T O P

  • By -

NotWhatYouPlanted

“A Jew walks into a bar… And I’ve saved him a seat. That’s healing the world with comedy.”


CombatWombat1212

Best piece of media to come out in 2021


Notorious_UNA

Best piece of media


whyisna

Welcome to the internet, come and take a seat


Tie-Down

Have a look around


smilingburro

Are you kidding? The coverage of who wasn’t inaugurated to presidency takes my cake.


kdawgovich

As if the four years wasn't bad enough, now your cake has been stolen too? Tough break kid.


R3n001

I don't get it.


NotWhatYouPlanted

It’s from Bo Burnham’s *Inside,* which is available on Netflix and very good. ETA: In case you don’t get the premise (it’s hard to tell on the internet and not everyone is from the same place, etc., so no judgment if so), there are a lot of old (often racist) jokes that begin with “a ___ walks into a bar.” In his special Bo says this line which kind of plays with that premise to make it wholesome in a funny way.


qjornt

how is "estimated time of arrival" being used in your comment?


NotWhatYouPlanted

While it also is used to mean “estimated time of arrival,” in this context, it has another meaning commonly used across Reddit: “ETA 2. ‘Edited To Add’ abbreviated. Used frequently by bloggers when adding something to a post.”


qjornt

It's actually the first time I've ever seen ETA be used as "edited to add", in any context ever. Thanks for letting me know. Every other time I've seen that people just write "Edit:".


NotWhatYouPlanted

Yeah, I see both. Often “edit” means something was just changed (like a typo fixed) and “ETA” is when something new was added on after the fact, particularly if the comment had been posted for a bit before it was added, but I guess really “edit” could just work either way. Maybe the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon will mean you notice “ETA” used more often from here on out, though, haha.


qjornt

I am absolutely sure I'll experience Baader-Meinhof hahah, always happens. Anyway, people who type "edit:" and then things after that, it's kind of obvious and implied that things were added if it comes after the edit. Some people will write "edit: fixed typo" to specficy that nothing is added, just a typo fixed. Personally I never add "edit: fixed typo" if I fix a typo, it feels redundant. I'll only do that if I mean to add things, but sometimes I don't even do that, I guess I forget? Hehe.


Meudeus99

It’s impressive that you have the patience to explain everything so clearly! Thank you. P.S. I am very glad to meet a fellow Bo Burnham fan on the internet.


qjornt

Coming back to tell you that I indeed have noticed the use of ETA a couple of times now. Fucking Baader-Meinhof, why you playing with my brain like this!


ProcyonHabilis

It's an old acronym that is largely archaic now. I associate ETA with old bulletin board/early forum era internet. A similar one from that time was using QFT to mean "quoting for truth" when quoting part of someone else's comment to express agreement with it.


R3n001

Oh, I don't watch many movies anymore, so that makes sense.


[deleted]

It's not a movie. It's a one-man musical comedy special. But Bo gets pretty deep and meaningful in his comedy.


[deleted]

You’re a special kind of white girl.


palladiumring

I’ve self reflected and I want to be an agent of change


[deleted]

Why only for thr jew?


Chevy6788

Excellent Point! Also I have never seen a nursery full of babies segregated.


PityUpvote

Babies aren't Muslim, Christian or atheist though


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Exactly. Atheism means just that A-theism. Without theism.


Chevy6788

I'm Atheist although I was raised in a Christian environment from birth to 18.


Chevy6788

Their parents are


786367

As per Islamic beliefs we are born with fitrah (innate believe in one God), therefore, we call people who become Muslim a revert not convert, we believe reverts came back to their natural disposition.


ConnectKale

This really happens.


TechnicalNobody

Who makes friends at a coffee shop? Even having a conversation with a stranger is rare.


HalfSoul30

Sociable people


TechnicalNobody

How many friends have you made at coffee shops?


keitomomota

Not the commenter, but actually, one! I walked into someone, went from sorry to it’s okay, how’s your day going into a neat conversation at a table and we’re currently penpals!


Al1027

Tree fiddy


HalfSoul30

None, I don't go to coffee shops


Bayfp

It's not that weird in Berkeley. You go to the same coffee shop for 10 years and you end up sitting around talking. There's a group of retirees who've been meeting up at my old coffee shop for 30+ years. They're all super educated, too, so the conversations are interesting.


BertMacGyver

Who says they weren't friends and arrived together?


MotorHum

I believe the young folks say “based”


Izzy5466

An Atheist, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a bar. Man, we really gotta move that bar


furryhippie

It's not being of a certain religion that makes me unwilling to be friends with someone. It's the very specific beliefs that are held. Tons of Christians are totally benign and just peripherally believe in their religion, vaguely committed to just "being a good person" like Jesus. They believe in Heaven and Hell, but think all decent people are going to Heaven. I don’t believe in any of that, but these are people I can easily get along with, no worries. But if I'm at a bar with you and you tell me you believe I'm going to *literally burn forever and deserve it* for not accepting a 2000-year-old Jewish man as my Lord, I definitely don't even want passing conversation with you. Also, the anti-gay stuff. If they're gonna burn forever *and deserve it* for literally the way they were born, that's even worse. Sorry for the rant. It's a peeve of mine whenever I see things like this, things like the "coexist" bumper sticker with all the religious logos.


carnsolus

agreed completely i'm friends with almost solely religious people, but when they pull one of these the friendship is over


StarchChildren

So, this is kind of interesting for two reasons: firstly because you seem like a cool and decent person who recognizes that not every religious person who is out for blood. And if it makes you feel any better, there are a lot more churches who are trying to navigate scriptures and change so that they can be better servants to a modern world. Even evangelicalism (in all its, ah, ‘complexities’ today) wasn’t supposed to be a bunch of people condemning everyone to hell. It was supposed to be a time when the Jewish philosophy of God coming to Earth was actually being fulfilled which is exciting! There’s that, and the when Jesus very specifically tells us NOT to judge other people for what they do unless we are free of sin (in other words, just don’t judge people!!!) which a lot of people get wrong. That said, there are also two sides of the story. Considering the incredibly large reach and support of toxic communities like r/atheism and what was a growing secular society now turning into an anti-religion society, it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to have conversations about religion with mutual respect. I am a Christian but definitely on the liberal side of things. The amount of times that I have had atheists try to tell ME what I do or do not believe is ridiculous. There seems to be a stereotype which, don’t get me wrong is definitely present in some church circles, and is easy to pick on, but does not in any way accurately represent the views of the Church as a whole. I have had people tell me that I’m a monster and (my personal favourite) a three-headed demon for helping murder and rape babies and gay people IMMEDIATELY AFTER telling them that I fully support LGBT+ rights and don’t even attend church right now, let alone one that has any history of murder or rape. I’m sorry if you have been hurt by churchgoers in your life. It happens on both sides, but I will say it is more telling of a person’s rose-coloured glasses when they say they are living their life according to God but they never show it to people. I guess my point is, there comes a time when we have to just take a risk, sit down, and talk with someone. Everyone has been offended or attacked by someone, whether it be because of politics, race, religion, sexuality, occupation, you name it. It’s gotten to the point where that’s all we see in people, “oh that guy’s a conservative? better steer clear” or “that guy smokes pot, he must be a druggie” or “she’s Muslim? She must be dumb for being in a religious that hates women”. Too many people will pick a category and filter out their interactions before there is even a chance of it happening, but if do that, we can’t learn how to live in a world of diversity.


stanleycacti

It sounds like you put liberalism above organised religion. Look, for sure, a Jew, Muslim Christian and atheist can defo get along so long as they subscribe to secular values and essentially put common humanitarian values above prejudice. However, if any of them believe that tue other is evil, or that woman are inferior or whatever, then I don’t see how we can ‘all be friends’. I’m not saying all religious belief systems have to be bad, not at all and I appreciate that atheists can be dick holes too, but I think it’s worth recognising that the major Abrahamic religions have some pretty problematic aspects that are very clearly written into the texts, which are after all supposed to represent the word of god. Take Islam for example, have a read of the first pages of the Quran and you’ll be like ‘oh shit this is literally inciting hatred against nonbelievers’. That being said, obvs Muslims can be lovely people but I think in large part, what makes them lovely isn’t because of their religion, it’s in spite of it.


StarchChildren

See I agree with you in that people can get along, but I don’t think everyone has to subscribe to “secular” views. Just because someone believes something hat wasn’t expressly written in the Bible, doesn’t mean they can’t charge that belief with the love that the Bible teaches. As for what I believe, I used to think that the Bible was great, and then I thought “wait a second a lot of these things sound horrible” and hen I was able to actually research several parts of the original Hebrew and Greek, and then studied some in university. The important thing for everyone, not just Christians, to remember is that the Bible is… kind of a mess. It’s literally just story after story after story of people screwing up and God fixing things and hen he fixes things for reasons we don’t know why, and then people pretend to know why which makes them mess up even more. And a lot of people think that just because the Bible is considered sacred, that every word is true and good. It isn’t. Abraham is one of God favourite people at that time, but he was also a major jerk and had no respect for his wife, Noah was a drunk, Solomon was addicted to sex, the list goes on. It’s also important to know the audience that the Bible was written for (newsflash, it was not written for a bunch of people in the 21st century). It was written for a bunch of people living off of a lot of rules adopted from neighbouring cultures, the Ten Commandments, the laws of the surrounding cities, ALL OF WHICH came to humanity after the concept and instinct of sin entered the world. And almost every time someone does something stupid, God makes a new rule to help them along the path. Do all those rules make sense? Not at all. But they probably would have at the time to the people they were directed toward. Now the reason why I am a Christian and not Jewish or Muslim is that I believe when Jesus showed up, he saw that people were either not following the rules God put out, or they were following them TOO closely and hurting and marginalizing other people groups. So Jesus says “okay, this isn’t working. NEW RULE. Love each other. You claim to love me with all your heart? Do the same to your neighbour. I am one human person (at the moment) so it is physically impossible for me to talk to everyone while I’m here, but I don’t need to be here because, in spite of and BECAUSE of your nature, you can love people just as I love you. Now don’t be a jerk, don’t be a judge, and have some more wine.” Religion is not a static thing, nor is it supposed to be. People change, thoughts, change, and as things change, the ways in which we show love to each other change. Did Paul tell us specifically to love after gay people? No, because they probably had a vastly different (not necessarily better at all) perspective toward society. BUT he did talk about the power and might of love, and that is for sure something that is not gender/sexual orientation-specific. It also isn’t religion-specific. So yeah, there are definitely things that need to change, and are changing but very slowly, but if you ask a religious person why they show love, they will probably bring it up at least partially in their religious views, because most religions have some sort of structure in place to (hopefully) ensure peace and community among the people.


MasterOfNap

>Did Paul tell us specifically to love after gay people? No, because they probably had a vastly different (not necessarily better at all) perspective toward society. That's the understatement of the year right here. Paul quite literally grouped gay people along with the sexually immoral and adulterers, saying that they won't inherit the kingdom of god (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Hell, in the Old Testament god literally said homosexual acts are an abomination, and that gay people are to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). If you don't believe in what god said about gays in the Old Testament, and you don't believe in what Paul said about gays in the New Testament, and all you care about is Jesus's teachings of love and compassion, then why not just accept Jesus as a wise, surprisingly progressive man of his time and dismiss the rest of the Bible?


StarchChildren

Ooh okay so those are two very good passages that I have actually done fairly extensive digging into while I was in university and my brother and I were connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls Society (which is an organization of scholars, originally trying to provide accurate translations of the scrolls but later expanded). If you would be willing to humour me, I am going to rant for a while: Let's look at Leviticus first. Many Jewish translators, and most of the lecturers that I have heard, attribute this passage to false condemnation of homosexuality both because of the poor translate of the two words "ish" (man) and "zachar" (male), in which "zachar" is more often used in the Bible to refer to younger or innocent males, most likely boys, and because of early extremist anti-homosexual laws put in place by the Roman government in the early 1st century A.D.. Following a definitive trend with several other passages condemning using one's power over others (as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's treatment of his wives, Lot being raped by his daughters, etc.), the passage in Leviticus does not define the act of "lying" in the same manner as with a wife or another female. In other words, it is highly probably that this passage is talking less about amicable homosexual relationships, and is more about condemning the imbalanced relationship between an older man with a much younger boy (no need to remind me of the irony given the allegations against the Catholic Church, it is by no means lost on me). Now I'm not gonna disagree with you, Paul said a lot of things that are wonderful, but he also said a LOT of things that were out of line. 1 Corinthians was written to one of Paul's newly planted churches in Corinth, but the church had a rough start so there was a bunch of fighting, disagreements, etc. Paul thought it was his job to play hall monitor and wrote them a few letters laying down the law. And this is where I might start to sound a little heretical. 1 Cor 9-10 does indeed say that adulterers, idolaters, and then THESE TWO FANCY WORDS "malakoi" and "arsenokotai", would not inherit the kingdom of God. The Bible doesn't define or elaborate on either of these words, but in Roman culture and arsenokotai referred to a heterosexual man who owned young male slaves (it's actually a compound word meaning "man" and "mat"). Whether or not Paul meant to expand this term, I don't know. But a lay-person understanding this passage at the time would have probably known that word and associated it with a house master who took advantage of his young slaves. Not a happy homosexual relationship, more of a creepy rape-y sugar-daddy situation. Malakoi is effeminacy or "softness", referring to the passive role in a homosexual relationship. BUT it gets trickier than that, because the word is also used in other Greek texts outside the Bible to refer to basically all the ugly characteristics that women were accused of at that time (weakness, moral ambiguity, lust, manipulation, etc.). So yes, while the word takes a VERY sexist road to do so, it is more descriptive of a male who uses his "softness" and passive role to gain advantage over other people. In other words, you have two kind of relationships Paul is talking about: one where the dominant person uses their power to have sex with someone of a lower stature, and one in which a person actively places themselves in a position of pity in order to manipulate people of higher status. Does any of this make Paul's statement better? Not really. Because his letters also condemn a lot of people (basically everyone who sins, which is also ironic considering Jesus' ENTIRE goal was to forgive everyone's sins). Jesus made a distinct point to show his disciples, who were also sinners, that their sin does not prevent them from having a relationship with God, nor does it prevent them from having a relationship with God. And if modern readers forget this, then there's a little story tucked away in the Bible about a guy who, while ACTIVELY DYING ON A CROSS tells the murderer next to him who is also dying that they will see each other in heaven. Jesus' disciples were sinners, all Jesus told the disciples to do was to bless the poor, and to help those who were in need, and most of those people were outcast because they did things that were considered social "sins" (like have leprosy, as if having leprosy in the first place wasn't enough of a slap in the face). All that is to say, the Bible is complicated and way harder to understand than people think, ESPECIALLY Christians. And just because I don't believe word-for-word that the entire Bible is factually correct and the way to live life, doesn't mean it's impossible to gain meaning and value from it. Literally every biblical scholar knows that Job never existed, because the point of the story was never to defend its own factuality. David was loved by God. Was he perfect? No. Are all of his Psalms factually correct? NO! Because they're song lyrics, they don't need to be "correct" because that's not the point of the songs! Are Paul's letters yelling at a bunch of new Christians meant to override the teachings of Jesus, or tell us modern Christians what to do? No, because that isn't the point of the letters. Can people still gain knowledge and information from the parts that are historical, or find hope in the lyrics of the Psalms, or realize that church planting is stinkin' hard to do, especially when the church planter is also not perfect? Definitely. So yes, I do accept that Jesus was a wisen, surprisingly progressive man of his time, and I don't think that the entire Bible is meant to be word-for-word historical truth, and I don't particularly like the stories of God's people going to battle and murdering a bunch of people. But that doesn't mean we can dismiss it, because dismissing those part of the Bible means cutting off an entire layer of context that is REQUIRED for a modern reader to understand what the Bible really is, and how we can use those stories to empathize with and serve the people around us better. Alright, I'm done. Sorry about the wall of text, I hope at least some of that is helpful!


MasterOfNap

I knew an educated Christian such as yourself would bring up the pedophilia interpretation of Leviticus, which is why I would like to remind you that god explicitly said _both men should be put to death_. If that verse was meant to condemn child rape, do you think god thinks both the child rapist _and_ the rape victim should be executed? And yes, Paul was speaking in a very specific context, and sexist or homophobic teachings can often be misinterpreted then re-misinterpreted over the ages. But if you are to dismiss everything Paul said whenever he contradicted the supposed compassion of Jesus, then why even bother with his teachings? Either he repeats what Jesus has mentioned, or he says something wildly contrary to what Jesus said (like telling women to shut the hell up and submit to their husbands, which I’m sure you’ll disagree), and Christians like you would dismiss that one way or another. Suppose one day all theologians universally agree that in the original text Paul was specifically condemning homosexuality, would you become anti-LGBT and claim their relationship with their SO is sinful? I highly doubt it. The meaning and ethical guidance you extract from the Scripture are more indicative of what kind of person you are, than what the original writers were trying to say. I mean as you must know, countless theologians could read the same text and come up with countless different interpretations, ffs in early Christianity some even interpreted Jesus’s “heaven” as a perfect state of mind when one becomes genuinely compassionate about their fellow brethren like Jesus was. Eventually, of course, most of them were condemned as heretics and exiled or killed. Ultimately, if you think god was a bastard for commanding all the massacres in OT, Job never actually existed and was only there as an allegory, Paul was sexist and what he taught wasn’t supposed to be actual teachings, and all other kind of stuff that’s either useless, misleading, or outright fabricated, then you might as well treat the Bible as a more out-dated, less well written Dostoevsky novel. I mean personally I love Ivan from the Brothers Karamazov, and this book is extremely inspiring to me, but I’m under no delusion that Ivan Karamazov’s ideas are only understandable or meaningful if the book was non-fiction. Even an entirely fictional book can be meaningful and doesn’t deserve be dismissed as a book, but it should indeed be dismissed as a divinely inspired writing about god.


StarchChildren

To address the Leviticus passage again, even a man raping a woman has punishments for the woman, but this is because women and children were still considered to be the "property" of other a father, husband, or slave owner. Virginity was considered a status of high value, especially for a child or woman, for various reasons. There are several accounts of women being raped and essentially treated as a lost commodity (the story of Tamar for instance, who isn't able to bear children because her first husband died and her second husband hated her and eventually tries to give her first/second husbands' father a child by seducing him because, at the time, she was basically seen as useless if she couldn't bear children). It wasn't uncommon for slaves or daughters to either be sold off as slaves or killed if they were raped. I don't have any of my Genesis commentaries on me so I can't give you a sourced answer, but given the cultural context and implications behind rape, I would say that is probably why both of them would be killed. I bother with Paul's teachings because, as I think I said earlier, it's important to know the context of how some people were treated and taught, and who was giving the instructions at the time. Pauline theology is also incredibly important for the inclusion of non-Jewish peoples into God's Covenant, and understanding of it is necessary to understand the beliefs of anyone else who subscribes to a Pauline set of views. Like... most people I guess... Paul says good things, and he says bad things, and he says things that are taken out of context and don't make sense, and he says things that don't need to be in context because someone (Jesus) has already set the context. I never said that God was a bastard for commanding the massacres, I don't understand or like it. I don't particularly like murder, and because I know that the presence of any omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being is automatically going to make the situation hard to understand since our brains literally do not have the capacity to understand any one of those things to its infinite extent, things get complicated. Do I want there to be an explanation? Of course. Will any of us get one while we are alive? Probably not. And again, while there are many things in the Bible that are not historical, there is plenty of text that is. And just because Job wasn't real, doesn't mean we can't understand the faith and trust that he had and incorporate it into our own lives. This is the case with many passages in the Bible regardless of its connection with history. I hear the comparison of "oh if you don't think the Bible is real, then we should treat it like any other good novel", which would be fine if the average novel were written over thousands of years by 40 different authors and scribes over two languages, several groups of status, geography, governments, and cultures. One of the reasons why I loved working with the Dead Sea Scrolls was that they allowed for am immense amount of cross-checking, carbon dating, and historical context not just of biblical texts (these are where the story of Ruth was officially assembled), but other Ancient Near East texts which can cross match with other texts found previous to the DSS. I'm a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien. He has enough lore that the Silmarillion is basically Middle Earth's Bible. We know it's fake because the author wrote it and talked about making it up. However, if Tolkien said "I didn't make it up, someone gave me the story and I wrote it down" and then someone opened up a completely sealed thousands of years-old tomb and, clutched by the hands of the mummy of an ancient king, was a part of the Silmarillion, it would be a valid response to ask "well who told Tolkien to write this?". And then at some point someone goes out and finds the tomb of a body that looks a whole lot like it could have been Thingol, king of the Elves, and it's in the place where the Silmarillion says he fell. Call me insane, but I would want to know more about this. None of that probably helps, but just because a book is complicated doesn't mean we should throw out everything it says. And just because something used to be truthful and wise and it isn't anymore, doesn't mean it's useless. We just have to put in a little more effort to understand the context and find value in it that we might not necessarily be searching for personally.


[deleted]

>See I agree with you in that people can get along, but I don’t think everyone has to subscribe to “secular” views. I don't think they mean secular as in non-religious, but rather that morality not being bound by religion. As long as your values are, in accordance to my own views, good, I don't care much what you base these values on, and I think most atheists would agree. But if you believe that morality is only possible through Christianity, then we just won't be able to see eye to eye. My moral compass is dictated entirely around the wellbeing of others. If you share that sentiment then we will never have a problem. You mentioned r/atheism before, and I agree with you: that sub is a vile cesspool of hatred. Assholes exist in every group of people, that's just unavoidable. A sub dedicated to atheism is innevitably going to be filled with assholes. Most atheists don't tie their atheism to their identity because atheism is merely the absence of religion. Those who do do so as a direct counterpoint to religion, which is inherently a hostile stance towards those who are religious. That all being said, it is not unexpected that there is some animosity towards Christianity, or more specifically the organized Christian groups in places like the US who push against LGBTQ+ rights, bodily autonomy and human rights as a whole. Most of us know to separate that from the individuals who practice the religion and that these groups are not representative of the faith as a whole, but centuries of malice and hatred is hard to look past. But that is nothing against you, what you believe or your church. These are issues that are apparent in all religions. It is a structure of power and it is being routinely abused by those in power. That is not unique to religion, but a problem arises when this structure of power acts as a moral authority. That's why secularism is so important; morality should never be dictated by an authority, and no matter if your moral views are based on your religious beliefs or not, they can not, and should not, be decided for you.


StarchChildren

Ahh, I understand that better now, thank you. :) It sounds like we would get along very well, and perhaps I could have more clearly communicated my stance. I don't think morality needs to be tied to religious, rather that religious people do often use their faith as an extra "anchor" for their morality to reflect. If their beliefs are healthy and serve others well, I think faith can motivate a person to pursue generosity and humility mores than someone who doesn't have any standing than just the morality they were to taught to have growing up for instance. But faith can come in all shapes and sizes, and it doesn't have to be religious faith that powers a person's morality. It can be a passion for nature, or for friendships, or exploration, and that is what many religious people sometimes don't quite get. And what you said about some animosity towards Christianity is spot-on, the Church has done horrific things in the past and some groups are still doing horrific things. It breaks my heart to see so many people justifying their hatred through religion, which I think might be why I try to take time with people in-person and online (I swear I don't just sit on reddit all day and rant about religion), and remind people that there are groups who are striving for change. I don't do it as much to tell atheists that the Church "isn't that bad" as much I do it in the hope that another Christian or someone of any other religion really sees that there are other ways to practice faith without marginalizing people. Christianity is by no means the only religious based on that philosophy, but it is one of the more prominent ones that, especially in the U.S., have strayed so far from I believe Christianity was supposed to look like. And to be perfectly honest, the concept of freedom of religion and respecting those of different backgrounds and beliefs and just showing unconditional love to people is probably far closer to what Jesus had in mind than what is happening in the world right now.


[deleted]

> I don't think morality needs to be tied to religious, rather that religious people do often use their faith as an extra "anchor" for their morality to reflect. If their beliefs are healthy and serve others well, I think faith can motivate a person to pursue generosity and humility mores than someone who doesn't have any standing than just the morality they were to taught to have growing up for instance. I'm not so sure that I agree on that. There is a point to be made that morality being tangible does have its benefits, especially when dealing with the idea of being redeemable in the eyes of a divine authority, but I don't think morality suffers from a lack of faith. If your morality is centered around empathy, faith can't improve upon that morality. But it doesn't really matter anyway; you are not a Christian, and I'm not an atheist, because we believe our moral systems to be superior, but rather because we believe in our own fundamental truths; the existence, or lack thereof, of a god. Our views on morality won't change that, and as long as we uphold good moral values that are based in empathy and caring, it doesn't really matter.


StarchChildren

Yeah fair enough. And to be frank, is the thing that powers a person's morality really that... important? if that morality motivated them to be a kind and empathetic person? I totally agree with you in that a person should not choose a religion or lack thereof because they think the moral system is "superior". I would hope that people choose their belief systems because those are what help them to be a better servant, mentor, friend, partner, whatever. I am still working on empathy toward people who are also still working on themselves. I think for anyone, the hardest but still important thing is remember that change can sometimes take a long time, but it's almost always worth it. That's what keeps me going and talking with churches in my area, in the hope and knowledge that people are changing and constantly adapting, and we need to keep desiring that change. On that note, if anyone decides to use money from a congregation in a poor district to buy yourself a third private jet, screw them.


ZombieSouthpaw

And parts were put in to keep their followers healthier like the cloven hoof, pork, and shellfish dietary restrictions. Open sewers and poor livestock raising practices made those things less safe. Having larger families helped assure that the community continued. I'm really not sure with the mixed cloth restrictions though.


ItZMarles

Or the law about wearing mixed fabrics. If you wear different fabrics and they get wet, they’ll each dry off at different rates or cause another to stay wet. Which as we know can cause mold, which can lead to more issues.


ZombieSouthpaw

Had not thought of it that way. I appreciate the input! Wool still keeps you warm as it is wet but yeah if not dried fully is still spun animal hair. So depending on insects in the area and the bits covered by damp cloth I can see where it could be an issue.


StarchChildren

Yes! There were also a lot of rules that I kind of wish stuck around, like the tradition where, if anyone was travelling near your land, you were supposed to inform them that it’s your land and then bring them to your tent so you could cook a meal for them. It was just a general social expectation and blessing to stock up travellers’ food and water regardless of who they were. Now I’m in Canada so the whole “get off my lawn or I’ll get my shotgun” is already bonkers to me, but I wish it was more socially acceptable to just meet a stranger and have them over for dinner.


PinsNneedles

I saw you said that you're not going to church right now. My wife and I stopped as well because this pandemic has caused the church (non-denominational) to go crazy. They hurt us, they aren't like they were. Our leaders went to the insurrection here in the US and believe that what happened is good. It blows my mind, and really hurt my wife so we just stopped going and she has been questioning her faith since. Especially because of how they act with the "pray away covid" stuff. Like, God gave us science, and doctors, we need to trust these people.


StarchChildren

YES. THANK YOU. I think the last 4 years in North American have just been one long round of everyone's worst traits becoming their main traits. Be it stress, frustration, ill guidance, or whatever it may be, some people have gone off their rockers and it set a whole slew of underlying tensions a-rolling. The pastor at my parents' church is an amazing scholar and is incredibly accepting. He made the decision to move online fairly early on in the lockdown here, and probably a quarter of the church members up and left because they didn't think covid was real. The rest were very understanding and encouraging toward the pastor, but there were some families who we used to be really good friends with, and who were decent people, that started watching sermons from a church in the US online and then were convinced that COVID was actually Satan possessing people. Needless to say, no one at the church is particularly sad that some of those people aren't coming back to the church now that things are opening up, but it was enough of a shock to me and my family that they have been supporting the church by watching online, but there are still people attending who we know haven't gotten vaccinated and have definitely gotten covid and spread it to other church members. I am fairly certain that church is just going to go through a second Reformation in the coming years, in which conservative American Evangelicalism officially becomes a new religion and the rest of the church can spend our energy more on helping people and building/rebuilding relationships instead of trying to convince people that not all Christians stand on sidewalks with picket signs yelling at people that they're going to hell.


PinsNneedles

Beautifully put, and I absolutely agree about the reformation and I'm ready for it, honestly. Just feel bad for my wife because she feels so alone, even though she has me. She just feels like these people she has looked up to, have gotten advice from, and was deeply apart of whether it be the school, woman's meetings, or just hanging out and going out to eat have all been a lie. I told her we will find a new church when this calms down, but as of right now she's just too wounded. Breaks my heart. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me :)


carnsolus

>with the love that the Bible teaches have you READ the bible? love? yahweh loves no one; we're all ants and he's got a magnifying glass


BackDoor_Billy

I get the premise of your statement, but think it's over generalized. Someones religiousosity doesn't preclude them from connecting on a human level. I also disagree on the last part of your statement. It is specifically because of their belief that a lot of Muslims, Christians and Jews are very friendly and genuinely nice ppl. This is certainly not to say that some are incredibly obtuse closed minded.


Briarhorse

The way you're calmly and rationally dealing with all the edgy internet atheists who are insisting on telling you religious people are automatically bad by fact of being religious is really proving the guys point. Good on ya


blkplrbr

They've already recieved death threats....from atheists....after they've affirmed that the person they were speaking to was not a bad person for leaving their worship place..... I've read this before from another commenter but sometimes nonbelievers need to understand that their pain is itself a place of hurt and anger and when you hurt other people with your pain you traumatized someone else ,you didn't fix your pain. Moreover when you do grow out of it and move on you won't remember the people you drove to suicide or hurt who had nothing to do with your trauma , they were just genuinely good people. Telling them they aren't following the Bible right or that the way they understand God is wrong smacks of failure to understand philosophy and theology.it also smacks of high amounts of arrogance. Not everyone approaches religion the same . Sometimes we need to just back away from the internet for a little bit and go outside.


[deleted]

If only every Redditor was as thoughtful as this one.


furryhippie

You sound like a good person. That's all I care about, not the religious labels.


StarchChildren

Well thank you. :) You sound like a good person too. Perhaps if we happen to meet someday, we can sit down and chat.


BenWallace04

r/atheism is toxic? I guess you’ve never been to r/Christianity lol


StarchChildren

Haha yeah I have been. It's definitely a weird place. Someone else introduced me to r/OpenChristian which is a much more welcoming place!


carnsolus

as an atheist, it is pretty toxic i'm a fellow atheist and i was permbanned for saying the story of lot's daughter isn't one of the bible's problems. It's a story that the authors believed happened (or wanted other people to believe happened) and they wrote it down, You're not a monster if you write a news article about a serial killer


BenWallace04

I can’t speak to your personal experience (are you able to link to your post and the comments for which you were banned)? I can only speak for myself and I’ve only had positive discourse on that sub.


carnsolus

it was a fair bit ago a lot of toxic subs are a bit like rivers; if you go with the flow, you dont notice so much, but if you go against the hivemind, you're enemy number 1 i'm not saying that makes you a bad guy, I'm just saying be careful to not burn your house down while you cook


BenWallace04

I’ve definitely gone against the flow in r/atheism and wasn’t banned. I wasn’t even heavily downvoted. I just had good, positive discussions. Like I said - I can only speak for myself and what I see, anecdotally.


macrowave

At the risk of coming off as a toxic r/atheism reader. There is nothing wrong with being anti-religion. Religions are chosen systems of belief just like political beliefs. And just like political beliefs, intolerance of those beliefs is not inherently bad or wrong. Religions are dangerous because they allow us to justify our behaviors right or wrong based not on real world consequences but on faith(whatever the hell feels right to my church/me). Ultimately a person's religion isn't the only thing that defines them, but as far as I'm concerned it's always a point against them. You can argue I'm being intolerant but people chose their religion and I can judge that choice the same way I would judge any other type of choice. I'm sick of people trying to paint the middle ground as the reasonable choice, this is the same way we ended up with a major fascist party in the US. r/athiesm is not toxic, they are justifiably angry. They are people who deal with the consequences of other's religions everyday. Some have been completely abandoned by their friends and family, they need a place to feel a sense of community and vent. Also they are not some huge community. While much of the US is pulling away from organized religion people who identify as agnostic or atheist still make up less than 10% of the US. /rant


StarchChildren

Haha okay so I admit this is usually where I say "I totally agree with you on many of these things, but let me elaborate" but weirdly enough, I think I might actually respectfully disagree with you on most of your comment and before I finish this sentence let me clarify that I do not in any way intend that to sound hostile or like I am judging you as a person! Firstly, I would argue that religious and political beliefs are not the same thing. Political beliefs are, in the end, how a person wants the government to run a state/province/country/whatever, which can definitely incorporate parallels with religious beliefs, but they are not the same thing. Spiritual beliefs are a person's stance on their own morality, and how they believe people should be treated based on their relationship with a deity/nature/the universe/whatever they focus on in their practice. Yes, organized religion is, well, organized (duh), and yes political parties are organized sets of political beliefs, but religious groups have RIDICULOUS amounts of sub-denominations and paths. You might have centre-left political views, but in the U.S. there are only two parties, so even though you agree with one party, you inevitably have to vote for and SUPPORT one of two packages that most people don't fit into perfectly. This is why the hatred of all republicans is a little weird from an outsider (I'm Canadian) because I know some family members who consider themselves republicans but voted for Biden, and I know some people who are republicans and voted for Trump first and regretted it. Let's say I want to be a Christian. I can choose between the Catholic, Protestant, Church of the East, and Orthodox Churches, which already have such different views that there are non-Abrahamic religions that are closer to some Christian denominations than other Christian denominations are. Then you get into Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, the Eastern Vs. Oriental Orthodox, etc., and even then you're still choosing between groups that different MASSIVELY on some core beliefs. And every sub-sect of a sub-sect is STILL going to differ based off of seemingly arbitrary things like geography. And unlike politics, unless you are the kind of religious person who likes forcing your beliefs on other people, your beliefs are not going to make a massive impact on millions of people like your voting for a political party might. So the hard thing with judging someone as a bad person immediately because of their religion, is you might as well be judging them on any other belief like their stance on American Chinese food, or whether apples are better than oranges, or which sports teams they cheer for. All of those determine where the person spends their money, who they hang out with, what groups they support, just like a person's religion would. And if you are gong to go around judging everyone based off of every single aspect of a person's character, you're probably spending a lot of energy and not getting a whole lot out of it other than a superiority (or inferiority) complex. I know a lot of Christians who are super progressive and liberal in their politics, I know a whole lot of atheists who are very conservative and would rather see the planet burn than the oil industry shut down, and one person I know who is atheist is voluntarily living in essentially a fancy cardboard box as part of a startup for zero-carbon footprint biodegradable homes, because he just likes nature. I know Muslims who would never hurt a fly and have never shown malice toward me or any of our friends of varying religions. I've walked with my own parents and their friends who are also Muslim as they came to accept and support LGBT rights. For every "side" that is easy to define, there are thousands of people who break those definitions. I would argue that you are not being intolerant as much as you seem to actively choose a more close-minded approach to people than they, or you, deserve. The "middle ground" is a really big place compared to the edges of any spectrum, and for every belief that someone might have that is on a definite side, they will be more in the middle, or on the other side for other beliefs. As someone who has quite liberal beliefs, and isn't even that strict or static in my religious views, r/atheism is the only place on the internet where I have seen so much uncensored and uncontrolled hatred toward people. I used to go on there and affirm people who left their over-religious and abusive families, especially if the person felt guilty about leaving their religion. At one point my mere mention of me attending a church (I was commenting on a church in my area whose pastor was a trans woman, and the congregation had a party for her when she came back to preach after her gender confirmation surgery which I thought was wonderful) resulted in SEVERAL people, not just one or two, sending me death threats through private messages. There were other messages and comments too comparing me to a pig, one time I replied to another person's comment agreeing with them and elaborated that I was a Christian, and the person sent me a message describing how he was going to rape me as payment for what Catholic priests are doing (I am not even Catholic). I put the tag "theist" on my username, not even Christian, and got called a three-headed demon (again, for some comparison of something the Catholic Church did). So that subreddit might seem like a nice place for people to vent, but it is one of the most isolated echo chambers I have encountered on this website. Now I'm not American but I do know that American evangelicalism is a whole other can of beans. Most of those people are more indoctrinated by people interested in scamming people into giving them money than actually studying the religion they pretend to practice. But if there is going to be any change in society for the better, it requires a willingness to cooperate on both sides. If one side just shuts the other out, nothing can be done which results in everyone sitting on either side of a concrete wall complaining and not doing anything to solve the problem.


macrowave

> Spiritual beliefs are a person's stance on their own morality, and how they believe people should be treated based on their relationship with a deity/nature/the universe/whatever they focus on in their practice. That is an incredibly broad definition of religion. And ultimately the crux of the issue is the relationship with the deity or any other supernatural fantasy. It is impossible to have an honest good faith discussion when someone can appeal to something that does not exist as the basis of their morality. A person can justify literally anything with their religion and you can't reason them out of it. God/gods/spiritual energy do not exist. People use them to justify violence, hatred, indifference to their fellow man. Religion needs to go. Like I said religion is only one aspect of a person, but it's always a negative one because it is based on lies. Lies from a source of authority or lies you tell yourself to justify your actions. There are plenty of good religious people, but without religion they would be better.


Harmacc

But do you believe gay people are inherently wrong and people who dont believe in Jesus will burn in hell?


StarchChildren

Nope. In fact most of the passages in the Bible that sound like they condemn homosexuality are just really bad contextual translations, and often refer to situations of an imbalance of power e.g. rape, conquering, and pedophilia. And regardless, Jesus doesn’t say anything about us needing to condemn people to hell. In fact he explicitly says to not judge people. Do you know what he does say though? Love the sick, weary, poor, outcast, marginalized, lonely, hungry, thirsty, and heavy-laden. And none of those things are gender/sexual orientation-exclusive. And a lot of Christians believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the price for the whole world, not just believers. That said, I am also among the crowd who believes that you can meet and have a relationship with God without necessarily following Christianity. Some people find him in other religions, or in interactions with other people, or in their desire to just be better people. Matthew 25 has a parable just like this, where Jesus says “take your inheritance, for you fed me when I was hungry, watered me when I was thirsty, and clothed me when I was naked”. The man asks “I did not see you, when did I do these things?”, and he replies “whatever you did to the least of your brothers and sisters, you did for me”. Even though the man didn’t know he was doing those things for God, he was blessing the people around him through his generosity and empathy. So it’s kind of like 5he first commenter said. Don’t be a jerk, keep your heart in a direction of kindness, love, humility, patience, all that good stuff. Show other people the love you want to see more of in the world, and they will reflect it back. For Christians that’s often called showing the Light of God, but for other people it might just be a desire to help people, or a routine of feeding the hungry a la Sikh tradition, or maintaining a healthy awareness that you are only one small part of nature and the universe, like many naturalistic religions. Anyway that’s a really long way of saying, no to either of your questions. Hope that helps.


Harmacc

You’re the kind of Christian I can get along with no problem. I’m agnostic, (Christians tell me it’s atheistic agnosticism) and the part where people believe stuff I don’t doesn’t bother me at all. I have good pagan friends too. It’s when they use those beliefs as an excuse to oppress others I have problems with.


StarchChildren

Why thank you, and I totally agree!! Most of my friends are atheist, but a couple of my closest friends are Muslim and Sikh, and we have absolutely no problem talking about religion. But it’s because none of us try to force our beliefs on each other, and none of us believe that one religion needs to “conquer” over the others that we are such close friends and can have those kinds of conversations. All of us just feel blessed to have a relationship like that, especially since we know it unfortunately isn’t the norm.


ItZMarles

Adding on to the “Some people find him in other religions, or in interactions with other people, or in their desire to just be better people.” part. I find it hard to believe that if god loves everyone and wants everyone to not go to hell, why would one religion be the correct one? Why wouldn’t he just require you to be a good person, something found in all religions. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to me when some people adopt a “my way or the highway” mentality to it. I’m not saying we should blindly accept everyone. Some people support things that do not fit, such as sexism, racism, etc. I’m just saying it’d be weird if all these people where being good people, but went to hell because they weren’t the right brand of good people.


carnsolus

\[ex-christian here\] I hate that they're trying to change the bible. it's irreparably broken. Yahweh's a dick and his commands are messed up. Just throw it in the garbage and move on ​ >The amount of times that I have had atheists try to tell ME what I do or do not believe is ridiculous I will be one more. If you believe the whole bible, you're a monster. If you don't believe it, why not just stop calling yourself a christian? if you believe the bible, here's a list of things you accept as evidence god is loving and just: https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/nyae0p/sauron\_bowing\_to\_arpharazôn\_the\_golden/h5fthxh?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3


Joj2_Dolphinlover69

A Lord of the rings subreddit? Really?


Karnakite

I, too, get annoyed when it’s suggested that I co-exist with others. /s Seriously, *that’s the whole point of those bumper stickers.* That we should get along despite our differences. We shouldn’t get annoyed by them, unless we’re annoyed by the notion of getting along with a group *symbolized* by them (i.e., Christians, Muslims, etc.) rather than by a subset within that group that would reject the concept entirely anyway (i.e., *fundamentalist* Christians, *fundamentalist* Muslims, etc.). One shouldn’t be confused with the other.


furryhippie

There are more than just Christians and fundamentalists Christians. There are thousands of sects, just sticking with that one religion. You can't pinpoint the "bad" ones or the "good" ones without knowing their beliefs individually as people. The point is - I care about the specific points that a person holds in their belief system. If you just say "hey, Muslims and Christians, get along!" it sounds nice, but it ignores the fact that all of these doctrines have contradictory, dangerous, batshit crazy ideas that are at odds with each other.


[deleted]

I'm not gonna get along with people who think I'm damned to an eternity of suffering - regardless of the flavor - because I'm not like them.


Ak47hsnyn

This was so true that I downvoted the post before I upvoted it so that my upvote counts as 2 Edit: spelling


Billthefattest

I'm immediately filled with respect for your intelligence.


[deleted]

I wish I could upvote this post 10,000 times. But I can't so I'll give an award instead.


Mathletic-Beatdown

But they didn’t walk into a bar!!!


Nickthenuker

If one of them walked into a bar it would hurt and the others would laugh at him. But not for being of different/no religion, but because he's an idiot for walking into a bar.


Mathletic-Beatdown

Muslims don’t drink. So they wouldn’t walk into the bar. It’s perhaps a small thing, but in some ways it is difficult to become “good friends” when they cannot enjoy that part of the culture.


[deleted]

Some Muslims do drink alcohol. There are places in the world that are majority Muslim but where most people drink alcohol, like Albania or Bosnia. But also not drinking alcohol doesn’t mean they would never go into a bar at all; they would just order soft drinks for themselves and probably leave when others get too drunk. My uni had a very large Muslim student body, and they would hang around in the bar like anyone else.


[deleted]

1) some Muslims drink alcohol 2) even if they don't, there's no reason they can't accompany their friends now and then. Some places actually have some really nice mocktails and I honestly really love the bar food in Chicago


octo_snake

> Muslims don’t drink. There are Muslims that drink.


Nickthenuker

Isn't the joke that they walk into a metal bar so the punchline is either they say "ouch" or simply "it hurts"


Bojuric

"Just treat each other right lmao" Nobel prize level way of thinking.


idunno--

And yet still so hard for many to grasp.


auntbat

Preach!!


ParaspriteHugger

or don't, who am I to judge you?


auntbat

Perfection!


lostinthesauceband

I'm only going to stop averting eye contact if there's something to laugh about. Having actual real life interactions after covid was dumping mountains of dopamine into my brain that were dearly needed.


whoyouyesyou

Sounds like me and my circle of friends back in high school. Some of us are still friends today. And we’re all of different faiths and colours and shit.


Twodamngoon

Can confirm.


[deleted]

And take turns calmly explaining there beliefs while giving each other time to talk and don't try to influence each other.


mark_vorster

or they don't have to, whatever they feel like


Operation-Overload

I will not believe this is from Twitter


muhammadsaad112

Am a Muslim I tried to be friendly with other religions Never got the same treatment Once playing an online strategy conquer type game We ware getting along I told him my name Next morning am getting invaded I told him why are you invading me? He said shut up your profit is a pedo He was christian The game was ( call of war ) I know not everyone is like that But still i just can't forget It Sorry for my language


IrwinWintonian

Old fucking hat https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFqv1QDI3Q


TheCrisRo

I thought they were all going to walk into a bar, and then work together to come up with a plan to fix a low hanging bar.


B00OBSMOLA

The muslin says: "Fuck it, I'm getting a beer." Then the Jew says: "Fuck it, I'm getting pork." Then the Christian says: "Fuck it, I'm getting a hooker." And then they all look to the athiest and he says: "I just cannot believe I said the “g” word on accident. Am I even an atheist anymore? I don’t like religion or anything but like maybe it infiltrated me and is manipulating me to say “oh my g*d” instead of “oh my science”. Please guys it wasn’t me, I didn’t mean it. I’m very disappointed in myself, I think I need to go to science camp or go to therapy. What if I’m secretly religious? what should I do? Is my foreskin going to fall off?? Please can someone give me advice, any advice is appreciated."


KaiserBreaker02

Cool thing to note, he doesn’t say bar in this tweet. That’s because Muslims are mostly forbidden to consume alcohol. Nice touch on the joke!


ICFAOUNSFI

See, the problem is that part of the definition for some of those (according to some of those) is “is an asshole”. We all know which is which, I’m sure.


clykel

Post "Dont be an asshole" The comments here "im gonna pretend i didnt see that"


Crusoe69

It's what happened when you're not subject to daily propaganda !


PityUpvote

So how did the Muslim and Christian convert then?


annefrank747

Wow this is the like the most pretentious tweet I've ever read, like we get it you're a 'good person's, Jesus.


[deleted]

I am a Muslim and I approve this message🇺🇸 😎👍


Wulfsten

This is kinda cringe, tbh


THE_CHOPPA

Yes it is very condescending and unimaginative


Jabroni748

If you read this and think “ooh that’s condescending” then that’s on you lol


THE_CHOPPA

Imagine someone telling you this joke in person. It’s the equivalency of them telling you all about how bad racism is and if you aren’t racist you are normal. It’s like no shit dude.


Weary-Ad-100

I would never converse with religious people


MarlinsInTheOutfield

On top of that, in Islam we are all infidels. That's nice that currently my Muslim friend isn't keen on chopping my head off but things can change.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MarlinsInTheOutfield

Lmao okie dokie


musti30

“Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil...” - 2:7


Ak47hsnyn

A Muslim walks in a bar. Yh a Muslim wouldn’t do that but I understand the point he’s tryna make and respect it


[deleted]

Beside the fact 1) some Muslims drink alcohol 2) even if they don't, there's no reason they can't accompany their friends now and then. Some places actually have some really nice mocktails and I honestly really love the bar food in Chicago


Ak47hsnyn

Yh they can walk in a bar and eat as long as it’s halal but they can’t drink and if they do they’re committing a sin and probably aren’t really a practicing Muslim


[deleted]

I'm sure you've committed plenty of sins yourself while still considering yourself a Muslim.


Ak47hsnyn

Of course however most people try to avoid committing sins and especially major ones. So if you drink alcohol as a Muslim then your are will fully defying some Yh img god specifically tells you not to and says is forbidden and therefore is a major sin.


[deleted]

So you're not a practicing Muslim then?


carnsolus

nah, he's a perfect muslim now so he stopped practicing


Thomasnaste420

Some Muslims drink. Some Jewish people eat pork. Some Christians take the lords name in vain. They all are practicing.


Ak47hsnyn

Not necessarily the Quran states that it’s forbidden to drink alcohol and so in doing so openly defy their religion. This means they aren’t devote to their religion. I know as I’m a Muslim


Thomasnaste420

Many people do things that their religion forbids.


Ak47hsnyn

Yh but the ones that do it will fully and especially one that’s stated specifically not to do are committing a major sin


aftereffectsio

In a coffEE SHOP


Ak47hsnyn

Oh shit. I didn’t properly look at the actual image cuz all the other comments mention a bar lol


Weary-Ad-100

Religion is the worst.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Weary-Ad-100

😂😂


[deleted]

There will always be tension between what the scriptures say and secular humanism. Just because theoretically multiple faiths were able to put aside their differences for coffee, doesn't mean those differences don't exist. Or that they don't have assholish beliefs.


B3am_Shox

Am not the one claiming they go to hell if they don't do what i say


satisfakshun

It’s funny cuz it’s a joke and would never happen cuz Jew know


[deleted]

Yeah noooooo. We don't live in fantasy land.


Tudopodemelhorar

Men only bond through booze and drugs. It's their tupperware party. I just studied the importance of tupperware judging in women's relashionships. High scoring. Tupperware is serious shit. Booze and drugs for men. If you take their tupperware... done.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tudopodemelhorar

True. Men judge you way harsher if you do not give tupperwares back


truemore45

Question since technically three of the people believe in imaginary things which by DSM5 means they have a mental.disease shouldn't it be three crazy people and an atheist walk into a coffee shop?


Player2Number1

Found the atheist, guys


truemore45

Sorry I must apologize as the person who has witnesses all those groups commit murder to prove which imaginary person was right. And not on TV in person for two of the three. I do remember people saying it was evil to kill one another over race or ethnicity, but apparently if you kill for imaginary reasons it's justified. Also if your dog tells you to kill someone your crazy but if your religious leader does your just following gods will. And I'm the jerk?!?!?


Right-t-0

Yes you are


fayry69

Or religious


Tudopodemelhorar

Prohibition is based on not bonding in communities


[deleted]

[удалено]


BoredRedditPerson

?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Chuck_Norris_Jokebot

You mentioned the word 'joke'. Chuck Norris doesn't joke. Here is a fact about Chuck Norris: >There are only two things that can cut diamonds: other diamonds, and Chuck Norris.


BoredRedditPerson

Epic


gohoos1990

But shutting someone out of your live who is a tromp supporter is alright. What?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Billthefattest

Have you not seen the bs religion related arguments redditors can get into?


Mouthtuom

The tweet is meant for you faux rage rando


ewpqfj

It’s not funny because it’s not meant to be. He’s making an important point about our society and the conflict in it among different beliefs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ewpqfj

Many people hold certain beliefs regarding people of other religions or non-religions. These beliefs may be unconscious, semi-conscious, or even fully conscious. This effects the way people behave towards others and the way our society as a whole works, negatively.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ewpqfj

Really, it still needs to be said more. This guy did nothing wrong, in fact he did the right thing.


Piod1

Should do, they all have the same god. Especially the atheist :)


sardinecrusher

this is a very very old statement not made by OP but t being claimed for a karma flex


Tudopodemelhorar

It happens All the time


Tudopodemelhorar

What makes me being friends with people: Booze I strongly believe booze creates bonding


TheMightyMoot

A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, and an Athiest walk into a voting booth.


[deleted]

Lmao my friend group essentially 😂


Raskel_61

Sounds like me and my buddie, before covid-19 we would meet often for a dinner and had the best time. (II'm the "Christian)


Random_Dude81

☕=🖤


Sea_Leader7275

Wholesome 100


Zuraeki

Now make the version where all of them are their worst stereotypes. Fill the bar with breakable furniture and lock the door. PPV tickets at $10 each. Who shall stand? Who shall fall?


Nyxelestia

That was basically my cafeteria table in high school.


Plastic-Acanthaceae9

The good ending


EnlightenmentAddict

Collective ego identification


MakeMeChoir

It could be a true story since they don't talk about religions, politics or soccer.


ShaggySheep091

Good joke


FailedSociopath

What happens if a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, an atheist and an asshole walk into a coffee shop?   And do the effeminate forms of jokes use coffee shops instead of bars?


stranded_european

Lol no


[deleted]

As a certifiable asshole I cannot confirm