Russell Brand trolls the Westboro Baptist Church

:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAErHl7lZ4

Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.SaintLeonidas

I normally can't stand Russell Brand, but this is pretty funny.

Lmfao. That was pretty hilarious.

Wasn't that ugly guy married to Katy Perry? Fightingfan

Yerp.

Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.SaintLeonidas

I don't particularly get the Brand hate.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.TacticalDesire

I don't particularly get the Brand hate.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.TacticalDesire

I don't particularly get the Brand hate.

"The holy spirit ain't got a pen!" LMAO!

Rich...............

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.TacticalDesire

I don't particularly get the Brand hate.

Isn't there something in the bible about gluttony? And one of them is clearly overweight?KHAndAnime

Selective reading solves all problems.

Now let's Eat!

Isn't there something in the bible about gluttony? And one of them is clearly overweight?KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Isn't there something in the bible about gluttony? And one of them is clearly overweight?Fightingfan

I understand now why he's so thoroughly annoyed me in the past. His trolling here is so effortless and natural. He's an expert at it.

Heck I think I just realized that his face and voice are practically designed to enhance his already superhuman ability to annoy others.

I am glad in this case he's using his powers for good.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]Isn't there something in the bible about gluttony? And one of them is clearly overweight?Fightingfan

Perfect Example: Homosexuality and divorce................

Both punishable by death, one is okay to commit...........

Perfect Example: Homosexuality and divorce................

Both punishable by death, one is okay to commit...........

Chow_Mein_Kampf

Where is divorce punishable by death?

Committing adultery is punishable by death, but divorce is actually allowed, at least in Torah. Whether a post-divorce sexual relationship turns out to be itself adultery depends on the circumstances of the divorce, but the divorce by itself is permissible.

Yeah, be great if it was ANYONE other than Russell Brand.SaintLeonidas

Get Him to the Greek was pretty funny. So no I don't hate Russel Brand. I like him from what little I know of him.

The WBC is pretty much at the point where they'd take any chance to appear on TV. Brand seems to be the perfect tool.

[QUOTE="Chow_Mein_Kampf"]

Perfect Example: Homosexuality and divorce................

Both punishable by death, one is okay to commit...........

m0zart

Where is divorce punishable by death?

Committing adultery is punishable by death, but divorce is actually allowed, at least in Torah. Whether a post-divorce sexual relationship turns out to be itself adultery depends on the circumstances of the divorce, but the divorce by itself is permissible.

well if you put these together one could argue it does.

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Matthew 19:9

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

it's vague and mentions the neighbor, but it seems like adultery is death anyways

well if you put these together one could argue it does.

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Matthew 19:9

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

wis3boi

There is never specified in Torah that divorce itself brings about a death penalty. It actually allows divorce, as Mosheh allowed for a certificate of divorce. The only historic controversy was whether the reason for divorce allowed for remarriage, and that is what I think Yeshua is addressing here. What I get from Yeshua's statement there isn't explicity about divorce but about adultery, specifically excluding divorce as a universal door for marrying another individual and excluding the reasons permitting remarriage to the sexual immorality of the divorced partner.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

well if you put these together one could argue it does.

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Matthew 19:9

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

m0zart

There is never specified in Torah that divorce itself brings about a death penalty. It actually allows divorce, as Mosheh allowed for a certificate of divorce. The only historic controversy was whether the reason for divorce allowed for remarriage, and that is what I think Yeshua is addressing here. What I get from Yeshua's statement there isn't explicity about divorce but about adultery, specifically excluding divorce as a universal door for marrying another individual and excluding the reasons permitting remarriage to the sexual immorality of the divorced partner.

Further proving these books are laughable. More holes and vagueness than you can shake a stick at

Further proving these books are laughable. More holes and vagueness than you can shake a stick atwis3boi

Probably have a point, but I don't think this particular part is all that vague.

The main reason for the question being posed to Yeshua at the time was a long-term argument going on within the Pharisaic sect, between those who aligned themselves with Hilel and those who aligned themselves with Shammai. Like most things Pharisaical, the argument had more to do with interpretation of oral tradition than it did the written words of the Torah. Yeshua's answer stuck with the pure language of the written Torah, which isn't really all that easy to misinterpret, at least in this case, but as a result, his answer didn't really fit in with either of the schools of thought that were involved in the debate.

Anyway I don't want to derail this further. If the original poster had substituted "adultery" where he wrote "divorce", the point would be very valid. There are a ton of instances of adultery, and I doubt the rate is marginally lower among those who profess to follow any form of religious law that forbids such things vs. those who don't follow any religious law. Further, I'd wager that a great many of those who think their adultery was forgiven probably are much less forgiving about things like homosexuality. Not something I can prove of course, just a guess based on overall observations.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]He's a total wanker basically, that thinks he knows it all but a failure in life. I put him on the same level as Paris Hilton. I don't hate them, I just think they take up valuable space.cheese_game619

Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I didn't hate him??? I just hate his attitude towards insulting everyone for a laugh when he should look in the mirror and his life and compare, then it wouldn't be so funny.

(I actually found THIS video quite funny)

But hey, I'm a Ranger so what do I know :P

[QUOTE="cheese_game619"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]He's a total wanker basically, that thinks he knows it all but a failure in life. I put him on the same level as Paris Hilton. I don't hate them, I just think they take up valuable space.FelipeInside

Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I didn't hate him??? I just hate his attitude towards insulting everyone for a laugh when he should look in the mirror and his life and compare, then it wouldn't be so funny.

(I actually found THIS video quite funny)

But hey, I'm a Ranger so what do I know :P

Further proving these books are laughable. More holes and vagueness than you can shake a stick atwis3boi

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="cheese_game619"] a rich and popular failure doing what he loves to do for a living, made only by his talent and no one else, who is clearly a smart guy and overcame the addictions of his past but hey, you're a gamespot ranger, you're clearly above himcheese_game619

Maybe you didn't read the part where I said I didn't hate him??? I just hate his attitude towards insulting everyone for a laugh when he should look in the mirror and his life and compare, then it wouldn't be so funny.

(I actually found THIS video quite funny)

But hey, I'm a Ranger so what do I know :P

Again, please read carefully. I don't hate him, I just think he uses cheap insulting insensitive tactics to get a laugh, when his life isn't that brilliant to be able to laugh at others.FelipeInside

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Again, please read carefully. I don't hate him, I just think he uses cheap insulting insensitive tactics to get a laugh, when his life isn't that brilliant to be able to laugh at others.cheese_game619

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]Further proving these books are laughable. More holes and vagueness than you can shake a stick atnorm41x

I get all that, and people still claim it's a divine creation/word. Also, no record of moses ever existing...just saiyan

Also, no record of moses ever existing...just saiyanwis3boi

Well... except for the Torah itself. I realize it's a religious text, but 99.9% of the Egyptian tablets and histories we rely on to track Egyptian history are religious texts, very heavily twisted to promote whichever set of Pharoahs ruled at the time and their claims of communing with (or actually being) deities.

When dealing with historical figures from periods as far back as Mosheh, Djoser, Imhotep, etc., that's about as good as it gets.

[QUOTE="norm41x"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]Further proving these books are laughable. More holes and vagueness than you can shake a stick atwis3boi

I get all that, and people still claim it's a divine creation/word. Also, no record of moses ever existing...just saiyan

I'd honestly be quite surprised if there were any evidence that Gandhi existed after 3500 years.

I approve of anyone who messes with the WBC, or at least for those moments when they are doing so.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="norm41x"] People keep forgetting the time period of the books and letters that are in the bible. People also forget that it was also written in a different culture. These aren't Caucasian, Asian, African, etc people in the bible. From what I have read so far, they are Israeli and Egyptian. Also the bible is written by more than 1 person. You have Moses who wrote Genesis, the Disciples who wrote the New Testament, etc. Its not surprising that peoples opinions and views will be different. Just like how religious people today have different opinions and views. If you notice (I think you read the bible at one point right?), a lot of the things said back then were things that were either legal, or considered fine in that time period. Slaves were a big thing back then, its not surprising that they condone slavery. Women had no rights back then. Again, not surprising that the bible condones treating women like crap. Just my 2 cents.SilentFireX

I get all that, and people still claim it's a divine creation/word. Also, no record of moses ever existing...just saiyan

I'd honestly be quite surprised if there were any evidence that Gandhi existed after 3500 years.

you speak as if I believe the events in the bible actually occured along with those objects

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

I get all that, and people still claim it's a divine creation/word. Also, no record of moses ever existing...just saiyan

wis3boi

I'd honestly be quite surprised if there were any evidence that Gandhi existed after 3500 years.

you speak as if I believe the events in the bible actually occured along with those objects