Satire is funny

[Sebiale]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_banning_divorce

[heartlessfang]

um....lol....?

[Noir-Okami]

[Lukas]

um....lol....?

guys making fun of those who oppose gay marriage cause it's against bible marriage by saying Divorce is non-christian because Jesus said divorce was bad

[Sebiale]

um....lol....?

[The guy is] making fun of those who oppose gay marriage cause it's against bible marriage by saying Divorce is non-christian because Jesus said divorce was bad.

Exactly

[heartlessfang]

....still dont really understand that explanation...but this sucks because....well I LIVE in california.

so yeah. what stupidity is being cooked up now.....? -__-

[Sebiale]

Okay, people in california decided that gay marriage be illegal in their state. A main reason for most people's support of this was because they thought it went against the bible's teachings.
The dude in the article is being satirical (Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity) by asking people to sign a petition that will ban divorce in california. His reasoning being that if people are willing to put a halt to gay marriage because of religious teachings, then they should reinforce other religious teachings, one of which is that divorce is wrong.
Get it?

[RedEye]

What has Jesus to do with any of this? He wasn't married and he wasn't gay (at least according to Christian scripture).

Simple fact: Marriage is in most states a civil contract for two people who want to live together. Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Properly; one should be "Contracted" with one's chosen spouse by the civil authorities. Then you go to your church, temple, grove, masjid, or local drive in and have the thing recognized ceremonially. That way, everyone gets what they want.

That, however, makes too much sense; and thus will never be accepted.

[Sebiale]

Apparently there are several points in the bible where it's stated gay people are wrong, and so is divorce. Whether Jesus himself said it, I have no idea...
For alot of people marriage is a religious thing, so they bring alot of...religious stuff into it.

[Aki]

Haha, very awesome. It's something I've thought of myself - they kinda failed in protecting "Traditional marriage" when "till death do us part" stopped meaning something.

Apparently there are several points in the bible where it's stated gay people are wrong, and so is divorce. Whether Jesus himself said it, I have no idea...
For alot of people marriage is a religious thing, so they bring alot of...religious stuff into it.

Funnily, in that same part where they say being gay is wrong they also say men should not cut your hair.

So it makes me lol whenever I see a clean shaven man trying to advocate that.

It's laughably sad when there are believers that don't read their own goddamn Holy Book.

[Set]

It's laughably sad when there are believers that don't read their own goddamn Holy Book.

Which would be 99% of them in religions that have a holy book.

Just a verse I wanted to throw at people:

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."
Leviticus 15:19-30

God kills turtles, now with pictures!

[Terastas]

The funniest thing for me was that it's actually working: he did such a good job satirizing the opposition that members of the opposition are actually giving him their support.

What it goes to show, however, is that most of these people were only "deeply religious" when it was convenient for them. Preaching is easier than practicing, so they focus in on issues where preaching is all that is required of them.

And I agree completely with RedEye's sentiments. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the church and the state are supposed to have nothing to do with each other. The fair thing to do would be to null all laws regarding marriage and to only instead recognize state civil unions, and if they want to be additionally married by a priest, Rabbi or Elvis impersonator, they can, but that's on them.

Of course, Prop 8's agenda was never to attempt to better define marriage: it was to give themselves a power trip by deliberately denying rights to homosexuals. That's why a universal civil unions law will be opposed too.

[Morkulv]

What has Jesus to do with any of this? He wasn't married and he wasn't gay.

Ofcourse he wasn't, because he never existed in the first place.

[Gevaudan]

Funnily, in that same part where they say being gay is wrong they also say men should not cut your hair.

So it makes me lol whenever I see a clean shaven man trying to advocate that.

What's even funnier is that the Bible contradicts itself on this rule:

"'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long.'"
-Num 6:5

"'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'"
-Lev 19:27

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."
-1 Cor 11:14

Ofcourse he wasn't, because he never existed in the first place.

Or he did exist at one point, historically, but his followers threw in a bunch of malarkey into their books that the real Jesus may or may not have actually said.

[Sebiale]

There is no historical physical evidence to suggest Jesus existed.

Nowadays, most Catholic faiths tend to interpret the bible more as a metaphor than as a literal truth. Only the idiot Christians still do that...

[Terastas]

There is no historical physical evidence to suggest Jesus existed.

Nowadays, most Catholic faiths tend to interpret the bible more as a metaphor than as a literal truth. Only the idiot Christians still do that...

Unfortunately, the idiots are still in the majority.

Or he did exist at one point, historically, but his followers threw in a bunch of malarkey into their books that the real Jesus may or may not have actually said.

You knew somebody would have to post it eventually:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBFm-LhhrqM

[Gevaudan]

There is no historical physical evidence to suggest Jesus existed.

Same with Socrates. We only have secondary sources for him, such as Plato's writings. Yet we do know that he was executed, and it's reasonable to assume that he existed. Same with Jesus; there's the writings of Josephus, and there are documents that say that he was executed. For both Socrates and Jesus, we don't know first-hand whether or not they existed, but we can assume they did, given the circumstantial evidence.

[RedEye]

Funnily, in that same part where they say being gay is wrong they also say men should not cut your hair.

So it makes me lol whenever I see a clean shaven man trying to advocate that.

What's even funnier is that the Bible contradicts itself on this rule:

"'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long.'"
-Num 6:5

"'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'"
-Lev 19:27

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..."
-1 Cor 11:14

Ofcourse he wasn't, because he never existed in the first place.

Or he did exist at one point, historically, but his followers threw in a bunch of malarkey into their books that the real Jesus may or may not have actually said.

It isn't really a contradiction. Numbers and Leviticus are Old Testament, as in Jewish-based. IICorinthians is supposedly a letter from Paul, who was trying to put his own spin on Christianity, so it could be differentiated from Judaism, which was the religion practiced by Yeshua ben Yushif; later called Jesus by the Greeks.

[alphanubilus]

Very true, I might add...

When implying scripture there are a few things you have to first consider is...

Context... There is where a lot of confusion in scripture reference comes from. Most of the time when you "find" a "contradiction" in scripture, the verse is almost always taken out of context. Just like our laws today, Jewish laws changed over time, to fit the needs of the people. You have to remember that some of these laws were written at a time when the Hebrews were homeless shepherds. Some of the traditional laws, were designed to keep the people identifiable amongst the various nations they were roaming. God references the Jews as a peculiar people, of whom would have peculiar customs. They dressed, groomed, bathed, and ate in a fashion different from anybody else. This is why you can go back several thousand years ago and see old bronze-age carvings, and still readily recognize Jewish customs. It was so ingrained in them.

When the Hebrews established their first kingdom, some of the rules changed, because they were no longer needed, however even up to the time of Christ, there were some Jewish sections, such as the Pharisees, of whom still held true to ancient laws, that as Christ pointed out, no longer had purpose, as the real purpose had been lost.

In short folks, you can't pick and choose Biblical versus to prove a point, unless you know the full context of what is being implied. If you are unaware of the circumstances, the context, the time period, and the people in question, then you are missing the point.

As touching homosexuality...

Firstly Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but I'm pretty sure he would have been exposed to it. Had Jesus met a homosexual on His journeys, He would have treated him or her, as he would have treated anybody else. Namely, He would have loved them, healed them if needs be, and rebuked and forgave them for any wrong doing. Jesus had compassion on anyone who need it.

The Apostle Paul is the one who addressed the subject of homosexuality. Paul did not HATE homosexuals. This has to be understood, but the act of homosexuality. He then backs his analysis by retelling the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and how God had destroyed it, because of it. What Paul is actually talking about is unbridled hedenism. If you read Paul's discourses, he fully understood that what the body desires isn't always what God wants. Paul openly admited that he wanted to do the things, he knew he shouldn't want to do, and had a hard time doing things he knew he SHOULD be doing. It is natural for humanity, as sinners, do desire to do wrong. He acknowledges the difference between thinking and acting. There is nothing wrong with getting angry, but it is when you act upon that anger, once sin begins. He likens humanity as a great struggle between sinful desires, vs sinful actions. In short, a man or woman may not be able to help whatever thoughts come into their minds, but they can control their actions. Paul warned against individuals who lived uncontrollably, as this would lead to disasterous consequences.

In reality, while I don't know this for a fact, Paul himself could have been gay. I don't say this in a fashion to trash him, because he was ALWAYS pleading God to help him remove a "thorne" in his side. He never married and bragged about that fact, although he never taught against it. His closest relationships were with fellow men...although no sexual connotations are ever mentioned. In short, Paul was firm with the belief that human weakness wasn't an evil, as it forced the individual to rely on God.

[Set]

Numbers and Leviticus are Old Testament, as in Jewish-based. IICorinthians is supposedly a letter from Paul, who was trying to put his own spin on Christianity, so it could be differentiated from Judaism...

That book wasn't good enough for you Christians, was it?

[Sebiale]

Did you know someone is translating the bible into cat?
ceiling cat is God...

[Aki]

Did you know someone is translating the bible into cat?
ceiling cat is God...

Lolcat bible ftw.