~ archived since 2018 ~

lied about past

wutc · 2018-04-27T12:01:01+00:00

An experiment... Type the words "lied about past" (no "wife" or "girlfriend" or "husband" or "boyfriend", or...

wutc

April 27, 2018

19 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	lied about past
Author	wutc
Upvotes	19
Comments	23
Date	April 27, 2018 12:01 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/8fb37l/lied_about_past/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/lied-about-past.564211 https://theredarchive.com/post/564211

Comments

[–]kyledontcare15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]zachs_alligator 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Judah_Earl4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]zachs_alligator 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sinkmachine 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ilikerelish2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sinkmachine 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ilikerelish-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If we want to deal with it conceptually, I see no flaw in what you are saying. Heaven and hell could be any arbitrary word, and what you are saying could be right.

That was not the point. Was just saying from an outside perspective of disbelief in religious doctrine, religion can be seen as a crutch because ostensibly the religious person needs the religion to make sense of their world or existence, the non-believer does not.

Supposedly, Jesus will forgive anything you do, as long as you repent before judgement. I kind of find that, even in my disbelief to be a crock. I have a preference for the old testament. As to the quick buck, that is in the origin of anglo-christian religion. Back in the dark ages it was a pay to play scam. Pay your sins away. For just a little coin you too can be saved. The tenants that Christ taught I can respect. Anything the church is involved with to me is suspect at best.

[–]I_Dicked_Cheney[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ilikerelish1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silive 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silive 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wutc5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]silive 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wutc2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Baldrbaldr0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wutc1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MisterEdGein2 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]raisins3142 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aanvals 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wutc2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Edit: oh yeah, where was the dude? Takes two to tango...

Exactly. It's an interesting passage (even though it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts and is thus --- together with the last few verses of Mark --- considered by scholars not really to be in the Bible).

...But that aside, you are right: the Law given by God to Moses demands that both the man and the woman be stoned. Moreover, it demands that the witnesses should cast the first stone. In this case, the Law was not kept (they'd ignored the man, as you say), since it was fundamentally a kangaroo court intended to trap Jesus between the Law of Moses (which commanded death for adultery) and the law of Rome (under whose rule the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone). In saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Jesus subtly points out that his accusers were guilty of breaking the Law of Moses, and so they filtered off, the older ones realising they'd been checkmated before the younger ones. With neither accusers nor witnesses, the case against the woman fell apart, and so Jesus lets her go with a parting rebuke.

Had Jesus condemned her without accusers and witnesses, then it would have meant breaking the Law itself --- which the Messiah could not do.

[–]makana_b1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lnot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link