this post was submitted on
1,008 points (63% like it)
2,426 up votes 1,418 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,253,148 readers

1,226 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 168 comments

[–]IlGrilloParlante 137 points138 points ago

Wow, that's some serious dedication to poking fun at the Bible

[–]Cchopes 35 points36 points ago

Well, poking fun at the Israelites in Exodus, anyway. That verse doesn't apply to gentiles.

[–]Shinofair 11 points12 points ago

Context, Context, Context. Have an upvote friend.

[–]nowhathappenedwas 7 points8 points ago

Well, poking fun at the Israelites in Exodus who had tattoos, anyway.

[–]cdash 4 points5 points ago

Well, poking fun at the Israelites in Exoduce who had tattoos as a pagan ritual, anyway.

[–]MehNahMehNah 2 points3 points ago

I read that as genitals - again. The original proscription was against 'marking' (yourself in grief) 'for the dead' Torah (Leviticus 19:28): "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord." Obviously circumcision is not for the dead, so it is okay. People are just too hung up on a single explanation. Tattoos are considered forbidden in Sunni Islam. According to the book of Sunni traditions, Sahih Bukhari, "The Prophet forbade [...] mutilation (or maiming) of bodies." There are so many body mods out there, from ear-piercing, to temporary tats, everyone overlooks the intent - 'for the dead.'

EDIT to add: What translation is this anyway?

[–]lemonpjb 7 points8 points ago

Most Christians I know are not Levite priests.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Depending on the translation, Lev 19 is addressed to "the entire assembly", "the entire community", "all the congregation of the people", or some other such inclusive group. See here. Lev 21 is addressed specifically to the priests; maybe that's what you're thinking of.

EDIT: For further discussion, see this comment thread.

[–]The_One_Above_All 1 point2 points ago

Do Levite priests wear Levis?

[–]mindbleach 1 point2 points ago

Why not?

[–]Cchopes 3 points4 points ago

From r/Christianity FAQ

Christians don't ignore the Old Testament (well most don't anyways) but they do understand it differently than you do.

Like other issues discussed here, the question of the relevancy and interpretation of the Old Testament is answered in different ways by different Christians. In general, Christians don't ignore the Old Testament, but most of us do feel like there are hermeneutical methods to determine when and why it shouldn't be applied literally (which is pretty often). These methods range from popular explanatory metaphors to book-length academic discussions, and it's important to realize that most (though not all) Christians are in fact not "picking and choosing" from the Old Testament but are applying any one of several hermeneutical methods to its application.

There are different kinds of law in the Old Testament. They are Ceremonial, Civil and Moral Law (Mirror).

Civil Law was law relevant to the civil society of that time. Ceremonial Law (which had to deal with manner of worship and are seen by Christians usually to point towards Christ). This is also contains the sacrificial system and food restrictions. Moral Law which are things like the 10 Commandments. We don't live in ancient Israel their civil laws don't apply to us. The Moral Law is more like what God is.

The Ceremonial Law is something you might think of as a glass with a hole in it and water continuously pouring into it. You have to keep water pouring into it until you you make the glass whole or stopper the hole. Christ is the stopper. The Ceremonial Law is something to do that can be accomplished. Once it is accomplished it is no longer a condition. Christ accomplished it.

You can go here to see a previous discussion concerning this topic.

Another good point to remember when considering what one should make of the Old Testament Law is to consult the Book of Acts. This is our earliest reference detailing the question about how much we should obey the Old Testament Law. In what is called the "Apostolic Decree" (Acts 15: 19-21) Gentile converts are merely required to abstain from fornication, food offered to idols, food that has been strangled and blood.

[–]ehjhockey 0 points1 point ago

No, that is some serious dedication to sarcasm.

[–]ireadabookonce 140 points141 points ago

Though I appreciate what the kid is doing with all this irony... He still has a scripture on his arm now...

[–]whatwhatdb 29 points30 points ago

plus, i think most christians agree that the laws in Leviticus are no longer binding. granted, lots of people say that they should still be binding, but christians usually disagree.

[–]FalafelWaffel 99 points100 points ago

Except the ones about being gay. Obviously those are still legit.

[–]ucofresh 16 points17 points ago

Was just about to say that. I still can't figure out why that's the ONLY law from the old testament those morons follow.

[–]ionfromneon 13 points14 points ago

Because it's one of the few mentioned again in the New Testament. Simple reason.

[–]Draithegemini 4 points5 points ago

Where was it mentioned in the New Testament ? I remember the part about the dude who ends up being incredibly hung turning water into wine and chilling with 12 guys and a prostitute... but nothing about being gay.

[–]SinisterToad 12 points13 points ago

Romans 1:27 is what's usually quoted.

[–]Draithegemini 2 points3 points ago

Thanks for the heads up.

[–]JonBanes 2 points3 points ago

it's one of Paul's letters (to the Romans this time, hence the book title). In general, they are a bit more .... Old testament? (I don't want to say conservative, but it's the first word that comes to mind) than the Jesus parts, especially the 'sermon on the mount', which is one of those passages that many people agree has some decent stuff.

[–]KeScoBo 2 points3 points ago

Also of note, homosexuality in that verse is addressed in precisely the same context as gossiping and disobeying your parents. So...

[–]Draithegemini 0 points1 point ago

Also, depending on the version you read it implies that a woman's only use is for sex (Looking at you King James). "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

[–]ionfromneon -1 points0 points ago

See below

[–]Caziban 1 point2 points ago

Do me a favor: Can you give me a couple verses about this that are mentioned in the NT? I haven't been able to find one.

[–]nsfgod 4 points5 points ago

matt 5:17-19 seam to state that the old 'law' still holds?

[–]skepticalDragon 3 points4 points ago

Yessir. But good luck finding a christian who knows about that verse, and if you do find one and you bring it up, be prepared to hear some amazing bull shit.

[–]Cavemonster 4 points5 points ago

Romans 1:27

[–]Caziban 1 point2 points ago

Thank you.

[–]ionfromneon 3 points4 points ago

First off, homosexuality isn't mentioned at all in the Gospels, so no one knows what Jesus' true opinion on homosexuality was (is?). But here are two bits of the New Testament that mention it. While they refer to them as sins, it's obviously not nearly as big of a deal as it was before Jesus' time.

Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality."

[–]syzygote 2 points3 points ago

If Paul were alive today, he'd be a politician getting caught in the "wide stance".

[–]ionfromneon -2 points-1 points ago

That's one of the more silly things I've ever heard.

That's like me saying "If Joan of Arc was alive today, she'd be a lesbian".

It's just a stupid thing to say.

[–]syzygote 6 points7 points ago

It's a riff on the common motif that seems to happen quite often, that a lot of the people pushing very homophobic policies end up being closeted gay people (or bi-curious, or something). No, not every single homophobe is gay, of course. But considering it's only Paul that harps on about the queers (Peter and Jesus and all those other dudes didn't seem to get too hung up on it), it's something to think about. In fact, it's not as if I'm the only one who suggests this.

There's a lot of people who feel that St. Paul had gay tendencies (whether he ever acted on them or not) and it's possible that a lot of his mentions about the "sins of the flesh" are related to homosexual desires. Would I stake my life on it? Nah, there's no way to prove such a conjecture. Does it matter? Only in the sense of hypocrisy. If he was gay or not it really is irrelevant to me...

Just Google "Paul was gay" and other such phrases and there's plenty on line to peruse. I'm sure there's more scholarly articles about the topic, but again, I don't spend much time dwelling on the topic. Just an aside.

[–]cdash 1 point2 points ago

Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't rob people. Honor your mother and father. We shouldn't follow those laws either since their some of those old testament laws which only morons would follow.

[–]ucofresh 0 points1 point ago

Do you have a point or you just spewing ignorance?

[–]varemia 1 point2 points ago

There's this whole thing about there being a difference between the behavioral laws and the moral laws, but I can't see that as anything but a cop-out to allow them to interpret the laws however they please.

[–]MustangMark83 -5 points-4 points ago

Christian here. Gays can get married in my opinion. Way to stereotype

[–]LadypantsMcGee 15 points16 points ago

There's a reason it's a stereotype. Either get over it or be willing to speak up and change it.

[–]sceezy 3 points4 points ago

ALL stereotypes have some level of truth to them, but we still shouldn't use them to judge other people. dickhead.

[–]LadypantsMcGee 4 points5 points ago

I didn't feel my statement was judgmental at all. Merely observational. Stereotypes do have basis in truth. That's the reason they persist. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that one might have the power to change a negative stereotype. Have a lovely day.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I believe this was in reference to MustangMark83's stupid comment. And yes, I'm being judgmental. No regrets here... that comment is stupid.

[–]LadypantsMcGee 4 points5 points ago

You know, I wasn't sure because of how it was posted. Figured I'd state my case anyway. And I agree with you regarding MustangMark83's comment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I definitely understand.

[–]unprofessional1 -1 points0 points ago

Who's judging who now?

[–]sceezy 4 points5 points ago

is this a trick question? i said using stereotypes is wrong. judging somebody after they give their shitty opinion is a different story.

[–]MistarGrimm 10 points11 points ago

Don't. You know the general stance.

[–]242alex 1 point2 points ago

Boooo!

[–]anonymauz 1 point2 points ago

Then you aren't a Christian. Your BOOK demands by word of your GOD that gays cannot get married. If you disagree, you are in direct defiance of your God. Period.

[–]anonymauz 13 points14 points ago

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 5:17

[–]dustinechos 8 points9 points ago

Ha! You think Christians actually read the bible!? You must be new here.

[–]Adroite 3 points4 points ago

26 ‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying. 27 You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. 28 ‘You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. 29 ‘Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness. 30 ‘You shall keep My sabbaths and revere My sanctuary; I am the LORD. 31 ‘Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:26–31

The entirety of the passage deals with the religious practices of the surrounding culture. Isolating the verse loses the meaning and the context of what the writer was trying to address.

[–]anonymauz 0 points1 point ago

My verse was from Matthew, eons away from Leviticus. My point was that, in the New Testament, he SAYS that he does not abolish the old laws (old testament) but FULFILLS THEM. Not sure if you meant to reply to someone else, or?

[–]otherworldsthanthese 2 points3 points ago

"Before this faith came, the law held us as prisoners. We had no freedom until God showed us the way of faith that was coming. The law was the guardian in charge of us until Christ came. After he came, we could be made right with God through faith. Now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law to be our guardian." GAL 3:23-25

I believe that is the verse many christians say gives freedom from the laws of the old testament.

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points ago

Notice the verse you quoted was not from Jesus himself, and seems to contradict what Jesus said. Which should take precedence?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

The one that agrees with our side, obviously.

[–]otherworldsthanthese 0 points1 point ago

I dunno. I didn't write the Bible and don't pretend to know everything about it. Was just sharing something interesting.

[–]cocoabeach 0 points1 point ago

Scroll down and read why this verse does not mean what it is generally interpreted as meaning. For Christians tattoos are OK as long as they are not for other Gods.

As for non-Christians why would this verse matter at all?

[–]Moopies 1 point2 points ago

I find it despicable that they pick and choose which "rules of god" apply to us. The worst part is, they usually KEEP the shitty parts and don't pay attention to the parts where Jesus says things like, you know, don't judge anyone, don't tell others what to do, don't see yourself as "doing gods work" for him.

[–]ireadabookonce 4 points5 points ago

Depends on the Christian and what they have been led to believe... But yeah, it's a bit hypocritical...

[–]MindStalker 0 points1 point ago

Actually if you read the first paragraph of chapter 19 it specifically says those laws are for the Assembly (leaders) of Israel. The previous chapter (much tamer in its laws) are for the commoners.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I think you're thinking of Leviticus 21, directed exclusively to the priests. Check the parallel translations of and commentary on Leviticus 19.2 here: "entire assembly", "entire community", "all the congregation of the people", etc. The preceding quotes and the commentary on the site all indicate that the laws that follow are intended for all the people.

[–]MindStalker 0 points1 point ago

I disagree, they use different language in Chapter 18, 19, 21.
18: The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:
19: The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them:
20: The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites:
21: The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them:

The Leaders (not the priest) of Isreal were called The Assembly, its certainly reasonable to consider they are talking about the leaders as 18 and 20 use different verbage for all of Isreal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I have a feeling we're not going to agree in the end, but I'll give it one more go. Only two of the translations refer to the assembly; by far the most common translation is some variation of "all the congregation." But there is at least one unambiguous use of the word "assembly" in the Pentateuch in reference to the entire Israelite people, at Ex 16.3:

The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly (emphasis added) to death" (NIV).

Further, the laws being communicated would be as applicable—often more applicable—to the common people as to the leaders, with some of the laws being simple reiterations of the Decalogue, as in the Lev 19.3 command that each addressee must respect his mother and father and observe the Sabbath, and 19.4 which forbids idol worship. 19.5-8 gives instructions for the offering of sacrifices from the perspective of the common Israelite. 19.9-10 gives instructions for the conduct of the harvest. 19.11-12 again echoes the Decalogue: do not steal, do not deal falsely, do not lie to one another, do not swear falsely by Yahweh's name.

I'll stop there, since the laws continue in that vein. My point is, even if we accept for argument's sake that God is instructing Moses in Lev 19 to address an assembly of leaders only, the laws themselves are clearly binding upon every Israelite.

In fact, some of the commentaries support the contention that the address was to be given to the leaders of the tribes. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible reads:

They could not be all spoke to together, but tribe after tribe, or family after family; or rather the heads of the tribes, and at most the heads of families were convened, and the following instructions were given, to be communicated to their respective tribes and families.

The last clause in that quote is the most important one. The instructions are to be communicated to their respective tribes and families, because those instructions are binding upon all Israelites, not just the leaders. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary concurs:

Many of the laws enumerated in this chapter had been previously announced. As they were, however, of a general application, not suited to particular classes, but to the nation at large (emphasis added), so Moses seems, according to divine instructions, to have rehearsed them, perhaps on different occasions and to successive divisions of the people, till "all the congregation of the children of Israel" were taught to know them.

[–]MindStalker 1 point2 points ago

Na, I really wasn't trying to start an argument. You seem to have studied this much more than I have. You seem to be correct, thanks.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Cheers for being polite and reasonable through the whole conversation; those qualities are much too rare on the interwebs.

[–]filletsack 0 points1 point ago

Nothing tells a modern Christian off like mocking ancient Israelites with a permanent marking on your arm...

LOGIIIIIIIC

[–]ibzzi 20 points21 points ago

i bet the tattoo artist was like.. oh here we go.. another one of those guys again..

[–]Squeekme 28 points29 points ago

i bet the tattoo artist was like.. ive been doing this so long i dont give a shit anymore, as long as he's paying me..

[–]otiliorules 12 points13 points ago

Why isn't the I on the 3rd line?

[–]inajeep 3 points4 points ago

My guess is that putting it on the 3rd line might make a casual glance think that the guys believes he is 'The' lord and he wanted to avoid that. That quirk aside I appreciated the irony.

[–]gratuitous_upvote -2 points-1 points ago

I don't care what you say, put that fucking 'I' on the last line!!2 There is more than enough room for it, and if somebody skips to the end and reads "I AM THE LORD" - fuckem? I am the Lord isnt' a terrible tattoo.

[–]onederful 9 points10 points ago

way to stick it to the holy man, that'll teach them to respect atheism.

[–]3xc41ibur 4 points5 points ago

It says "for the dead" but the dude is clearly still alive. I'm assuming this is referring to getting mourning tattoos and "kill sheet" scarifications and so on.

[–]iamcredittoteam 2 points3 points ago

It also continues "nor print any marks upon you".

That aside, what a rebel, huh?

[–]MankBaby 2 points3 points ago

It forbids cutting your flesh to mourn (honor) someone who has died, and also forbids one to print any marks (tattoos) on themselves. Seems pretty clear to me.

[–]PopgunTookers 1 point2 points ago

Yes, I'm not a bible scholar, but I think you might be right.

I read it like: Don't put any cutting into yourself for the dead- oh yeah- also don't print any marks (for the dead).

[–]hotelzulufoxtrot 23 points24 points ago

You got your 15 seconds of internet 'fame' which was the main driving force behind your doing this. Now you have to live with this for the rest of your life. Way to go!

[–]tuesdays_ 5 points6 points ago

I have to say I agree with this statement. As original as the idea/tattoo might be, I'm not quite sure the irony was worth it.

[–]Semi_Chivalrous 5 points6 points ago

Gah. I'm tired of the condescension people get for having tattoos on Reddit. I thought this was a pretty original tattoo, and should provide him with plenty of laughs in the future. What's wrong with that? Not everyone feels that their body is a temple and that the slightest blemish will ruin it, some folk just like the way ink looks.

Bring on those delicious downvotes.

[–]hotelzulufoxtrot 0 points1 point ago

From now on, if someone has something funny to say in tattoo form, put it on your ass.

[–]tuesdays_ 0 points1 point ago

Script would look great on the curve of a butt cheek, wouldn't it?!

[–]beardbeast 0 points1 point ago

I have an entire arm tattooed in completely blasphemous things. i would love to have put this in there somewhere. he may be getting more tattoos later.

[–]mindbleach 0 points1 point ago

Oh no, he has to live with some words on his arm! Such tragedy.

[–]dualplatform 7 points8 points ago

Hmmm... this wayyy less cool than you think it is.

[–]Goody3Shoes 2 points3 points ago

I just want to say as a Christian i see that as not getting tattoos for dead people; ie. to remember someone that has passed.

[–]solidSC 0 points1 point ago

We need a way to get across to people which parts of the bible are literal and which parts are purely metaphor. Wait I know... We could get some people together to deliver pamphlets door to door so people will know. Also a good tactic, offer free snacks and beverages... We'll call it "communion" ah to hell with that sounds too much like "communism" and fuck that.

[–]_Nostalgia_ 1 point2 points ago

Oh the irony. It burns.

[–]dgrstl 1 point2 points ago

Say what you will, that's commitment to the exposure of ignorance.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

He's such a rebel.

[–]theviking10 2 points3 points ago

So brave....

[–]gundog48 2 points3 points ago

So edgey and ironic... genuinely pretty cool though!

[–]DarrylsMama 1 point2 points ago

Poorly done tattoo.

[–]pingthepong 1 point2 points ago

welcome to the ranks of really bad tats

[–]pachaug 1 point2 points ago

Why do people try so hard to define themselves as atheists? I don't believe in the tooth fairy either but I'm not going to put stickers on my car or get some shitty tattoo about it.

[–]andjok 3 points4 points ago

If the majority of the population made a huge fuss over the existence of the tooth fairy and tried to use the tooth fairy to dictate others' lives, then I totally would be an outspoken atoothfairyist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Am I the only one who sees that "for the dead" part? The way I'm reading it, it doesn't seem to ban tattoos outright, only to prevent them from being used to memorialize someone. But then it comes from a book where men live 900 years and virgins get pregnant so what do I know?

[–]Hansarn 0 points1 point ago

That guy really likes pointing out that he's the lord.

[–]CousteauWarrior 0 points1 point ago

[–]Chiglio 0 points1 point ago

At first glance I thought it said no twats.

[–]angelandie11 0 points1 point ago

i think that person probably got that to help himself not to self harm

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

my sister is a ultra fundie and always throws this one at me, due to having most of my upper body tattooed.

[–]Isotron999 0 points1 point ago

So meta.

[–]ecklcakes 0 points1 point ago

I guess that's one way to say you don't agree with the Bible.

[–]litkedeep 0 points1 point ago

terrible.

[–]Apokalyps 0 points1 point ago

Watch out we got a bad-ass over here!

[–]MG1233 0 points1 point ago

What a rebel! Getting a tattoo of someone saying not to get a tattoo!

[–]EclecticSchemer 0 points1 point ago

Best tattoo I've ever seen! Love the irony.

[–]Two_Kebabs 0 points1 point ago

I wonder how PC it would be, if this joke was thought of as making fun of Jews, instead of Christians? After all it's a Jewish text and a lot Jews still follow those laws.

[–]brynsul 0 points1 point ago

PC? never was... Funny? ALWAYS.

[–]Dresdin 0 points1 point ago

All I can think of is after god saying "I am the Lord" is this

[–]dcss 0 points1 point ago

So edgy

[–]mburke1124 0 points1 point ago

That text looks like shit.

[–]dredawg 0 points1 point ago

I wish people would stop quoting the old testament to battle the Fundie Chirstians out there, its moronic, even by thier standards.

I may not be christian anymore, but I know that even though the old testament is part of the "Bible", its not actively preached, at least not in the Roman Catholic upbringing I had.

There was a reason Jesus was a rebel against the old testament, its retarded, and evil.

The only people who follow that old book to the letter are hasidic Jews.

[–]analogkid1[S] 2 points3 points ago

Then why not have all new bibles printed without the O.T.? Sorry. Can't have Genesis without having Leviticus. Can't have the "nice stuff" and ignore the bad.

[–]OnlyUsingForThread 0 points1 point ago

Goddammit, I hate to do this, but this has been bugging me for awhile, and it must be done. Don't get me wrong r/atheism, I do like you guys, but when Christians don't follow some of the Old Testament laws (i.e. kosher stuff, mixed clothing material, tatoos, etc.) and then say they don't have to, they're technically right -at least by standards of their own faith.

Way back towards the beginning of Christianity, around 50 AD, something called the Council of Jerusalem took place among the prominent members of those following Jesus and his teachings. This council was specifically held to discuss the validity of the laws such as the one OP has quoted. Basically, for hundreds of years the Jews had invented and followed a system of laws, called the purity laws, which clearly outlined anything they thought was a sin. However, by the time the first Christians came around, it became difficult to both follow these laws (as they were technically still Jewish), and to preach and serve to those who were non-Jewish. In essence, the Council of Jerusalem decided to abolish these laws of purity in favor of Jesus' teaching of following God by serving others with compassion and without judgement, which is a policy which I think even you members of r/atheism would agree with.

Now then, this brings to question why the Church still considers homosexuality a sin. The Church's official statement is that the law in Leviticus against homosexuality is considered one of morality, not of purity (which I think is quite stupid.) Therefore, that is why the Church considers homosexuality a sin, but not some of the more "outdated" laws.

[–]the_fewer_desires 0 points1 point ago

If only God on earth has clarified his stance on these issues before he was crucified. Short sighted were those 33 years.

[–]OnlyUsingForThread 0 points1 point ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're not hypocritical, but their church does technically back up their logic.

[–]kdmo 0 points1 point ago

Why does it bother me so much that he didn't start the last sentence on the third line?

[–]PaidAmateur 0 points1 point ago

Didn't God also say something about not killing anybody? Oops...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

This is the stupidest tattoo I've ever seen

[–]Iwuvcats69 0 points1 point ago

Fuck the po-leece

[–]FuriousAbyss 0 points1 point ago

Please tell me this is photoshopped.

pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease

[–]Shakespearean_Rumba 0 points1 point ago

My goodness, an atheist hipster.

[–]Rockran 0 points1 point ago

Also said not to kill...

[–]varemia 1 point2 points ago

Or cut hair, or judge others, or have money. I can see that's working out nicely.

[–]MapleSyrupIsAwesome 0 points1 point ago

... or eat bacon.

[–]TotallyKidding 0 points1 point ago

This kid is trying way too hard.

[–]cannotlogon 0 points1 point ago

And we have a winner for "Most Involved Pointless Gesture Award"!

Congrats!

[–]Brins 0 points1 point ago

Hey! I'm thinking about doing a tatoo and really wanna use this font. Does anyone know the name of it?

[–]denzelandme 0 points1 point ago

a bunch of high school boys are going to think that tattoo is so cool!. good job

[–]gruntznclickz -1 points0 points ago

Sorry, whomever tattoos that on their arm is a retard.

[–]hypergiiant -2 points-1 points ago

What moron did this? In the name of what? Looking like a buffoon or a closet Christian?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

This is easily the worst tattoo I have ever seen. I've seen tons. I don't even want to talk about this anymore, its just so fucking awful.....

[–]dustlesswalnut -4 points-3 points ago

Oh man what an awesome and atheism-relevant post.

[–]yes_thats_right -1 points0 points ago

That will show them!

[–]cocoabeach -1 points0 points ago

The bottom of this page explains why this verse does not mean what we have been taught it means. Leviticus 19:28

[–]MissMazda -1 points0 points ago

Possibly a Christian who is showing off the fact that he has faith but does not follow the outdated, bullshit parts of the book.

[–]austingv -1 points0 points ago

ahahaha yes!! well played sir,upvote en route.

[–]orion67a -1 points0 points ago

athiest level: 99

[–]DarthMonkeyTart -1 points0 points ago

How many times must this scripture be quoted on the front page of r/atheism? I think everyone here is familiar with this by now.

[–]no0 -1 points0 points ago

We got a badass over here.

[–]linkmaster2021 -2 points-1 points ago

LOLWUT

[–]Ruste -2 points-1 points ago

Nooooooooooooo. Someone stole my idea.

[–]DaNReDaN -3 points-2 points ago

Does this look really fake to anyone else? I mean look how wonky the text is...