Support NeoGAF

[Clydefrog]

http://i.imgur.com/Gpz9X.jpg

nvm

would if i could, you damn lesbian

 

[SuomiDude]

Not familiar with that character, but at first I thought it was a Birdo-looking thing with the :O face, only then I noticed that it was just a dog with... well :O face.

 

[Leunam]

 

[iamaustrian]

 

[CFMOORE!]

HAHA!

 

[homegrowndub]

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

I suprised Boxxy isn't Park Avenue.

 

[bengraven]

i actually find the fact Obama has his foot on the scale to be the funniest thing about the pic. He's purposely messing with the dude trying to weigh himself.

Obama trolling made me lol. Didn't realize there was any other reason to the picture.

 

[platypotamus]

http://i.min.us/ij1Ris.jpg

Totally me.

Fuck yeah, I ain't walking down to the car a second time.

 

[Clydefrog]

Why is Milhouse Community Chest?

 

[Leunam]

Yeah I didn't get that one either.

 

[mollipen]

Milhouse is not a meme is a meme.

 

[Medalion]

 

[happyscrappypup]

i actually find the fact Obama has his foot on the scale to be the funniest thing about the pic. He's purposely messing with the dude trying to weigh himself.

totally agree. "floating guy" misses the point.

 

[vas_a_morir]

my gf took this in taiwan

Fuck you! I would if I could!

 

[PantherLotus]

The reworked text on the community chest/chance cards are a great touch. :LOL

 

[dudeworld]

If you jumped off the plane you'd still be falling when you 'jumped', just slightly slower than the plane.

Same theory applies when they get astronauts used to zero gravity by flying as high as possible then rapidly reducing altitude.

it's like walking to the back of an airplane while it's flying. you're walking in the opposite direction that the plane is flying. If the plane is flying at 600km/h and you walk to the back of the plane at 2km/h relative to the people in the plane, you will be moving at 2km/h, but relative to everything else you'll be moving at 598km/h.

same applies to walking from the back to the front. you'll be moving faster than the airplane.
AND to use a bit more of a daily example, escalators. they're moving at X speed and if you walk up them you move faster than the escalator. if you walk down, you move slower.

 

[daffy]

Oh the Obama in the locker room one was tough. I don't think that guy is floating... I was thinking the girl being in the locker room was the thing.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I am disappoint with this picket sign. Rather misleading but more importantly, this is a funny pictures thread. You should have instead posted a guy holding this gem:

"You must carry a pointed stick as part of your equipment. When you go outside to squat, dig a hole with it. When you're done, cover up your excrement. 14.The LORD your God moves around in your camp to protect you and hand your enemies over to you. So your camp must always be holy. This way, the LORD will never see anything offensive among you and turn away from you."

 

[Joates]

I am disappoint with this picket sign. Rather misleading but more importantly, this is a funny pictures thread. You should have instead posted a guy holding this gem:

His was way funnier. You miss the point entirely.


And how long before someone shops a troll face onto obama?

 

[Gui_PT]

I am disappoint with this picket sign. Rather misleading but more importantly, this is a funny pictures thread.

I don't think you understand the point of the sign =\

 

[Forkball]

More of Karate Kyle:

 

[Darkman M]

^ LOL

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I don't think you understand the point of the sign =\

I actually don't get it then. =/

Spoiler

I think it's saying that you can kill your wife after having sex with her but that can't be it....

 

[Donos]

aren't all those karate kyle already somewhere on the last two pages ? or is this thread moving to fast.

 

[G-Fex]

A shirt made for Emperor Caligula

 

[Opiate]

I actually don't get it then. =/

Spoiler

I think it's saying that you can kill your wife after having sex with her but that can't be it....

Think of it like the Shellfish verse that's often repeated: it's one of those things that is technically in the Bible, but very few people follow because it's inconvenient and they don't want to.

Similarly, this verse is suggesting that a newlywed Bride should be killed if she had sex before her vows -- that is obviously unrealistic, as an enormous swathe of supposed "true Christians" would not fit this description, and certainly wouldn't follow through on the proposed punishment.

This shows that even supposedly strict followers of Biblical doctrine really only follow the stuff they want to follow, and leave out that which might be considered absurd or incredibly inconvenient. So why do these same people continue to stick to the "gays are bad" portions? Or the all-non-christians-are-going-to-hell portions? Clearly, these people are willing to abandon verses in the Bible if they so choose, because I don't see many Evangelical Christians murdering their wives (unless we'd like to argue that Evangelical women really are all chaste virgins at marriage?).

That supposedly "devout" Christians continue to espouse these hateful verses suggests that they do so out of their own desire, not because it's impossible to ignore some "bad" parts of the Bible -- because it clearly is possible to do precisely that, as the above quotation evidences.

 

[Prez]

Looks like Reggie so I couldn't resist:

 

[PantherLotus]

Think of it like the Shellfish verse that's often repeated: it's one of those things that technically in the Bible, but very few people follow because it's inconvenient and they don't want to.

Similarly, this verse is suggesting that a newlywed Bride should be killed if she had sex before her oath. That is obviously unrealistic, an enormous swathe of supposed "true Christians" would not fit this description, and certainly wouldn't follow through on the proposed punishment.

This shows that even supposedly strict followers of Biblical doctrine really only follow the stuff they want to follow, and leave out that which might be considered absurd or incredibly inconvenient. So why do these same people continue to stick to the "gays are bad" portions? Or the all-non-christians-are-going-to-hell portions? Clearly, these people are willing to abandon verses in the Bible if they so choose, because I don't see many Evangelical Christians murdering their wives (unless we'd like to argue that Evangelical women really are all chaste virgins at marriage?).

That they continue to espouse these hateful verses suggests that they do so out of their own desire, not because it's impossible to ignore some "bad" parts of the Bible, because it clearly is possible to do precisely that, even for "devout" Christians.

Young and new-gaffers, this is called "fucking correct."

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

It's sad that a joke had to be explained in that much detail lol.

 

[Prez]

Think of it like the Shellfish verse that's often repeated: it's one of those things that is technically in the Bible, but very few people follow because it's inconvenient and they don't want to.

Similarly, this verse is suggesting that a newlywed Bride should be killed if she had sex before her vows -- that is obviously unrealistic, as an enormous swathe of supposed "true Christians" would not fit this description, and certainly wouldn't follow through on the proposed punishment.

This shows that even supposedly strict followers of Biblical doctrine really only follow the stuff they want to follow, and leave out that which might be considered absurd or incredibly inconvenient. So why do these same people continue to stick to the "gays are bad" portions? Or the all-non-christians-are-going-to-hell portions? Clearly, these people are willing to abandon verses in the Bible if they so choose, because I don't see many Evangelical Christians murdering their wives (unless we'd like to argue that Evangelical women really are all chaste virgins at marriage?).

That supposedly "devout" Christians continue to espouse these hateful verses suggests that they do so out of their own desire, not because it's impossible to ignore some "bad" parts of the Bible -- because it clearly is possible to do precisely that, as the above quotation evidences.

It all still depends which bible character said it. Just because it's quoted in the bible doesn't mean the bible agrees with it.

So does anyone know which bible character that quote comes from?

 

[Donos]

opiate, you will bring the wrath of christian-gaf over us ... ohh, red name .... mod ? move on.

Repost from million pages ago but fitting

 

[PantherLotus]

Jesus isn't good at spelling,

 

[Donos]

Jesus isn't good at spelling,

yep, clearly should be "titays".

 

[iamaustrian]

regarding the jewish-FUUU-girl with her soon-to-be jewish "forever shalom"-boyfriend:
what does the "brabbel brabbel brabbel" mean she says in the 3rd box?
is that some jewish slang?


OT:

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

haha crop circles got me.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Think of it like the Shellfish verse that's often repeated: it's one of those things that is technically in the Bible, but very few people follow because it's inconvenient and they don't want to.

Similarly, this verse is suggesting that a newlywed Bride should be killed if she had sex before her vows -- that is obviously unrealistic, as an enormous swathe of supposed "true Christians" would not fit this description, and certainly wouldn't follow through on the proposed punishment.

This shows that even supposedly strict followers of Biblical doctrine really only follow the stuff they want to follow, and leave out that which might be considered absurd or incredibly inconvenient. So why do these same people continue to stick to the "gays are bad" portions? Or the all-non-christians-are-going-to-hell portions? Clearly, these people are willing to abandon verses in the Bible if they so choose, because I don't see many Evangelical Christians murdering their wives (unless we'd like to argue that Evangelical women really are all chaste virgins at marriage?).

That supposedly "devout" Christians continue to espouse these hateful verses suggests that they do so out of their own desire, not because it's impossible to ignore some "bad" parts of the Bible -- because it clearly is possible to do precisely that, as the above quotation evidences.

I don't know if that verse is so much as outright condemning a women who has had sex before marriage as much as its condemning what appears to be a women who lies about being a virgin to her spouse. Male preference is obvious because it mentions no punishment for a man who is not a virgin going into a female who is and the punishment that may incite. Though this could be mentioned in later scriptures. I'm just going off this particular one.

These laws, at least from what I know, were strictly for the Jews, and in their law, marriage was signified by having sex. To them the act of sex would permanently join two people into one flesh.

If you read the entirety of the texts, whether in NIV or KJV the clear theme is that of dishonesty. Obviously there is a preference towards the male sex throughout the OT, but at least in this narrow example you can see why. If she was lying and had already joined souls permanently (as they saw) with another, they considered that to be a terrible sin. If he was lying and the girl was in fact a virgin then the male would be punished, fined etc but no damage would be done to the soul, apart from the bad name he gave her.

Though in the case of adultery both offenders would be executed. And if a man raped a woman then only the man would be executed. I'm not sure the laws of divorce but it seems that one could put their S.O "away" under certain specific circumstances, and the person can decide to remarry as long as the first marriage was known then it would be legal.

And as far as picking and choosing what to believe, the old testament stands for the "old law" and the new testament stands for the "new law". People, or Christians generally follow that of the new testament since they are technically followers of Christ not Mosaic laws. If you read the NT you will see that those who followed the "Old Law" were that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees etc. When Jesus started preaching these "New Laws", at the time they were thought to be blasphemous against the traditional teachings which eventually lead to Jesus' execution.

So Christians today have followed a radical new sect of Judaism. They do not necessarily disregard the sins that were outlined in the OT or pick and choose, just they do not consider the consequences or punishments to be applicable for today. The new testament changed the immediate consequences of such sins. These deeds are still considered wrong, its just God apparently decided to deal with it in a different manner - namely that of mercy or lack of immediate judgement.

Again though, many verses in the Bible can be taken out of context. There are many things outlined that have been said by many people. Most people understand that the Bible is supposedly "God's word", but not every scripture in the Bible is spoken from God to Humans or at God instructing people. Further there are some instances where advice or "rules" in the NT are directed towards a narrow group of people that are plagued by a specific problem, which may not be applicable to the entirety of the Church (see Paul's letters to the many churches)

 

[dudeworld]

 

[Leunam]

That's not a picture Foxy Fox.

 

[PantherLotus]

Dude, you reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally don't get it at all.

 

[Slo]

I don't know if that verse is so much as outright condemning a women who has had sex before marriage as much as its condemning what appears to be a women who lies about being a virgin to her spouse. Male preference is obvious because it mentions no punishment for a man who is not a virgin going into a female who is and the punishment that may incite. Though this could be mentioned in later scriptures. I'm just going off this particular one.

These laws, at least from what I know, were strictly for the Jews, and in their law, marriage was signified by having sex. To them the act of sex would permanently join two people into one flesh.

If you read the entirety of the texts, whether in NIV or KJV the clear theme is that of dishonesty. Obviously there is a preference towards the male sex throughout the OT, but at least in this narrow example you can see why. If she was lying and had already joined souls permanently (as they saw) with another, they considered that to be a terrible sin. If he was lying and the girl was in fact a virgin then the male would be punished, fined etc but no damage would be done to the soul, apart from the bad name he gave her.

Though in the case of adultery both offenders would be executed. And if a man raped a woman then only the man would be executed. I'm not sure the laws of divorce but it seems that one could put their S.O "away" under certain specific circumstances, and the person can decide to remarry as long as the first marriage was known then it would be legal.

And as far as picking and choosing what to believe, the old testament stands for the "old law" and the new testament stands for the "new law". People, or Christians generally follow that of the new testament since they are technically followers of Christ not Mosaic laws. If you read the NT you will see that those who followed the "Old Law" were that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees etc. When Jesus started preaching these "New Laws", at the time they were thought to be blasphemous against the traditional teachings which eventually lead to Jesus' execution.

So Christians today have followed a radical new sect of Judaism. They do not necessarily disregard the sins that were outlined in the OT or pick and choose, just they do not consider the consequences or punishments to be applicable for today. The new testament changed the immediate consequences of such sins. These deeds are still considered wrong, its just God apparently decided to deal with it in a different manner - namely that of mercy or lack of immediate judgement.

Again though, many verses in the Bible can be taken out of context. There are many things outlined that have been said by many people. Most people understand that the Bible is supposedly "God's word", but not every scripture in the Bible is spokenfrom God to Humans or at least God instructing people. Further there are some instances where advice or "rules" in the NT are directed towards a narrow group of people that are plagued by a specific problem, which may not be applicable to the entirety of the Church (see Paul's letters to the many churches)

Oh so Christians have decided that parts of the bible are old and antiquated, and are therefore no longer to be taken literally?

 

[Apath]

regarding the jewish-FUUU-girl with her soon-to-be jewish "forever shalom"-boyfriend:
what does the "brabbel brabbel brabbel" mean she says in the 3rd box?
is that some jewish slang?

It would help if you could quote the image or provide a link to it so people don't have to dig through page upon page of images which are largely similar to the one you're speaking of.

 

[elrechazado]

can we take this discussion into one of the 1000 christians are lame about homosexuality threads?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

That's not a picture Foxy Fox.

*Ducks flying bottles and debris*

I was just responding to Opiate! Ok I guess I don't get it, I'll stop! Geez!

 

[perfectchaos007]

Oh so Christians have decided that parts of the bible are old and antiquated, and are therefore no longer to be taken literally?

New Testament is BEST testament!

Spoiler

Except for all the degrading stuff about women Paul says in the book of Timothy

 

[Gui_PT]

Oh so Christians have decided that parts of the bible are old and antiquated, and are therefore no longer to be taken literally?

Luckily for them, all the parts that aren't convenient are antiquated.

 

[Slo]

can we take this discussion into one of the 1000 christians are lame about homosexuality threads?

No way dude, I think this thread may be the one where we settle this thing once and for all!

 

[elrechazado]

No way dude, I think this thread may be the one where we settle this thing once and for all!

actually you're right. Troll physics will unlock the secrets of the bible and allow us all to live in harmony.

 

[iamaustrian]

It would help if you could quote the image or provide a link to it so people don't have to dig through page upon page of images which are largely similar to the one you're speaking of.

I just thought of it but couldn't find it in the last couple of pages but yeah sorry. here it is:

 

[levious]

*Ducks flying bottles and debris*

I was just responding to Opiate! Ok I guess I don't get it, I'll stop! Geez!

the protest sign was likely in response to scripture quoting related to homosexuality, Lev. for example, which is part of the old law as well as you put it.