Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misterqueue]

also: for further discussion of The Host, look further down on the page Q linked to. "How does Jesus Come to us?" from the series "Religion for the Retarded."

That entire 365 days thing is fuck*ng gold for the record.

The "Religion for the Retarded" in particular made me, I am sad to admit, chortle with glee.  If you download it you will see why.

It is hardly a coincidence that said album was recorded in Missouri.

[slink]

It's a fact:  Guys named Carl are cool.  Guys named Karl are dicks.  This is ALWAYS true.

Sorry, not entirely at any rate. Or maybe the Carl I knew who was a colossal dick was the exception to prove the rule, but I'm never sure what the fuck that's supposed to mean! Surely if it's a rule...
He really was a fuck*ng asshole though. And continued to be, when a friend of mine bumped into him lnog after we all stopped having anything to do with him.

Never met a Karl...

[wombat]

Regarding transubstantiation - for a science experiement in Catholic elementary school once I took pictures of what the cells of a piece of human skin looks like, and then a blow-up of the consecrated wafer that I palmed from mass looked like under a microscope, and was punished.

This is so excellent that I can almost forgive you for saying that you'd never marry a woman who wouldn't take your last name.

[AlohaDawg]

My compliments on your restraint AD.  I picture you, while reading this thread, sitting in a hard chair, sweating profusely, rocking back and forth and repeating over and over again, "Must not smite heathens....Must not smite heathens..."

Also, Jough's microscropy of the host is hell of funny.

The challenge is reconciling the content to the thread name.

I hope I've said all I'm gonna say ever to y'all on this particular topic but you never know. I'd hate to offend anyone by turning this into a 'religious' thread, although surprisingly, apparently it's fine for this to be a 'religious' thread as long as no one actually defends religion.

I thought after the last 'problem' that this topic was going to be avoided or clearly labeled. I guess only threads with some pro-religion content need to be labeled? I didn't get the memo.

Of course I'm disturbed by some of these comments, but it's no longer worth a shitstorm with my name on it to say anything. I wouldn't even make this post except that half of me feels like you really are surprised I'm not all over it and half of me feels like I'm being baited.

Not telling which half responded, although your characterization of me above could be interpreted as pretty mean-spirited (I don't take it that way, but lots of people could read it) and that could refect on you.

Carry on.

[wombat]

AD, I thought Aug's description of his mental picture of you was affectionate and amusing.

But you are right, someone totally ought to split this thread.  Someone who is a mod of this forum, like, say, AlohaDawg?

[AlohaDawg]

It doesn't seem necessary to mod it to that extent. No one's getting hurt and no one's complaining. Unless you're complaining, of course.

[Drygioni]

Apologies, 'Dawg. I certainly did not intend to bait you with my post, and you're completely right to mention that it's unfair that religion can be part of the thread when there's only one side of the issue being pushed (a kind of immature side on my post as well). I think this can similarly be applied if there was a thread with only pro-religious views; obviously it's when people conflict that a debate/flame starts, and it's hella awesome of you to 1) Not argue with us when I reckon you have the right to, and 2) At the same time make me realise that I was being pretty much a dick.

My post earlier in this thread was pretty pointless, and while being rude wasn't on the agenda it still turned pretty dickish, so basically I should wrap this up by saying I'm very sincerely sorry.

(Also, please no-one say that I shouldn't be sorry to AlohaDawg. I am not expecting this from anyone, but if being 15 has taught me anything, that thing is to take precautions.)

[Ben-San]

Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.

The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.

[AlohaDawg]

Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.

The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.

Well put! Everyone believes something they can't prove scientifically.

Apologies, 'Dawg. I certainly did not intend to bait you with my post, and you're completely right to mention that it's unfair that religion can be part of the thread when there's only one side of the issue being pushed (a kind of immature side on my post as well). I think this can similarly be applied if there was a thread with only pro-religious views; obviously it's when people conflict that a debate/flame starts, and it's hella awesome of you to 1) Not argue with us when I reckon you have the right to, and 2) At the same time make me realise that I was being pretty much a dick.

My post earlier in this thread was pretty pointless, and while being rude wasn't on the agenda it still turned pretty dickish, so basically I should wrap this up by saying I'm very sincerely sorry.

(Also, please no-one say that I shouldn't be sorry to AlohaDawg. I am not expecting this from anyone, but if being 15 has taught me anything, that thing is to take precautions.)

I'm going to be the one to say you shouldn't be sorry.  Judy, it's OK to say what you want in most cases as long as you are being honest and not intending to hurt someone.  I wasn't thinking about any individual person or post in my response, I was thinking about the last time this topic came up and what happened. People got unhappy and we kind of came to a convention about certain topics. That's all. I'm taking nothing personally here.

[misterqueue]

Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.

The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.

Ben shoots and scores without being a dick even!

See people?  Discussion.

Let us move on now, or if not, then I concur with womby that this thread should probably be split.  (As I believe I yelped about being off-topic anyway earlier.)

[AugustWest]

Not telling which half responded, although your characterization of me above could be interpreted as pretty mean-spirited (I don't take it that way, but lots of people could read it) and that could refect on you.

Please don't take it that way.  It certainly wasn't meant to be mean spirited, just a little self-referential jibe about our traditional board roles.  It was meant to be affectionate.

Anyway, I know you have better things to do these days than smite the heathens hereabouts.  The baby's coming and you've got to get the grill ready!

Damn!  That probably didn't help anything, did it.  Sorry for that too.

[jough]

But then why not faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  What's to separate one ridiculous absurd belief from another?  Just which one you like the best?  Is that what religion is about?  Having a preference for one wacky idea over another?

Also, I wasn't baiting anyone and wasn't really thinking of "What would ______ think of this?"

Also, I would tend to want to split this thread, but I am not a moderator of this forum so I'll leave that to AD or V.

[Ben-San]

But then why not faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  What's to separate one ridiculous absurd belief from another?  Just which one you like the best?  Is that what religion is about?  Having a preference for one wacky idea over another?

It can be interpreted that way if you like. It comes down to which one you believe. There's a difference between that and which one you like.

For example, to make things even less spiritual, let's say you and I have bet ten bucks on the flip of a coin. We both know the coin to be perfectly fair. If you have a preference for which to call - even a meaningless gut hunch that says "Call tails, it worked last time so why not?" - that is faith in action. You have called tails, not because you prefer the fine engraving work on the tail end of a quarter, but because of an irrational belief, although perhaps one of very faint strength.

I hope this clarifies the difference between "the one I believe" and "the one I like best". Although of course there can be significant overlap between the two.

[pmcd9]

Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.

The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.

Well put! Everyone believes something they can't prove scientifically.

And I think we can all agree that it's just fine and dandy for you to believe whatever you choose.  It only becomes a problem when you become indignant because people start mocking the absurdity of it.  Many people on this board don't believe in the story of the resurrection (hell, even the bible disagrees with itself on how these events allegedly transpired) and have given testimony of events from their real lives where they were chastised or disciplined for calling bullshit on these "tennents of faith."  When religious people start saying that "God creates invisible Atoms" or "God exist because the bananna fits perfectly in the hand" they are really opening themselves up to ridicule.  Maybe I believe as the Hindus (I think) that the Earth sits on the back of an elephant who is standing on the back of a turtle (or some cockamaimie nonsesense like that).  And if I, tried to offer you some basis of proof that this was fact wouldn't you want to just laugh in my face?  Wouldn't you?  It's no different what we are doing here with the story of the resurrection, laughing at something that is absurd..  So when we have a chuckle over these sorts of things why don't you just let it go?  Unless these threads are somehow shaking your faith, I can't see how this should be a problem for you.

~Paul

[wombat]

It's turtles all the way down.