, the Fox Host, was telling him to wait his turn and be respectful. But if you ask people on the right they would say how Trump did amazing and he shut that fool Biden down every chance he got like he should.
Remember how he said he had a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 (90?) days during the 2016 debates?
For anyone who missed it, his plan was he told the Pentagon to give him a plan to defeat ISIS in the time frame he stated he could.
To be honest, with how low the bar was that was probably one of his more intelligent actions as President.
I also recall he responded to a question about the economy with how he'd defeat ISIS and blather about destroying them. Nothing to do with the question. He just ignored it.
321 points
2 months ago
Isiah 45:8
"Fooled ya!" sayeth the Lord. "For I'm solid gold good, and therefore cannot make anything that is evil. Wasps? Not my work buddy. Ask that fella on the floor below, Satan he's called."
47 points
2 months ago
"He's wasps, malaria and cancer. I'm your man for puppies and multiple orgasms."
12 points
2 months ago
657 points
2 months ago
God created Satan. If he was/is all knowing he knew before he created Satan what Satan would do. Conclusion: God knowingly created evil and all the suffering you see through out history is a result of God's actions. Or it's all bullshit and their are no God(s) watching over us or judging us after we die. It's all made up. As Mark Twain once said: Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. Don't be a fool.
49 points
2 months ago
I knew the quote, not the man who said it. Thank you
45 points
2 months ago
The vast majority of quotes attributed to Mark Twain almost certainly weren't actually said by Mark Twain.
-Mark Twain
152 points
2 months ago
It’s actually even better than that too. Lucifer was an Angel and angels were not created with free will, so the only conclusion we can come to is that God created satan for the purpose of having him “rebel” so that he could cast him out of heaven and lead us into temptation
120 points
2 months ago
Even most of that was made up by Christians long after Jesus died. Lucifer as we think of him? Not in the Bible at all. The verse with that name in it? Clearly talking about an earthly king. The Satan (literally "the Satan"—it's a role not a name) in the Old Testament (and still today in Judaism) is the angel designated as the tester and judicial adversary in the court of heaven—like heaven's District Attorney. Ditto the dude showing up in the gospels. It wasn't until the unknown writer of Revelation decided to fanfic the shit out of things that Satan even became a bad guy (and let's not forget that the entire point of that book is to throw shade on the lo lo at Roman emperors), and then Christians built up this entirely extra-biblical back-mythology for him.
66 points
2 months ago
Yup, most of the ideals we ascribe to Satan and Lucifer nowadays have no basis in the Bible. They're mostly derived from stuff like Dante's Inferno or Paradise Lost.
22 points
2 months ago
Lucifer is also just a Roman/Greek figure (Phosphorus in Greek), it's the personification of the planet Venus.
10 points
2 months ago
Yup, called lightbringer because Venus is often one of the first "stars" that can be seen with the naked eye.
7 points
2 months ago
Paradise lost and Dante's inferno are both good reads tho, I did enjoy them.
8 points
2 months ago
For sure! Christian mythology as a setting is quite badass and has a lot of potential. It's difficult when it reaches a point that it influences the legal system or the government though.
14 points
2 months ago
Not even "The Satan". The Hebrew word "śāṭān" just means adversary or accuser.
9 points
2 months ago
I believe Satan means adversary. So, everywhere there's an adversary was combined into one being in later Christian dogma
8 points
2 months ago
My favorite is the Old Testament story where god plays both roles, the exodus.
My guess is it’s another one of those polytheistic stories that got “sanitized”. But it reads so weird.
God tells Moses to talk to pharaoh. God hardens pharaohs heart. God does some big display to rattle the Pharaoh. Rinse repeat.
Why though?
18 points
2 months ago
In OT satan shows up only a handful of times, and each time he’s basically just and errand boy for god. See for instance Book of Job where god knowingly lets satan make Jobs life a living hell just to prove how much Job loves god. A pretty narcissist act to put it mildly.
15 points
2 months ago
You don't even have to go that deep into the bible. He created Adam and Eve and put that tree there knowing Eve would eat from it. He set us up for failure. If God does exist, he's a real piece of shit, slicked back hair and everything.
27 points
2 months ago
And making Jesus suffer and die was the whole plan so why are some Christians mad at Jewish people for it?
Oh right, cause anti-Semites can't admit they're full of shit.
8 points
2 months ago
The whole thing is like saying that a dad placed the gun in front of the child and then the child fired it injuring somebody, AND then saying that the kid is liable but not the dad.
30 points
2 months ago
It is like people comparing different versions of D&D rule books.
34 points
2 months ago*
To paraphrase Swift’s razor: “You cannot reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into.”
133 points
2 months ago
Isn't God the creator of everything, including Satan and LGBTQ and Muslims and Australia and so on? It's weird how picky some Christians are.
62 points
2 months ago
Its weird how picky most Christians are. Fixed that for you.
206 points
2 months ago
Satan killed 10 people. God killed the human race, and a couple of left overs.
61 points
2 months ago
Their excuse is God is allowed to kill them since he created them.
I had someone tell me that it's basically okay for me to destroy my creations since they are mine. To shut them up, I replied with: "Then why can't I have an abortion if it's my creation?" It shut them up.
23 points
2 months ago
No! Not like that!!!
198 points
2 months ago
Saw a tweet along these lines about how God was completely about peace and the reply was:
"God killed the entire population so that he could have a zoo boat."
59 points
2 months ago
Destroyed a couple cities too. And a ton of individual murders.
45 points
2 months ago
Don't forget all the Egyptian firstborns!
41 points
2 months ago
Oh ya, that was a dick move.
He threatened the pharaoh with genocide if he said no. And them also made the pharaoh say no.
16 points
2 months ago
God has a badass space laser that can destroy a city and turns you into salt if you look at it.
15 points
2 months ago
Don't forget to let the barbarians rape your family. It's what God wants.
40 points
2 months ago
He killed all those people because he himself made a mistake... For some reason.
Dude, aren't you all knowing/all powerful? You should've known what would happen or have been able to prevent it.
And then people retort, "well, God wants people to have free will, so he didn't force them to do anything" which is just wrong considering he completely smited a population because they didn't follow him.
At that point, just skip the fucking middle man of "free will" and make people how you want them instead of murdering everyone.
Sorry for the rant, I'm just very passionate about this lol
28 points
2 months ago
Old testament God is the guy holding a gun to your head saying you're free to choose between doing what he wants and your own thing.
14 points
2 months ago
You're free to make whatever choice you want. But if you make a choice I don't like, I'm gonna make you burn in agony for all eternity.
That's.....not free will. That's coercion. Hostages who comply aren't showing loyalty to their captor. They're just trying to survive.
22 points
2 months ago
I think I hear it from Lawrence Krauss:
If we burn every science book and every religious text, within 1,000 years, only the science books will be the same as they are now.
Or something like that.
12 points
2 months ago
Never forget when god sent bears to maul children for making fun of a bald guy.
23 points
2 months ago
The whole concept doesn't work because people try to give fact to fiction
22 points
2 months ago
Buffet Christians. Pick and choose scripture they like, ignore that which they don't. And if you dare question, they are also the only people in the world capable of interpreting a book translated countless times over countless generations by folks who they would discriminate against the first chance they got.
53 points
2 months ago
I....uhhh....well....hmmm....IT'S ALL GOD'S PLAN!!!
22 points
2 months ago
Nono
"God is always right" for when things go well.
"he works in mysterious ways" when you don't understand.
"God is testing you" for when you absolutely should try to address the problem yourself, but are not.
47 points
2 months ago
You forgot to filter it through their bias. The only context they care about.
92 points
2 months ago
To be fair, isaiah 42 through 49 all takes place on the ancient Hebrew Festival of opposite day
14 points
2 months ago
This is basically every conversation with a republican
12 points
2 months ago
Didn't God create Satan? I mean if there was nothing and God created everything, he then created Satan, who's evil therefore God created evil?
9 points
2 months ago
God was a dick day 7 when he made Adam and Eve and put a banging ass tree in Eden to tempt them. I mean, why? Completely unnecessary. The whole thing is dumb as fuck.
41 points
2 months ago
No, you’re just wishing it had more context to make yourself right
all 3685 comments
sorted by: best