patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Or we can present the Jesufucks with a baseball bat with a full swing to the tiny little forehead.

hehe, Apoc - you're awesome.

if the words "deviant sodomites" were used to replace "Jesufucks" in the post above, how many more posts of outrage would follow?

Bap33 says

if the words "deviant sodomites" were used to replace "Jesufucks" in the post above, how many more posts of outrage would follow?

That's because "deviant sodomites" haven't been burning people at stakes, torturing them with Judas Cradles, and outright slaughtering non-sodomites the way Christians have been for the past 1700 years. Of course, now that it's Islams turn at bat, perhaps you can see why people are more apprehensive of religion than gay sex.

The rule is "don't pick on the weak". You can do whatever you want to the strong. For example, Apoc could have replaced the word "Jesufucks" with "senatorfucks", "lawyerfucks", "bankerfucks" and "realtorfucks" and no one would complain. However, it would be wrong to use the terms "jewfucks", "negrofucks", and "crackbabyfucks" because these groups have more than paid their fair share of suffering in history. Now if Christians were being thrown to the lions like they were before they acquired power over every Western nation, I could see your point.

The bottom line is that if you run everything, you have to take some potshots from time to time. So, if Christians don't want to be ridiculed for their behavior, all they have to do is give up all the power they have. Fair deal.

The interesting bit to me is what UNSPOKEN needs and fears drive the arguments.

It's hard to hear what isn't said! But it's the most important thing.

If you replace "baseball" with "God" in the comic, what you really have is an argument about the hope for life after death. If you use rational argument to take away that hope, sure, you're going to get a violent response. It won't be justified, but it will be predictable.

Given that some people need that irrational hope to go on, and others prefer painful truth to any kind of self-deception, how can we best all get along?

millions more people have been infected with HIV through sodomite activity than all the witches ever burned by people holding a Bible (they were not Christians). But, I see your point.
That power issue and structure you mention is the Catholic Church, not Christianity. In my opinion.

Cloud says

More internet tough guy talk ... these guys are tough with their Christian bashing.

What you're doing is called 'Ad hominem' logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Try again!

Cloud says

I like the story about the universe exploding out of a tiny box.

Yeah, that story actually has enough scientific evidence to back the claims.

That tiny box = big bang singularity (infinite density)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE_mission

Bap33 says

millions more people have been infected with HIV through sodomite activity

Hemophiliacs also got HIV back in the day before they screened blood. Did God want to punish the hemophiliacs?

Bap33 says

millions more people have been infected with HIV through sodomite activity than all the witches ever burned by people holding a Bible (they were not Christians). But, I see your point.

Which is why the pope needs to stop saying condoms are bad. A lot of Africans are listening to him.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

The catholics could be really cool again if they took up crucifying bankers.

Think of the attendance on Sundays if the mass came with a little bankster crucifixion.

The one time Jesus was cool was when he kicked the money lenders asses.

Given that some people need that irrational hope to go on, and others prefer painful truth to any kind of self-deception, how can we best all get along?

As far as religion is concerned, why is truth painful?
Why can't we be comfortable with the unknown?

In fact, blind belief is painful. Look at all the wars fought in the name of religion.

Given that some people need that irrational hope to go on, and others prefer painful truth to any kind of self-deception, how can we best all get along?

Mortality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Eternal life would be really, really boring. Sure the first ten thousand years are great, but eventually it's like being on vacation with a bunch of Mormons. Plus, can you imagine the kind of procrastination that eternal life would encourage?

@uomo,
what wars were fought for a reason you feel was a good enough reason? ANd what about the reason(s) impressed you so greatly.

please look at the original graphic again. See the ball in the kids hand. In the "shades of gray" world that is the progressive's best friend, that ball is not a baseball. Why would it be called a baseball? Just by it's looks? If it was never used as a baseball, why would it still be called one? Was it created for one specific purpose? Wiat, you can use a ball like that for lots of other games, or as a paper weight, so a progressive can't base the INTENDED use of a CREATION on what it is to be called. Who says that is a baseball, and under what circumstance is it not a baseball, and when is it, and if you use another type/style of ball to play baseball would it too be called a baseball? At this point you will say that we all have a basic agreement on what is what -- a normalcy -- but that same normalcy gets torn to shreads by the deviant army of the progressive left. So, do we embrace normacy or not? Normal American Family behavior? Normal Human behavior? If we do, then do we defend it? Absolutly?

Useing the uber-logic of the progressive left, nothing can be absolute - other than nothing being absolute. (the nothing is absolute part must be an absolute in their world -- weird huh)

back to the opening picture:
So, Person A says to Person B that they have a baseball. In Progressive America, the next step would be for Person C to demand to know why that orb in Person A's hand is called a ball, and moreover, why a baseball. After a four year discussion, the issue is placed before the voting public. The voting public said the orb was a Cricket Ball, not a baseball, and was created to be used as a Cricket Ball, but Person A can use it to play any game they wish and call it whatever they wish. This angers Person C, so they go find funding through George Soros and went to the ACLU and mount a legal attack against Person A and Person B, demanding that they look at all balls equally and never again refer to Cricket Balls or Baseballs ever again. They demand that all balls be seen as equal, and sue every other Person that ever tries to use any other ball for any purpose it was created for. They next form the National Orbophobia Progressive Enclave (NOPE for short), and funnel millions of dollars into the political arena, so as to bring about change in the American education system, and military system, in an effort to change the American normalcy concerning baseball.

In my narrow mind, the religion of progressive liberalism is much more dangerous to man than having a group of like-minded conservatives following the teaching of Chirst, or having a personal relationship with God.

@DAN,
I think Jesus was cool like Fonzie all the time, but I really do agree with the way he expelled those guys working the cash trade at the temples. Those dudes were there selling birds and sheep and other sacrificaial animals so folks could follow the law and atone for their sins. Many folks had to go into debt to swing this weeks sin payment. Jesus ended all that crap. But, don't tell a catholic that.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Think of the attendance on Sundays if the mass came with a little bankster crucifixion.

I would not merely attend, I would donate big time. I'd buy $10/bag popcorn too.

I would not merely attend, I would donate big time. I'd buy $10/bag popcorn too.

Is this not a little hypocritical? You don't like the church because you say they started wars and killed people who "weren't like them" but then you turn around and would support them if they were killing people that you didn't like? You need to get yourself to the nearest confessional and work through this. You can easily find the closest Catholic church at www.masstimes.org

You're right. That was an evil thought. I should forgive them.

OK, I'll forgive the bankers when they stop screwing over the country with lobbyists, mortgage fraud, and bailouts. Their move.

BTW, I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church starting wars or killing people were weren't like them, did I?

I just had a thought about the bankster F-in we have been getting .... is it right for me to think that the problem is the system that allowed banks to act stupid with our money and lend it to anyone they wanted to? I mean, really, all they did is play a game that had rules wrote by someone in Gov ... just like welfare people are just taking advantage of a system ... kinda the same? a little?

Bap33 says

is it right for me to think that the problem is the system that allowed banks to act stupid with our money and lend it to anyone they wanted to?

Sort of. The lack of regulations is something the Obama admin has tried to address (Dodd Frank). The deregulation (ending Glass Steagal) was a direct cause of what happened.

BTW, I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church starting wars or killing people were weren't like them, did I?

Nah you didn't my bad AGAIN in one week. I will punish myself severely. For the record, though, they have a bad history of fraud, corruption, deceit...so even if you did say it you'd be right.

OK, I'll forgive the bankers when they stop screwing over the country with lobbyists, mortgage fraud, and bailouts. Their move.

I don't think they have the capacity. Perhaps we need to tax campaign contributions at 90%. If we do that and lift any and all caps, we would pay off the debt in short order.

St. Paul says that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, than the whole Christian movement is B.S.

St. Paul, at least, does not advocate blind faith.

If you don't like Christianity, just find the remains of Jesus' body somewhere and the whole thing is proved a hoax.

The first Christians didn't go out into a hostile world saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he does", they went out proclaiming that Jesus was God in the Flesh and had, in fact, come back from the dead.

Maybe they were mistaken. But it is interesting how modern Christians seem to capitulate to belief in a generic "god" that can't be disproven (i.e. the flying spaghetti monster). The first Christians believed in a specific God which had, in their minds at least, acted in recordable human history.

wthrfrk80 says

The first Christians didn't go out into a hostile world saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he does", they went out proclaiming that Jesus was God in the Flesh and had, in fact, come back from the dead.

Unfortunately, we don't know what they said, because the earliest gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus. We don't even know who wrote them. Mark, Matthew, being the authors is based on oral tradition, we have no other works by them to compare style with and the earliest gospels have no byline.

And unlike, say, Caesar, we have no physical evidence or contemporary written accounts of Jesus' life from eyewitnesses. Whereas with Caesar, we have contemporary reports of his life not only from himself, and his supporters, but also his detractors. There were Pagan detractors of the Jesus cult, but unfortunately the originals were 'burned in the fires of righteousness' by Christians once they took power. We only know that they exist because they are mentioned and parts of them are paraphrased by Christian Authors in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.

But Celsus, an early (150-200AD) critic of Christianity said that Christians simply acted on blind faith without proof, according to Origen, who quoted him as part of a refutation.

So the critique that Christians exhibit blind faith goes all the way back to the Early Church times.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so I can't speak about the authenticity of the gospels.

St. Paul says, in his first letter to the Corinthians,

"if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also vain"

Maybe later Christians acted on blind faith. But St. Paul doesn't seem to advocate blind belief, at least not to the church in Corinth.