Touchdown Jesus struck by lightning
- Thread starter amishmatt
- Start date
Damn, I want a smite button. Is there an app for that?
lol, someone has never watched football.
Aww Drowning Jesus burnt up. I guess styrofoam wasn't the way to go.
This is the best news story from today, I can't help but laugh every time I read it.
So much fail in this story.
Dear Christians,
Stop building worthless statues to me and start doing something useful instead.
Thanks,
God
Stop building worthless statues to me and start doing something useful instead.
Thanks,
God
you mean like building hospitals, spearheading massive adoption efforts from 3rd world countries, feeding children in 3rd world countries, running homeless shelters & soup kitchens, feeding & clothing the poor, and other charitable acts done in the shadows?
let me know if i missed anything, like "bugger little boys", or "embezzle from the collection plate"
Yes, exactly like that. Stop building expensive statues and megachurches and do more of all of that.
But do it without evangelizing.
teaching abstinence as aids prevention, spreading hatred against gays, denying dying people treatment until they convert, corrupting separation of church and state, miseducating an entire generation on the core principles of science.
Are you telling me that in the absence of Jesus, the people to whom you refer would not donate to charity, build those hospitals, provide food and clothes to the homeless? It's funny, because all of the things you describe are based on moralities shared by athiests, yet all of the things I describe are based on moralities exclusive to the religious. Yeah, funny.
Hey, they sound like a bunch of leftist peacenicks! Buncha Godless hippies, they need Jeebus.
while i too am against the gawdy megachurches, it would be highly inappropriate to tell people how big their bldgs can be. maybe in china this is cool, but not here. we must compete w/ malls which are routinely 100X the volume of a typical megachurch
and if you mean by evangelizing stop knocking on doors or approaching people w/ tracts & shoving them in their face, i agree. if you mean having a ready defense when asked about their faith, not so much.
there is nothing wrong w/ teaching abstinence for the prevention of aids, other stds, and unwanted pregnancies.
spreading hatred against gays? you think that's exclusive to the religious? you might want to see how accepted that lifestyle is in the expressly irreligious countries as compared to your typically christian culture (you tried to change it from christian - the original topic - to religious, which includes islam, which is without argument fatally hostile towards homosexuals)
denying people treatment until they convert? you're grasping now. i'm not aware of these events in any significant number where proper medical treatment is denied b/c of this (i say that to point out africa as going through many growing pains on this topic)
church & state: you lot believe the church *is* the state. a little free expression at graduation ceremonies? sorry, not here. are you so thin-skinned that you think all references to a creator should be scratched off our coins, courthouses, & be relegated to history books (the crusades only, of course)? i wish that you reserve this visceral aversion to the likes of the jersey shore & other reality tv.
miseducation? the small pockets where this is taking place is being handled properly, i believe, when they are flat-out wrong & are publicly mocked. again, the visceral aversion shall be in equal measure when informational manipulation is demonstrated by what you regard as the "higher cause"
if you infer that, i believe your reading comp may need some boning up. you're reading something i didn't state. the good news is, this makes you a good wife
so do you believe if we all dismissed this silly notion of a creator, we'd all be better off? just think how grand our society would be if our founding fathers had your wisdom. in fact, it may be the case there wouldn't be such a great need at all to help our fellow man, what with religion being the #1 cause of problems in this world. russia may not be the most noble example, but it sure is the least convenient one. maybe bhutan? belarus? what is your model society, past or present for an enlightened society due to their expressly irreligious roots?
You know I meant abstinence-only education. Don't play dumb. Abstinence only education is responsible for the deaths of millions from AIDs, and thousands from abortion (see what I did there?).
You're right, skinheads too. That makes it okay. You're in good company.
You're conflating developed vs. non-developed with religious vs. secular.
See Mother Theresa. Very few figures as prominent as her in modern Christianity.
I think you meant believe "state is church." Nice, but ridiculous, presumption. And now you're conflating views on government with views on religion. Do I need to explain?
No, but nice strawmen.
You completely fail to understand my posts in the AA thread, but we can pick that discussion back up over there, where it belongs.
In the meantime, see any credible polling numbers in the US on belief in creationism and intelligent design, and see test scores in science. If you think their is no effect on students from the debate in media and courtrooms, you're fooling yourself.
We would all be better off TODAY, in America (and in many other nations). Different times call for different norms. We understand much more about our universe, about our psychology, and about a properly functioning civilization now than we did 300 years ago. We don't need a scary monster in the sky for our communities to function in a civil manner anymore.
(Red added because that's really what it is.)$tinkle said:
There's nothing right with it either.
People f*ck. All the time. Without thought of the repercussions.
AO doesn't work. Get over it.
*sniped!!*
Last edited:
funny, i learned in sunday school that death from aids was the result of having unprotected sex with an infected partner. oh wait, that was public schools. sorry, round these parts they tend to bleed over. (see what *I* did there?)
errmm....i think that shoe may be on *your* foot, as they are are nationalists, void of overt religiosity (which they openly mock)
at this point, it appears you're taking on more of an agnostic bent when you use the word secular, which is completely different from our little cat fight
MT is the shibboleth that reveals you to be an avid hitchens reader. i know not of her mission to treat the sick w/ the proviso they first confess jesus as lord (if this is what you are saying)
only if i'm incorrect to think that you're pimping a secular society, and not one openly hostile to religion
so allow me to be direct: do you take offense to 'in God we trust', prayer before sessions, or other similar qualms about using public facilities for expressly religious purposes?
it was a pre-emptive strike, not intended for you, but does make for good troll bait, you must admit
i'm sure there is a quantifiable result, yes, but perhaps i'm choosing to not get apoplectic over it when there are more damaging & unrelated sources, like shcitty parenting
i get the sense that you put God in the same box as chakras, palm readers, astrology, and karma. if so, we'll have to let that be i reckon
A church is the people, not the building, but modern "Christians" seem to have forgotten that. But, if malls are seen as competition, then clearly they've completely derailed and should just stop pretending they're anything more than another consumer good.
I wasn't suggesting regulation of building size, though I'm certainly all for that. (Churches consume large amounts of land, why shouldn't they be held to the same zoning laws and regulations that apply to say, malls, when they have a similar impact?) What I was suggesting was that Christianity has lost its way. It's now less about raising money to help people, and more about a capital campaign to finance the next megachurch.
Ohio already addressed what I basically meant about evangelizing.
And while not addressed to me, I would most certainly put God, and any other man in the sky in the same category as palm readers and the like.
That's like trying to justify getting into heaven with:
95% Good deeds, unselfish behavior, righteous, God-fearing human being
5% Rape, murder, pillage
Good luck with that. It's not the building hospitals, adoption efforts, etc, it's the fact that there's still money spent on self-serving, prideful bullsh!t like the half-million dollars spent on the Touchdown Jesus.
i don't know, but i would e-spec that unis have similar regs, and you know that's where little damians are spawned
i cannot comment either way to this, as i've not seen their books. anecdotally, here in christian mecca there are dozens of orgs which exist merely as conduits for "end-user" outreach, and not satellite construction. much more than half over every dollar goes directly into a distended belly & tin roof than admin overhead.
dallas proper may be vastly different.
when they finally get around to inventing an amish god (like that's really a thing - psht!), he's gonna drop a barn on your head.
i think we can agree that biblical teaching dictates no amount of $$ will get you past go. as it turns out, i've had a raging chub for the fall of benny hinn, paula white, joyce meyer, kenneth copeland, eddie long, and creflo dollar (irony alert!).
An integral component of abstinence-only education is the instruction that condoms don't work. I remember THAT from my public school education (sex-ed curriculum constructed by evangelical christians in control of school boards in Ohio). In the context of Africa, that lesson is tantamount to negligent homicide on a genocidal scale.
You'll need to parse the differences between agnostic and atheist within the context of this argument, because to me they are equivalent for these purposes.
I am indeed pimping a secular society. I am only hostile to religion that is hostile to secularism and atheism. I'm fine with religion that can keep their mitts off of other groups (see quakers).
Take offense, yes. Priority, no. Religious artifacts such as the 10 commandments, crosses, etc. have no place in public buildings, except for historical value or as temporary fixtures for groups that are using the spaces at that moment. I have no problem with religious groups using public spaces as long as non-religious groups have equal access to the same spaces. The pledge, that we force our children to recite (either excplicity or by peer pressure), has no business including the words "under God." All of these instances create an environment that makes it easier to corrupt separation of church and state on a larger scale, by blurring the place of religion in society, and making religious groups feel as if they are under attack when we are simply maintaining that separation. The policy needs to be enforced consistently and fully or people get confused.
I do. If there's a difference, I don't see it.
Jesus is a more successful huckster.
no it isn't.
well, perhaps back in your day, when condoms were made from sheep intestines this may have been taught, but today (as i understand it, fwiw) AO is silent on contraception. additionally, the religious overtones have been moderated. think of it as creationism evolving into ID.
so you put the blame squarely on the holy see, and not the xc johnny appleseed truck driver?
this makes the baby silver cry
this amounts to keeping the free expression of their civil rights in the closet.
if you are consistent - and i believe you are - you must believe they have *never* been appropriately displayed, save for historical contexts. to believe this, you may also believe our country was founded will zeal similarly expressed by the anglican church of britannia. the fact this country was founded explicitly upon judeo-christian values, and guided almost exclusively by abrahamic faith must be deeply troubling.
i'm not mocking you, i just don't see how you square our history and overt religious influence upon our founding fathers with your (apparent) deep desire to keep those kinds of beliefs personal, and never public (or at least never publicly funded/endorsed)
afaik, this isn't a significant problem
i have a hard time arguing this, if for the hypothetical example of what if our congress were overwhelmingly catholic 50 yrs ago - would we now say "under mary"? as a protestant, that's weird.
i'm sure a slippery slope would ensue, if for the seasonally popular instance of commencement speeches given by student leaders & other invited bloviates who in an attempt to inspire would have to quell that which to them is personally inspirational. simply put: non-vulgar, non-hateful speech would no longer be freely protected. if valedictorian jedediah blake wants to wax lyrical on the power of the angel moroni in his academic life, so be it. same if dawkins wants to once again float his theory on the possibility we were seeded by aliens, and we are fulfilling a destiny set in motion millennia ago.
what makes me balk at the rabidly irreligious is when there's an attempt to prohibit the playing of a "divinely inspired" piece by a 17th century composer at a grad ceremony, just b/c it has a religious reference in the title - yet no lyrics!. while it doesn't amount to religious persecution, it certainly undermines civil discourse
lastly, i recommend you read the column "Escaping the 'Enlightenment trap'", found at worldmag.com. google it; it's a solid read
excerpt:
worldmag.com said:
Last edited:
As enlightened and intelligent as the founders allegedly were, we should never forget that they were still, ultimately, politicians. One would have to assume "deep faith" a requisite virtue for most any elected official then as today, if not much more so. And yet, they made it a point to keep religion largely unofficial.
Isn't it a little naive to assume these men were so influenced by religion?
Pre-darwin, deism was essentially a polite atheism.
but not politicians first
and yet, somehow, thomas paine & ethan allen were but a few who were "allowed to play" with the thumpers
very much so, yes.
that's why we read about them
Oh...well...that makes it all better then.$tinkle said:
