The Funny Side of Religion

Pygmalion

Galvasean wrote: »

Chicken... BUWWWAAAWWWWKKK!!!!!!

do it! go through them all! :pac:

You need to make a much more compelling argument that that.
Here, I'll give it a go.

If you don't prove that it's wrong in every single case then it's clearly 100% true.

philologos

^^ Not necessarily, but the contradictions no longer stand if these cannot be shown to be adequate. If Christianity is true or false that is a totally different question. These merely sidetrack from the core question. Is the Gospel true or is it not?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Is the Gospel true or is it not?

It cannot be true if it is internally inconsistent.

eoin5

I'm sure you could get most of them with translation.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

It cannot be true if it is internally inconsistent.

If we are holding to contradiction in the sense of two passages saying things which are completely opposite to one another, a lot of the cases in this list that has been provided doesn't suffice, nor does that "contradiction" that you raised on this forum a few days ago.

As I've mentioned already, one can copy and paste with ease. It would be much more useful if people were encouraged to study the Gospels for themselves rather than trusting on the authority of The Reason Project, or The Skeptics Annotated Bible. Indeed, one should think for ones self as to what is most reasonable rather than trusting blindly the testimony of others.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are holding to contradiction in the sense of two passages saying things which are completely opposite to one another, a lot of the cases in this list that has been provided doesn't suffice, nor does that "contradiction" that you raised on this forum a few days ago.

As I've mentioned already, one can copy and paste with ease. It would be much more useful if people were encouraged to study the Gospels for themselves rather than trusting on the authority of The Reason Project, or The Skeptics Annotated Bible. Indeed, one should think for ones self as to what is most reasonable rather than trusting blindly the testimony of others.

Emphasis mine.

vibe666

strobe wrote: »

Emphasis mine.

yes, but it is only believers that are allowed to use "faith" to defend their argument, it's everyone else that needs to provide proof apparently.

its fine to unquestioningly follow a book written almost 2000 years ago by bronze age farmers with little understanding of the way the world works, but its wrong to refer to a project produced by scientists studying it who have published verifiable work showing a document that is supposed to be the totally infallible perfect word of god to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out wrong in hundreds if not thousands of cases.

anyway, back on topic because there's a distinct lack of 'fun' here just recently. did someone leave a door open somewhere or something?



i can't help but think that religion would be a lot more popular if they used more pork products.

Stercus Accidit

Sacrilicious

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Emphasis mine.

I largely subscribe to this thinking. So I'm glad you're happy with what I have said, but I think that non-believers need to consider what this actually means in their own argumentation.

Galvasean

PS: You can bet Jurass(ic) that I'll be digging up that photo album of my Transformers manger scene from last year.

vibe666

Jakkass wrote: »

I largely subscribe to this thinking. So I'm glad you're happy with what I have said, but I think that non-believers need to consider what this actually means in their own argumentation.

as long as you don't have to question your own beliefs obviously, because you have to have 'faith'. :rolleyes:

in any case this thread is supposed to be about the 'funny' side of religion, why are you even here?

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

I largely subscribe to this thinking. So I'm glad you're happy with what I have said, but I think that non-believers need to consider what this actually means in their own argumentation.

No offense but this is the most JC-like response I've ever read from you.

keppler

vibe666 wrote: »

in any case this thread is supposed to be about the 'funny' side of religion, why are you even here?

cause were a bunch of blasphemers. How dare we question and mock gods judgements and abilities (or apparent lack of)
Jakkass are you here to smite us;)

robindch

keppler wrote: »

Jakkass are you here to smite us

Am happy to confirm that, outside of the site's owners, the only people permitted to smite here are Asiaprod, Dades, nesf, Scofflaw and myself.

You may rest in peace.

philologos

vibe666 wrote: »

as long as you don't have to question your own beliefs obviously, because you have to have 'faith'. :rolleyes:

in any case this thread is supposed to be about the 'funny' side of religion, why are you even here?

I question my beliefs regularly. Faith without question isn't effective. I believe faith and reason must go together.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No offense but this is the most JC-like response I've ever read from you.

Its a thoroughly valid point. Do you trust blindly the work of The Reason Project, or The Skeptics Annotated Bible, et al or are you going to study the Bible for yourself so that you actually know what you're criticising effectively?

keppler wrote: »

cause were a bunch of blasphemers. How dare we question and mock gods judgements and abilities (or apparent lack of)
Jakkass are you here to smite us;)

It is up to you whether or not you wish to blaspheme.

As mentioned already, I see nothing wrong with people questioning their beliefs, indeed I feel I need to examine mine every so often in order to make sure that they are coherent to the living testimony of Jesus.

As for mocking God, you won't be accountable to me for anything. I'm just like you pretty much, the only difference is that I've accepted His grace and aim to live according to His example.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I've accepted His grace and aim to live according to His example.

Almost serious question -- are you planning to get yourself nailed to a tree?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Almost serious question -- are you planning to get yourself nailed to a tree?

Hopefully not :pac:*

I am hoping to stand up for what He stood up for though.

* You know full well that this was a facetious answer.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

Its a thoroughly valid point. Do you trust blindly the work of The Reason Project, or The Skeptics Annotated Bible, et al or are you going to study the Bible for yourself so that you actually know what you're criticising effectively?

No I haven't even looked at them. I've found my own nonsense in
the bible, namely the first line of page one. Continue reading the first
few pararaphs to find more. Also, I would put my faith in the validity of
this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

But I guess it's not a serious criticism because it's a cartoon :rolleyes:

philologos

It's not about your "faith". It's I guess that I respect original work, because I don't see much point in writing a response to what has probably been responded to ad-infinitum already. This is why I don't spend weeks and weeks compiling responses to things made on online resources & youtube videos. It's not really worth my effort. An engaging discussion originally posted by a user on this forum is however worth a lot of effort, particularly if it is posted with the genuine interest of discussion.

Edit: I don't post on the basis of gratifying my own ego in that I've "refuted" all of these things. I post on the basis of trying to communicate something of the genuine hope that I have in Christ.

housetypeb

Have you sold everything to follow the lord-luke 12;33, matthew 19;21- as there is no contradiction between those two.:D full agreement for once.

housetypeb

"I question my beliefs regularly. Faith without question isn't effective. I believe faith and reason must go together."


Now, That was funny and belongs on this thread.:)

philologos

housetypeb wrote: »

Have you sold everything to follow the lord-luke 12;33, matthew 19;21- as there is no contradiction between those two.:D full agreement for once.

Search the Christianity forum, this has been discussed on numerous occasions.

housetypeb

Jakkass wrote: »

Search the Christianity forum, this has been discussed on numerous occasions.

That forum is even funnier than this thread, here's an example....


"For one, the first horseman is not Christ, he is Antichrist. He comes with a bow with no arrow i.e a peace maker. He comes on a white horse because he is the great imitator of Christ who also comes on a white horse later on in the book. It is the Lamb who opens the seals and releases the 4 horsemen, He doesn't release Himself. The other three horsemen do all the damage because the first horseman is busy disguising himself as a peacemaker."

I LOL when i read that.

philologos

^^ At least you get something out of it :pac: Most of what I see here is blinkered prejudice.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Most of what I see here is blinkered prejudice.

Isn't it nice to be in a place where you are free to say things like that?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Isn't it nice to be in a place where you are free to say things like that?

Those dang atheists, letting people hang themselves by their words!

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ At least you get something out of it :pac: Most of what I see here is blinkered prejudice.

There's no blinkered prejudice in here, there is explicit prejudice towards
completely nonsensical, contradictory claims & unprovable assertions :pac:

You know where you are

Pompey Magnus

recedite

Jakkass wrote: »

I am hoping to stand up for what He stood up for though.
.

He wasn't very good at standing up to the Romans, was he. "Give unto Caesar what is his etc..." He hadn't much to say to all the slaves either, other than obey your master and maybe things will be better in the afterlife. Not many women invited to the Last Supper either, except to serve the food.
What did he stand up for?

liamw